project WORLDVIEW                  copyright 2024                      Home                back to Choices We Make

Project Worldview Exploring Climate Change Concerns Page 

Rebuttals to Twelve False Claims
made in relation to
Utility-Scale Solar Projects in Yavapai County

Choices We Make in the Global Village with Chapter 7: Choices In A Time Of Climate Crisis is available for check out at the Prescott Public Library 

Climate Change related Prescott AZ Daily Courier "Science Works" and other columns
to see Reader Feedback ==> Scroll Down to Date of Column of Interest 

 Prescott is updating its General Plan: after City Council approval, the new edition will go before voters next year. Yavapai County went through a similar process two years ago resulting in its Yavapai County 2032 Plan.  Such plans have been called “vision documents” and I—perhaps naively—connect them to a favorite Biblical passage: “Without vision, the people perish.”

 As I—and one of the Prescott General Plan Review Committee members—noted during a May 29 meeting of that group—last July in Phoenix hundreds of people perished from extreme heat. That month, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration records, Phoenix monthly average temperature was 102.7 degrees (with average high of 114.7 degrees and average low of 90.8 degrees.) This broke the previous record of 99.1 degrees by nearly four degrees!  I told the Committee this was a strong signal that we are in uncharted territory as far as future climate impacts our area might experience.

A few days later UN Secretary General António Guterres—backed by the world’s preeminent climate scientists and the latest data from Earth-observation satellites—gave a “Moment of Truth” speech. It began: “[Today] the European Commission’s Copernicus Climate Change Service officially reports May 2024 as the hottest May in recorded history. This marks twelve straight months of the hottest months ever. For the past year, every turn of the calendar has turned up the heat. Our planet is trying to tell us something.  But we don't seem to be listening.”

I hope Prescott and Yavapai County planners listen to climate change associated concerns and study related constructive suggestions. Thinking globally, we need to phase out greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuel and promote use of renewable solar energy. Acting locally, we must follow Arizona law.  There’s no conflict here: section 9-461.05 says general plans must have an energy element that includes: “An assessment that identifies policies and practices that provide for greater uses of renewable energy sources.” I believe a proposed Yavapai County “Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance Amendment” is inconsistent with the 2032 Plan and this law.

 This amendment limits land in the county devoted to utility scale solar to no more than 8000 acres, over half of which has already been committed. Its regulatory zeal is quite a departure from the 2032 Plan— which trumpeted removing “regulatory impediments for solar developments,” and boasted “since 2018 no building permits have been required for the installation of solar panels.” Why the about face? Perhaps the changing political climate?  Speaking of changes, the cost of solar has plunged, its use has sky-rocketed, and its future is bright. In its June 22 special issue, The Economist projects solar to be “the largest source of electric power on the planet by the mid 2030s” and “less than half as expensive” as the cheapest electricity available today. By restricting solar development, this amendment dictates Yavapai County won’t be part of this economic boom—one that would bring more tax revenue, more jobs, and decreased pollution.  Its “not in my backyard” stance will cost consumers money. 

Two years ago, the Arizona Capital Times reported: “New solar generated electricity paired with storage is selling electricity for between $15 and $25 per megawatt hour (MWh), while electricity generated from natural gas plants has been selling anywhere between $45 and $73 per MWh.” Arizona has abundant sunshine, but its utility ratepayers are not benefitting. Thus I have urged Prescott Plan writers to include this goal: “The City of Prescott needs to both help promote and be ready to take advantage of steps the Arizona Legislature takes to study first, then enable Community Choice Energy options.” I agree with Diana Furchtgott-Roth who leads the Energy and Climate Program at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. She says, "Allow people to choose the least expensive electricity options that meet their needs."  I add, “If environmental costs are factored in, we can’t afford fossil fuel.”

Replacing  the word “electricity” with “housing” in Diana’s statement, brings me to another goal I suggested for the “Resiliency and Sustainability” chapter of the Prescott General Plan: “Promote the energy and cost savings associated with building / installing / utilizing affordable tiny homes, and discourage the proliferation of expensive, energy-wasting large single-family residences.”  Granted, tiny homes are not for everyone—but at $200 per sq. ft, the cost of a 2400 sq. ft. house exceeds that of a 400 sq. ft. home by $400,000! 

Prescott has too many large homes and not enough smaller, affordable housing. Median prices of what homes in Prescott sell for is around $644,000, 39% higher than in Phoenix—not surprising since its average home size of 2362 sq ft is 37% bigger than Phoenix’s.  Do Prescott households —average size roughly two—need bigger homes than Phoenix households—average size roughly three? No—in fact Prescott has lots of old folks hoping to downsize. One factor driving Prescott home prices: people moving here from Phoenix to escape the heat.

