Wednesday

0 out of 10 based on 0 rating

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/azdCfjM

January 14, 2025 at 08:17AM

NOAA’s “no evidence” that wind kills whales violates the Information Quality Act

From CFACT

By David Wojick

NOAA persists in claiming there is no evidence that offshore wind development is causing whale deaths. This is a false claim that is repeated endlessly in the press. There is lots of evidence some of which I have documented over the last two years.

It is actually illegal for Federal agencies to make false claims like this. There is a 25 year old law called the Information Quality Act (IQA) enforced by OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. IQA mandates that agencies provide accurate unbiased information.

Here are the two key definitions from NOAA’s IQA guidance:

1. “Quality is an encompassing term comprising utility, objectivity, and integrity.”

2. “Objectivity consists of two distinct elements: presentation and substance. The presentation element includes whether disseminated information is presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner and in a proper context. The substance element involves a focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased information.”

Unfortunately NOAA’s repeated claim that there is no evidence of wind development causing whale deaths is neither accurate no unbiased. It is false and typical of NOAA’s actions biased in favor of development.

Moreover this wind-whale information falls under the special IQA category of influential scientific information which NOAA defines as “Influential scientific information (ISI) means scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.”

In fact it qualifies as highly influential scientific assessment: “The term Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA) refers to a subset of Influential Scientific Information and means an influential scientific assessment that: …. (i) could have a potential impact of more than $500 million in any year, or (ii) is novel, controversial, or precedent setting or has significant interagency interest.”

The viability of the multi-billion dollar a year offshore wind program crucially depends in part on this wind-whale information. This evidence assessment is a HISA and IQA guidance rightfully calls for extra care and caution in making such assessments.

This HISA care is clearly not being given. NOAA has conducted no systematic studies on the issue of evidence. They have simply shrugged off the issue in favor of wind development. This is a glaring violation of the Information Quality Act.

Of particular interest is the adverse impact of sonar site surveys as until recently that has been the primary activity. NOAA’s website says the following:

“At this point, there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause whale deaths.”

https://ift.tt/PY6h9eC

In reality there is lots of evidence. Bear in mind that evidence comes in pieces. NOAA may be confusing evidence with certainty, that is thinking that because the specific impact on whales is uncertain that constitutes no evidence. Such reasoning is completely wrong.

Here are three simple examples of existing evidence that wind development is causing whale deaths.

First, the year site development got fully underway the Atlantic coast humpback whale death rate roughly tripled and it has remained high. This is strong evidence of a development induced tipping point. Wind defenders talk about the impact of increasing ship traffic and climate change but neither jumped at this specific time.

Second, NOAA itself has predicted and authorized thousands of noise “harassments” of whales where so-called harassment includes causing temporary deafness (which us actually an injury). That deafening a whale could lead to its death is obvious and NOAA even discusses this possibility. Thus these authorizations count as evidence supporting the hypothesis of development caused death.

Third, last year Professor Apostolos Gerasoulis found a high statistical correlation between the specific local activity of sonar survey boats and clusters of whale deaths. This is very strong, some would say compelling, evidence that wind development is causing whale deaths. Correlation is not causation but correlation in the context of a causal hypothesis is strong evidence. (This is the basis for clinical trials.)

NOAA’s response to this compelling study is simply preposterous. They consider it in an obscure single paragraph in a 160 page defense of their harassment authorization for the Vineyard Wind project. Here they say: “Overall, while NMFS considered this information, it did not provide new information that links whale strandings to offshore wind vessel movement or surveys.”

NOAA falsely claims this groundbreaking study provides no new information linking wind development and whale deaths! That is precisely what it does. This ridiculous claim is clearly biased and far from objective. It is typical of NOAA’s handling of the wind-whale evidence issue.

NOAA’s blatant violation of the Information Quality Act by ignoring the evidence that wind development is killing whales needs to be investigated and corrected.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/ad3GLeO

January 14, 2025 at 08:02AM

Climate hoaxers send their best against me

Keith Olbermann comes out from the crazy rock he’s been hiding under.

via JunkScience.com

https://ift.tt/lBeP2w1

January 14, 2025 at 07:46AM

Bingley No2 WMO 03344 – How hot is it? Oh, over 3 metres.

