Precision Forecasts image image
Jul 22, 2022
Summer Sizzle - The Real (Natural) Factors

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Most every area of the mid-latitudes will see summer heat during the high sun angle summer months. Some years the extremes are greater and more persistent. Ocean temperature patterns, solar drivers and local factors including soil moisture, and foehn wind events play a key role in extreme temperatures in summer.

The summer this year June started out on the cool side in many areas including the tropics which averaged -0.65F colder than the 30 year average as measured by satellites. Some warmth was starting to show in the south central U.S and western Europe.

image
Enlarged

LA NINA SUMMERS

We are in the third year of ‘La Nina’. It is the strongest year of the event. Strong La Ninas have historically been hot and dry in the central states into the east. They produce more tornadoes in the spring and when the Atlantic is warm, more landfalling hurricanes in the east.

image
Enlarged

Indeed, the heat is augmented where the springs and early summers are drier than normal. The July to September mean temperature anomalies for La Ninas are shown here (CPC).

image
Enlarged

The Southern plains often see the most persistent heat in La Ninas. So far, there have been 26 100F days in Dallas, TX in 2022. No end is in sight until heavy rains develop and put out the fire. Some showers and storms yesterday lowered maximums a bit yesterday.

See how after a cold spell in May, it has been increasingly hot in Dallas.

image
Enlarged

Models have more showers the next two weeks. But without an organized event (like a tropical event), it is difficult to get enough rains to suppress highs in mid-summer for longer periods. Dallas since 1950 has had as many as 71 days over 100F.

NUMBER OF 100F DAYS IN DALLAS SINCE 1950
All are La Nina years.
image
Enlarged

We can see below the hot summers were indeed in strong, multi-year La Ninas (negative MEI v2 (Multivariate ENSO Index) usually found in periods of a negative PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation).

image
Enlarged

You can the MEI and the negative PDO are both the strongest since 1979 right side of the above graph). This was a strong event.

image
Enlarged

As the Dallas data showed, heat is not a new phenomenon nor getting more frequent. In fact, the warmest decade for Texas and the entire U.S. by far was the 1930s. 22 state/territory all-time heat records still reside in the record books in the 1930s. There have been more record lows since the 1940s than record highs.

image
Enlarged

The 1930s were extreme for the heat and the ‘dust bowl’. 14 of the 15 years with the most heat records occurred before 1960.

image
Enlarged

Even the EPA shows the heat of the 1930s.

image
Enlarged

The mid 1930s were especially hot (and record cold in winter). Dryness accentuates both heat and cold.

The Washington Post this week talked about the amazing heat of the summer of 1936 (following the coldest winter).

image
Enlarged

The summer of 1936 produced triple digit heat in 45 of the 48 CONUS states, most records that are still standing. 8 states saw highs over 120F!

The central heat in La Ninas often plumes north and east in mid-summer into the eastern U.S. and southeast Canada.

image
Enlarged

BAKED APPLE

In NYC, 7 of the top 10 warmest Julys in Central Park occurred in La Nina summers. The other 3 were in years where ENSO was neutral and/or transitioning to La Nina. As of July 21, CPK has averaged 78.6F. 5 more hot days are forecast before temperature ease.

Central Park Warmest Julys
image
Enlarged

In Central Park, the 1950s was the hottest decade by far.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

The current heat wave in the Big Apple in what had been a mostly moderate summer in the first half, will continue to Monday before the typical summer weather returns.

Central Park has had nine 90F days as of July 22, 2022. As many as 39 days have reached that level in the record.

image
Enlarged

LACK OF SOIL MOISTURE ACCENTUATES WARMING

The soil moisture is a key factor in summer. When the soil is dry, the sun’s energy warms the ground and is not consumed in evaporating moisture back into the air. It amplifies any heat building in an amplified pattern.

See the La Nina induced dryness effect on vegetation in the southern plains. Europe like the central US, has found itself in a part of the global wave pattern that has limited rainfall and enhanced the summer temperatures.

image
Enlarged

The UK is surrounded by water and often that limits the heat. However, the winds turned from off the warm continent into Britain for a few days last week and the temperatures spiked for two days until the maritime influence returned.

image
Enlarged

Even with the high heat, nights brought some relief. More seasonable air returned. In the UK, cold is a greater danger than heat especially as blackouts threaten in the winter when solar energy is limited given the latitude and cold often comes with little winds at night. Over 20% of the population are in energy poverty, often having to chose between heating and eating. Britain and most countries find 10 to 20 times more people die from cold than heat.

image
Enlarged

DOWNSLOPE WINDS IN THE WEST

The west U.S. west of the Cascades and to the south the Sierra Nevada normally has natural air conditioner working with the cool waters of the eastern Pacific. Only when a pressure pattern strong enough to force downslope winds does the heat develop to the coast. The air is warmed by compression of the air as it descends into higher pressure near the surface. These episodes are usually brief.

In late June 2021, a three-day heat wave besieged the near coastal areas of the droughty Pacific Northwest as a heat ridge set up in British Colombia on position to cause intermountain heat to sink down to the lower elevations with compression producing all-time record heat. See the brief heat burst in Seattle in late June.

image
Enlarged

These local heat events are not uncommon and often are found in urban areas near mountains and especially in dry years.

This event led to new record highs in the coastal cities as downslope winds kept the ocean cooling at bay. Triple digit heat is common in summer in the intermountain away from the ocean influence. But occasionally some of that heat makes its way to the coast and is superheated by compression as it sinks downslope.

This event was similar to Sundowner, dubbed a “poison wind,” was reported June 17, 1859, by the Coastal Pilot of California. According to the report, the morning air temperature of 75 to 80 degrees rose steadily until about 1 p.m., when a series of superheated waves of wind blasted the Santa Barbara area.

By 2 p.m., the air temperature reached 133 degrees and hovered there for three hours, killing small animals, destroying fruit, ruining gardens and heavily damaging trees the newspaper reported. That year a similar powerful heat ridge likely forced the wind to sink off the mountains to the north and superheat just as we saw this June.

These events are usually brief and these local oddities not signs of man-made changes.

Many heat records occurred in locations where downslope winds add heat to transitory very warm air masses - found in the east coastal states of the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and even the Antarctic Peninsula.

The metropolitan areas of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast U.S., when heat ridges build east from the central in summer experience this compressional warming from downslope winds which also block any sea breezes. Most of the triple digit readings and high records here occur with west to northwest winds.

-----

Share this with those who need to hear the truth. Help us if you can. 

Jul 07, 2022
Fast-track transition BACK to electric vehicles - but are we ready and at what cost?

Joseph D’Aleo CCM

You may be surprised to find an electric vehicle isn’t a new concept.  In the early 1800s, inventors around the world began building electric-powered buggies. In 1890, William Morrison built the first electric car in the U.S. The car could go 14 miles per hour and fit six people.  Karl Benz in 1885 invented the first gas-powered car, which he later received a patent for in 1886. Benz’s first car had three wheels, looked much like an elongated tricycle and sat two people.

image

Four-wheeled gas-powered cars were later introduced in 1891. That marked the beginning of the vehicular evolution in America. But there was one problem with early electric vehicles. People were interested in owning them, but the elaborate machines were too expensive for the middle class.

It wasn’t until Henry Ford’s 1908 Model T that automobiles started to resemble what we’re familiar with today. Thanks to Ford’s invention of the assembly line, the gas-powered Model T could be mass-produced and became affordable for the general population.

It was Henry Ford’s mass-produced Model T that dealt a blow to the electric car. Introduced in 1908, the Model T made gasoline-powered cars widely available and affordable. By 1912, the gasoline car cost only $650, while an electric roadster sold for $1,750.

image

Other developments also contributed to the decline of the electric vehicle. By the 1920s, the U.S. had a better system of roads connecting cities, and Americans wanted to get out and explore. With the discovery of Texas crude oil, gas became cheap and readily available for rural Americans, and filling stations began popping up across the country. So many people began driving gasoline cars. In comparison, very few Americans outside of cities had electricity at that time and electric vehicles all but disappeared by 1935.

Fast forward to the late 1960s and early 1970s. Soaring oil prices and gasoline shortages—peaking with the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo—created a growing interest in lowering the U.S.’s dependence on foreign oil and finding homegrown sources of fuel.

Automakers began exploring options for alternative fuel vehicles, including electric cars. For example, General Motors developed a prototype for an urban electric car American Motor Company produced electric delivery jeeps that the United States Postal Service used in a 1975 test program. Even NASA helped raise the profile of the electric vehicle when its electric Lunar rover became the first manned vehicle to drive on the moon in 1971.

Yet, the vehicles developed and produced in the 1970s still suffered from drawbacks compared to gasoline-powered cars. Electric vehicles during this time had limited performance—usually topping at speeds of 45 miles per hour—and their typical range was limited to 40 miles before needing to be recharged.

Fast forward again—this time to the 1990s. In the 20 years since the long gas lines of the 1970s, interest in electric vehicles had mostly died down. But new federal and state regulations helped create a renewed interest in electric vehicles in the U.S. Most automakers are focusing on electric and hybrid gas and electric offerings.

EV CARS ARE APPEALING BUT THERE ARE MAJOR CHALLENGES

There are now about 290 million cars registered in the U.S. (here). As of 2020, there were over a million EVs (Electric Vehicles) on the US road (Argonne National Laboratory, 2021). The Edison Electric Institute projected in 2018, that EV stock will reach 18.7 million by 2030.

EVs clearly have benefits. EVs often cost less to maintain because they have fewer and simpler components. They are very quiet. Most provide an exhilarating acceleration experience, thanks to the instant power on tap from the electric motor, or motors. The biggest obstacles for most drivers in addition to the high relative cost are challenges related to the charging.

EVs take a long time to charge. If you don’t drive more than 40-50 miles a day, plugging into a standard “Level 1” 110 volt charger every night could provide enough energy for your daily commute. The standard Level 1 chargers with purchase of an EV add about 2-5 miles of range per hour of charging according to the Department of Energy.

Faster Type 2 charging systems are usually available ‘nearby’ or at your car dealer. Level 2 charging stations have expanded across the country (see).