***********************************************************************************************************************

After reading my July 7 column “Prescott Planning for Climate Uncertainty” some wanted to give me the boot as a Courier columnist. Rather than being dismayed by their “rants,” having expected “to get my fair share of abuse” (to borrow a Rolling Stones’ lyric) I want to use them to reboot the “Climate Dialogues” we started in 2018. “We” refers to me and Patrick Grady, chair of a local Interfaith group valuing the teachings of “all major religions that call for us to care for one another and for the earth.”  We’d hoped to get people across the political spectrum together to discuss global warming, but after sessions involving fifteen people, we realized we were “preaching to the choir.” I never got to engage with climate skeptics.

Before rectifying that, consider the science behind Courier editor Tim Wiederaenders’ July 11 assertion: that “proving it” – meaning linking global climate change to “increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”—is “practically impossible.” He’s right.

Mathematicians prove things, scientists don’t. Data gathered by “counting” can be exact —but scientists work with measurements, and all measurements have some uncertainty. Starting 150 years ago with statistical mechanics, then quantum mechanics, and chaos theory, science has moved toward presenting conclusions in terms of likelihood and probabilities.

Climate scientists never completely attribute some outrageously unusual weather—like the continental record 4.5 feet of rain that the Houston area got during the two day 2017 Hurricane Harvey event—to the effects of human-caused climate change. Instead they may say that the latter made the extreme event many times more likely. To illustrate, consider how one reader responded to my saying Phoenix’s July 2023 monthly average temperature of 102.7 exceeding the previous record by 3.6 degrees put us in “uncharted territory.” This was dismissed as “typical climate hysteria using one irrelevant data point.”

That data point departs from the 96.4 degree average of 23 highest monthly average 2000-2022 temperatures by 6.3 degrees. In this large departure I saw a red flag. To counter arguments this was simply random variation, I calculated its statistical significance. From my spreadsheet came answers: a 5.15 standard deviation departure from past, expected behavior with the same climate forces operating, and, given a corresponding only one in three million chance this is random variation, a strong suggestion something different (more climate change caused by people?) is responsible. After doing math, I expressed concern in my column. There, I did not hysterically scream “OVER FIVE STANDARD DEVIATIONS!”— I simply said “uncharted territory.” (Had I done so, I might have been labeled a “standard deviant.”) 

Might more pavement and concrete in Phoenix be partly responsible? Yes. We should encourage measures— like planting trees, installing light-colored roofs, etc. —to counter this local heat retention aspect of manmade climate change.  But to counter global trends we must reign in heat trapping associated with increasing greenhouse gas. These are behind rising rural temperatures and increasing temperature and acidity of ocean water. And —since warmer air holds more water vapor and warmer oceans lead to more evaporation—can explain extreme rainfall events. And—since uneven warming of polar regions versus tropics cause polar vortex type air mass movement—can explain extreme winter cold snaps. Like 15 degrees below zero in Alamogordo, New Mexico killing thousand year old trees in 2011.

Speaking of cold…One reader wrote, “I’m old enough to remember the global cooling scares of the ‘70s.” This can be traced to a single article in Newsweek, as “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” posted online at the American Meteorological Society website explains. That reader, and others, expressed skepticism that solar is the solution and switching to it will bring immediate results. They’re right. It will take decades to make progress in fighting global climate change. We need to use energy more efficiently and wean ourselves off fossil fuel. Photovoltaic solar has emerged as the most practical, cost-effective way to do this and meet our needs—including, as cost of batteries continues to fall and with help (where appropriate) from wind power and pumped hydro storage—delivering base load electricity.

One reader said my column about “globull warming” is “exactly what a professor would write.”

That got me thinking about cattle—resulting in two tidbits to share. First, reportedly associated with the beef an average American eats is 1984 pounds / year of greenhouse gas emission (less for grass-fed beef.) That drops 96 % if plant-based protein replaces beef. Second, cattle graze on over 800,000 acres of Yavapai County land— compare that with the 8,000 acre limit the County amendment my column discussed seeks to impose on solar.  Solar panels and grazing livestock—sheep, not cows—can share land. And no, solar panels don’t kill wildlife as one reader suggested.

The “professor” putdown seemed a call to debate the value of educational achievement. Accepting that challenge, I ask, “Can you say, like Donald Trump,  I love the uneducated?” Or do you value, like I do, “Education for Democracy”?  I’ve attended “The School of Hard Knocks” and with Jefferson, appreciate “the common man,” but also like what “old school Reagan conservative,” and “smart person” fan Mike Murphy recently said:  “I don’t like this populist stuff. I don’t want to go find the ten most irritating idiots on the street and put them in charge. I like people who can do math, read books… ” —and newspapers, I’ll add.

