by Judith Curry
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is inextricably linked to the global energy crisis, which is inextricably linked to the so-called climate ‘crisis’.
Climate change is commonly referred to as an “emergency”, a “crisis”, and an “existential threat.” The horrific unfolding of the Russian invasion of Ukraine should remind the climate alarmists of what an actual emergency, crisis and existential threat actually looks like:
- Humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, with major loss of life. Sustenance is at risk
- Devastation of built infrastructure, contributing also to an environmental crisis
- Existential threat for Ukrainian people and culture
- Global political and financial crises of dimensions that are as yet unknown
Nevertheless, the climate alarmists are worried primarily about the implications of Ukraine war on the climate and actions to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
“John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate, obviously. You have a war, and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus.” [link]
Perhaps John Kerry need not worry. On Feb 28, in the midst of the Ukraine crisis, UN Secretary General General Antonio Guterres said, in response to the release of the IPCC AR6 WGII Report: “Delay is Death”. This is much stronger than anything Guterres has said about the real crisis in Ukraine.
How climate change-based energy policy enabled the war on Ukraine
Among the cognoscenti pondering the historical context and complex rationales for Russia’s war on Ukraine, there is also a contributing factor that should be considered: global climate change-based energy policy.
Michael Schellenberger has written a hard-hitting article entitled How the West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin. Excerpts:
<begin quote>
How is it possible that European countries, Germany especially, allowed themselves to become so dependent on an authoritarian country over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War?
Here’s how: These countries are in the grips of a delusional ideology that makes them incapable of understanding the hard realities of energy production. Green ideology insists we don’t need nuclear and that we don’t need fracking. It insists that it’s just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need “degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.”
While Putin expanded Russia’s oil production, expanded natural gas production, and then doubled nuclear energy production to allow more exports of its precious gas, Europe, led by Germany, shut down its nuclear power plants, closed gas fields, and refused to develop more through advanced methods like fracking.
The numbers tell the story best. In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent. By 2020, it was nearly 44 percent, and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent.
For all his fawning over Putin, Donald Trump, back in 2018, defied diplomatic protocol to call out Germany publicly for its dependence on Moscow. “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said.
The result has been the worst global energy crisis since 1973, driving prices for electricity and gasoline higher around the world. It is a crisis, fundamentally, of inadequate supply. But the scarcity is entirely manufactured.
<end quote>
From Forbes:
“Energy security, which has too often been overlooked as a priority for policymakers in Europe and the United States, requires new prioritization and a rethink. Europe’s excessive reliance on Russian natural gas and America’s excessive reliance on stable oil markets have both limited the West’s options in this crisis to the detriment of our collective security.”
From the WSJ:
“Europe offers another reminder to the U.S. that blocking fossil-fuel development here won’t keep carbon “in the ground.” It merely hands a strategic weapon to dictators that they will turn around and use against us.”
IPCC AR6 WGII Report
With regards to green ideology, the IPCC AR6 WGII report (impacts, adaptation, vulnerability) was released earlier this week.
The IPCC’s press release on the new report was headlined “Climate change: a threat to human wellbeing and health of the planet”. Its stark opening detailed “dangerous and widespread disruption”. The closing statement of the WGII report is any further delay in global action to slow climate change and adapt to its impacts “will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all”.
Well, all this hyperbole is meant to camouflage the fact that the weakest part of the UNFCCC/IPCC argument is that human-caused warming is ‘dangerous’. These statements are made despite the fact that the Summary for Policy Makers states, with high confidence, that disasters and violent conflicts are not significantly influenced by human-caused climate change.
Further, the AR6 WGII report relies heavily on the implausible SSP5-8.5 emissions scenarios, which implausibly hypes the impacts of warming.
And even the emphasis on SSP5-8.5 scenario fails to acknowledge that even with SSP5-8.5, “we’re generally in the climate change field not talking about futures that are worse than today” – A quote from Brian O’Neill, a lead creator of the SSP scenarios for the IPCC. [link]
The WGII report convolves natural weather and climate variability, land use, and various types of vulnerabilities with human-caused climate change, which is a relatively minor player in the world’s complex problems that are related to human interactions with the environment.
Roger Pielke Jr has published a critique [link]; excerpts:
<begin quote>
“Regrettably, the IPCC WG2 has strayed far from its purpose to assess and evaluate the scientific literature, and has positioned itself much more as a cheerleader for emissions reductions and produced a report that supports such advocacy. The IPCC exhorts: “impacts will continue to increase if drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are further delayed – affecting the lives of today’s children tomorrow and those of their children much more than ours … Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a livable future.”
This new emphasis on mitigation colors the entire report, which in places reads as if adaptation is secondary to mitigation or even impossible. Of course, adaptation has long been viewed as problematic in climate policy and politics. Rather than supporting an apocalyptic view of ever-worsening impacts as a simple function of temperature increases, adaptation opportunities allow for positive human outcomes even as the climate changes. The WG2 misrepresentation of the literature of flooding is repeated throughout the report for other phenomena. Adaptation is often ignored or minimized in favor of presenting impacts as worsening a function of ever-increasing temperatures. In reality, adaptation has great potential to result in positive human futures at a wide range of levels of future emissions and temperature changes. Mitigation and adaptation are both important and the IPCC WG2 did itself and us a huge disservice by adding mitigation to its focus.”
<end quote>
Energy policy ≠ climate policy
The prevailing thinking that energy policy should be dictated by the UNFCCC imperative to eliminate carbon emissions ignores the dominant importance of energy security, reliability and cost.
Tom Pyle sums it up with this statement [link]:
“The west is seeing the results of years of getting energy policy advice from Swedish teenagers, former bar tenders and washed up socialists. We need grown ups running energy policy.”
With regards to energy policy in the face of the Ukraine war, UNFCCC agreements, and general pragmatism, there are 3 time scales to consider:
- tactical – time scales of a few months. Reducing the demand for natural gas and influencing the price of oil/gas and hamper Russia’s economic situation
- strategic – time scale of 1-3 years, with policies that can ensure stable gas/oil/coal supplies at a reasonable price to Europe during their winter season
- long-term – a slower transition away from fossil fuels (especially those produced by hostile countries) that ensures energy security and reliability and low costs through the transition period.
On the tactical time scale, we have: releasing petroleum reserve into the global market, restarting any available nuclear power plants, burning coal.
On the strategic time scale – ramp up oil and natural gas output from North America. Fill up the Alaskan pipeline. In 2021, after finally achieving energy independence under President Trump, the U.S. immediately gave that up as the Biden Administration brought fresh rounds of fossil fuel suppression. Prepare additional terminals to ship and receive LNG. Start the process of building more nuclear power plants. Install heat pumps, which eliminates the reliance on natural gas for heating. Rosenow explained on Twitter how replacing gas boilers with heat pumps would cut gas demand, even if the electricity driving them was generated using gas. Liberate all forms of energy.
On the long term time scale – drop the emissions targets and time scales. Conduct serious planning for 21st century electricity and transportation energy sources and infrastructure, planning for much more energy than we are currently using. Focus on energy security, with autonomous in-country sourcing where possible, then near-sourcing and then other ally-sourcing (avoid buying energy from political enemies or otherwise unstable regimes). Evaluate energy sources and infrastructures for cost, reliability, emissions, and other environmental impacts. Keep current energy systems running until their end of life, or when replacement systems are fully operational. Evaluate transition risks, including the geopolitical ones.
Germany is re-evaluating the closure of its nuclear power plants, and is considering burning coal in the near term.
The Ukraine War has disrupted energy business as usual. Apart from working towards more autonomy for Europe, hopefully this event will provide political momentum that motivates an energy transition that puts energy security first. The reality is that Europe will depend on gas as a transition fuel until sufficient flexible, low-carbon energy can be deployed.
With inflation so high, interest rates so low, governments freezing accounts, why would anybody have money in banks beyond what’s needed month to month? Invest it in energy stocks!
If we were properly focused on energy security, greenhouse gas emissions would be a moot point. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNUCLEARDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy
The Northern Hemisphere climate was much more extreme in previous centuries. The past 150 years have been unusually kind. We are not prepared for reversion to the mean. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNuclearDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy
When one puts TES in perspective, things become very clear with respect to renewable contributions to the equation. Reality is exactly what it is.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-browser/?country=WORLD&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=TESbySource
Releasing oil from the US strategic reserve is yet another boneheaded move by Biden. That oil is for an Emergency, not to adjust prices. If it keeps getting tapped for short term political points it won’t be there when we need it. Just imagine if we had a limited war with China and they destroyed several of our refineries. THAT would be an emergency when the reserve should be tapped, and then only very slowly. Biden is eating our seed corn.
The strategic reserve can be refilled
But what happens if it is empty in a REAL emergency?
The strategic reserve can be refilled if, and only if, the present administration is voted out of office.
If they try to refill the reserve now, it will only be by cutting others off from what they need now.
Putin could have done this sooner, but he knew that by waiting, the Biden Administration would destroy our capability to effectively counter anything he wanted to do.
Putin could have waited until Germany shut down their other three Nuclear Power Plants, but Germany already gets about half of its energy from Russia, that is already more than enough. If they have not burned their bridges, they can bring the Nuclear plants back online, or bring back Coal, or whatever.
“The strategic reserve can be refilled”
Of course, but will it be refilled? And will the emergency occur before we can refill it?
If it is filled it contains 727 million barrels, which can supply the US 35-75 days depending on how you handle it. On Feb 18 it held 582 million barrels. Biden released 50 million in October and now another 30 million. That’s 5% of the reserve released this week.
People would likely reduce their driving in a real emergency, so maybe 100-150 days of supply. At what point would people revert to violence to fill their gas tanks?
Yes, but not during emergencies. Traditionally the DOE purchases oil for storage during non emergency times when oil prices are low.
That is unlikely if Biden, or his successor, continues to suppress national production. At best, it would have to be refilled with much more expensive oil, which will probably lead to more inflation or tax increases. Either will reduce the disposable income of consumers.
Biden’s release of sour oil from the national reserve didn’t seem to be very effective. With that as a precedent, what would lead you to believe that subsequent releases would be any different? Part of the problem is perception. If investors and consumers think that what is done is a temporary fix, there will continue to be price pressures, particularly in the futures market. People have to be convinced that a long-term solution has been implemented.
The IPCC is run by Putin
Climate Etc perfectly encapsulated in just six words.
Exemplar of an irrational statement.
I suppose you think the UN is also run by Putin? After tracking the IPCC for 30 years I see no evidence of undo Russian influence.
“No evidence” other than the above post pointing out that Germany’s “green” obsession – closing nukes and building solar panels in the woods – made it dependent on Russian natural gas.
“No evidence” other than the documented funding of “green” groups by Russia.
“No evidence” other than the closure of pipelines in the US is contributing to our doubling of crude oil purchases from Russia.
“No evidence” other than that pall of smoke rising over eastern Europe right now.
There is more evidence for C D Daniel’s statement than evidence of climate impacts.
Noe of that is evidence. The IPCC was formed on 1988 and has never changed.
Good thing Germany is run by a bunch of sophmoric hotheads.
Looks like the Morgenthau plan is going to be self inflicted.
Thank goodness Russia finally took a stand against the psychopaths who run the western world. Eight years of massacre in the donbass and enboldening the western facist proxy army is finally over and the West is going to now learn their extent of their own hubris and delusion.
Every year that Russia continued to let NATO pile on its borders meant the final reckoning would be that much more dangerous.
Nickels
This would be the Donbass that was part of the Ukraine that Putin invaded in 2014 at the same time as he annexed Crimea?
Which of course was 6 years after dismembering part of Georgia?
If Alaska was taken over by Russia would you expect the United States to wage war against the occupiers in order to try to retrieve the territory? Why would sovereign Ukraine do any different? Or were they supposed to just walk away?
I have seen the extreme conspiracy web site from which you derive your information and clearly you need to broaden your reading and read up about the History Of Ukraine.
I predict Putin will be dead within the next 18 months. Depending on how it occurs could be good news for Russia.
You must be one of the people that cheered the collectivization of farms in the Ukraine that starved what? 5 million people to death?
And people wonder why Ukrainians hate Russians . . .
Germany is toast:
Nickels
As this is your third anti west post here I must assume the TV ink you know that the link you provided is to a Chinese owned company well known for its propaganda and support of the Chinese Communist party.
Nickels, you are now repeating Fascist propaganda of Kremlin. Russian army has just killed 78 Ukrainian kids in 14 days of their unprovoked war against Ukraine.
Pingback: The relationship between Ukraine's climate | Climate, etc - News7g
Thanks, Dr. Curry
Schellenberger and Pyle get it right.
Especially Pyle with this “….. We need grown ups running energy policy.”
I would expand that to have adults running everything.
Adults have an obligation to use that wisdom gained from decades of life experiences to guide public policy. Genuflecting to adolescents doesn’t cut it.
Adults also must take climate change into consideration. The real leaders know the age of fossil fuels has to end. We can’t tolerate continual 0.20-0.25 C/decade of warming.
We cannot tolerate climate religion zealots hysterically crying the-sky-is-falling.
David, only climate alarmist models project problems with future climate.
Millions of years of actual climate data shows there have ALWAYS BEEN ALTERNATING WARM AND COLD PERIODS, WE JUST CAME OUT OF THE LITTLE ICE AGE, IT IS NATURALLY WARM NOW, THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS SIMPLE NATURAL DATA AND SCARED EVERYONE SO THEY COULD TAX AND CONTROL US. They cannot control free people. Abundant, low cost, reliable energy that is generated with fossil fuel and Nuclear fuel, has made many people well to do and more independent. That is a major threat to their plan to control the whole world with a world government where only the elite world leaders and those who support them would be extremely rich and everyone else would be afraid of where their next meal would come from if not from the rich in power.
Appell,
“We can’t tolerate continual 0.20-0.25 C/decade of warming.”
Talk about inflation! Monckton has demonstrated that there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming for over 7 years. The long-term warming rate is more like 0.18 deg C/decade. We don’t have to tolerate what doesn’t exist.
“We can’t tolerate continual 0.20-0.25 C/decade of warming.”
Good news!
That level of warming is not likely to occur over an extended period.
More good news!
As a result of any warming that does occur many places will experience a better climate.
Humanity can adapt if we don’t drop nuclear weapons all over the planet.
We have taken it into consideration and found the theory wanting.
Rob Starkey commented:
“We can’t tolerate continual 0.20-0.25 C/decade of warming.”
Good news!
That level of warming is not likely to occur over an extended period.
Why?
30-year trends for global mean surface temperature:
NOAA: 0.21 C/decade
GISS: 0.23 C/dec
HadCRUT5: 0.23 C/dec
JMA: 0.20 C/dec
Clyde Spencer commented:
Monckton has demonstrated that there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming for over 7 years.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You mean going from a year with an extremely strong El Nino to the last two years of La Ninas?
And you believe that trend means something about long-term global warming??
Don’t listen to that fool. THINK!
Appell,
You said, “You mean going from a year with an extremely strong El Nino to the last two years of La Ninas?”
You overlook the fact that 2020 was statistically tied with 2016, despite the fact that 2020 saw the largest decline in anthropogenic CO2 ever recorded. The 2020 seasonal ramp-up phase of CO2 was indistinguishable from 2019, and similar to every other recent year except 2016.
The hiatus may not continue, but because of the ever-present auto-correlation with temperatures, it should be considered as a possible harbinger of the future. After all, that is what alarmists do. They extrapolate from the past.
Spencer commented:
You overlook the fact that 2020 was statistically tied with 2016, despite the fact that 2020 saw the largest decline in anthropogenic CO2 ever recorded.
Only a fool makes conclusions about climate change based on seven years of data. For one thing, the autocorrelation which you mention in your next paragraph makes the error bar on the trend huge and ruins any opportunity to get statistical significance.
If that globe was warming .25 C/decade, wouldn’t the temp have increased close to 3C since 1880? Please don’t respond with some cherry picked start date.
Jim Veenbaas commented:
If that globe was warming .25 C/decade, wouldn’t the temp have increased close to 3C since 1880?
What I gave are the 30-year trends, not the trends since 1880.
Appell,
You are not being logically consistent. You claim, “… going from a year with an extremely strong El Nino to the last two years of La Ninas”, that two or three years can be important, and then follow up with, “Only a fool makes conclusions about climate change based on seven years of data.”
What kind of a fool “makes conclusions about climate based on” three years?
Since we’re seeing only half of that, it’s no problem.
“Only a fool makes conclusions about climate change based on seven years of data. ”
The local DA knows this because he has been briefed by the firm, no shadow of a doubt; it literally only takes decades to develop an iron clad case that describes how climate works. And he has plenty of dog-eared data stuffed in that off the hinge briefcase of his to back this up too!
There’s quicker ways to get the world to burn, DA, ask you buddies in China the next time you slurp down a frequented chung choy happy meal. You may just earn that Gung Hay Fat Choy from Xi, just stick with the defense!
Adam Gallon commented:
Since we’re seeing only half of that, it’s no problem.
Not true. As I wrote just above
30-year trends for global mean surface temperature:
NOAA: 0.21 C/decade
GISS: 0.23 C/dec
HadCRUT5: 0.23 C/dec
JMA: 0.20 C/dec
Not bad for 30-year trends during the increasing portion of a cyclical approximately 70-year cycle of ups and downs. Of course, David, you leave out the UAH6 43-year trend of 0.13 C/decade. I wonder why?
Spencer commented:
What kind of a fool “makes conclusions about climate based on” three years?
I’m not making any conclusions about climate change based on three years.
I’m done with this thread. You can have the last word.
jungletrunks commented:
The local DA knows this because he has been briefed by the firm, no shadow of a doubt
You think I got to meetings or get phone calls where people tell me what to think?
LOL
You’re like Dave Fair — this is an emotional response, not a rational response. You only say such things because you can’t disprove the science and that frustrates you, so you resort to conspiracy theories.
Do you also think Trump won the election? That the moon landing was a hoax? That we’re all being poisoned by chemtrails?
Hey, David, I notice you don’t respond directly to my “emotional” posts. I give you examples of UN IPCC and U.S. Climate Assessment CliSciFi lies and you merrily skip along with your drive-by warmunist comments.
The local DA: “I’m done with this thread. You can have the last word.”
No need to loiter, DA; but please wipe the chung choy from the floor before you leave; people are always having to clean the slobbering you leave behind.
Dave Fair commented:
Not bad for 30-year trends during the increasing portion of a cyclical approximately 70-year cycle of ups and downs.
What science says it’s cyclical?
Of course, David, you leave out the UAH6 43-year trend of 0.13 C/decade. I wonder why?
a) It’s for the lower troposphere, not the surface.
b) It’s an outlier compared to all other datasets, including those of the lower troposphere.
Since science is based upon analyses of data, the data shows it is an approximate 70-year cycle. CliSciFi doesn’t like the fact that the early 20th Century warming was of the same duration and magnitude as the late 20th Century warming blamed on CO2. They ignore it as a way of lying to us.
The GHE effect is generated in the atmosphere, why not use its temperature profiles to analyze the GHE? Anyway, radiosondes verify the UAH6 dataset, not RSS. Read the literature on why UAH6 discontinued the uses of a particular satellite after a certain date. You might learn real science, David.
Dave Fair commented:
Hey, David, I notice you don’t respond directly to my “emotional” posts. I give you examples of UN IPCC and U.S. Climate Assessment CliSciFi lies
Just your repeated use of “CliSciFi” is an emotional response that tells me all I need to know.
I’m gonna pass, thanks.
I see, David. You don’t like knowledgeable people who are fed up with official propaganda calling out the climate change profiteers for what they are. If I quit calling them nasty names, will you actually address my factual statements, David?
I feel that Biden’s energy policy enabled the war in Ukraine. If he had retained our energy independence and increased production to ship to Germany and other countries so that they (and the USA!) did not import from Russia, Russia could not afford going to war.
The US has sanctioned Venezuelan (world’s largest oil reserves) and cut off its access to the world markets. I don’t even remember why we did it but It has been quite effective slashing their output by two thirds over the last decade and crushing their economy. Should we cancel those sanctions, open up our gulf refineries and add a few million barrels to the world market?
Would Russia let us buy Venezuela’s oil?
The communist Venezuelan government destroyed their own oil production infrastructure. I’d apply the Monroe Doctrine and boot the communists out. Same medicine for Cuba. We need our flanks cleared of Russian allies.
