by Judith Curry
Happy New Year everyone!
A brief post to ring in the new year.
2023 was a crazy year indeed, but I think I have probably made the same statement for the past several years. Here is a link to a very humorous and insightful article by Dave Barry on 2023, from the perspective of U.S. social and political culture [link]
As to what to expect in 2024, I would say continued craziness, especially since this is an election year in the U.S. In terms of climate politics, I suspect 2023 may have heralded a turning point, as the climatariat have overplayed their hand and wind/solar is looking increasingly problematic. We shall see.
As for moi, my 2024 is off to a busy, but interesting start.
And finally, I would like to thank all of the guest posters for their brilliant contributions to Climate Etc. And also to the Denizens who keep the comment threads interesting.
My very best wishes to all for a healthy, interesting, safe and peaceful new year.
Happy New Year to you too, Judith!
Interesting to note there’s an election this year across the Pond too, latest guess is in November(!), could get interesting…
Thanks for all you do. Much appreciated.
Same to you and yours. And a big thank you for everything.
I second.
… and I third.
Thanks for what you do here, Dr. Curry, and for your tolerance of dissenting views. I’m not so sure that wind and solar are becoming problematic. As far as I can see, both are still growing at a healthy rate; however, where they top out will clearly depend on the development of economic storage systems and the ability to deliver reliable base load. We shall see – I expect it will be another decade before we have a good handle on the trajectory.
Economic storage systems are NOT coming so wind and solar are doomed
Already here, need more.
Happy New Year, Judith!
A happy and interesting New Year!
Happy New Year to you as well, Dr Curry.
With a salute to your steadfast courage and fine forward leaning mind.
Once again, thank you Judith for everything in 2023! I look forward to more of the same in 2024.
Thank you for all you do for those of us trying to stay sane with all of the wild alarmism that seems so pervasive! Without people like you, Climate Change would be the cauuse and excuse for every calamity. Our leaders should be focused on Climate Resiliency at least 80%, but that would mean they would actually have to do something besides scare everyone, of course.
Happy New Year! Awesome blog here!
Thank you for keeping me informed about what is happening with the planet in 2023. Please keep on doing so as a voice of calm.
Judith, you have had a masterful year. Your allies appreciate your great work. Steve
Love your posts! Please keep it up.
2023 was a hallmark year for my little nuclear company – we have been hired to design a new reactor for space applications. Hopefully our country finds a way to being nuclear back to our mix. The terestrial regulatory process for new nuclear makes it nearly impossible.
Happy new year from the UK,hopefully facts and common sense
will prevail !
Happy new year and keep on your and your guests insightful blogging!
Happy New Year! 2024
Happy New Year Dr. Judith Curry!
Happy New Year to everyone!
Happy New Year Judith, and thank you for another year of fascinating and informative articles.
Here is to another 100 years of prosperity that surpasses the last 100 years.
Dow Jones Average in January 1924 was 95 points. Today it is 37,690
$100 in 1924 had the purchasing power of $1776 today
The following is from the 1924 Census Statistical Abstract and 1924 IRS Annual Report
1924 Average Wage 68 cents per hour
Dozen eggs 48 cents
Pound of butter 52 cents
Quart of milk 14 cents
Loaf of bread 9 cents
Today average weekly wage is $1,118 per BLS
Out of a workforce of 41 million persons in 1924, there were 4.8 million taxable returns filed. Withholding was not instituted until 1944.
75 individuals earned more than $1 million in 1924, with total income $155 million.
The latest IRS report shows 875,000 tax returns with over $1 million AGI, earning a total of $3.3 trillion.
I’ve sort of lost track of Dave Barry since I’ve stopped reading newspapers. I’d’ve figured he and Stephen King would be out on some extended or permanent tour with the Rock Bottom Remainders. Barry’s knack for exaggeration would be a valuable skill for EV and net zero proponents.
Can we all agree that wherever we stand in the climate debate, it will be a far better thing for mankind if solar and wind succeed? Shouldn’t we be rooting for them and not taking apparent pleasure in any setback?
Fossil fuels will not last forever. They will not suddenly disappear. Rather, the price will rise dramatically as the balance of supply and demand shifts. At that point, wind and solar will be necessary components of the energy landscape, or mankind will find itself with a dwindling standard of living.
Second, even apart from co2, fossil fuels create pollution that can have serious health consequences. Isn’t that a bad thing? Wouldn’t we want, as soon as it becomes practical, to phase it out?
DanB:
We have a dilemma.
Phasing out the burning of fossil fuels, with their attendant dimming SO2 aerosol pollution, will cause temperatures to rise to levels seen during the MWP and other warm periods, which were global periods of heat waves, droughts, famines, floods, starvation, and stormy weather, etc. Millions will die.
Burl,
Complete removal of fuel SO2 emissions is expected to increase temperature by about 0.5 C under current CO2 conditions and 1.0 C under doubling of current CO2. Under current conditions, world SO2 emissions have only been reduced by about 1/3 since the ~1980 peak of fuel (coal and diesel) emissions. Thus, at this point, Reduction in A-SO2 only accounts for a temperature increase of 0.15–0.25 C, yet GMST has increased by slightly over 1.0 C since 1980. SO2 is an important, but relatively minor player in AGW. Note that deaths per year are already (still) about 2 million due to particulate pollution.
“Return to different climate states by reducing sulphate aerosols under future CO2 concentrations”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78805-1
Ganon1950:
This just a theoretical study, the historical record should be used as the guide, and it tells a different story.
An atmosphere essentially devoid of volcanic SO2 aerosols allows solar radiation to strike the Earth’s surface at maximum intensity, allowing it to reach temperatures of 2.0 degrees C., or MORE.
We have had near previews.
For example, the 2014-2016 El Nino was caused by a 2014 Chinese Edict to reduce industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, and global emissions fell by 23 million tons (but there were still 88 million tons remaining!).
The maximum HadCRUT5 temperature for that period was 1.22 Deg. C., well above the author’s theoretical estimate of an 0.5 deg C. temp. rise.
Read the Wikipedia article “The 2014-2016 El Nino”, which lists the multiple global climate-related disasters that occurred during that period (and recall that the atmospheric loading of SO2 aerosols at that time was still FAR FROM ZERO.
Burl,
Yes we have historical evidence (1) 1770-1900 when SO2 emissions were at a maximum, the depression of the warming curve was max of 0.2-0.3C. (2) In 1880 SO2 emissions were only about 8% of today, the temperature was about 1.2 C COOLER, not warmer (as you would predict), even though there were much smaller SO2 emissions.
Besides that, why you deflect to volcanic emissions and El Nino’s, when your hypothesis was that reductions in anthropogenic SO2 emissions were responsible for ALL observed warming, and that GHG increases had no effect. I understand the psychology of why you can’t admit that you are wrong, but it does not change the reality.
Oops typo, that 1770 should have been 1880.
PS~ you should try to understand the difference in concentration as opposed to invoking absolute concentrations (emissions) as the basis for explanations.
Burl,
“The maximum HadCRUT5 temperature for that period was 1.22 Deg. C., well above the author’s theoretical estimate of an 0.5 deg C. temp. rise. ”
Thank you, but I am sorry you don’t understand. The author’s theoretical 0.5 C rise was for complete elimination of A-SO2 emissions. But that hasn’t happened – It has only been reduced by about 30% since 1990. That means the expected temperature rise is 0.3×0.5 C ~= +0.15 C due to the decrease in A-SO2 emissions. The remaining ~1.07 C HadCRUT anomaly is attributed to other things (GHGs). I.e., the observed warming is attributed to (approximately) 12% from reduction in SO2 (and part of that is from other particulates, not sulfates), while the rest is attributed GHGs (mostly – other global forcings are very minor components.
I would imagine coal is the major remaining SOx source. At this point most of the petroleum sulfur is removed at the refinery – to make elemental sulfur – or scrubbed on the bunker fuel ship stacks. I believe Jet fuel is about the last fraction still allowed to have up to 2000-ppm sulfur, that is relatively low sulfur, but it is injected at jet altitude. Probably the main reason jet fuel sulfur has been still allowed is due to airlines not wanting to spend 10-cents more, and then the airlines are willing to spend 5xper gallon for biojet fuel…go figure.
“it will be a far better thing for mankind if solar and wind succeed”
Grammatically incorrect. Not “will”, bur “would”.
yes, it should be the subjunctive. but then “grammatically incorrect”is not a well-formed sentence, and therefore also grammatically incorrect :)
Thank you for your tireless efforts to counter the overwhelming spread of misinformation in our society. It’s disheartening to observe that some of your commentators seem to struggle with grasping the immense challenges associated with transitioning to a green economy, abandoning fossil fuels, questioning the impact of CO2 on climate change, and endorsing electric vehicles (EVs).
At the age of 75, having spent the last four years RVing, witnessing the congested state of our highways and streets raises serious doubts about even achieving a 10-15% adoption of EVs by the time I reach 100. It’s frustrating to think that our tax dollars are funding underutilized electric charging stations and providing tax incentives to affluent individuals for purchasing EVs.
re transitioning to a green economy-
https://cliscep.com/2024/01/01/fingers-in-the-pie/
A quote from the Report:
‘The future energy system will be profoundly different to the one
that exists today. It will have to manage hundreds of millions of
actions and asses every year, each interacting and delivering value to customers and the stakeholders.’
Freudian slip – not ‘asses’ but ‘assets.’ )
Stakeholder??? Oh boy, where’s my stake?
Echoing the thanks for your efforts with this blog, Dr. Curry. I have been “lurking” for several months, but this is my first comment.
Please keep up the good work, and Happy New Year.
X5-class solar flare and earthquake in Japan of magnitude 7.5.
Pingback: 2023 –> 2024 | Climate Etc. - News7g
Keep us the good work, Judith and various commentators. HNY.
Happy New Year one and all,
Were you already aware that Tony Heller’s New Year’s resolution is evidently to provide his followers with plenty of empirical evidence for “global warming”?
If not, please see:
https://GreatWhitecon.info/2023/12/tony-heller-confirms-global-warming/
and/or this chart, if it’s possible to embed such a thing here in this day and age:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20231231.png
Best of the new year to you and yours Dr. Curry (and fellow denizens). Thanks for keeping this important work alive and providing opportunity for interesting conversations.
“….and wind/solar is looking increasingly problematic.”
On January 2, 2024 Doomberg published “Inverted Priorities, on renewables and the unspoken risk of total grid failure.”
https://doomberg.substack.com/p/inverted-priorities
I have no idea who writes this but it is so full of nonsense and so far from an objective consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of wind and solar, as compared to the strengths and weaknesses of alternative sources, that it is not worth a moment’s discussion. there are serious people writing about the complex issues of energy sources. and there are ideological idiots spewing nonsense. i choose to read thoughtful discussion.
DanB – The doomberg article might be a tad bit juvenile writing. However, can you point to anything in the article was was not factually correct.
Sounds like the renewables were “smart” enough to disconnect when “conventional” plants caused grid problems.
Can’t help but wonder if Germany has already introduced enough “green” energy to kill the economy.
Europe’s economic woes are set to worsen as an expert warns that “things are going really bad” for Germany.
With inflation and the energy crisis impacting many countries around the world, Germany looks set to also feel the bite.
The government in Berlin has also had to hold back on some of its spending plans due to the uncertain nature of the global economy.
Last year, Germany’s Constitutional Court also rejected the government’s reallocation of €60 billion (£52billion) in COVID-19 loans for climate protection and economic modernisation.
As a result, Thomas Gitzel, chief economist at VP Bank, has warned: “Things are going really bad for Germany right now.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1851178/germany-recession-european-union-eu
Joethenonclimatescientist,
Yes. The blaming of the texas grid failure on renewables has been thoroughly debunked.
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-winter-storms-2021/2021/02/18/968967137/no-the-blackouts-in-texas-werent-caused-by-renewables-heres-what-really-happened.
https://apnews.com/article/false-claims-texas-blackout-wind-turbine-f9e24976e9723021bec21f9a68afe927
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-frozen/
DanB
You are conflating two different and distinct issues in order to absolve Renewables.
There were two major failures in the Texas Feb 2021 freeze fiasco.
A) there is no question that the immediate cause of the grid failure was with the fossil fuel electric generation which triggered the cascade of plant shut downs.
There was a 40% drop in electric generation from fossil fuel plants that lasted approx 18-20 hours and approx 20% drop that lasted another 30-36 hours.
Fortunately (if you can can the 40% failure fortunate) the fossil fuel was limited to Texas.
B) wind was also a near complete failure during the freeze. Electric generation from wind had a 90+% failure that lasted approx 96 hours (4days) and approx 70% failure that lasted 2days before and 2 days after the major 4day failure – a total of 8 days.
Unfortunately The failure of the wind was across the entire north american continent. Unlike the fossil fuel failure, it was not limited to Texas. That failure is ignored by the renewable advocates.
Wind doesnt get the blame because it was expected to be a failure during the freeze. While wind wasnt the direct blame, it clearly shows it is not a solution.
I have attached a link so that you can see how poorly wind and solar perform when needed.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
Joe, I think much of your arguments conflate grid (the delivery system) failures with source failures.
ganon1950 | January 3, 2024 at 9:26 am |
Joe, I think much of your arguments conflate grid (the delivery system) failures with source failures.
Ganon – what part of words “two different and distinct issues ” did you not understand?
Joe, what part of “much” didn’t you understand?
I’m not “absolving” renewables, as the articles i posted made clear that wind failed along with fossil fuels. But the article you linked to blamed the texas fiasco on renewables exclusively, which is outrageous. this is why i am interested in an informed, thoughtful discussion. because I do not claim that renewables, given present technology, are a perfect or complete solution. that does not mean should not be encouraging a shift to them, because they also come with major advantages. i also think we need to include nuclear in our future energy equation, even though this too is hardly without issues and challenges.
I get why people think netzero might be impractical. I do not get the need to attack solar and wind, with apparent glee, any time one of them runs into a stumbling block. We’re going to need them to work!
DanB –
To followup in response, Russell S, who goes by the moniker Planning engineer, wrote several very good articles here at CE which went into much greater detail. He works in the industry, so he actually knows what is going on as compared to the advocates.
Summarizing the failures
A) fossil fuel plant performance failure
B) wind failure ( not to blame directly
C) Pricing structure which shifted costs away from fossil fuel plants to renewables .
It should be noted that NERC has come down pretty hard on the push for renewables due to the grid reliability risks associated with higher renewable penetrations.
Since wind only supplies energy when and where the wind is blowing, and solar only produces energy where the sun is shining, they cannot be the sole source of a grid at this time. There needs to be a rapid means to shift to fossil fuels as needed. To eliminate fossil fuels from the equation, we would need either dramatic improvement in energy storage and/or in energy transit. And both of these challenges seem to run into physics limitations, so I don’t see them being solved anytime soon. (or we need a huge investment in nuclear, with it’s own challenges).
But in most places I don’t believe we are nowhere near what we CAN achieve in terms of including renewables without jeopardizing the grid.
DanB, I would agree. At this point, wind and solar are neither base load, or responsive to peak loads. (This may easily change with developing storage solutions). However, what is clear and true right now is the every GWh of electricity produced by renewables is a GWh that doesn’t need to be produced by limited, non-renewable resources.
DanB – just to be clear – I did not link to any article that blamed renewables for the Texas Grid failure.
Though it is good to know that you recognize the limitations of renewables. The problem is that once renewable penetration begins to exceed 30-40% ( depending on time of year and time of day and other factors) , the grid starts to have huge reliability issues. Along with huge costs due to the need for redundancy.
In short, the cause of the Texas blackouts was the closure of dispatchable power plants, both coal and nat gas, over the previous decade or so. The cause of those closures was the build out of subsidized renewables.
doug – in military terms – your description was the strategic failure. The crash of the fossil fuel plants was the tactical failure. The belief in net zero with renewables will be the geopolitical failure.
I’m lost. Did you just dream this up out of the blue? Or do you have some way of defending this statement? Because I can find no article that says anything remotely like this.
Renewables reduce energy revenues for dispatchable power sources. This drives dispatchable power sources out of business, but renewables supply nearly zero capacity where dispatchable power sources supply 80+% percent capacity. Thereby, the system loses installed capacity. Eventually, this results in inadequate real time generation and consequent blackouts. You can install lots of renewables on a system. What you can’t do is shutdown dispatchable power sources and maintain reliablity.
There were myriad contributing causes, such as ERCOT not having a capacity market, but the above was the reason blackouts occurred.
If still lost study the difference between energy and capacity.
EVs have always been relatively expensive and draconian government regulations on mileage, “safety”, and pollution controls have gone overboard making ICEVs expensive also in the US.
Welcome to market socialism, folks!
US auto sales softened at the end of last year as higher financing costs and near-record prices took their toll on would-be buyers.
Pent-up demand that propped up sales in the wake of the pandemic has been sated, and shoppers are now balking at 10% interest rates on car loans and average prices around $48,000. Sales likely slipped to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of about 15.4 million vehicles in the final month of 2023, down from about 15.5 million in the prior two quarters, according to estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-03/car-sales-slow-as-us-buyers-suffer-sticker-shock
What if… Somebody was able to make a safe, fast charging, energy dense solid-state battery?
https://electrek.co/2024/01/03/quantumscapes-solid-state-batteries-pass-latest-test-500000-km-range/
Sounds good but can they do it cheap and at scale? Battery tech is finally moving faster than wind or solar. The tipping point is when you can buy a KWh of long duration storage for less than $30. We have a long way to go but someday Home Depot will be selling DIY home microgrid kits LOL.
I read about this. So far, it’s vapor-ware – OK, maybe aerogel-ware. That said, it does look promising.
EV owners in Europe and the US are going to be unhappy when the polar vortex hits. Of course, most EV owners tend to be wealthy, so they will probably switch to their ICE vehicles when the ice hits.
The Climate Doomer ship hits the doldrums.
The two firms behind a major offshore wind project decided to cancel a contract to supply power from the development on Wednesday, dealing a major blow to President Joe Biden’s massive green energy agenda.
Equinor and British Petroleum (BP), the firms working in a joint venture to construct the enormous Empire Wind 2 offshore wind farm, canceled a contract with New York state to sell power generated by the project, citing inflationary pressures, high interest rates and supply chain problems, Equinor announced. The cancellation stands as the latest sign of trouble for the offshore wind industry, which the Biden administration is counting on to produce enough energy to power 10 million American homes for one year by 2030.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/03/developers-cancel-offshore-wind-contract-blow-biden-agenda/
Just announced:
2023 Was the Warmest Year In the 45-Year Satellite Record
(UAH Global Temperature)
Copernicus: 2023 is the hottest year on record, with global temperatures close to the 1.5°C limit
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record
Summary:
Global temperatures reached exceptionally high levels in 2023. The Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), implemented by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts on behalf of the European Commission with funding from the EU, monitored several key climate indicators throughout the year, reporting on record-breaking conditions such as the hottest month on record and daily global temperature averages briefly surpassing pre-industrial levels by more than 2°C. Unprecedented global temperatures from June onwards led 2023 to become the warmest year on record – overtaking by a large margin 2016, the previous warmest year.
I like that you report this, I don’t like that it happened. Hopefully it is (partly temporary) due to an AGW amplified El Niño.
Climate science is beyond corrupt.
I have been contacted by a whistleblower with a remarkable story of corruption of the academic peer-review process involving a paper published in 2022. The whistleblower has provided me with relevant emails, reviews and internal deliberations from which I recount this disturbing episode — which ends with an unwarranted and politically-motivated retraction of a paper that some climate scientists happened to disagree with.
…
To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/think-of-the-implications-of-publishing
Doug,
What you are saying basically, means that without a micron of evidence, any time there is failure with fossil fuels, you will state, as a categorical fact, that the culprit was renewables. That is beyond crazy. fossil fuel plants FAILED in the cold. that is exactly zero to do with renewables!
DanB – Your characterization of Doug statement is not even on the same planet of what he stating.
You are correct that the immediate cause of the fossil fuel plant failure was due to critical failure at the fossil fuel plant – due directly to lack of maintenance,.
Doug is correct as to the major contributing factor that led up to the fossil fuel failure with deals extensively with the pricing structure of electric generation plants, both fossil fuel and renewables.
Russel S (aka “the planning engineer” ) and the Cliff Morris had written numerous articles here at CE explaining in much greater detail and providing valuable insight as to planning building and operating the electric grid and electric generation sources, both fossil fuel and renewables.
Your focus on the single component of the grid failure is inhibiting a broader understanding of full picture.
I would suggest reading up on Russel S’s posts the develop a broader understanding of the grid.
type in “planning engineer ” into the search box
https://judithcurry.com/2022/10/03/the-penetration-problem-part-i-wind-and-solar-the-more-you-do-the-harder-it-gets/
What am I missing? He stated that money diverted to renewables caused shutdowns of fossil fuel plants. I’m sorry. There is no citation. No evidence. And a perfect way of making everything that has zero to do with renewables (fossil fuel plants weren’t properly winterized) somehow about renewables.
DanB | January 4, 2024 at 1:42 pm |
What am I missing? He stated that money diverted to renewables caused shutdowns of fossil fuel plants. I’m sorry.
DanB – you are missing the whole story. To understand why there was a catastrophic failure of the fossil fuel electric generation you need to understand both the immediate cause and all the causes that led up to the final trigger event. Its everything prior to the final triggering event that you are overlooking.
Again enter “planning engineer” in the CE search box and read the extensive posting by Russell S and Cliff Morris. They have done an excellent job providing a complete background. Plenty of background that is sorely missing from the Texas Tribune and NPR articles you linked.
Your argument contains no argument. Learn how the electric system works and how those markets are constructed.
Ok
There is always valid: For planets and moon’s without-atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth included)
“…the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
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
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar 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
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 =
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.
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Rotisserie
“Generally speaking, when a whole animal is being spit roasted, it is best rotated faster in the early part of the roasting, to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotisserie
Well, it is a long ago known from the million years old experimentation.
When using the fire for cooking meat, they used a spit turning it and cooking the animal.
When rotating slowly, the meat’s exterior was burnt, while the interior remained a raw meat.
–
The faster rotation had miraculous results. The meat was perfectly cooked the entire through.
There was not a burnt exterior and a raw interior anymore!
–
And they lived happily ever after…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The end of 2023 Arctic sea ice volume data has been released, both “modelled” and “measured”.
Unless somebody can explain to me slowly how to embed images here, you could try X instead to see the visualisations in all their glory:
https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1742836953429463456
WP seems to have got its knickers in a proverbial twist.
The above came from yours truly.
AKA Editor of West-Devon.info
I think this is the Planning Engineer article desired.
The story from some media sources is that frozen wind turbines are responsible for the power shortfalls in Texas. Other media sources emphasize that fossil fuel resources should shoulder the blame because they have large cold induced outages as well and also some natural gas plants could not obtain fuel.
Extreme cold should be expected to cause significant outages of both renewable and fossil fuel based resources. Why would anyone expect that sufficient amounts of natural gas would be available and deliverable to supply much needed generation? Considering the extreme cold, nothing particularly surprising is happening within any resource class in Texas. The technologies and their performance were well within the expected bounds of what could have been foreseen for such weather conditions. While some degradation should be expected, what is happening in Texas is a departure from what they should be experiencing. Who or what then is responsible for the shocking consequences produced by Texas’s run in with this recent bout of extreme cold?
https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/assigning-blame-for-the-blackouts-in-texas/
In my retrospective analysis of the SSW winter storm Uri Texas could have saved over 200 lives and billions of dollars in freeze damages if they had just used their Zigbee smart meter network to do meter-by-meter 4 hr rolling black outs. Even to this day that’s not even on the table the next time a crisis overwhelms the grid. Why??
Test.
Dr Curry. You are a star and science realist hero. For 2024, I would love to see you engage with the UK Guardian newspaper’s environmental journalist George Monbiot. While he has been supremely vehement against climate ‘deniers’, I believe he remains open to honest debate and arguments. (As a left winger, he has fallen for the propaganda that climate deniers are surely right wingers). For example he switched from being anti-nuclear energy to accepting it. He needs someone to push him on the rational climate change case, and if he disagrees to clearly explain without ad hommonim.
Joetheclimatescientist,
I’m all for understanding the whole picture, but not the whole fantasy about what we think might be the underlying cause because it fits with our ideology, stated as fact. nobody has yet shown a micron of evidence to support this claim. none. so i’m blaming the texas failure on lack of gun control. lack of gun control caused an increase in crime diverted money to law enforcement that otherwise would have gone to improving the power grid. There. See how is that is? Now both sides can manufacture nonsense out of thin air that meets with our ideology.
DanB | January 4, 2024 at 4:16 pm | Reply
Joetheclimatescientist,
I’m all for understanding the whole picture, but not the whole fantasy about what we think might be the underlying cause because it fits with our ideology,
DanB – If you were all for understanding the the whole picture you would have read the posts I suggested instead of accusing me of having a ideology. By the way, what does engineering have to do with ideology.
Both the NPR article and the Texas tribune article are chock full of ideology.
Back to my original suggestion – open the CE search box, enter “planning engineer ” and read the 10-15 articles by Russell S and Cliff Morris. Its a wealth of information without the political ideology by two individuals with extensive industry experience.
Joetheclimatescientist,
I looked at the first article by Chris Morris, and the subject-lines of the others. I thought we were discussing whether the failure in Texas could be blamed on renewables. Australia’s experience with renewables is irrelevant to this question. If we were debating whether there are issues and challenges with integrating renewables, this set of articles would be quite relevant. But we weren’t. We were debating the source of the failure in texas.
by the way, i also read judith curry’s article about texas and found it to be quite odd. to believe her argument you would somehow have to accept that the red state of texas, with its republican governor and legislature, that has not voted for a democrat since jimmy carter, AND with an economy that is heavily dependent on the oil industry, made a poor choice of energy market model because they were so eager to support the renewables industry! And…as with so much else…there is simply no evidence presented in the article to support this assertion. I don’t dispute that (a) they may have foolishly chosen an energy-only model, and (b) that there are reasons why energy-only models might lead to more renewables, but it is a huge leap to then conclude that the reason for the choice was to support renewables – in a conservative, fossil fuel state! especially when simply cheapness would lead to the same policy decision.
DanB – your response is chock full of partisan inuendo. Read the articles from an engineers perspective, not from a partisan / advocate perspective.
There is a lot of good basic background information in those articles.
The evidence that Texas was all in for renewables is evident given that it has more renewable energy than any other state; red, blue, or purple.
DanB | January 4, 2024 at 4:16 pm | Reply
Joetheclimatescientist,
I’m all for understanding the whole picture,
DanB | January 5, 2024 at 2:01 pm |
Joetheclimatescientist,
I looked at the first article by Chris Morris, and the subject-lines of the others.
DanB – You stated that you were all for understanding the whole picture, but then you respond while admitting that you only read two articles.
Please read the numerous articles by Russel S and Cliff Morris.
Jim2,
I think Texas has a large percentage of renewables is because they have a lot of sun, a lot of wind, a lot of oil companies that see survival in being energy companies not oil companies, and wind and solar are cheaper – at least until you insist on adding enough storage to make them baseload or peak capable.
Did you know that in Texas 97% of all Texas electric meters are remotely controlled? The grid operator can flip them on or off on demand using the Zigbee protocols.
Hundreds of lives lost and billions of dollars of freezing damages could have been avoided during the Texas SSW winter storm Uri if the grid operators had used their Zigbee controlled smart meters to do rolling 4hr blackouts. They had the interconnections and online generation to do it.
Someone explain to me why this would not have been better than shutting off hundreds of thousands home for days.
If it happened again could they/would they use the system and avoid all that carnage?
The correct article is:
judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/assigning-blame-for-the-blackouts-in-texas/
thanks Jim2 – its one of the many good articles.
A key paragraph :
“Having a strong technical knowledge of the power system along with some expertise in finance, rates and costs can help one see the folly of a variety of policies adopted to support many of today’s wind and solar projects. Very few policy makers possess anything close to the skill sets needed for such an evaluation. Furthermore, while policy makers could listen to experts, their voices are drowned out by those with vested interests in wind and solar technology who garner considerable support from those ideologically inclined to support renewables regardless of impacts.”
Quite a few other articles provide additional insight.
Global Warming strikes a blow …
COPENHAGEN, Denmark — Europe experienced stark weather contrasts on Wednesday, with extreme cold and snowstorms disrupting transportation and closing schools in Scandinavia while strong winds and heavy rain in western Europe caused flooding and at least one death.