If not, you can arrange to have level 2 charging station installed at your home. According to the DOE, “the price of Level 2 residential EVSE varies, but typically ranges from $500 to $2,000 before installation and state or utility incentives. Typical charging time for a Level 2 EV charger is around 8 and 10 hours from near empty to full while the average standard Level 1 EV charger will take up to 20 hours to fully charge.”

Kip Hansen warns here “If you need to charge more than 1 car at night home, you may be looking at the rather expensive job of replacing your electrical system from the pole to the main panel (see illustration far above) - new service drop, service point, service entrance wires, service meter (usually supplied by your power company), probably a new service disconnect, and a new service panel.  Cost?  Up to $5,000.”

The technology will improve with time.  DC Fast Electric Charging Stations recharge an EV at a rate of 3 to 20 miles of range per minute. 80% charge in only 20 minutes. But still, full charge may take 1 hour. But importantly, electricity prices will no doubt skyrocket if the move away from hydrocarbon fuels is mandated for automobiles, trucks, businesses, industries and homes.

And you should be aware that as the EIA shows, the cost for electricity varies by state, with the Northeast and California having substantially higher rates than the national average and will feel the pain first and most.

image

VACATION TRAVEL STRESSES

Right now, EVs are not ideal for drivers with long commutes or even more so for taking long trips - to see Grandma at Thanksgiving, to go to Florida to escape the cold in winter, or a long summer vacation. Planning when and where to charge is a challenge part of any long-distance travel plans. Now with gas cars, we know when we need to exit and fill up. But with EVs, the scarcity of charging stations makes pre-planning a necessity.

Moreover, charging can take hours. Very cold or hot temperatures and cabin climate conditioning reduce driving range and needs to be factored in. Research for the AAA found that when outside temperatures reach 95 degrees F during the summer and AC is used in a vehicle, the driving range can decrease by around 17% and using the heater in an electric vehicle in extreme cold, can reduce the driving range up to 41%.  See stories on disappointing range and recharge scarcity disruptions here and here.

CASE STUDY EXAMPLE

My daughter, her husband and three granddaughters took an 11-day post COVID vacation this June from New England south to Florida in a carefully planned trip that covered 3,100 miles in 12 states with stays in 7 hotels in 5 states, visits to 9 parks, amusement park, kayak trips. They filled gas tank 11 times for a total fill time of 55 minutes often at the planned stop or along the highway mostly timed for a meal.

If they had an EV vehicle given the time of year with 90 degree heat, they would have had to stop 19 times to charge and the time to charge could exceed 93 hours! That does not include waiting time for a station. Finding charging stations would require a lot of planning. Even if the temperatures were not extreme (fall or spring weather), the charging would be required 16 times for a total over 77 hours. Some vacation.

For this family adventure, a hybrid would make more sense.

Ironically recall that cheap gasoline and the unavailability of electricity outside big cities a century ago led to the demise of electric vehicles and the gasoline car boom. The charging challenges will lead to ‘resistance’ unless addressed. And the need for truck and off-road (farm, construction, mining, marine, etc) fuel will remain.

Any attempt at a transition to electric in trucking is a huge challenge. 15.5 million trucks operate in the U.S.. Of this figure 2 million are tractor trailer. The United States economy depends on trucks to deliver nearly 70 percent of all freight transported annually in the U.S., accounting for $671 billion worth of manufactured and retail goods transported by truck in the U.S. alone. Add $295 billion in truck trade with Canada and $195.6 billion in truck trade with Mexico. Trucks alter routes to avoid potential storm impacts. Now they will have consider charging challenges. As with every other policy, they are taking steps before technology or needed supplies are ready.

Importantly, Rivian Automotive in a Wall Street Journal story warned that the industry could soon face a shortage of battery supplies for electric vehicles “90% to 95% of the supply chain does not exist.”

BUT WE ARE TOLD “WE MUST ACT NOW TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE”

The rationale for high gas costs and now is to drive the transition to electric vehicles. They claim that is required to reduce greenhouse related warming and extreme weather.

In the Research Report entitled: On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, Abridged Research Report, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. (Honorary) Joseph S. D’Aleo, Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017 (here) provided ample evidence that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data was invalidated for use in climate modeling and for any other climate change policy analysis purpose.

”The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever - despite current claims of record setting warming.”

See here how all the extremes listed as man caused are explained by natural factors here. The deaths have declined over the last century (EMDAT 2017) not increased as alleged.

image

THE PRESCRIBED POLICY CHANGES ARE THE REAL DANGERS

For one, instead of diminishing costs and emissions, the changes will cause all forms of energy to skyrocket and it is likely as we see in Europe, it will force power companies to utilize coal as fracking bans limit the availability of clean natural gas. Electricity prices would triple by the end of this decade.

image

Moreover, the following analysis shows such a forced transition would instead force an increase in the number of power generation and power stations (first guess 25-35%) just to provide the energy for EVs. This would accelerate and magnify price rises.

RENEWABLES ARE NOT DEPENDABLE ENOUGH TO LIGHT THE WAY

With the war on fossil fuels, unreliable wind and solar can’t fill the gap. We saw a preview of that in Texas in 2021 when sub-zero cold and snow hit and knocked out wind power.

image

In many European nations they learned their lessons from sitting in the cold and dark too often in winter when ‘intermittents’ could not meet demand. They built coal plants for addressing base load demand. They then moved to clean natural gas imported from Russia. A return to coal burning and nuclear plants are planned in the upcoming winter because over interruption of natural gas due to the Russian/Ukraine war.  Europe has been down the green path more aggressively and some countries are realizing they may have put the cart before the horse in thinking wind and solar could eliminate hydrocarbon fuel use. They are planning coal usage this winter to keep the lights on in cold outbreaks.

The elitists can afford ways to keep the lights on and house warm. Obama we are told has sought approval to install 3 propane tanks (totaling 2,500 gallons) at his Martha’s Vineyard Estate.

What is your back-up when the lights go out. How far can you drive in your new EV with no way to recharge? If we go down the path the New World Order religion want us to go, the rest of us may find we must go back to candles and horse-drawn carriages.

image

Resources: ENERGY.GOV here and here, IDRIVESAFELY here. PIWINENERGY.COM here

Jun 30, 2022
Consumer Advocate Warns: Your Electric Bill Could Balloon by 50 Percent (FYI-just the start)

by Damien Fisher

Already paying some of the highest energy costs in the country, New Hampshire ratepayers will soon be paying a lot more. According to a filing with the Public Utilities Commission, Liberty Utilities is seeking approval for an increase in the default residential energy rate from 8.393 cents per kilowatt-hours to 22.223 cents per kilowatt-hours. Donald Kreis, with New Hampshire’s Office of Consumer Advocate, said the net effect of the charge will be that Granite Staters who use Liberty can expect to pay nearly 50 percent more for electricity when the new rate goes into effect in August. “That means a typical bill for a residential electric customer of Liberty Utilities will go up by nearly 47 percent from its current level,” Kreis said on Twitter.

Granite Staters already pay the seventh-highest residential electricity rates in the nation.

image
Enlarged

Liberty has about 43,000 electric customers in New Hampshire. Kreis said Eversource, New Hampshire’s main electric supplier, is expected to file for a similar rate increase before the PUC soon. “To my knowledge, these huge default service prices are unprecedented since NH broke up its vertically integrated electric utilities more than 20 years ago,” he wrote on Twitter. He said on Twitter the reason for the rate increases is the rising cost of natural gas, which electric supplies use to generate the power needed. “In New England, we rely on natural gas for the majority of our electricity. Natural gas futures prices for the coming winter have hit $30 per mmBTU. Wholesale electric suppliers have priced those natural gas increases into their bids,” he wrote.

Reached Wednesday, Kreis said New Hampshire doe not have a robust natural gas market for homeowners, the state uses a lot of natural gas to fuel power plants, like the Granite Ridge power facility in Londonderry. Unitil, one of the state’s two other electric utilities, has rates currently at around 10.3 cents per kilowatt-hour and is on a different rate schedule than the other two companies. New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, the second-largest utility in the state, expects to adjust its power supply rate later this summer.

“It’s safe to say that we’re seeing the same dynamics playing out in the New England electric wholesale market. Costs for summer supply are up dramatically from last year, driven primarily by huge increases in the price of natural gas, which is used to generate about half of the power in New England,” said NHEC Communications Administrator Seth Wheeler.

The rate increases coming from Liberty and Eversource far outpace predictions from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The winter electricity forecast saw a price rise in New England closer to 16 percent, not 47 percent. “We expect the summer increases in retail residential electricity prices will range from an increase of 2.4 percent in the West South-Central region to a 16.1 percent increase in New England,” the EIA forecast states. Kreis said utilities buy power from suppliers in six-month increments, and the rate increases reflect the increased prices they are paying for power under the new six-month contracts, which will start in August. There won’t be another chance to change the rates until next year, meaning prices will remain high until 2023.

New Hampshire’s elected officials have taken note. On Wednesday, Gov. Chris Sununu and Department of Energy Commissioner Jared Chicoine announced that, for the first time ever, the state plans to use Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding to help struggling households pay for summer electricity costs. The funding will be routed through the New Hampshire Fuel Assistance Program for pre-qualified, low-income households.

“We are allocating $7.5 million in funds to provide low-income families with assistance to help cool their homes this summer,” said Governor Chris Sununu. “As a result of unprecedented Washington spending that has unleashed record inflation, uncertainty in the energy market following President Biden’s anti-domestic energy policies, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, energy prices are skyrocketing across the country. While there is not much that states can do to rebuff federal inaction, we are doing what we can at the state level to ease the burden on low-income families.”

Details of the plan, including the exact amount of funding available per family, are still being developed. “The Department of Energy is working diligently with stakeholders to provide summer electric bill assistance to currently-eligible LIHEAP customers,” said Department of Energy Commissioner Jared Chicoine. “We are hopeful that this assistance will help provide some relief to consumers in these challenging times.” Kreis said in the short term consumers should shop around for competitive electric suppliers and lobby their municipalities to enter into power aggregation deals to lower the costs. They can also apply for the state’s energy efficiency programs. New Hampshire energy consumers are looking at a tough winter ahead, too. Home heating oil is selling for close to $6 a gallon, up from about $4.50 a gallon average this past winter, and $3 a gallon from the prior season. Relief is a long way off, as the EIA expects the 2023 winter season to see heating oil back down to under $4 a gallon.