Mike,
If we use the Monroe Doctrine isn’t that the same logic as the Putin Doctrine? Even if we did take over Cuba and Venezuela we really suck at regime change and nation building.
Too late anyway, it was a trick question. Russia already controls Venezuela export policy since they stepped in and bought controlling interest back in 2020 when the two countries signed 12 agreements covering energy, financial, transport, military, agricultural and pharmaceutical cooperation, among other areas.
If the US did invade Cuba and Venezuela I would bet there would many other S. American countries that might turn to Russia and China for military and economic protection (El Salvadore, Peru, Chile… even Brazil and Mexico). Public support for this kind of interventionist policy is close to zero.
If Europe were only dependent on Russia for 20% of its gas, would that make any difference to her interests in the Ukraine?
The WSJ’s claim about Biden blocking energy development is simply false. In fact, oil, gas and coal production ARE ALL UP since Biden took office. Here are the graphs:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2022/03/fossil-fuel-use-up-since-biden-took.html
And this is from Politico today:
“The Biden administration has approved oil and gas permits on federal land at a faster clip than former President Donald Trump’s final year, the U.S. still exports more crude oil and petroleum products than it imports and Keystone XL never started while much of the oil it would have transported got to market through rail and other means. Plus, the U.S. has never been closed off from oil imports, even bringing in 7.9 million barrels per day in the first year of the coronavirus pandemic when demand cratered.”
Some are very eager to use the Ukraine crisis to further fossil fuel use and ignore the climate crisis, including Schellenberger and you, Judith. At 3-4 C of warming, climate change will easily overshadow the Ukraine war in severity, and in a global way, not as a regional crisis.
Perhaps you can tell us how things have already changed for the worse, David?
Perhaps you can show us some current verifiable data metric from observations that show something weather related that is really bad and trending?
Perhaps you can tell us something that is climate model predicted, that has actually come to fruition over the last 20-30 years.
Hurricanes, Tornado, Floods, and on and on are simply missing any verifiable bad climate signal. Ask the IPCC.
I still search for something that points to a crisis. Show me one metric, on anything that can stand up to scrutiny, for a climate crisis.
Proclamation has yet to find verification. RCP 8.5 used in today’s world will never find it.
Perhaps you can tell us what magic will be used to change the IEA TES data you didn’t comment on above.
Why did you have nothing to say on such real-world verified observational data?
Ossqss commented:
Perhaps you can show us some current verifiable data metric from observations that show something weather related that is really bad and trending?
Sure, see the IPCC 6AR WG1 Chapter 11: “Weather and climate extreme events in a changing climate”
Ossqss commented:
I still search for something that points to a crisis. Show me one metric, on anything that can stand up to scrutiny, for a climate crisis.
Last year I lived through the Pacific Northwest heat wave of late June, one of the worst heat waves in modern history, a 1-in-1000 year event. Salem Oregon saw temperatures up to 117 F, on a day when the normal high was 78 F. About 500 people died. In British Columbia an entire town burned down a day after temperatures reached 49.6 C (121 F). More than 1000 people died in that region.
You can follow that huge fires that are happening in Washington, Oregon and especially California almost every summer now.
Or the 1-in-1200 year drought in the American west that is behind the wildfires and agricultural problems.
This is just the area I know best. See Ch 11 of the 6AR for much more.
One example from your reference David.
11.7 Extreme storms
Extreme storms, such as tropical cyclones (TCs), extratropical cyclones (ETCs), and severe convective storms often have substantial societal impacts. Quantifying the effect of climate change on extreme storms is
challenging, partly because extreme storms are rare, short-lived, and local, and individual events are largely influenced by stochastic variability. The high degree of random variability makes detection and attribution of extreme storm trends more uncertain than detection and attribution of trends in other aspects of the environment in which the storms evolve (e.g., larger-scale temperature trends). Projecting changes in extreme storms is also challenging because of constraints in the models’ ability to accurately represent the small-scale physical processes that can drive these changes.
Ossqss commented:
One example from your reference David.
11.7 Extreme storm
You’re cherry picking. Quote some of the others.
You are out of touch with reality and and shill for the the radical left green religion.The Biden regime has stopped a number of pipelines and is delighted with higher gasoline prices because the regime believes that will reduce fossil fuel consumption, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Mike Keller commented:
The Biden regime has stopped a number of pipelines and is delighted with higher gasoline prices because the regime believes that will reduce fossil fuel consumption, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
How is it you know the thinking of the Biden administration? Do you know someone who works close to him?
Arsed up numbers. Still not back to pre-shutdown levels.
Exactly like millions of jobs have been ‘created’ during the Biden Admin. Still not back to pre-shutdown.
Maybe arsed out numbers is a better description, if you get my drift.
Given the Biden Admin’s goals regarding hydrocarbons, and the lack-luster employment ‘recovery’, energy-resource consumption will remain below pre-shutdown levels. That’s my projection/prediction.
DA,
At the start of 2022, by now we should be seeing modelled catastrophic effects emerging as they ramp up to the final “worse than we could imagine.”
David, I cannot see a single emerging threat. Not one even seems to have evidence of a ramping to worse.
I challenge you to name a single, actual, measured threat that fits the description.
Sea level rise is not accelerating outside of its noise envelopes.
Heatwaves are not becoming hotter and longer and more frequent in most of the populated world.
Global temperatures have scarcely risen in the last 7 years and not much more can be extrapolated as a danger able tto suddenly rise to threat levels. Sure, there could well be another strong El Niño some time in the unpredictable future but they remain enigmatic.
Polar bears are doing fine.
This year, the Great Barrier Reef coral coverage is at an all time high over the whole past reliable measurement period.
We could go on and on. One bogey after another gets pulled from the nose.
What is left, David?
Be a neutral scientist and describe just one threat that we must fear.
Then, compare its strength with the vast economic damage already happening from premature closures of nuclear reactors, plus oil, coal and gas generators of electricity. Those closures have properties that can easily be measured and the horror of the economic loss to date calculated. Now, do the same with one of your choice of horrors of which you write (vaguely). Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington commented:
At the start of 2022, by now we should be seeing modelled catastrophic effects emerging as they ramp up to the final “worse than we could imagine.”
Why?
At 3-4 C of warming”…
No chance!
Well, in that case Joe Biden should be renamed “El Petrolero”
Silly ultra progressive people refuse to seek a significant increase in US oil production and claim it is to fight climate change. The position is ridiculous. Whether the US pumps oil or not doesn’t increase or decrease World demand for oil use it just impacts from where the oil is purchased and its price. Progressive zealots wish to weaken the US economy and send Financial Resources overseas to countries like Iran and Russia. How does this make sense
Rob Starkey commented:
Silly ultra progressive people refuse to seek a significant increase in US oil production and claim it is to fight climate change. The position is ridiculous.
The world *has* to start using fewer fossil fuels or it will continue to see 0.20-0.25 C/decade warming with subsequent consequences. If the price of gas goes up Americans can respond in many ways:
1) use public transportation
2) drive less
3) purchase electric cars with renewable energy from the grid
3) drive more efficient cars, less big pickups and SUVs
Americans consume a huge amount, not just gasoline, and this will likely have to decrease in a sustainable world.
Cue the whining.
Appell – You should know better. 60% of grid electricity is from fossil fuels. More than that when the wind ain’t blowin’ or the Sun ain’t shinin’.
Besides, electric cars are expensive and take a long time to charge. Wouldn’t want to be trying to outrun a hurricane in one of those.
Silly ultra progressive climate zealot Appell fails to address the central point. How is it smarter for US consumers to send vast financial resources to Russia, Iran and Venezuela instead of keeping the capital in the US..
Rob, I don’t insult you when I reply to you.
Not interested in further discussion.
David I wrote a factually correct statement. Sorry if you’re disappointed in the facts.
You still failed to address the central economic point and the fact that lowering the prices today doesn’t appreciably change the long-term CO2 curve
A silly ultra-progressive once again fails to address the point due to his total focus on a perceived problem.
Progressive zealots wish to weaken the US economy and send Financial Resources overseas to countries like Iran and Russia. How does this make sense?
David – do you base your doomsday scenario on SSP5-8.5? If not, which one do you believe to be the best fit?
The questions David does not answer is more telling than what he says.
You should read the very quote posted on your blog. The WSJ didn’t say oil and gas production has declined in the US. It says that Europe should serve as a reminder of what will happen in the future when you offshore fossil fuel production – you become hostage to foreign producers without actually reducing overall fossil fuel output – the worst of both worlds.
The Biden administration has sent clear signals that it wants to reduce domestic oil and gas production. Saying otherwise is dishonest or delusional. And your graph totally misses the point. Oil and gas production needs to outstrip the growth in consumption or you lose ground and become more dependent on foreign sources.
Jim Veenbaas commented:
The Biden administration has sent clear signals that it wants to reduce domestic oil and gas production.
“There are 9,000 unused leases that the US government has provided for oil and gas production and ‘people are free to use them if they’d like to.'”
Biden’s Interior Department approved 3,800 drilling permits authorized onshore last year.
“US oil companies generally have been reluctant to pump more, preferring to steer cash flows back to investors instead of spending it on new drilling that could flood the world with cheap crude.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-01/biden-aide-says-energy-companies-can-up-production-if-they-want
via
https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1499920917312548874/photo/2
Nice to hear a common sense approach to a very complex issue. Thank you Dr. Curry.
It’s literally a war within a war. The Green-Marxists are “fighting” to ensure their draconian agenda is followed through supporting the enrichment of the Russia War Machine and their slaughter of innocent populations. We live in troubled times w moronic leaders pushing us off the cliff.
Net zero policies have funded Putin‘s invasion. Energy dependency invites this .
A woman in Ukraine, when artillery shells were raining down upon her head queried: “How can this be happening, this is the 21st Century?” And so it is. There is an old term: “Pollyanna”, a term created by a children’s author to characterize an optimistic and otherwise naive character oblivious to what was taking place around her. She wanted the world to be different than it was, and behaved accordingly. Another phrase: Wishful thinking.
The Green agenda emanates from such “Pollyanna” individuals, all the way from the Swedish teenager Greta, to AOC and those who feel the Bern to now those who bully via social media corporate board rooms. All, of course conflating their high mindedness with their appearance on the top of some moral high ground as somehow valid.
What I observe, the greens have become the arch enemies of not only the American people, but have become the enslavers of billions of earth’s inhabitants who are now entrapped in and relegated to energy poverty. Such wrong doers who propagate banking restrictions on energy development should be held to account.
If there were polls of Ukrainian mothers trying to protect their babies from the shelling and terrified that those babies wouldn’t see the next morning, and those same mothers were asked how they prioritized global warming issues and what might or might not occur in 50 years, I wonder if AGW made their top 10 concerns. Or for that matter, their top 100 concerns.
The greens live in Utopia. For the rest of the world, it’s a daily struggle.
The greens are watermelons; green on the outside, red on the inside.
A shooting war in Europe. Severe energy shortages exacerbated by looney Leftist policies. And here, Dr. Curry, you have people hyperventilating about speculative harms 30-to-80 years hence.
Fact: nuclear industry executives are pleading with the Biden administration to avoid placing sanctions on Russian uranium imports. The US imports most of the uranium needed for our reactors.
This stunning situation is the direct result of the nuclear industry putting profits above the nation’s strategic interests. Looks like the Europeans are not the only pinheads
Mike Keller,
Before retirement I was an executive in the mining industry in some of the corporations that discovered and mined uranium at Ranger.
Through those decades there was unrelenting, severe, public and private hate directed to us, because of uranium. We succeeded because we were able to rise above the hate to produce part of the electricity demanded by the vast majority of people globally.
If you theorise that US nuclear industries have slowed recently for the reasons you give, then you are a wrong, naive innocent.
Try shifting a big part of your blame to the anti-nuclear ignorati and their incessant hate. Then thank the many people in the nuclear industry who are not horrible ogres, but dominantly peaceful family people, with many a cut above average intelligence. Geoff S
Spot on. And don’t forget the yellow journalism that dominates most of the MSM today – pure fear-mongering.
James Hansen, the father of the global warming movement, began to advocate for nuclear after studying all policy options. Hansen experienced a quiet cancellation by the left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#:~:text=In%20March%202013%2C%20Hansen,of%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions
Agree, Geoff.
I have a similar trajectory in the carbon/hydrocarbon segment of the mining industry.
For the past 40 years, lies and attempts at destruction both legal and illegal have been aimed at that segment, aided by quite vicious MSM propaganda. Still the mines, generators and blast furnaces are operating (less and less now) while western countries squander blood and treasure on weather-dependent ersatz alternatives.
Now the issue has become stark. If Putin is not dislodged or otherwise “neutralised” by the next northern hemisphere winter (about 6-7 months), the hysteria will be near catastrophic.
In 2010, didn’t Obama approve the sale of Uranium One (Canadian mining co.) to a Russian company, thus giving them control of 20% of American uranium?
One doesn’t need to read that many articles by the renewables proponents about the electricity grid to know they do not know what they are talking about. A lot don’t even know the difference between energy and power. Almost without exception, they make statements that have no basis in operational reality. There is no comprehension of why grid reliability is critical. Practical concepts like inertia and droop are beyond their understanding. They live in a dream world with no proof of concept examples. But it doesn’t stop them proposing uncosted grandiose schemes that have no chance of actually working. And then they get all snooty when engineers rubbish their ideas..
Now if they can’t get that right, why should any credibility be attached to anything else they say? Though I do note they are very good at proposing the spending of other people’s money – their own is never risked. .
Concerns over gas availability and climate change as a result of this war show how remote some people are from this conflict. The focus needs to be shifted towards the reasons for this war. It’s not going to stop because it could be bad for climate change or because of energy shortage in Europe.
It’s tempting to compare with the Cuban missile crisis, this time with reversed roles. NATO has contributed to this mess by stating intentions to include Ukraine, by which Russia foresee NATO bases in Crimea and other places in Ukraine which they’re not going to let happen more than the US would let Soviet missile bases in Cuba happen. Unless NATO and Ukraine jointly declare that membership is out of the question, this war will likely get ugly. They should utterly dismiss this membership idea. Not that it will fix everything, but the remaining issues are more manageable. NATO will do fine without Ukraine, and for Ukraine it’s not worth it. Rather let Ukraine aspire for the EU, if they must. It’s not fair that Russia can dictate what Ukraine can join or not, but it’s not a perfect world.
This author suffers from the delusion that NATO constitutes a threat to Russia. It is and has always been a defensive alliance. Russia after the fall of the Soviet empire had the opportunity of becoming one of democratic western nations, living in peace with its neighbors and prospering by trade and playing by civilized rules. It chose not to, Western leaders have been incredibly reluctant to stand up to Putin and his ilk with the only methods that work on such individuals, firmness and sanctions that bite. Military punishment would have been highly desirable, but there is too much at risk. It is to be hoped that they now have seen the light and reverse their disastrous energy policy, cutting off all trade with Russia and trade in natural gas in particular.
“It is and has always been a defensive alliance.”
NATO stopped being a defensive alliance in 1994 when it started conducting military operations outside its borders, in Kosovo and Afghanistan.
“The debate over NATO’s post-Cold War role is now more than 20 years old, but the fundamental choice remains the same – the Alliance must, as Senator Richard Lugar put it in 1993, go “out of area or out of business.” … NATO can play a significant role in building security around the world.”
https://chargedaffairs.org/nato-out-of-area-ops/
Sounds a lot like “other countries better do what we say…”
This is a form of western delusion that is widespread.
Russia had grand aspirations of joining the west and looked to the west with a fawning admiration when the Soviet fell.
Unfortunately:
“As for our country, after the disintegration of the USSR, given the entire unprecedented openness of the new, modern Russia, its readiness to work honestly with the United States and other Western partners, and its practically unilateral disarmament, they immediately tried to put the final squeeze on us, finish us off, and utterly destroy us. This is how it was in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia. What victims, what losses we had to sustain and what trials we had to go through at that time before we broke the back of international terrorism in the Caucasus! We remember this and will never forget.” — Vladimir Putin, President of Russia
Whereafter, NATO showed its true terrifying form, and took it upon itself to systematically prey on nations throughout the world, destroying Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Sryia and Yugoslavia.
NATO has systematically surrounded Russia with ostensibly defensive weaponry that can be switched at a moments notice to offensive. NATO has persued regime change through color revolutions, one of which destroyed Ukraine and brought to power the Banderites and their crimes against Russian ethnics throughout Ukraine.
NATO has pursued sanctions against Russia and engaged in psychological warfare against its own peoples to turn public opinion hostile and openly racist against the Russians. It has actively destroyed those within the US and Europe who would make the peace you so naively describe.
Luckily, there is a cure to this western delusion.
That cure is reality. That cure is hypersonic weaponry decades in advance of western delusional aspirations.
The cure is the social cohesion and the martial prowess brought about by a rejection of the destabilizing and destructive western ‘wokeness’, the malaise and psychological warfare against the very nature of humanity itself which has left western institutions, the western military and western science destroyed and impotent.
The west will come to heel. The west will freeze and devour itself and know, for the first time in generations, true hardship and ecnomic ruin.
Unfortunately, it didn’t have to be this way. The people’s of the East and the west had more in common than they have with their own spoiled and rotten elites.
But the power of 5th generation psychological warfare did its damage. It will be decades, even a full half century to undo the damage that the western elites have perpetuated against the humanity of both spheres.
so refreshing to read a rational view of the problems we face. I’m a retired engineer in Australia and very concerned at the irresponsible approach to removing thermal power from the power system – going to end in tears
From this morning’s USA TODAY headline
“ Over 1 million refugees have fled Ukraine; COVID will ‘more likely’ spread in region amid Russian invasion: ”
Whoever is responsible for that headline can expect a call from John Kerry for a job on his staff. They will fit right in.
On an earlier post when I included a quote from Kerry where he was concerned about losing focus on climate, I said “There are no words”
There still are no words.
Maybe next week someone will express angst that Ukraine will delay MLB negotiations that much more. No Opening Day has to rank up there with 10 foot sea level rise. But not in the same league as a nuclear conflagration.
So good so neat so true. Thanks J.C. ( I mean the real, living one, Judith Curry)
On the energy policy mistake side:
https://www.cfact.org/2022/03/03/why-cheap-solar-increases-the-price-of-power/
Basic engineering.
From one of Schellenberger’s tweets.
“ The goal of Western elites is energy scarcity
The cost of that scarcity is to empower tyrants like Putin who can invade nations like Ukraine with little cost
Western elites are thus Putin’s useful idiots
They are the ones now saying nothing could have prevented invasion”
We knew the elites were idiots. That they have been in charge for so long and were anything but useless is doubling disconcerting.
CKid commented:
From one of Schellenberger’s tweets.
“The goal of Western elites is energy scarcity
What’s his evidence? Not some conclusion he thinks he’s drawn from world affairs, but direct evidence gathered from writings or sayings of “world elites” saying their goal is energy scarcity.
Appell
Did it ever occur to you that other people know one hell of a lot more about the world than you do?
It’s been demonstrated here by skeptics over and over again.
CKid commented:
Did it ever occur to you that other people know one hell of a lot more about the world than you do?
It’s been demonstrated here by skeptics over and over again.
Why so testy when I ask for his evidence? Did he provide any? Or is he just tweeting off, for likes, like so many others.
Ask him. As I said there are many people who know much more than you do.
CKid commented:
Ask him.
You ask him. You’re the one who believes his claim. So it’s up to you to provide evidence.
David,
I am still waiting for you reply to me, asking you to name just one emerging threat from climate change that is actual rather than imagined.
Your choice of threat was? Your evidence is? Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington,
Same as my response to someone else:
IPCC 6AR WG1 Ch11
David,
I asked you “Your choice of threat was? Your evidence is? Geoff S”
You replied “”.
That chapter is not a measured, physical effect. Besides, it comes from a fictional novel.
Will you not narrow down your top future threat from climate change?
Obfuscation is not an option here, nor is silence.
Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington commented:
Will you not narrow down your top future threat from climate change?
Sea level rise.
Inexorable and unstoppable.
