The Climate Change Plandemic

Struthers Report V29 # 6.3

Welcome and Thankyou to all the new savy inestors/readers who have subscribed to my Substack. Please share and if you have not joined, please subscribe if you feel I am worthy.

Climate Plandemic

As many of you know, I have analyzed the energy markets pertaining to wind quite extensively. The green enthusiasts and the climate scammers will always report things in a manner that favours them, but far from reality. They are not out right lying all the time, but just not putting the info or numbers in the right context. Once again they are promoting fear to convince people, you know – The world will end if we don't stop CO2.

Once you understand that climate change hype is really about wealth distribution, taxing and controlling you, it will start to make more sense, because their climate narrative does not. Are you going to believe government and their media puppets or the independent scientists and engineers?

From the Heartland Institute

A prime example of misinformation is a wind farms name plate capacity, we all know the wind does not blow all the time. So what is the actual output? It depends on location and I have used numbers in the neighbourhood of 20% to 40% of name plate capacity would be the actual output and now I have learned I was probably too high. Not on an individual wind farm basis, but if you measure across a large geographic area, like a large US State. This will relate better as an actual real working model of output.

Another myth is you can use wind for a large part of the grid, but remember it is intermittent. The best power grid management can do is perhaps wind as 20% to 25% of the grid is manageable and beyond that it is not.

I read a great analysis here from Wade Allison, who is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and a Fellow of Keble College. In addition to teaching mathematics and physics at Oxford and researching at CERN, he is also deeply involved in medical physics and the biological effects of radiation, on which he has published three books.

This guy is a physics and math expert, so provides the physics and math formulae (my bold). “That the wind fluctuates is common knowledge. But these fluctuations are grossly magnified to an extent that is not immediately obvious – and has nothing to do with the technology of the wind turbine. The energy of the wind is that of the moving air, and, as every student knows, such energy is ½Mv2, where M is the mass of air and v the speed. The mass of air reaching each square metre of the area swept by the turbine blade in a second is M = ρv, where ρ is the density of air: about 1.2 kg per cubic metre. So, the maximum power that the turbine can deliver is ½ρv3 watts per square metre.”

His next point is about what wind capacity is required to match Hinkley Point C, a UK nuclear plant . It makes it more clear that trying to get wind up to 20% of the grid is futile. “ If the wind speed is 10 metres per second (about 20 mph) the power is 600 watts per square metre at 100% efficiency. That means to deliver the same power as Hinkley Point C (3200 million watts) by wind would require 5.5 million square metres of turbine swept area.” That would be the size of about 14, 100 acre farms.

Another factor that is so important is the wind speed and you won't find this info easily. Because of the simple physics involved to produce power, if the wind speed drops by 1/2 from it's peak efficiency, the output declines by a factor of 8. Now you say, but wait, the wind speed can increase too. However if the wind speed doubles it does increase output by a factor of 8, but the windmill has to be turned off for it's own protection. Too high of a wind speed would simply blow it apart.

Now that is great theory, but the professor goes into the actual data and it is far worse than theory. This is actual wind power data in 2021 across the UK and Europe so smooths in a large geographical area that will have different wind speed at given times.

The installed name plate capacity is 236 GW (brown dotted line) and on the best day (March 26) the output was 103 GW or 43.6%. There was not many days that got close to that 43.6% and the average output is around 50 GW or just 21% of name plate which is at the very bottom of my previously assumed range of 20% to 40%.

Because of the strong NIMBY movement, the UK is promoting more offshore wind, saying it is more reliable. They want to expand to 40GW from the 2022 installed 10.4 GW. They are now over 13 GW but look at this chart on how that 10 GW actually performed over 1 month in 2022.

While the offshore wind did reach full capacity output several times, it was mostly far below it. And look at the one week in late March where is was down 8.8 GW only averaging 1.2 GW. Oh but wait a minute, we can use battery backup. Another unrealistic myth. Professor Allison calculated the 8.8 GW shortfall in that period of time is 1600 GWh which is 1,000 times the capacity of the world's largest grid storage battery at Moss Landings, California.