Craig Stevens, a spokesman with the energy and business coalition, Grow America’s Infrastructure Now, said Democratic environmental and energy policies, like restricting domestic energy production, have pushed prices higher.

“The rise in electricity prices is, unfortunately, much too predictable considering the energy policies of the past two Democratic administrations promised - and have since delivered - Americans. Between Presidents Obama and Biden, they have forced the shuttering of power plants across the country, made the siting and construction of transmission lines virtually impossible, stopped pipeline expansion, and closed off domestic energy production,” Stevens said. “We need more than vapid rhetoric, empty promises, and finger-pointing; we need a comprehensive - all of the above - energy policy that recognizes our current energy needs and the growing energy needs of our increasingly electrified economy.”

With prices likely to remain high through to next year, Kreis said New Hampshire ultimately needs to diversify how it generates power in order to avoid another year like 2022.

See more on electricity prices here.

Jul 18, 2022
When Will They Figure Out That Reducing U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Is Pointless?

Manhattan Contrarian is a valuable resource that sheds light on the issues that are driven by government funding that uses “trust the science” as a tool to get support for policies that do much more harm than good and are based on flawed or even fraudulent science.

They remind us: “One of the most respected scientists and educators of modern times, physicist Richard Feynman, perhaps said it best during a speech to the National Science Educators Association in 1966. Feynman asserted that “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Beyond that, Feynman contended that the “experts who are leading you may be wrong....there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science."”

See today’s must read post Great Idea For U.S. Energy Policy: Let’s Follow The Example Of Germany! here

As readers here well know, Germany has long sought the mantle of world leader in the march to save the planet by eliminating fossil fuels from the production of energy.  This has been the strategy:  induce, via large government subsidies and tax credits, the construction of vast amounts of wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity; and as more of those come online, gradually phase out facilities that use fossil fuels, and also phase out nuclear.

Unfortunately, the Germans have been so blinded by their religious fervor to save the planet that nobody bothered to figure out how much energy storage would be needed to back up these intermittent technologies and keep the grid functioning 24/365 in the absence of fossil fuels and nuclear.  Now Germany has an excess of wind and solar facilities that, however, are incapable of providing reliable power on their own; and it has inadequate back-up other than natural gas from Russia.  Thus Germany is facing an imminent energy disaster.

-------------

Here is When will they figure out that reducing us carbon dioxide emissions is pointless:

July 17, 2022/ Francis Menton

The Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision a couple of weeks ago has brought forth a big wave of hand wringing in the precincts of the left.  How oh how are we now going to save the planet, if our friends at the EPA can no longer order up a nation-wide energy system transformation on their own authority?  A couple of examples of the genre come from Ron Brownstein in the Atlantic, and from Coral Davenport in the New York Times, both from Friday July 15.

The funny thing about these pieces, and many others like them, is that the authors seem to have completely lost track of, or failed to follow, what has happened and continues to happen in the arena of international energy consumption.  When I started to follow this area in about 2000, the U.S. and Western Europe together accounted for close to two-thirds of world energy consumption, the large majority of it from fossil fuels.  Perhaps at that time it was plausible to believe that if only the U.S. and Western Europe could be weaned off the fossil fuels, and could show how that could be done, then the rest of the world would quickly follow along.

But that was more than two decades ago.  In the intervening twenty-plus years, the U.S. and Europe have achieved some small reductions in their emissions, but the emissions from the developing world - mostly but by no means exclusively from China - have soared.  And they continue to soar.  Neither China nor any other large-population developing country has agreed to forego using coal or any other fossil fuel to achieve rapid economic growth.  Today U.S. emissions stand at about 15% of those of the world, and continuing to shrink rapidly as a percentage, even if they remain about steady in absolute terms.

In short, the effort to make significant reductions in U.S. carbon emissions is completely pointless.  Can someone tell Mr. Brownstein, Ms. Davenport, et al.?

Brownstein’s piece in the Atlantic has the title “Mother Nature Dissents,” rather presumptuously implying that “Mother Nature” disagrees with the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning.  The heart of the piece is the usual cherry-picked assortment of extreme weather events, as if every year does not have some extreme and record events somewhere.

With record heat in Texas that is testing the state’s power grid, a California wildfire that has threatened an ancient grove of sequoias considered a foundation stone of the national-park system, and persistent drought across the West that is forcing unprecedented cutbacks in water deliveries from the Colorado River, the summer of 2022 already is shaping up as another season of extreme and dangerous environmental conditions. 

Does that seem somehow persuasive to you?  If so, you might consider looking at the most recent report of the global satellite temperatures from UAH, which shows that the overall temperature anomaly for the most recent month (June) was +0.06 deg C, barely above the 1991-2020 average, and significantly down from a most recent peak of +0.7 deg C back in 2016.  If we are having unusually hot weather in Texas and California, yet the overall world temperature is just about average, then clearly it must be well below average somewhere else.  And sure enough it is.  From Roy Spencer at UAH:

The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly for June was -0.36 deg. C, which is the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years, the coolest June in 22 years, and the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.

But for Brownstein, a few weeks of hot weather in Texas and California clearly mean that the U.S. government must “do something” to change the climate.  And the something is meeting the “carbon reduction targets” of the Paris Agreement of 2016.  Moreover the blue states can’t do this on their own, so the feds must act.  After all, “scientists say” so:

[I]t’s highly unlikely that action in blue states (and cities) alone will be enough for the U.S. to meet the carbon-reduction targets that scientists say are required to avoid the most catastrophic environmental changes.

Davenport equally reports that “scientists say” that the U.S. must cut its emissions significantly by 2030, and that will somehow affect the climate:

Mr. Biden [has set a] target of cutting the nation’s emissions 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. That is the amount that scientists say the United States must reduce its emissions in order to do its part to avoid the most catastrophic near-term impacts of climate change.

Neither the Brownstein nor the Davenport piece so much as mentions what is going on with fossil fuel use and carbon emissions elsewhere in the world, or the extent to which those developments completely nullify anything the U.S. could ever possibly do to reduce emissions.  Consider, for example, recent developments in the production of coal.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration puts out an annual report on U.S. coal production, most recently in October 2021 covering the year 2020.  They report that U.S. coal production decreased by some 24.2% in 2020 over 2019, falling to 535.4 million short tons.  Much of that large reduction was undoubtedly a Covid-related blip that will not be sustained, but assume for these purposes that the U.S. can continue to make such dramatic reductions in its use of coal.  The problem is that by this time China produces and uses a multiple of the amount of coal used here in the U.S., and continues to increase its production at a rapid and accelerating rate.  From NPR, April 25:

Official plans call for boosting coal production capacity by 300 million tons this year, according to news reports. That is equal to 7% of last year’s output of 4.1 billion tons, which was an increase of 5.7% over 2020.

In other words, China’s coal production and consumption are close to 8 times the levels of the U.S., and just two years of annual increases are approximately equal to full U.S. annual production.  Here is a graph from Our World in Data showing the trajectory by which China’s coal production went from approximately equal to that of the U.S. in 2000 to some 8 times as much by 2020 (which is before the further increases noted above by NPR):

image

Note that in that chart India has also risen past the U.S. in coal production.  And with nearly 1.4 billion people - four times the population of the U.S., and just slightly less than that of China - India would well multiply its coal production by 8 over the next 20 years, just as China has done over the past 20.  It has made no commitments not to do so.

Brownstein, Davenport, and the rest of the fossil fuel suppression advocacy machine seem blissfully unaware that events have passed them by.  By this time, nothing can be done to make it such that reduction in U.S. carbon emissions can result in a meaningful difference in the overall world picture.  Fortunately, the likelihood of any catastrophic consequences to the climate is extremely remote. 

Note: Manhattan Contrarian has compiled 30 examples of the Scientific Fraud by the ‘scientists’ here

-------------

Actor/comedian Russell Brand tore into the green energy movement, calling it a scam and alleging that it is part of the Great Reset with a goal to bankrupt farmers and grab land across the globe.

Brand hosts a popular podcast where he has been exposing the Great Reset and the plight of farmers. Especially when it comes to the fertilizer shortage and predators like Bill Gates buying up farmland.

Brand discussed Dutch farmers who have been protesting over climate laws being forced on them that are bankrupting their livelihoods. That includes being unable to get the fertilizer needed to grow the crops in the first place.
“This is connected to the land grab of Bill Gates. This is connected to corruption of companies like Monsanto. This whole fertilizer situation is a scam. They present it as a green ideology,” Brand proclaimed.

-------

See Francis Menton’s latest post on “Get Ready For The 100 Year Long Climate “Emergency here.

Jul 02, 2022
Focus on Gasoline Prices - just part of the story

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Skyrocketing gasoline prices are really just the start of an energy crisis in the making for all the energy we use in our lives and homes.  We look at that in detail with special focus in the northeastern part of the country, which is subject to heat and extreme cold, which makes us especially vulnerable to rising energy costs and its availability.

GASOLINE

Gas prices have skyrocketed under Biden. In the economic Obama administration, you may recall gas prices had soared to $4 per gallon and the administration warned of $8 gas. It dropped and rose again to $4 but in the Trump administration energy independence crusade, the prices dropped by 50%.

The good old days were prior to 9/11 with February 1999 at $1.01/gallon. Family of 4 with 2 cars driving a total of 24,000 miles/year with 24 mph/gallon would have spent $1000.  In January 2020 prices had after a spike declined to just under $2/gallon and a family would have spent about $2000 on gasoline.

image
Enlarged

By June of this year, gas prices skyrocketed to $5 (now near $5).  JP Morgan warned of $6 gas, which translates to $6000.

This would result in an INCREASE of $4000 under Biden for families who must travel to work.

It should be noted in the Obama administration, they thought $8 gasoline would accelerate the move to electric vehicles. If Biden stubbornly pushes gasoline to $8. The impact would be $6000 to families who can not afford the big investment in electric vehicles. They would see AN INCREASE OF $6000.

HEATING OIL/GAS

In New England, the heating season begins early and ends late. Prices often rise some in colder winters due to demand and supply issues but now large scale supply issues are growing and we saw prices skyrocket in 2022.

In January 2021 I paid $2.55/gallon for heating oil by May 2022 rose to $5.999/gallon, a 235% increase. As of mid July, prices are still high $5.83/gallon.
The $3854 in 2021 would become $9057, AN INCREASE OF $5,200.