NASA and NOAA just predicted another foot along the east coast of the US and Gulf region by 2050:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sea-level-to-rise-up-to-a-foot-by-2050-interagency-report-finds
See Figure 2.3 of the report for their regional predictions:
https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf
The world will probably see 2 feet, and perhaps a meter, by 2100. Then more after that if we reach 3 C of warming — meters. Coastal cities will be vastly changed, if they exist at all. Island nations gone. Florida gone. Bangladesh gone. Etc.
To reach 1 meter by 2100, SLR would have to average over 12 mm per year. Shades of deglaciation!
Appell provided the link to
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sea-level-to-rise-up-to-a-foot-by-2050-interagency-report-finds
“Titled Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States, the Feb. 15 report concludes that sea level along U.S. coastlines will rise between 10 to 12 inches (25 to 30 centimeters) on average above today’s levels by 2050.”
Appell – you have an astonishing great ability to believe the most idiotc unsupported non scientific claims. Do you ever use the basic BS meter or does yours not work.
25centimeter increase over 28 years has to have average SLR rise 3x the current SLR, (without wasting my time with the detailed computation, the rate of increase SLR needs to be in the 10x-15x range).
Seriously Appell – did you even bother to make a computation of the required SLR accelleration in order to have a 25-30cm rise in 28 years? Or did you just take that “peer Reviewed “study from NASA as gospel?
David Appell | March 5, 2022 at 9:41 am |
David Appell | March 5, 2022 at 9:41 am |
appells coment with his link to the NASA study ?
“Geoff Sherrington commented:
Will you not narrow down your top future threat from climate change?
Sea level rise.
Inexorable and unstoppable.
NASA and NOAA just predicted another foot along the east coast of the US and Gulf region by 2050:”
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/sea-level-to-rise-up-to-a-foot-by-2050-interagency-report-finds
Appell – curious if you did any form of due diligence on the NASA study ?
Or did you just assume the study is valid and an accurate representation of science and math because it was “peer Reviewed”?
I presume you recognized the average rate of SLR needs to be 3x the current rate of SLR over the next 27 years in order to reach an additional 25-30cm SLR by 2050.
Appell doesn’t know what he is talking about. I asked him about an acceleration rate of .0042 mm/yr -2 and he couldn’t deal with it. Then he linked a paper that had an acceleration rate of .0128 mm/yr-2 and thought it was proving his point. Instead it proved my point.
Here are 375 tidal gauge graphs. Where are the runaway acceleration rates? Not there. Zealots can’t deal with facts.
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_global_thumbnails5.html
This quote is from the author of the paper that Appell linked to in the other thread. It’s the Houston et al 2011 paper.
“ It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.”
This is a great question. But, more importantly Appell linked to the Houston 2021 paper which found an acceleration of only 0.0128mm/yr -2. He apparently thought that proved significant acceleration. It did not.
Appell made my point. A simple extrapolation of an acceleration of .084 mm/yr-2 on a base of 3mm/yr would increase SLR by .65m. There is a vast difference between the acceleration of the rate that Appell linked to and that amount.
The paper I linked to found an acceleration of .0042mm/yr-2. In other words not a significant acceleration.
non climate scientist wrote:
I presume you recognized the average rate of SLR needs to be 3x the current rate of SLR over the next 27 years in order to reach an additional 25-30cm SLR by 2050.
No — you have to factor in acceleration as well. Again, it’s a quadratic equation, with SLR increasing at time squared.
Besides on the east coast of the US, SLR is already faster than the global average, in part due to the slowdown of the Gulf Stream. Here are some 20-year linear trends as of 1/22:
Mayport, FL: 7.5 mm/yr
Charleston, SC: 9.9 mm/yr
Sewells Point, VA: 7.4 mm/yr
Boston, MA: 5.0 mm/yr
All of these have an acceleration as well. For example, the long-term acceleration at Mayport, FL adds about 7 cm of SLR by 2050.
Source: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/
CKid commented:
I asked him about an acceleration rate of .0042 mm/yr -2….
No, you quoted an acceleration of “.0042 mm/yr” You got the units wrong, and at least two other times as well, and you’re still not man enough to admit your mistake.
CKid commented
This quote is from the author of the paper that Appell linked to in the other thread. It’s the Houston et al 2011 paper.
I linked to the Houston paper merely for its units, after you incorrectly claimed everyone used units of mm/yr for acceleration.
You can’t admit that mistake either. It’s like talking to a 9-year old.
No, you linked to Houston because you thought it proved runaway SLR. It doesn’t and you don’t know enough about acceleration to even realize that it proves insignificant acceleration.
Acceleration automatically is evidence of -2. That is what it means. It’s like having to say real growth and then put in ( ) nominal less inflation. No one should have to include mm/yr either because it is a given. All studies use that metric. It’s given.
I provided several links that demonstrate insignificant acceleration. You obviously didn’t read them because you used one of my links thinking it proved you point, when in fact it provides evidence for my point.
You’re on your way to score an own goal Hat Trick. Let’s go Brandon.
You still haven’t shown us what SLR increase would be from acceleration of .0128 nor have you contested the acceleration of .0042 paper.
Some people have no idea how foolish they look.
Appell – as I asked – Did you do any due diligence ?
A) check your math
B) NOAA does publish the 20 year trend , so I used the data provided via the cvs and /or the excel file.
C) for example the mayport looks like a pretty substantive measurement error in 2019
A SLR of 2x-3x-4x the global trend should have raised sufficient questions to justify some level of due diligence.
You calculations are off the charts!
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8720218
Appell computed the 20 year trend of SLR for
Mayport, FL: 7.5 mm/yr
Charleston, SC: 9.9 mm/yr
Sewells Point, VA: 7.4 mm/yr
Boston, MA: 5.0 mm/yr
Of note
A) SLR over the last 100-150 years, historically has risen and fallen in 20-30 cycles with an overall trend in the range of 2-3mm per year. The 20 year trend cited by Appell starts circa 2000 which happens to be the low point in the cycle for those stations. Just noting that the start date for 20 year trend is misleading.
B) three of the station appear to have measurement errors or change in methodology of measurement in 2019. Maypoint FL, Charleston and Sewells Point,. The CVS file provided by NOAA shows almost a full 1cm for 2019. (.09m ish). curious if Appel noted the 2019 issue?
Joe
The entire East Coast has subsidence which Appell has chosen to ignore for a decade. He never reads the actual literature.
Ckid – Concur – the east coast subsistence problem is well known.
Appells computation 2x-3x the norm should have raised sufficient questions to justify some level of due diligence.
Ckid – adding to your comment –
Basic mathematical principle – when you solve for an equation, you plug the answer into the equation and work the problem backwards to see if you got the same result. Same with geometric proofs.
That basic mathematical principle spans so many disciplines, That step is absent throughout much of “climate science”.
Joe
Not sure how much research you have done on Vertical Land Motion (VLM) but here are some documents, studies, etc. VLM is a global problem. If you read about a community suffering the effects of SLR, you can bet subsidence, etc, is lurking somewhere as part of the cause.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Technical_Report_NOS_CO-OPS_065.pdf
http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/sramsoe425.pdf
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sinking-atlantic-coastline-meets-rapidly-rising-seas/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468013320300474
Here are some more
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021JB022355
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00300-w
http://www.ces.fau.edu/arctic-florida/pdfs/fiaschi-wdowinski.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0787-6
CKid commented:
Not sure how much research you have done on Vertical Land Motion (VLM) but here are some documents, studies, etc. VLM is a global problem. If you read about a community suffering the effects of SLR, you can bet subsidence, etc, is lurking somewhere as part of the cause
Still can’t admit you didn’t know the units for SL acceleration, huh? Sad.
==
What difference does it make if you live where land is subsiding? Just means sea level is rising all the more. You still have a problem.
“Flooding Hot Spots: Why Seas Are Rising Faster on the U.S. East Coast”
Yale Environment 360, 4/24/18.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/flooding-hot-spots-why-seas-are-rising-faster-on-the-u.s.-east-coast
CKid commented:
The entire East Coast has subsidence which Appell has chosen to ignore for a decade. He never reads the actual literature.
“.0042 mm/yr acceleration”
==
If you would have checked the data source, the numbers I used come from local measurements of sea level, so they have any land subsidence already included in the SLR numbers.
CKid commented:
No, you linked to Houston because you thought it proved runaway SLR.
“.0042 mm/yr acceleration”
—
So you can read my mind, huh?
There are higher rates of acceleration to be found if that was my goal. It wasn’t. My goal was to disprove your arrogance claiming that everyone used units of mm/yr for acceleration. Which I did, handily, and you know it.
non climate scientist commented:
Appells computation 2x-3x the norm should have raised sufficient questions to justify some level of due diligence.
My data come from local measurements of sea level, so they have any land subsidence built in.
If you had done your “due diligence” and looked at the data sources you would have known that.
Keep tap dancing Davey, boy, keep tap dancing. Everyone is on to your charade. Thought you were proving .0128 was runaway SLR. You are exactly the profile of extreme gullibility that the IPCC is looking for. Nice try. And then throw in belief in the Hokey Schtick, that is a real winner for you.
You know flat temperatures are in your future. It’s already begun. It’s not going to be a pretty picture.
the non climate scientist commented:
C) for example the mayport looks like a pretty substantive measurement error in 2019
Why is that?
A SLR of 2x-3x-4x the global trend should have raised sufficient questions to justify some level of due diligence.
It’s well known the US east coast is a sea level rise hot spot:
“Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America,” Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Nature 6/24/12.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1597
“Flooding Hot Spots: Why Seas Are Rising Faster on the U.S. East Coast”
Yale Environment 360, 4/24/18.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/flooding-hot-spots-why-seas-are-rising-faster-on-the-u.s.-east-coast
Appell’s citation from a Cosmopolitan magazine type rag ignoring the real science about VLM in the links I provided.Typical.
David Appell | March 6, 2022 at 5:57 pm |
non climate scientist commented:
Appells computation 2x-3x the norm should have raised sufficient questions to justify some level of due diligence.
My data come from local measurements of sea level, so they have any land subsidence built in.
If you had done your “due diligence” and looked at the data sources you would have known that.”
Appell
A) you were the one that attributed all the SLR to the rising sea with no attribution to land movement – see your prior comment.
B) It good to see that you look at the raw data from the Tide gauges – that is a huge improvement for you compared to your refusal and/or unwillingness to look at raw data with the proxies, along with your acceptance of the party line with renewables and tax subsidies
C) your grasp of due diligence remains lacking. Three of the 4 tide gauges you cited show nearly 9cm rise in 2019. For the 20 years that works out to be 4.5mm which is a huge chunk of the 7-9mm per year SLR.
Did you even notice the huge SLR in 2019 when you looked at the raw data?
Normal due diligence in any scientific field would require some effort to ascertain the validity of the measurement.
the non climate scientist commented:
A) you were the one that attributed all the SLR to the rising sea with no attribution to land movement – see your prior comment.
I just gave the numbers, that’s all, and gave a prominent additional cause, the slowdown of the Gulf Stream. Wasn’t writing a thesis on SLR.
C) your grasp of due diligence remains lacking. Three of the 4 tide gauges you cited show nearly 9cm rise in 2019. For the 20 years that works out to be 4.5mm which is a huge chunk of the 7-9mm per year SLR.
LOL. Sea level fluctuates. Some years it goes up, some years it goes down. Some years it goes up a lot, some years it goes down a lot. You can’t seriously believe that because it went up in 2019 that comprised the majority of its rise over 20 years.
Hint: trying plotting the average 12-month changes.
Did you even notice the huge SLR in 2019 when you looked at the raw data?
You have yet to explain what’s anomalous about it.
CKid commented:
Keep tap dancing Davey, boy, keep tap dancing. Everyone is on to your charade. Thought you were proving .0128 was runaway SLR. You are exactly the profile of extreme gullibility that the IPCC is looking for. Nice try. And then throw in belief in the Hokey Schtick, that is a real winner for you.
You know flat temperatures are in your future. It’s already begun. It’s not going to be a pretty picture.
I see – this is where you flake out and run away, asserting you were right the whole time, throwing a few more insults over your shoulder as you disappear over the horizon.
No, I’m still here pointing out how I’ve had to straighten you out about the science. You were the one who thought Antarctica was suffering from Supra glacial warming and I had to explain to you the science indicated it was basal melting that was impacting the GMSLR. You believed that AGW induced palm trees were in Antarctica’s future.
Just a cursory review of tidal gauge graphs demonstrate the decadal and multi decadal variability that affect not only the East Coast but elsewhere across the globe. Your magazine article doesn’t reveal anything new.
C) your grasp of due diligence remains lacking. Three of the 4 tide gauges you cited show nearly 9cm rise in 2019. For the 20 years that works out to be 4.5mm which is a huge chunk of the 7-9mm per year SLR.
“LOL. Sea level fluctuates. Some years it goes up, some years it goes down. Some years it goes up a lot, some years it goes down a lot. You can’t seriously believe that because it went up in 2019 that comprised the majority of its rise over 20 years.”
“Hint: trying plotting the average 12-month changes.”
Response to Appell –
A) I did plot the 12 month changes – Thats why the 2019 Data stuck out , apparently you did not notice until I brought it to your attention.
B) The 2019 SLR Does comprise more than 1/2 of the total change over the 20 years for those three locations.
C) We know that SLR flucutates a lot between years, that is why a 20 year trend can be very misleading – Which doesnt explain your addiction to using a 20 year trend when the 2019 measurement skews the trend so significantly. (asuming 2019 doesnt have a measurement error).
ckid, sea level rise isn’t due to “multi-decadal variability,” nor is temperature rise. They’re following the laws of physics. Which you don’t understand. You don’t even know the units of acceleration, which are taught in high school.
the non climate scientist commented:
A) I did plot the 12 month changes – Thats why the 2019 Data stuck out , apparently you did not notice until I brought it to your attention.
Stuck out in what QUANTATATIVE way?
Numbers?
David Appell | March 7, 2022 at 12:08 pm |
the non climate scientist commented:
A) I did plot the 12 month changes – Thats why the 2019 Data stuck out , apparently you did not notice until I brought it to your attention.
Appells response – “Stuck out in what QUANTATATIVE way?
Numbers?”
Appell – Are you only discovering the unusual 2019 data because I pointed them out to you?
did you or did you not pull the data and run your own numbers from the raw data?
Appell – if you did pull the data and run you own numbers you should have seen 2019 data stick out – then it would be obvious to you.
You are asking me to provide the numbers that you already ran but were unable to recognize, I then told you the year with the issue – are you anable to look at data you pulled
Joe, it doesn’t seem you’re able to explain what’s anomalous about the 2019 numbers.
This is a theme with you — you make claims you can’t back up, just to try to cause doubt. It’s like the tobacco company’s strategy from long ago, adopted by climate deniers: “Doubt is our product.” You think merely saying there’s a problem will make others think there might be a problem, but when called on it it’s not one you can explain. It’s quite underhanded.
David Appell | March 7, 2022 at 1:02 pm |
Joe, it doesn’t seem you’re able to explain what’s anomalous about the 2019 numbers.
David Appell | March 6, 2022 at 10:24 am |Besides on the east coast of the US, SLR is already faster than the global average, in part due to the slowdown of the Gulf Stream. Here are some 20-year linear trends as of 1/22:
Mayport, FL: 7.5 mm/yr
Charleston, SC: 9.9 mm/yr
Sewells Point, VA: 7.4 mm/yr
Boston, MA: 5.0 mm/yr
David Appell | March 6, 2022 at 5:57 pm |
‘My data come from local measurements of sea level, so they have any land subsidence built in”
David Appell | March 7, 2022 at 10:33 am |
“LOL. Sea level fluctuates. Some years it goes up, some years it goes down. Some years it goes up a lot, some years it goes down a lot. You can’t seriously believe that because it went up in 2019 that comprised the majority of its rise over 20 years.
Hint: trying plotting the average 12-month changes.”
In summary – Appell admits he didnt notice the anomaly in the data.
3.6.22 at 10:24 am he posts his computation of the SLR
3.6.22 at 5:57pm he posts that his computation comes from the local measurements of sea level
3.7.22 at 10:33 am – Appell implies that he plotted the average 12 month changes.
3.7.22 Appel admits his math skills are insufficient to notice the anomaly with the 2019 measurements.
the non scientist wrote:
In summary – Appell admits he didnt notice the anomaly in the data.
So you have no numbers to present at all.
LOL. This is all fake.
Aren’t you some kind of accountant who’s supposed to be good with numbers?
Appell learn to read. Look at the graphs. They all have short term rates that are below and above the long term trend rates. There are 60 years and 18.6 years cycles but on top of that there are various vacillations in the local sea level rise rate. That is nothing new or controversial. Although, with you it might be completely foreign because you don’t know the science.
Look at the 50 trend for Brest. It is lower than it was 100 years ago. It doesn’t prove anything about the long term trend but it shows there are short term trends within the long term trend. That is why several studies have said to conclude anything about SLR maybe it would be best to look at more than 1 of those cycles.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?plot=50yr&id=190-091
This is the chart for Brest over 200 years. The long term trend at 4 inches per century is not the same as the various 50 year trends and if they showed 10 year and 20 year and 30 year trends they would all be something different.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=190-091
Big deal. I’m not saying anything controversial. This is a given in the field. Sort of like the given that when you speak of acceleration it’s automatically a given you are using -2.
I learned all this in about 1 month after I started researching sea level rise. What took you so long.
David Appell | March 7, 2022 at 1:26 pm |
the non scientist wrote:
In summary – Appell admits he didnt notice the anomaly in the data.
“So you have no numbers to present at all.
LOL. This is all fake.”
Appell – how did you get your numbers for the 20 year trent if you didnt download the cvs file from the NOAA. You provided the link – I provided the link for you to recompute your trent I presume you converted the data to an excel file .
If you got the excel file, it should be a 5 min exercise for you to find your mistake. Or do you need to be spoon fed
never mind, you are not going to admit that you failed to notice
Appel cant provide proof of his numbers, but demands that someone else prove that he failed to notice an anomaly in the measurement data
Appell the measurement anomaly is is the data you have
CKid, why does your graph stop in 1990? There have been 30 years since then.
Let’s look at a different graph that’s straight up:
Stockholm:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?plot=50yr&id=050-141
Plotting the variation in 50-year trends is a very lagging indicator, especially when you skip the latest 30 years of data. It misses almost all of the post-70s warming where AGW has been strongest.
Again you don’t understand the physics of each period and are mistaking them for a cycle.
What about the physics of today’s climate forcings says there will be a downward cycle coming up?
Appell, are you all there? My Brest chart came from the same page as your Stockholm graph came from. Look at it and you will see Stockholm. You sure go off on a lot of irrelevant tangents to avoid dealing with the issues.
You are missing the overall. Take any graph and the short term trends will be different than the long term.
I have another assignment for you. Here is a table with 1269 tidal gauges from the Permanent Sea Level Service data.
http://www.sealevel.info/all_stations_trendtable.html
Look at the 4th column with trend. You choose whatever global sea level rise number you choose. How many of those 1269 tidal gauges have that exact number? Probably none. Each location trend is a function of unique local geological, atmospheric, oceanic and geomorphological conditions.
Just like a particular location doesn’t mean much, neither does a particular time frame mean much. Look at the Brest graph. You can take any 10 or 20 period and the trend will be different from those preceding and following that time. Nothing controversial. Just common sense.
Joe:
For Mayport FL, WHICH data points for WHICH dates show 9 cm of SLR in 2019, relative to WHEN?
Isn’t accountancy about details?
Ckid,
Why do you expect future warming & future sea level rise to be cyclical and decline again? Based on what physics and climate forcing?
Dave Fair commented:
To reach 1 meter by 2100, SLR would have to average over 12 mm per year.
You have to consider acceleration as well. It’s a quadratic equation.
So, starting at about 2 to 3 mm/year, what is the SLR during the final 10 years up to 2100 shown by your quadratic equation? How does that rate compare to the average during the latest deglaciation?
DA says “You have to consider acceleration as well. It’s a quadratic equation.” So what rate does your quadratic accelerate it to? If it averages 12 mm/yr does it hit 20? 30? What? By 2100?
A very simple question.
David Wojick commented:
So what rate does your quadratic accelerate it to? If it averages 12 mm/yr does it hit 20? 30? What? By 2100?
No. You have to consider the acceleration as well.