Temperatures fell below minus 40 degrees Celsius (minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Nordic region for a second day in a row Wednesday. In Kvikkjokk-Årrenjarka in Swedish Lapland, the mercury dropped to minus 43.6 C (minus 46.5 F), the lowest January temperature recorded in Sweden in 25 years, Sweden’s TT news agency reported.
Extremely cold temperatures, snow and gale-force winds disrupted transportation throughout the Nordic region, with several bridges closed and some train and ferry services suspended. Several schools in Scandinavia were closed.
Police across most of Denmark urged motorists to avoid unnecessary trips as wind and snow battered the northern and western parts of the country.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/extreme-cold-grips-nordics-breaking-25-year-record-106066642
Regulations supporting the Green Unicorn are multiplying exponentially.
The NAM’s benchmark Cost of Federal Regulations study finds that the total cost of complying with federal regulations in 2022 is an estimated $3.079 trillion (in 2023 dollars),an amount equal to 12% of U.S. GDP and larger than the manufacturing sector’s entire economic output. This regulatory burden threatens the competitiveness of manufacturing in America, chilling manufacturing investment, job creation and wage growth and blunts the positive impacts of tax reform, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and Science Act. With millions of hardworking men and women relying on manufacturing for their livelihoods, the stakes are high. It’s crucial we address this issue—for the sake of manufacturers, our workers and the nation.
https://nam.org/competing-to-win/cost-of-regulations/#:~:text=The%20NAM's%20benchmark%20Cost%20of,manufacturing%20sector's%20entire%20economic%20output.
Thanks, Jim.
EV batteries are going flat …
Electric vehicles’ market share growth has stalled in the UK, leading automakers now subject to a government mandate to seek a tax cut for consumers.
Roughly one in six new cars registered last year was battery-electric, in line with the year before, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said Friday. The trade group — whose members include Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan Motor Co. and BMW AG — is calling for the government to halve the value-added tax on EVs to 10% for a limited period.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-05/electric-car-share-flatlines-in-uk-automakers-ask-for-vat-cut
By the 10th of January, the polar vortex in the tropopause will split into two centers consistent with the geomagnetic field. A harsh winter will befall North America and Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/HPKdqnP/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
Thank you for all your work. I look forward to reading your posts and denizens’ comments in 2024.
SSW is already in the middle stratosphere and will soon reach the lower stratosphere. Europe be ready for frost.
https://i.ibb.co/Btcg7vZ/pole10-nh.gif
In the past few days, frost locally in Sweden reached nearly -44 deg C., but as it turned out, this was not the apogee of the cooling wave. The highest frost of -44.3 deg. C. the previous night was recorded in Enontekio, Finland. This is the highest frost in Scandinavia in at least several decades. Previously, powerful snowstorms occurred especially in Norway and Sweden. An example is the area of the town of Grimstad, where 70-100 cm of snow fell. There is much more in the snowdrifts. Skis have become the main means of transportation. Another example is the snowdrifts that have formed on the E22 between Kristianstad and Horby in Skåne in southern Sweden. Many drivers and their families were stuck in their cars overnight until help arrived.
I see two possibilities: (1) Global warming isn’t real. (2) Global warming causes weather extremes to be more extreme.
Third possibility … global warming is real, but CO2 doesn’t have the starring role.
Bill,
Please, for your third possibility, what would then have the starring role?
ganon …
I would never presume to say who the stars are in the climate drama, as I don’t have the scientific training. However, there are those who can give you some clues. I’m just finishing Javier Vino’s book, “Solving The Climate Puzzle, The Sun’s Surprising Role.” A very interesting read.
Like I said … a third possibility.
The sun is a basic driver – we’d be at 2.7 K without it. However the it’s change in irradiance nor TOA insolation, explain what has been happening for the last 50+ years.
Bill,
I haven’t read Javier’s book, but I have looked through all his graphics (copied) and his own captions that he has put on them. I have also had a few exchanges with Javier. Let’s just say I won’t bother to read the book. Let me suggest a different book as a rebuttal:
“Exploring Climate Change Data and the Denier’s Gambits” by Thomas H Wilson (2022). (Amazon, $19.50)
That’s why I’m saying you might want to read the book. He talks about global heat transport and the winter poles’, particularly the Arctic, role in radiating heat. He recognizes CO2 effect, but it’s not the dominant actor.
After reading the book, even if you still held to CO2 being the main actor, you will have enjoyed(?) reading about the processes … the circulations and mechanisms … that make up our climate. Fascinating stuff, actually.
And that’s what I hoped this blog would have. A discussion of the mechanisms of climate. Being one of the ‘great unwashed’, I come at this with few preconceptions, except of course what Wally Kinnan The Weatherman taught me as a child. ;-) That’s an advantage … seeing things with wonder vs fear or anger. Javier brings that excitement in his book.
Bill, OK, I understand what you are looking for, I would recommend:
(1) Climatology, 4th Edition, by Robert V. Rohli , Anthony J. Vega (2017)
(2) Global Physical Climatology, 2nd Edition, by Dennis L. Hartmann (2016)
(3) Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary, 3rd Edition, by Raymond S. Bradley
(4) Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change,
by W.H. Schlesinger and Emily S. Bernhardt (2020)
I quickly read the first three sections of Javier’s book (53 pages). I would only make the suggestion, that whenever he says something like “we don’t know” or “it is unknown,” replace that with “I don’t know” and research it from other sources.
I will go ahead and buy the Kindle version of his book, although I don’t expect to learn much that I don’t already know from the above (and other) books. If nothing else, it is entertaining to see where he gets things wrong.
Thanks for the references.
Javier has over 440 footnotes, but I’m not sure any of your references is among them. There’s no bibliography in the hardcover for quick reference. I guess nobody does that anymore. Maybe in the Kindle the footnotes are linked.
No matter, I hope you find some things of interest.
Gagme50: Aren’t you a self-declared expert in paleo-climate?
Judith,
Best wishes for 2024.
If it is valid to suggest an objective, one that I would promote is selection of the work of van Wijngaarden and Happer as in
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098
and further.
The correctness of this work has immediate impact on policies about greenhouse gas reduction and hydrocarbon fuel use. I can think of no more important study that has the capacity to force a change among all who regard themselves as decent, honest scientists.
To date, I have seen no serious or competent challenge to their work, though it is quite possible that I have missed some.
Geoff S
Sherro01:
Their paper is WORTHLESS, since they make the assumption that our warming climate is due the accumulation of greenhouse gasses.
The warming is actually due to the decrease in dimming SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere due to global “Clean Air” efforts to reduce industrial SO2 emissions, and the Net Zero banning of the burning of fossil fuels, which generate SO2 aerosols.
The cleaner the air becomes, the hotter it will get.
Burl, your comment is worthless because you make the assumption that warming is solely due to decrease in SO2 emissions. But you can’t provide any scientific evidence, just hand waving and simply pronouncing that the effect is roughly 7 times larger than it actually is.
Ganon1950:
Here is the scientific evidence, again
https://doi.org/10.30574.wjarr.2023.19.2.1660
DOI not found, but that’s OK, I’m sure I’ve already seen it, and my comment stands.
ganon1950:
I should have checked the DOI
Here it is again:
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.3.1996
The Chem map for 1980 is for an atmospheric loading of 136 million tons of industrial SO2 aerosols, and the one for 2023 shows a massive decrease in the amount of SO2 aerosols remaining in the atmosphere. For 2019, it was 83 million tons, even lower now.
The >53 million ton decrease in SO2 aerosol pollution from 1980 to the present has cleansed our air, increasing insolation, and has inevitably caused our temperatures to rise.
Since 1980, satellites have measured the amount of SO2 injected into the stratosphere by volcanic eruptions. For a VE!4 eruption, the average amount is 0.2 million tons, and it causes an average of 0.2 deg. C decrease in average anomalous global temperatures (and a bit more of a 0.2 deg. C rise, when they eventually settle out).
Consequently, a >53 million ton decrease in SO2 aerosol emissions easily accounts for ALL of the warming that has occurred in the interim, leaving no room for any of the hypothesized warming from “greenhouse gasses”.
In NO way have you disproved any of the above facts.
Here is a link that should work:
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2023-1660.pdf
Jim2,
Like I said, hand waving no real numbers. Heck, he doesn’t even know the difference between temperature and temperature anomaly. Nor does he know that SO2 is a molecule, not an aerosol (the aerosols are hydrated sulfates).
Burl,
There is nothing to disprove., E.g., “massive” is not a number; your chemmaps do not represent the emissions for a year – they represent a specific point in time (e.g. Thu 03/01/1980 12Z), you cannot equate/compare human tropospheric SO2 emissions with stratospheric volcanic emissions where the residence time is about 100 times greater, etc. It is all very qualitative (therefore no basis to say ALL the warming due to human SO2 emissions) with many unjustified assumptions. It’s all hand waving. nothing proven, nothing to disprove.
Ganon1950:
What a bunch of hand-waving nonsense!.
“Eg, “massive is not a number”. No, but the amount is given in the next sentence.
“Your chemmaps do not represent the emissions for a year”
Yes, they do.
As was pointed out, The Chem map for 1980 was for Jan 1, and was for the atmospheric loading at the end of 1979 (130 million tons). At the END of 1980, it was 139 million tons, at the end of 1981, it was 135 million tons, at the end of 1982 it was 132 million tons, and 130 million tons at the end of 1983, etc., with the air becoming less polluted essentially each year, with incremental warming of the Earth’s surface occurring.
“You cannot equate/compare human tropospheric SO2 emissions with stratospheric volcanic emissions”
I have been saying NOTHING about volcanic aerosols, only tropospheric aerosol emissions. However, NASA does say that they both have the same climatic effect, so you are wrong, there. too.
“nothing proven, nothing to disprove”
Ah, but YOU have to prove that the removal of > 53 million tons of SO2 aerosol pollution did not cause any surface warming. Otherwise, the “greenhouse gas” hypothesis is BS, and Ganon is full of it.
Burl,
So, you still don’t understand the effect of tropospheric lifetime, both for satellite “snapshots” (they only reflect the previous 3 days or so, because of the SO2 lifetime) nor the difference between troposphere and stratosphere where yes, the reflectivity of the same concentrations of sulfate aerosol produce (roughly) the same instantaneous reflectivity, but the stratospheric aerosols last about 100 times as long, and thus produce 100 times the integrated cooling per SO2 molecule injected.
But forget it – I don’t know if it is willful or fundamental ignorance, but I am tired of it and don’t really care. You can think what ever you want, but it is not the reality of the physics, chemistry, and meteorology.
Ganon1950:
You are pathetic!
The Chem Map images are of TROPOSPHERIC SO2 aerosols, and they have an essentially INFINITE lifetime, since they are emitted from relatively constant sources, such as Power plants, foundries, factories, home heating units, internal combustion engines, aircraft, shipping, etc., etc.
Any that are washed out are quickly replaced, so that their emissions end only when they are shut down, or modified to reduce emissions.
It cannot be otherwise, since their decrease in in the atmosphere occurs only when steps are taken to actively reduce SO2 aerosol emissions, such as through global Clean Air efforts, and Net Zero activities.
Burl, Too bad you don’t understand simple chemical kinetics: the lifetime of SO2 in the atmosphere is about three days, as we have previously discussed. That means the steady-state concentration is about 120 times less than it would be if it had a one-year lifetime. Your understanding of simple chemical-physical mechanisms is what is pathetic.
Burl,
Here is a paper that describes the radiative forcing of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols in the Arctic. I hope you are able to understand it (it is real science, not hand waving). They find that a 20% reduction in SO2 emissions results in an effective radiative forcing of +0.019 W/m². Thus, ERF of +0.095 W/m² for complete removal of A-SO2 emissions.
“Sulfate Aerosol in the Arctic: Source Attribution and Radiative Forcing” https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027298
This may be compared to the 2022 ERF summed over anthropogenic GHGs of +3.4 W/m²
https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html (figure 3).
If you are willfully ignorant of the implications of ~0.1 W/m² (zero SO2) vs. 3.4 W/m² (A-GHGs), that is your problem. Note that at peak SO2 emissions (~1980), the ERF (vs. zero SO2) may have been as high as +0.3 W/m², but still quite small with respect to GHGs. I’m done with this subject.
Ganon1950:
Thank you for the references!
The first one refutes your claim that the lifetime of SO2 in the atmosphere is about 3 days.
“Long-range transport of (SO2) aerosols from the Northern Hemisphere mid latitudes can increase arctic aerosol concentrations”
And “Sulfate radiative forcing can completely offset the forcing from black carbon”.
If, as you claim, that SO2 falls out within ~3 days, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any of it to survive long enough for “long-range transport” and be present to “offset the forcing from black carbon”.
As I have told you before, the 3-day lifetime applies ONLY to well-separated releases of SO2 aerosols into the troposphere. In reality, as I pointed out above, most releases are from relatively constant sources, so that those that are “washed out” are quickly replaced, giving them an essentially infinite lifetime.
You also claim that the SO2 Chem Map images are only instantaneous snapshots of their amount in the troposphere, implying that they will be gone in a week, or so. But weeks, months, or years later, Chem Map images of the troposphere show that it is still suffused with SO2 aerosols.
In the second reference, the case is made for greenhouse gas warming, but it TOTALLY ignores the climatic effect of millions of tons of dimming SO2 aerosols in the troposphere.
If you had ANY competence as a climate scientist, you would recognize the absolute HOAX of the greenhouse gas hypothesis!
Burl,
Thanks for your thoughts. It is clear that you still don’t understand (or are willfully ignorant of) chemical kinetics and effective radiative forcing. I’m no longer interested in your baseless and false assertions.
Ganon1950:
Really? YOU are the one making the false assertions.
You just don’t cut it as a climate scientist!
Burl,
Thanks for the example. It is also clear that you don’t understand the difference between sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid.
Ganon1950:
The SO2 aerosol is fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid (one reference said that they are micron sized). I have always used the term “aerosols” when speaking of the climatic effect of SO2.
Why do you say that I don’t know the difference?
Burl,
Because they aren’t SO2 aerosols (SO2 doesn’t form aerosols) – the aerosols are hydrated sulfuric acid molecules. They are different chemical species with different tropospheric lifetimes and very different reflective/scattering properties.
Ganon1950;
I am not a chemist, but I recall looking it up and noting that there were 4 different pathways to H2SO4 from SO2.
Could you provide a reference to your comments so that I can educate myself? I have never seen the SO2 aerosol identified as anything but H2SO4.
Burl,
I don’t know why I should bother to answer you when you call me “pathetic” and say things like:
“If you had ANY competence as a climate scientist, you would recognize the absolute HOAX of the greenhouse gas hypothesis!”
(If you had any physical science competence at all, you would recognize that the greenhouse THEORY – it has been amply confirmed over 150 years of investigation – is not a HOAX.)
I am not a climate scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be. I’m a chemist (B.S. and M.S.) and a physicist (PhD) and a retired national laboratory research scientist (35 years: high resolution laser spectroscopy + mass spectrometry of small molecules and radionuclides). I may also know a little about climate science from post retirement self-study.
Nonetheless, I will answer. Major sources of sulfuric acid in the atmosphere are catalytic oxidation of SO2 by hydroxyl radical and, to a lesser extent ozone, to form SO3 (sulfur trioxide) followed by hydration with a water molecule.
SO2 + OH⋅ → HSO3⋅ HSO3⋅ + H20 → H2SO4 +OH⋅
SO2 + O3 → SO3 +O2 O3 +H20 → H2SO4
The sulfuric acid molecule is hygroscopic and serves as the nucleation site for the formation of microscopic sulfuric acid+water droplets (aerosols) H2SO4(H20)_n.
As for the low-level diffuse SO2 that you see in your satellite images. They probably come from oxidation of OCS, CS2 and dimethylsulfide, DMS [S(CH3)2] with natural and anthropogenic sources.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1510743112
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GB00568
Ganon1950:
Thank you for the references, but they did not provide any help regarding your previous comments (Jan 8, 10.09 pm) that SO2 doesn’t form aerosols, and that there are different species with different tropospheric lifetimes.
You say “If you had any physical science competence at all you would recognize that the greenhouse gas THEORY – it has been amply confirmed over 150 years of investigation -is not a HOAX)”
How can you say that when your NASA reference explaining the greenhouse effect TOTALLY ignores the climatic effect of millions of tons of SO2 aerosols in the troposphere, making it a HOAX?
I have an article “Experimental Proof that Carbon Dioxide does NOT cause global warming”, which also proves it to be a hoax:
http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/se.v5n3p91
Can you provide ANY examples of AMPLE confirmation?
Burl,
Not interested. Dealing with persistent ignorance is a waste of time.
Ganon1950;
Fine.
Wallow in your ignorance!
Burl,
Thanks – no worries, at this point it is pretty obvious where the ignorance lies. Cracks me up how everyone jumps to your defense.
Geoff … thank you for the reference.
In Table 5 they give the climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 concentration in Kelvin. 1.4 – 2.3 depending. Pardon my ignorance, but can you please tell me what is the temperature change in Celsius?
It would be the same, 1.4-2.3 C.
When it is a difference, they are the same. Kelvin starts at absolute zero (no energy) -273.16 C, while C “starts” at 0 = freezing point of water. The scale units are the same.
K = C + 273.16, or C = K – 273.16,
also for F, F = 1.8*C + 32
Thanks, guys! Much obliged.
So, this paper has ECS between 1.4-2.3 C. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the IPCC have it between 2-5 C?
Bill, IPCC AR6 WG1 has ECS = 3.0 (2.5, 4.0, 66% c.l.) or (2.0, 5.0, 90% c.l.)
Note that W&H simply call it “climate sensitivity”, currently “equilibrium climate sensitivity” ECS is most commonly used, but there is also “transient climate response” TCR which AR6 gives as 1.8 (1.4, 2.2, 66%) cl. which may be closer to the last two rows (most realistic) of W&H table 5. (I still have to read W&H in detail – if I discern more, I’ll post.
As further background, I recommend reading chapter 7 of AR6 WG1 (particularly sections 7.3 – 7.5), download (full report) at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Also Wikipedia of the subject may be useful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Table 7.13, Summary of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Combined Assessment: 3C
Seems to be a big difference.
Bill,
Being 18 years old, W&H is probably transient climate sensitivity, or instantaneous climate sensitivity (no feedbacks, derived only from calculation of GHG forcing) – compare table 7.14 of IPCC to last 2 rows (realistic lapse rates) of table 5 in W&H. The agreement is quite good.
ganon … thanks, I saw 7.14.
– Not sure what you mean by 18 years old? Paper was published June, 2020.
– TRC vs ECS … you’re probably right, as W&H say:
7 Temperature and Forcing
The forcings due to instantaneous changes of greenhouse gas concentrations can be calculated quite accurately. Temperature changes induced by the forcings are less clearly dened
because various feedbacks change the temperature prole of the atmosphere. After doubling CO2 concentrations, a new, steady state will eventually be established by these feedback
processes.
– The saturation comments seemed interesting.
All above my pay grade.
I wanted to get additional info on what W&H actually means. for TCS, ECS and saturation. I don’t have much at my disposal, hopefully some on here do, but I did reread William Happer’s Forward to Javier’s new book. He writes:
“Vinos calls this the ‘Enhanced Greenhouse Effect Hypothesis’ [Enhanced CO2 Effect Hypothesis].
It is very hard to defend a climate sensitivity as large as 3C. Most estimates of the direct, ‘instantaneous’ effects of a doubling of the CO2 concentration, a 100% increase, imply a decrease of radiation to space of only about 1%. Because of the T4 Stefan-Boltzman law … so the feedback-free temperature increase from doubling CO2 should be about … 0.75C. To get a politically correct sensitivity, say S=3C, requires that positive feedbacks increase this number by a factor of 4 or 400%. But most natural feedbacks are negative, not positive, in accordance with Le Chatelier’s Principle.”
Bill,
Sorry about 2006, I must have been looking at the Sherro01’s arxiv link. 2020 – all the better and more relevant to the current state of affairs.
The more you look at these things, the more they will be in your paygrade ;-).
Here is a new (Dec 13. 2023) experimental paper, directly related to this discussion, even if it would require some digging and calculation to get ECS and TCR:
“Greenhouse gas forcing and climate feedback signatures identified in hyperspectral infrared satellite observations”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103947
In ‘Climate Uncertainty And Risk’, Judith writes:
“7.2.1 By itself, the equilibrium warming effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is slightly more than 1C.
Higher values of ECS arise primarily from positive cloud feedbacks. The magnitude, and even the sign, of cloud feedbacks is the greatest source of uncertainty.
It is difficult for climate models to simulate any of these cloud processes correctly owing to their small scale, let alone predict how they will change in the future.
Based on a recent review article by Sherwood et al., the IPCC AR6 narrowed the likely range of ECS to 2.5-4.0C. Subsequent to publication of the AR6, independent climate scientist Nic Lewis … published in the journal Climate Dynamics an extensive critique of the methodology used in the Sherwood et al. paper to determine the ECS.”
Nic posted articles here, on Climate Etc, on his paper.
ganon … thanks, I’m sure I’ll need a translator. ;-)
So the Arizona paper shows a 6.5 C increase in temperature and now an additional 1C increase will tank the Earth. It’s only a bit faster rise than some in the past. And I’m giving the result the benefit of a doubt. The methodology would have to be analyzed by a skeptic to be sure.
https://phys.org/news/2021-11-global-temperatures-years-today-unprecedented.html
Jim2 The following statements is one of the most idiotic statements
“The magnitude and rate warming over the last 150 years far surpasses the magnitude and rate of changes over the last 24,000 years.”
That statement may be true or may be false – We simply dont know. Simply because the resolution of the proxy data is no where near high enough to reach any conclusion. Comparable to using a measuring device no more accurate than a yard stick, yet claiming accuracy at the milimeter level.
“It’s only a bit faster rise than some in the past”
As per the figure, the major portion of the last glacial – interglacial transition 17 – 11 kya, was 6 C in 6 thousand years, or ~ 1 C per thousand years. Recent warming (1970 – 2023) has been 1.16 C (HadCRUT 5.0.2.0), which corresponds to 21.8 C/1000 years. I’d call that more than “a bit faster”. Granted that glacial D-O event warming phases may have had comparable rates, but those are understood, and the mechanism does not apply to what is happening now.
The mechanism doesn’t matter. A rise in temperature by any other name is a rise in temperature.
Of course the mechanism matters. The whole of science is understanding physical causality.
Nice deflection ganon. Typical leftist tactic.
This article stops short of blaming “green” energy efforts for Germany’s economic problems, but does at least muster enough courage to mention “energy”. I’m still waiting for the day when someone articulates a full throated condemnation of Germany’s Energiewende.
Beset by energy woes and creaking infrastructure, hit by a downturn in global demand, and lagging in the race for electric-vehicle dominance, the country was probably in recession as it ended 2023 with a shock court decision that undermined Berlin’s whole strategy for budget financing.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-06/germany-s-lost-year-is-over-but-2024-may-not-be-much-better
Jim2
this link is the real time US energy usage and electric generation. by source. One of the graphs shows the electric generation by source which also shows the wide fluctuations (hourly, daily and long term ) in generation from Wind and Solar. That should give everyone a sense of the additional costs of maintaining reliability and stability in the grid. Should also give everyone a sense of the extensive redundancy required with mid to high penetrations of wind and solar. Costs which are not included in the LCOE analysises.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
This is the former link to the germany equivalent. Unfortunately it is now a bad link. One point that was obvious was that Europe is plague by much longer periods of low wind than the north american continent. Several periods of 1-4 weeks. Dec 2022 was near windless in Germany and most of the European continent. Makes a mockery of jacobson’s claim of a successful every 30 test of reliability.
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/service/recent-electricity-data/chart/power_generation/20.08.2022/20.09.2022/today/
Unfortunately I cant read german, otherwise I likely could have found the new link.
Thanks, Joe
Very interesting. I do note that on a countrywide basis the wind is always blowing somewhere and the Solar output is quite predictable (I guess that speaks in favor of a countrywide interconnected grid).
Here is the German link you were looking for (I do read and speak German – dId my PhD there):
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/daten-tools/agorameter/chart/today/power_generation/03.01.2024/06.01.2024/hourly
The cost of a national grid could better be spent on nat gas plants close to the ever-changing load (from growth – or decay, closing of manufacturing, etc) and clean coal plants. MUCH better bang for the buck.
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 12:28 pm |
Thanks, Joe
Very interesting. I do note that on a countrywide basis the wind is always blowing somewhere
Ganon – Wind is always blowing somewhere is a discredited talking point.
Look at EIA . gov for feb 2021 – – drill down in each of the grids.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
Jim2, what are you going to do when natural gas runs out, becomes prohibitively expensive, or available supply does not meet demand? All will happen within the next 30-60years.
Ganon1950:
Doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done will not help matters.
joethenonclimatescientist | January 6, 2024 at 1:24 pm |
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 12:28 pm |
Thanks, Joe
Very interesting. I do note that on a countrywide basis the wind is always blowing somewhere
Ganon – Wind is always blowing somewhere is a discredited talking point.
Following up on the wind is always blowing somewhere talking point – wind droughts are typically continental wide.
While I cant access the data for other countries such as france or poland in europe, note the very low electric production from wind in germany
12.8.22 to 12.19.22,
1.20.23 – 1.29.23
3.2.22 – 3.10.23
England’s drop in wind production matched germany’s drop for 2023 ( i couldnt access the england data for 2022)
https://grid.iamkate.com/
In summary – the source data doesnt match the talking point.
JoeTNCS,
I looked at Feb. 2021. The lowest wind generation I saw as was 11.5 GW. The wind was blowing somewhere. And of course, the more wind farms there are in different locations, the variance will become smaller.
Joe, all I said is “On a countrywide basis, the wind is always blowing somewhere”. You haven’t provided anything that discredits that. If you wish to change your typical hyperbolic response to something like “on a countrywide scale, wind power generation is variable” – fine, say so and give statistics. And I already responded: with growth of new wind farms in new locations, the percentage variability in the total will become smaller.
While natural gas is running out, maybe (or not) in 100 years, I build nuclear plants. Hopefully, use that time to perfect SMRs.
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 1:51 pm |
JoeTNCS,
I looked at Feb. 2021. The lowest wind generation I saw as was 11.5 GW. The wind was blowing somewhere. And of course, the more wind farms there are in different locations, the variance will become smaller.
Ganon – Look at the daily & hourly production from 2.10.2021 to 2.20.21.
10%-20% of normal across most of the north american continent is is not exactly blowing somewhere.
Yes, it is blowing somewhere. And probably lots of other places (where there weren’t wind farms, particularly offshore, in 2021).
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 2:23 pm | Reply
Yes, it is blowing somewhere. And probably lots of other places (where there weren’t wind farms, particularly offshore, in 2021).
Ganon – You are repeating discredited talking points Wind blowing somewhere is meaningless when the wind is in a drought across an entire continent.
Look again at the hourly and daily wind across the NA continent during those critical wind drought days.
Same thing in Europe during those periods I listed.
You should do what was recommended to DanB – read the articles by Russel S and Cliff Morris. Much more insightful information than from the renewable energy experts who are legends in their own mind.
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 2:23 pm | Reply
Yes, it is blowing somewhere. And probably lots of other places (where there weren’t wind farms, particularly offshore, in 2021).
Ganon – I presume you are aware of the number of offshore wind farm operators that have pulled out of development in the US and UK due to the lack of economic vitality of the projects.
You haven’t discredited it, you lied about it. You started with a Cherry picked a low point two years ago, and then claimed it was 10 – 20% of normal. The low was 11.297 MWh (in an hour) at 6 PM EST 02/17/2021. This is 26.1% of the average (“normal”) hourly wind production for 2021: 378.2 TWh/8760 hours (in a year) = 43.2 MWh/h. 24 hours before the minimum it was at 63.1% of average and 24 hours after it was at 43.2%.
10 to 20% is not 26 to 63%.
I’m not really interest in what someone who routinely makes up numbers has to say.
Joe, no I’m not aware of that number (apparently you aren’t either – if you are, quote it), but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t change how much the wind blows.
Ganon – Your response[s] are not responsive of the issues I pointed out. Further, your use of “average” in your response demonstrates how poorly you understand grid operation and renewables.