Natural gas prices similarly (Henry Hub) rose in 2020 an 2021.

image
Enlarged

They have skyrocketed after August 2021 and now stand at $6.81 (4.1 times the level of 2020).

image

ELECTRICITY

In recent decades, electricity prices in nations that took a aggressive green agenda increased to levels 3 to 5 times higher than the US. This chart prepared by an Australian organization using EIA data from the US showed that.

image
Enlarged

More (some long lasting) blackouts occurring as wind and solar are unreliable!! Many households are said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). Elderly and retirees on fixed income often are forced to “choose between heating and eating”

US STEPS BACKWARD INTO AN ENERGY ABYSS

Electricity is about to start rising or even jumping by at least 50% as the US pushes wind and solar. Other energy pundits expect that a doubling is likely. Remember, in Europe and Australia, who led the way on a green agenda, they pay 3 times what we paid.

The northeast states are already paying much more as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cooperative, market-based effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia to cap and reduce CO 2 emissions from the power sector. See how they rank in the top 10 with California and Michigan.

image
Enlarged

In a modest well-insulated two story home I spent $2136 in 2021. The biggest bills come in the hot summer months and around Christmas (lights). A doubling of rate would translate to AN INCREASE OF $2100

image

Current trends suggest average electricity prices will at last triple by the end of a decade, a decade that began with the US being energy independent.

THE DAMAGE - INCREASES IN ENERGY COSTS

GASOLINE - $4,000 (eventually to 6,000)
HEATING FUELS - $5,200
ELECTRICITY - $4,300

TOTAL INCREASE over $13,000
TOTAL ENERGY COSTS over $20,000

---------------------

This is not to be taken lightly.

Note Countries In Europe and in Australia, that went heavily green, brownouts and blackouts occurred not unlike what the US saw in Texas in 2021 during the cold and heavy snow and snow that froze turbines. 

Many deaths occur in cold when the lights go out. In fact research has shown, 10 to more than 20% more deaths occur in the cold than heat. An international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings were published in The Lancet.

image
Enlarged

In countries like the US, Canada and the UK, they track mortality in winter - a metric called Excess Winter Mortality.

image
Enlarged

Countries rushed to build coal plants to provide base load or import natural gas from Russia and keep the lights on. France invested in modern nuclear. Others relied on old reliable coal.

image

Enlarged

The greens objected to dirty coal. They started importing natural gas - from Russia. By the way Russian natural gas in 2017/18 saved NH from going dark in the extreme cold on late December and early January.

The Russian war has many European countries planning to use coal this upcoming winter to keep the power going in the cold. This is true even as our nation, two years ago energy independent, is moving to abandon our energy dominance for a not ready for primetime gamble on renewables. 

Will Biden say we just have to tough it out so we can reach their green dream that in countries in Europe turned into a nightmare?

UK could signal an unravelling of the master plan - see this from Buddy Menton at the Manhattan Contrarian.

See also in this video how the radical attacks include eliminating nitrogen fertilizer impacting food supply in a major way.

Jul 01, 2022
Pain is real but you ain’t seen nothing yet!..unless

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

I am very concerned that not only through soaring gas prices and across the board inflation, the intended move from fossil fuels which with modern technology had produced cheap and clean and reliable energy to unreliable renewables and to electric cars before replacement inventory and charging solutions are ready will add much more pain to most all American households if we don’t apply the brakes.

HOUSEHOLD HOMES ENERGY COSTS

image
Enlarged

First of all 90 million homes use fossil fuels for heating/hot water. Replacing this with electric heat would cost $70,000/household if full replacement of the heating/boiler the entire water piping and replacing with heat coils (we might assume 33% households would take this step).

The remainder of households (67% or 60 million households) might elect to reconfigure their setup with a heat pump to deliver hot water into an existing hydronic fluid reservoir and use their existing heat distribution infrastructure to move it into the living spaces.This would cost $10,000/household.

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Electric cars have appeal and benefits but forcing adoption ahead of the needed infrastructure would add more pain and expense.

Most households have 1 to 4 cars. Electric vehicles vary from $35,000 to over $100,000.

We might assume $130,000/household for purchasing two cars.

ELECTRIC COSTS

Charging is a challenge, Charging stations are few and far between now. The charge costs depend on time of day and time to charge, The easiest would be recharging at home at night. Homeowners would/should have your home electricity configuration upgraded to level 2 for faster charging. EV advocates suggest to expect $9 for 150 miles but the real costs at EV charging stations and with electric companies are likely to vary with the hour. Charging overnight is more convenient and can be cheaper. For home use, the one time upgrade to level 2 may cost $1000 especially if 2 cars or more are involved and must be accommodated. My car has a 16 gallon gas tank and with 25 mpg, I get 400 miles from a tank. In an EV at the $9/150miles it would cost $24. But for an EV at a prime time charge of $16/150 miles that requires 3 charges and $43. See how to do the math here.

image
Enlarged

This assumes electricity costs do not increase dramatically. We know in the green countries that were early adopter electricity prices were 3 to 5 times higher. Remember when prices for gas and all goods and services began to rise, the government suggested it was temporary and not related to policies like the attack on fossil fuels.

If we saw a 3 fold increase, the costs for electric vehicles would be much greater than promised. The early adopter countries also found the green renewable sources were not reliable with brownouts and deadly blackouts (when the sun doesn’t shine or wind blow). Their first solution was to build coal plants but that did make greens happy.  That is why Germany and other countries wanted the liquified natural gas pipeline from Russia.

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD COSTS TECHNOLOGY

$140,000 to $200,000+

TOTAL INCREASE IN ELECTRICITY COSTS

Over $10,000/year short term from demand pressures and supply issues and related inflation and more later from the WOKE policies if we don’t as a society wake up and push back.

---------

LETTER TO THE EDITOR Trail Times 31 May 2022

‘The planet is not burning and carbon capture is a scam’

This letter is in response to letters by Joslyn Sharp and Robert M. Macrae that were published in the Trail Times, May 5, 2022 ("Skeptical as the planet burns’- Sharp, and ‘Carbon capture: sustainable or scam’ Macrae).

I agree with Sharp that we must “act to save our planet as a hospitable home for our grandchildren” and that “we need to move forward with the best scientific information....”

Moreover, we must take care of the environment without destroying the modern, industrial economy that is dependent upon access to fossil fuels.

Furthermore, we must not fall victim to false prophets of doom nor be misled by politicians that want to control the populace “by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” (H.L. Mencken)

The current ‘pandemic’ of climate alarmism started in the 1970s with the fear of global cooling. This narrative soon evolved into the fear of man-made global warming and was formally launched by the UN’s ‘Framework Convention on Climate Change’ at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit.

Thirty years later and inspite of a record of failed climate predictions, global-warming alarmism perseveres but under a new label: “Climate Change”. Astonishingly, the alarmists accuse man-made carbon dioxide (aka “CO2”, “carbon emission") for causing a climate emergency.

Consequently, we have been witnessing a war on coal, oil, and natural gas ("fossil fuels"), which are the primary sources of man-made CO2.

In support of this war, Macrae reports that the cost of wind and solar power is less than half the cost of electricity from a coal-fired power plant. If this were true, then why are countries such as China and India expanding their grids with coal-fired power plants?

The war has now escalated to a direct attack on CO2. As many as 30 carbon-capture-storage facilities are now operational with many more being planned, including the development of technology to accelerate the natural sequestration of CO2 in the oceans.

Clearly, carbon capture is a scam but not for the reason cited by Macrae. It is a scam because the “best scientific information” reveals that the oceans are already absorbing an amount equal to 98 percent of our carbon emissions.

Carbon capture is not only a redundant activity, it is also an existential threat. CO2 is as important as sunlight, water, and oxygen in sustaining all life on the planet

Climate change is real and has been occurring since the beginning of time. It now appears that we may be experiencing a cooling trend, having enjoyed rising temperatures since the depths of the Little Ice Age - the Maunder Solar Minimum 1645 to 1715.

Fossil fuels are not only essential in supporting an industrial economy but are also vital for a modern society to survive a period of global cooling. The West appears to be living in a virtual world of “levelized costs” and fatally-flawed climate models; that is, a world that is completely divorced from reality.

According Dr. Patrick Moore, a net-zero carbon agenda is suicidal! “After 40 years of dire predictions, there is certainly no emergency.”

Thorpe Watson, PhD
Warfield

image
Enlarged

--------------

BBC accused of institutional alarmism as new report reveals long list of climate misinformation

London, 9 June - The BBC has been accused of institutional alarmism as a new report reveals the BBC’s persistent exaggeration and false information when it comes to climate and weather-related news.

The report, compiled by climate researcher Paul Homewood, reveals that the BBC has been forced to correct a dozen false claims and other items of fake news in climate-related coverage after receiving public complaints in recent years.

The report, which has been submitted to the Government’s upcoming Mid-Term Review of the BBC, shows that it has become common practice for BBC reporters to publicize exaggerated and often misleading weather=and climate-related stories in order to hype up the potential risks from global warming.

Net Zero director Benny Peiser said:

“Persistent misrepresentation by BBC journalists in climate news coverage is fuelling the corporation’s institutional alarmism.

“Institutional alarmism is a form of hyped and exaggerated news reporting that is deeply embedded in the BBC. It manifests itself as unbalanced, one-sided coverage of climate risks that are habitually exaggerated and that go uncorrected by the BBC’s in-house fact checkers.”

In 2020, the BBC’s director general warned that the problem posed by disinformation online was increasingly serious and that the BBC would need to work harder than ever to expose fake news and separate fact from fiction.

Since then the corporation has set up a team of fact checkers, a BBC-wide Anti-Disinformation Unit and a Climate Misinformation team. Yet none of these teams of fact checkers noticed or addressed the long list of false news stories that were only corrected by the BBC after lengthy and protracted complaint procedures.

Paul Homewood said:

“There can be little doubt that the cases documented in this report are just the tip of the iceberg. Many other such inaccurate news or false information are broadcast by the BBC without being noticed or complained about.

“It is also true that the BBC regularly try to fob off complainants with spurious replies, leading many to give in. This is even the case when their inaccurate claims are obvious, easily proven and manifest.”