SL = at^2 + (SLR)t +SLR0
where
SL is sea level measured in mm
t is time measured in years, from your starting year
a is acceleration measured in mm/yr^2
SLR=current sea level rise in mm/yr
SLR0=sea level at your starting year. If you want to find SL relative to today take this = 0 and take your starting year = 0.
Plug in the numbers.
Dave Fair commented:
So, starting at about 2 to 3 mm/year, what is the SLR during the final 10 years up to 2100 shown by your quadratic equation?
Now you want a “clown” to do 6th grade algebra for you??
Well, since an average of 12 mm/year is similar to the SLR average of the recent deglaciation, you’re going to have to show me where all that water is going to come from to feed your quadratic equation.
Dave Fair commented:
Well, since an average of 12 mm/year is similar to the SLR average of the recent deglaciation, you’re going to have to show me where all that water is going to come from to feed your quadratic equation.
Thermal expansion of ocean water + melting of land-based ice + now-filled river dams. This is easy to learn.
Now go because I’m done with you and your insults.
Numbers, David, numbers and equations. And I don’t believe we will be emptying river dams over the next 80 years.
Dave Fair commented:
Numbers, David, numbers and equations.
Clowns don’t calculate on demand.
And I don’t believe we will be emptying river dams over the next 80 years.
That’s not it. It’s that the world’s dams are now filled, so they’re no longer holding back any water that was otherwise going to the sea. So their suppression of SLR is over.
Joe:
Just tell us, quantitatively, what’s anomalous about 2019’s numbers, as you claimed.
You clearly can’t.
David Appell | March 7, 2022 at 2:10 pm | Reply
Joe:
Just tell us, quantitatively, what’s anomalous about 2019’s numbers, as you claimed.
You clearly can’t.”
Appell I told you three times THAT is THREE TIMES – the tide gauges for three of the stations you cited showed almost 9cm SLR for 2019.
That data was from the SAME CVS file from the NOAA (you provided the link) you used to comute your numbers!
I used the same data you used – you are perfectly capable of reviewing the same data
the non climate scientist wrote:
Appell I told you three times THAT is THREE TIMES – the tide gauges for three of the stations you cited showed almost 9cm SLR for 2019.
Here are the data for Mayport, FL:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/data/8720218_meantrend.txt
Where exactly is 9 cm of SLR in 2019?
“ Global coal prices are surging as countries abandon Russian coal shipments.
In Asia, the benchmark for coal climbed to a record $440 a ton yesterday, a rise of $127 from the previous day. European coal prices, meanwhile, increased from $315 per ton on Tuesday to $435 yesterday.
“These prices are absolutely off the charts,” said James Stevenson, an analyst who tracks the coal industry at Oil Price Information Service. “This means people are really desperate for prompt coal delivery.”
https://www.eenews.net/articles/off-the-charts-coal-prices-surge-as-west-shuns-russia/
This is one of the big unreported stories. Coal prices are at unprecedented levels of 400 per ton (Newcastle Futures).
Yep, them Green Alarmists killed King Cole, didn’t they? Maybe we should turn them to the task of helping Russia.
jim2,
Did you see the news yesterday where Peabody Energy “BTU” (coal) shot up 20% when they announced they were going to put solar farms over their abandoned coal mines. They went bankrupted twice and lost billions but hey it’s a win-win deal now. Plus it will avoid a lot of the EPA mandated reclamation work + they get to cash out all those recovery bonds they had to fund to clean up future mine closings. Stock should be over $100 by the time Biden leaves.
Wind turbines contribute to global warming …
A Texas region containing four of the world’s largest wind farms showed an increase in land surface temperature over nine years that researchers have connected to local meteorological effects of the turbines.
The land surface temperature around the west-central Texas wind farms warmed at a rate of 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade during the study period relative to nearby regions without wind farms, an effect most likely caused by the turbulence in turbine wakes acting like fans to pull down warmer air from higher altitudes at night, said lead author Liming Zhou at the University of Albany, State University of New York.
The results were published in the April 29 issue of Nature Climate Change. Zhou and colleagues studied land surface temperature data ranging from 2003 to 2011, from the MODIS (Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) instruments on NASA’s Aqua and Terra satellites.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/728/texas-wind-farm-affects-land-temperature/
All coal companies “shot up” because the price of coal is spiking.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodities
The situation is fairly simple. The Oil drillers say the need $120 a barrel to develop new fields. If they don’t get it then oil will runout and economies will collapse.
Wrong.
According to a 2021 survey, the average oil producer operating in the Eagle Ford oilfield in the U.S. needed WTI oil prices to amount to a minimum of 46 U.S. dollars per barrel in order to profitably drill a new well. This compared to a breakeven price of 17 U.S. dollars per barrel for existing wells. Operators in the Eagle Ford basin have the lowest average breakeven prices when compared to other oil basins. The monthly average WTI oil price fell to a low of 16.55 U.S. dollars per barrel as a result of the coronavirus pandemic-induced oil crisis in April 2020. However, for most of 2021, prices have traded above 60 U.S. dollars again.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/748207/breakeven-prices-for-us-oil-producers-by-oilfield/
Duh, The $120 price is an average, probably with a good bit of contingency.
Also, strategically, reinstate the Keystone XL pipeline – if that is even possible now.
These posts are referring to the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project cancelled by Biden on his first day in office on Jan. 21, 2021, dealing a death blow to a long-gestating project that would have carried 830,000 barrels per day of heavy oil-sands crude from Alberta to Nebraska (here).
Environmental activists and indigenous communities hailed the cancellation, and traders and analysts said U.S.-Canada pipelines will have more than enough capacity to handle increasing volumes of crude out of Canada, the primary foreign supplier of oil to the United States (here).
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-keystonepipelinexl-builtandpai/fact-check-though-keystone-xl-pipeline-had-secured-most-of-its-funding-it-was-only-8-constructed-idUSL1N2LA2SQ
much ink is now spilled over Keystone XL. It is quite true that the Trans Mountain expansion piping Canadian Bitumen to Canadian west coast ports will combine with existing capacity to reach the levels proposed for Keystone XL. Does that make you sleep more soundly that the oil can easily get to China and opposed to US refineries?
XL would have been such an obvious source of stability with the better part of a million barrels a day into the US supporting short term policies of sanctions on Russian Oil which are Biden has avoided given his abysmal handling of domestic energy policy before there was this international crisis. These are short term approaches. Russian oil could go to China with some refouscing of refining capacity, (albeit no doubt at a discount China might prefer which is why it doesn’t go there now) so, a US ban on Russian imports would be for perception and short term squeeze. Still, since the Biden adminsitration was convince for months that the invasion was inevitable this should have been instituted the day the tanks rolled towards Kyiv.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Oil goes to China at a significant discount associated with Bitumen and XL had forged forward despite approvals and construction on the Transmountain to Vancouver. The competition of US markets (and export from the Gulf of Mexico ports) would have increased chinese costs moreso than reducing american costs although this capacity would obviously have served as a hedge against the extreme runup in price associated when crude supplies are short of demand.
Indeed, following the cancellation of XL, the Capline between Baton Rouge and Patoka illinois that had been carrying imports from the gulf coast to the heartland is being reverse to carry canadian bitumen under a quarter the capacity of XL to louisiana refineries with the coking units needed for Bitumen.
Anyone who thinks XL was a bad or outdated idea just doesn’t understand the importance of these logistics. Indeed, the blocking of pipelines is as responsible for American oil and NG cost issues as production itself.
All the ink being spilt over the keystone XL pipeline partakes of this notion that folks outside the industry can direct investment in the industry and that one spokesman’s notion that a traders response to existing capacity as sufficient ignores the energy security implications of what some present as ‘excess’ capacity.
Indeed, the importance of XL and more capacity to US refineries with coking units for Bitumen (and for export unless it were restrictied) is that this would increase compeitition ofr bitumen and reduce the discount that China gets as major consumer of this oil, especially when transmountain expansion opens in 2022.
What kind of imbeciles are going to tell investors (including Alberta Province) that we wouldn’t want this infrastructure, except “leave it in the ground” types?
A crisis brought to you by the folks who prefer World Ward 3 to 3 degrees of warming.
“The Ukraine War has disrupted energy business as usual.”
There is no longer energy business as usual. Peak Oil took place in Nov 2018 and we are entering the energy descent. See for example:
Alice J. Friedemann (2021) Life after Fossil Fuels. A Reality Check on Alternative Energy
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-70335-6
Nations that are still fossil energy rich, like Russia, have a tremendous advantage. The weaker nations, like Lebanon and Sri Lanka, are falling like domino pieces. We can expect a more insecure world from now on.
This war was completely avoidable. The end of the WWI set the seeds for WWII. After WWII the lesson was learned and the victors worked with the losers to create a safer world. The lesson was soon forgotten, and the end of the Cold War planted the seeds for a string of conflicts. One needs to study history to understand the roots of the present conflict. Ukraine had never been a country, Ukrainians were like the Kurdish, always divided among other nations. But the Khanate of Crimea was conquered by Russia in 1783 and administratively assigned to the USSR republic of Ukraine in 1954 by an illegal decree. There were no Ukrainians living there. The Dombass region was conquered by Russia from the Ottoman Empire. The city of Odessa was founded by Russia, and the famous scene of the 1925 Battleship Potemkin movie about the Russian Revolution took place in the Odessa Steps. Now I am not saying that Russia should recover all that lost land, and the least by force, but it is clear that there are complex issues that are being hidden from the public, as the truth is the first casualty of any war.
With the joining of West Germany to NATO, the USSR reacted creating the Warsaw Pact in 1959. With the end of the Cold War the Warsaw Pact dissolved and Russia contemplated how NATO expanded to its borders. How would the US have reacted to the joining of Mexico to the Warsaw Pact? We know how it reacted to the decision to put nuclear weapons in Cuba. Why should Russia be less paranoid when it has been invaded in the 19th and 20th centuries? NATO stopped being a defensive pact in 1994 when it started taking military action outside its borders. Let’s remember that the USA is the most aggressive country of the world. According to Wikipedia list of USA conflicts, since the end of WWII in 1945, USA has spent 47 years (61%) in international armed conflict, and only 30 years (39%) in peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
During this time USA has invaded and changed governments of several countries. Why should Russia trust the USA?
Russia has always had an European vocation. Pushing Russia towards an alliance with China could be the gravest mistake of myopic European bureaucrats.
Javier commented:
There is no longer energy business as usual. Peak Oil took place in Nov 2018 and we are entering the energy descent.
Come on, Javier, the world is (was) back on a trend to surpass that (depending on what happens with Russia).
From these data I get a maximum in November 2018:
https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world
Then there was a recession in the US in February 2019, then the pandemic in March 2020. Now Russia.
So it seems to me your peak oil claim seems to depend on circumstances, not a genuine shortage of oil to be pumped.
“Then there was a recession in the US in February 2019, then the pandemic in March 2020. Now Russia.”
That list is bound to keep growing. I guess in 10-20 years some people will realize.
It was the same when I said in 2016 that Arctic sea-ice had turned a corner and September extent wasn’t going to decrease. People didn’t believe it, yet here we are. It’s 14 years without decrease. A lot more people are now convinced.
Javier commented:
It was the same when I said in 2016 that Arctic sea-ice had turned a corner and September extent wasn’t going to decrease. People didn’t believe it, yet here we are. It’s 14 years without decrease.
I calculate the linear trend for NSIDC monthly Arctic sea ice extent over the last 14 years to be -48,000 km2/yr.
data: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/sea-ice-tools/
A lot more people are now convinced.
Convinced of what, that Arctic melting is over? I don’t know any scientists who are convinced of that. Do you?
“I calculate the linear trend for NSIDC monthly Arctic sea ice extent over the last 14 years to be -48,000 km2/yr.”
Then calculate the September NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent linear trend since 2007 and report back.
Javier commented:
Then calculate the September NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent linear trend since 2007 and report back.
Pay me.
“Pay me”
I can do that for you.
The linear trend in September Arctic sea ice extent since 2007 is of -8,215 sq. km/year, which constitutes a decrease of 0.18 % per year, or completely indistinguishable from no trend.
According to September Arctic sea ice extent, since 2007 Arctic melting is a myth or a belief, not a fact.
I know why, but you don’t. That’s why I could predict it and you couldn’t.
Javier commented:
According to September Arctic sea ice extent, since 2007 Arctic melting is a myth or a belief, not a fact.
I notice that you carefully cherry picked your month and year.
“Cherry picking” is choosing your starting and end point to give you the result you want, regardless of its scientific merit or statistical significance.
Let’s look at surrounding months.
For Augusts, since 2007, the trend is -28,400 km2/yr.
For Octobers, since 2007, the trend is -55,400 km2/yr.
No scientists think global warming is over or that Arctic melting is over. So don’t get too excited about your cherry pick.
Javier,
A couple of days ago Total announced a significant new light oil find:
https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/africa/totalenergies-makes-significant-discovery-offshore-namibia/
Plus, news from Brunei, Suriname, more :
https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=New+Oil+Discoveries+Announced+In+2022&qpvt=new+oil+discoveries+announed+in+2022&FORM=EWRE
Yes, it is possible to model a peak oil graph if you go from physical oil consumption/recovery balance into marketing and economics. But the reliability of your conclusions reduces.
Do you think that peak oil has happened prominently enough for people to cease exploration? To me, cessation would be a firm signal that hardened oil executives agree with you and it does not seem to have happened. Geoff S
Geoff, do you really think that some oil discovery is going to change a 60-year trend of decreasing discoveries?
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/icbkDFACM4iA/v2/-1x-1.png
I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
I just saw again the 1961 movie Judgment at Nuremberg with Spencer Tracy.
I’m sure some of those those who were convicted at the actual trial never believed they were wrong given the commitment to the righteousness of their cause.
Even if global temperatures are flattish for the next 50 years and the sea level rise continues at the same rate for the next 50 years as it has over the last 100 years, there will be those who will never admit their error in believing the most apocalyptic predictions, such is their commitment to the righteousness of their cause.
Perfect logic with imperfect knowledge doesn’t make it right.
CKid commented:
Even if global temperatures are flattish for the next 50 years and the sea level rise continues at the same rate for the next 50 years as it has over the last 100 years, there will be those who will never admit their error in believing the most apocalyptic predictions, such is their commitment to the righteousness of their cause.
There you go again, assuming your (unscientific) prediction about the future is right and then attacking based on it.
Well: the LAST 50 years has seen continued warming and continued sea level rise. When are you going to admit YOUR error and the wrongness of your denial?
Of course your lack of knowledge about the literature is showing. Study after study found little to no acceleration. Sorry to bust your deluded bubble.
David
When will you admit that sea level has been rising for hundreds of years at very close to the current rate.
CKID:
“Global mean sea level (GMSL) increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m over the period 1901 to 2018 with a rate of rise that has accelerated since the 1960s to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr-1 for the period 2006–2018 (high confidence).”
IPCC 6AR WG1 Box TS.4: Sea Level
Acceleration of 0.0042mm/yr
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JC009900
David
Sea level has been rising for a long time and this should be expected as sea level is currently near to its long-term low levels.
Data regarding global sea level prior to the satellite era (early 1990’s) must have a high margin of error due to measurement method issues. Changes in land height at individual locations often dwarf the sea level change.
There has been VERY LITTLE change in the rate of sea level rise since the start of the satellite era.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Climate alarmist’s have been claiming that the rate of rise is going to (must) accelerate drastically very soon. I have been reading this since I 1st read on the topic in 2005. Well guess what? It has not happened so far.
How long does the rate of sea level rise need to stay near the current rate before you stop considering it as the primary risk of human CO2 release?
.01mm/yr acceleration
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JC009976
.018mm/yr
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47340-z
AGW signal hardly detectable
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/787/2012/cp-8-787-2012.html
.0128mm/yr acceleration
https://meridian.allenpress.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/2/272/450977/Sea-Level-Acceleration-Analysis-of-the-World-s?redirectedFrom=fulltext
AGW signal too small to be observable
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281239829_Is_anthropogenic_sea_level_fingerprint_already_detectable_in_the_Pacific_Ocean
Not accelerating
http://www.klimarealistene.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1-s2.0-S0964569116300205-main.pdf
“ It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade, as a part of the Pacific decadal-scale variability, while the land-ice melting is accelerating the rise of the global ocean mass-equivalent sea level.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113002397
“ Key findings are that at the 95% confidence level, no consistent or substantial evidence (yet) exists that recent rates of rise are higher or abnormal in the context of the historical records available for the United States, nor does any evidence exist that geocentric rates of rise are above the global average. It is likely that a further 20 years of data will identify whether recent increases east of Galveston and along the east coast are evidence of the onset of climate change induced acceleration.”
https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-coastal-research/volume-32/issue-6/JCOASTRES-D-16-00086.1/Acceleration-in-US-Mean-Sea-Level-A-New-Insight-using/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16-00086.1.short
CKid commented on Ukraine-climate nexus.
.01mm/yr acceleration
Those are the wrong units for acceleration.
—
You can cherry pick all the studies you want, while leaving out all the others. But it’s precisely the job of the scientists who wrote the IPCC section on SLR to read and assess all the research, and their expert conclusion is that SLR is accelerating. Which they conclude with “high confidence.”
CKid wrote:
Acceleration of 0.0042mm/yr
Wrong units. You should go back to week 2 of freshman physics semester 1.
What fun the UN IPCC CliSciFi people have with statistics: Compare a 13-year period average with a 118-year period average. You can have “high confidence” that the CliSciFi practitioners haven’t told us anything about decadal events occurring during the 118-year period that might dilute their tidy narrative.
Anybody taking at face value anything presented in UN IPCC and U.S. National Assessment reports is delusional or an ideological tool.
Dave Fair commented:
What fun the UN IPCC CliSciFi people have with statistics: Compare a 13-year period average with a 118-year period average.
Totally proper, since climate has changed over 118 years. So a 118-year period tells nothing scientific, anymore than would comparing traffic deaths today to those 118 years ago, or taking the 118-year average.
Nope, David: I’m saying that there are many decadal trends within that 118-year period that put a lie to the assertions that the later 13-year trend proves that Man is adversely affecting the climate. Quit trying to hide the pea, David.
Nope, again, David: For example, U.S. Climate Assessments that claim more extreme weather in the CONUS proves they are liars.
Appell
Hilarious. You tell the scientists that. All the papers use those units. Is that the only comeback? What a joke. How does it feel to be conned?Every single paper uses the same metric.
Admit it, Appell alias David Allen Appell alias 02, the IPCC has been gaslighting you all along.
The entire sea level scientific community uses the same units.
The problem for you is that it has zeroes. Goose eggs. Aughts. Nada. Zip.
The edifice of your sand castle world is starting to fall apart one molecule at a time. And getting back to one of my original points, when are the over the top zealots going to throw in the towel and admit they were wrong? Just like those at Nuremberg.
Appell
Your absurd reply reminded me of a reply that I got from JimD right after the IPCC5 report came out several years ago. He denied that it said the Antarctica contribution to GMSLR was .27mm/yr, which is precisely 1/5 of the thickness of a brand new US dime.
The report clearly showed that number in a box in the chapter on sea level rise. Back and forth we went. He was trying to deny the obvious. It wasn’t opinion versus opinion. It was trying to deny what was in black and white.
I finally concluded he didn’t know what he was talking about. That is what I just concluded about you. That you don’t know know what you are talking about. But I enjoyed the tap dance.
CKid commented:
Hilarious. You tell the scientists that. All the papers use those units.
Not true at all:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL024826
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/92JC01133
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113002750
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076129
Not true at all:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113001756
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50731
https://meridian.allenpress.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/2/272/450977/Sea-Level-Acceleration-Analysis-of-the-World-s
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1717312115
Sea level rise has units of [length/time], so acceleration of SLR, which is change in SLR over time, has units of [length/time^2]
Dave Fair commented:
For example, U.S. Climate Assessments that claim more extreme weather in the CONUS proves they are liars.
Why?
Because its a lie, you clown.
Another Own Goal by Appell. You just linked to the Jevrejeva paper which uses the same unit. Thanks for making my point.
I’m thinking of imposing the mercy rule on my comments to you. It’s clear you can’t keep up and are out of your league. It’s not a fair fight.
This is just another example you don’t know the science.
CKid wrote:
You just linked to the Jevrejeva paper which uses the same unit.
No it doesn’t:
“Acceleration of 0.02 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2010)”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113002750
Exact same unit. What is wrong with your brain. You used the same unit with the Houston paper.