Average is a totally meaningless metric when discussing renewables.
Please read the articles by Russel S and Cliff Morris before responding further. There is a significant amount of background information on renewables that you need to acquire.
Joe,
“Average is a totally meaningless metric when discussing renewables”.
No, it isn’t totally meaningless, it is very well defined. What is meaningless is saying “normal” and then assigning false percentages to it.
As for Texas, all you have to do is look at the grid connection map – Texas by choice is not part of the Eastern US grid, and is thus much more susceptible to failures and economic decisions and lack of standards, such as not weatherizing windmills.
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 4:59 pm |
Joe,
“Average is a totally meaningless metric when discussing renewables”.
No, it isn’t totally meaningless, it is very well defined. What is meaningless is saying “normal” and then assigning false percentages to it.
Ganon – A self proclaimed expert – mean, mode, median , average – yet you chose the metric that is a useless metric, while remaining clueless on why it is a worthless metric for the subject.
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 4:59 pm |
Ganon’s reply – As for Texas, all you have to do is look at the grid connection map – Texas by choice is not part of the Eastern US grid, and is thus much more susceptible to failures and economic decisions and lack of standards, such as not weatherizing windmills.”
Ganon – my third time to suggest the you read Russel S & Cliff Morris prior posts on the subject of renewables.
Enter “planning engineer” into the CE search box.
12-20 articles on renewables along with the texas and us grid. Great starting point to understand the subject – as opposed to spouting distorted talking points.
Texas has bever been part of the eastern inter-connection. Both MISO and SPP were using rolling blackouts in Feb 2021 so it is unlikely it could have prevented blackouts in ERCOT in any case.
As an aside, it probably doesn’t make sense to winterize wind turbines as far south as Texas. It costs money and the wind may not be blowing anyway.
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 4:59 pm | ganon comment “nd economic decisions and lack of standards, such as not weatherizing windmills.”
Congratulations Ganon – you are probably the first climate activist that got the windmill talking point backwards
The doldroms routinely spread over entire regions of the country. Joe is not cherry picking to point out one such case. In addition, it does not matter if the wind is blowing in North Dakota when the power is needed in Oklahoma. During periods of high demand, such as extreme heat or cold, you can’t move the power that far.
Read about HVDC transmission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
Read about economics. I’d guess I know more about the operation and economics of HVDC than you do.
You said “… you can’t move power that far … “. You are wrong, so you deflect. I know very little about HVDC, but it didn’t take much to show your claim false.
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 6:54 pm |
Read about HVDC transmission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
Ganon – you resorting to non relevant points indicating you dont understand the subject.
Doug’s point is that you can move power that doesnt exist. You keep screaming about wind always blowing somewhere. Go back and look at the Eia real time data for Feb 2021. There wasnt any excess electric power from wind anywhere on the north american continent for those 4 critical days.
I meant there was no practical method to move power that far especially during periods of high demand. A point ganon seems to be implicitly acknowledging. He is beclowning himself which is why I did not respond to his comment.
Joe,
“Doug’s point is that you can move power that doesnt exist. You keep screaming about wind always blowing somewhere. Go back and look at the Eia real time data for Feb 2021. There wasnt any excess electric power from wind anywhere on the north american continent for those 4 critical days.”
No Doug’s point was that you can’t move power from ND, where it existed, to OK, where it didn’t. I answered that.
There is never excess electric power. I already answered your false claim of 10-20% of “normal” for that period in Feb 2021. Still, more windmills in more locations would help.
I have confidence that as solar and wind have greater market, so will various methods of storage to address the intermittency problem. Frankly, I believe in a “can do” attitude and the continuing advance of science and engineering, over your “hasn’t been done yet, so it can’t be done” attitude.
Doug,
I guess China didn’t listen to you, and I’m not implicitly acknowledging anything you’ve said. They find it practical for delivering 5-24 GW and have built a number of long-distance transmission lines over the last 15 years. Go ahead and answer and beclown yourself again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China
PS as for that “no practical method to move power that far especially during periods of high demand”, that 5-24 GW is equivalent to the power output of 5-24 typical nuclear reactors.
As for “I’d guess I know more about the operation and economics of HVDC than you do.” – seems not.
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 9:07 pm |
“No Doug’s point was that you can’t move power from ND, where it existed, to OK, where it didn’t. I answered that.”
Ganon – no that is not what Doug B Stated – you repetitively mischaracterize someone statement, then respond to the misrepresentation.
Go back and read his statement in full context.
It’s striking that we’re always talking in this blog about the supply challenges with renewables. But if you look at the big picture, the soaring cost of energy in 2022, it was driven by a dramatic disruption in fossil fuel supply – not failure of renewables – from the war in Ukraine. This was not a blackout for a day, or a blip. It was massive shortages and countless billions of dollars of extra cost for much of the world. The supply of fossil fuel is dependent on geopolitics in deeply unstable places – russia, venezuela, the middle east. In fact, we had a huge energy crisis in the 1970s due to middle east politics before there was any such thing as renewables.
It seems to me that one could reasonably argue that we need renewables in the energy mix to buffer against disruptions in fossil fuel supply, as much as the other way around.
Don’t forget President Puddin’Head’s efforts to restrict leases and enact even more expensive regulations on oil fields and gasoline standards.
Yes. So the solution to fossil fuel disruptions is more wells. But the solutions to wind disruptions is not more wind? It’s more fossil fuels?
The United States holds the world’s largest recoverable oil reserve base, output can be turned on at any time.
https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/exclusive-story/u.s.-holds-most-recoverable-oil-reserves
As far “supply challenges”, Texas’ ERCOT for example, there’s been an ongoing base load problem in Texas (certainly not unique to Texas). While the Feb. 2021 Texas freeze had a confluence of issues leading to causation for that particular event, it doesn’t change the fact that the Texas grid has come close to shutting down on more than one occasion during summer months. Inadequate base load production is the culprit.
As noted in many of Russell S (AKA the planning engineer), in his posts here at CE, renewables can not handle the role of base load supply , because of the intermediacy and unreliability issues. The problems pointed out by jungletrunks has been created by the pricing structure of the generation plants has diverted funds to the renewable generation at the expense of the fossil fuel generation plants.
Great insight can be gained from reading Russell S’s articles.
But the remaining, unextracted oil unextracted mainly for one reason: it gets more and more expensive to extract. As the percentage of oil from unconventional sources increases, the prices necessarily increases with it. and even among unconventional sources, the ones we have chosen so far are chosen because the oil is relatively accessible. Moreover, the rate of extraction cannot be accelerated easily to cover disruptions in other parts of the world. and since oil is traded on an international market, even if we are theoretically self-sufficient, when there are disruptions in other parts of the world, gas prices will still soar in the U.S., as oil companies will sell to the highest bidder, which will be where oil is scarce.
JoeTNCS,
You sure do throw around terms like “useless” when describing statistical metrics, but then think using something like “what is normal” is justified. No thanks.
Average is certainly well defined, but useless for the problem at hand – how much reliable generation is needed. To cover unreliables, the useful metric is a minimum wind+solar generation. Statistics come handy when you want to know how many times would the grid collapse in 20 years.
Yes, for continuing penetration it will have to be wind+solar+storage (lots of options being developed). “Unreliables” just shows you bias; they are intermittent, not unreliable.
ganon1950 | January 6, 2024 at 9:12 pm |
Yes, for continuing penetration it will have to be wind+solar+storage (lots of options being developed). “Unreliables” just shows you bias; they are intermittent, not unreliable.
Ganon – since you like to change the subject ( bad habit – to hide your misunderstanding of the subject) though it has become a useful deflection for your purposes.
Tell us what the costs are going to be for “wind+solar+storage” as the renewable penetration increases. Perhaps further comprehension of the subject will shed light on why the use of “average” is a useless metric as originally pointed out.
You can look up the costs of wind, solar, and storage if it intests you.
JTNCS,
You can look up the costs of wind, solar, and storage if it interests you. It is pretty clear that those costs will decrease (in constant dollars) as they have been (and will continue to do so as new technologies matures), while the cost of fossil fuels will increase. Even a fool should be able to understand the long-term difference in economics between a limited, non-renewable resource vs. a renewable one. Please tell us what the cost of natural gas will be in 2050.
ganon1950 | January 7, 2024 at 10:32 am |
You can look up the costs of wind, solar, and storage if it intests you.
Ganon – a self proclaimed expert of something he doesnt understand. Those reports of wind, solar and storage costs from organizations such as lazard (lcoe computations) only include the cost of generation, completely divorced from the total costs of including each type of generation in the grid.
for the 6th time – Read the posts from Russell S and Cliff Morris. You are operating on highly deceptive information for renewable advocates instead of industry operators with actual industry experience.
Read information also from NERC
No, they are intermittent AND unreliable. First-hand experience up here on the ice floes.
when we talk about unreliables, are we including oil? if not, why not? solar cells need to be replaced and wells run out of oil. whereas in sunny climates solar output is highly predictable, wars and embargoes can dramatically disrupt oil. Which one is the reliable one again?
Could some UK rivers freeze over?
https://i.ibb.co/gTNwy0v/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-07-095033.png
When the Brits start skating on the Thames, can “record” high Arctic Sea Ice be far behind? When there is “record” high Arctic Sea Ice, can mass institutionalization of AGW true believers be far behind?
Tick tock….tick tock…tick tock. I hope they have their health insurance premiums paid up.
Yes, it can be; one depends on air temperature and the other depends on ocean temperature and amount of thick, old sea ice.
We shall see.
Evening Kid (UTC),
Where is this alleged “record high Arctic Sea Ice” hiding?
I posted a link to the latest volume numbers above, and they certainly don’t qualify for that description!
Jim Hunt
I didn’t say they were hidden. I said can “record” high Arctic Sea Ice be far behind. As in how soon can we expect a reversal of the reduced Sea Ice trends. Given the number of studies finding a fraction of the loss of ice is attributed to natural variability, it’s reasonable for those influences to change. Low frequency modes such as AO, AMO, NAO, AMOC, PDO and North Pacific warming have been identified as being responsible for the trend in recent decades. Generally, papers find 40 to 50% of the trend is due to natural variability, with 60% in some regions.
When the changes are coming, no one knows, but they are coming.
“Internal variability dominates the Arctic summer circulation trend and may be responsible for about 30–50% of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3241
“Results also show that changes in sea ice due to internal variability can be almost as large as forced changes. We find dominant modes of sea ice variability with approximated periods of around 3, 6, 18, 27 and 55 years and show their contributions to sea ice variability and extremes.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/accbe3/meta
“While the short-term response of sea ice to volcanic forcing can be understood in terms of reduction of incoming radiation, atmospheric reorganisation and changes in surface ocean temperature6, which can be examined in the observational record7,8, the multidecadal to centennial response is likely to be mediated through large-scale ocean dynamics such as the inflow of warm water to the Arctic within the upper limb of the AMOC9,10,11,12. Modelling studies have proposed a number of mechanisms through which volcanic activity can lead to decadal and longer changes in AMOC strength13,14,15, but agreement about how ocean circulation has changed on these timescales remains elusive. Understanding Arctic sea ice variability on multidecadal timescales therefore not only helps to better explain recently observed changes and potential predictability, but also to uncover the mechanisms of multidecadal variability in the wider climate system.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-57472-2
“ Studies indicate that year-round Arctic sea ice retreat most likely results from a combination of natural variability and climate change. Multiple studies indicate that roughly half the decline is caused by natural variability, but the overall long-term trend is a direct result of climate change.”
https://nsidc.org/learn/ask-scientist/climate-change-or-variability-what-rules-arctic-sea-ice
kid,
All very interesting deflections. Doesn’t change the fact that Arctic sea ice minimum (September) is down 37% since satellite observations in 1978. And the overall trend correlates much more with global temperature rise than it does with inter-annual variability or any multi-decadal oscillations that may be superimposed on it. I think the common vernacular would be “not seeing the forest because you are so busy looking for trees that would show that the forest isn’t there”.
ganon
Pay attention. No deflection. Just stating the obvious, that NV represents a fraction of the downward trend. Just like a fraction of the current global temperature is affected by the AMO and LIA and multi decadal solar highs.
Soon, the recovery of the Arctic Sea Ice will begin. It doesn’t matter for how long. It’s inevitable.
And then those who ignore NV now, will be lecturing all of us that it’s just NV.
Kid,
See:
https://arctic.noaa.gov/report-card/report-card-2022/sea-ice/
Particularly Figure 3. Multi-year ice is down ~65% from 1985 and “old” (>4 year) ice has been essentially gone since 2012. Your predictions and hopes for the future are duly noted, but I find them extreme unlikely.
“ This observational evidence supports recent modeling studies that have suggested that Arctic sea ice is intrinsically linked to Atlantic multidecadal variability. This may have implications for understanding the recent negative trend in Arctic winter sea ice extent, although because the losses have been greater in summer, other processes and feedbacks are also important.”
“We establish a signal of pervasive and persistent multidecadal (~60–90 year) fluctuations that is most pronounced in the Greenland Sea and weakens further away. Covariability between sea ice and Atlantic multidecadal variability as represented by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is evident during the instrumental record, including an abrupt change at the onset of the early twentieth century warming.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL058084
“ That is to say, in the middle-to-late 21st century, when the AMO shifts to its cold phase, with all other factors being equal, the Arctic amplification might slowdown.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076210?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_medium=social&utm_content=buffer91269&utm_source=twitter.com
Kid,
“with all other factors being equal”
Fat chance. The AMO phases are roughly ±0.5 C. By the time the middle of the next negative phase, in 30–50 years, the “other factors” (AGW) will likely have added another 1–1.5 C to global temperatures.
ganon
Looks like the case for the hockey schtick is going down, down, down. Even in the Arctic. Glub, Glub, Glub.
“While our analysis shows that the peak MCA summer temperatures were as high as in the late 20th and early 21st century, the spatial coherence of extreme years over the last decades seems unprecedented at least back until 750 CE. However, statistical testing could not provide conclusive support of the contemporary warming to supersede the peak of the MCA in terms of the pan-Arctic mean summer temperatures”
https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2017-29/cp-2017-29.pdf
Kid,
The Hockey stick is and has been global, and is doing just fine with the blade getting bigger and bigger. Thanks for yet another confirmation that the MCA was incoherent, with warm spots appearing locally around the North Atlantic at different times with minimal effect on global average. Subtle effects in MOS insolation were probably not strong enough to cause a globally coherent signal.
Glub, glub, glub – yourself.
From the article:
Figure 7. Left: Occurrence of statistically significant, potentially warmest (red) and coldest (blue) years over the 2000-year long period in different sectors of the Arctic domain. Right: Fraction of potentially warmest/coldest decades with respect to time. Both MCA and LIA
clearly shows up.
The warming in 2023 was also spotty. It’s not realistic to expect every point on Earth to change the same as every other point.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Jim2, what you expect is for internal stochastic feedback oscillations to show up warm and cold in different places, different times, but little difference in longer term (decade-centennial) global averages. Some small global seems apparent because deep ocean fluxes and temperatures are not well represented in the usually quoted surface temperatures (land and sea). This most likely for both MCA and LIA. Strong external forcings (GHGs, large volcanoes,large changes in insolation) create globally coherent signals that show up in GMST.
ganon – of course the longer the period averaged, the smoother the plot. Average all of it and you see no trend whatsoever :)
ganon
The idea of the MWP not being global is beyond bizarre. Are we to believe that 1,000 miles north of the equator there was a MWP but 1,000 miles south of the equator there was not?
Did someone build a 25 mile high wall from the ocean floor to the stratosphere? Did the global oceanic and atmospheric circulation miraculously disappear? That is what teleconnections are all about.
What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic.
What happens in the Antarctic doesn’t stay in the Antarctic.
Studies have found MWP conditions inOceania, Equatorial Pacific, South America, Antarctica, Southern Africa and Australia. We shouldn’t expect there to be any more coherence then than now. Some locations are warmer than now and others are cooler than now. That should be expected since, if solar and oceanic variability were the cause, today we have an added causal factor in CO2.
Here are papers from around the world showing the existence of MWP conditions.
“ The Little Ice Age in South Africa, from around AD 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley. The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1°C cooler in
the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period.”
“ The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have coincided with the cosmogenic ‘Be and “C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.”
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/tyson.pdf
“The reconstructed SST anomalies generally coincided with previously reported late Holocene climate events, including the Roman Warm Period, Sui-Tang dynasty Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Current Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period and Little Ice Age. However, the Medieval Warm Period usually thought to be a historical analogue for the Current Warm Period has a mean SST of 0.6–0.8°C lower than that of the Roman Warm Period and Sui-Tang dynasty Warm Period. Despite an increase since 1850 AD, the mean SST in the 20th century is still within the range of natural variability during the past 2700 years”
For the Okinawa trough
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL052749
“MCA warming in South America and the NH appears to have occurred largely synchronous, probably reaching comparable intensities.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618218308322
“The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future“
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240837
“From a regional view, this warm period was also consolidated with climatic records from the western Ross Sea, most likely corresponding to a well-recognized climate perturbation known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) in many parts of the world.“
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018221002820
“ Here we show for a marginal alpine region of Australia using a carbon isotope speleothem reconstruction, warming over the past five decades has experienced equivalent magnitude of temperature change and snow cover decline to the RWP and MCA. The current rate of warming is unmatched for the past 2000 years and seasonal snow cover is at a minimum.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22766-z
“ Using this data set, a globally warm MCA was found in all Climate Field Reconstructions consistent with model simulations from the CMIP5/PMIP3 ensemble.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065265
ganon
“ The 1000 yr climatic and environmental history of the Earth contained in various proxy records is reviewed. As indicators, the proxies duly represent local climate. Because each is of a different nature, the results from the proxy indicators cannot be combined into a hemispheric or global quantitative composite. However, considered as an ensemble of individual expert opinions, the assemblage of local representations of climate establishes both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints, extending earlier results by Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965), and numerous intervening research efforts. Furthermore, the individual proxies can be used to address the question of whether the 20th century is the warmest of the 2nd millennium locally. Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.”
https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
adding to cescokid’s comment –
Law dome is an interesting case in SH reconstructions.
Law dome is one of the highest resolution proxies in the SH, yet gergis ex post facto excludes it in several reconstructions and mbh significantly underweights it.
https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/03/gergis-and-law-dome/
here is another interesting take on the 30-60s proxies
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/26/pages2019-30-60s/
ganon
Indian Ocean
“ The MCA was a period when mean temperatures were warmer than today. Various low-resolution palaeoclimatological records also suggest that during the MCA, tropical climate was different from today, with a La Niña/negative IOD-like mean state with a deeper thermocline in the eastern Indian Ocean, warmer temperatures in Indonesia, and a spatially heterogenous hydrological response (e.g. Ref.15). At present, the western Indian Ocean warms faster than the east60, reducing the equatorial SST gradient in the tropical Indian Ocean and leading to an increase in IOD variability, perhaps in an unprecedented way (e.g. Refs.28,70). Although this may also reduce the skewness of the IOD5 future scenarios differ from MCA climate anomalies.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94465-1
ganon
“ The results showed that for China as a whole, the longest warm period during the last 2000 years occurred in the 10th–13th centuries, although there were multi-decadal cold intervals in the middle to late 12th century.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11442-020-1718-7
KId,
“the mean SST in the 20th century is still within the range of natural variability during the past 2700 years”
How about the 21st century?
ganon
Tibet
“ The maximum precipitation and temperature on the NETP occurred during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, ∼800–1400 CE), rather than during the Current Warm Period (CWP, the last 150 years)”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018223000603
“Lake and swamp deposits are the most important continental archives of climate-proxy data in equatorial East Africa, and in favourable circumstances of accumulation and preservation can allow climate reconstructions at decadal or even inter-annual time scales. As regards climate variability within the last millennium, currently available proxy records (Verschuren and Charman, 2008) show that the region experienced generally drier conditions during the time window equivalent to the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA, ca. 900–1300 AD), i.e. when temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere experienced a significantly warmer temperature regime than today (e.g., Moberg et al., 2005).”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018213003623
“ Sea surface temperature (SST), salinity, and flux of terrigenous material oscillated on millennial time scales in the Pleistocene North Atlantic, but there are few records of Holocene variability. Because of high rates of sediment accumulation, Holocene oscillations are well documented in the northern Sargasso Sea. Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was ∼1°C cooler than today ∼400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and ∼1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). Thus, at least some of the warming since the Little Ice Age appears to be part of a natural oscillation.”
A 1996 study.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.274.5292.1504
Mornin’ Kid (UTC),
My subscription to comments seems to have gone awry, and I missed your reply. My apologies.
There’s certainly plenty of “natural variability”, but the long term trend in Arctic sea ice volume is inexorably down.
I arrive to bring you the latest pretty pictures of the “measured” data, but it still seems to be impossible to display them to the assembled throng here.
In which case please see:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2024/01/facts-about-the-arctic-in-january-2024/#Jan-19
Waves of Arctic air are falling on the west and midwest of the US. Frost.
If President Joe Biden came out forcefully on the side of increasing US oil production, the price of a barrel could fall quickly, experts told The Post — even if it takes a while to bring that new energy online.
…
If Biden signaled full-throated support for US drillers to get to work — and perhaps allowed the re-starting of the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada — global oil prices could similarly fall sharply, the industry experts told The Post.
“Biden could go to the oil and gas industry and say, ‘OK, I’ve said we’re going to get off oil and gas and that you guys are yesterday’s industry, but I’m going to drop that,’” surmised Myron Ebell, the director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment. “Part of the run up in oil prices is the psychology of it,” he said.
…
Just last week, CEO Rick Muncrief of Devon Energy — a large driller worth around $40 billion — told Bloomberg that he’d be happy to talk to US officials about upping production. But there’s been no call. “I’m a little mystified that there hasn’t been some dialog,” he said. “It’s not been that long ago that we were asked to drill less, not more,” he said. “They need to be talking about what is it they would really like U.S. producers to do.”
That’s the kind of inaction that’s keeping prices high — up more than 40% since Russia invaded Ukraine and the war has worsened — and up nearly 90% over the past year when looking at the global Brent crude benchmark, which has risen as high as $123 a barrel in recent days when compared to its level of around $63 a year ago.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/09/why-biden-energy-policies-have-contributed-to-surging-oil-prices/
They would like to preserve petrochemicals for better uses than simply burning it and putting 27 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere for every gallon of fuel burned. At this point, It must be willful ignorance to not understand that, whether you agree or not.
ganon, your stated weight of CO2 burned from fuel is too high by a rough percentage of 40%+/-. 19.5 lbs/gallon, as given on a table from the EIA. That is, for automotive gasoline. The Diesel fuel number is higher.
Dietrich,
That includes the CO2 generated in extraction, refining and delivery. Note that I did not say “CO2 produced by burning a gallon of fuel”. I gave the (approximate) full cycle production value.
It’s willful ignorance on your part on the costs of stopping using oil for heat quickly.
Jim2,
It must be willful “make something up” to say I said anything about stopping quickly. I expect it will take 20–30 years, and it will probably be driven more by economics that climate concerns.
ganon
You misrepresented Biden’s agenda. He has stopped exploration of new oil reserves on Federal lands while taking advantage of the fields Trump allowed to be developed early in has term.
Biden has stated it is for the climate which is a total fabrication. Trump’s actions led to the US low unemployment rate.
Rob Starkey,
You must be confused (or gone crazy with antagonism) – I haven’t said anything anywhere about Biden’s agenda. I do acknowledge the existence of your lies and implied conspiracy theories.
I am shocked to see that the oil industry is urging Biden to forcefully support more aggressive drilling! Who could have imagined that?
Alan Sokal’s joke …
https://www.wsj.com/articles/alan-sokals-joke-is-on-us-as-postmoderism-comes-to-science-23a9383c?st=5r07ilwqz9fiy2x&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Ganon claims there are multiple options for grid backup power, but the truth is there is no affordable option for bulk power to back up the grid. Natural gas plants however, are great for that, even with heavily government subsidized, unreliable wind and solar
Ten Things that Change without Fossil Fuels
[1] Banks, as we know them, will likely fail.
[2] Today’s governments will fail.
[3] Nearly all of today’s businesses will fail.
[4] Grid electricity and the internet will disappear.
[5] International trade will be scaled back greatly.
[6] Agriculture will become much less efficient.
[7] Future labor needs are likely to be disproportionately in the agricultural sector.
[8] Home heating will become a luxury item available only to the wealthy.
[9] Living alone will become a thing of the past.
[10] Governments and their laws will shrink in importance. Instead, new traditions and new religions will play a greater role in keeping order.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2023/12/15/ten-things-that-change-without-fossil-fuels/
Jim,
This is an incredibly powerful case for investing, as quickly as possible, in alternative energy sources, to avoid the collapse of civilization when fossil fuels run out. The good news is, if we invest now, catastrophe of the sort you describe can be averted!
Talk about doom and gloom. I guess it’s hard to have imagination for the future when all you worry about is the money that you (don’t) have in the present.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/energy-storage-for-electricity-generation.php
Hopefully, eventually, the Germans will get so disgusted with Climate Doomers they will vote the id eeee ots out.
Following a noisy backlash from farmers, the German government coalition has decided to backtrack on planned cuts to climate-damaging subsidies in the agriculture sector. However, continued protests show that the move might be insufficient to calm the sector. To fill a 2024 budget gap following a constitutional court ruling on key climate action funding, the government in December said it would roll back tax breaks for agriculture vehicles, which led to a major protest in the capital Berlin. Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD), economy minister Robert Habeck (Greens) and finance minister Christian Lindner (FDP) now agreed to cancel some of these measures and delay others. Agricultural vehicle tax breaks will not be slashed while diesel tax breaks for farmers will be abolished only gradually, starting this year.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/farmer-protests-continue-germany-after-govt-backtracks-cuts-climate-damaging-subsidies
(Thread restart)
Bill,
I will quickly respond to Drs. Happer and Curry. There are positive and negative feedbacks, the most important ones are:
(1) water vapor (WV) pressure increases ~7% for every 1 C temperature rise. There are windows in the IR spectrum of water vapor (in particular the one from 8-14 µm wavelength, matching the blackbody outgoing longwave infrared radiation, BB-OLWIR) where WV vapor absorption is weak, significant but not saturated,
and thus the GHG effect for WV increases significantly for small increases in ocean and air temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor_windows#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.svg
(2) The solubility of CO2 in the oceans decreases with temperature. about 4% per °C. This is self-feedback and the surface mixing layer (~200 m) responds fairly rapidly to temperature change. It becomes more insidious when warming reachs cold deep waters where disolved CO2 concentrations are higher and saturated. It is a process that can take a couple thousand years (round trip time of the thermohaline “conveyor” that mixes deep and shallow parts of the ocean is ~1500 years). This is a large contributor to the difference between TCS and ECS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_pump#Carbon_dioxide_solubility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature
(3) Changing albedo – the melting of sea (and land) ice goes from high albedo. About 80-90% of incoming solar visible light is reflected back to space by snow and sea ice (10-20% absorbed). When the snow/ice is gone this turns around with ~90% (oceans) – 85% (boreal forests). This is a bi-directional positive feedback; colder gets colder, warmer gets warmer.
(4) Cloud feedback (Dr. Curry) a subject of continuing research. Depends on type of cloud and altitude and if the cloud area increases or decreases with temperature; however, current thinking is there are two effects that tend to cancel out; (a) warming by reflecting OLWIR back to earth (why cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear ones) and (b) cooling by reflecting incoming visible light (increasing efective albedo).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_pump#Carbon_dioxide_solubility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature
Another positive feedback is melting permafrost releasing methane and co2. I’m not sure how well understood or important this is. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2100163118
Dan,
I have seen that mentioned as a possibility; however, paleoclimatic studies (ice core gas bubble analysis) have not seen any large spikes at the appropriate time in prior. Along these lines, there is also hypothesized release of methane clathrates from cold ocean bottoms on warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
“(2) The solubility of CO2 in the oceans decreases with temperature. about 4% per °C.”
True, but irrelevant. CO2 concentrations are nowhere near saturation. Ocean water is not bubbly.
Not true, only not saturated where there is sufficient life (phytoplankton) to absorb the dissolved CO2. Saturation also depends on the CO2 concentration in the air above the water. It is silly to compare the 0.042% CO2 in the air with bubby carbonation of soda water/pop prepared with high pressure pure CO2. The bubbly comes from supersaturation under pressure in bottle or can – the bubbles come from trying to reestablish equilibrium with reduced in pressure and warming. The ocean is already at equilibrium, no bubbles. Actually, it is your comment that is silly, incorrect and irrelevant.