Paul Homewood: Institutional Alarmism: The BBC’s disastrous climate complaints (pdf)

Contact

Paul Homewood
e: phomewooduk@yahoo.co.uk

See the 7th Supplement of our Petition for Reconsideration to the EPA of it’s Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Findings here.

See Part I and Part 2 series I co-produced on climate.

Jul 24, 2022
Climate Alarmist Claim Fact Checks

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM Link

Below are a series of fact checks of the 13 most common climate claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report. The contributors of these reviews are all recognized experts in the relevant fields. For each claim, a brief summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided along with a link to the full text and graphical support of the rebuttal and the names and the credentials of the authors of for each rebuttal.

A paper just issued here “A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events in Trends in Times of Global Warming”, Gianluca Alimonti et al., European Physical Journal Plus, 2022 reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. “None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”

Also Ralph Alexander With GWPF has issued a report Extreme Weather, the IPCC’s Changing Tune. This paper compares empirical observations of extreme weather events with their coverage in the 2021 Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The conclusions of AR6 are contrasted with observational data described in recent research papers and reports, particularly in relation to droughts, tropical cyclones, heatwaves (including marine heat waves) and cold extremes. The paper also covers major floods, tornadoes, wildfires and coral bleaching, with a short update of the discussion of disaster risk analysis in my report last year.

----------

Claim: The globe has experienced among the warmest ever month or year in the entire record back to the 1800s. This claim is recurrent - often monthly.

Fact Check: These claims are totally unsupported by any credible analysis of raw global surface temperature data and its availability.  Moreover, this Global Average Surface Temperature Data invalidation alone, invalidates the EPA 2009 GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding as well as the subsequent EPA Findings’ claimed link between rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the other Climate Alarmist claims - which are also independently invalidated below by relevant empirical data. Thus, all such climate alarmist claims are in reality just politically driven fictions. See details here. See more details here. See a Timeline of Surface Data versions here

See Bombshell report: 96% of U.S. Climate data is Corrupted:

Satellite data for the lower troposphere shows a fraction of the warming of the surface stations. The greenhouse theory say the heating should be greater in the tropical atmosphere where greenhouse gases are theorized to be trapping the heat (tropical hot spot).

image
Enlarged

John Robson from Climate Discussion Nexus shows this very well in this video.


Fact Check as of: 08/04/22
----------

Claim: Heat Waves are more frequent and extreme. Heat waves kill people and greenhouse gases are to blame.

Fact Check: Heat waves like cold waves are a normal part of our global climate. Heat Waves have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally. See details here.  See Dr. Cliff Mass’s excellent 2021 post “Flawed Heatwave Report Leads to False Headlines in Major Media Blogpost.  “Last week we witnessed a major failure in science communication regarding the Northwest heatwave. A failure that misinformed you and millions of others, and a failure that highlighted glaring weaknesses in the media’s ability to cover important scientific issues.  And it revealed the disappointing behavior of some members of the scientific community.” See full detailed analysis here. Roger Pielke Jr, tells “What the media won’t tell you about U.S. heat waves here. See this why amplified patterns, a feature of cooling climates, are behind the warm and cold extremes in 2021 and again this year here. here.  Cold not heat is the real threat. Cold kills up to 20 times or more than heat globally and has disastrous economic impacts. See details on why cold not heat is the main danger to humanity here. See more recent mortality studies that show a statistically significant excess mortality for cold over heat here.
Fact Check as of: 08/04/22
----------

Claim: Hurricanes have been increasing in number and/or extremity.

Fact Check: Even with a few very active seasons, the decade just ended was the second quietest for landfalling hurricanes and landfalling major hurricanes in the U.S since the 1850s. 2020 saw a record 30 named storms and many Gulf impacts like the the late 1800s and active periods this past century, but the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index (ACE) ranked only 13th highest in 2020. The 1860s and 1880s had the most landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes. See details here. See this June 2021 NOAA study that though 2020 was technically a record, modern technology is likely a reason including the ability to see storms over the open oceans of the central and eastern Atlantic with satellites that would not have been seen and counted in the pre-satellite era. See 2020 season similarity to late 1800s here.  See a perspective on deadly CAT4 hurricane Ida and a similarity to Camille in 1969 here. See the summary on 2018 here.
Fact Check as of: 04/8/22
----------

Claim: Tornadoes have been increasing as the world has warmed due to human influences.

Fact Check: More active months and seasons occur when unseasonable cold spring patterns are present. Warmer cycles feature fewer big tornado seasons. The number of strong tornadoes has declined dramatically over the last half century. That will reverse as we go into the next cold phase. Even with a major, deadly outbreak and long track storm in December, 2021, the year ended in the lowest 25th percentile for tornadoes. A return to more active seasons would eventually occur as the earth cools with the colder Pacific and low solar. See full story here.
Fact Check as of: 08/04/22
----------

Claim: Droughts and Floods are becoming more severe worldwide due to global warming.

Fact Check: Droughts and floods here has shown no statistically significant trends. Each year wet and dry areas are seen but their locations change, related to ocean warm and cold pools that drive atmospheric patterns that persist for months at a time. See details here.
Fact Check as of: 04/08/22
----------

Claim: Wildfires are increasing due to drought and increasing heat.

Fact Check: Wildfires diminished very rapidly in size and numbers after the very active 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management. See details here. See Australia Wildfire story here.  See this analysis that shows how public lands are ablaze but private lands are not because they are properly managed here.
Fact Check as of: 04/08/22
----------

Claim: Snow is decreasing as the earth warms, threatening the winter sports industry.

Fact Check: Snowfall has actually been increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set. This has been true not only in mountain areas but even to coastal cities and urban areas where snow had been rare decades ago. See more here.
Fact Check as of: 04/08/22
----------

Claim: Melting of the glaciers and ice caps are causing sea levels to rise at an alarming rate threatening coastal cities
Fact Check: The rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where today, it is increasing - local factors such as land subsidence are to blame. See details here. See how sea level trends are being adjusted here. to better fit the theory. See how between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations indicate the world’s coasts gained 13,565 km2 more land area than they had lost to the seas (Donchyts et al., 2016).
Fact Check as of: 03/21/22
----------

Claim: Ice in the arctic, Greenland and Antarctic is melting at an alarming rate.

Fact Check: The polar and glacial ice varies with multidecadal cycles in ocean temperatures. Current levels are comparable to or above historical low levels. Arctic ice returned to higher levels with a very cold winter in 2019/20. Ice was highest level since 2013. See details a href="https://alarmistclaimresearch.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/ac-rebuttal-arctic-antarctic-and-greenland-04-17-22-1.pdf" title="here">here. See update here on the AMO, PDO ocean cycles, the Solar cycles and Arctic temperatures. See here how the South Pole had its coldest winter on record last season (with readings averaging -78F at the South Pole Vostok station!). Records began in 1957 here.  Note the polar ice is this season (2021/22) is the 16th lowest on record with a nice rebound. NSIDC continues to hide data before 1979 which shows the changes are cyclical.

The alarmists jump on any yearly anomalies if they suit their theories. See the latest claims here. See the real story here and here. See the Alaskan winter temperature extremes that are characteristic of La Ninas with long brutal cold spells and warm spikes. The media ignore the extreme cold but focus on the warm days shown here. Also see the failures of the arctic’s demise in this post on “Is the Arctic Ice to Disappear?” in Human Progress here. See how the polar bears are thriving even in the warmer periods here.

See Tony Heller’s check on NYT’s Paul Krugman’s latest flawed article on the heat and Norway warmth.

Fact check as of: 06/16/22
----------

Claim: Climate change is endangering food supply.

Fact Check: The vitality of global vegetation in both managed and unmanaged ecosystems is better off now than it was a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, or even a mere two-to-three decades ago thanks in part to CO2. A greening of the planet has resulted and the Sahara desert has shrunk by 8%. CO2 has reduced the vitality of plant life and reduced the water need. A greening of the planet has resulted and the Sahara desert has shrunk by 8%. CO2 has reduced the vitality of plant life and reduced the water need. See the update here.  See also in Science how growing forests provide conflicting effects on the temperatures here.
Fact Check as of: 09/26/21
----------

Claim: Carbon pollution is a serious and growing health hazard.

Fact Check:  The term “carbon pollution” is a deliberate, ambiguous, disingenuous term, designed to mislead people into thinking carbon dioxide is pollution. Thanks to the use of clean burning natural gas and other measures, the amount of particulate matter and other criteria pollutants identified by the EPA have declined over 77% and are well below the standards set. The United States had in 2020 the cleanest air in the world according to NASA and the World Health Organization (WHO). See details here.
Fact Check as of: 04/22/22
----------

Claim: Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causing ocean acidification, which is catastrophically harming marine life.
.
Fact Check: Ocean acidification (really only slightly reduced alkalinity) is often found to be a non-problem, or even a benefit. Numerous scientific studies have demonstrated the robustness of multiple marine plant and animal species to ocean acidification when they are properly performed under realistic experimental conditions. See more here. See also Peter Ridd’s recent finding of a New Record High Coral Cover of the Great Barrier Reef here.
Fact Check as of: 02/03/19
----------

Claim: There is a 97% Consensus of the world’s scientists that climate change is serious and man-made.

Fact Check: The claim of a 97% scientific consensus is a contrived fiction. CO2 is not a pollutant but a beneficial gas, particulate matter is. But as shown above, small and large particulate matter is not an issue. As also shown above all the claims of dangerous effects on the climate are also shown to be exaggerated or outright falsifications. See details here.
Fact Check as of: 08/04/20
----------

Each section details claim and links to a detailed scientific analysis with supporting graphics and links. 

See how the global deaths related to all the extremes have declined dramatically the last century.

image
Enlarged

Jun 17, 2022
What the media won’t tell you about U.S. heat waves

By Roger Pielke Jr.

image
Enlarged

It’s hot. Real hot. Heat waves in the United States surely must be the most visible and impactful sign of human caused climate change, right? Well, actually no. Let’s take a look at what the U.S. National Climate Assessment and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say about heat waves in the United States. What they say may surprise you.

Before proceeding, let me emphasize that human-caused climate change is real and significant. Aggressive policies focused on both adaptation and mitigation make very good sense. So too does being accurate about current scientific understandings. The importance of climate change does not mean that we can ignore scientific integrity - actually the opposite, it makes it all the more important. So let’s take a close look at recent assessment reports and what they say about U.S. heat waves.