What is the annual SLR by 2100 with the Houston paper?
CKid commented:
Exact same unit.
No, it’s mm yr-2, that is, mm/yr^2.
You’ve been giving acceleration numbers in mm/yr. Like here:
https://judithcurry.com/2022/03/02/ukraine-climate-nexus/#comment-972682
https://judithcurry.com/2022/03/02/ukraine-climate-nexus/#comment-972684
Here is an earlier paper by Houston, the author you linked..
“Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise.”
“ To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.”
https://meridian.allenpress.com/jcr/article-abstract/27/3/409/28456/Sea-Level-Acceleration-Based-on-U-S-Tide-Gauges?redirectedFrom=PDF
Just found your problem. You didn’t read the papers I linked to. At least take time to read the links. I understand you don’t want to read the science that goes against your zealotry but if I link papers I expect you to read them.
CKid commented:
Here is an earlier paper by Houston, the author you linked..
“Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise.
He’s quoting the “trend,” viz. sea level rise, which has units of mm/yr. He’s right. He also gets the units of acceleration right in the abstract.
CKid commented:
Just found your problem. You didn’t read the papers I linked to.
The problem is that you quoted acceleration is “mm/yr.” At least three times.
Just admit your mistake and move on.
Dave Fair commented:
Because its a lie, you clown.
Can’t reply with proof, can’t reply without insults.
That’s what I mean by emotional responses. Also juvenile responses.
The proofs are from researchers such as Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. showing that increasing weather disaster statements in the U.S. NCAs are lies. If you are not aware of that, David, you haven’t really looked into the issue much. The same for the UN and U.S. politicians screaming about increasing weather/climate disasters.
I’m forced to assume that you agree with the propaganda and the motivations for such.
I feel like I am having a conversation with a 9 year old.
The entire debate is the rate of acceleration. I quoted a rate of .0042, which means it’s insignificant. When speaking of acceleration no mathematical notation should be needed. It is self evident.
The other papers I linked to indicated insignificant acceleration. That is your real problem. If you start reading the actual scientific literature then you will learn much more than you know now.
I ask again, using the Houston rate of acceleration, what is the SLR in 2100?
Maybe EPA used some of the acceleration rate higher than.0042 mm/yr when they made this prediction.
Actually, it would have had to be much, much higher.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg
CKid commented:
The entire debate is the rate of acceleration. I quoted a rate of .0042, which means it’s insignificant.
You quoted an acceleration of “0.0042 mm/yr” which means you got the units wrong.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/03/02/ukraine-climate-nexus/#comment-972682
CKid commented:
When speaking of acceleration no mathematical notation should be needed. It is self evident.
Clearly not evident to you, because you got the units wrong at least three times.
Units need to go on all physical quantities. Spacecraft have been lost because different teams thought the units were “self-evident” when they were not.
CKid commented:
I ask again, using the Houston rate of acceleration, what is the SLR in 2100?
It’s an easy calculation, just use the quadratic equation.
When speaking of acceleration it is a given. I want you to address why the.0042 is too small. That is the debate. The Houston acceleration rate didn’t make your case like you assumed it did. That is why I asked you to tell us. The amounts of acceleration are all over the board depending on which paper you read. If you had done as much research as I have, you would have known that. But you haven’t so you don’t know that.
But thanks for demonstrating my point. Very little acceleration. Why don’t you tell us all why those papers finding insignificant acceleration is wrong, that is the debate.
Thank you for a very incisive commentary coupling energy, the pseudo-climate “crisis/emergency” and its political repercussions, and the IPCC’s ongoing propaganda fueled by ignorant environmentalism of the “save the planet” variety. A masterpiece! Best I have seen about the current situation. As a luke-warmist your site is my number one go-to site for sensible intelligent articles & comment.
A strong wave of Arctic air will sweep across the US Southwest in three days.
https://i.ibb.co/8K6Nv2V/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png
Judith quotes Schellenberger’s selective quote of Kerry, making it sound like Kerry is insensitive to the realities of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Kerry was asked about the potential effects on climate action of the (then pending) war; he prefaced his response with an expression of concern for the people of Ukraine and the implications of the violation of international law. The selective quote is a cheap shot. Judith can do better.
Kerry is a Klimate Czar profiteer …
We thought we knew about John Kerry’s hypocrisy and greed, but guess again.
It turns out that while the former Massachusetts senator and current Biden administration climate czar was lecturing us all about climate change, he was holding dirty oil and gas stocks and pulling down millions in corporate earnings.
Kerry’s financial disclosure forms show his massive stock portfolio and assets, some of which he was forced to divest since taking his position as Special Presidential Envoy.
The jet-setting former senator pulled down a $5 million salary in a no-show job as chairman of Bank of America’s global advisory council, $125,000 in consulting fees from something called The Rise Fund, which was founded by U2 singer Bono, and $382,400 in speaking fees from Waste Management and Deutsche Bank, among dozens of others.
Kerry was also president of the Vietnam Sustainable Energy Corp. and chairman of the advisory board for Climate Finance Partners, entities that could benefit from decisions made by Kerry as climate czar. He received a $39,000 salary from Yale University, his alma mater, and a $112,500 “honorarium” from MedStar Washington, according to his filing, reviewed by the Herald.
In a statement, the State Department says he got rid of assets that could pose a conflict of interest and were identified by the Ethics Office.
Among those were about three dozen energy-related companies dealing in electric, oil and gas — even nuclear — precisely the kind of energy Kerry and his climate crisis pals want us all to get rid of.
An analysis by ABC News revealed that in March Kerry divested between $4 million and $15 million in assets from more than 400 companies. The assets were part of a huge stock portfolio held by him and his wife, ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/05/03/john-kerry-financial-disclosure-report-shows-hypocrisy-and-greed/
“Kerry was asked about the potential effects on climate action of the (then pending) war; he prefaced his response with an expression of concern for the people of Ukraine and the implications of the violation of international law.”
Regardless of Kerry’s precious preamble; nobody in a rational, non ideological state of mind would state: “I hope that President Putin will help us stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate”—post outbreak of the Ukrainian slaughter. There’s can be no rational consideration here that sensibly first lands on the Paris Accords. Kerry is an intellectually inbred ideological radical who strictly frames his geopolitical concerns accordingly: climate first, all else second. The Ukraine slaughter and the potential of global war is relegated to: please focus on climate first by all hard Leftists; no exceptions.
This is not a “delusional ideology” but a climate fraud that is now turning against the liars.
Germany’s climate policy actually fed the Russian psychopath.
If the solar wind continues to be as weak as it is now (with a few spikes), the chances of an El Nino occurring in 2023 are slim. The “pause” could be very long.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202203.gif
La Nina will not disappear until winter in the Southern Hemisphere.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
You better not go back in history because you would have to change most of the borders in Europe. That’s just silly. The Russians of Kharkiv want to live in a democratic state. They fight for Ukraine and die together with Ukrainians. This is a war of attrition. Is this the 21st century?
You better not go back in history because you would have to change most of the borders in Europe.
A laudable yet naive opinion detached from reality. Turkey changed the border in Cyprus, but that is OK because they are an ally. Morocco changed the border in Sahara, but that is OK because they are an ally. And what to say of all the independentist movements in Europe that want to redraw borders based on history, culture and/or language? Scots, Flemish, Britons, Catalans, Basques and many more. Borders are a human construct inherited from animals, as they also have them. It is part of history that they change, and in most cases it implies conflict. It is my opinion that foreign intervention in bilateral conflicts usually makes them worse. It is amazing how silly was the start of WWI and the very negative role that alliances played on that.
The important question is that human civilization crucially depends on energy. Europe is pussing Russia towards an alliance with China. Russia will double its capacity to export gas to China by 2025. Is this really what we want? Europe is really doing its best to accelerate and enhance its decadence.
For the 3rd. year in a row I think the Chinese have led the world in new patents. I think China is also the world’s leader in most of the technologies that will shape the future of humanity. I thought it revealed a lot when they slapped extreme limits on the amount and type of digital ‘entertainment’ their children are exposed to. And Microsoft just bought Activision for $68B…
This is the propaganda Putin is using by attacking schools and hospitals and residential neighborhoods with rockets. If eastern Ukraine with a Russian-speaking majority wanted to be annexed to Russia, the Russians would easily overrun it. Yet they are fighting and will continue to fight. Energy cannot be an excuse for a million women with children to flee Ukraine. These are facts, not history.
This is the propaganda Putin uses, attacking schools, hospitals and residential areas with rockets. If eastern Ukraine with a Russian-speaking majority wanted to be annexed to Russia, the Russians would easily occupy it. Yet they are fighting and will continue to fight. Competition for energy cannot be an excuse for having to flee a million women with children from Ukraine. These are facts, not history. And the fathers, husbands and brothers of these women will fight to the end. Glory to Ukraine!
And the fathers, husbands and brothers of these women will fight to the end. Glory to Ukraine!
I wish them luck. The Afghanis have shown several times that unrelentless resistance can defeat powerful invaders. I have no sympathy for Putin or Russia, just a different perspective to yours. What is happening could throw tens of millions of Europeans into energy poverty. All for nothing. The war could have been avoided if the Ukrainian and EU governments had played the situation better. An escalation involving NATO, as Ukraine wants, could easily turn into a nightmare.
Javier those hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children who are in Poland and those Ukrainian children who are born in Poland after their mothers cross the border will sooner or later return home.
Jack: good point. And if you look at physics journals for materials sciences (used to be called solid state physics), the Chinese dominate now. It wasn’t difficult to see this coming. They are the ones making most of the advances in the materials, electronic and otherwise, that will dominate the 21st century.
Thought you might enjoy this, Ren.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cause-ukraine-war-robert-service-moscow-putin-lenin-stalin-history-communism-invasion-kgb-fsb-11646413200?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Even in the 1973, U.S. energy policy was the main reason for the energy problems turning into a crisis. Nixon’s oil price controls meant that prices would not reflect supply and demand in world oil markets. But in the face of the OPEC embargo Congress worsened things by adding quantity controls as well. These controls were not lifted until the 1980s by which time we faced another energy “crisis.” In fact, as my 2013 book, U.S. Energy Policy and the Pursuit of Failure explains, all U.S. (and now European) crises have been caused, or at least worsened, by bad policy choices.
In that book, I also argued as Dr. Curry does here that energy policy and climate policy should not be conflated. Mandating “renewables” does not result in a predictable reduction in CO2 emissions, and as we’ve seen in cases around the world may not reduce emissions much if it all.
Biden and DC/Eurocommies are worried more about global warming than energy independence, authoritarians at the gates, loss of civil society and sacrifice of moral authority and personal liberty on a Leftist altar of self-defeatism.
Someday we might look at these prices in the rear view mirror with envy and say “Thanks Brandon”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FM9kHw6UUAEt0mc?format=jpg&name=large
From The Atlantic article:
“But all the current physical impacts of climate change—drought, extreme heat, fire, storms, sea-level rise—would get significantly worse by 2100 under SSP 2. And say goodbye to coral reefs. “At 2.5 degrees [Celsius], it’s probably a world in which we don’t have them,” O’Neill said. “They don’t exist.” The Arctic? “My guess is that we would have a permanently ice-free Arctic in the summer. And so we would have all of the ecological consequences that would come along with that.””
That’s the root of the problem, a litany of antiscience. Corals evolved during the Cambrian Explosion, in a hothouse climate.
The discrete solar forcing of major heatwaves are a cause and not a product of climate change.
Their “current physical impacts of climate change” is hocus pocus, there is no physics which connects a small rise in CO2 forcing with weather variability, let alone with weather extremes.
As for the Arctic, the AMO and Arctic are normally warmer during centennial solar minima, and the warm AMO feeds hurricane intensity, regional drought, and glacier retreat.
Ulric Lyons commented:
That’s the root of the problem, a litany of antiscience. Corals evolved during the Cambrian Explosion, in a hothouse climate.
The discrete solar forcing of major heatwaves are a cause and not a product of climate change.
Their “current physical impacts of climate change” is hocus pocus, there is no physics which connects a small rise in CO2 forcing with weather variability, let alone with weather extremes.
As for the Arctic, the AMO and Arctic are normally warmer during centennial solar minima, and the warm AMO feeds hurricane intensity, regional drought, and glacier retreat.
You’re the one who’s antiscience. But you’ll never listen or try to learn anything, you don’t read the science, aren’t interested in it. It matters little.
Balanced, generally knowledgeable people that read a range of climate science material are left with the inescapable conclusion that UN IPCC and U.S. Climate Assessments are written by ideologically corrupted tools of the politicians, not scientists. Their reports are clearly not written to inform independent citizens of people-driven democracies about the science of climate, but to persuade the unwary to follow centralized dictates of favored ideological outcomes.
Dave Fair commented:
Balanced, generally knowledgeable people that read a range of climate science material are left with the inescapable conclusion that UN IPCC and U.S. Climate Assessments are written by ideologically corrupted tools of the politicians, not scientists.
I think you only write that because you want to dismiss the reports but can’t begin to disprove the science. So it’s easier to just try to smear everyone involved and pretend that’s a rational response, when it’s only an emotional response.
David Appell, self projections, you’re clearly not listening or learning, and you’re patently not interested in whether what you selectively read is real science or not.
“But all the current physical impacts of climate change—drought, extreme heat, fire, storms, sea-level rise—would get significantly worse by 2100 under SSP 2. And say goodbye to coral reefs.
drought
not much evidence of that either for the US:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/pdsi/all/11/1895-2021?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2021
or globally:
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141/figures/5
extreme heat
No evidence of that in the long term US record:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf#page=16
fire trends of NASA NEO indicate a decrease of fires globally since 2000.
storms is a ‘nebulous’ category, but there is a decrease in strong US tornadoes since 1950 and no trend in all and major US landfalling hurricanes since 1850.
sea level rise is occurring, but at about the same rate as the twentieth century tide gauge rate. This is somewhat strange because groundwater use, irrespective of warming, now accounts for about 1mm per year and is accelerating.
coral reefs as noted, coral have been around for many millions of years and unlikely to be threatened. Also, coral are symbiotes that benefit from increased photosynthesis.
So, yeah, I’d say they’re 0 for 6 on these.
But emotion sells more magazines and enables government power than does facts. “Facts are the enemies of the state.”
It is interesting the predictions of Manabe from long ago did not include any of these, with the exception, of drought very specifically limited to the sub-tropics.
Manabe’s predictions were of: warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere, Arctic warming max, polar sea ice decrease, more Arctic warming in winter versus summer, increased runoff at high latitudes.
Warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere, Arctic warming max, polar sea ice decrease, more Arctic warming in winter versus summer all appear to have validated. These are all direct effects of radiative forcing so perhaps it’s not surprising. All but sea level rise of the litany above are indirect effects that are not necessarily related to global average temperature, so perhaps it’s not surprising that they’ve failed to verify.
Turbulent Eddie commented:
drought
not much evidence of that either for the US:
“The West’s megadrought is worst in 1,200 years. Los Angeles is taking wastewater recycling to the extreme,” CNN 2/14/22.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/us/west-megadrought-climate-wastewater-recycling/index.html
“‘Megadrought’ persists in western U.S., as another extremely dry year develops; The long-running dry stretch rivals anything in the last 1200 years, a sign of climate-change induced “aridification,”” National Geographic 5/7/21.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/megadrought-persists-in-western-us-as-another-extremely-dry-year-develops
“Lake Powell is about to drop below a critical level never reached before, as drought rages on,” CNN 3/3/22.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/03/us/lake-powell-water-colorado-river-climate/index.html
Now I get it, David; you get your science news from CNN.
Please note that the “megadrought” study compares (IIRC) a current high-resolution 22-year period to a very low-resolution multi-millennial period. It is propaganda dressed up as science.
Turbulent Eddie wrote:
sea level rise is occurring, but at about the same rate as the twentieth century tide gauge rate.
“Sea-Level Acceleration: Analysis of the World’s High-Quality Tide Gauges,” J.R. Houston
Journal of Coastal Research (2021) 37 (2): 272–279.
https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-20-00101.1
Turbulent Eddie wrote:
extreme heat
No evidence of that in the long term US record:
1961-2019 increasing trends in U.S. heat wave frequency, heat wave duration, heat wave season and heat wave intensity:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves
Again, David, official lies by the U.S. government: They only start the heatwave analysis at the very cool 1960’s period and ignore the record setting 1930’s. They are putting out political documents meant to trick the American public into believing the current ideological memes.
Neither the UN IPCC nor the U.S. government are putting out scientific documents; their conclusions are not supported by the published science. Additionally, the hyperbolic “existential crisis” and “increasing weather extremes” pronouncements by UN and U.S. politicians are unhinged in reality. I do not understand why you continue to defend this nonsense as science, David.
“The West’s megadrought There is always drought somewhere, but no increase of drought area for US or globally in the data.
heat wave frequency
Long Term US station data indicate a decrease of very hot days.
Most US state all time max temeprature records are more than eight decades old.
Sea-Level Acceleration If all other factors were constant, sea level rise would be accelerating because ground water use is accelerating. Estimates vary and are uncertain but around 1mm per year now to as much as 3mm per year in 2050.
Confirmation bias is to consider data that supports a story and ignore data which contradicts a story. You have proven adept at ignoring contradictory data. Perhaps I have dis-confirmation bias, considering data which contradicts a story, but no matter. I am not proposing the hypothesis that global warming will cause these harms. I am only pointing out the legitimate data which tends to falsify the hypothesis.
Turbulent Eddie,
Ah, now come the slipping and sliding that try to show your 10 minutes of Googling disprove a comprehensive report written carefully by climate experts.
And yet you’ve shown no evidence for your claims. None.
Dave Fair commented:
They only start the heatwave analysis at the very cool 1960’s period and ignore the record setting 1930’s.
According to NOAA statistics for annual average temperatures for USA48, no year in the 1930s ranks higher than 8th warmest (that’s 1934). Next is 1931 at 15th warmest.
The 7th warmest have all happened since 1998.
They are putting out political documents meant to trick the American public into believing the current ideological memes.
I get it now — anything you don’t understand or that’s above your head is “political” and “ideological” and “lies.” Even though you rarely if ever bother to check the data. It’s another lazy way to assume you’re always right.
Ulric Lyons wrote:
That’s the root of the problem, a litany of antiscience. Corals evolved during the Cambrian Explosion, in a hothouse climate.
So? That doesn’t mean they can survive the extremely rapid climate CHANGE taking place today.
Think, Ulric, think.
I think that if you weren’t talking nonsense you wouldn’t write CHANGE in upper case. No way is it “extremely rapid”. Try thinking about the temperature changes over the last 540 million years that corals have survived through.
Ulric Lyons commented:
I think that if you weren’t talking nonsense you wouldn’t write CHANGE in upper case. No way is it “extremely rapid”.
And your proof of that is what? In science it’s not enough to just offer opinions.
Let’s take the PETM: 6 C warming in 20,000 yrs = 0.03 C/century
today: 1.1 C warming in 170 years = 0.65 C/century = 22 times faster
after the Last Glacial Maximum: 5 C warming in about 11,000 yrs = 0.05 C/century
right now warming is about 0.20 C/decade = 2 C/century
So, yes, today’s warming is VERY rapid.
DA:
“after the Last Glacial Maximum: 5 C warming in about 11,000 yrs = 0.05 C/century”
GISP2 warmed 5°C after the Younger Dryas in a couple of centuries, and at 10,000 years ago it was warmer than now.
“right now warming is about 0.20 C/decade = 2 C/century”
Sea surfaces have seen about 0.5°C warming since 1940, and the most recent warming rate is no faster than from 1900 to 1940, which had far lower CO2 levels.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/mean:5
Ulric Lyons commented:
GISP2 warmed 5°C after the Younger Dryas in a couple of centuries, and at 10,000 years ago it was warmer than now.
GISP is Greenland–regional, not global.
Sea surfaces have seen about 0.5°C warming since 1940, and the most recent warming rate is no faster than from 1900 to 1940, which had far lower CO2 levels.
The current SST 30-yr linear trend is 1.6 C/century, very high.
The 1910-1946 30-yr trend peaked at 1.7 C/century, also very high, also partly due to GHGs.
Not sure what’s you’re trying to say — that the 1910-1946 trend, though partly influenced by GHGs, doesn’t matter?