Reader Feedback--August 2024

8/4/24 from DL:

Thank you for your thoughtful column today. The reaction you got regarding your previous climate change article from some of Prescott’s finest was not surprising. I believe this community is populated by ignorant, questionably educated souls who don’t have a farthing of a clue about climate change and they merely mouth what they hear from the “right”. It’s sad, but true.

8/4/24 from TB:

Now you've done it.

That last paragraph about education.

To the typical "Why should I pay for schools in my property taxes, I don't have any kids in school?"

My response is: "I don't want to live near stupid people"

Geologist by education and training, there have been many swings in climate over the Earth's history. But the measurements of the rate of change since we started burning fossil fuels and moved into manufacturing, large scale agriculture and farming etc, is something we've never seen in our planets history. Therefore *something* must have changed and the logical implication is "man caused".

Those people who don't support education don't understand logic or science. They think that science comes up with *the* answer and that answer never changes. Sun revolves around the earth...Oops now Earth revolves around Sun. Earth is flat, Oops now Earth is not only round but measurable.  One final point, it is much easier to fall into the "it's a conspiracy" trap and throw insults when against something or something that impacts people than to dig for and understand facts. Fear mongering politicians (no names here) exploit that.

On the topic of climate change, I'm a big SciFi reader.  I recommend picking up a copy of Kim Stanley Robinson - Ministry for the Future.  Lots of things in there that we are already starting to see. And it's got a very interesting plot line....Bankers are the ones that save us from climate change! It's a good read, if hopeful and unlikely to be that easy!

8/4/24 from LM:

I sure appreciate your climate related columns in the newspaper.  While the point of view from Kelly Kading is accurate from time to time he seems to have an ax to grind and his name calling and insulting innuendos are quite off-putting.  You have a more centered approach to this critical topic and you also provide sources in an unbiased way.    Thanks much,  

8/4/24 from TM:  

I read with interest your article published in the Courier this date. I am

a retired Mechanical Engineer and facilitate an OLLI class at Yavapai

College on Global Warming and Electric Energy Production. I have done some

research on my own, and find the connection between CO2 emissions and

global warming to be compelling. I decided to limit the class discussion to

global warming, rather than including climate change, as the climate on

Earth is such a complex topic. We look at a number of options for electric

production that do not require the burning of fossil fuels, and I include

nuclear power as a part of the recommended generation mix. I also emphasize

the idea that our earth does not have unlimited capacity to absorb all the

pollution we emit, and that the human species has had a significant impact

on the environment, more so than any other species on earth. We all need to

recognize our responsibility to be good stewards of our earth.

Keep the articles coming, and hopefully we can effect a positive change!

8/5/24 from SE:

Read your article and personally feel you are a lunatic.  You are a typical Democratic scaremonger who uses these tactics to frighten people into believing the earth is going to explode or some other nonsense idea.  You and others like you should be locked up so you can't do anymore damage to the world.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

From August 11 Rants & Raves:

From August 13 Rants & Raves:

*****************************************************************************************************************

Response from S. Cook to several of the above; watch the column for more

thanks to everyone -- even those who don't think much of my columns!

special thanks to TB : for remarks on why we should not mine supporting public schools with out taxes and Kim Stanley Robinson book info

special thanks to TM: for teaching the OLLI class!  There is a link at top of this web page to climate change related info that I have used in classes I've taught.

special thanks to LM: yes backing up statements by citing references / sources is  important (see below response to Aug 11 rant)

response to SE:  No doubt I'm a bit crazy! FYI: I am registered as an independent. If you read my columns you'll see that I make a particular effort to provide comments from right wing / politically conservative viewpoints since many people assume I'm a radical left environmentalist. I am very much in the practical political center -- I learned long ago it's where the action is / compromise...

response to Aug 11 rant: "several debunked positions" Really? I'm skeptical. Talk is cheap and rants are limited to a few words. In the future please email me and cite sources / references that supposedly debunk info I've provided. As far as "focus-pocus" : no doubt to the scientifically illiterate lots of science-based methods / procedures and technology-based marvels (like smart phones) seem like magic!

response to Aug 13 1st rant: No doubt solar panels do kill a few birds -- just like clean windows in a building do when birds run into them Rather than doing an internet search as suggested, I went to the Audubon Society website: world's foremost science-based group supporting  birds. Here is some of what you'll find there:

from https://www.audubon.org/news/solar-power-and-birds

Audubon strongly supports properly sited photovoltaic solar power...In all the deserved excitement about solar energy, it’s important to remember that not all solar works the same way, or has the same ecological benefit. That’s why we only support photovoltaic solar, which is probably what you picture when you think of solar power. It consists of shiny black panels facing the sun, capturing light, and converting it into electricity. The other form of solar energy --concentrated solar power (CSP)-- is too dangerous for birds...