53.81142 -1.86675 Met Office assessed CIMO Class 4 Installed 1/1/1972

The above image is of Bradford West electricity substation, one of the UKs largest. From the National Grid Incoming 400kV transmission line it transforms down to supply three separate 275kV lines and four separate 132kV lines into the District Network. Schematically it looks like this plan below courtesy of Open Infrastructure.

Those small circles (ten of them) are transformers which create such large amounts of waste heat that consideration is being given to utilise them to power district heating systems.

Considering the very large capital expenditure a district heating system entails and the long term nature of both construction and ongoing use, there has to be a major amount of energy available to make a scheme economically viable. The Building Research Establishment offers a useful table giving heat loss estimates per type and age of housing stock.

SSE in their article above estimates their typical District heating systems supply around 600 homes. The arithmetic suggests about 5MW of waste heat would be required from a large substation to meet their basic requirements. To use modern BBC journalist comparison metrics (London buses, size of Wales etc) 5MW is about the combined output of one thousand medium sized wood burning stoves.

Large transformers are estimated to lose about 0.5% of energy as waste heat in operation. Simply multiplying that waste heat requirement by 200 (to represent 0.5% of load) derives 1GW of power flow through the transformers i.e. a typical load at a sub station. The numbers clearly stack up on the availability side – SSE knows what they are doing.

So why discuss all this……..oh I forgot to mention the red kite in the headline image is Bingley no 2 weather station – and no, it is not a photo-shop.

Having reviewed Amersham Field Centre in the past I decided to put it to the Met Office whether or not they actually took into consideration such major heat sources when locating weather stations, after all the substations predated them rather like airports predated them. Below is the full text of my email enquiry:

“Both the Amersham Field Centre and Bingley no 2 weather stations are in extremely close proximity to major electricity sub stations.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/53%C2%B048’41.1%22N+1%C2%B052’00.4%22W/@53.8104747,-1.8674058,642m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d53.8114167!4d-1.8667778?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

So great is the waste heat from large electricity transformers that serious consideration is being given to use them to supply heat for district heating systems covering literally hundreds of homes.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/industry-collaboration-turn-power-grid-transformers-heat-network-boilers-can-save-millions-tonnes

Can you advise if the Met Office has given any consideration to the effects on weather stations being so close to such powerful heat sources and how this may affect temperature readings.”

Their response was:

“Dear Mr Sanders, thank you for your enquiry.

With regard to CIMO guidance relating to all artificial heat sources, including electricity sub-stations. 

CIMO 4 for artificial heats sources is applicable when less than 30% of the surface cover within a 3 metre circle of the Stevenson Screen is due to artificial heat sources, reflective surfaces or expanses of water.

Bingley No2 is a CIMO4, due to projected shade as the primary cause. There are less than 30% coverage by artificial heat sources within 3m of the screen at this location.

The 3m circle is shown below:

I with regard to Amersham – see diagram with10m circle shown below. The Screen here is sufficiently far enough away to be classified as CIMO4 too, although projected shading from trees being one of the causes for the classification.

For CIMO3 or better, we look at the 10metre circle surface coverage, and less than 5% artificial heat source is permitted. CIMO 1 looks at the 100m circle, and CIMO2 looks at the 30m circle (for heat sources). These two sites would not meet CIMO 1 or 2 due to artificial heats sources and trees in the vicinity, causing projected shading at some times of day and year. 

Kind regards,

Weather Desk

So to summarise their response in concise and plain English – The Met Office takes no account whatsoever of the intensity of the heat source as long as it is more than a proscribed distance away. Perversely a minor amount of shading from a few trees much further away is a downgrading concern. You could not make it up.

Question, How hot is it?……Answer “more than 3 metres away” is neither a scientific answer nor is it any way acceptable. More to the point it demonstrates that BOTH data produced from such sites AND those tax payer funded bodies that produce it, are unfit for purpose.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/dsTmcRN

January 14, 2025 at 06:36AM