These warming rates are very high compared to historical rates. A significant reason why we’re in a sixth mass extinction event.
In Germany the minister of economy stated that he checked and operating the nuclear power plants further is unsafe.
The Ukrainian army reports Russian planes and helicopters shot down, and the defense ministry reports more than 66,000 men have returned from abroad to fight in the war against Russia.
“Thanks to the pattern change developing a powerful high-pressure system over northern Europe, an early March Arctic cold blast with temperatures around -15 °C is forecast to spread into eastern Europe in the coming days. The favorable flipped pattern delivers extremely cold weather and snow also farther west into central and southern Europe next week. This is due to the Polar Vortex southern lobe turning towards Russia and Europe after being parked over the United States and Canada for most of the Winter Season 2021/22.”
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/polar-vortex-2022-arctic-extreme-cold-snow-russia-ukraine-eastern-europe-mk/?fbclid=IwAR1pBgr9aFFeAj6NYWzn27vh0XIfcUVNnhEM52dAWGoxdsVQnaNdGEN0OlE
A sneak peak at snow totals into mid-March show that influx of snow for many areas.
https://andysweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/nbm-conus-west-total_snow_10to1-7086400.png
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2022/03/02/march-snowf-forecast-ski/?fbclid=IwAR1Vx2LulEcaEqKHvkf1BM3TeQ-76Ti3j3ZtAAxnpdL0E8OKdV68ClLouck
Beyond shameful. The lowest form of scientific discourse. But maybe the targeted audience is for pre-adolescents. The music is catchy, though.
https://twitter.com/UNICEF/status/1499943783948976128
I thought this related.
The Frankfurt School was the dominant sociological view when I was in school. And, it still is. It took me decades to get out from under its spell. Whether you believe it or not, you are under that same spell, to one degree or another. No? Then take a few moments and read this short piece.
https://quillette.com/2022/03/02/herbert-marcuse/
Little Amelia from Kiev livens up people’s time in one of Kiev’s air-raid shelters with her singing
https://youtu.be/g2BHRt9jSXY
Although I was at LSE 1961-64 and had friends well to the left of me for years, I was never “under the spell.” Au contraire, I thought that my friends’ views were often absurd. As regards “because no single person, or even group of persons, can come up with infallible thoughts,” the Buddha might be an exception to that. Of course, he went beyond thought, to direct observation of reality as it manifests in our own minds and bodies. Thought is limited and can never take one to such understanding.
Hey Mike … you were a wiser young man than I. :-) Thanks for the reply.
… that should have appeared as a reply to Bill Fabrizio.
Russian frost in a few days in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/sJbV6wt/Screenshot-2.png
To accompany its armor.
David Appell wrote on Mar 5 at 1.45 pm about his major perceived catastrophe from man-made climate change being sea level rise, which he explained was in three parts, “Thermal expansion of ocean water + melting of land-based ice + now-filled river dams.”.
David, I have looked for a figure, derived from past measurements, that related sea level change to the first of these, thermal expansion of ocean water. What I sought was a number like the thermal expansion coefficient of water, by which a water-filled thermometer might be calibrated. So, David, how many mm of sea level change happens from each 1 degree C change in temperature? (Temperature can optionally be the global average surface temperature, GAST, or whatever you choose for your response).
David, unless you can answer this question, you have no credibility to make an assertion that future sea level rise is a threat, because you cannot explain the scientific mechanisms behind your claim. Geoff S
…………………………………
(You might also contemplate that the current rate of global sea level change has persisted for about 6.000 years, starting long before Man seems to have had any ability to change it measurably.)
Wiki – “Over a shorter timescale, the low level reached during the LGM rebounded in the early Holocene, between about 14,000 and 6,000 years ago, and sea levels have been comparatively stable over the past 6,000 years.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
Geoff Sherrington:
“…the sea level was almost constant in the last 2,500 years, before the recent rising trend that started at the end of the 19th century or in the beginning of the 20th.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Past_changes
Geoff Sherrington wrote:
So, David, how many mm of sea level change happens from each 1 degree C change in temperature?
Oh come on, the thermal coefficient of expansion of water is trivial to look up. So is a basic calculation.
The complication is that the temperature of the ocean (the thermocline) hasn’t changed by a constant amount over its entire dept — obviously it’s changing faster near the surface than at the bottom, though I suspect you might get a reasonably good approximation by only considering the top 700 m of the ocean or even the top 100 m, both of which can be calculated from the published data on ocean heat content.
More than 900,000 refugees from Ukraine have already reached Poland.
I rarely agree with Mr. Apple on anything but the goal is not energy scarcity.
That may be the result of the foolish transition to green energy, along with higher electricity prices, and a much less reliable electric grid. But that
is not a goal. The problem is leftists ruin everything they touch and they
are working on ruining the electric grid. Their goal is never to ruin anything, but that is the very frequent result.
The ONLY connection between climate and the Russian attack on Ukraine is the timing of the attack. It was launched during the cold portion of the winter when many nations in Europe are dependent on natural gas from Gazprom. There is no other climate connection.
The attack was not justified. The problems in Donbass since 2014 did not justify an attack on the entire Ukraine nation. Or even ian attack on Donbass. The claim that Ukraine was about to join NATO is just speculation and did not justify any attack. In fact, Ukraine and NATO have discussed Ukraine as a NATO member since 1997 — that’s 25 years. Ukraine did not join NATO and was never invited to join NATO. There are no US nuclear weapons inside Ukraine as there are (US nuclear bombs) at six US air bases in various NATO nations. One of which is Turkey, which is close to the Russian border. If Russia did not attack Ukraine for the first 24 years of NATO – Ukraine negotiations, why would a 25th year of negotiations justify a massive attack on Ukraine?
Putin’s blitz into Ukraine seems to have unified the free at the same time in the US provided new domestic hand grenades for the left and right to throw at each other.
The conservatives are pointing to the “not-in-my-backyard” greens for blocking domestic fossil fuel production in favor of importing fossil fuel from (who knows where…turned out to be Russia).
The liberals are pointing at America First conservative populists for denigrating NATO and thus naturally encouraging Putin’s ambitions. Retired general and past Trump advisor, Douglass McGregor, is the favorite target now since his past unheeded calls for taking Ukraine’s entrance into NATO off the table has led him currently to be seemingly apologizing for Putin.
Since I hear more attacks than acknowledgements of understanding I will attempt to defend both camps, while providing zero excuse for naked military invasion.
The greens needed prices for petroleum to go up to make alternative energy more attractive in the free market. Since they only have control of the domestic portion of the global oil market they naturally used it as their control knob. Enriching petro-states was a tolerable tradeoff. Consequences were unforeseen. Trumps warnings to Europe not to empower Putin by becoming Russia reliant went over their heads since Trump, (being a Putin “agent”), was discredited in their minds.
The America first conservative’s policy is informed by a combination of peace-through-strength Reaganism and a non-intervention wisdom obtained after witnessing two decades of mostly failed adventures. The specific policy to contain Putin was to: A) keep low oil prices; B) Awaken Europe to their NATO contribution obligations; C) Generally respect Russia’s historic paranoia on western border attack (from our perspective or Monroe Doctrine from theirs); D) Respect Putin personally (however unpalatable). After all, handling a dictator with nukes at his command requires a delicate touch. No?
The greens should now admit they have to change policy on domestic oil production while the conservatives have to revise their containment policy to one of direct confrontation and hope for the best. Sorry, general McGregor and Tucker Carlson, you can change your policy and still have been correct that it would have been better (if it had been conducted).
Let’s not help Putin. Let’s come together.
Ron Graf commented:
The greens should now admit they have to change policy on domestic oil production…
There are 9,000 oil and gas leases going unused in the US because oil companies would rather pay dividends than pump more oil. (Bloomberg)
https://twitter.com/maxkennerly/status/1499920917312548874?s=11
The world still has to fight and defeat climate change, which is already having an impact, killing people, and it will only get worse.
IPCC 6AR WG2: “One estimate suggests GDP per capita for 1991-2010 in Africa was on average 13.6% lower compared to if climate change had not occurred.” (high confidence)
https://twitter.com/EthonRaptor/status/1500576952251555852
David, are you saying that Biden has been encouraging US oil production? Remember, he literally killed the Keystone pipeline within hours of taking the oath of office.
Ron Graf commented:
David, are you saying that Biden has been encouraging US oil production?
Why should he when there are so any leases going unused?
The fact is, Biden also has to fight climate change. This means reducing and eventually eliminating fossil fuel use. It means transitioning to renewable energies. It will mean paying more for carbon. Americans can certainly use less gasoline — look at the trucker convoy circling DC right now, useless burning gasoline protesting vaccine mandates that don’t even exist. Everyone doesn’t have to drive large new trucks and SUVs. They can turn the heat down a little, the A/C up a little and install heat pumps. That’s necessary now for the time we live in.
David, you are right: everyone does not need to use fossil fuel for their trivial whims like flying their private jet to receive climate awards while detouring to another continent for a favorite dinner delicacy.
The answer is to either A) Take away disposable income by confiscating unnecessary wealth. B) Make fossil fuel expensive (while not enriching kleptocrats and petro-states). C.) Take way freedoms by micro-regulating every use of energy. D) Promote nuclear energy and other non-fossil fuel technology. E) All of the above. F) All except nuclear.
Which ones do you chose?
David, you answered my question on whether you thought Biden was promoting fossil fuel production with another question of “why should he.”
Here is an article today in the Washington Times answering your question about Biden’s energy policy.
Biden slaying the years of work on the Keystone pipeline as a matter of reflex when coming into office in itself sent a loud and clear message to anyone interested in investing in fossil fuel production.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/5/americas-energy-problem-was-not-the-death-of-the-k/
Ron, did you read the part about oil and gas companies sitting on 9,000 open leases?
Why should the Biden administration offer more?
David asks: “Ron, did you read the part about oil and gas companies sitting on 9,000 open leases?
Why should the Biden administration offer more?”
David, if oil leases were cookies than I would say Biden should cut the fat oil companies off from any more sugar until they finish their dinner. But if some oil leases are near worthless due cost of production then I would say perhaps Biden could offer to open richer ones and or cut the cost of production by reducing unnecessary regulation burdens, or whatever Trump was doing.
Now, kindly answer my questions that you avoided.
David,
Here is the American Petroleum Institute’s reply to Jen Psaki’s talking point on the 9000 currently unused oil leases.
Ron Graf commented:
Now, kindly answer my questions that you avoided.
What questions haven’t I answered?
Do I think Biden has been encouraging US oil production? Not exactly, though as I wrote there are 9,000 unused oil and gas leases out there. You seem to think some of them are bad, without any evidence they are, or that still more are needed.
I think Biden was right to kill Keystone XL. We have to decrease our use of oil and gas! And eventually stop using them entirely. How much warming is acceptable to you, Ron? 3 C? 4 C? 5 C?
1.5 C and 2 C are already locked in.
How much suffering do you want to cause? How many meters of sea level rise are you fine with? pH units of ocean acidification? What percentage of species do you have no problem eliminating? Let us know.
The fact is, most of the oil, gas and coal that’s in the ground has to stay there if the planet is to remain livable.
David,
I see you parroting the Dem party line on energy which is: “We need to do everything we can to obstruct fossil fuel production to save the planet.” But then when the consequences of those policies appear, as in inflation, dependence on dictators and harming the poor, you say: “We are doing more for oil production than Trump. And by the way, you should be thankful for high energy prices.”
Here is MSNBC making exactly your above arguments. The headline is “GOP lying to you about gas prices.” The article starts that high gas have nothing to do with Dem policy and ends with we should be thankful for high energy prices.
The Dem solution to the pain at the pump: a proposal to give vouchers for low cost gas to the working class and welfare dependents.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gasoline-vouchers-worth-300-a-month-some-economists-back-new-government-aid-as-prices-at-pump-soar-11646855782?siteid=yhoof2
It is always the same: Dems break it — but don’t worry — they’ll pay for it — with your money.
Ron,
As everyone is becoming painfully aware, inflation is becoming embedded in everything, and energy plays a big part.
Global debt is now over 290 trillion (US$). It’s been expanding faster than global GDP for almost 20 years. That puts a lot of the responsibility for inflation on the central banks. There were powerful deflationary forces masking this massive money injection. Technology took big chunks out of the costs of common consumer goods like the internet, electronics, GMO foods. All that plus the shift to global commerce allowed the west to import deflation (remember, capital is more mobile than labor is).
Unpinning all this is belief in Behavioral Economics and the magic of polling consumers on their “inflation expectations”. I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.
Ron Graf commented:
I see you parroting the Dem party line on energy which is: “We need to do everything we can to obstruct fossil fuel production to save the planet.”
I’m in favor of eliminating fossil fuels, which are dangerously warming the planet, which you don’t seem to care about, and getting onto renewable energy.
Do you know that in the last 12 months US companies exported an average of 7.9 Mb/day? What is that doing to the price of gasoline here?
Ron, why don’t you care that more fossil fuel use will continue to warm the planet and cause more climate change? Did you read the recent news articles about last week’s report from the IPCC?
Or are you only interested in how little you can pay for a gallon of gas?
Jack, I agree with much of your inflation analysis, that the dollar printing press was offset by productivity gains use of global labor to reduce costs.
What changed when Biden took over was the abuse of the printing press coupled with a reckless energy policy, signaled a lack of awareness (or care) of the effects on the economy and inflation specifically.
Behavioral economics creates an inertia of expectation of the future to continue as the past. This held inflation at bay. Now that it is firmly here it will be difficult to cure.
David commented: “I’m in favor of eliminating fossil fuels, which are dangerously warming the planet, which you don’t seem to care about, and getting onto renewable energy.”
I am also in favor of replacing fossil fuels, which is why I bought an EV three years ago. Environmental conscientiousness is not the same as environmental religiosity. The difference is being open minded to productively managing realities of competing moral interests. As Dr. Curry has pointed out many times, there are lives on the line in developing countries. The reality of life currently in Ukraine precludes the concern with a theory of atmospheric radiative physics. I imagine that dictators have nothing but sleepless nights over the IPCC’s last news blast, not. John Kerry surely is the butt of their jokes.
Religion entails things like self-flagellation and redemption. I am for encouraging free markets to continue to solve problems with slow grind of mundane lab experiments that fuel solar photovoltaic efficiency and nuclear fusion yields.
“Do you know that in the last 12 months US companies exported an average of 7.9 Mb/day? What is that doing to the price of gasoline here?” This is mainly an artifact of obsolete regulation that prevent shipping out of one US port to enter another flying a foreign flagged ship. See The Jones Act.
“Ron, why don’t you care that more fossil fuel use will continue to warm the planet and cause more climate change? Did you read the recent news articles about last week’s report from the IPCC?
Or are you only interested in how little you can pay for a gallon of gas?”
David, honestly…
I want to pay as little for gasoline, natural gas, and other petroleum products as possible. You’re d**m right I do!
A mineral lease is the exclusive rights to the mineral resources under a tract of land or seafloor.
In exchange for predetermined compensation, this is a specific type of lease arrangement between an entity and a property owner. It grants the entity the rights to explore to determine if minerals are present and, also, to extract minerals, like iron, copper, oil, or even natural gas, from the leased property.
Mineral Lease, Law Dictionary
Federal mineral leases are awarded to the high bidders in competitive lease sales. Federal leases generally have 5 to 10 year primary terms. Leaseholders may then apply for permits to drill wells.
Once a leaseholder, operator, or designated agent identifies an oil and gas deposit on a Federal lease, they can file an application for permit to drill (APD). The BLM posts these APDs on its 30 Day Federal Public Posting Report Page. The BLM governs the APD process under Onshore Order #1 and its 2017 amendment, which is codified under 43 CFR §3160.
[…]
An approved APD is valid for two years or until the lease expires, whichever occurs first, but the BLM may grant a two-year extension to allow the operator more time to drill.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/09/jen-joe-is-it-9000-leases-or-permits-that-oil-companies-are-allegedly-sitting-on/
David,
Here is more information on how the 2016 policy change lifting the long ban on US petroleum exports led to the unintended consequences of needing to import more oil today. The Jones Act bars foreign flagged ships from taking a commodity from one US port to another.
https://www.cato.org/blog/russian-oil-table-jones-act-serves-barrier-using-domestic-supplies#:~:text=Passed%20in%201920%2C%20the%20Jones,these%20requirements%20isn't%20cheap.
Ron, you’re digging pretty deep to justify more oil use to make global warming even worse.
The Jones Act is nothing but classic protectionist politics:
“Opponents of the act want it repealed, hoping that this will result in decreased shipping costs, lower prices, and less strain on government budgets. Proponents of the act include states with owners of navy yards, defense firms, and shipping industries, as well as the longshoremen and other personnel who work in ports. Scrapping the law will likely reduce the number of U.S. maritime jobs while lowering shipping costs.”
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp
Ron Graf commented:
As Dr. Curry has pointed out many times, there are lives on the line in developing countries.
Oh please, get off your high horse:
“One estimate suggests GDP per capita for 1991-2010 in Africa was on average 13.6% lower compared to if climate change has not occurred. Impacts manifest largely through losses in agriculture, as well as tourism, manufacturing, and infrastructure.”
— IPCC 6AR WG2
https://twitter.com/EthonRaptor/status/1500576952251555852
David, the 1920 Jones Act was not ill-intentioned. But like many laws it tends toward unintended consequences and needs to be revisited.
Unfortunately, the congress is a collection of ideologues that can barely keep the lights on while they build barrier fences around themselves to keep the angry public at bay.
Why US can’t longshoremen tend to a foreign flagged ships? (I don’t expect an answer.)
My justification is for allowing the free market to work in the energy sector. Central planning always has unintended consequences. For example, making domestic manufacturing more expensive makes it less globally competitive, which hurts things like domestic ship building. So, there are even reasons for energy independence besides not screwing over the public with your good intentions, David.
David, I would love you to go to south Florida and tell them you are going to make gasoline twice as expensive and they should thank you because climate change is harming them right now according to the IPCC 6AR WG2.
Ron Graf commented:
David, I would love you to go to south Florida and tell them you are going to make gasoline twice as expensive
Ron, you professed sympathy for developing nations, and then completely ignored what the WG2 said about African GDP.
Why?
Don’t know about Ron but I completely ignore WG2 on African GDP.
Ron Graf commented:
David, I would love you to go to south Florida and tell them you are going to make gasoline twice as expensive and they should thank you because climate change is harming them right now according to the IPCC 6AR WG2.
Ron, I’m not making gasoline more expensive. Nor is gasoline becoming twice as expensive. (Don’t exaggerate.) Nor is Biden.
Oil is sold on a world market. Learn that.
US oil companies sell their oil on a world market. Learn that.
Don’t south Floridians already know about climate change due to the King Tides that flood their streets?
Aren’t they well aware their cities will be underwater by the year 2100? That a good bit of their state will be too? Their groundwater ruined?
They will all be leaving. Abandoning their real estate. BEGGING THE US GOVERNMENT AND US TAXPAYERS TO MAKE THEM WHOLE.
Ron Graf commented:
My justification is for allowing the free market to work in the energy sector….. So, there are even reasons for energy independence besides not screwing over the public with your good intentions, David.
What the Fuk are you talking about, dude. You want a free market? Then let’s have a free market. Let’s start by having the fossil fuel companies pay all the damage costs of their product. That’s only fair, right? All the damage costs to health, environment, species and climate due to burning coal, oil and natural gas, right?
You agree, right Ron?
You don’t want a free market, Ron. You want to collect the profits, while socializing the costs onto the public.
Ron,
I think it’s manic consumerism that is at the root of our energy/commodities crisis. When I went solar back in 2012 I had to restructure my energy demand to adapt to my variable energy supply. That meant load shifting, LED lighting, zoned heating/air etc.. It meant I had to change my life style without lowering my standard of living. Ten years later, it worked! I haven’t had a electric bill since 2012. Unfortunately that’s about to change as true net metering is no longer available in Texas and my electric bill has jumped to $15/mo with $8 of that going to payback for the utility companies losses from the 2021 winter storm Uri (for the next 10 years!).
Crazy stock market eh? US Solar stocks are soaring and the fools don’t seem to realize that China controls the market. Anyway it’s too late now. Even if you wanted to install your own panels you would be lucky to get them this year.
Ever do an energy audit on your lifestyle?