Our own science shows that unless we slow the rise of global temperatures, two-thirds of North America’s birds could face extinction. Renewable energy, like solar power, is key to reducing pollution and holding temperatures steady. This not only protects birds, but also communities that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, which disproportionately includes communities of color.

response to Aug 13 2nd rant: Yes solar and wind power require considerable resources and there is some environmental and health impact. And work is ongoing so that increasingly solar panels and wind generator components / blades can be recycled. We aren't there yet. But in comparison to the fossil fuel alternatives wind and solar are environmentally benign.  To illustrate this comparison here's an excerpt from a review I wrote of a film by (left wing film-maker!)  Michael Moore: (complete review at https://projectworldview.org/reviewplanetofthehumans.pdf)

Imagine 40 years of operation of two 500 megawatt power plants —one solar PV and one coal fired. My back of the envelope calculation*(note 3 below) suggests all the silicon in the former would weigh around 20,000 tons. Sounds like a lot, except when you realize that once that is in place you've got it for the whole FORTY YEARS lifetime of the installation. The "fuel"— supplied by the Sun—is free. In contrast the coal-fired power plant would use 20,000 tons of fuel in the form of coal (burned at 250 tons per hour) in the first roughly FOUR DAYS (80 hours) of its operation—and keep using coal at the rate of 250 tons per hour for another 39 years and 361 days!  

response to Aug 13 2nd rant:

from https://www.audubon.org/news/wind-power-and-birds

The Audubon Society says it "strongly supports wind energy that is sited and operated properly to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effectively for the impacts on birds...While wind energy helps birds on a global scale by curbing climate change, wind power facilities can harm birds through direct collisions with turbines and other structures, including power lines. .. An estimated 140,000 to 679,000 bird deaths occur per year due to turbine collisions, which is substantial, but significantly less than deaths caused by outdoor cats and building collisions."

The above was written in 2020. I will add: 

1) since then the wind industry has taken steps to minimize turbine collisions with birds. Notably these include more carefully siting wind farms and moving toward bigger but slower moving turbines--given birds flying right into the path of revolving blades a better chance of avoiding collision.

2) The American Bird Conservancy estimates that American outdoor cats annually kill 2.4 billion birds! 

***********************************************************************************************************************

September 8, 2024

Courier Column for September 8 : "Prescott Beaver Believers" and reader feedback

   September 22, 2024 Reader Feedback and Responses

Courier Column for  September 22 "Imagine Prescott Embracing Creative Destruction and Antequera, Spain" / Comments

from RM: Stephen - your article...about Prescott and Antequera caught my attention because my father was born in Antequera.  He came to America with his family as a baby in 1913 so obviously he has no memory of being there.  I have been attempting to visit there, but so far haven't been able to.  Hopefully, one day...

response from S. Cook: Interesting! Thanks for sharing. If we can promote Antequera as a Prescott sister city, maybe you can join Prescott folks going there as a group. I should note that there are good travel connections available in Malaga, Spain (both by bus to Antequera –45 minutes away, and by air to major European / USA cities. Best wishes.

from CS: The idea of Creative Destruction is a highly intriguing and potentially controversial one which you could easily spend an entire column hashing back and forth without trying to suggest any concrete next steps for the city of Prescott. Just further famililarizing the readers with the concept .

       Do you want people to buy this idea?  Saying the white people came and took over the land from the natives is probably not going to get people too excited about Creative Destruction--except the ones who still believe that Manifest Destiny reigns supreme.

       To continue--I think getting together a cadre of people who think your idea is a great one would be a first step toward pursuing any new Sister Cities... Prescott has a very active Sister City relationship with Caborca, Mexico. .  Any discussion of sister cities should definitely acknowledge the nature of this relationship--the one time mayor--some years back--was quite active...You might write an entire column on the amazingness of Antequara, Spain---& end it with something like--"Wouldn't it make a great sister city."

...Or write a column dedicated entirely to describing Prescott's relationship with its 3 current sister cities. You could discuss the virtues & inadequacies of each of them, write a little about the character of each of these cities & why it was chosen in the first place.

 response from S. Cook: Thanks for the feedback. . As you seem to suggest, my article was attempting to familiarize readers with the idea of creative destruction. It's a complex enough subject that--unless narrowed down to a specific example--doesn't generally lend itself to a black & white / against or for position. With respect to the demolishing the old City Hall and replacing it with a new building, I was trying to creatively add something to the new building design that would help quell opposition from historic preservation folks. I also see what I propose on the roof of the new building-- and its connection to Thumb Butte and Antequera Spain--as a way to reconcile white European  roots of the American Southwest and early Prescott history with the native American / Yavapai culture that it so thoroughly disrupted. While on one hand its a step toward peacefully bringing people together with respect to our past, given its setting on a hotel roof / possible sister city connection, it's also a way to bring in more tourist $ dollars. Should be win--win.  