Instead of making up incorrect stuff, you can learn something about CO2 in the oceans here (time to actually be curious, George):
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon
Physics is not your strong point. Nor biology.
From your earthobservatory.nasa.gov link: “The ocean takes up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis by plant-like organisms (phytoplankton), as well as by simple chemistry: carbon dioxide dissolves in water.” These writers could use a scientist, or a good proofreader.
George,
So, you’ve got nothing except defiance. I’d be glad to compare credentials for either physics or chemistry.
Please enlighten us, what is wrong with the clip you took from the NASA article.
NASA: “Published July 1, 2008. This page contains archived content and is no longer being updated. At the time of publication, it represented the best available science.”
How does the ocean take up CO2 through photosynthesis without dissolving it first? Did you read the snippet?
OK, I see your point. They got it out of order. Simple chemistry: CO2 dissolves it water, before it is used for photosynthesis. I’d call that nitpicking about something obvious.
Also, only fair to mention negative feedbacks:
(1) Increased biomass take up CO2 land plants/trees – growth rates increase with CO2 concentration, (limited) temperature rise, and humidity. This is generally self limiting as rate of dying plants comes into equilibrium and releases CO2 and CH4. Also may be limited by ecosystem changes – desertification (dry areas become drier while wet become wetter).
(3) CO2 uptake by phytoplankton in the ocean – important at equilibrium, but somewhat limited because they like growing in colder surface waters (tropical oceans are clear, high latitudes are murky with higher food chain productivity). This is where the idea of fertilizing the oceans with missing/limiting trace minerals – mostly iron and phosphate – comes from.
(3) Weathering of silicate rocks on land: CO2 in rain makes carbolic acid that dissolves the silicate rock creating carbonate ions that are washed to, and sequestered in the oceans. The process increases with CO2 concentration, temperature, increased precipitation, and increased exposure (loss of glaciers and ice sheets. A powerful, but slow process, more important on multi-million year time scales.
ganon – more CO2 causes stomata to narrow, thus limiting the escape of H2O from plants. Ergo, the deserts get greener.
Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
Ganon and DanB seem to be in a competition who can post the most comments. Maybe a little less quantity but better quality?
I’d be glad to list where the low quality comes from (you’re at the top of the list). If you don’t like comments on science with references, don’t read them – you’ve already made it clear that you don’t understand them and your only goal is to push fossil fuels and denigrate the use and future potential of renewables. Go for it, I always enjoy a good laugh.
Ganon – any science you quote is just the party line. Not that it’s all wrong, but it’s just the same stuff over and over. We already knew it, so there’s no reason to post it over and over. You aren’t the only party guilty of redundancy, but you are certainly prolific.
Jim2,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Really, you’ve heard it all before? You mean like this paper from Dec 13, 2023.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103947
I think what you mean is that you have heard too many times that ACC is real and a problem, and you don’t want to hear further confirmations.
If you don’t like the posts, don’t read them. I certainly do that with you prolific news clippings.
I believe the phenomenon in that paper exist. Yes, I was already aware of them even though I hadn’t read that specific paper.
Joe,
Thanks for your thoughts, unfortunately they are empty (fact free) assertions and accusations.
As for
““How can we have confidence in what he states when he cant even get the easy stuff correct.”
You might start with the difference between “a small angle with respect to gravity normal” and the contraction of “can not”.
Jim I think you have us both beat, both for high quantity AND low quality. A NY post article quoting someone from within fossil fuel industry? I’m sure the profit motive has no influence whatever on that fossil fuel spokesperson and we can take everything he says as absolute gospel.
Both y and Ganon have Jim beat on quantity of comments with renewables.
Both of you are like the three blind men and the elephant.
Lots of advocacy talking points without a understanding of the fundamentals.
Go back and read Russell S and cliff morris commentary
Both with extensive industry experience
Joe,
I’ve looked. I’m not so much interested in current and past problems as I am in what needs to be done to fix them. You have yet to offer a solution for what should be done when fossil fuels run out or become prohibitively expensive, as they will. You also offer no solution for GHG mitigation, rather practice willful ignorance and pretend it doesn’t have climate implications and complain that renewables cost too much – not compared to nuclear, once waste processing costs and safety are considered (not to mention lead times). I have offered storage solutions to make renewables “reliable”, but you ignore them, or say they cost too much – again, not compared to nuclear. As for “talking points,” I offered a fairly comprehensive review of storage systems by the EIA. Did you read it? If you would like more detail to educate yourself, here is a more extensive, and recent, review:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277268352200022X?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=84214645ace851f7
BTW, you are right at the top of the list with Jim2.
DanB – most of the articles I post on the failure of “green” energy come from Bloomberg. Bloomberg is owned by Mike Bloomberg who is a left-wing Climate Doomer. Other articles are sourced from a variety of places around the web. But, let’s face it, you need exposure to ideas outside of your echo chamber.
In regards to oil company executives, oil and gas is the most critical industry in the world. Only a more Ron would not want to hear what they have to say. Since our leadership in the US and most places around the world are more Rons, I can see why you believe they should be ignored.
Joe,
“How can we have confidence in what he states when he cant even get the easy stuff correct.”
Classical projection.
ganon1950 | January 8, 2024 at 10:05 am |
Joe,
“How can we have confidence in what he states when he cant even get the easy stuff correct.”
ganon – you demonstrate a huge conceptual misunderstanding of A) renewables, B) subsidies, and C ) paleo reconstructions. Misunderstanding so deep and based on distorted non scientific talking points. My point remains. If your understanding on those topic is so highly distorted, why would anyone have confidence in your knowledge of climate science.
For all you that hate monster windmills and their capitalization costs.
https://airloomenergy.com/
A very nice commercial. Not much data, though. At the first glance it does not look very efficient. Do they have a 100 kW prototype?
No. Watch the video. The test and scaleability sequence looks like 10kW (active demo and testing), 50kW, 250kW, and 1MW. Final version(s) to 2.5 MW. I thought it looked interesting, but, of course, have to see how the development sequence goes.
This looks interesting. Might be a boon to off-grid locations. Of course, it only works when the wind blows.
Unless, of course, it is coupled with some kind of storage system.
Jim, Joe et al,
Since I don’t know who Cliff Morris is or whether his information is reliable, after browsing his articles, I did my own googling about australia’s experience with renewables.
Here’s an article from the actual Australian power company. Sounds like a real nightmare scenario down there. I pray those Australians survive it.
https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/renewables-push-nem-electricity-prices-down-to-historical-levels
“AEMO’s latest Quarterly Energy Dynamics report shows that wholesale electricity prices averaged $63 per megawatt hour (MWh) in the September quarter, down 41% from the June quarter ($108/MWh) and 71% ($216/MWh) from Q3 2022.
Total electricity supply by fuel type saw renewables (wind, grid-scale and rooftop solar, hydro and other sources) contribute 38.9% of total supply, up 4.6%, while black coal’s share fell 3.4%, primarily due to the Liddell Power station closure, and gas fell 2.3%. Brown coal’s market share increased 1%, mainly due to fewer unplanned outages.
…
“Record renewable generation output helped push down average wholesale electricity prices by more than two-thirds, double the occurrence of zero or negative wholesale prices (19%) and reduce total emissions by 11% compared to the previous September quarter,” Ms Mouchaileh said.
“The pipeline of new renewables, if supported by firming generation – batteries, hydro and gas – and transmission, will help meet reliability gaps and share low-cost, low-emissions energy to homes and businesses,” Ms Mouchaileh said.
There are many other articles from all different sources that say essentially the same thing. Two more examples, among many:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/australia-renewables-power-prices
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/media-releases/gencost-confirms-renewables-remain-cheapest-form-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors-skyrocket
Snowfall is beginning in England as a result of the “lake effect” as frigid winds from the east blow over the warmer North Sea.
When based on the blackbody-planet theory, it was wrongly calculated:
“The earth’s surface emits on average 240 W/m². ”
–
Also it was very much wrongly concluded:
“Without greenhouse effect, Earth’s surface would be some 33°C (59°F) cooler.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is a setback for SMRs in the US.
Nuclear power is emission-free but complex, expensive and politically fraught. In recent years, small modular reactors have been touted as the answer to those problems. In the US, NuScale Energy Corp. has been at the vanguard of efforts to build viable SMRs.
So it was a significant blow to the industry last week when NuScale abruptly canceled a deal to construct the Carbon Free Power Project, a 462-megawatt power plant slated for a Utah-based consortium of municipal utilities.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-11-13/atomic-renaissance-takes-a-hit-as-nuscale-cancels-small-reactor-project
While I would like nuclear to work for more of the baseload, it seems that the proponents fail to talk about lead times, costs, societal opposition, and the issues with nuclear waste processing including cost, safety, storage and possible environmental impact. Also, the development of SMRs seem to be at a much earlier stage (none deployed) compared to wind+solar+storage. Despite claims here that W+S doesn’t work, it obviously does, so does storage, even if it significantly raises costs. And, as I have already said, even if W+S+S doesn’t work out for high penetration grid baseload, every GWh provided by W+S is a GWh’s worth of finite resource fossil fuels that doesn’t need to be burned and doesn’t add GHGs to the atmosphere.
The long lead time means we need to start right now. France is doing it. The trend around the world is beginning to favor nuclear, with a few exceptions.
I predict France will make out like a bandit selling power to the likes of Germany and the UK, a couple of crash test dummies for “green” energy.
Paris CNN Business —
France has announced plans to build up to 14 new nuclear reactors in a move that could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide a buffer against volatile energy prices.
President Emmanuel Macron said Thursday that France would construct six nuclear reactors, and study the possibility of commissioning a further eight.
“Given the electricity needs, the need to also anticipate the transition and the end of the existing fleet, which cannot be extended indefinitely, we are going to launch today a program of new nuclear reactors,” Macron said.
Construction will commence in 2028, and the first new reactor could be commissioned by 2035.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/business/nuclear-power-france/index.html
America and Europe get ready plenty of fuel. The polar vortex is attacking.
https://i.ibb.co/J37K0N7/gfs-z100-nh-f72.png
ganon …
Vegetation … ‘dry areas become drier’. I can’t speak to rainfall, however I live in a semi-arid climate and the last four years have seen amazing growth that’s visually apparent. I doubt you still live around Hanford, but if you did I’m sure you’d notice the same thing. Most people living here would love 40″ of rain a year. Not happening. Yet, most of that wish is for life around us. More CO2 means happy plants with less water. I would say desertification on the planet would be less, as seems to be happening here.
TCR, ECS … W&H and your paper RPRM&H don’t seem to have a problem computing TCR. Not so with ECS, which seems to be beset with what ifs. Judith’s concern with clouds was (not to put words in her mouth) with model paramaterization, grid scale.
Arguing the step from TRC to ECS inevitably brings us to the elephant in the room, natural variability. The problem I have with the Enhanced CO2 Hypothesis is that there doesn’t seem to be adequate attention paid to heat transport, which they seem to say ‘evens out’. Intuitively, I find that hard to believe. Rationally, it doesn’t make sense as there are so many natural transport processes that have been identified.
Thanks for your anecdotal experience with wetter/drier. I am more interested in what is happening on a global scale:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/warming-makes-droughts-extreme-wet-events-more-frequent-intense/
TCR deals (mainly) with the direct effects of GHG warming, which is relatively simple photophysics, thus uncertainties are smaller (and symmetric). ECR includes a number of interacting feedbacks, thus bigger uncertainties, and the feedback coefficients appear in the denominator of the equation for ECR, and cause a skewing of the uncertainty, e.g. 3.0 (2.5, 4.0).
“ The problem I have with the Enhanced CO2 Hypothesis is that there doesn’t seem to be adequate attention paid to heat transport, which they seem to say ‘evens out’. Intuitively, I find that hard to believe. Rationally, it doesn’t make sense as there are so many natural transport processes that have been identified.”
Don’t take Javier’s word for it – study some real climatology, meteorology, and climatic oceanography books. There is plenty of attention paid to ocean and atmospheric circulation/energy transport – in fact, understanding energy transport is fundamental to climatology. As for internal variability “more or less cancelling out”, I refer you to the 1st law of thermodynamics: energy is conserved in a closed (internal) system. Earth is pretty much a closed system with respect to energy, except for electromagnetic radiation: incoming SW solar radiation and OLWIR. Study “Earth’s energy budget” for more details.
Yes, clouds are important and uncertain, but as it goes with science, that uncertainty is getting smaller (and better understood all the time.
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
My general description is still correct.
ganon …
> Earth is pretty much a closed system with respect to energy …
The devil is in the ‘pretty much’. I get the sense that you think the Earth is a tightly built house with minimal air exchange, while Javier says that’s true but there’s a skylight in the roof that opens under certain circumstances. ;-)
And Judith is saying wait a minute guys house alterations shouldn’t be done without paying attention to what effect the alterations may have, you never know what you’ll find when you open a wall, and for heaven’s sake pay attention to the budget. (She may toss me off for that!)
Bill,
You were talking about internal variability, that is, by definition, a closed system. My “pretty much” makes allowance for electromagentic radiation, (and cosmic rays, space dust, meteorites – which are inconsequential) which is not part of internal variability.
As for Javier and Judith – some people make stupid analogies and generalizations when they are trying to deny what science studies intently and in great detail. Their whole game is to imply that there is more uncertainty than there really is, and try to make it sound like, or couched in, real science.
Polly: “As for Javier and Judith – some people make stupid analogies and generalizations when they are trying to deny what science studies intently and in great detail. Their whole game is to imply that there is more uncertainty than there really is, and try to make it sound like, or couched in, real science.”
You’re at best a flapping ideological button pusher, Polly. Dr. Curry has pubished 130 peer reviewed papers; your bonifides on climate rise to the status of assw*pe material on a good day, bottom of the cage compost fodder. You’re exceedingly lucky to have a gracious host who puts up with your mockingly obnoxious parroting routine.
Trunks,
Thanks, it’s always good to have additional insights into your thought processes.
You’re welcome, Polly. I’m always happy to point out those thought processes falling a few feathers shy of a full skullcap.
Trunks,
Vide supra, thanks again.
Sure, Polly. Prooraó
ganon …
I can readily see how viewing the earth as a closed system helps with theory. In reality, it is more complex, I’m sure you would agree.
For you to say: “As for Javier and Judith – some people make stupid analogies and generalizations when they are trying to deny what science studies intently and in great detail. Their whole game is to imply that there is more uncertainty than there really is, and try to make it sound like, or couched in, real science.” … reminds me of a theatre critic.
Having lived in Manhattan for a significant period of time I had friends in the arts. I came to appreciate not just those who create (actors), but those who create the works (writers) and stage the works (directors) where others (actors) do their thing. In my view, Judith is not only analogous to a writer, she’s also a director. Javier definitely is a writer. He created an hypothesis and had it published. Both are very creative people.
Now you may not like what they have created, and that’s fine. But don’t lower yourself to the theatre critic who uses language that says more about his own inadequacies and frailties than his understanding of the art he speaks about.
Our planet Earth is in continuous atmospheric CO2 depletion pattern for many hundred thousands and many millions years now.
If we humans had not used wood and fossil fuels burning planet Earth would have been in a much worse atmospheric CO2 depletion ecological problem.
Natural carbon cycle inevitably leads to the Earth system carbon depletion, by sequestering it in fossil fuels natural deposits.
It is a one way natural ecological process.
Numerous species have flourished and dissappeared in that process.
–
Live still exists on planet Earth because of the presence of some atmospheric CO2 gas. Planet Earth is in urgent need for more atmospheric CO2, not less.
–
Atmospheric CO2 content is so small it is called trace gas.
The trace gas CO2 does not make planet warmer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, the atmospheric CO2 decline has been in stochastic oscillations modulated by the major components of the slow carbon cycle: volcanic activity and weathering of silicate rocks. Tectonic plate movement is important with regard to volcanic activity. The overall 100 million – billion year time-scale of oscillatory CO2 decline, is a good thing as it more or less compensates for increasing irradiance of a G-class star.
“Atmospheric CO2 content is so small it is called trace gas.
The trace gas CO2 does not make planet warmer.”
You are willfully ignorant of the photophysics of small polyatomic molecules (I have explained it to you a number of times). You just keep repeating an uneducated denier talking point. The truth is that both CO2 and H20 vapor in the atmospheric column are present with sufficient concentration to have saturated absorption of over most of the OLWIR, and thus absorb a large of it and convert it to heat via collisional deactivation. It is the parts of the OLWIR spectrum that are not saturated, but still have significant absorption, that cause the climate sensitivity to GHG concentrations.
If you are not willing/able to learn about, and understand, the accepted climate change theories, then you are clearly not in a position to deny or refute them. That applies to a number of people on this site.
For those narrow-visioned who believe a centrally planned economy is better than the free market, there’s this – and note the Chinese government created the property market collapse.
Chinese regulators have sought for years to get to grips with the $2.9 trillion trust industry, a corner of the country’s shadow-banking sector that offers bigger returns than regular bank deposits but can be fraught with risk. A reckoning arrived on Jan. 5, when one of the sector’s biggest players, Zhongzhi Enterprise Group Co., filed for bankrupcy, victim of a property crisis that’s bedeviled the world’s second-largest economy. China’s banking regulator had vowed in November to use “strong medicine” to tackle major risks in the country’s financial sector. But the collapse of Zhongzhi in one of China’s biggest ever bankruptcies still came as a shock to investors, given the government’s past willingness to throw an occasional lifeline to struggling firms.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-14/china-s-financial-markets-are-rocked-by-fears-of-contagion
Bill,
“I can readily see how viewing the earth as a closed system helps with theory. In reality, it is more complex, I’m sure you would agree.”
Not really, I believe in the 1st law of thermodynamics, where the energy flows and what form it takes may be complex, but it’s totality is not. I do not believe the earth is a closed system – it is most definitely open to radiative energy exchange.
As for J & J, Judith’s background, publication record, and reputation are well known and well deserved. Javier – not so much. Perhaps you should look at his (few) peer reviewed papers on ResearchGate.
ganon …
> You were talking about internal variability, that is, by definition, a closed system.
Nope. The closed/open system discussion doesn’t keep us from utilizing a concept such as internal variability, as it could apply to both.
> I do not believe the earth is a closed system – it is most definitely open to radiative energy exchange.
You’ve taken the first step towards the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis. Next is heat transport.
> As for J & J, Judith’s background, publication record, and reputation are well known and well deserved. Javier – not so much. Perhaps you should look at his (few) peer reviewed papers on ResearchGate.
That doesn’t jive with what you said above. You backed off Judith and kept shade on Javier. All without accepting responsibility for what you said. Slick … but I have to say … cowardly.
Internal variability is a closed system by definition, even if it is embedded within an open system.
Yes I believe in the winter gatekeeper hypothesis, particularly with Milankovitch Orbital Cycles, negative phases driving slow cooling; because the cooling feedback is limited by precipitation delivery for building ice sheets. While, warming is “triggered” by temperature, with positive feedbacks “immediately” available, e.g., self feedback by CO2 and CH4.
And, yes, I believe in heat transport that is governed by temperature, which is determined by energy balance, which is mediated by atmospheric composition, and other feedbacks, particularly albedo.
I also believe that the “gatekeeper” can be easily overpowered by large perturbations, such as the formation of large igneous provinces LIPs or excessive anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.
As for being a coward, perhaps I was a bit too subtle, when I said Judith’s reputation is well-known and well deserved. You are free to investigate it. You could start with Wikipedia, Factcheck/Mediabias, and:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/is-judith-curry-peddling-disinformation
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/
I’m sure you can find many more.
“In response to Dr. Curry’s testimony, it’s important to note that scientific consensus does not mean the end of inquiry or the stifling of disagreement. Rather, it represents the current best understanding based on available evidence. It’s also crucial to remember that uncertainty in science is not a reason for inaction, especially when the potential risks are high. Climate change is a complex issue that requires nuanced understanding and careful policymaking. It’s essential to continue supporting robust, transparent, and diverse scientific research to inform these decisions.”
Most of the alleged “fact checking” sites are little more than left-wing extremist echo chambers. And the inhabitants of Real Climate conveniently omit descriptions of their own bad behavior in climate science and their treatment of Dr. Curry.
Jim2,
Great defense. LOL
Thank you. LOL!
Out of curiosity I browsed some of Dr. Curry’s published papers. Since I got screamed at she had CATEGORICALLY DISPROVEN that hurricanes had gotten stronger, I though you might be interested in this abstract of a paper she co-authored:
“To better understand the change in global hurricane intensity since 1970, we examined the joint distribution of hurricane intensity with variables identified in the literature as contributing to the intensification of hurricanes. We used a methodology based on information theory, isolating the trend from the shorter-term natural modes of variability. The results show that the trend of increasing numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970–2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature; other aspects of the tropical environment, although they influence shorter-term variations in hurricane intensity, do not contribute substantially to the observed global trend.”
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1123560
I think you may have found the paper that got her in the papers. Later, she authored other papers which, I believe, indicated otherwise.
Yes, looks that way.
I just joined Climate Etc. and it’s a great source of information. I especially like the detailed analysis of topics by Judith Curry and others. Disagreement without personal attacks. Very professional.
Welcome Joe,
“Disagreement without personal attacks. Very professional.”
It is clear you are new here.
Ganon – fyi – there were very few , if any, personal attacks prior to your arrival.
JTNCS,
So, you don’t like what I have to say, get defensive and aggressively antagonistic, and resort to name-calling and person insults instead of responding professionally to the science. My apologies, if I respond in kind when there is intellectual content to respond to.
Ganon – look in the mirror
Either you think burning coal is bad for the planet or you don’t. If you do, it would be very hypocritical to approve of this from India.
As climate diplomats at COP28 in Dubai debated an agreement to transition away from fossil fuels last December, India was facing another energy conundrum: It needed to build more power capacity, fast.
“To meet growing demand,” the Indian government said on Dec. 11 it expects to roughly double coal production, reaching 1.5 billion tons by 2030. Later, the power minister Raj Kumar Singh set out plans on Dec. 22 to add 88 gigawatts of thermal power plants by 2032. The vast majority of which will burn coal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-09/india-s-plans-to-double-coal-production-ignore-climate-threat
I don’t approve of it – a short-sighted quick fix.
The cost of a grid upgrade for renewable varies a lot, but I will take 3 trillion as a working number. Let’s say a nuclear power plant costs 30 billion.
That comes out to 100 large nuclear plants. This is a much better investment than expanding the grid.
It’s the grid. How are you going to deliever that 100+ gigwatts. Nuclear + grid upgrade, costs about the same as renewable with proximity storage + (same) grid upgrade. The let’s talk about nuclear waste processing cost, safety and storage.
Nuclear plants are typically built closer to load than renewables. Therefore grid additions would be relatively minimal compared to a 3 trillion dollar makeover.
Fast Neutron Reactors have made progress over the decades. China, Russia, and India are ahead of the US in this critical domain. These can be used to “greatly reduce the volume, toxicity and lifespan of the high-level waste”.
Of course, a geological repository is still needed, but FNRs make this job easier. Also, from a resource point of view, I’m not convinced the waste should be rendered inaccessible. New uses may be found for those. Maybe we should keep them available if needed.
https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuretime-for-a-new-focus-on-fast-reactors-10380132/
ganon1950 | January 9, 2024 at 9:55 am | Reply
It’s the grid. How are you going to deliever that 100+ gigwatts. Nuclear + grid upgrade, costs about the same as renewable with proximity storage + (same) grid upgrade. The let’s talk about nuclear waste processing cost, safety and storage.
for the 8th or 9th Time Ganon – read the articles on posted on CE from Russell S and Cliff Morris. You continue to make unforced errors with responses from ill informed analysis provided by activists.
Joe,
You keep urging that we read Chris Morris. Perhaps you missed my link above that completely contradicts his statements. Add to that the fact that I cannot find a resume for Chris Morris and that in the threads that followed his posts his was extremely combative and seemed to consider calling someone a “Democrat” to be a grave insult, and you can count me as skeptical that he is some sort of objective observer seeking truth wherever it leads.
https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/renewables-push-nem-electricity-prices-down-to-historical-levels
“AEMO’s latest Quarterly Energy Dynamics report shows that wholesale electricity prices averaged $63 per megawatt hour (MWh) in the September quarter, down 41% from the June quarter ($108/MWh) and 71% ($216/MWh) from Q3 2022.
“Record renewable generation output helped push down average wholesale electricity prices by more than two-thirds, double the occurrence of zero or negative wholesale prices (19%) and reduce total emissions by 11% compared to the previous September quarter,” Ms Mouchaileh said.
There are many other articles from all different sources that say essentially the same thing. Two more examples, among many:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/australia-renewables-power-prices
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/media-releases/gencost-confirms-renewables-remain-cheapest-form-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors-skyrocket
You are confusing the electricity prices from the cost of generation with the total cost of operating the grid.
The other mistake in the analysis is the use of averages. When the wind is blowing and generating lots of electricity, the whole sale price drops considerably, sometimes into negative pricing, thus driving the average price low.
Several comments have been made regarding the Texas feb 2021 freeze fiasco. The articles that you linked to actually point to the problem that the pricing structure of renewables created. Because renewables undercut the generation cost of electricity, but not the total operational costs of the grid, revenue to maintain the fossil fuel plants when needed was not available.
JoeTNCS,
Thanks for your thoughts. A buzzword salad with no specificity.
Judith posted a link to this piece on X.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/01/08/climate-target-degrees-warming-cop-emissions-resilience/
Yeah, 1.5 C by 2100 is definitely dead. 3-4 C is more likely at this point. The higher the prediction gets, the more the mitigation/adaptation balance leans toward mitigation.
The higher it gets, the less mitigation will accomplish. Adaptation is the path forward.
Not to mention the more mitigation will cost on top of the already 10 trillion or so.
They will both become more expensive. The more that is done sooner, the less it will cost later. Non-linear dynamics at its finest.
Soon there will be much more poor old people in the world, and poor old people cannot afford to consume much of that very expensive green electric energy.
The planet specular reflection was neglected.
–
For planets and moons with smooth surface, the surface’s specular reflection is not negligible.
The smooth surface planets and moons have a very strong the surface’s specular reflection.
–
So we had (for those planets and moons with smooth surface, and, therefore, with surface’s strong specular reflection), we had to correct their respective the planet effective temperature Te.
–
Thus, for Earth, the Te =255K, when corrected, became Te.correct =210K.
–
But, notice, it is very important:
The planet effective temperature, even when it is corrected, the planet effective temperature does not exist, the planet effective temperature is
a mathematical abstraction.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
jim2,
“Not to mention the more mitigation will cost on top of the already 10 trillion or so.”
Where does this ten trillion number come from? I see lots of numbers thrown around and they will vary enormously depending on what is included, if the number is inflation-adjusted, etc.
Estimates vary, but they are easy to find on the internet.
Okay, well this is the first site I found that provides an estimate for the U.S. It suggests we’ve spent about 200 billion since the 2000. Or 1/50th of your number. It will increase to 80 billion per year through the year 2027. So after that we will have spent about 1/15th of your estimate of what we’ve already spent.
The first one I found showed investment in renewables declining from 62.3 billion in 2019 to 49.5 billion in 2022. That is less than 0.2% of GDP – seems a small, and good, investment for people that think about the future. One should also consider the difference between “cost” and “investment”. A good investment has negative costs.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186818/north-american-investment-in-sustainable-energy-since-2004
Dan – I have posted references to the trillions number here. You just have to read. Money is being spent in ways other than buying windmills. Upgrade the grid, more expensive cars, the list is long.
And that’s 10 TRILLION PER YEAR by the way!!!! It’s difficult to believe such intelligent individuals as yourselves find internet searches so opaque.
To effectively address and mitigate the most severe impacts of climate change we need to get the finance right. According to the latest report by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), the average annual climate finance flows reached almost USD 1.3 trillion in 2021/2022. The annual climate finance needs are projected to rise gradually from USD 8.1 trillion to USD 9 trillion by 2030 in the CPI’s average scenario. Subsequently, these estimates show a significant increase to over USD 10 trillion per year from 2031 to 2050, indicating that climate finance must increase by at least five times annually as soon as possible
https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/news/charting-future-cop28-global-commitments-urgent-action-and-kazakhstans-climate-agenda
Jim2,
Every dollar that is spent on acquisition and use of fossil fuels is an investment in bad climate change. I’d prefer switching that to investment in climate stabilization.