Jack, kudos to you for taking personal action to reduce your carbon footprint. I too am very conscious of replacing bulbs with LED, using the heat and cooling sparingly and organizing shopping to minimize trips. I have been driving a Chevy Bolt EV since 2019 and love it, though my commute is just 10 minutes and I may not get much gas savings.
I derive a lot of satisfaction in how much comfort and enjoyment I can get maximizing resources. I think it came from doing backpacking since I was a teen. That also made me an environmentalist. Thus, I am conservative in every sense.
My children are likewise frugal and conservation minded (not from the years of reminding them about turning out lights when leaving a room). They are unfortunately typical products of liberal campus culture and thus have little appreciation for where wealth comes from (freedom).
I can agree with my children that a carbon tax to raise prices at the retail level, and even for meat, is a sensible policy to promote conservation. But I am not religiously against anything except waste and crime. I am for fair and transparent markets and personal liberty (without interference with other’s liberty).
I think human nature must never be squelched but it is entirely fair to divert, distract or entice behaviors. I actually do appreciate the wisdom of America’s founders and how their system prevented American kings and dictators — so far.
And you are paying over twice as much per kwh as someone getting electricity from the grid. And even more than that if you use natural gas instead. Yep, you done your parents proud with that solar panel system.
jim2,
How much electricity did you stockpile back in 2012? Or did you lock in a 25yr purchase contract?
And like most green energy “gurus” you don’t include the cost of tearing it out and disposing of it when it’s no longer working. Before that happens you will have to change out storage batteries, another cost you haven’t had to eat yet. And even that scenario depends no breakdowns of inverters or other equipment. Yep, you’re livin’ the green … that green utopia, Jack.
No, Jack. It ain’t “manic consumerism.” It’s that puddin-head Biden has done everything in his power to hold back the US petroleum industry. Git rid of him, and the other Dimowits, and we’ll be back on the road to energy independence and cheaper energy and goods, that is: lower inflation. That’s exactly what needs to happen and the sooner the better.
Not written by anyone with any competence in development economics I expect.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Not written by anyone with any competence in development economics I expect.
Are you replying to someone?
Robert I. Ellison commented:Not written by anyone with any competence in development economics I expect.
Did you even look at who wrote it? And then evaluate their qualifications?
Be honest.
← Climate science and the third great idea in 20th century physicsFailing the test of environmental conservation →
All bubbles burst: laws of economics for the new millennium
Posted on March 11, 2016 by Robert I. Ellison
The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets. So what are these laws of capitalism?
David doesn’t know – he thinks capitalism is the problem – and then demands that I take him seriously. 🤣
Robert I. Ellison commented:
← Climate science and the third great idea in 20th century physicsFailing the test of environmental conservation →
All bubbles burst: laws of economics for the new millennium
Posted on March 11, 2016 by Robert I. Ellison
The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets. So what are these laws of capitalism?
Intellectual bullsh!t justification from someone completely disconnected from anyone who lives in the real world and is retired and who has got his and worries about nothing and sees the world as a big argument on the web that doesn’t affect his bottom line at all and has nothing to worry about and has absolutely nothing on the line and so quotes numbers he read somewhere and reports and whacks off to conservative tropes.
Typical no-nothing loud mouth uncouth Australian.
Couldn’t care less about anyone but himself.
Pretends to care, but, lost in all his statistics and arrogance, clearly doesn’t.
In other words, a complete selfish d!ck.
Economic growth is the catalyst for human progress this century. Market fundamentals are the basis. I have worked for decades to conserve environments at the boundary of the built and natural environments. As young environmental scientists we understood that only rich economies could afford environments. I was an activist – we stopped a US Navy bombing exercise once. Sent the greenies out onto the range. No great loss even if the worst happened. I was in the local shopping mall doing damage control.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
I have a hobby. Slowly buying growth stocks on world stock markets. Lithium, rare earths, potash, copper, nickel, north Australian beef, lots of metaverse action – even a Chinese EV maker, an online retailer and a music streamer. It’s a game for me. I want to see how much money I can leave Daisy and her matrilineal island people. 😊
David asks why am I interested in the price of gas.
Even though my EV doesn’t need to stop at a gas station unless the tire pressure needs topping up, my concern here is the mismanagement of the world by religious zealots.
Every executive action that Biden took since being placed in power by the left has been a destructive monkey wrench thrown into the gears. Nobody, even his past installers, believe anything that comes out of his mouth or believe he or his VP have an iota of competence (at anything).
The thing that most turns me off is people who parrot government propaganda that they know is 100% misleading. You were even told why the Jen Psaki 9000 oil leases point was complete BS by several people yet you continued without the slightest thought to sling it around.
David, before you go out any buy a yard sign saying “Hate has no home here” you might reflect on what are the root causes distrust, anger and ill will. Although loyalty to a cause is often virtuous it is not a license to dishonesty and to ignore all other virtues.
Ron
David is an ultra progressive zealot unable to evaluate issues fairly as a scientist on the issue of climate change.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Don’t know about Ron but I completely ignore WG2 on African GDP.
Why?
Wasn’t written by your cult hero?
Ron Graf commented:
Or are you only interested in how little you can pay for a gallon of gas?”
David, honestly…
Answer the question, Ron. You seem awfully worried about fossil fuel production. Why? What dog do you have in the fight?
Another unexpected and pleasant result of Green policies.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNNKT7gVEAEVNMh?format=jpg&name=medium
I agree wholeheartedly with all of that bar the reference to heat pumps. The link relates to a blog article by the late D MacKay of Cambridge in which key parameters used in his calculations are unfeasibly optimistic, wildly so.
MacKay was Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Govt’s Dept of Energy & Climate Change 2009-14, a period during which a whole string of modern, efficient, coal-fired power stations were precipitately closed by government edict, as were the open-cast mines which fed them.
“Nil nisi…” and all that, but if MacKay were alive I’d be ripping into him as directly as possible for his part in getting us into this fix. His enthralment with heat pumps was merely a symptom of an enthusiatic and much wider engagement with “the project”.
Every engineer who had the slightest contact with the UK nuclear industry has known for more than 20 years that life extensions to our fleet of AGRs would get them through to about 40 years and after 2020 there would be a rapid cascade of permanent closures. That’s happening right now and almost half will have gone by July. Years ago, the IMechE, the UK’s pre-eminent professional body in the field of power engineering, publicly warned of the impending energy gap that closure of nuclear and coal would produce and that nothing was in the pipeline to replace them within any sensible timescale.
I have to say that people like Professor MacKay were well warned of the catastrophic scenario which was unfolding, it was in any case their professional duty to ensure they were fully apprised of real-world engineering practicalities and they have a great deal to answer for.
The EU and especially Germany have made their bed with the Green Energy Extremists and now have to sleep with those cut throats. The GEEs don’t have any sympathy for those who lose their job or die from hypothermia due to a lack of reliable energy. Russia has the EU by the short hairs.
Commodities markets saw record volatility on Monday. Oil nearly touched $140 after the White House said it was considering an embargo on Russian supplies, before pulling back when German Chancellor Olaf Scholz poured cold water on the idea. European energy prices climbed to new highs with benchmark gas increasing 79% to 345 euros ($374.79) a megawatt-hour, before settling lower.
The U.S. House is exploring a bill that would ban the import of Russian oil and energy products, a move that would add to economic pressure as more companies pull out of the country.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-07/ukraine-update-oil-surges-as-u-s-mulls-banning-russian-imports
Green hysteria is indeed a contributing factor, but I think there is a larger framework in place that people like Putin and Xi have picked up on. While General Milley bloviates about “wanting to understand white rage” in the military, and while we tucked our tails between our legs and bolted from Afghanistan leaving the Taliban with more land and arms than it ever had, Putin and Xi have made the calculated and quite reasonable assertion that the West is in a suicidal death spiral and no longer takes itself seriously. Why would a President make, as his first move in office, decisions that would hamstring his nation with regards to energy? Why would someone do that!? Our decision to commit national seppuku gave Putin the opportunity to shore up his defenses, become a European energy powerhouse, and provided it with the necessary means to push back against NATO. The reason he went in to Ukraine however has nothing to do with energy, or farms, or even neo-nazis, he went in to Ukraine because he explicitly said that any attempts by NATO to either set up defenses in Ukraine or accept Ukraine into NATO was a red line. He said this about Georgia as well, and look where we are now. Innocent civilians are dying (along with oblivious soldiers) all predicated on the assertion that Ukraine would become a part of NATO which was ultimately a promise we could never keep. Putin is a war criminal for his crimes in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, and now Ukraine – but this crime was one for which the West was inextricably linked both economically and politically.
Putin reveals his ace in the hole and Europe is powerless to stop this disaster. Europe listened to the Green Energy Extremists and now may pay an unbelievably high price. Don’t look to the GEEs for sympathy. They simply don’t care if you freeze to death, die of heat stroke, lose your job, or can no longer afford to drive you car because of high fossil fuel prices. We need to vote these id eee ots off the island!
European gas prices swung wildly after Russia threatened to cut supplies to Europe in retaliation for sanctions, and as the European Union scrambles to find alternatives.
Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak warned late Monday that Russia could halt flows along the existing Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Germany. The EU is trying to get ahead of any such moves, mapping out a plan to cut its huge dependency on Russian gas.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-08/european-gas-futures-surge-as-russia-threatens-to-cut-flows
The new, new normal.
The Russian Federation supplies a significant volume of fossil fuels and is the largest exporter of oil, natural gas and hard coal to the European Union. In 2017, energy products accounted around 60% of the EU’s total imports from Russia. According to Eurostat, 30% of the EU’s petroleum oil imports and 39% of total gas imports came from Russia in 2017. For Estonia, Poland, Slovakia and Finland, more than 75% of their imports of petroleum oils originated in Russia.
The West made a miscalculation of comparable magnitude to Putin’s by becoming energy dependent on the Kremlin to mollify their domestic Greens. They ignored the obvious danger that their money would fund aggression because invasion was inconceivable to them, though not, as it proved, to the siloviki, the clique of strongmen who control Russia. It’s another reminder of the danger of mirror imaging; to think the other guy wants what you want is always fraught. John Kerry’s reaction to the outbreak of hostilities was to observe it would hamper the campaign against climate change. But that was probably the farthest thing from Putin’s mind.
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2022/03/07/the-end-of-the-old-normal-n1564272
I wonder if this spike in Nickel prices will be the new normal for a variety of commodities. Apparently a Chinese bank was given a mulligan on a margin call worth hundreds of millions.. I also heard this morning that a Chinese billionaire had a short margin call worth billions but haven’t been able to confirm that elsewhere. Maybe Fake News.
Markets in general will be in turmoil for months due to inflation, supply chain disruptions, the collapsing bridge to green energy and Ukraine.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/markets/china-construction-bank-unit-gets-reprieve-on-metal-margin-calls
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 K…..210 K
–
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The war in Ukraine will deliver a shock to the global supply and cost of food, the boss of one of the world’s biggest fertiliser companies has said.
Yara International, which operates in more than 60 countries, buys considerable amounts of essential raw materials from Russia.
Fertiliser prices were already high due to soaring wholesale gas prices.
Yara’s boss, Svein Tore Holsether, has warned the situation could get even tougher.”
“ Half the world’s population gets food as a result of fertilisers… and if that’s removed from the field for some crops, [the yield] will drop by 50%,” Mr Holsether said.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60623941
I understand that ad blue-used in modern diesel engines- will also be in very short supply. Personally I have withdrawn some small amounts of cash as it seems likely banks will be hacked at some point.
Tony, to be safe you may want to double your withdrawal amount to cover inflation for next week.
Hi Tony
I think we are in a time of permanent potential shocks, beyond the current crisis. The threat of a national electric grid collapse for weeks or months from a hack is real. I’ve told my kids plan on it happening and stock up on food accordingly. Canned goods and non-perishable items should be available for a few months, with regular rotation before expiration dates to avoid spoilage.
I’m not sure I will see it but they should be prepared long after I croak, since the probability is very high that it will happen, time indeterminate.
ckid
i have been concerned for many years that so much of our infrastructure is so vulnerable to hackers. take down the banks and electricity and communications and the world starts to unravel with food distribution, water and power being on the front line
that the internet has so many tentacles for hackers to enter the system from toasters to electric door bells to baby alarms, becomes more worrying with each passing year.
I hope someone somewhere is building up non internet related back up systems but I doubt it, as the internet of things is seen as highly desirable rather than questioned.
Of course the young can’t conceive of the world before the internet but it functioned perfectly well. If their smart phones stop working they won’t know how to function.
What you want to do is start moving to a “Zero Trust” architecture. This will be the next generation of digital security.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/business/zero-trust/
Personally, I hope biometric authentication becomes ubiquitous across all platforms.
FYI, a bit of a reality check on residential PV:
Only 20% of homes in the US have suitable space to install enough solar panels to meaningfully reduce their electricity consumption. (see Google’s Project Sunroof)
Of that 20% up to 1/3 are prohibited due to zoning restrictions. Shortly after I installed my ground mounted PV array my city zoning board changed the law so that only homeowners with a 10 acre lot could install a ground mount system, effectively eliminating 95% of residential properties from that option.
Quoted prices never include the cost of removing/installing the panels when the roof needs replacing or when the panels reach end-of-life disposal.
Insurance companies now charge extra for homes with solar panels.
Most net metering plans will only credit at the wholesale kWh price and restrict rollover credit for excess generation. Use it or lose it.
Utility companies are now setting a permanent monthly connection fee surcharge for homeowners with solar panels.
Due to the very thin profit margins and the huge upfront costs of solar arrays they are extremely sensitive to interest rates. Almost all PV system will generate a negative return if long term interest rates exceed a APR of 5%.
Conclusion:
The market is going to suppress home solar to favor utility scale solar farms. Unless you are a prepper/survivalist, going solar in the future will cost you more than grid power.
In my opinion CO2 is not the real problem – it’s the billions of tons of man-made molecules/chemicals we are dispersing into the biosphere. We will leave that for future generations to deal with. Daniel Kahneman (“Thinking Fast and Slow”) was right, humans are wired to ignore long term problems.
As far as all the assumed-to-be new chemicals are concerned, the Devil is in the details. For example, given one one base sulphonate molecule upon which to add a polymer chain, there are an infinite number of potential ethoxylated surfactants that can be made. Technically, each of them is a distinct molecule. But these will all decompose in the environment in essentially the same way. So, it would be more useful to count chemical families like this rather than individual unique molecules. I haven’t read that author, so maybe that was done, but at any rate, the vast majority will break down chemically or biologically in the environment. Yes, there are some that will take a very long time to degrade, but they eventually will.
jim2,
I forgot to add fire danger to roof top solar systems.
Help me out here. Can you think of other reasons why home solar is a bad idea?
The number of novel chemicals now in production is about 350,000. It is expected that this number will double in the next 30 years. Just looking at plastic production, it is on track to triple output from 9.2 million tons in 2017 to 34 million tons by 2050.
And many plastics are engineered these days to degrade. One tactic used to achieve that is the integration of starch molecules into the polymer structure. So, you can’t really go by “tons”. Much of it is also recyclable. Again, the Devil is in the details.
We don’t recycle much plastic in the US. Ever since China stopped being our dumping ground for our plastic waste streams it goes straight to the land fill. Maybe the problem is our single-use economic model. Why don’t we adopt a reusable plastic circular system? Making plastic products last decades seems to be a better long-term solution.
Yep, much better to go with nat gas to the extent possible and make up the difference with grid electricity. Both the cheapest and the best.
Let’s try some Thinking-Fast-And-Slow logic. The natural gas under my house took 35 million years to accumulate. It was only the introduction of fracking technology in the early 2000s that made it economically viable to extract. Fun Fact: The fracking revolution bankrupted the largest utility in Texas because they had hedged their future gas contracts @ $5 mmb.
But unlike conventual gas wells, fracked wells have a front-loaded production curve that sharply drops within a few years. The well on my lease has been fracked three times since 2007 with each re-frack producing less output. I predict all the fracked gas wells drilled between 2000-2022 will be depleted by 2050 or sooner. There will still be lots of natural gas out there just less of it in the US.
Nothing new there. As far as hedging goes, like Yogi Berra said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
Eureka! Looks like I sitting on a huge battery.
3/7/2022
“Quidnet Energy is one of many companies being backed by Breakthrough Energy Ventures, the energy innovation organization founded by Bill Gates. It takes the fracking technology developed by the oil and gas industries and repurposes it to store energy. Here’s how the company describes the process, which it calls “geomechanical pumped storage” or GPS.
“Geomechanical pumped storage uses the rock beneath our feet as a sustainable natural resource. Quidnet’s patented GPS technology utilizes excess renewable energy to store water beneath ground under pressure. When renewable energy is not producing, this pressurized water drives hydroelectric turbines producing electricity to support the grid at a fraction of the cost of Li-ion and for much longer duration. Quidnet’s technology is an adaptation of centuries-old gravity-powered “pumped storage,” but without the massive land requirements and reliance on elevated terrain.”
I’m afraid that you are living in the past, with your addiction to fossil fuels and your desire to increase its use from so-called safe or more secure sources. This invasion by Russia and its slow destruction of an independent country whose freedom and choices it doesn’t like, is instead a wake up call to free ourselves from the shackles and destructive power of carbon.
It is obvious that we need independent sources of energy and, depending on the country (whether it has more sun, water, wind, etc), the future is so obviously renewable that only the hopelessly addicted refuse to see it. Nuclear can help the transition if it is viable but carbon is on its way out and the sooner the better.
If you care for your country, your freedom and your independence from the whims of dictators like Putin, you will be doing all you can to help the transition. It won’t be easy and there will be difficult compromises but the world has changed – move with it or condemn yourself and the rest of us to more of the same disruption and chaos.
Next time maybe Saudi Arabia may decide to blackmail us or, if Trump gets back in, it will be America who could threaten disruption if Trump feels like backing his smart friend Putin the next time he decides to invade a nearby country.
So JMurphy – you mean you want every country to be like Germany? They’ve installed so much “green” energy, they can’t live without Russia! You are full of it, my friend. Fossil fuels are the stuff of life – and I personally want to live a full, comfortable life. Fossil fuels are cheap and still plentiful. Every country should to all they can to ensure a local supply of those glorious fossil fuels! And along those lines, we need to vote out all politicians who seek to cripple us with the albatross of “green” unreliable energy. And also, demote anyone in the private sector who strives to do that end.
Why should every country be like Germany? That would be very boring and we Europeans prefer to work together and help each other to do without Russia. It can be done and will be done, as long as the carbon addicts and their selfish love affair with hydrocarbons don’t cry too much and become disruptive so as to preserve their comfortable lives.
The forward-thinkers are already planning to live with alternative sources of gas and, eventually, locally produced renewable.
“Until the summer, the EU would likely be able to survive large-scale disruption to Russian gas supplies, based on a combination of increased LNG imports (to the limited extent this is technically possible) and demand-side measures such as industrial gas curtailments. However, this would come at a cost for the EU economy and might even result in some countries (those more exposed to Russian gas and less interconnected with other EU countries) having to take emergency measures.
But, should a halt of Russian gas be prolonged into the next winters, it would be more difficult for the EU to cope. On the supply side some spare import capacity is available but reaching the scale required to entirely replace Russian volumes would be at best very expensive, and at worst physically impossible. Limiting factors include global liquefaction capacity constraints, existing obligations in the current LNG market and commercial opportunity considerations in producing countries in relation to diverting shipments away from Asia. There would also be pricing implications and second-round effects on the poorest countries. The EU would thus need to resort to demand-side measures, which would prove painful for different countries/constituencies. This will raise questions on how to fairly share the burden. Difficult and costly decisions would have to be taken to manage the situation in an orderly way. ”
https://www.bruegel.org/2022/01/can-europe-survive-painlessly-without-russian-gas/
We can do it together.
” we Europeans prefer to work together and help each other to do without Russia. ”
Evidence suggests otherwise
Which evidence suggests us Europeans are not working together or helping each other, Rob Starkey?
CKid commented:
Once again I am in the position of educating you about the basics of climate science. There is an obvious correlation between temperatures and the positive phase of the AMO. Just as I’ve pointed out numerous times. When the AMO moves to the cold phase you may need intervention.
What the AMO in a cold phase from 1975-1990?
Then explain the warming over that time.