Re: you saying "...write a column dedicated entirely to describing Prescott's relationship with its 3 current sister cities." This is a future possibility. Note:  Prescott has three sister city relationships: with Caborca, Mexico as you know, and cities in El Salvador and Germany. Note one of these relationships is listed as "inactive" on City of Prescott website: Suchitoto, El Salvador. US State Dept. advises against traveling there. I've been on that city's website and I would love to visit there if it was safe to do so. Note: I would personally fear violent gang activity; young males traveling there conceivably could be jailed on suspicion of their being involved with gangs / drug cartels.

I would like to see Prescott end its sister city relationship with Suchitoto and forge a new one with Antequera.  I am aware that its relationship with Caborca--although itself somewhat of a dangerous place, especially at night--is a special one that should be preserved.

 from AF, City of Prescott:  I'm reaching out as the staff liaison for our Sister City programs. City Council was included on your emails and they would be the ones to determine whether or not to add or dissolve any of our Sister Cities. Normally, if the Mayor is interested, he would send a letter of intent to the possible Sister City and if they are interested as well then it would be placed on a Council agenda for Council to approve a resolution forming the relationship.

With Sister Cities, there needs to be a dedicated community group to form the board so if you know of a group interested in Antequera, Spain, I'd recommend all of them email or reach out to the Mayor with their interest of forming a board as well as reaching out to me so if it is formed I know how to contact them to support them. We have had Sister Cities in the past that were created and if there isn't community support and involvement, they usually don't continue much longer after the resolution.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions about the Sister Cities.

response from S. Cook: Thank you!

October 6, 2024 Reader Feedback and Responses

Courier Column for October 6 "Passing Prop 478--Yes; Breaking up NOAA-No" / Comments

from JP: Great piece on NOAA.  Nice opportunity to educate readers about this all important Fed agency.  I used to work in marine geology and we studied paleo climate.  Fascinating stuff and so pertinent today.

response from S. Cook: Thanks. Glad you, as someone with earth, ocean, and (paleo) climate-related  credentials, liked it!

from DH: Hello Stephen;  I always enjoy your articles in the Prescott Courier, but really appreciate today’s. Thank you for supporting Prop 478. It’s hard for me to understand why some of our neighbors don’t seem to get the importance of “public safety” regardless of its terminology.  Wildfires are very real throughout AZ. I was evacuated during the Indian Fire some 20 years ago. We were lucky that well trained firefighters, and Mother Nature providing some moisture/humidity, allowed our firefighters to get control quickly. But even with that help, there were some homes that burned as I recall in the Cathedral Pines area off S. SR 89.

Being a longtime Prescott resident, any period of continuing dryness makes me a bit nervous. This is especially accentuated by my knowledge of our extremely limited exit routes. We tried to get the Sun Dog Ranch Rd connector for exactly that purpose back in the early ‘90s. I doubt many folks realize that we are very limited in circulation when an emergency may arise.

And the idea of limiting or curtailing NOAA scares me to death! Science is the best chance for our survival.   Here’s hoping that sanity returns to our world soon.  Thank you again,

response from S. Cook:  Thanks for writing.  I especially relate to your comment "any period of continuing dryness makes me a bit nervous"  as it brings back memories of years I lived in the mountains of south New Mexico in a remote spot particularly vulnerable to fire. On two occasions twelve years apart fire came within a mile or less of my land and all that prevented it from burning was a shift in wind direction. And during periods of extreme dryness I was constantly monitoring my radio awaiting a call that our volunteer fire department needed to respond.

from JD: As most liberals you mislead your readers either intentionally or thru ignorance but Trump has repeatedly disavowed project 2025 in fact has no idea what’s in it.As to the report itself there’s much more detail than just breaking noaa up both conceding some important work they do but suggestions on how to do it better,thanks,

response from S. Cook: Thanks for writing. Two comments: 1) I am not a liberal! Yes, as a young person I was left-leaning--but in recent decades I have steadily moved to the political center. Now, I am registered as an independent, and recently voted in the Republican primary. I have some conservative credentials such as fiscally, I deplore our $34 trillion national debt, and, individual freedom -wise,  there are lots of regulations I don't like.  Especially those that defy common sense, are very costly and do little  if anything to promote the common good. Having grown up in rural America in my 20s, 30s, and 40s with freedom to  build houses I was going to live in as I saw fit, it's been difficult dealing with the "what you can't do" building wise given all the red tape today. 2) I did not attempt to mislead readers per your suggestion: "either intentionally or thru ignorance but Trump has repeatedly disavowed project 2025". Keep in mind I have a (800) word limit and often can't go into details. Here is an excerpt from the PBS News article I cited that I might have included had space permitted:

"Project 2025 is the conservative Heritage Foundation’s policy blueprint for a Republican administration. Trump has disavowed it, but it was written by several former Trump administration officials. In 2022, when Trump gave a keynote speech at a Heritage event in Florida, he said the organization would “lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.” 