One day, ganon, you will realize we can’t afford mitigation.
Jim2,
I saw this bit before about “climate finance flows” and trillions and it is impossible to make the slightest sense out of, and certainly should not be used to claim we’ve spent trillions on climate mitigation. First, wtf is a “climate finance flow”? Second, is this government expenditures? Is every time someone buys an efficient heat pump considered a “climate finance flow”? Every time a private company installs a solar panel, or a municipality chooses solar as a power source? There is zero explanation, and this number is contradicted by sites that actually provide details and explain what they mean.
Gee, Dan. Germany, and much of Europe, pays a price approaching 3x the utility costs of the U.S. Did you know that? This “after” factoring post US investment in “Green” (wind/solar salvation) otherwise it would be at least 3x the costs, or more; after factoŕing the costs of US taxpayer subsidizatation, and real citizen out of pocket US energy inflation. Can you extrapolate anything from this?
One day, Jim2, you will realize (but probably never admit) that we can’t afford fossil fuels, both monetarily and climatically.
Gabon
You appoint yourself decider for the world’s population as to what energy sources to use. You put yourself above the laws of supply and demand.
Rob,
Thanks for your thoughts. I don’t decide for anyone but myself, and I am entitled to my own beliefs. I don’t give a flying … if you don’t like them and feel the need to resort name-calling and personal attacks.
cerescokid,
Wow, that a lot of different places and different times during the MCA/MWP where the temperature extremes may have been higher that current global average. But I must have missed those global reconstructions that said the GMST was warmer than now at some point during the MCA, and I missed the ones that said there was global coherence like now, and must have missed the ones that said there was a GMST increase of ~1.5 C in a little over 100 years. In other words, you are trying to deflect and say what is happening now is nothing unusual. Keep trying, you haven’t convinced me or most climate scientists. And every year that goes by, it becomes harder for you to make a convincing story.
ganon
Yes you did miss the global coherence. Read harder. As I’ve pointed out numerous times, it’s reasonable to accept that the CWP is warmer, as CO2 is a factor. The resolution of all paleo reconstruction is too course to determine with specificity how quickly the warming occurred in the past.
I’ll give you a pass though, since despite all the evidence, the cognitive part of the brain sometimes becomes subsumed by the emotional part of the brain when exposed to constant propaganda. Goebbels would have been in all his glory.
MCA and LIA were regionally, incoherent, and are a deflection from current climate change. Your agenda, and approach to it (cherry-picked science, deflection, insults, and personal attacks), are painfully obvious.
“Global temperature modes shed light on the Holocene temperature conundrum” Bader et al. (2020)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18478-6
“The resolution of all paleo reconstruction is too course to determine with specificity how quickly the warming occurred in the past.
First, I think you mean “coarse”. Second that statement is simply made up and FALSE, particularly for the Holocene. Many paleoclimatic records have annual resolution, e.g., tree rings, (some) ice cores, corals, and speleothems.
2000 years of annual ice core data from Law Dome, East Antarctica” Jong, et al. (2022)
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5c21/8a273af30fc79216a57bf78bb37d43572919.pdf
Yes, as you so nicely document, you have certainly missed a lot! It’s sad that so few climate “scientists” are unacquainted with Earth’s paleo-climates, which show wondrous variability on all scales, and also cannot grasp concepts such as averages (but we won’t mention your name). Up here in the far north, there are even some zealots who claim that the Northern Lights are powered by fossil-fuels, and so must be either shut down or refitted with solar panels. Boneheads! Just like those nasty narwhals that keep coming around looking for prey… Well, back to the floe now to digest a few mussels. It’s hard to find open water these days, what with all the massive freeze-ups!
Over the next few days, the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will completely split into two vortices, the stronger of which will be over Siberia.
https://i.ibb.co/VCQbKY5/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
https://i.ibb.co/JxFCYkL/gfs-t100-nh-f120.png
some of those forecast cold anomalies look pretty extreme. might need to plan a vacation south. thanks for the heads-up!
Climate Doomer policies threaten to tank the US economy.
US oil and gas production is booming, but policies being imposed now could jeopardize the country’s energy might, the industry’s top trade group is warning Washington.
That sobering outlook is being delivered by the American Petroleum Institute as it holds an annual gathering in the nation’s capital Wednesday to highlight top policy priorities, amid concerns about climate change and conflicts around the globe that have heightened tensions over fossil fuel supplies.
US oil production hit a record in 2023, and it’s on track to surge to new highs this year, according to a forecast from the government’s Energy Information Administration. That’s yielded real dividends for American consumers and the industry, but it’s an outgrowth of activity by previous administrations that could be undone, API President Mike Sommers said in an interview Tuesday.
“Despite the silver lining of increased production, we’re very concerned about what the clouds look like ahead if we don’t get the policies right now,” Sommers said. “The continued signals from this administration and the policies they are pursuing — we have real concerns that is sowing the seeds for the next energy crisis.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-10/biden-s-oil-policies-threaten-the-next-energy-crisis-api-warns
Maybe people aren’t as stoop id as Climate Doomers think.
Electric vehicle sales in the US grew by just 1.3% in the final months of 2023, the latest sign that many American drivers remain cautious about making the leap to battery-powered cars.
A total of 317,168 EVs were sold in the fourth quarter, up from 313,086 in the prior three months, researcher Cox Automotive said in a post on its website, citing data from Kelley Blue Book. The growth marked a deceleration from sequential gains of about 5% in the third quarter and 15% in the April-through-June period.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-10/us-electric-vehicle-sales-growth-hits-brakes-in-latest-quarter
Kinda like “It’s winter, it’s cold – therefore, global warming doesn’t exist”. How about some year over year numbers?
Global warming has both positive and negative feedbacks. You conclude, with little valid evidence that it is a future disaster.
Rob,
It is not for you to say what I conclude. I conclude and hope that it will reach a new equilibrium that is sustainable. I also conclude that a runaway disaster is unlikely, but there is still a finite probability, and there is plenty of valid evidence for that. If you don’t pay attention, it’s your problem, and your unsubstantiated beliefs don’t matter.
Rob,
Please tell us what negative feedbacks are sufficient to counteract the positive feedbacks of increased water vapor pressure, decreased albedo (ice sheet and sea ice loss), increased GHG concentrations (lower ocean solubility and permafrost thaw) that are responses to the FORCING of human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs. Whatever you think the negative feedbacks may be, they haven’t kicked in much yet.
ganon – where is your proof that climate has ever been in equilibrium?
So, this latest cold snap is annoyingly on your mind, is it ganon?
Jim2,
Equilibrium – every time there is an interglacial climatic optimum. I didn’t say that equilibrium lasts forever – there are external forcings.
No, the cold snap does not annoy me – it’s weather, and another confirmation that regional weather extremes, in both directions, are becoming more extreme with a global warming climate. It was a simple analogy, pointing out your ignorance of seasonality.
ganon
Once the market of top decilers and virtue signalers has become saturated and the tax credits dry up because of the increasing deficits and debt, the consumer is going to dictate future sales. Ford and GM have scaled back and slowed down their production schedules. Other manufacturers are offering deep discounts.
A letter from 4,000 auto retailers has been sent to Biden explaining the lack of demand for EVs.
This is just the beginning of a soft market for EVs. The everyday potential buyer will begin to see the inherent negatives of owning an EV, beyond the price differential.
But that relates to the current dynamics. In a few years the public will begin to notice that living in a post + 1.5C world isn’t all that bad. Sea levels will be running at the same rate. Extreme weather will be the same as the pre 1.5 C world. They will wake up to the exaggerated outcomes of
T being +1.5C pre industrial climate.
Then, whatever incentives there were to transition to EVs will collapse.
Very poor strategy to use the +1.5 C as the center piece of a scare tactic propaganda program. Now that we are there, people are discovering it ain’t so bad.
Kid,
Thanks for your opinions. I’m sure some here will appreciate them.
“Equilibrium – every time there is an interglacial climatic optimum.”
Nice! See how good AI is?? It’s like a pendulum always realizes 2 points of equilibrium!
ganon – you keep making claims about climate and weather with no proof whatsoever. Where’s the proof this cold snap is more extreme than those of the past???
Gabon
The evidence for your beliefs is clear from your many many comments. You advocate for current U S citizens to pay higher costs today to reduce or eliminate fossil use under the belief that mitigation of co2 will lead to better climate conditions.
CO2 levels will continue rising for decades and decades. This is unavoidable as the world’s population becomes more advanced and grows. Humanity will need to and inevitably will adapt to the changing conditions. Other species will probably suffer great harm as Humanity expands its presence. again this is inevitable.
Rob,
It is inevitable because of people like you. The question is how bad will it be, and what can be done to mitigate it.
Jim2,
I didn’t say this cold snap is colder than the past. Your presumptions are hilarious.
As for climate change causing more extreme weather you can start here.
https://climate.nasa.gov/extreme-weather/
JIm2,
I never said the current cold snap is colder than the past. Your presumptions are hilarious. As someone that claims to have a physical science degree, you should review the difference between “proof” and “measurement (past) and prediction (future) with uncertainty analysis”.
For the latter with regard to increasing extreme weather, you can start with:
https://climate.nasa.gov/extreme-weather/
https://wmo.int/topics/extreme-weather
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w
BAB – maybe you should be more careful with English. This is what you said:
it’s weather, and another confirmation that regional weather extremes, in both directions, are becoming more extreme with a global warming climate.
So I read that and infer you believe the warming climate is causing more extremes, and this cold snap is an example of that. So then you say I’m making presumptions?? Right, BAB.
If this cold snap isn’t colder than ones that came before it then, based on that, a warming climate hasn’t changed a thing.
Jim2,
You should read my comment more carefully. The English is just fine. Increasing warmer climate contributes to more and greater extreme events. I never said this or, any other single weather event can be attributed to climate change. In addition to leaning the difference between “proof” and “experimental confirmation”, you should learn the difference between “anecdote” and “statistics”.
In the future, I will not engage in handbag fights over your logically incongruent posts.
JIm2,
Thank you, that would be a nice change.
“The question is how bad will it be, and what can be done to mitigate it.”
Imo you are dead wrong about mitigation. Mitigation will only slightly change the CO2 growth curve and would have little to no change in the climate/weather at great expense.
Adaptation is the logical approach. Development of infrastructure greatly reduces climate impacts more effectively than trying to change the climate by slightly changing CO2 levels.
Rob,
Thanks for your personal opinions. The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with you. At the rate we are going, both mitigation and adaptation will be needed.
” The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with you. ”
What is the source data to show that “climate scientists” see CO2 mitigation is a better method to protect people from bad weather than infrastructure adaptation?
I am skeptical.
Rob,
IPCC AR6 WG3 and papers quoted therein
If you’d like something shorter:
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-adaptation-vs-mitigation-why-does-it-matter
I do see that the demand for EVs is slowing. This does not mean that buying one is stupid. It might mean that the majority who are unwilling to switch are ignorant of their advantages. Or it might mean that they are good options for some drivers but don’t work yet for many because charging locations are still too limited. I myself have not switched, and the reason is really just inertia and laziness. I don’t know if one would be inconvenient and i don’t want the hassle in case they are. I’m sure there are lots of people like me. They are certainly dramatically quieter, have better acceleration, and are much less expensive to power.
You’re right Dan, people aren’t smart enough to know what’s good for their pocketbooks. Like you, stupidity is the new lazy.
Jungle,
I have 100% avoided ad hominem attacks. I would encourage you to do the same.
True, you should avoid such logic that hurts your feelings, Dan. Here’s a tissue, but only one.
I”m sure Polly has extra down if you need better absorption.
I think it means the rich people who want one have bought one. The rest of us can’t afford one.
DanB – the slowing demand of EV sales is due to market of buyers for EV’s is becoming saturated. Second point on EV’s and tax credits is that the seller (not the buyer) gets most of the benefit of the tax credit. The tax credits to the buyer artificially shift the demand curve up, thereby allowing the seller to reap a higher sales price (a sale price in excess of the point where the supply and demand curve would normally cross without the credit). Sounds like the buyer gets the benefit when in reality is the seller gets the benefit (not all but a large portion).
DanB – you also mention the inconvience of EV’s. One point is that when I travel cross county, I budget average speed of 55 mph which includes drive time, food breaks, gas fillups, bathroom breaks etc. I also spend about 2-3 minutes pre-planning the drive
Average drive time for cross country drive for EV is closer to 40mph including bathroom breaks, charging time, food time etc. Not counting the 1hour + planning all the stops and backup locations for stops.
Well, I do not have a vehicle, and I am not going to have one.
Governments subsidize EVs markets on my expence too.
Also I would like to have cheap electricity.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Chris – Like almost all energy tax credits – they are designed to benefit the seller, not the consumer. Also generally true for most all government programs
Jungletrunks,
Since you followed my plea for avoiding ad hom attacks with yet another, 100% unprovoked ad hom attack, let me remind you that this is Dr. Curry’s blog rule, not just my preference. How you think personal attacks advance the discussion I have no idea.
That hurt, DanB. But just so you know, I will never follow your plea about avoiding anything; I will merely elaborate about your commentary using basic common sense. How you think idiotic reasoning advances discussion is your own conundrum to untangle. Sadly, it appears to be beyond your reasoning skill set.
DanB,
You should get used to the aggressive antagonism. There are an obvious few here that are insecure in their lack of intellect and knowledge, don’t like intrusion on their cozy little echo chamber, and think that name-calling and irrelevant person attacks are an appropriate way to make their case. Mostly they are trying to drive you away and avoid intelligent discussions. I’ve learned to take it as entertainment and a demonstration of “character” by those that employ it. I also take it as license to respond in kind, if there is no intellectual content to respond to.
No … you went out of your way to insult Judith and Javier and they weren’t even involved in the conversation.
Ganon – you should really look in the mirror.
You have been one of the more prolific offenders of what you are accusing others of doing.
I’m no saint and my instinct is to strike back when attacked like anyone else. but it would be a lot better if we could engage without the ad-homs and i’m going to continue to try until i fail :)
DanB,
I will try to follow your example; however, more recently I’ve found it more effective to point out their “trangressions” (as you have rightly done) rather than responding in kind.
Bill,
What is TRC?
Bill, no I did not. I referenced publicly available material about their backgrounds. To say that their “game” is to exaggerate uncertainties (or manufacture them where they don’t exist) is a verifiable statement, not an insult.
You wrote:
As for Javier and Judith – some people make stupid analogies and generalizations when they are trying to deny what science studies intently and in great detail. Their whole game is to imply that there is more uncertainty than there really is, and try to make it sound like, or couched in, real science.
Bill,
I was referring to was your immediately preceding statement”
“… while Javier says that’s true but there’s a skylight in the roof that opens under certain circumstances. ;-)
And Judith is saying wait a minute guys house alterations shouldn’t be done without paying attention to what effect the alterations may have, you never know what you’ll find when you open a wall …”.
Do you wish to deny making attributions to Javier and Judith?Either they made those stupid analogies, or you were the one insulting them with false paraphrases.
If you wish to continue this, I am perfectly willing.
Just above you said:
Bill, no I did not. I referenced publicly available material about their backgrounds. To say that their “game” is to exaggerate uncertainties (or manufacture them where they don’t exist) is a verifiable statement, not an insult.
So, it seems you either are speaking about them, and/or my attempt to get you to see how foolish your characterization of CO2 = catastrophe is.
Stop dodging and spinning. Just own it.
Bill,
Yes, I said, “To say that their “game” is to exaggerate uncertainties (or manufacture them where they don’t exist) is a verifiable statement, not an insult”. I own it and I gave references for it.
Now you show me where I said CO2 = catastrophe. You don’t get to make up what I haven’t said, that is, without being a liar.
“
> As for Javier and Judith – some people make stupid analogies and generalizations when they are trying to deny what science studies intently and in great detail. Their whole game is to imply that there is more uncertainty than there really is, and try to make it sound like, or couched in, real science.
Show me where they’re stupid, show me where they deny what science, show me where they imply there is more uncertainty than there really is, show me where they make it sound like, or couched in real science.
After all that … then show me why you’re not a coward.
I asked first.
Show me where I said CO2 = catastrophe.
No more deflections.
I called you a coward … that’s not a deflection. That’s in your face.
Bill,
It’s a deflection from the fact that you make up lies about other people. That’s what I’d call cowardly, and stupid because it is so easy to check.
Earlier Jim admitted he misinterpreted a graph. I’ve heard similar admissions from many on here. Judith herself is a prime example. That’s called integrity. You … only whine that you’re a victim of insults. You have no integrity. I thought you had something to contribute. You don’t. Own up to your bull, or stay a coward.
Billy,
Sure little boy, just as soon as you admit your lie that I said CO2 = catastrophe.
Yep, just proved my point.
Bill & Bushaw – did, did not, did, did not…
Now here’s a good example of how the internet drags two reasonable people into the mud.
Please, kiss and make up.
Bill,
I hope you learned something during our discussions of ECS, TCS, and how feedback differentiates them. Also, hope you found the references useful.
Ciao
Thanks Fizzy, good advice
I already knew about the differences between TRC and ECS (and the arguments of the value) from Judith and this blog. I was trying to get you to see that Javier’s calling it the Enhanced CO2 Effect hypothesis is exactly that … taking the measured effect of CO2 via TRC (W&H don’t even call it that) and ‘enhance’ it so it becomes THE cause of … well, maybe cause celeb of … climate change.
So for me, while it’s certainly interesting to see the arguments of how ECS is calculated, it puts CO2 at the center of the debate and obscures the natural processes that make up our climate, particularly heat transport.
JTNCS,
Only in response to such behavior, as already described. If I am wrong, give an example where I have initiated such an exchange.
Ganon – many commentators have attacked your analysis. You have responded by attacking the person.
JTNCS,
Sure, I’m waiting for the example. All first comments in a thread are linkable. If you can’t handle that, date and time will do. Otherwise, you are just making another personal attack.
joetheclimatescientist,
Yes, that’s the inconvenience I was referring to. Charging times for long road trips are problematic. if you use your EV as a commuter car and charge it overnight at home, this is not an issue, but most people want to be able to do both. What i don’t understand is this seeming hatred of EVs. They have advantages and disadvantages. if you are concern about the disadvantages, by all means, don’t by one. Nobody is forcing you to. But why the passion against them?
I dont have a passion against them, for the most part I think they are quite useful
I do have two complaints
A) they do have a much greater risk of fire over ice ( perhaps in the range of 200x) though I think that problem will be solved.
B) I do have a major dislike on how the costs are spread among the taxpayers and to the buyers of ICE vehicles. 1) via the tax credits that are designed to benefit the seller and 2) manufacturers are shifting the production costs of EV’s onto the ICE buyers (fuel economy standards, mandates, and other government regs, laws ) that force the automakers to shift costs to the ice autos. (fwiw – I probably could have stated the second issue a little better)
If there is a general passion against EV’s its due to the government programs designed to subsidize EV where the primary buyers tend to be more affluent.
“if you use your EV as a commuter car and charge it overnight at home, this is not an issue, ”
–
“and charge it overnight at home”
At night there is not any solar panels electricity production.
So one has to charge overnight at home from the grid’s storage batteries.
–
How expensive the electricity is going to become?
And for no reason at all…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Depends on where you live. We get one-for-one credit for excess solar array output that is feed back to the grid.
How cheaper becomes the electricity for those, without vehicles, living where you do?
It doesn’t depend on owning a vehicle. Prices are the same. If you generate extra, you can use the utility as your storage battery.
The question is not answered:
“How cheaper becomes the electricity for those, without vehicles, living where you do?”
Your response is:
“Prices are the same. If you generate extra, you can use the utility as your storage battery.”
–
Should everyone generate electricity of his own? Does it come cheap?
Christos,
The price per kWh from the grid does not change. As for generating your own: Cost for panels, installation, inverter and hookup is about 3000 USD per kW. If you do it yourself, maybe 1/3 of that. Typically, it will pay for itself in about 7 years (installed version), maybe 4 years with good southern exposure and lots of sunny days. After that, the electricity is free for the next ~20 years. We have a 6 kW array, providing about 25 kWh per day/averaged. It takes care of the BEV vehicle and about 1/2 of the other household electricity use.
” Cost for panels, installation, inverter and hookup is about 3000 USD per kW.”
–
So, for “a commuter car and charge it overnight at home, ” you should use the electricity accumulated in grid’s batteries, right?
We need a percentage of the workforce to provide their productive contribution to humanity during the night and sleep during the day while the energy they require during their working shift is being accumulated…
Christos,
For a commuter car, generally, yes. But individual needs may vary.
ganon,
“For a commuter car, generally, yes. But individual needs may vary.”
–
All this technological innovations should not be implemented at the expence of poor.
The poor cannot benefit, because they cannot afford it.
Meanwhile, the awfluent part of population benefits from this technological innovations, it worsens the live of the poor part of population.
The electricity and grossery becomes more and more expensive, and goverments subsidize the innovations implementation.
I’m sure none of this has anything to do with Germany’s plunge into “green” energy.
The outcome underscores the enduring woes in Europe’s largest economy triggered by the energy crisis and weak global demand. Data earlier this week showed industrial production declining for a sixth month and factory orders falling short of expectations. Nationwide train strikes and violent protests of angry farmers are also putting strain on the country.
“A rapid economic recovery isn’t in sight,” said Dirk Jandura, BGA’s president. “While others have already recovered, we in Germany are stuck in an economic dead end with structural brakes of our own making.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-10/germany-s-wholesale-sector-sentiment-drops-to-pandemic-lows
Sooo, 2023 officially hottest year on record with 1.48 C anomaly w.r.t 1850-1900. And December at +1.78 C. That’s climate change for ya.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/climate/2023-warmest-year-record.html
truly extraordinary. I think the explanations of aerosol decline and water vapor in the stratusphere from hunga tonga and not persuasive. the warming of the oceans preceded the warming of the air and really explains why the air temps were so warm. and the ocean warming first cannot be explained by hunga tonga or decline in aerosols. whats more, from what i’ve read the w.v. effect is de minimis and aerosol decline from emission standards on ships is more than compensated for by wildfire ash. My guess is we will find that this is simply the ocean’s “weather” combined with overall agw. not sure we will see another year as “cool” as 2016 in our lifetimes.
Dan,
Yes, I’ve looked at temperatures (GMST) after Hunga Tonga and don’t see a noticeable blip either way – it should have shown up within a few months. My guess is that particulates (ash and sulfates) and stratospheric w.v. pretty much canceled out. The “sudden” increase starting last June coincided with the El Niño predicted last spring. So, I agree, AGW + warm phase of ENSO, both driven/amplified by increasing ocean heat content (where about 90% of radiative energy imbalance goes to “hide” until it doesn’t hide anymore).
The UAH temp is decreasing even though El Nino is still in effect. Of course that could be natural variation. I will have to wait about a year before I form an opinion. At that time, we will have actual data rather than speculation.
I agree it’s speculation until we have more data. but i’m still up for speculating. :)
Ganon,
I actually don’t think it’s el nino either. El Nino didn’t start until june, i believe, and the temperature jump is way too quick and dramatic to be explained by that. If you look at 2023 SSTs overall though, you see that el nino is only a small portion of the record warmth, and that SSTs were already in record territory in March before El Nino hit. I think its mostly just less upwelling around the planet, allowing SSTS to warm to record levels, and give back some of the warmth they’ve been absorbing into the atmosphere.
graph of 2023 SSTs.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
If I got the right data and calculation, H-T injected about 1% of the “normal” amount of water vapor into the atmosphere. So roughly 2% initially into the Southern Hemisphere. So that’s not a huge jump. There wasn’t a huge jump in CO2. Of course, the jump in temperature on the Kelvin scale is minuscule.
Dan,
Thanks for the new site – bookmarked – after looking, I tend to agree. ENSO is probably a smaller component. The Nino 3.4 index was/is strong, but not exceptional, and not enough to explain the GMST observations.
The SST for the first days of 2024 look particularly ominous; up ~0.5 C over last year, but generally following the season trend without an obvious ENSO or HT spike. Like I said “… amplified by increasing ocean heat content (where about 90% of radiative energy imbalance goes to “hide” until it doesn’t hide anymore).”
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/dashboard.html
DANB:
Relative to your comments, I have an article discussing the 2023 warming:
“Definitive proof that CO2 does not cause global warming” An update.”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.2.1660
In a 2022 article, I predicted that temperatures would begin to rise:
“Net-zero catastrophe beginning?”
https://doi.org/wjarr.2022.16.1.1035
Sea-surface temperatures began to rise in late Feb, ending the on-going La Nina, on their way to rising enough to form the 2023 El Nino, which was officially declared on June 8
The recent 0.9K jump in temperature is an increase of 0.3%.
A 1.5K increase is 0.5%.
A 3K increase is 1%.
Burl,
Why don’t you write up your some of your findings and submit them to Dr. Curry as a Post, then perhaps we can have an open discussion of your results in a community that is somewhat knowledgeable on the subject.
A suggestion: There is no such thing as definitive proof in science, that is reserved for mathematics and deductive logic. Science, particularly climate science, uses inductive logic which does provide proofs.
I thought that was what i was doing.
“Definitive”: Britannica:
Not able to be argued about or changed: final and settled
Nope, you have been making comments. Look at the right-hand sidebar.
Definitive – perhaps in your mind. That does not make it “definitive proof” in a scientific paper, where I have not heard or seen anyone that agrees with.
I would also suggest, when some has valid, scientific based (and given) skepticism of your conclusions, that you do not respond by calling
Burl,
No, you have been writing comments. See the right sidebar for the difference between comments and posts.
“Definitive” – perhaps in your mind. But your Britannica definition does not apply to science; it is always open to argument and change, and it is never final and settled. Also, science, particularly climate science, does not offer proof; that is reserved for mathematics and deductive logic. Science generally uses inductive logic and delivers conclusions (which are open to testing), not proofs.
Another suggestion: When someone has valid skepticism of your conclusions, and gives scientific bases (on multiple fronts) for that skepticism, don’t respond by calling them “pathetic”. It will not turn out well.
Let us inject some scientific measurements into the generalisations.
Where is the signal of Hunga Tonga in these measurements?
Where is the effect it the El Nino Southern Oscillation?
What climate effect might cause climate fear in the numbers?
Is it valid to say that children living in Australia and aged under 10 have, on average, not felt harm from climate change?
Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/uahjan2024.jpg
A major Arctic air attack is beginning in the Midwest.
Miami Dolphins play the Kansas City Chiefs Saturday night. The low for early Sunday morning is -8. The high for Sunday is -1.
Poor Dolphins.
Still rainfall in Australia. Tropical depression (tropical low) in the north.
https://i.ibb.co/CB4s686/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-11-115219.png
Such a deal I have for you!! It’s to bad they are selling into a weak market. Will the Climate Doomers figure out what this implies? Probably not.
Hertz Global Holdings Inc. plans to sell a third of its US electric vehicle fleet and reinvest in gas-powered cars due to weak demand and high repair costs for its battery-powered options.
The sales of 20,000 EVs began last month and will continue over the course of 2024, the rental giant said Thursday in a regulatory filing
. Hertz will record a non-cash charge in its fourth-quarter results of about $245 million related to incremental net depreciation expense.
The dramatic reversal, after Hertz announced plans in 2021 to buy 100,000 Tesla Inc. vehicles, underscores the waning demand for all-electric cars in the US. EV sales slowed sharply over the course of 2023, rising just 1.3% in the final quarter.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-11/hertz-to-sell-20-000-evs-in-shift-back-to-gas-powered-cars
Part of the problem is Tesla has aggressively lowered prices. This has caused the Hertz’s stock of EVs to depreciate quickly. Also, they are more expensive to maintain.
I heard you can buy a Hertz EV for 16k if you really want to go there.
I’m watching an interview at this moment of the CEO of Hertz. He makes a very good case for their actions. Hertz and all companies in a capitalist society are there to make profits. He is making a rational decision. Case closed. They are dealing with reality.
Its a little surprising that a car rental company would add EV’s to the rental fleet in any significant quantities. Even for a current EV owner, the additional hassles of an EV are not very conducive for either business or leisure travel
I haven’t rented a car in a long time. But if I was going to do that now, the last thing I would want to be thinking about is where I will find a charging station, how far am I driving, how cold will it be, etc etc.