Appell
More evidence you don’t know how to read graphs. The AMO reversed its trend from toward more negative to toward more positive in perfect sync with the reversal of temperatures from toward more cooling to toward more warming.
With all the tutoring about the fundamentals of climate science I’ve given you, I should be getting some remuneration.
Green Energy…..Not before its (it’s) time.
Talk about a bridge to nowhere.
The bridge does go somewhere … somewhere no sane person wants to go!
CKid commented:
Green Energy…..Not before its (it’s) time.
Talk about a bridge to nowhere.
As if warming the planet 3+ C is a bridge to somewhere. {rolls eyes}
02
Think GLIA (Global Little Ice Age) as background. Think AMO, that has been giving impetus for warming lately, is about to flip.
That 3C? …..About to go Poof!
You’ll be out of your pain before you know it.
CKid commented:
Think GLIA (Global Little Ice Age) as background.
The LIA wasn’t global.
Think AMO, that has been giving impetus for warming lately, is about to flip.
That 3C? …..About to go Poof!
Surface temperatures have been warming since about 1975. The top 700 m of the ocean since about 1970. Yet the warm phase of the AMO started about 1997.
The AMO doesn’t create heat, it just redistributes it.
When the trend becomes flattish for a few decades, people will wonder what ever happened to the predictions of meters of SLR when the actual numbers are in the inches. They will start to ask questions and will want answers. Like, why did the activist scientists get rid of the GMWP (Global Medieval Warm Period)? Why did they get rid of the GLIA (Global Little Ice Age)? Why did they ignore the low frequency expressions of internal variability? They will also ask, Why have the leftwing extremists destroyed the world economy when all they had to do was make the transition to green energy at a rational, measured pace based on the facts.
Someday, people will be held accountable for the current insanity.
CKid commented:
When the trend becomes flattish for a few decades….
You ignored what I wrote about the AMO, that the current warming started long before its current positive phase. Seems to disprove your theory….
Once again I am in the position of educating you about the basics of climate science. There is an obvious correlation between temperatures and the positive phase of the AMO. Just as I’ve pointed out numerous times. When the AMO moves to the cold phase you may need intervention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation#/media/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg
Even a better chart. Much more informative for the education of 02.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/hadamo.png
CKid commented:
Even a better chart. Much more informative for the education of 02.
LOL
Still shows that warming, which picked up around 1970-1975, started during the negative phase of the AMO.
Explanation?
And to counter those spreading pro-Putin propaganda concerning Ukraine and its Russian population, there is no proof or evidence of any attacks against them by Ukraine:
https://www.newsguardtech.com/special-reports/russian-disinformation-tracking-center/
High oil prices are exactly what the Green Energy Extremists want. They don’t care about that job you will lose, if you freeze to death, or die of heat stroke. All they care about is getting rid of fossil fuels and installing unreliable energy sources. We need to get rid of the Green Energy Extremists, instead.
West Texas Intermediate gained 3.6% to settle over $123 a barrel while Brent added 3.9%. The U.S. announced a ban of Russian fossil fuels on Tuesday. The U.K. said it phase out all imports of Russian oil. The country will continue to allow natural gas imports from Russia. So far, they are the only two countries to impose an outright ban. Europe is likely to face the brunt of the current commodity crisis, said Goldman Sachs analysts Jeff Currie in a report, with the Russian crisis threatening a 1970-s style energy shock.
The formalized sanctions imply a “drawn out conflict” and will have “massive implications” for the energy market long term, said Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth Management.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-07/oil-keeps-rising-as-russian-invasion-reverberates-across-markets
Yeah, we need to be more like Germany. Sure we do …
Berlin is the leading power resisting efforts to add Sberbank PJSC to the list of Russian financial institutions cut off from SWIFT — the bank messaging system behind much of global trade — according to multiple diplomats familiar with the matter and documents seen by Bloomberg.
Sberbank, which holds about half of Russian retail deposits, was excluded from the initial list of banks being removed from SWIFT as part of a decision to shield energy-related transactions, but calls to strengthen penalties from member states in central and eastern Europe have grown as Russia intensifies attacks on Ukraine.
Documents show that Germany has repeatedly urged caution over the move during diplomatic meetings that have taken place in recent days, including among ministers. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has also come out publicly, calling for restraint on sanctions that could impact energy.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-09/germany-is-stalling-eu-efforts-to-broaden-russia-s-swift-ban
Europe spends as much as $1 billion a day to pay for coal, gas and oil imported from Russia — indirectly funding the war machine that’s rolling through Ukraine.
“Because of what’s happening in Russia, there are no taboos in the choices member states can make,” Frans Timmermans, the EU’s climate czar, told environment committee lawmakers on Monday. He left it up to each country to decide whether they will make up for burning more fossil fuels in the short term by boosting investments in renewables. In practice both will happen — an uptick in coal, oil and gas imported from non-Russian sources as well as a push to expand solar, wind and nuclear.
READ MORE: War Exposes Europe’s Failure to Heed Warnings Over Russian Gas
Coal is the easiest problem to solve, even with prices running to $400 per ton. The U.S. and Australia can together replace 70% of the Russian coal imported into the EU right now, says Brian Ricketts, secretary general at Euracoal, a trade group for Europe’s coal industry.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-03-08/can-europe-weaken-putin-s-power-over-global-energy
Do you think the central bankers (led by our Federal Reserve) pumping trillions of dollars into the market had something to do with these high prices? Just look at the trillions of dollars of inflated housing prices here in the US. It’s happening everywhere. On paper my house went up 45% in the last few years according to the tax assessor. The short-term interest rate should be way higher but if interest rates were 5% we wouldn’t be able to pay the monthly interest on our government debt.
Maybe we need a debt jubilee (hat tip to Babylon 1792BC)
No, puddin’-head Biden enacted several edicts almost on his first day to kill the XL pipeline, take federal leases off the table, and more. The EU made it’s own special bed with Green Energy Extremists and now are paying the piper. And of course, even though not all countries ban Russian oil, a lot of shippers won’t touch it. It’s a supply issue, and this in spite of the fact that we use fossil fuels more efficiently than ever.
Oil price plunging over 6%. -> Biden “I did that!”
Biden is negotiating with both Venezuela and Iran to secure oil deals; anything but to allow American industry to correct the imbalance of supply:
https://iowaclimate.org/2022/03/07/climate-obsessed-biden-administration-seeks-oil-deal-with-venezuela-and-iran/
The age of fracking was born in 2005 when, at the urging of Vice President Cheney, fracking fluids were exempted from the Clean Water Act after the companies that own the patents on the process raised concerns about disclosing proprietary formulas – if they had to meet the Act’s standards they would have to reveal the chemical composition which competitors could then steal.
Pollution issues aside and two middle east wars later, this event set the stage for the illusion energy independence, the bankruptcy of dozens of coal mines and the 2015 law to repeal the 1975 “Energy Policy and Conservation Act” that prohibited the export of oil produced in the United States.
And here we are sanctioning some of the world largest oil reserves taking 3-5 mbb/d off the market. Simple supply dynamics at play. Interests rates at zero and 27 trillion dollars have flooded the market since the early 2000s.
Too late anyway. China will replace the US as the most powerful country in the world by 2028. Just look at their lead in patents since 2019. Our pathetic response to the pandemic ripped the facade away from the myth of American Exceptionalism. The gaping hole COVID left in our children’s education is a slow acting poison that will leave the US crippled and fragmented.
The future is not set in stone though. There is still a chance genetic engineering and technology could leap frog the Chinese if we could boost our IQ and suppress our self-destructive tribal instincts.
I can’t believe you are trotting out the fracking fluid FUD. Fracking fluids are safe for the environment. Not that very much of them at all actually “get out” to be in the environment.
jungletrunks commented:
Biden is negotiating with both Venezuela and Iran to secure oil deals; anything but to allow American industry to correct the imbalance of supply
Biden isn’t preventing American industry from correcting the imbalance of supply.
1) the US oil industry has exported an average of 7.9 Mb/day over the last 12 months.
2) 9,000 oil and gas leases are going unused.
3) “America’s largest frackers are reporting huge profits but plan to keep oil production in low gear this year, adhering to an agreement with Wall Street….” Wall Street Journal, 2/18/22
https://www.wsj.com/articles/frackers-hold-back-production-as-oil-nears-100-a-barrel-11645150760
Useful excerpts from this article here:
https://twitter.com/amywestervelt/status/1501306774116175875?s=11
Well first you need to find a source for clean water to inject into the well. Use per well can be anywhere from about 1.5 million gallons to about 16 million gallons each time it’s fracked over its lifespan. By 2015 we had used over 1.6 trillion gallons. Almost every gallon used in fracking is recovered and injected deep underground to remove it from the biosphere. They used to do it around DFW but after a few earthquakes and some nervous looks at our local nuclear plants they now have to truck it out to W. Texas. I’m not against fracking but I’m very much for all things electric. Electrons are massless and a form of pure energy. What’s not to like?
https://seedscientific.com/fracking-statistics/
PS: I only mentioned the Clean Water Act because it stood in the way of the energy companies thin profit margins. It would have happened anyway.
Appell – a lease doesn’t necessarily hold oil or gas. It’s land leased for exploration. That takes time and money. And when you have puddin-head Biden trying to shut down your industry, it’s not conducive to risk taking. Get a grip. We need to elect people who will simply get the government out of the energy market and … problem solved.
I think you may have gotten electrons confused with photons, Mr. Jack.
jim2,
By golly yer’ right. E=MC2.
Well at least when I fill up my battery it still weighs the same. Which is unfortunately the same as when it’s empty too. :(
jacksmith4tx | March 10, 2022 at 10:52 pm |
jim2,
By golly yer’ right. E=MC2.
“Well at least when I fill up my battery it still weighs the same.”
Not true. Your battery gets heavier by the amount
Change in M = ( E / c^2 ).
You can put in the numbers to see how big it is.
I get for the additional mass of electrons needed to fully charge a 100 kwh battery 0.000000000000000004908970326 kg.
But, a battery isn’t like a gas tank. A battery moves electrons from one side of the battery to the other, depending on if it is charging or discharging. So the net gain or loss of electrons is actually zero.
(Translated)
Germany gets more than half of its gas needs from Russia. This means that almost half of all German households heat their apartments and houses directly and many more indirectly via district heating. Politicians never tire of emphasizing that there will be no supply bottlenecks this winter, but the supply for the coming winter is more than uncertain. This is especially true if Putin reacts to the sanctions that have been imposed and stops supplying natural gas. Then it can happen that you have to freeze in your apartment.
https://blackout-news.de/aktuelles/frieren-um-putin-zu-schaden/?fbclid=IwAR2Wc8OE6pTT8uGUrjFEgAMZDxB9PXh3OmaakDdia0BiqBTTPL0Ady88ULY
In support of their brothers in Ukraine the Germans are going to freeze to death to demonstrate their willingness for a shared sacrifice for the cause. I guess it could be worse for Americans. Putin’s Patsy Biden is only asking that we pay what could end up being double digit dollars per gallon to show we stand shoulder to shoulder with our comrades in Ukraine. What a great way to bring a country together. Going down a rathole as one.
Talk softly, regard them with a steely gaze and stage a massive troop buildup at the borders. Contrast that with the megaphone diplomacy and the partisan political demagoguery engaged in by far too many.
‘The first-time activation of thousands of NATO troops in Europe represents the latest escalation in a volatile ground war that has no modern precedent. In recent months, U.S. and European allies have increased air-policing missions over allied nations and moved troops, naval ships and heavy weaponry eastward on the continent, near where the Russian military is operating.
Ukraine is not a NATO member, but it borders four nations that are: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. The U.S. and other NATO allies have pledged to protect their eastern and central European members under the alliance’s defining Article 5 mutual defense commitments.
President Joe Biden has repeatedly insisted U.S. troops will not fight in Ukraine, but he has redoubled defenses in surrounding countries by moving roughly 14,000 troops eastward in Europe during the past three weeks. Washington has also provided about $650 million in military aid to the pro-Western government.’ https://time.com/6151563/nato-troops-russia-invasion-military-battle-ukraine/
And your biggest problem is oil prices? Demand is in seasonal decline and supply will equal demand by the end of the first quarter 2022.
‘The EIA predicts global liquids production will increase by almost 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) between December 2021 and December 2022, while consumption will rise by only 0.9 million bpd.
As a result, the agency expects production and consumption to be balanced in the first quarter of 2022, moving into a surplus of 0.7 million bpd in the second, 0.5 million in the third, and 0.9 million in the fourth.’ Reuters
There are 40 trillion dollars floating around global equities markets. Some of that is hedge funds and day traders chasing cents in the dollar and amplifying volatility. Traders (as opposed to investors) are overcommitted in the sector and the next stage is liquidation.
Biden, the Dimowits, and Green Energy Extremists own the high price of oil; lock, stock, and barrel.
The war in Ukraine has touched off a feud between the White House and U.S. oil industry as many companies reap record profits from rising prices despite pumping less crude than before the pandemic, leaving American consumers beset by surging gasoline costs.
President Joe Biden has urged U.S. oil companies to step up production — but they are wary given his historic hostility toward fossil fuels and the risk that new drilling won’t pay off over the long term.
The political dangers are stacking up for an administration set to lose ground in midterm elections in November with record-high inflation stinging voters even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-11/ukraine-war-puts-biden-and-u-s-oil-at-odds-on-domestic-drilling
Biden, the Dimowits, and Green Energy Extremists own inflation; lock, stock, and barrel. It costs a semi trucker over $1,000 to fill his tank.
Trucker on Fuel Prices: ‘What Are Y’all Gonna Do Next Month When Your Gallon of Milk Costs $11?’
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2022/03/10/trucker-on-fuel-prices-what-are-yall-gonna-do-next-month-when-your-gallon-of-milk-costs-11-n1565290
But won’t the interest we earn on our savings offset that inflation?
Thank goodness for the Federal Reserve and their QE at negative interest rates.
Ron Paul was right, abolish the FED!
Unfortunately, many people don’t have savings. Those who live hand to mouth due to insanity, drug addiction, or simply aren’t intelligent enough to do useful work will be the hardest hit. Even many in the middle class who work take on too much debt and have no savings or retirement vehicles. And even those who do have IRAs or 401Ks won’t necessarily profit from high interest rates. Many think we are in for a recession at a time of high inflation. This isn’t going to be pretty.
Well, this may all change soon since the oracles of behavioral economics (The University of Michigan consumer sentiment index) dropped to 59.7 in the first half of this month from a final reading of 62.8 in February.
Fastest drop in since the Great Recession.
But I read that the US consumer has lots of savings.
March 10, 2022
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The gusher of money the U.S. government poured into family bank accounts during the coronavirus pandemic, credited with speeding the rebound from the health crisis, may now help limit the economic damage from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and give the Federal Reserve more leeway in raising interest rates.
As analysts have begun parsing what sky-high oil prices and new uncertainty might mean, a common theme has emerged: U.S. consumers may get gouged at the gas pump but will likely be able to maintain much of their expected spending on other goods and services due to savings accumulated out of COVID-19 pandemic spending programs that have totaled about $5 trillion.
“Household savings could help consumers maintain spending volumes in the face of related price increases,” JPMorgan economist Daniel Silver wrote this week, noting that each 10% increase in oil prices would cost consumers an additional $23 billion each year.
Households “have accumulated about $2.6 trillion of ‘excess saving’ in recent years relative to the pre-pandemic trend, which all else equal could be enough to cover even a sustained 50% surge in oil and natural gas prices for many years to come,” Silver wrote.” <-See, no problem.
I bet if we switched to non-recourse, short-term fixed duration and fixed interest rate debt instruments I bet it would stop a lot of this. This is the basic framework of the Debt Jubilee.
jim2
I fully understand how tough this is on the poor and disadvantaged. I see it on the streets. I have an extreme dislike for the FED since Greenspan.
The oracles of Behavioral Economics have examined the entrails of a small group of US consumers and have revealed the future.
3/11/2022
“The University of Michigan survey’s gauge of current economic conditions slipped to a reading of 67.8 from 68.2 in February. Its measure of consumer expectations declined to 54.4 from 59.4 in February.
The survey’s one-year inflation expectations jumped to 5.4%, the highest since 1981, from 4.9% in February.”
—-
From yesterday…
“Household savings could help consumers maintain spending volumes in the face of related price increases,” JPMorgan economist Daniel Silver wrote this week, noting that each 10% increase in oil prices would cost consumers an additional $23 billion each year.
Households “have accumulated about $2.6 trillion of ‘excess saving’ in recent years relative to the pre-pandemic trend, which all else equal could be enough to cover even a sustained 50% surge in oil and natural gas prices for many years to come,” Silver wrote.”
Saying “households” in relation to savings is misleading. A minority of households could have millions in savings. That doesn’t help the rest of us.
President Biden: “Inflation is largely the fault of Putin.”
The CPI on an annualized basis tripled in the spring of 2021. When will the leftwing extremists in the media stop being lackeys for the Democratic Party?
Of course, Democrats are such economic illiterates maybe they don’t have enough brains to fact check any economic issue.
Biden, the Dimowits, and Green Energy Extremists own the energy crisis; lock, stock, and barrel. Full disclosure, I was once a member of Friends of the Earth. Ah, the ignorance of youth.
In 1971 Ralph Nader, bankrolled by the Rockefeller network, began to work with the “Union of Concerned Scientists” to combine the efforts of environmental groups and public interest lawyers against nuclear power (NP). They worked on several fronts: Legal action to delay projects; Lobbying Congress and Government agencies; Propagandising the churches; Advertising directed at the general public.
Exaggerated dangers and innuendos of industry incompetence were widely accepted and the industry had no strategy to respond.
“To cut a long story short, thanks to Ralph Nader’s initiative, there exists a well co-ordinated coalition of interest groups in the USA with all the attributes of a major corporation: well planned, influential, with strong political and financial support, well-tested strategies, professional communication expertise and tremendous legal punch. About 600 full-time “environmental lawyers” operated on a budget of at least 45 million dollars in 1977 and about one-third of this was spent purely on energy-stopping.”
The major agencies involved in this effort were Consolidated Intervenors, doing legal activities to impede developments; the Union of Concerned Scientists, mostly funded by Dr Henry Kendall of MIT; Business and Professional People for the Public Interest in Washington to front Government committees and inquiries; Friends of the Earth co-ordinating environmental groups and disseminating information by advertising, books and pamphlets; Environmental Action, National Intervenor and The Public Media Centre dealing with publications and presentations.
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/03/guest-post-by-rafe-champion-soviet-sabotage-of-our-energy-supply/
If Texas balks at refilling the reserve from its Permian Basin resources, lest prices fall below their cost of production, Biden can ask Canada to run a pipeline through Siberia to the honest to gosh Permian basin in Russia.
How could Trump’s pal Putin possibly object ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/03/a-carbon-footprint-from-hell.html
Asset bubbles have a long history. This one could be seen coming from a long way away through every recent administration.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
NATO is funnelling huge amounts amounts of weaponry into Ukraine and massing troops along the borders.
‘Around 17,000 anti-armor weapons have been sent to Ukraine in the last number of weeks and are being pressed into use against Russian tanks and other hardware. As of March 8, Ukrainian fighters had destroyed over 1,000 armored personnel carriers, 303 tanks, 120 artillery systems and 80 helicopters, The Kyiv Independent claimed.’
Russian troops are performing dismally and being decimated by Ukrainian forces. Russia is having problems mustering more troops for the front – and is struggling to maintain order at home.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/10/does-russia-have-enough-troops-to-take-ukraine-heres-where-its-manpower-stands—and-why-its-recruiting-foreign-soldiers/?sh=146df83c4d82
If I had to guess it would be that Putin is going down. I’ve heard Trump talk on this – giving comfort to the enemy for his own political agenda. The guy is a criminal and a traitor.
> swedish teenagers
https://climateball.net/but-scapegoat/
Well played, Judy!
> Swedish teenagers
https://tinyurl.com/the-bingo/but-scapegoat
Well played!
““John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy,” is concerned that the war in Ukraine will increase CO2 production and worsen global warming. He could take comfort in the knowledge, which he lacks, of the span 1941-1968, WWII and post war reconstruction, when massive human CO2 production occurred simultaneously with a cooling period that, however slight, led to headlines in the early 70’s warning of the Coming Ice Age (Time, Newsweek, Science News).