The figure below comes out of the most recent U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA). It shows the frequency (top) and intensity (bottom) of heat waves in the U.S. since 1900. The bottom figure is actually based on a paper that I co-authored in 1999, which serves as the basis for an official indicator of climate change used by the Environmental Protection Agency.

image
Enlarged

US heat wave frequency (top) and intensity (bottom) since 1900, from the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment. Source; USNCA 2017

There are a few things that jump out from these figures. One is that heat waves of recent decades have not reached levels seen in the 1930s, either in their frequency or intensity. The NCA observed that the IPCC (AR5) concluded that “it is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed changes in frequency and intensity of temperature extremes on the global scale since the mid-20th century.” But at the same time, the NCA also concluded,

In general, however, results for the contiguous United States are not as compelling as for global land areas, in part because detection of changes in U.S. regional temperature extremes is affected by extreme temperature in the 1930s.

The more recent IPCC AR6 concurred. The complex figure below (which I consolidated from the even more complex IPCC AR6 Figure 11.4) indicates low confidence (~20%) for the detection of trends in extreme heat and the attribution of those trends to human causes for both central and eastern North America (CNA and ENA). In western North American (WNA) detection is judged likely (>66%) but with low confidence in attribution.

image
Enlarged

Annotated version of IPCC AR6 Figure 11.6, showing confidence levels in detection and attribution for extreme heat, cold and precipitation for 3 regions in North America, West, Central and East. Source: IPCC 2021

The extreme temperatures of 1930s present a challenge for the detection and attribution of trends in heat waves in the United States. That means that consumers of climate reporting need to have their antennae up when reading about heat waves. It is true that if analysis of data begins in the 1960s, then an increase in heat waves can be shown. However, if the data analyses begins before the 1930s then there is no upwards trend, and a case can even be made for a decline. It is a fertile field for cherry pickers.

Even though U.S. heat waves have increased since the 1960s, societal vulnerability has decreased over that time. The figure below presents mortality risk in “extreme heat events” across the U.S. since the 1970s, showing an overall decline. This is good news, because it shows that the climate can become more extreme, but society has significant adaptive capacity.

image
Enlarged

Relative risk by region for total mortality on “extreme heat event” days versus non-extreme heat event days. National total is shown in the bottom right figure. Source: Sheridan et al. 2021

Make no mistake, looking to the future, the IPCC projects an increase in heat waves around the world, including in the United States. Here is what the IPCC projects for the future:

In summary, it is virtually certain that further increases in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes, and decreases in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes, will occur throughout the 21st century and around the world. It is virtually certain that the number of hot days and hot nights and the length, frequency, and/or intensity of warm spells or heatwaves compared to 1995-2014 will increase over most land areas. In most regions, changes in the magnitude of temperature extremes are proportional to global warming levels (high confidence).

How bad things get is a function of how quickly mitigation occurs. Achieving net-zero carbon dioxide is thus not about the weather this year or next, but about what happens later this century.

But regardless how fast we achieve net-zero carbon dioxide, there is good reason to believe that the societal impacts of extreme heat are manageable, and across different scenarios. For instance, according to the World Health Organization, even with increasing heat waves, mortality does not have to increase. Assuming adaptative responses (like air conditioning), the WHO concludes that future “attributable mortality is zero.” The importance of adaptation to reducing vulnerabilities to extreme heat is a robust finding across the literature.

The climate is changing, there is no doubt. In many places around the world the signal of these changes has been observed in the occurrence of heat waves. But the United States is not among those places—not yet.

But so what? If climate change is real and responding to it is important, why does it matter if we incorrectly attribute today’s weather to climate change? Maybe such incorrect attribution will be politically useful?

I can think of two reasons why it matters.

First, our assessment of risk can be skewed. If we think this week’s heat wave is a novel event juiced by climate change, rather than within the bounds of observed variability, then we are fooling ourselves. If electrical grids fail and people die this week, that will mean that we are not even prepared for the present. We need only look back to the 1930s to understand that we are also not prepared for the past, much less a more extreme future. Casual claims of detection and attribution can mislead.

Second, sustained support for action on climate will require also sustaining public and policy maker trust in science and scientific institutions. Claims that go well beyond scientific understandings place that trust at risk. A scientific consensus doesn’t exist only when it is politically useful - it also exists when it is politically unwelcomed. Accurately producing and reporting on scientific assessments surely helps to foster trust in experts and the institutions that they inhabit.

The scientific community and the journalists who report on its findings would do well to call things straight, rather than make a mockery of climate science by quickly claiming that every weather event that just happened was due to climate change.

See here even more recent mortality data that suggests cold is the real danger and killer.

Jun 15, 2022
Bad Ideas Have Bad Consequences!

E. Calvin Beisner

If you haven’t noticed rising prices here in America for the past twelve months, you’re either Rumpelstiltskin or dead. And if you didn’t expect rising prices, either you’ve not been paying attention to American monetary, fiscal, welfare, and pandemic policies or you’ve not understood basic economics.

image

So, May’s year-on-year “inflation” rate was 8.6%, following April’s 8.3%, continuing a rapid rise that started in October.

The Federal Reserve’s contribution has been a stupidly loose monetary policy for the last decade, with negative interest rates (i.e., paying people to borrow money) and “quantitative easing,” which is “Modern Monetary Policy’s” (aka Keynesianism’s) term meant to mask the fact that it is just creating “money” out of thin air, every new dollar reducing the spending power of every dollar already in the market, resulting in higher prices for goods and services.

The federal government’s contributions have been multiple. First, it is over-regulated and otherwise overly restricted in almost all sectors of the economy, restricting productivity, leading to fewer goods being chased by all those imaginary dollars, resulting in higher prices for goods and services paid for by those imaginary dollars. I said “almost all sector” because one sector it hasn’t regulated enough but has instead subsidized like crazy is “renewable energy,” basically wind and solar, which can’t generate electricity as cheaply or reliably as coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro and therefore push prices up and reliability down.

Second, the federal government has imposed, or encouraged states to impose, lockdowns on our economy in the vain, utterly unsuccessful effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19, leading to far fewer people going to work producing all the goods and services for which those imaginary dollars bid, resulting in higher prices for goods and services.

Third, the federal government gave pretty much every American taxpayer three fat checks in the vain notion that these would offset the harm done by forcing so many of them to stay home from work, leading to millions leaving the labor force and the closure of millions of small businesses, resulting in fewer goods and services to be chased by those imaginary dollars, hence rising prices.

Oh, by the way, Democrats and Republicans share the blame for all this craziness.

America’s governments- federal and state- aren’t alone in having done such stupid, destructive things. China, of course, hugely reduced its manufacturing of all the things we and other countries worldwide import from it, leading to fewer goods chased by those imaginary dollars, hence rising prices.

Honestly, anybody who didn’t foresee if not the timing at least the inevitability of serious price increases was either asleep or ignorant of basic economics. But I repeat myself.

The editors of National Review published some sober suggestions on June 13 about how the Fed and the governments should respond now. One thing’s for sure: more of the hair of the dog that bit us will only make matters worse. A 180-degree reversal (Biblically, that’s called repentance) is what’s needed.

Sad to say, politicians’ worries about the next election cycle stand in the way of that. And they do so because the public is as ignorant of basic economics as they are. The public doesn’t want to go through the painful belt-tightening necessary to end this government-caused crisis. It wants to mask the disease, not cure it.

So, what is to be done? We must generate widespread public understanding of basic economics and the determination not to vote for anybody who supports policies that are inconsistent with it.

I tried to impart such understanding with my book Prosperity and Poverty: The Compassionate Use of Resources in a World of Scarcity, an introduction to economics built on the foundation of Biblical worldview, theology, and ethics. Make no mistake about it: if our executive and legislative branches had been controlled by people who understood that and were committed to governing according to its principles, we wouldn’t be where we are today - we’d have a much more prosperous, just, peaceful, and free society than we do.

More recently, Rainer Zitelmann, in The Power of Capitalism: A Journey Through Recent History Across Five Continents, has presented not so much a theoretical as an empirical defense of the free-market, capitalist economics the betrayal of which brought us to the present crisis. Chapter after chapter compares countries that chose more capitalist policies with similar countries that chose more socialist policies and shows the indubitable preferability of the former over the latter.

The cure of America’s-and any other country’s-economic ills will not come from the top down. It will come, if it comes, from the bottom up. Time to learn the economics we didn’t learn in high school or even in college but should have.

Jun 20, 2022
Indian Coal Makes Electricity as Wind Farms Sit Idle

by Vijay Jayaraj

Amidst the clamor surrounding the intensive use of coal in China and India, one may not realize that these nations have some of the world’s largest renewable energy installations.

image

In fact, I hail from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu which is often compared to Scandinavia for its large number of wind farms. Accounting for 25 percent of the country’s wind capacity, the state has the largest share of such generating assets in a nation of 1.3 billion people.

Yet even Tamil Nadu relies heavily on coal to meet its electricity demands, with power emergencies and blackouts being the order of the day anytime there are shortages of fuel. It is much the same across the country, where 70 percent of the electricity comes from coal.

The much-touted wind farms are of little help in such emergencies. Yes, they generate electricity, but it is highly insignificant, only 4.6 billion units compared to coal’s 92 billion units. Despite wind accounting for 10 percent of total installed capacity in the country’s power sector, its total contribution to generation is less than three percent. Wind farms simply cannot produce on-demand electricity, and certainly not in the amount needed by large cities.

“Yet again, power cuts have become the norm in Tamil Nadu; there is already a huge impact on people’s lives,” said the former chief minister of the state.

Last month, Tamil Nadu’s chief minister pleaded for more coal as supply was critically low: “The Chief Minister M K Stalin wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, demanding his intervention to ensure the supply of 72,000 (million tonnes) of coal per day.”

Even a small hiccup in the supply of coal results in widespread blackouts across an entire state. This reveals that the wind capacity of the state is an exaggerated asset that cannot deliver when power is needed. The wind farms work well only during optimum wind months, which means they are useless for more than half of the year.

The officials in charge of delivering power to people are aware of this pathetic situation and, hence, continue to invest in fossil fuel energy sources, especially coal.