As an example , I’m about to drive to an area that might be without electricity for a while. Time unknown. If I was flying and planning to rent a car, do I really want to rent a car without knowing if the local charging stations are operable?
There are many psychological barriers to overcome before the EV Is as comfortable and easy to operate as an ICE.
@ cerescokid – most of what you mention are physical barriers. You can’t think them away.
Lucky me!
It just so happens I’m shopping around to add a backup battery to my house. If I could buy one of those used model 3 for $14000 that would work out to about $400 per KWh even after the expense of removing it from the car and adding a DC/AC inverter. For comparison, a 13.5 KWh Tesla Powerwall is $1200 per KWh.
When they remove the battery, tell them to be vewy, vewy, careful!! :)
A belief in AGW is not logical. “The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.” ~Dr. Roy Spencer
When and where did he say this?
e.g., A Challenge to the Climate Research Community – https://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/a-challenge-to-the-climate-research-community/
Thanks,
Does he still maintain this position after another 13 years and another 0.55 C of GMST rise over that period? Also, does he (or you) have an explanation of what type of internal variability can cause that kind of change, in the absence of rebound from an Ice sheet instability (D-O event)?
2023 is a cooler year than 2012 despite, as Malloy estimated, the release of 550 billion tons of CO2.
What temperature set would that be for 2012 – 2023? Here
are some that I find (source, type, 2012, 2023) anomalies in C, all annual averages (2003 may be missing Dec):
HadCRUT 5.0.2.0, GMST, 0.577, 1.085,
NOAA/NCEI, land + sea, 0.67, 1.15
NOAA/NCEI, sea surf., 0.47, 0.89
NOAA/NCEI, land, 1.10, 1.73
Looks to me like 2023 was approximately 0.5 C warmer than 2012.
Oops, that should have been 2023, not 2003.
> Looks to me like 2023 was approximately 0.5 C warmer than 2012.
And so what do you think that implies?
Dr. Spencer’s view has changed. This is from 2021 on his own website:
“I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply don’t know).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/no-roy-spencer-is-not-a-climate-denier/
Did the ever-so-slightly higher water vapor cause more snow, which in turn helped build sea ice? Or what? This will increase overall albedo and act as a negative feedback. At any rate …
The end of 2023 had above average sea ice growth, bringing the daily extent within the interdecile range, the range spanning 90 percent of past sea ice extents for the date. Rapid expansion of ice in the Chukchi and Bering Seas and across Hudson Bay was responsible. The Antarctic summer sea ice decline slowed, moving the daily ice extent values above previous record low levels. For the year as a whole, however, low Antarctic sea ice was the dominant feature.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The money shot:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/01/Figure1b-2.png
But the overall sea ice extent was down for the year due to the antarctic. So less albedo overall.
I don’t think that winter sea ice has changed all that much (-15%). Polar winters are still cold. It is the loss of summer (37%), multi-year (65%), and “old”(>4 year, >90%) sea ice that is most dramatic.
https://arctic.noaa.gov/report-card/report-card-2022/sea-ice/
Figures 1 and 3.
I note the article didn’t mention the role of wind. It can scatter or concentrate sea ice depending on the direction and obstacles.
“It is the loss of summer (37%), multi-year (65%), and “old”(>4 year, >90%) sea ice that is most dramatic.”
What does it matter to humanity if there is less ice in summer?
Rob,
Lower albedo means more warming.
The apocryphal lone, starving polar bear was an effective symbol for the scare tactics known as Western academia’s AGW hoax.
It is global, and you should really move on from denying it as a hoax. Perhaps you should move on to questioning how much uncertainty there is, As Drs. Curry and Spencer already have. And since that uncertainty has been substantially reduced over the last 15 years, maybe you should move on to social and economic arguments – at least those are pseudo-sciences, which are not directly falsifiable, and you can say/predict whatever you want.
A malicious deception from the beginning, perpetrated by Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’ in Western academia, the phony AGW consensus is an ongoing anti-America, anti-science disgrace.
Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing
Posted on December 18, 2023 by curryja | 619 Comments
by Ross McKitrick
I have a new paper in the peer-reviewed journal Environmetrics discussing biases in the “optimal fingerprinting” method which climate scientists use to attribute climatic changes to greenhouse gas emissions. This is the third in my series of papers on flaws in standard fingerprinting methods: blog posts on the first two are here and here.
Does one (or three) papers from an enconomist, who has been for 20 years focused on discrediting the work of thousands of climate scientists and thousands of their papers really make a refutation of the field. I don’t think so. He may have pointed out errors that can occur when signal is near or beneath the noise level in one method of data analysis (TLA), and that is helpful skepticism, but I don’t think it negates the conclusions nor make much difference now that signals are so large.
“Perhaps you should move on to questioning how much uncertainty there is, As Drs. Curry and Spencer already have. And since that uncertainty has been substantially reduced over the last 15 years”
It was Dr Curry’s uncertainty which changed her mind about climate matters when the failings in the popular scientific approaches to climate change and warming were pointed out to her within her own work.
It is a matter of opinion as to what is uncertain and what is not, and neither you nor anyone else on the planet can know with any certainty at all what the future will be – be it tomorrow, next week, next month or two thousand years from now. You may claim the ability to make educated guesses but humanity’s record at doing so is not at all successful even at highest expert level. We can all make guesses regardless of where our expertise lies but climate science is now, at best, a poorly thought out game which has gone from the sublime hockey stick to the ridiculous CO2 control knob neither of which theories stand up to closer scrutiny and intelligent thought.
None of our computer models will help us reach a better understanding no matter how much data is thrown at them since we simply do not have the means or the power to resolve stuff at the resolutions required. We already know our basic knowledge of climate is very incomplete and will be for the foreseeable future a fact gleaned from our history of failed predictions.
UK-Weather Lass,
Thanks for your opinions. I obviously disagree and believe in the advance of science. The major scientific uncertainty, clouds, is rapidly being address. The other major uncertainty, societal response, is pseudo-science without any hard and fast laws, and thus is treated by a range of plausible scenarios, with results used for guidance, not prediction.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/12/what-uncertainties-remain-in-climate-science/
the Leftists of Western academia have tried for years to cultivate by knowingly providing false, incomplete, misleading and sometimes simply made-up facts and information to create public alarm, i.e., a hoax!
So what did Bing Copilot have to say about polar ice? I would note that at the poles, solar radiation is very weak. So I question the idea that the removal of insulating and light-reflecting ice would NOT result in a net radiation to space.
Decreasing polar ice tends to warm the planet due to a lower albedo effect. The albedo effect is the ability of a surface to reflect sunlight. Light-colored surfaces (high albedo) like ice and snow reflect more sunlight than dark-colored surfaces (low albedo) like the ocean1. When polar ice melts, it reveals the darker ocean surface underneath, which absorbs more sunlight and increases the temperature2345. This is part of a positive feedback loop that can accelerate climate change23.
On the other hand, the concept of decreasing polar ice cooling the planet by allowing the ocean to radiate energy to space is not typically discussed in the context of climate change. While it’s true that open water can radiate heat to space, the amount of heat absorbed by the darker ocean surface due to lower albedo is generally much greater than the amount of heat that could potentially be radiated back to space6.
Therefore, the consensus in the scientific community is that decreasing polar ice contributes to global warming rather than cooling17823645. However, the exact dynamics involve complex interactions between various elements of the Earth’s climate system and are the subject of ongoing research.
Here is some evidence the poles lose net energy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/14/unbalanced-at-the-top/
Sea ice extends to ~ 30 degrees “below” each of the poles (winter), ~20 degrees in summer. Further, in summer when sea ice is less, obliquity points the poles more (23.5 degrees max) toward the sun. Finally, the difference in albedo between sea ice and open ocean is large. Every change in radiative forcing seems to have a big effect on radiative balance.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08467-z
That article was written the year the first CERES satellite was launched so there was no CERES data to use. The article I referenced uses CERES data, a more direct measure of energy, to determine the net radiation.
No, the first Ceres bearing satellite was launched in 1997. And, I doubt if the launch of NOAA-20 changed any of the basic parameters I quoted. The question is not whether the polar regions have net negative energy balance (they do), but how it is changing. The major factor is sea ice area, and that has been monitored since 1979.
OK, here’s a more recent article that backs your position.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00841-x
Here is one with a twist.
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/10/9/nwad157/7181506
Bill,
Do you really believe Willis’ “article” when he says:
“When I saw that, I said something that sounded very much like “YIKES!!”.
Why?
Well, if you recall from above, as temperature goes up, TOA imbalance is supposed to go down … but it’s not. The TOA imbalance not even staying level. It’s going up.”
He got it backwards TOA energy imbalance is defined as incoming solar SW minus outgoing LWIR. If TOA imbalance is POSITIVE, as is the case, it means there is more energy going in than going out and temperature goes up. And, if the imbalance is POSITIVE and INCREASING (as is the case, the temperature goes up and the rate of increase accelerates.
Where his logic fails is:
“And in theory, increasing surface temperature should increase the amount of outgoing longwave at the TOA. This would make the TOA balance more negative. In short, when the surface temperature goes up, the TOA balance should go down” …
The failure is saying increasing temperature should increase outgoing LWIR energy. But in actuality, temperature is just a measure of energy (0th law of thermodynamics), i.e., energy specifies temperature, temperature does not create energy. If energy content goes down, temperature goes down; if energy content increases (here, positive TOA energy balance) temperature increases.
Any conclusions he draws thereafter are backwards. I guess that’s what you get when you believe amateur blog articles on places like WUWT.
My conclusion is that anyone that doesn’t have a fundamental understanding of physics, and apparently doesn’t bother to do literature research, shouldn’t write about it.
I would say the same for someone who wants to make up the name “CO2 enhancement effect hypothesis” when describing “net positive feedback”. Making up a name like that just exhibits bias and lack of basic understanding of the subject.
If you don’t believe me regarding Willis’ work, see:
https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/articles/ceres-instrument-primary-source-for-observing-heat-budget
“In 2005, NASA scientists concluded that Earth’s energy balance is positive, meaning the planetary system is gaining energy, causing it to heat up, and last year (2021), a joint NASA-NOAA study found that Earth’s energy balance doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.”
Needless to say, there is lots of uncertainty in climate science, particularly when one doesn’t understand or research it.
Sorry, the above comment should have been addressed to Jim2, not Bill (except maybe for the part about “CO2 enhancement effect hypothesis”).
JIm2, Thanks for the NSR article. An interesting twist – we need to remember these are complex systems, particularly in Antarctica where the sea ice is between a warming ocean and a (still) very cold high-elevation ice sheet that down (and out) flows turbulent cold air. Also, what the ocean and atmosphere, do is not synchronous.
ganon
Even for those who understand the physics and the theories, there is much uncertainty.
There is low confidence in precipitation and precipitation minus evaporation trends, as a example, not because of a lack of understanding about the physics or theory, but just because of the uncertainties about the reliability of the data.
The literature of climate science in general makes reference to the uncertainties in their analysis and in the knowledge about the subject.
Kid,
Thanks for your opinions. The great thing about science is that uncertainties get smaller with time.
ganon
Thank you for thanking me for my opinions except that the precipitation and precipitation minus evaporation trend statement was not my opinion. It came out of the IPCC6 2.3.1.3.4 and 2.3.1.3.5
“Over the global ocean there is low confidence in the estimates of precipitation trends, linked to uncertainties in satellite retrievals, merging procedures and limited in situ observations.”
“ In conclusion, observational uncertainty yields low confidence in globally averaged trends in P–E over the 20th century, with a spatial pattern dominated by precipitation changes over land and by evaporation increases over the ocean. Different reanalyses disagree on the sign of long-term changes in the global mean P–E.”
I don’t deny the existence of uncertainties. Point them out all you want. My point was quite clear: “The great thing about science is that uncertainties get smaller with time.”
Also, uncertainties do not negate certainties, they just indicate where more work needs to be done.
I understand why you believe only climate scientists should discuss climate and global warming. They are the experts, granted.
However, climate science is being used to direct policy. Some of the policies being discussed, and some being implemented, are draconian. Every human on Earth has been made, in most cases, an involuntary stake holder in this.
I am a stake holder and I reserve the right to discuss global warming. The population at large will not subjugate their agency to climate scientists handing down the 10 commandments like god. It ain’t gonna happen.
So a place like Climate Etc. is a means for people like you to lend your knowledge to the discussion, to give us commoners a hand, if you will. It is a good thing, in my opinion.
I work for a living and that takes a lot of my time. However, I still have a strong interest in the science of climate. And also I have a lot of concerns about the policies being put in place to mitigate global warming.
I changed careers many years ago from industrial chemistry to a field with much greater geographical mobility and better salary prospects. So, it’s been a while, but this hasn’t dampened my curiosity.
I will re-read Willis’ article with your critique in mind.
Jim,
I am not a climate scientist, but I am an accomplished physical scientist. Discussions and comments are fine, and I am glad to contribute. But I do not try to write blog “articles” outside my field(s), and when I do write “articles” they go to high-end peer-reviewed journals, not blog sites or vanity press. My point is that people who do not have the basic physical science knowledge should not try to write “authoritative” articles (or books), but rather stick to forum discussions.
“The population at large will not subjugate their agency to climate scientists handing down the 10 commandments like god.”
I think you are confused, scientists “hand down” knowledge and project consequences based on that knowledge. They do not determine what policy-makers and society in general do with that information.
The intent of climate scientists is immaterial. The policy is being made based on their research and their opinions. Some if not many are urging governments around the world to stop using fossil fuels. This very well might do more damage to humankind than the CO2 emissions.
Jim2,
So you want to stick your head in the sand, and ask scientists to stop trying to understand climate change, which provides knowledge-based guidance?
Didn’t say that.
Ok, It might also do humankind a lot of good, ignoring the obvious climate implications, it is already time to start getting ready for the end of fossil fuels, which WILL run out if we keep burning them, and save the petrochemicals for synthetic feedstock.
The elephant in the room is science activism; politics. To deny that there’s political motive for the manipulation of science, not only by political actors, but also a subset of scientist activists, makes one either entirely a naive Pollyanna science purist; or themselves a party to parlaying conveniently fraudulent information/obfuscation.
The devils in the details, picking out manipulation from truth. The IPCC itself is 50% political, as stated in its bylaws. Polly believes the reigns should decidedly stay in the hands of scientists; and the IPCC is the approved surrogate of scientific climate pronouncements, as politically designed of course. Nothing can be questioned unless sanctioned by the IPCC; unless the media can drive a crazy disaster narrative (as they’re inclined to do). But this is okay too, with a non committed wink of approval from certain “scientists”, it’s a convenient end around IPCC official prononouncements when needed, to help drive the political narrative. The IPCC must maintain itself as above reproach, therefore offload the questionable nonsciency stuff. Bottom line, don’t concern yourselves over such matters, trust the experts.
We are acting as if burning fossil fuels will cause a catastrophe. The evidence that it will is what is lacking. I believe the greenhouse effect is real and that CO2 will tend to raise the average temperature. I personally don’t take issue with that. But I do take issue with spending trillions of dollars on a SWAG.
Yes, we eventually will run out of fossil fuels. But you know, liquid fuels are really convenient for mobile vehicles. Maybe we use coal to make liquid fuels after oil gets too expensive. Even at that point we would have plenty as a raw material.
I’m not confident batteries will ever fit the bill for a vehicle. I like taking extra fuel if needed and you can’t do that with batteries. That said, I’m all for more battery research because eventually we will probably have to use them.
Jim,
Let’s turn it around a little bit. How about you prove there won’t be a climate catastrophe if we keep burning fossil fuels.
No, BAB, I can’t prove that. There is a lot I can’t prove. But because I can’t prove something won’t happen, doesn’t mean we wreak the world economy on a gut feeling it might. I’m aware that’s called the precautionary principle. If we followed it for everything that might happen, we would have already gone down the tubes as a civilization.
Christos, no he hasn’t. Maybe he hypothesized it, but he hasn’t proven it.
Jim,
OK, prove that transitioning away from fossil fuels (which will have to be done regardless of climate implications) will “wreak the world economy on a gut feeling it might” Get used to the idea that fossil fuels are a limited non-renewable resource, that has better uses. Or do you just have a “gut feeling” that you don’t want to deal with it?
ganon,
“How about you prove there won’t be a climate catastrophe if we keep burning fossil fuels.”
Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis has proved that.
Links:
https://www.itia.ntua.gr/2371/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2287047
The December, 2023 Treasury Financial Report was released yesterday.
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts1223.pdf
It appears that the FY 24 deficit is headed toward $2 T. The spending for Net Interest will probably exceed $800 B.
Both of these numbers are obviously being driven by the $27 T of Debt Held by the Public (a subset of $34 T Total Debt).
The trend is much worse than that experienced from 1981-2001, when the Debt Held by the Public went from $700 B to $3.3 T. Inflation alone drove the $700 B to $1.4 T.
Inflation alone drove the $3.3 T in 2001 to $5.8 T today, which is just a fraction of the $27 T of Debt Held by the Public.
The biggest challenge for Green Initiatives will be increasing pressure to reduce Federal spending on things like Green Initiatives, since no one is willing to reduce SS, Medicare, Social Programs, Defense or increase taxes.
Bill,
“> Looks to me like 2023 was approximately 0.5 C warmer than 2012.
And so what do you think that implies?”
I think it implies that it is getting warmer, as it has been since 1970, for GMST, land, sea, and land+sea. It also “implies” that the rate of warming has accelerated to near 0.5 C/decade. And for me, that implies that increasing CO2 levels are having an effect, and delayed positive temperature feedbacks (e.g. w.v. pressure, polar sea ice albedo, changing ocean currents) are starting to kick in. It also implies that “natural” processes are less and less likely to be a significant factor.
You said you already knew about “TRC” and “ECS”, please tell us what is TRC is.
> I think it implies that it is getting warmer, as it has been since 1970, for GMST, land, sea, and land+sea.
Generally, I don’t think anyone disagrees.
> And for me, that implies that increasing CO2 levels are having an effect, …
Generally, I don’t think anyone disagrees.
> … and delayed positive temperature feedbacks (e.g. w.v. pressure, polar sea ice albedo, changing ocean currents) are starting to kick in.
If you’re saying that’s from the warming, generally, I don’t think anyone disagrees.
> It also implies that “natural” processes are less and less likely to be a significant factor.
Why is that?
> You said you already knew about “TRC” and “ECS”, please tell us what is TRC is.
The W&H paper discussed above and the paper you posted, which says it computes TRC, and even though the W&H paper doesn’t use the term TRC, seem to be in rough agreement. I accept the paper you posted.
Typo … TCR.
“Generally, I don’t think anyone disagrees.”
I’d have to disagree with that – I’ve run into far too many people that disagree to some extent.
“> It also implies that “natural” processes are less and less likely to be a significant factor.
Why is that?”
Because the human factor is getting larger, and no one seems to be able to come up with “natural” factors that have significant effect on these time scales. All I hear is non-quantitative “what about”s that don’t pan out. However, it is quite possible that some natural processes will be modified and thus become human induced feedbacks.
Transient climate response = TCR, not “TRC” (repeatedly), causes me to wonder how familiar you really were before our discussions. Sometimes also called TCS and is somewhat related to ICS (immediate climate sensitivity), i.e., the sensitivity calculated from the forcing change with an immediate doubling of CO2. TCR is based on smoothly (1%/year) doubling over 70 years, while ECS includes feedbacks that occur on the TCR timescale, and then there is EECS = earth equilibrium climate sensitivity, that includes longer term feedbacks such as ice sheets and carbon cycles.
Bill, typo every time?
Burl,
No, it would have an effect in the same direction, but much smaller. Try to understand effective radiative forcings.
Ganon:
“No, it would have an effect in the same direction, but much smaller”
As I have noted previously, the amount of SO2 aerosols produced by volcanic eruptions since 1980 have been measured by satellites, and the average for VEI4 eruptions, which predominate, is 0.20 million tons.
This amount causes, on average, 0.2 deg. C. of cooling. And when they eventually settle our (in about 16 months), temperatures increase by a bit more than 0.2 deg. C. because of the cleaner, less polluted air.
According to NASA, both stratospheric and troposoheric SO2 aerosols have the same climatic effect, so your claim that the effect of decreased industrial SO2 aerosols is much less is factually incorrect, especially since CO2 has never been proven to cause any warming.
Recall that “Correlation (with rising CO2 levels) is NOT causation”
(This was proven during the pandemic, when the millions of tons of decreased CO2 emissions had no climatic effect).
“Try to understand the effect of radiative forcings”
I understand them even better that YOU do!
The IPCC chart of radiative forcings shows only negative forcings for aerosols, when, in, fact, when they removed from the atmosphere, warming ALWAYS occurs, and the more that are removed, the hotter it gets.
The warming that is now attributed to CO2, etc. actually shows the amount of warming caused by decreased SO2 aerosol emissions. It cannot be otherwise!
Burl,
Thanks for your thoughts. Repeating them over and over again doesn’t make them correct.
But you can’t PROVE any of them wrong, can you?
Burl,
If you understand radiative forcing “even better than I do,” please tell us what the radiative forcing would be if current anthropogenic emissions of SO2 were cut to zero. Then perhaps you could tell us the chemical composition of an “SO2 aerosol”; then the lifetime of SO2 molecules in the troposphere; the lifetime of your so-called “SO2-aerosols” in the troposphere, and in the stratosphere.
Then tell why from 1960 to 1980 A-SO2 emissions increased from 97 to 151 megatonnes, but instead of temperature cooling, it increased steadily (with smaller inter-annual variability) by 0.31 C.
As you say, correlation does not mean causality; however, lack of correlation indicates lack of causality. Causality comes from understanding the physics, and observed correlation serves as a confirmation. Global temperature rise shows a strong correlation with CO2 concentration; it shows very little correlation with A-SO2. For the last 60+ years, temperature has been going up steadily, while A-SO2 has gone both up and down, all with trends much greater than statistical or inter-annual variability.
If SO2 aerosol emissions were cut to zero, temperatures would rise to those of the historical warm periods (Minoan, Roman, and Medieval), or even higher, because of energy inputs from our MUCH higher populations and energy-generating activities.
Those were eras with very few volcanic eruptions, so that most of the time the atmosphere was free of dimming volcanic SO2 aerosols, and there was nothing to reduce the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
And this will inevitably happen to us, because of “Clean Air” and Net-Zero efforts that reduce SO2 aerosol emissions (quite possibly the reason for the elevated 2023 temperatures, as shown by decreased SO2 aerosol levels in NASA’s SO2 aerosol Chem Maps.).
Your claim that temperatures increased during 1960 to 1980, while SO2 aerosols increased by 54 million tons is belied by concerns at that time that we were slipping into another ice age.
HadCRUT5 Jan-Dec temps fell from (-) .020 deg C in 1961 to (-) 0.216 deg. C., in 1975, hardly a warming trend.
Burl,
If you understand radiative forcing “even better than I do,” please tell us what the radiative forcing would be if current anthropogenic emissions of SO2 were cut to zero.
A value with uncertainties please.
Bushaw:
If the current anthropogenic emissions of SO2 were cut to zero, the intensity of the solar radiation at the earth’s surface would be that of the solar spectrum, approx. 1.3 kw/per Sq. meter per micrometer.
See graph in “The intensity of solar radiation”
(This would, of course, require the removal of the current atmospheric loading of an estimated 50 million tons of industrial SO2 aerosols
Burl,
If you understand radiative forcing “even better than I do,” please tell us what the radiative forcing would be if current anthropogenic emissions of SO2 were cut to zero.
A NUMERICAL VALUE with uncertainties, please.
As for 1.3 kW/m^2 per micrometer. I think you must mean 1361.6 W/m^2 power at TOA. Integrated power, has nothing to do with per micrometer.
Ganon:
The ~1.3 kW/meter squared per micrometer was taken from the graph of the solar spectrum, and seemed strange to me, but I used it anyway, thinking that it must somehow be correct.
It was for surface temps, not TOA.
“Radiative Forcings” are an artificial construct, used in an attempt to identify the factors that are responsible for our warming climate. As I told you before, the MAJOR cause is the reduction in the amount of industrial SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, but it is wrongly attributed to CO2 and to other greenhouse gasses.
If SO2 aerosols are cut to zero, temperatures would rise to those of the MWP, approx. 2.0-2.5 deg. C higher than the present.
Decreasing Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution, which we know is happening, would have the same effect.
> Because the human factor is getting larger, and no one seems to be able to come up with “natural” factors that have significant effect on these time scales. All I hear is non-quantitative “what about”s that don’t pan out. However, it is quite possible that some natural processes will be modified and thus become human induced feedbacks.
So would it be fair to say you think the ‘human factor’ is increasing CO2 emissions?
No, it would not be fair to say that. There are many human factors, increasing CO2 is just principal among them. Here is a simple graph of human direct forcings (compared to solar):
https://mega.nz/file/o3cTjYSZ#49UAykMhLTzQXN_Vwx-V58vqdj8uisFYGfrg1WfR3cA
Additionally, there are temperature related feedbacks, e.g., decreasing annual snow cover and sea ice ⇒ lower albedo, increased atmospheric water vapor, increased latent energy transfer to the atmosphere through evaporation, sea level rise ⇒ less land area ⇒ greater evaporation and lower albedo, etc.
It is complex, but fortunately there are a lot of very smart people that devote their lives to understanding it.
Thank you for the graph. It looks like CO2 is +/- approximately 80% of total anthropogenic forcing, amongst other anthropogenic forcings.
I’m trying to understand your position on climate change. You have provided information which says the planet is warming. There are those who have the position that the warming is beneficial. There are those who think it forebodes danger (catastrophic events, etc). There are those who think any changes, positive or negative, will be adapted to by the populace, as it has throughout history.
What is your position on the potential or real effects of the increasing warming?
Bill,
I believe that benefits of warming and increased CO2 are minimal and are far outweighed by the problems that are already happening, and will get worse due to the “commitments” (largely the already existing CO2 increase) already made.
I believe there is significant chance of catastrophic events, but not that they are guaranteed to happen at this point. In the past, there have been natural feedbacks that have kept the earth “in the Goldilocks zone”, more or less. However, there were still catastrophic events that often occurred after large increases in CO2 caused by LIPs (large igneous provinces = large lava lakes). These often resulted in mass extinctions, and took 10s of millions of years to recover from, via the slow carbon cycle (weathering of silicate rocks at higher temperature, CO2 concentration, and precipitation) that eventually sequestered excess CO2 in ocean sediments turned to sedimentary rock. My main fear is that there are no natural feedbacks that can compensate for current anthropogenic CO2 increases and concomitant climate changes. This different (and faster, but not yet greater) than things that have happened in the past – they still give stern guidance as to what CAN happen (not necessarily will).
I also believe in planning for the future, and not living week-to-week, so to speak. I also believe in non-linear dynamics and irreversible processes (one of the subjects in my PhD studies) and the ability to control the trajectories of nonlinear processes: The sooner you do it, the easier it is to control; if you wait too long, it may not be controlled no matter what is done. Thus, I believe mitigation is more important than adaptation; human nature says that adaptation will happen, to the extent possible, no matter what; however, mitigation is easy to put off, particularly if the nonlinear implications are not well understood.
Closing thoughts, an old cartoon “what if we made the world a better, more sustainable, place, and we didn’t have to”.
Corollary: “What if we don’t do anything, and it turns out the doomers were right.”
Finally, listen to the scientists, they are not trying to scare, fool, control you, or take your money – they are simply trying to warn us and understand as much as possible to project the possibilities and their probabilities.
ganon …
I appreciate the well thought response and your patience.
A few days ago I wrote that your position seemed to be … CO2 = catastrophe. In this response you have clarified several things. Instead, it becomes CO2=catastrophe, if and only if … or, if that expression isn’t acceptable … variables are added on either side of the equality. You are certainly entitled to those (or any other) qualifications. After all, we are discussing your position.
A couple of observations. As I read it, several of your qualifiers can’t be stated with certainty, which is how you honestly presented them. It is evident that you are uncomfortable with those uncertainties, and annoyed (?) with how those uncertainties are interpreted by others. You are confident in the eventual quantification of those uncertainties even closing with a plea for trust in the process and the individuals involved in this investigation who’s view you share.
