Mincing with Birds

29 Aug 2020

At https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/08/26/black-turbine-blade-can-cut-b... ... for years wind turbine operators denied their contraptions kill any birds. They even employ people to go round each day and pick up the corpses in order to hoodwink the general public. The Royal Society for the Preservation of Birds hid their heads under the table cloth for years and have only recently mentioned the subject, as the evidence on the internet had become too great to shout down. That's what happens when you appoint a figurehead to your society who is political rather than bird aware. Mincing with words was on the menu of the day, even now. However, here we have an explicit admission they are killing birds - including rare and protected species we might add. It seems, even climate change fanatics such as the BBC have been aware of the situation but have avoided mentioning it to the plebs. See www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53909825 ... where we are told, rather contritely as is their style, that painting one blade of a turbine black could cut bird strike deaths by up to 70 per cent. They are quite happy for the other 30 per cent to perish - but that will only happen if the idea works (but see the comments on that possibility). One commenter highlights the word used by the BBC, 'expectation' - in other words it is going to be a lot less than saving 70 per cent of bird strikes. On the one hand we have the RSPB with a desire to reintroduce eagles to the UK and on the other the disciples of climate change, embedded within the society, quite happy to turn a blind eye to bird strikes - and eagles will surely be one of the leading victims of wind turbines. Somebody needs to grow some wobblies.

Now that the admission is out there and the general public are aware of the problem, what next? Will the environmentalists, or those who wish to shut down the fossil fuel industry, have a eureka moment and realise fossil fuel based fertilisers allow farmers to grow more food on less space (land). Doing away with fossil fuels, as wind turbines cannot contribute to fertilisers, and therefore artificial fertilisers, would mean that farming, around the world, would have to expand its land use in order to feed the people of the world. This would lead to greater loss of habitat for wildlife in general and the disappearance of wild and semi wild enclaves. Mind you, from the evidence of the covering up of bird strikes by turbines one might suspect they don't give a fig for wildlife in any case. Eco-environmentalists appear to be on a different level to your average wildlife volunteer and nature watcher. Climate change is really all about politics and nothing to do with the environment.

At https://judithcurry.com/2020/08/25/new-confirmation-that-climate-models-... ... new confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming. This has been studiously ignored by mainstream media, and of course, by the BBC. It is another example of naked bias. However, we may note the beauty of Judith's blog is that it caters for both sides of the argument - quite unlike the media (and the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Google). Some of the commenters are quite knowledgeable, and others are well read. It is a serious blog and does not usually cater for, or attract,  the out of depth faction. It is a good read but will take you a long time if you are going to absorb all the comments and their links. Make time for it on a rainy weekend.

It begins with the paper by Mitchell et al (2020) who point out that CMIP5 models project, on average, 4 to 5 times greater amounts of warming than observatons (temperature data). Now, in the new study, they have looked at CMIP6 models, and there is no improvement.

The second paper is the one by McKitrick and Christy (mentioned in an earlier post) which also examined CMIP6 models and found they highly exaggerating the amount of warming in comparison with actual real data. It seems the models are not science at all but are designed to push a narrative in the media. It's a bit like the Covid 19 models our politicians were persuaded by, particularly the model created by the professor caught with his pants down.

At https://phys.org/news/2020-08-la-nina-temperatures-high.html ... we know that during El Nino events global temperature are high. Climate change graphs show the only warming in the 2000s has been in conjunction with El Ninos and their slow diffusion through the global ocean circulation system. Conversely, la Ninas, associated with cooling temperatures, should lead to lower temperatures, one might have thought. Apparently, at this link, although a La Nina is in the offing (and may not of course click in for 2020 circulation) we are being told temperatures will be higher this year - in spite of La Nina. Have they planned the 2020 temperature chart already, as early as August? Is it going to be smoke and mirrors once again. How do they know temperatures are going to be warmer in 2020 - half way through the year. Is this an oblique admission they cook the books (pun intended). The summer has witnessed snowfall on Melbourne (according to a relative living there) and snow in South America, as far north as southern Brazil. So, even if temperatures are low this year, as a result of a quiet sun, it is still going to be warmer. The climate change people will make the data fit the message.

Actually, La Nina will probably kick in to global temperatures next year so that is perhaps a red herring. Why did they do that? Obviously, an attempt to contradict climate change sceptics who are pointing out not just a solar minima but a La Nina as well. Both sides appear to exaggerate - but the faithful exaggerate more successfully because they are true believers in the idea the world is going to the dogs.