The state recently approved the construction of an additional 2,640 megawatts of capacity at a 1,600-megawatt coal-fired plant despite opposition from various quarters. A total of 607 hectares were acquired for the installation of stages 2 and 3 at the Super Critical Thermal Power Project at Udangudi. The plant will look to import 30 percent of its coal from Indonesia, South Africa, Australia, and China.

Further, the federal government of India has now decided “to tackle the power crisis by invoking Section 11 of the Electricity Act, mandating all imported coal-based projects to generate power at full capacity.”

Instead of curtailing coal plants, as climate doomsayers demand, India is increasing its coal dependency. With a forecast of severe shortage in the coming months, the federal government is stepping in to import more coal and avoid more blackouts. “Coal India would import coal for blending on a government-to-government basis and supply ... to thermal power plants of state generators and independent power producers,” the federal Power Ministry said in a May 28 letter.

The federal government has asked coastal plants to import as much coal as possible and promised to provide loans to do so. Electricity demand from coal plants is so high that the state of Tamil Nadu and a few others have allowed plants to increase prices.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a Master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.

First published here at Human Events on June 6, 2022.

Apr 12, 2021
Lessons In Woke “Science”: Covid-19 And Climate

Francis Menton

Over time, I have had many posts on the scientific method, most recently in January 2021 here.  You posit a falsifiable hypothesis.  Then you collect and examine the evidence.  If the evidence contradicts your hypothesis you must abandon it and move on.  Really, that’s the whole thing. 

Then there is woke “science,” most visible these days in the arenas of response to the Covid-19 virus and of climate change.  Here the principles are a little different.  In woke “science” there is no falsifiable hypothesis.  In place of that, we have the official orthodox consensus view. The official orthodox consensus view has been arrived at by all the smartest people, because it just seems like it must be right.  The official orthodox consensus view must not be contradicted, particularly by the little people like you.  Based on the official orthodox consensus view, those in power can take away all your freedom (Covid) and/or transform the entire economy (climate).  After all, it’s the “science.”

But what if evidence seems to contradict the official orthodox consensus view? I’m sorry, but as I said the official orthodox consensus view must not be contradicted.  Today’s news brings a couple of extreme examples of that, one on the virus front, and the other relating to climate.  Both of these are from Europe, so you may not have seen them.

On the virus front, we consider the case of Germany.  For some reason, Germany has been relatively lightly hit by the virus, at least so far.  According to the latest from Worldometers, Germany has had 940 deaths per million population to date.  This compares, for example to 2,593 deaths per million in Czechia (worst of all countries), 1,864 in the UK, and 1,732 in the U.S.  But starting in about mid-March, Germany has seen a renewed “surge” of cases.  Why?  Some might say that the virus is just going to get you sooner or later.  But on March 23 German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a new three-week “lockdown” of the strictest variety, which included the forced closing of most stores from April 1 to 5.  And with that three-week period about to expire, the website No Tricks Zone (German speakers) reports today that even further extensions are under consideration:

The German government is looking to impose even stricter lockdown measures.  Liberty has been suspended indefinitely in Europe. 

The problem here is that if the proposition that lockdowns work were a falsifiable hypothesis, it would have been falsified by now.  The most striking data come from here in the U.S., where strict lockdown states like New York (2642 deaths per million as of today), New Jersey (2800), Illinois (1878) and Michigan (1759) continue to get shown up by wide open places like Florida (1584) and Texas (1705).  Try to find any actual data for the efficacy of lockdowns, and you can’t.  That is, except for their efficacy in generating an unemployment rate of 13% in New York City versus 4.8% in Florida.

But Germany, like the blue U.S. states, operates by the alternative principles of woke “science.” After all, data or no data, all the smartest people know that lockdowns must work.  No Tricks Zone reports today on a news conference that took place on Friday (April 9) in Germany.  An independent journalist named Boris Reitschuster got a chance to pose a question to Oliver Ewald, a spokesman for the German Ministry of Health.  Here is the question (translation from NTZ):

Herr Ewald, [a journalist] at the WZ wrote in a report that the German government has no proof of the effectiveness of lockdowns. So my question is: what scientific studies do you have? Thank you.”

And here is the initial response, plus some further back and forth:

Ewald:  Herr Reitschuster, you know that as a fundamental rule, we do not assess comments from journalists, and so here I will stick to that.”

Reitschuster: There’s a misunderstanding, Herr Ewald, I only brought up a quote and then followed it up with a stand-alone question, and this question has nothing to do with the quote. I’ll gladly repeat the question once again; what scientific study...”

Ewald:  When you read one sentence from this comment here and request an assessment without, so to speak, providing further context or basis, I can’t say anything on that.”

Reitschuster:  Completely without the sentence, for the third time, what scientific study does the German government have? Thank you.”

Ewald:  I’ve said what I have to say say on that!”

NTZ comments: “We all know there is no study that supports lockdowns, and so spokesman Ewald is clearly trapped.” However, you should expect the lockdown to continue in Germany.

Over to the subject of climate change.  As you may have read, last week brought record-breaking cold to much of Europe which, given that we are well into April, caused substantial damage to crops in their early stages of Spring growth.  Actually, it’s likely that you didn’t read about that at all.  That’s because the U.S. mainstream media mostly only report on record warmth, not record cold.  As an example, I can’t find any mention of the subject of Europe’s cold snap in the New York Times (although I do find an article in the Washington Post).

But, particularly given the extensive crop damage, let alone the readership personally experiencing the bitter cold temperatures, the European press can’t avoid reporting on the subject.  Doesn’t this extreme cold kind of undermine the official orthodox consensus view that the climate is rapidly getting warmer?

Here is the story from France’s Le Figaro, April 9 (my translation):

A bout of severe frost struck numerous crops this week in France.  Temperatures plummeted, in some places, below 0 degrees C (32 F) at a speed never seen since 1947 for the month of April.

Quick, somebody needs to explain how that is consistent with “global warming.” Le Figaro calls in one Thierry Castel, identified as a “climatology researcher.” Here’s his explanation:

This is well linked [to global warming].  The differences in temperatures between the polar zones and the mid-latitudes are decreasing.  That process modulates the undulations of the jet stream (the fast winds over the North Atlantic that play a big role in atmospheric circulation).  Because of that, we are faced with the descent of cold Arctic air, and the more important northward movement of warm air. 

Sure, Thierry.  Meanwhile, the UAH guys report another substantial drop in world atmospheric temperature in March 2021.  The global temperature anomaly for the month is -0.01 deg C (as against the 30 year average of 1991-2020).  That brings us back down to about the same temperature we had back in 1988.  Needless to say, Le Figaro was way too polite to confront M. Castel with this information.

Here is the latest UAH chart of global temperatures, going back to 1979:

image

Aug 18, 2020
Green California Has the Nation’s Worst Power Grid

By Steve Goreham

image

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in Washington Examiner.

More than a million Californians suffered power blackouts last Friday evening. When high temperatures caused customer demand to exceed the power available, California electrical utilities used rotating outages to force a reduction in demand. The California grid is the worst in the nation, with green energy policies pursued by the state likely furthering reduced grid reliability. 

At 6:30 pm on Friday, Pacific Gas and Electric, California’s biggest utility, began shutting off power in rolling outages to force a reduction in demand. Southern California Edison also denied power to homes, beginning just before 7 pm. Shutoffs impacted a rotating group of up to two million customers until 11 pm.

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) declared a Stage 3 Electrical Emergency, the first Stage 3 emergency since 2001. Spot power electricity prices soared to over $1,000 per megawatt-hour, more than 10 times the usual price.

In 2018, 19 percent of California’s electricity came from roof-top and utility-scale solar installations, the highest percentage in the nation. But by 6:30 pm each day, that solar output approaches zero. The state lacks enough reliable electricity generation capacity to run the air conditioners during hot summer evenings.

California has the least reliable electrical power system in the US. It isn’t even close. According to data by Eaton Corporation, the state leads the US in power outages every year, with more than double the outages of any other state over the last decade.

image

The causes of power outages can be divided into four major groups, which in order of importance are weather or downed trees, faulty equipment or human errors, unknowns, and vehicle accidents. California suffered the largest number of outages in each category in each year for 2014 through 2017.

For more than a decade, California has been closing coal and nuclear power plants. Recently, the state also began closing natural gas-fired plants as part of a continuing effort to fight global warming.

In 2006, Senate Bill 1368 established California’s Emissions Performance Standard, an effort to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Since 2007, 11 in-state, coal-fired plants have been closed as a result, with an additional 3 converted to biomass fuel. California also slashed imports of electricity generated from coal plants. The Argus Cogen plant in Trona is the last remaining coal plant.

California nuclear plants, though not emitters of greenhouse gases, are also being phased out. The second and third units of the San Onofre nuclear generating plant near Los Angeles ceased operation in 2013. The Diablo Canyon plant, the last nuclear plant in California, is scheduled for closure in 2025.

Driven by state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, gas-fired plants are also being shuttered. Natural gas generating capacity has fallen by more than 10 percent since 2013, with additional reductions planned.

Following the blackouts last Friday night, blackouts resumed at 6:30 pm on Saturday. Power officials blamed the loss of 1,000 megawatts of wind power when the wind subsided and the unexpected shutdown of a 470-megawatt power plant. It’s clear that the state does not have enough reliable baseload power as backup for intermittent wind and solar energy.

The problem of California’s poor electric reliability will likely get worse. On September 10, 2018, then Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, committing California to obtain 100 percent of its electricity from “clean energy sources” by 2045. Replacement of coal, nuclear, and natural gas generators with wind and solar will continue erode grid reliability.

As part of global warming efforts, officials want all citizens to switch their natural gas stoves and furnaces to electric models. More than 30 California cities have enacted bans on gas appliances, including the major cities of San Francisco and San Jose. Almost 10 percent of the state population now lives in an area covered by restrictions against gas appliances in new residential construction.

California also wants residents to transition from gasoline- and diesel-powered cars and trucks to plug-in electric models. So, when those blackouts occur in the future, not only will your lights and air conditioners fail, but you won’t be able to cook your food or drive your car either.

California sacrificed reliable electrical power on the altar of the fight against global warming. There is no evidence that state efforts will have the slightest effect on global temperatures, but they will be great for candle and flashlight sales.

Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.

Apr 22, 2022
Climate alarmism posing as science education for children

By David Wojick

The beginning: “The new and so-called Next Generation Science Standards are now law for about a third of American children. They say what will be taught in each grade from first grade through high school. At least 20 states have adopted them. See

Traditional standards still govern in the other States. These generally mandate that climate science will be taught in high school Earth Science courses. Earth Science is an optional course, not a requirement, and even then climate is a minor topic.

In stark contrast the Next Gen standards are alarmist to the core. They mandate that climate be taught in middle school science, which everyone takes. The topic is emphasized, with alarmism a central feature. This means lots of climate modeling, even though these students have had relatively little prior science. They cannot possibly evaluate the models they are forced to use.

Implementing Next Gen requires developing lesson plans that say what will be taught in each one hour class, often including how it will be taught. Writing these lesson plans for every topic, in every grade, is a huge ongoing effort.

Next Gen has just approved a big climate science unit and it is very bad. It starts with newspaper accounts of floods and droughts, blames them on our CO2 and methane emissions, then ends with community action. And this is for 7th graders, who are typically around 13 years old and know very little hard science. This is pure alarmism presented to children as science. It is purely shameful.

The developer is OpenSciEd, where open means their products are free for schools to use. Who pays is an interesting question. The title is “OpenSciEd Unit 7.6: How Do Changes in Earth’s System Impact Our Communities and What Can We Do About It?” Get it? Changes cause impact requiring community action. The standard alarmist formula, action not science.

You can find the junk here.

They even have a neat trick in their advertising. They claim the students “figure out” all this alarmism, saying this: “This unit on Earth’s resources and human impact begins with students observing news stories and headlines of drought and flood events across the United States. Students figure out that these drought and flood events are not normal and that both kinds of events seem to be related to rising temperatures.”

Also:

“Students figure out that the rising temperatures are caused by an imbalance in Earth’s carbon system, resulting in a variety of problems in different communities. The unit ends with students evaluating different kinds of solutions to these problems and how they are implemented in communities.”

A lot of student figuring, right? They must think a lot. Wrong! This is pure indoctrination!

There is more in the article including a revealing lesson list. Please share it.

We need a campaign to block the adoption of these horrific lessons

Note that I have a Climate Change Debate Education site with lots of skeptical materials, including links to about 350 videos by leading skeptics.

I also have a fundraiser for this education effort here.

We have been relatively inactive but are now gearing up to fight this indoctrination. Donations are most welcome. You can donate anonymously.

David

Apr 08, 2022
The dread 1.5 degree target is dead

By David Wojick |April 8th, 2022

A foolish end to a foolish target - limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C. That is the warming from 150 years ago, just 0.5 degrees or less from today forward. Of course this is all according to the worthless computer models, but let’s go with the flow.

The massive new IPCC report makes it clear. You can’t get there from here (not that we wanted to). Not by any even reasonably possible means, so the target will be missed (according to the models). What will the alarmists do without their beloved target?

It is all about something called the “carbon budget”. Unlike the climate, and the climate models for that matter, the carbon budget is very simple. It is how much CO2 the human race is allowed to emit in order to stay below the target warming.

Not how much this year, or this decade, or even this century. This is the limit forever. So enjoy it while you can because time is very short, or so says the IPCC report. In fact time is up, over and past.

First, here is the budget: The IPCC says “...the current central estimate of the remaining carbon budget from 2020 onwards for limiting warming to 1.5C with a probability of 50% has been assessed as 500 Gt CO2...”

500 Gigatons is a suspiciously round number but never mind. Just how big is it? The IPCC explains it nicely: “....cumulative net CO2 emissions between 2010-2019 compare to about four fifths of the size of the remaining carbon budget from 2020 onwards for a 50% probability of limiting global warming to 1.5C...”

So our forever budget, starting in 2020, is just a bit bigger than our emissions in the last decade! That is it, for all eternity. Note that even then we are just buying a 50% chance of staying under the dread 1.5 degree target. Not a good way to bet the global economy.

But our emissions are not going down, in fact they are still going up. Nor can they possibly come down enough to make any difference. We do not have time to open all the mines and build all the factories (after getting all the permits!) then make, install and operate all the stuff we would need to meet that budget (after getting all the permits). In fact building all this stuff might well double our emissions for the next ten years. Oh wait, we have less than 8 years.

The conclusion is obvious. We are going to burn the carbon budget and keep on emitting many hundreds of gigatons of CO2 after that. There is no feasible way not to.

So how are the alarmists going to handle this failure? They have foolishly hyped their way into a corner.

The standard way the 1.5 degree target is explained in the green media is “to avoid the worst effects of climate change” but that has always been nonsense. The worst effects would occur at 6 degrees or more, not as we pass 1.5 degrees.

There is nothing in the science about a 1.5 degree threshold. No tipping point, no catastrophe, no emergency. Nothing at all, so it is a made up number. The models get a little bit worse with every temperature increase, but just a tiny bit and passing 1.5 degrees is no different than passing any other level. When it comes to being the threshold to catastrophe, there is no there there.

In this very real sense the reported 1.5 degree threshold to catastrophe is a hoax. Except the people pushing it do not know that, so it is more of a colossal blunder. Except the IPCC does know it and has never corrected the activists and governments that are calling the meeting of this harmless target an emergency. This makes it a hoax by omission.

I have no idea what the alarmists will do as they finally admit that the 1.5 degree target cannot be met. But it should be fun to watch.

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see here For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see here Available for confidential research and consulting.

Sep 26, 2021
Higher CO2 levels responsible for ‘greening’ Earth

Claim: 23 Million Year Old Fossilized Leaves Offer Proof of CO2 to Greening the Planet link
Anthony Watts

From the we told you so department.

image
Composite image showing the global distribution of photosynthesis, including both oceanic phytoplankton and terrestrial vegetation. Dark red and blue-green indicate regions of high photosynthetic activity in the ocean and on land, respectively. Image: NASA SEAWIFS

The links between rising carbon dioxide levels, and greening trends have been supposedly confirmed by fossilized leaves from a 23 million-year-old forest.

Researchers previously postulated that ancient increases in atmospheric CO2 during the early Miocene allowed plants to perform photosynthesis more efficiently. But the latest research, published last Thursday in the journal Climate of the Past, is said to confirm the link between CO2 and greening in the fossil record.

This is something NASA satellites have already observed in the modern-day era. Recent satellite surveys suggest rising CO2 levels are responsible for greening patterns across the planet, including Arctic and drylands ecosystems.

The latest research suggests that greening trends are likely to continue as CO2 levels approach those recorded during ancient period of warming.

According to the new study, increases in photosynthesis rates won’t be able to keep up with current rates of human-caused carbon emissions. In addition, previous studies suggest increases in rates of photosynthesis can prevent staple crops from absorbing calcium, iron, zinc and other minerals important for human health.

By comparing the fossilized leaf structures, including microscopic veins, stomata and pores, to those of modern leaves, researchers designed a model to more accurately predict CO2 levels.

“It all fits together, it all makes sense,” said study co-author William D’Andrea, a paleoclimate scientist at Lamont-Doherty. “This should give us more confidence about how temperatures will change with CO2 levels.”

Well, it may :"all fit together’ but the plants sure seem happy as of late.

------------
NASA: Higher CO2 levels responsible for ‘greening’ Earth
By Brooks Hays

image
A map of the world visualizes the change in leaf area, or greening, over the past 30 years. Photo by Boston University/R. Myneni
Enlarge Photo

WASHINGTON, April 26 (UPI)—New research confirms rising CO2 levels are driving the “greening” Earth effect observed by satellites.

Greening is evidence of accelerated plant growth and heightened rates of photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is a main source of fuel for plants—and thus, all life on Earth—and previous studies show a rise in CO2 results in plant growth.

But other sources of nutrients and external factors can accelerate photosynthesis and greening, including changes in nitrogen levels, land usage, temperature and weather.

An international team of researchers isolated each of these factors and ran them through a series of computer models. The results suggest rising CO2 levels best explain the increase in leaf cover, or greening, measured by NASA and NOAA satellites.

Apr 06, 2016
“…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.

Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

We start with Mencken’s quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.

The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

See the quotes here.

---------

Australia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order

Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.

The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.

Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.

“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.

Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.

Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.

At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.

At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.

Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”

Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

-----------

An orchestrated movement:

Puppet masters (Government agencies, NGOs, billionaires and politicians), many who believed the world has too many people that consume too much of the world’s resources decided to move us towards one world government to control both.

They use the UN as the organization that would unify the word around their agenda using the lure of money (redistribution of wealth). They take control of the science through funding.

They take control of the universities and research labs again through funding efforts that supported their agenda, purging or silencing the faculty not tenured and making life miserable for those that were tenured who did not go along, firing lab employees who resisted. Take control of the curriculum from K-8 to college on science and social issues.

Take control of the professional societies - easy to do since most were academics riding the grant gravy train - have many work on statements endorsing their theory as fact never voted on by their members.

Take control of the major journals used by scientists, removing editors who allowed papers that challenged the tenets of the theory, ensuring at least one reviewer would be assigned to every submitted challenging paper who would reject it.

Take control of the media (easy since 95% are sympathetic to the ‘cause’wink. The Society of Environmental Journalists actually published a handbook on how to deal with doubters and slant their coverage. The NJOS, WH, Media Matters provide talking points to the media after official reports are issued.

They demonize skeptics - using words like climate change deniers, claim they were funded by big oil (when big oil was funding their side - BP $500M to UC Berkeley, Exxon $100M to Stanford and all told well over 1 Trillion..  They claim we don’t publish in the major journals they control, though many thousands have published real science in journals that they do not control.

Sep 23, 2015
In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

Derek Alker

Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.

From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:malcolmr@conscious.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
To: UQ VC OFFICE
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Dear Professor Hoj:

As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material?  Course

Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.

It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.

Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.

Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.

A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link

My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.

John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.

image

Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.

As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.

I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.

This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.

Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.

Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfill your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

------------

The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

image

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science

In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.

See faulty methodology of Cook study.

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.

----------------------

See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”

----------

See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.

-----------

From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge

--------

Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.

NOTE:

See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.

Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

----------------------

See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.

-----------------------

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.

The left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.

---------------

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

See still more annotated here.

--------------

Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

---------------

Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.

Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)