The article has a link to a CNN story headlined "Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved." Links to both articles:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-what-project-2025-says-about-the-national-weather-service-and-noaa

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-project-2025/index.html

Finally with respect to Project 2025 and NOAA / NWS etc: you are correct to say Project 2025 does offer "suggestions on how to do it better."

From October 13 Rants & Raves:

response from S. Cook: My column appears on the Opinion page. Newspaper Op-Ed pages typically contain lots of political related commentary. If I were forced to classify everything I wrote in my October 6 column as either in the realm of science (scientific method related, on science subject matter, about science-based organizations, reporting facts, etc) or in the political realm (concerned with government, politicians, expressing opinions, urging action on questions voters will address, about ballot measures or particular candidates, etc.,) I'd score the column at 50% science / 50% political. I think this is probably a good mix. I am saddened that this reader--with the "purported to be about science" remark--does not see it that way. 

October 15--28, 2024 Reader Feedback and Responses

from JT October 15 2024

I don’t read the Courier unless prodded to do so, so I’m generally unaware of situations like this. I just read Kading’s column. It’s a bit snarky, for sure, like it’s meant to agitate you. It seems that has been it’s effect. Looking at his assertions, I wonder what about them really upsets you? He makes some accurate points. For example, consider these recent publications that support his statements:

A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature. Published in Science on 9/20/2024, led by Smithsonian and University of Arizona. Showing clearly that Earth’s climate is hugely variable, and we are in the coldest period detected in the various records. Useful big picture context.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet. Published in Nature Communications Earth & Environment on 10/14/2024, led by University of California and Clemson. Reporting that “results show limited evidence for a warming surge; in most surface temperature time series, no change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s is detected despite the breaking record temperatures observed in 2023” and  “that an acceleration is not detectable at the global level.”

Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations. Published 8/20/2024 in the journal Geomatics, led by Colorado State University and the US Forest Service. Their analysis “revealed that the observed decrease of planetary albedo along with reported variations of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) explain 100% of the global warming trend and 83% of the Global Surface Air Temperature interannual variability as documented by six satellite- and ground-based monitoring systems over the past 24 years.”

The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data. Published in the journal Climate in August 2023. Led by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, and scientists from institutions around the world. They found that urbanization and the urban heat island effect has had a much more profound influence on surface temperature than is accounted for in current, dominant models, and that “the scientific community is not yet in a position to confidently establish whether the warming since 1850 is mostly human-caused, mostly natural, or some combination.”

Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000. Published in the journal Surveys in Geophysics on May 7, 2024. Led by NASA Langley Research Center and the NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. Presenting data that suggests the Earth is not warming by trapping heat, but rather by absorbing sunshine as a response to diminishing cloud cover, which has led to “accelerated increases in global mean temperature, sea level rise, ocean heating, and snow and sea ice melt.” (Note: There is a flood of papers coming out on this subject thanks to advances in satellite technology)

I could go on. There are hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed papers in legitimate journals that challenge climate change orthodoxy (the anthropogenic greenhouse gas hypothesis). I’m not here to defend Kading, nor the Courier. I’m here, as one of your colleagues in environmental work, to suggest that the climate change situation is not “settled.” Nor will it ever be. Science that get’s “settled” is science corrupted.

You’ll probably react to this email by considering me a “climate denier.” I hope not, but if that’s your conclusion, I’m fine with that – though it would be surprising given the high-impact sample of papers I collected here in just a few minutes. I do in fact deny the narrative that is being promoted by the loudest and most mainstream voices. I strongly reject the claim that there is scientific “certainty” or “consensus” around anthropogenic climate change. It defies unbiased scientific inquiry, and it intentionally ignores reams of evidence that solar, geomagnetic, and cosmic factors have powerful influence over short- and long-term climate cycles. The dominant narrative seeks to censor, defame, and deplatform those who don’t abide by orthodoxy – and that is hardly real science. And it’s losing the trust of the majority of people, myself included – and MANY young and middle aged, educated, and “green” voters who I associate with.

So, do what you will with my missive. I am not here to get into a debate, as I’m too busy. I’m saying this in my hope that you will take an unbiased approach to educating yourselves and the public – instead of scrutinizing Kading (or me, for that matter), try and critique the papers I present here. And most importantly, I suggest you focus on areas of common ground – that we all want accessible public spaces, clean air, clean water, and healthy soils/food. That is the messaging that will bring us together, and solve the most important environmental challenges.

response from S. Cook, October 15:

I'm glad I copied you on this email thread!  Thanks for your comments--I agree with many of them. I am simply too busy right now to respond at length—but I will study the papers you cite (some of which I'm familiar with) and perhaps formalize a more detailed response.  Here is what I have time to say now:

Anyone who understands the changing Earth orbital / astronomical connection (known as the Milankovitch cycles) to the solar input part of modeling the Earth's energy balance knows that this is the key driver of variation of average earth temperatures on the multi 100,000 years time scale.   What is significant in studies of earth temperatures over very  long time periods—after accounting for this solar input variation—is that generally they track with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.  (Higher temps go with higher CO2 levels) This (CO2 concentration) is a key variable on the energy escaping back out into space of  modeling the Earth's energy balance.  (Note: if equilibrium over long run ,  energy in = energy out, no temperature change)

No one disputes rising carbon dioxide concentration (from around 280 ppm to 425 ppm) in last 200 + years--and it is but a simple jump from that to the expectation of rising temperatures.  Obviously this is much too simple-minded, given all of the places energy can go, both coming in and getting out...

Figure 15. The global mean energy budget of Earth according to IPCC AR6 [2] (Section 7.2.1), their Figure 7.2. Numbers indicate the best estimates for magnitudes of the globally averaged energy balance components in W m−2, together with their uncertainty ranges in parentheses (5–95% confidence range), representing all-sky climate conditions at the beginning of the 21st century. According to this diagram, the Tropospheric Energy-Flux Attenuation Coefficient (TEFAC) is 239/(398 + 82 + 21) = 0.477.

I first started running computer programs based on modeling earth-sun energy balance equations in the early 1990s and have steadily seen them grow in complexity as computer power and understanding of atmospheric / ocean / ground physics heat transfer processes etc involved has increased.  Early on I realized that the role of changing albedo feedback loops that go into these models (most notably as polar ice melts, dark ocean water has lower albedo leading to more solar energy absorbed, warm temps, more melting,etc.). And realized  that the extent to which feedback loops kick in is big source of uncertainty (along with how clouds work, evaporation of water cycle details given that more water vapor in atmosphere acts like greenhouse gas / water vapor feedback loop, absorption of energy by oceans, etc.)

Anyway, I will look at the changes in albedo paper you cite, but my point is that IPCC / climate scientists follow all of these details very closely. If new research suggests tweaking climate models, I am confident it will be done so as to best model a very complicated situation.

The first paper you cite has a University of Arizona connection. A key researcher there—and IPCC member—is Geosciences professor Jessica Tierney. Something she emphasizes in long-term years earth  temperature studies is that the rate of temperature change seen in the last 150 years is totally unprecedented.  Here is a graph from her work: "Global Temperatures Over Last 24,000 Years Show Today's Warming 'Unprecedented

https://news.arizona.edu/news/global-temperatures-over-last-24000-years-show-todays-warming-unprecedented

It includes a graph of global temperature change over the last 24,000 years showing dramatic rapid uptick in last 50 years or so.

This rapid warming is something that ecosystems will struggle to respond to. (It is part of the "uncharted territory" I write about.) Example: forces of biological evolution operate much more slowly in forest ecosystems (more like thousands of years needed between climax forests ) and all this is expected to drive increasing rate of species extinctions. I will read the albedo / USFS paper you cited with interest because I know cutting trees / reforestation (i.e planting one trillion trees worldwide to counter rising greenhouse gas emissions)  involves significant albedo changes.

Note:  following the above assumes more than a 5th grade level of science education...

Gotta go — discussion to be continued.

Steve

response from S. Cook, more from October 28

Finally had a chance to look over this (previously cited by you) paper:

Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations. Published 8/20/2024 in the journal Geomatics, led by Colorado State University and the US Forest Service.

At his glance it appears to be a legitimate effort by people who understand some climate physics and how to interpret data...but wow: after closer inspection I'm convinced this is more pseudoscience than science! 

Basically it ignores the key importance of long wavelength heat trapping by green house gases (GHG)  --something that has withstood roughly 150 years of scrutiny --in favor of a bizarre loss of kinetic energy mechanism facilitated by decreasing air pressure with altitude. (see my previous email citing one reason to be skeptical: that historical earth temps generally vary with GHG concentation once other variables are controlled ) And it engages in some circular reasoning --which I put in in bold below, etc.  Rather than write more I'm pasting in comments found online since they cover much of what I would write (and then some):

From: https://friendsofscience.org/press/fos-climate-science-newsletters/fos-climate-science-newsletter-2024.html

Critique: Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming

This new paper by Ned Nikolov and Karl F. Zeller point out the importance of the recent declining albedo to global warming, but it also contains major errors. The abstract  says “Here, we quantify the effect of the observed albedo decrease on Earth’s Global Surface Air Temperature (GSAT) since 2000 using measurements by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project .…” The author report that according to CERES observations, the Earth’s all-sky albedo has declined by 0.79% from March 2000 to 2023 causing an increase of solar radiation absorption of 2.7 W/m2.