For me, as a non-scientist, I look at CO2=catastrophe not so much as a scientific statement, more as a social/cultural one. By that I mean the expression shows more intention than fact. It is a start and a destination only. Discussing the route, however interesting doesn’t eliminate the defining terms. You may not like what I just expressed, but it is my frank view of your position.
I’ll close with my own plea. There are many people on here with information and views that are valuable resources in this discussion. That includes posters as well as commentators. Give them an honest listen, as you may be surprised.
BAB – you said you do not believe climate is chaotic, yet you say there are trajectories of non-linear processes. The latter you speak of is chaotic.
If climate is chaotic, that is yet another issue with climate models. Presumably the real climate operates on Planck time. Digital computers necessarily run only at time periods much greater that Planck time. Therefore, every time a new cycle is run for the model, you start with a set of initial conditions for the next cycle that are very different from those that would have evolved over an interval of Planck time. Of course the above assumes the model is inclusive of every phenomena of the real climate, which it no doubt is not. Recall the paper about the shifting of ice relative to the season. I’m betting there is a lot we don’t even know about climate – and that makes climate models all the more suspect.
Do you agree with DanB that weather is chaotic, but climate isn’t? I’ve noted your reference to chaos a few times. What do you think?
Yes, I agree with DanB. Try reading this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641-climate-myths-chaotic-systems-are-not-predictable/
Or try this cute demonstration:
So if climate is NOT chaotic, then the tipping point hypothesis is out the window. We will see tame, smooth changes.
If anything, Sabine is consistent. With no, or a severely constrained, freewill why are we even discussing this? It’s all been determined. ;-)
jim2 – I think you’re missing the point(s).
“So if climate is NOT chaotic…” Chaotic systems can have predictable properties, especially if forced. (Leaf tumbling from a tree still hits the ground.)
“…the tipping point hypothesis is out the window.” Non-chaotic systems can have tipping points, especially if forced. (Ball rolling in a flattening potential well goes over the top.)
Bill – “…why are we even discussing this? ”
Because our discussion was preordained!
fizzy … preordained. Sounds religious. ;-)
The president is facing pressure from some Democrats and climate groups to rein in exports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG
https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/americas-gas-bonanza-brings-biden-new-political-dilemmas-34404a5f?st=0uu4k2uwbva8u01&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
UK-weather-lass,
Actually we can predict a lot. When a bullet is fired at a certain angle and velocity, we can predict its arc, its deceleration, etc., with high accuracy. we can predict eclipses, comets, etc., perfectly centuries in advance. we can predict that the sun will become red giant and when this will happen. And we have already successfully predicted the current warming with a high degree of accuracy. the reason it was possible to make this prediction with accuracy is because the cause of the warming is well-understood – increasing co2 in the atmosphere. dr. curry does not dispute this. dr. lindzen does not dispute it. dr. spencer does not dispute this.
none of the skeptics with any science background dispute this any longer. the debate has moved on to how much warming to expect and what the impacts will be.
This comment is amusing but also troubling. It absurdly compares climate-prediction with the predicting moving objects’ positions. The record of climate-prediction has been very poor, as has been weather-prediction for more than 60 days out. Despite three decades of warming-alarmism, the poles remain ice-covered, sea-levels remain benignly constant, worldwide GDP continues to grow, and fewer and fewer climate-related deaths occur each decade. And what scientists agree about is quite modest: that CO2 may have some warming effect — that is ALL. The causes of “THE warming” – or “THE cooling” – measured over various periods particularly since 1979 are extremely complex and very poorly understood despite improved data-collection. No honest scientist worth his/her salt would assert that CO2 emissions are THE cause of any climate-trend. The comment’s simplicity is unfortunately typical of what is seen in western media and in schools these days. It is troubling because it is causing young people (particularly in the UK!) to become quite ill with fear and anti-CO2 fervor — even on days when their islands suffer record cold/snow (Jan.2024). This kind of simplistic nonsense really has to stop.
Just a comment re “This kind of simplistic nonsense really has to stop.” Not likely I’m afraid.
It is humanity’s trade-mark; inventing causation for what we did not understand.
First we invented the gods and blamed them and their cruelty; then we made ourselves the scape-goats for the actions of the gods, in spite of believing they ordained it all in the first place. Now we blame science for making life a little better, yet still don’t understand much of it.
“It absurdly compares climate-prediction with the predicting moving objects’ positions.”
My comment does not compare climate predictions to predictions of moving bodies. It had been stated that we cannot predict anything about the future. By referencing eclipses, etc., i was showing that this statement is false.
“The record of climate-prediction has been very poor”
see link below that shows models have been highly accurate for at least thirty-five years.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/
10.1029/2019GL085378
“as has been weather-prediction for more than 60 days out.”
weather prediction and climate prediction have virtually nothing to do with each other as one is looking at processes that are scientifically chaotic (exhiting extremely sensitivity to initial conditions) and one is not.
“Despite three decades of warming-alarmism, the poles remain ice-covered, sea-levels remain benignly constant, worldwide GDP continues to grow, and fewer and fewer climate-related deaths occur each decade.”
i am not aware of climate models predicting the ice caps would be gone by now. some individual climate scientists may have **speculated** that northern summer sea **could** be gone by now. This is not a prediction. What **was** predicted was a rate of warming that is extremely close to what we are seeing. as for deaths from climate related incidents, i am not aware that climate models have been programmed to predict human death tolls.
“The causes of “THE warming” – or “THE cooling” – measured over various periods particularly since 1979 are extremely complex and very poorly understood despite improved data-collection”
The causes of the warming are pretty-well-understood, which is why the predictions, even three decades ago have been so accurate.
“And what scientists agree about is quite modest: that CO2 may have some warming effect — that is ALL.”
Incorrect. Not “may”. “do.” All of the so-called skeptical scientists i named, and others, believe the increased co2 is warming the planet. Not that it “may be” but that it “is”. The magnitude of co2’s impacted is certainly debated, but even there the range of possibilities has narrowed significantly. The most extreme high-end predictions have been shown to be implausible, and nobody is claiming any longer that we will revert back to 20th century temperatures in our lifetimes.
This will be one of the biggest snowstorms in recent years in the Great Lakes region.
https://i.ibb.co/p4bk0K7/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-12-191216.png
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster.
Earth receives about ~ 30% less solar energy than Moon.
Yet why Earth gets warmer due to Earth rotating faster?
–
It is because the faster rotation rises the temperature!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Because the faster the spin, the more it accumulates!
Check out the farmer protests, caused by policy changes to “address” global warming.
https://twitter.com/search?q=farmer%20protest&src=typed_query
NOAA ranks 2023 as the warmest year in its global temperature record, which dates back to 1850
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202312
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has officially confirmed that 2023 is the warmest year on record, by a huge margin.
– 2023 annual average global temperature 1.45 ± 0.12 °C above pre-industrial levels
– World edges ever closer toward the limits set in the Paris Agreement
– El Niño combines with climate change to fuel heat in latter half of 2023
– 2024 expected to be possibly even warmer
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2023-smashes-global-temperature-record
What does this matter as long as the long term rate of warming is something humans can adapt to easily.
A lot. Unfortunate that you don’t understand nonlinear processes, positive feedback, and the adaptability of other plant and animal species besides humans.
bushaw
Everything you cite is a function of an increasing human population not CO2 growth.
Sorry, can’t respond to nonsense.
You cited as nonsense now but is agreed to the point previously.
Still nonsense – can’t even understand what you are trying to say. Check your grammar.
Sorry replied off phone typing.
You have previously agreed that human population growth not CO2 is the primary threat to nomhuman species.
Rob,
I don’t specifically remember it, but I would agree; after all, humans do more damage than just excess CO2.
Berkeley Earth : 2023 Was Warmest Year Since 1850
– First year on record in the Berkeley Earth dataset to exceed the warming target of 1.5°C established by the Paris Agreement
– Record annual average warmth in both the land and ocean records;
– Particularly extreme warmth observed over Central and South America, parts of Asia, and the North Atlantic;
– Record low Antarctic sea ice during the Antarctic winter;
– 7 months with monthly averages at least 1.5°C/2.7°F warmer than their 1850-1900 pre-industrial average;
– The largest monthly global average anomaly ever observed at 1.84°C warmer than the pre-industrial average in September 2023.
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023
When the zonal circulation slows down, then in summer the land surface can heat up extremely because the dry air in the higs is transparent to solar radiation. In solar cycles with weaker solar wind, inhibition of zonal circulation is observed. This is especially evident in winter, when high pressure is maintained over Eurasia and North America, and extreme temperature drops are observed in these areas because the dry troposphere does not retain heat.
Highs in the Midwest.
https://i.ibb.co/qrMxRFT/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-13-145012.png
https://i.ibb.co/jgJXHSc/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-13-145218.png
Can’t say that I like it, but not a surprise. It is getting harder and harder for those that don’t like climate change to deflect to the medieval, Roman, and Minoan warm periods, even the Holocene optimum.
Central & North Queensland Weather & Stormchasing
Some interesting scenarios are showing up on some modelling towards the latter part of next week. A stronger monsoon burst could induce a E movement of the tropical low over the NT. An upper low and trough over the southern states could make the scenario even more interesting. If it amplifies more northward it could just capture the low in the NT moving it E or SE into Queensland. If it does not amplify the low will slowly move W or SW before a S movement through SA. The low in the coral sea forecast to develop off the north tropical coast around Monday will move E initially. If the NT system is not captured after the upper system clears a new ridge could turn the coral sea system westward. Quite a complex and fascinating setup over the nest couple of weeks. As to which scenario plays out is to complex to tell currently but these are a couple of the scenarios.
ganon,
“How about you prove there won’t be a climate catastrophe if we keep burning fossil fuels.”
Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis has proved that.
Links:
https://www.itia.ntua.gr/2371/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2287047
ganon,
“Christos, no he hasn’t. Maybe he hypothesized it, but he hasn’t proven it.”
–
It is a new published paper, I am sure you do not know yet! Koutsoyiannis definitely has proven it!
–
Article: Revisiting the greenhouse effect—a hydrological perspective
Journal: Hydrological Sciences Journal (THSJ)
Article ID: THSJ 2287047
No he hasn’t. There are no proofs in science.
Hi Christos, Professor Koutsoyiannis has certainly opened some eyes.
If a climate scientist has signed up with “consensus”, to the point that such acceptance leads their conclusions for new science, rather that allowing that science to direct outcomes on its own merits, this poses a significant problem to science integrity. New knowledge should extend to re-evaluating prior science as fresh data presents itself. Group think presents a problem to climate science in particular because of the significant politics involved, the politics can, and does touch climate science directly; probably more so than any other science since post flat-Earther consensus.
For example, the science of permafrost thaw has many unanswered questions. I find this particular subject highly intriguing (more so than clouds), primarily because there’s so much CH4 and CO2 locked-up in permafrost. If one leans into the recent published work of Demetris Koutsoyiannis in their study of permafrost, they may realize entirely different conclusions in their permafrost thaw work, versus that of a scientist unwilling to challenge consensus. Did temperature lead CO2, or did CO2 lead temperature. This is central to understanding permafrost thaw.
There’s 9 million square miles of permafrost, about 10% of it has thawed since the early 19th century (about 1 million square miles). But it can take a very long while for permafrost to thaw, especially relative to depth, not just the surface layer. It didn’t just start melting, say circa 1920. It can take decades, or thousands of years for permafrost to thaw. The deeper the thaw the longer it takes to thaw, relevant to conditions.
Science suggests that current amount of permafrost has been relatively stable over the last 400k years.Interestingly permafrost was less stable prior to 400k years ago. The 10% that thawed in the early 20th century is unremarkable relative to past periods of thaw.
A recently published paper starts with the premise of consensus as its comp for assessing permafrost thaw risk against the paleo record. There’s interesting analysis of the paleo record; but the crux of its conclusions demonstrates the chasm that exists in permafrost science, in that there’s no real “conclusion” relative to AGW, it’s mostly an assumption. The risk analysis of the data could be quite different if entertaining “temperature leads” causation in its reasoning:
“As terrestrial permafrost continues to thaw and as climate warming is poised to exceed the rates of change of Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles, more research is needed on the stability of terrestrial gas hydrates, which are currently capped by thick permafrost. Further constraints on CH4 and CO2 dynamics from a range of permafrost thaw process, including talik (unfrozen ground in permafrost) growth, blow-out crater formation, terrestrial gas hydrate dissociation, thermo-erosion, and coastal erosion are needed to quantify movement and deposition of carbon among various pools (soils, lakes, ocean, and atmosphere), and sequestration processes, particularly of terrestrial carbon in the marine environment. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that the modern extent of thaw has not yet exceeded that of the last deglaciation, but the potential for a stronger permafrost carbon-climate feedback to ongoing and future Arctic climate warming remains a possibility for this century.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00886-3
I revert to the tabletop lab experiment I described earlier: the last 10% of an ice cube at room temperature melts rapidly compared to the first 90% of the ice cube that melted slowly; yet the last 10% of the ice cube is 100% of the ice cube at that moment in time. If the puddle surrounding the remains of the ice cube represents permafrost, it will evaporate similarly, ever faster as the puddle warms. The Siberian CH4 sinkholes didn’t materialize overnight, the depth of thaw needed to allow for the release of built-up CH4 pressure had probably been a gradual process going on for 100s of years, maybe longer; but even a shorter period isn’t so relative if in fact temperature led CO2 along the way.
Thank you, Jungletrunks!
It remains a possibility – a temperature dependent positive feedback that has yet to fully express; however, ice core records with isotopic analysis around Eemiean and Holocene climate optima (and older) do not indicate any sudden or large increase in CO2 or CH4. Of course, at the rate things are going, we will soon exceed the temperatures of prior interglacial maxima, so larger feedback is likely. However, I would worry more about the deep, cold high-pressure oceans, where clathrates are more likely to form (and come apart if warmed).
Thank you!
NASA : 2023 Warmest Year on Record
– Earth’s average surface temperature in 2023 was the warmest on record
– Global temperatures around 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) above the average for NASA’s baseline period (1951-1980)
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-analysis-confirms-2023-as-warmest-year-on-record/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Yep, it was the warmest year on record, but probably not the warmest in history.
Warmest year on “Record”
An accurate statement – yet intentionally deceptive
As others have noted, its not even remotely the warmest in history.
JTNCS,
Yeah, but it makes it more certain that it is now the warmest in over 100,000 years, after an almost 0.5 C decadal increase. And it has happened very fast on climatic time scales, particularly since Milankovitch effects have been in a moderate cooling phase since the Holocene optimum.
Met Office : 2023 Warmest Year on Record Globally
– Global average temperature for 2023 was 1.46 °C above the pre-industrial baseline (1850-1900)
– 0.17 °C warmer than the value for 2016, the previous warmest year on record in the HadCRUT5 global temperature dataset
– Tenth year in succession that has exceeded 1.0 °C above the pre-industrial period
– Monthly global average temperatures at record levels since June
– Ocean surface temperatures at record levels since April
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2024/2023-the-warmest-year-on-record-globally
Ort,
“– Earth’s average surface temperature in 2023 was the warmest on record”
Also we can see on the graph that since 1881 the month July is always the hottest month of the year.
Bill,
“Instead, it becomes CO2=catastrophe, if and only if … or, if that expression isn’t acceptable … variables are added on either side of the equality.”
Well, that’s a bit of oversimplification. At minimum, it should be something like “rapid changes in CO2 concentrations, either too low or too high (and fast), increases the probability of catastrophe”. And then to add other variables, use “other human forcings”, and then feedbacks to those forcings.
https://mega.nz/file/o3cTjYSZ#49UAykMhLTzQXN_Vwx-V58vqdj8uisFYGfrg1WfR3cA
“ That includes posters as well as commentators. Give them an honest listen, as you may be surprised. ”
I do give them an honest listen (and response, if I feel it warranted). In some cases (two come to mind), I listen to the same material over and over again. I also, read their “publications” and personal blogs. I must say, here I have learned a lot about climate science in order to form some responsible responses. Also learned it is very difficult to teach/impart something (e.g., physics or chemistry, molecular photo processes, etc.) to someone who doesn’t know, and doesn’t want to. Despite scuffles, I am glad you are interested.
“
> Well, that’s a bit of oversimplification. At minimum, it should be something like “rapid changes in CO2 concentrations, either too low or too high (and fast), increases the probability of catastrophe”. And then to add other variables, use “other human forcings”, and then feedbacks to those forcings.
What you seem to accept is that CO2=catastrophe, in whatever form you choose, sets the debate with those two terms. Call them goal posts, call them whatever. In fact, it is an intentionally, incomplete premise that is designed to limit/direct the field of debate. That’s not saying there aren’t interesting findings coming from this artificial constraint. Just that those constraints should never be taken as givens.
Of course not, quantum mechanics doesn’t allow anything in the future to be a given, doesn’t mean paths and probabilities can be calculated. That is my preference over, “there is inherent uncertainty, so I don’t have to believe it”.
BAB – The Schrodinger equation is deterministic. But what it determines is a probability. In the double slit experiment, the path of any single electron is not determined. Only the probability of the path. I know you know this, but you mentioned paths are determined. For particles, the paths are not determined. Perhaps you meant some other sort of path.
Jumping in in the middle of this, but I would just say that, from my point of view, one doesn’t have to believe we are headed for “catastrophe” (however that is defined) to believe it is worthwhile limiting human-caused warming. In other words, it’s not binary.
Personally, I don’t think it is likely that we are headed for planetary catastrophe, but (1) I do still worry about unforeseen consequences, interactions between warming and other human-induced changes that we haven’t anticipated, etc., and (2) there are outcomes short of catastrophe that I think would still be bad. Sea-level rise is a good example. It’s going to be gradual enough that millions are not going to suddenly drown, obviously. But many large cities will eventually be flooded with rising water. we either need vastly expensive, inconceivably ugly, giant sea-walls, or we need to relocate untold millions of people to cities on higher ground. To me, this is not catastrophe. But it’s not wonderful either.
That said, i am not optimistic in the slightest that warming will be averted. Adaptation is going to be the 90% of the solution, whatever we think *should* be the solution.
Dan – I understand the cost of mitigation is up in the air, so to speak. But expenditures of trillions per year are discussed by the people driving mitigation plans. That money could be better spent IMO. First, let the people who contribute value to society keep as much of their money as possible. That will incentive them to keep it up. Of the money they don’t keep, some could be spent on helping homeless people. Some should be given government sponsored room and board in an insane asylum. Some need drug and alcohol treatment. And some are relatively sane and in control, but like living outside. For the ones who like living outside, build some small concrete shelters that are cooled/heated and easy to hose out and let them crash there. Help move the lower class people from the coast so they don’t lose everything in a hurricane. Stop the federal flood insurance program. The government already does a lot. I also read on Bloomberg today that the cost of money, the natural interest rate, will be persistently high and part of the reason for that will be the trillions spent on global warming mitigation.
What do you think about the damage done by diverting so much wealth to a problem that may not materialize?
Dan …
> … I would just say that, from my point of view, one doesn’t have to believe we are headed for “catastrophe” (however that is defined) to believe it is worthwhile limiting human-caused warming.
If we’re not headed for a catastrophe then I would assume you have some ranking of priorities, in the sense of what is worthwhile? Obviously, catastrophe trumps everything. Once that’s out of the way, we’re left ranking what gets limited resources first, etc.
For example, electrification of third world countries is generally agreed as a necessary first step towards developing sustainable economies/societies. If the cheapest way for them to proceed is to use existing, in-country resources and those resources happen to be fossil fuels would you as a first world country not fund such projects?
Generally, why would we not utilize fossil fuels as our base form of energy and slowly incorporate other forms when the technologies mature and maintain the economics of cheap energy, which affects almost every other economic aspect of our society?
“one doesn’t have to believe we are headed for “catastrophe” (however that is defined) to believe it is worthwhile limiting human-caused warming. In other words, it’s not binary.”
It is not binary it is an issue of cost-effective spending. Today, there is vast spending to lower CO2 an inconsequential amount. The issue is how much the CO2 growth curve can be changed at what expense. Are those funds better spent on infrastructure?
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
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
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar 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
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 =
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.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If the Earth had no atmosphere or oceans?
Thank you for the good question.
“christos…if the Earth had no atmosphere or oceans, but rotated at the same speed, would it be the same temperature as the Moon?”
For Earth without atmosphere the (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = 3,5
For Earth without atmosphere and ocean
the (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = 2,26
like Mars’, because Mars rotates almost the same as Earth.
–
Earth’s Tmean =288K
Let’s calculate:
(288K)^4 = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )
[( 6.879.707.136 ) /3,5 ] * 2,26 = 4.442.325.179
Earth’s without ocean Tmean = (4.442.325.179)^1/4 = 258K
Moon’s Tmean =220K
–
Thank you again.
The heavy frost in the US will not let up.
https://i.ibb.co/LCfR323/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-13-204716.png
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is divided into two vortices. This is the current state.
https://i.ibb.co/8YJqjsb/gfs-z100-nh-f00-1.png
Is it good or bad?
Frost in the United States and Western Europe, including the United Kingdom.
burlhenery, thanks anyway. lol
Why the faster rotation makes the Earth warmer?
Because the faster rotating planet absorbs more solar energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bill,
“For example, electrification of third world countries is generally agreed as a necessary first step towards developing sustainable economies/societies. If the cheapest way for them to proceed is to use existing, in-country resources and those resources happen to be fossil fuels would you as a first world country not fund such projects?”
The short answer is yes, I would. But this is a hypothetical that i don’t think comes up much in practice, because remaining fossil fuel extraction is not generally so easy – the easy fuel has mostly been extracted, and also because most of the third world is electrified even if grids are poor and some rural areas still lack electricity.
More broadly, i don’t support extreme measures that cause economic contraction. But just as I believe there is hyperbole among some AGW believers who say it will cause a planetary catastrophe, there is tremendous hyperbole among the skeptics who claim that mitigation will cause an economic catastrophe.
Dan – you may feel OK with the price of mitigation only because you haven’t researched it enough.
Jim2, you are the one who keeps reposting a link with vague, undefined reference to “climate finance flows” as your source for the extraordinary claim that we have already spent 10 trillion (or something like that) on mitigation. i replied to that link in some detail and i’m not going to repeat myself but if you have some site that actually details who what exactly constitutes a mitigation cost and does the math to what the u.s. and the world can expect, i would be happy to read it.
Dan …
> …there is tremendous hyperbole among the skeptics who claim that mitigation will cause an economic catastrophe.
I don’t think that will happen in the USA, an economic catastrophe. As we have seen, when the cost of renewables go up, as it has on a couple offshore wind projects, cancellations result. Hertz’s recent reversal on EVs is another example. Companies will not continue activities that do not produce profit. Even Blackrock has cut back on some investments.
This is what I meant by waiting for new technologies to mature.
absolutely. this is why i think the whole kerfuffle over net-zero is kind of irrelevant. if it’s not realistic, it’s not going to happen. society is simply not willing to incur dramatic costs. as soon as gas prices jumped in 2021, all anyone cared about is how to extract more fossil fuel faster. personally, i think we’re pretty near-sighted. investments can have long-term returns even if there is a short-term cost. but it’s who we are and it’s the way it is.
I agree that if the net zero effort crashes on the shores of reality and breaks apart, that would be a good thing. I just hope the government, billionaires, and NGOs don’t force it through.
There are papers that claim that some of the northern USA land mass had ice cover 20,000 years ago. Such ice is not there now. It is reasonable to hypothesise the some warming occurred.
Why is there interest in reporting that 2023 was a hot year?
20,000 years ago, there were 3 ways for temperatures to move. Up, down, or immeasurable. If it went up, there is no surprise that recent times are hotter than earlier.
The extent of warming that some claim as alarming is quite small, quite noisy. Almost a candidate for immeasurable. Sadly, it has been enough to knot the knickers of many with simple minds. The rest of us are penalised by consequent policy stupidity, such as distaste for ways to make electricity.
What a feast awaits historians in a few centuries from now. The art of literary ridicule might be on the ascent.
Geoff S
And besides, it’s snowing.
“The extent of warming that some claim as alarming is quite small, quite noisy. Almost a candidate for immeasurable.”
LOL
https://mega.nz/file/EmE3GTjC#oyp0jXeQHZNC_fWu9jnxX8kMMRKlwqY_C0RQX03PH9E
Yep, that’s about a super-whopping 0.5%.
Jim2, Absolute zero is irrelevant to climate, the freezing point of water is. and the relative change is about 10%.
Knickers unknotted yet?
Geoff S
The energy of the atmosphere is related to temperature measured on the absolute scale, Kelvin.
Concerning the temperature in relation to the properties of water, a higher temperature means more water vapor which in turn means more rain. It will increase somewhat flooding, but will also provide more water for plants.
Flooding has been a problem forever, especially during hurricanes. Flooding from hurricanes is much more severe than the few mm of sea level rise. The Federal government made the damage from hurricanes worse by providing flood insurance.
A better way to adapt to flooding is:
1. Convert the flood insurance program to one that buys out coastal property owned by the poor and lower middle class and help them relocate. Convert some of that land to public beach.
2. Make it clear that anyone who builds in a flood plain must cope with the consequences without government assistance.
Adaptation is targeted and done right efficiently allocates resources to solve a known problem. Contrast that to spending trillion on “may be” problems.
Ganon1950, all radiative processes are governed by the absolute temperature. Are you willing to disregard the greenhouse effect?
George,
“all radiative processes are governed by the absolute temperature”
No, the absolute temperature is a measure of kinetic energy. It doesn’t govern anything.
I agree. Down with Stefan-Boltzmann Law! :-)
ganon,
“George,
“all radiative processes are governed by the absolute temperature”
No, the absolute temperature is a measure of kinetic energy. It doesn’t govern anything.”
–
Interesting, doesn’t warm bodies emit EM energy intensity depending on the warm bodies absolute temperature T (K) numerical value?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thermodynamics can be difficult for some.
Especially thermodynamics without absolute temperatures.
George, apparently – thanks.
haha. if the planet had cooled remarkably instead of warming, i just have a very funny feeling you would be screaming about how important it was.
Global cooling is way scarier than warming.
Thanks, Geoff. Always nice to have confirmation.
Bushaw writes-‘Why is it “vs”? It is not an either/or situation. Adaptation is also expensive. And, without mitigation (business as usual) those adaptation costs will become extreme.”
Mitigation does not provide benefits to those paying the cost. Mitigation only “maybe” helps far down the road to a very small amount.
The building and maintenance of robust infrastructure (Adaptation) is just the opposite.
Judith … great interview! Maybe the best I’ve seen you do. It will appeal to a mass audience which is how the culture wars are won.
https://x.com/JohnStossel/status/1746203954147700787?s=20
I agree, Bill. Dr. Curry eloquently captured complex climate questions and distilled them into a very accessible presentation for a mass audience to understand; all within context of a timeline illustrating how the politics behind CAGW evolved into the beast it has become, not an easy thing to do. Stossel uses his usual frank, cut to the chase, matter of fact style to evolve the interview succinctly; in order to cover a lot of ground. The definition of what consensus means, its interaction will politics was very well described.
trunks … someone needs to do a documentary from the seventies on, 50 years of climate science change. Judith, as a main character, could be the narrator. She’s pretty much seen it all and has had interactions with most of the players. I’m being serious, but I can imagine the comedic possibilities.
I agree with both of you….wonderful interview.
She touched on something that I have wondered about many times. How knowledgeable and familiar are climate scientists about the entire array of topics and issues of climate science. Are they siloed, so to speak.
I thought it was interesting that she said she wasn’t familiar about a number of research issues beyond her own specific field. That would have been after a lengthy and distinguished career. She certainly is now, but apparently not back then.
This might explain why so many climate scientists accept the CAGW line…..they haven’t researched the totality of evidence. The deeper I have dug into the research the harder it has become to believe many of the more catastrophic scenarios.
She has become such an eloquent spokesperson for sanity.
Bravo!
Such would be welcome, Bill, but it can’t ever be allowed to happen by those institutions who currently control the reins. None of the big networks would allow the red curtain to be pulled back on the global land of OZ.
There’s a long shot; if an ideological war among oligarchs breaks out. If patriots like Bill Ackman, Elon Musk, and other billionaire class patriots join forces in a consortium to buy out some of the major media distributors; much like how Musk bought out Twitter. Such a long shot could lead to a 1776 style free speech initiative. Breaking the back of the Neo-Marxist woke class is the only thing that has a chance to work.