Wind is an answer for those promoting climate change, but is there really any climate change?

Ross McKitrick did a Financial Post article about a climate study you will not hear about, an important new study on climate change came out recently. It is a new paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres by a group of scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) headed by Cheng-Zhi Zou, which presents a new satellite-derived temperature record for the global troposphere (the atmospheric layer from one kilometre up to about 10 km altitude).

The troposphere is where climate models say the effect of warming due to greenhouse gases (GHGs) will be the strongest. And since that layer is not affected by urbanization or other changes to the land surface it’s a good place to observe a clean signal of the effect of GHGs.

Since the 1990s the records from both weather satellites and weather balloons have shown that climate models predict too much warming. In a 2020 paper, John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) and Ross McKitrick examined the outputs of the 38 newest climate models and compared their global tropospheric warming rates over 1979 to 2014 against observations from satellites and weather balloons. All 38 exhibited too much warming, and in most cases the differences were statistically significant. They argued that this points to a structural error in climate models where they respond too strongly to GHGs.

To sum the article out after several adjustments were made to data collection - “ Now the STAR series agrees with the UAH series very closely — in fact it has a slightly smaller warming trend. The old STAR series had a mid-troposphere warming trend of 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, but it’s now 0.09 degrees per decade, compared to 0.1 in UAH and 0.14 in RSS. For the troposphere as a whole they estimate a warming trend of 0.14 C/decade.

Zou’s team notes that their findings “have strong implications for trends in climate model simulations and other observations” because the atmosphere has warmed at half the average rate predicted by climate models over the same period. They also note that their findings are “consistent with conclusions in McKitrick and Christy (2020),” namely that climate models have a pervasive global warming bias.”

And finally a must watch video by NASA Engineer Tom Moser who reveals the truth about climate science. This is just a 17 minute video, but I can net it out for you below with 10 charts and graphics. I still suggest you watch the video to grasp everything. He trusts the law of Physics and verifies all assumptions. The Heartland Institute – who they are.

Very few challenges to the facts they have presented. These temperature cycles have been going on for thousands and millions of years. Scientists can get this data from measuring ice cores at the poles that go back thousands of years.

The very long term geological cycles. CO2 in brown, temperatures in blue.

Here is just the last 2,000 years. Two important observations. First we are coming out of a mini ice age. Second, they show the Vikings arriving in Greenland. I saw strong evidence elsewhere that the Vikings farmed grains in Greenland, but Greenland is too cold for grains. There must have been a warmer period as shown here in the Medieval age.

This is very important and I have not seen a chart of this before, but it shows a 41,000 year cycle how the earth orbits the sun in an ecliptic orbit with great variation in the distance when it is closest and farthest away from the sun. Detail on these cycles here.

Now for the icing on the cake, they compare the temperatures to solar activity and CO2 levels. Obviously the sun is in control, not man made CO2. Note the high temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s, far worse than today and in the US they called that period the dust bowl because of the heat and drought.

University of Melbourne – 'The volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in 1991. It spewed out more greenhouse gases in one year than the entire human race emitted in all its years on earth.

Oh but hurricanes and tornadoes are increasing. Not so, probably the only thing increasing is the news coverage of these events. The number of Hurricanes while fluctuating yearly are basically flat over time and the same for severe ones.

And it actually looks like US Tornado activity is less, at least the strong ones of F4 and higher.

I have heard many people I know equate CO2 and global warming to many more forest fires. However the number of acres burned in the US is fractions of what it was in the 1930s/40s dust bowl. Scammers just cherry picked data points to show an increase.

Plants require CO2 to grow and studies have shown that they would grow much faster with more CO2. The Heartland Institute concludes - The alarmists have the money and the large microphones, but above we have the truth.