The authors convert that flux to temperature using an equation derived from a curve fitted to the ratio of the average surface temperature (Tb in the paper) to the calculated temperature without an atmosphere (Tna) versus atmospheric pressure of 3 planets and 3 moons. The authors assume that a surface temperature change is due to only a change in incoming solar radiation and a change of albedo, which is the ratio of reflected solar to incoming solar. That is, no greenhouse gas induced warming is considered. This leads to a modeled surface temperature trend from changes of albedo and incoming solar of 0.24 °C/decade, while the observed trend in 0.23 °C/decade. The authors conclude that solar and albedo forcing explains the entire multi-decadal warming trend from 2000 to 2023. Note that they assume the temperature is determined only by absorbed solar energy, and then calculate that the recent temperature trend is due to only the trend of absorbed solar energy, which circular reasoning. This means that the conclusion is invalid.

A planet without greenhouse gases (GHG) would not have an elevated surface temperature (Tb/Tna > 1).  If GHG on Earth were replace with the same mass of N2, Earth's surface temperature would be much colder. Pressure by itself can't cause an elevated surface temperature. Pumping up a flat tire causes the tire to warm up because the compressor is adding energy, but soon after the tire is inflated, the tire returns to the temperature of the surrounding air. Likewise, a planet without GHG would have the same temperature as the planet would have without any atmosphere.  Gravity caused the pressure gradient. Gravity and GHG together causes the Earth's tropospheric temperature gradient, or lapse rate, about -6.5 °C/km. Without GHG, there can't be a temperature gradient, and there can't be a greenhouse effect without a temperature gradient. Radiative transfer by GHGs through the troposphere drives convection towards the lapse rate.

The centre of mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a height with a pressure of half that of the surface pressure. This is also exactly where the number of CO2 molecules below and above is equal. Therefore you would expect this to approximately coincide with the effective emission height – but for a different reason. It is because above this level the IR ‘fog’ clears and photons can escape freely to space. It is not surprising that a few planets and moons have elevated temperatures that roughly fit a curve of pressures. See this article by Clive Best.

The surface measurements are significantly affected by the urban heat island effect (UHIE). The surface temperature trend should be reduced to account for the UHIE. The first paragraph of the introduction says that figure 7.3 of the IPCC WG1 report shows a “positive trend in the Earth’s reflected solar radiation …” However, the figure's caption says " All flux anomalies are defined as positive downwards ... ". The authors of the paper apparently failed to read the caption to the figure and didn't realize that increasing values means decreasing solar reflection.

************************************************************************************************************************

November 2024  (10, 24, 26)  Reader Feedback and Responses

November 10 rant: 

response from S. Cook:

It you can provide I specific article or study I can comment in detail. Generally, I believe the scientific consensus is that many models underestimate the recent warming being measured. Certainly climate modeling presents big challenges, but from a rather crude start decades ago it has steadily advanced. Here are three references that describe the advances, challenge and explain the uncertainties... 

Halving of the uncertainty in projected warming over the past decade by Nathan Gillett  (from NPJ Climate and Atmospheric Science June 22 2024) 

What are the biggest challenges and innovations for new climate models? (from MIT Climate P ortal April 2024)

What Uncertainties Remain in Climate Science? – State of the Planet by Renee Cho (from Columbia Climate school  Jan 12 2023)_

November 24 rant: 

response from S. Cook:

The above claim is false, but like many conspiracy theories it builds on a grain of truth: glare from solar panels can complicate landing airplanes. That concern is addressed in “Research and Analysis Demonstrate the Lack of Impacts of Glare from Photovoltaic Modules” on the National Renewable Energy Lab (nrel.gov) website. It states, “PV modules exhibit less glare than windows and water. Solar PV modules are specifically designed to reduce reflection, as any reflected light cannot be converted into electricity. PV modules have been installed without incident at many airports.” 

November 26 rant: refers to "habitat-destroying , bird killing utility-scale solar facilities"

response from S. Cook: 

Let me repeat my reply to a previous rant (from August 13): 

from https://www.audubon.org/news/wind-power-and-birds

The Audubon Society says it "strongly supports wind energy that is sited and operated properly to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effectively for the impacts on birds...While wind energy helps birds on a global scale by curbing climate change, wind power facilities can harm birds through direct collisions with turbines and other structures, including power lines. .. An estimated 140,000 to 679,000 bird deaths occur per year due to turbine collisions, which is substantial, but significantly less than deaths caused by outdoor cats and building collisions."

The above was written in 2020. I will add: 

1) since then the wind industry has taken steps to minimize turbine collisions with birds. Notably these include more carefully siting wind farms and moving toward bigger but slower moving turbines--given birds flying right into the path of revolving blades a better chance of avoiding collision.

2) The American Bird Conservancy estimates that American outdoor cats annually kill 2.4 billion birds! 

**********************************************************************************************************