If it is difficult for one climate scientist to understand all aspects of the climate, how hard is it to wrap your arms around the economic aspects of it. What are the implications to the well being of the US of adaptation vs mitigation?
Indeed, cerescokid. Dr. Curry demonstrated a lot of humility in describing her own growth as a climate scientist.
The rarefied space of the declining handful of climate scientists who possess the ability to see into the physics behind the body of climate science we currently have is sobering. That the Bill Nighy’s of the world capture so much of the narrative bandwidth is equally sobering, in a very bad way.
JIm2,
“What are the implications to the well being of the US of adaptation vs mitigation?”
Why is it “vs”? It is not an either/or situation. Adaptation is also expensive. And, without mitigation (business as usual) those adaptation costs will become extreme.
trunks … I agree with your political take. I was thinking of a smaller production company to produce it. Certainly it wouldn’t be shown by the majors, except maybe Fox. The trick is to line up the money. Tucker might be persuaded. There are others.
I’m very serious about these kinds of things, as we often speak of the socio/cultural/economic/policy implications. Judith, among others, does a great job of ‘getting out the message’. As with anything cultural, the message needs to be repeated and reinforced.
The first video I saw of Judith was the debate she had with Mann, I believe at the University of West Virginia? Two other panelists were there, and I’ve forgotten their names (Maybe one was Spencer?). I was going to attend, but couldn’t get my act together. She has been a warrior in the public forum. What we need are a variety of venues/media to use. Stossel has the people to write and edit such a sit down. It was a good product. But as we know, there’s so much more to tell, and so many ways to tell it.
Honestly, for a small documentary, the budget isn’t as big as you might think.
Kid, Jim … agreed.
“Adaptation is also expensive”
Not necessarily, and not required if one believes the technological revolution is real.
There’s been a great deal of discussion in CE about taking the “do no harm” approach, facilitating common sense approaches, best practices; allowing the relentless march, the exponential advancement of technology to continue on its demonstrable course. In many areas of science and technology knowledge doubles every year.
Listening to the beliefs of the cult class, technological advancement ends with wind/solar/batteries; this is the extent of vision the woke class has; humanity must go all in on these rudimentary technologies now, no matter the cost. Such an approach is completely myopic in observance to the science and technology revolution that began to spin up early in the 20th century.
From the first flight of the Wright brothers at the turn of the 20th century, to a mooning landing within a span of 70 years; the replacement of slide rules with pocket calculators in the 70’s, to smartphones with capability way beyond that of the first supercomputers; to AI technology today.
Technology will continue moving at an ever faster pace than the risks it will replace. Technology is the speed of light, climate the snail.
Hi Bill, I agree with your description, certainly any such documentary is very welcome, it’s a good idea.
A documentary will certainly capture incremental numbers of mindshare, help to educate via word of mouth, and if lucky it can get legs and reach a larger audience. But how to reach the broad market who has been made scared to death is an enigma. My angle was meant as a broad market methodology. I think shaking up the status quo, shifting the paradigm of information flow is desperately needed.
BAB – I didn’t say EITHER adaptation or mitigation. But a start in the analysis would be to determine the cost of each separately. We can’t even do that, so it’s a moot point.
Project Drawdown looks at climate change as the global problem it really is. In reality we will become even more dependent on technology and adaptation.
https://drawdown.org/
So Project Drawdown says it will “stop climate change”. I probably don’t have enough popcorn for this event.
jack … I read the site. They seem to have good intentions.
But I’m struck by the ‘we’re the good guys and we’re here to save you’ ethos. They say they’re going to work in countries ‘not responsible’ for climate change. They want to bring a positive approach, not gloom and doom, but they’re working to avoid catastrophe. Do you see the parallel to evangelicalism, or is it just me? I can support Western funding of projects that are developed and requested by the countries themselves, with their own people. They know their society/cultural, they understand the local economies and they know how they want to develop.
I’m not saying Western funding should be a blank check. Safe guards against corruption and a review of engineering feasibility must always be done. Specific assistance when requested should be readily available. But we should always leave our own cultural isms at home. Hubris, conscious or unconscious, doesn’t serve the intended goal of developing third world societies. Unless that’s not really the goal.
With the wind chill at the Chiefs-Dolphins game about -30F and the Kansas City Chief’s coach’s mustache iced up and their QB’s helmet broken because of the cold and decades of colder weather in our future, will more covered stadiums be on their way?
Road race 42 km in Oymyakon, Yakutia with a temperature of -54.9°C!!!
Winner!
https://i.ibb.co/zV9WDSV/419777602-879244137539753-3151908719412300891-n.jpg
It’s supposed to be 0F tomorrow morning here. My memory is pretty well shot now, but I am certain it hasn’t been that cold here this century.
I do remember, however, trying to fix the carburetor on my 1977 Oldsmobile with windchill of -50F. Not fun.
You can monitor the Texas ERCOT grid energy sources here:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/balancing_authority/ERCO/GenerationByEnergySource-14/edit
I want to see how wind and solar perform when the cold settles in.
Click on the ERCOT symbol, then scroll down the page to the energy mix chart. Click on the settings (gear symbol). You can then select a stacked area chart and set the number of days to view.
I have linked to the EIA site many times. The renewable advocates cant seem to grasp how volatile wind and solar actually are. hourly, daily, weekly and seasonally volatile.
Looks like Tuesday will be a test of Texas wind and solar. Lower wind speed in West Texas where the windmills are. It will be an interesting day to watch.
https://i.ibb.co/wJ8cv7f/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-14-190112.png
Great site! Thanks.
JIm2,
“Contrast that to spending trillion on “may be” problems.”
The problem with that, as a closing statement, is that there are problems that are not “maybes”, and like most problems they tend to have non-linear feedbacks. Adaptation does not address the root causes or prevent them from getting worse. And, if mitigation is needed, then it is more effective the earlier used. One part of adaptation is to recognize, that fossil fuels are not only damaging, they will be self-limiting on a decadal to centennial timescale. The adaptation for that is already underway, and I’m in favor of it.
Ganon (and Jim2),
That’s not the only problem. The other problem is we keep hearing about these trillions but they remain entirely undefined. what are the assumptions? If I buy a solar panel for my roof, does that count as a mitigation cost, even though I’m just trying to reduce my electric bill?
Moreover, are we backing out of those supposed trillions the trillions that we ***don’t*** have to spend extracting every-more-expensive fossil fuels?
Let’s look at the Alberta Tar sands as an example. Links below. The cost of extraction is now $49 per barrel. Alberta tar sands proven reserves are 161 billion barrels. So what are the savings if we don’t have extract just the last 100 billion barrels (since it will take time to ramp up renewables): $4.9 trillion dollars!
https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/canadian-upstream-oil-sector-supply-costs-continue-to-decline/
https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/courses/2022/5/18/the-oil-sands-explained-in-10-minutes
DanB – as I have noted and documented, the trillions are the amounts being bandied about by various Climate Doomers. As I have also noted, I know you have access to the internet, so use it.
Jim2,
Yes, I just used the internet to show the trillions in ***savings*** by converting to renewables. But I’m not doing your research for you. if you can’t provide a link as I just did, that shows where your numbers come from, I’ll assume your numbers can and should be ignored.
I’ve already done the research I noted. I’ve already provided links, but you continue to ask for them. I’m not wasting my time on this with you. You do your own search of the internet. It isn’t difficult.
The power of media. Dan, the Emperor wants to commission you for his new wardrobe, sight unseen; no qualifications required.
All those Europeans paying 2x+ the utility costs that the US currently pay understand full well the shell game of numbers and fuzzy math that induce your beliefs. They’re living their well planned dream in an uproar, Dan.
Tropical storm in northern Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/VL7Rp3V/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
There is not any +33 C Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect on Earth’s surface.
The +33 C figure comes from a very much mistaken mathematical abstraction.
The currently observable global warming is a natural process caused by the Earth’s position while orbiting sun, it is the so called the ORBITAL FORCING.
There is nothing we can do to reverse the ORBITAL FORCING.
It is a natural process.
We shoud adapt…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You can’t reverse orbital forcing. But it is weak and currently cooling slowly; however, it is easily overcome by other, larger forcings of opposite sign. Various anthropogenic forces compared to Solar forcing. Orbital forcing right now is small, with waveform similar to the 420 kya interglacial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png
ganon, There is not any +33 C Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect on Earth’s surface.
The +33 C figure comes from a very much mistaken mathematical abstraction.
ganon,
“You can’t reverse orbital forcing. But it is weak and currently cooling slowly; however, it is easily overcome by other, larger forcings of opposite sign. Various anthropogenic forces compared to Solar forcing. ”
–
“Various anthropogenic forces compared to Solar forcing. ”
–
“You can’t reverse orbital forcing.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon,
“One part of adaptation is to recognize, that fossil fuels are not only damaging, they will be self-limiting on a decadal to centennial timescale.”
–
The use of renewables to preserve some fossil fuels is a good idea. It should also be economic sustainable.
–
The net zero goals, the capturing and sequestering CO2 in deposits is far away policies from the preserving some fossil fuels for the future needs.
Yep, to make significant further “penetration” for renewables, then better, eco-economical, easily deployable storage (energy capture and smoothing at the source). Until this is worked out and best/diverse technologies are selected, and largely installed, we still have the case that every TWh of electricity produced by renewables is a TWh worth of fossil fuel that is saved for (hopefully) better uses at later times.
ganon,
” every TWh of electricity produced by renewables is a TWh worth of fossil fuel that is saved for (hopefully) better uses at later times.”
–
What does it cost that TWh worth of fossil fuel that is saved?
About 120,000 tons of coal ~ 3.8 million USD
Thank you, ganon.
“About 120,000 tons of coal ~ 3.8 million USD”
–
Now, please, what does it cost that TWh worth of fossil fuel that has saved “about 120,000 tons of coal ~ 3.8 million USD”?
What does it cost the TWh renewable TWh electricity?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The fuels for renewables, sun and wind, cost nothing. Compare that to the price of coal or natural gas.
Let’s make it simple.
Suppose you produce a TWh / year of electricity by burning coal in an electric plant, and the cost of that coal is ~ 3.8 million USD.
–
How much does it cost to produce a TWh / year of electricity by renewables?
Because the cost of renewable electricity is much-much higher.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | January 15, 2024 at 1:11 pm |
The fuels for renewables, sun and wind, cost nothing. Compare that to the price of coal or natural gas.
Its the total costs – not just the fuel costs
Its the total costs of the entire grid, not the cost of a single source of the generation.
BAB is trying to thread the needle on costs. “The fuel costs nothing”. Looking at it that way, oil costs nothing. You have to capture wind and solar. You have to capture oil. The fuel costs nothing. LOL.
OK, here are some of the links supporting the trillions per year. Don’t ask me to read them for you, DanB.
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S2010007823400031
https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/news/charting-future-cop28-global-commitments-urgent-action-and-kazakhstans-climate-agenda
“Is it more difficult to finance now that you might have an 8% cost of funds rather than free money? Yes it is,” he said at the Bloomberg Green summit at COP28 in Dubai on Tuesday. He added that lenders need a real return or else risk creating a bubble.
The Bridgewater Associates founder said the only way to unlock the up to $10 trillion a year needed in climate investments is to make green solutions profitable.
Dalio said climate change is an expensive problem and investors have a limit given global GDP is only about $100 trillion. “We are living in a world that doesn’t have enough money,” he said.
…
Still, Dalio said it’s unlikely the planet will meet its warming target of 1.5C, meaning there needs to be a greater focus on adaptation, which “will be an area for great investment and great productivity.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-01/uae-aims-for-cop28-finance-splash-with-30-billion-climate-fund
From COP28
https://www.cop28.com/en/climate_finance_framework
Jim, as per your first reference, mitigation needs to be divided into two parts: transition to renewables, and active sequestration (if deemed necessary). Each about 3% GGDP ~ about 3 trillion/ year. Hopefully, only the first is needed for sustainability.
At last it’s good to see you are finally on board with the trillions per year estimate.
Jim2,
I’ve made it through your links.
The first one provides no description whatever of the basis for cost estimates. It also states, “models disagree on how much emission reduction would cost. Estimates disagree by an order of magnitude or more.”
The second link again talks about those mysterious ‘climate finance flows’ but since we have no idea what this means and again there is no actual discussion of mitigations costs and how they are determined, this doesn’t really help.
The bloomberg interview wants me to sign up with bloomberg.
The last link gets us a little closer. Clearly, this declaration is hoping for trillions in financing of projects per year. But as near as I can tell, this is private financing of private-sector projects. It refers to “opening up a highway of private finance”. So if private banks are lending to private companies for wind farms or whatever, i don’t think it is reasonable to think of this as the “cost” of reducting emissions, any more than looking at exxon building a new refinery with a loan from JP Morgan, as the “cost” of continuing with fossil fuels.
I never said the cost had been determined within 1%. But it clearly will be trillions per year if Climate Doomers get their way. OTOH, the cost of adaptation is more apparent. We need to get people out of flood zones, climate change notwithstanding.
Of course I’m sure you and BAB are thinking about how much total ecological collapse would cost, but you have no proof that would happen.
who said anything about within 1%? An “order of magnitude” means a difference by one in the number of decimal places, so a tenfold range – e.g., cost could be say, anyway from 200 billion to 2 trillion.
I have no idea what adaptation would cost. I am not anticipating ecological collapse, but I’m pretty confident the cost of adaptation is still a big number, ignoring all other issues and looking only at sea-level rise.
I’m pretty sure the id oots in charge will happily force us to send trillions a year down the ole “climate change” black hole.
Remember COVID.
5 trillion just for a national grid in the US. Note this doesn’t include the rest of the world.
https://theconversation.com/the-old-dirty-creaky-us-electric-grid-would-cost-5-trillion-to-replace-where-should-infrastructure-spending-go-68290
Keeping the grid up to snuff and keeping up with demand has little to do with sources and mitigation.
That’s some BAB BS. The only reason to EXTENSIVELY interconnect the country is to allow sourcing of renewable energy from remote locations.
Will we have to extend the grid somewhat? Yes, that’s business as usual.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | January 15, 2024 at 10:58 am | Reply
Keeping the grid up to snuff and keeping up with demand has little to do with sources and mitigation.
Ganon – That would be news to the engineers who design build and operate the grid. Perhaps they should consult one of those renewable energy experts.
This is how the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere works now.
https://i.ibb.co/fN41kBF/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-15-162750.png
Dan B,
You identify the savings from leaving the last 100 billion bbl of Alberta Oil Sands bitumen in the ground as $4.9 trillion dollars. Let’s look at that number a bit more closely.
The current rate of production is 3.3 billion bbl/yr, so producing the remaining 61 billion bbl would take at least 20 years, assuming a staged decline. This means that any value of not producing the 100 billion bbl is at least 20 years in the future. If you use any level of discounting, the $4.9 billion shrinks significantly.
Additionally, in one of the two articles you referenced, it was pointed out that breakeven costs of production had declined by over 30 percent in the last seven years. Your number assumes that this process would come to an immediate end.
In short, there are so many unknowns with a number that doesn’t even begin to register for probably a quarter of a century that I don’t see that it has any real meaning.
Jay,
Yes, my calculation is of course an oversimplification. discounting to present value of future expenditures makes sense and i also agree that more technical advances will likely further reduce costs.
On the other hand, those who estimate vast cost of mitigation run into the exact same issues. are they discounting future costs to present value? And are they presuming there are no cost-saving advances in renewables going forward? And are they deducting from their cost of mitigation a properly accounted savings by not extracting some percentage of remaining fossil fuels?
Since bitumen is more difficult to process, it might make a handy raw material for stuff when (and who really knows when) oil runs out.
Over on WUWT, I’ve posted this essay which chronicles the disappearance of the wild ranier, a regionally-important beerological species, from its native habitat in the US Northwest:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/14/open-thread-77/#comment-3848212
ABSTRACT: Large herds of wild raniers had been present in the US Northwest until the early 1990’s. But by the end of the 1990’s, the species had all but vanished. It is now thought that climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of the wild ranier.
I remember that the wild rainier could often be heard from/on the ski lifts.
LOL!!! I’ve had that beer in the distant past. Olympia, too.
A bunch of different occupations are protesting in Germany.
The nationwide blockade being launched by angry German farmers has received the support of Polish truckers, with some driving across the border to express their solidarity.
Farmers in Germany are taking their anger to the streets over the economic and agricultural policies announced by Olaf Scholz’s government.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1853657/germany-farmers-protest-polish-truckers-olaf-scholz-budget-crisis
It’s mostly because of “renewable” energy.
I’ve written about this topic many times, but the myth that Germany’s energy system is a success story never seems to go away. Over the last 12 years, Germany has spent hundreds of billions of Euro on wind and solar, and the only thing they have to show for it is higher electricity prices.
In fact, electricity prices in Germany are now 2.5 times higher than they were in 2008, and the vast majority of this increase is due to the renewable energy surcharge. While I disagree with the surcharge, I admire its transparency. If Minnesotan lawmakers want to take something away from their Germany trips, it should be clearly displaying the high cost of renewables on the electric bill of every Minnesota household and business.
https://www.americanexperiment.org/german-electricity-prices-have-increased-2-5-times-since-2008/
I’ve enjoyed the review of a number of energy sources from OurWorldinData: safety, “cleanliness”, and economics.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
That article likes to toss around the term “LCOE” but I don’t see the actual calculation of LCOE and what went into it. The cases I have ben able to examine have omitted the cost of backup plants when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine. Currently, batteries can supply only “grid services”, not bulk power that services millions of home for hours. Meaningful battery backup doesn’t exist. And even if it did, it would contribute to the LCOE.
All those Europeans paying 2x+ the utility costs that the US currently pay understand full well the shell game of numbers and fuzzy math used to feed ideology, they fell for the sales pitch once. Now they’re living their well planned dream in an uproar.
Germany could have continued to add ever more wind and solar, but pitch forks are hard to not see, so instead Germany has been adding coal fired power plants to their grid (they’ve been adding coal plants for a number of years now, so don’t use Ukraine as an excuse).
It’s hard to understand why they would add coal fired plants to their grid since renewables are decidedly great for “economics”, at least that’s what some parrot.
It says something about the character of individuals who presumably are smart enough to see people suffering from the cost of renewables, and yet ignore the facts that are in plain sight, in order to continue facilitating a dishonest ideological narrative. Lies by omission are still lies, those puff pieces fabricated by gerrymandering only those numbers that present favorably are lies.
The Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse effect is on average less than 0,5 C.
When comparing the 0,5 C with the 1,5 C global temperature rise since predindustrial, it is obvious the global warming is caused by orbital forcing and not by the fossil fuels burning.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
typical renewable fluff piece
typical Ganon missing the important points
typical cost calculation only including the cost of electric generation from the source.
typical piece omitting the total costs of electric generation, transmission and other costs associated with building, operating and maintaining entire grid.
typical fluff piece divorced from the total costs.
JTNC,
Thanks for your thoughts. Sorry that you don’t like numbers.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | January 15, 2024 at 9:02 pm |
JTNC,
Thanks for your thoughts. Sorry that you don’t like numbers.
GAnon Thanks for your thoughts
Sorry you dont understand the numbers
Ganon, just curious about your numbers. A little back you wrote “Absolute zero is irrelevant to climate, the freezing point of water is. and the relative change is about 10%.”
When temperature rises from minus 5C to plus 5C, what is the relative change in percent?
George,
What ever you want it to be.
Just like your 10% :-)
George,
Nah, I was comparing 1.5 C AGW to a range of 15 C, the range between snowball and hothouse. The arithmetic say 10%.
The government needs to ditch fuel economy standards and let the free market work its magic. I’m sure there are other regulations that could be adjusted.
For decades, car ownership has been a trademark of the American lifestyle, with vehicles becoming symbols of freedom, independence and even rebellion, as well as a necessity. But in 2024, the country’s legendary love story with the automobile appears to have reached a crucial point of potential no return, as cars have become unaffordable to millions.
https://www.newsweek.com/americans-can-no-longer-afford-their-cars-1859929
Looking at the real-time grid, natural gas in Texas is supplying about 60% of electric power in the state.
Wind and coal in Texas lately have been supplying about 75% of electricity to the state.
Correction: Coal and NAT GAS have been supplying about 75% of electricity.
‘In 2021, the top five Texas exports were oil and gas (28.6 percent); petroleum products (14.7 percent); chemicals (13.7 percent)’
Lately in Texas, wind has been delivering about 65% of nameplate capacity. And that is the maximum. That doesn’t happen most days.
Jim2 provides a link which highlights one of the fallacies of renewable costs. See the EIA website (ercot or the entire nation). Ercots ‘ real time report of electric generation by source, The hourly megawatts of electricity from wind generated over the last 8 days has fluctuated from 26k down to 3k. Those wide swings create havoc on maintaining reliability and rachets up the total costs of electric generation. measuring the generation costs of only wind or only solar presents an extremely distorted view of the total costs.
Instead of comparing city mileage vs highway mileage, compare drag racing mileage vs highway mileage.
In Greece the new renewables projects are limited to enter grid to the 45% of they maximum capacity.
The measure is taken because of the grid’s overloading at hours of maximum production.
jtncs,
Have you ever looked at lifetime output for these renewable energy sources as total power output? My small 6.7KW nameplate (12.5% efficient) PV array is 12 years old and has generated 113MW so far. Not bad for something with near zero maintenance. The trick is storage. When I watch my system pumping 5 or 6 KW back onto the grid it reminds me of the pictures of the oil gushers back in the 1900s’ when the oil came out so fast it just spilled on to the ground wasted. When I bought solar I was 100% sure that cheap storage was just a few years away. Still waiting…
jack – You are mixing up two different subjects with you response regarding your personal solar system.
Your solar system (and all the other home owner solar systems are adding 0.0000x% generation to the grid. that is trivial There is a huge difference in the added costs of operating the grid and the cost of controlling the volatility the electric generation from wind and solar with high renewable penetration vs the costs associated with the tiny amount electric generation from your small solar system ( and all the other home owners).
The lithium battery does produce a lot of watts while it’s burning. More if it ignites the house.
There is a roaring fire in my living room right now. 67k BTU fireplace insert burning free wood from the big storm we had last year. $350 a cord if you have to buy it.
This actually looks interesting for storage.
https://power.nridigital.com/power_technology_mar19/tower_of_power_gravity_based_storage_evolves_beyond_pumped_hydro
You might be able to do a DIY version.
Same idea but horizontal instead of vertical.
https://aresnorthamerica.com/
I wish they made a 500KWh flywheel energy storage system. You could bury it in the back yard.
They are already using flywheels to launch stuff into space. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/spinlaunch-catapulted-a-nasa-payload
Politically, global warming alarmism is for the time being, off the table. There are only two classes of voters now who will decide the next election- a little over half the population as of the last election that now believe illegal immigration is a crisis whereas a little less than half the voters who were out-voted 3 years ago don’t understand why people didn’t realize illegal immigration has been a crisis for a decade.
Well, we can all lay off the blog and go fishing, well, once everything thaws out. The world has been SAVED!!
EVANSTON, Ill. — A new fuel source has been right under our feet the entire time — and scientists are not talking about oil. Northwestern University researchers have made a revolutionary advancement in sustainable energy by developing a novel fuel cell powered entirely by microbes in dirt. This innovation, about the size of a standard paperback book, offers a promising renewable energy alternative to traditional batteries, which often contain toxic chemicals and have environmentally harmful supply chains.
The soil-powered technology, ideal for powering underground sensors in precision agriculture and green infrastructure, could revolutionize how we manage and monitor agricultural environments. Unlike batteries that contain hazardous substances and contribute to electronic waste, this soil-based fuel cell harnesses energy sustainably and harmlessly.
https://studyfinds.org/dirt-powered-fuel-cell/
Great. This fuel cell can extract all the energy from soil (E=mc2).
News sources all over the internet are reporting dead EVs that won’t even charge. Such a deal I have for you!!
Help from readers sought, please.
A State Premier in Australia made the claim last Monday on public radio that renewables were cheaper than other sources of electricity generation.
I have some studies that challeknge that belief, but I seek more.
Links are sought to clear, succinct, recent economic and engineering analyses that have conclusions like
“The comparative costs are rewnewables $$$X per electrical unit versus hydrocarbons, $$$Y per electrical unit.”
I am not seeking LCOE studies that do not include actual costs in a real generating application. Thanks Geoff S
A new generation of skeptics was born this week in the US.
100 million people were affected by record cold temperatures. It doesn’t matter since when. It only matters that millions will have their proof that global warming isn’t. Reality doesn’t matter. Only perception of reality matters in shaping public policy. Score 1 for the skeptics.
Of course, an extreme event matters little scientifically, but both sides do it.
I’ve just finished a 2 day trip from NCAA National Champ land and am now on the chilly shores of the Gulf. When leaving home it was 0. Paradoxically, after an hour’s drive it had dropped to -6F and then rose to a balmy +12F in the quasi Deep South.
We spent the night in a city that had a “record” cold. In a few years it won’t matter to those residents that the record only went back 44 years. They will only remember how the restaurants and roads were closed due to icy conditions.
Funny how fickle the public is. Just when the AGW crowd might have been on the verge of a little support this happens. Momentum just took a whack in the temple. Millions won’t remember that we will soon return to a record warmer climate, they will only remember this 4 or 5 days event.
For the time being, inertia won out. Millions are firmly
entrenched in skepticsville once again. Transitioning is out of vogue.
“ A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force.”
Isaac Newton
Extreme Cold covers the entire nation. Wow.
For some unfathomable reason, people are blind to the dangers inherent in the “smart” (not) grid. Integrating a data and control networked grid on a national scale is a rich target for enemy countries like China or Iran. And connecting it to the internet, which is pretty much inevitable due to nation-scale stoop id ity, is even worse. It would be vulnerable even to script kiddies just out to have fun. On top of that, it will cost about a trillion per year. An expensive sewer cide.
Electricity grids will require at least $21.4 trillion of investments by 2050 to support a global net-zero trajectory, according to estimates from BloombergNEF. BNEF analyst Lara Hayim wrote in a recent research note that the grid is the linchpin upon which the fate of the energy transition hinges, with the current investment shortfall emerging as a “bottleneck.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-17/this-20-trillion-climate-theme-is-trouncing-other-strategies
In the meantime, laws and regulations will cost us even more trillions.
Shell Plc’s appeal against a landmark ruling that ordered the oil and gas giant to cut its carbon emissions by 45% over the next decade will begin in April.
The London-based oil and gas giant is seeking to reverse what was a watershed moment for the oil industry. A trio of judges in The Hague said Shell must reduce total emissions by 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels, equivalent to 740 million tons a year
of carbon dioxide. The ruling was not suspended pending the outcome of the appeal and did not prescribe how Shell should slash its emissions.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-17/shell-s-appeal-of-landmark-climate-ruling-to-begin-in-april
More on that:
Dutch law allows other interested parties to join some legal proceedings. The appeals court accepted an application from a foundation called Milieu en Mens to participate in the hearings. It argues that the verdict against Shell could result in significantly higher energy prices for individual consumer.
I’m so sad I don’t have an EV.
The Arctic air gripping much of the U.S. put Tesla drivers in Chicago into a pickle on Monday. Many of the cars sat in long lines at Supercharger stations, their owners saying the cold sapped the electric vehicles’ normal ability to charge — and keep a charge.
In some cases, tow trucks were called to move the cars, in scenes that were relayed by local TV news. The Tesla owners’ plight became an emblem of the misery extreme cold is inflicting on wide sections of the U.S. (more on that below).
Tesla owners line up, hoping to get a charge
“I’ve been here for over five hours at this point and I still have not gotten to charge my car,” Tesla driver Brandon Welbourne told CBS News Chicago, as car horns blared nearby. “A charge that should take 45 minutes is taking two hours.”
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/16/1224913698/teslas-chicago-charging-extreme-cold
I read about one poor Tesla owner that only had a Level 1 (120v) charger and the battery heater took so much energy the car actually drained the battery faster than the charger could charge it.
My Volt has a battery management system that does the same thing when it’s too cold or hot but since the Volt’s battery is so much smaller a Level one charger can still keep up.
Ah, I was waiting for the expected article about EVs during the cold snap. And you did not disappoint! Yes, EVs do not perform well in exteme cold. It’s a legitimate issue for those living in places that experience severe cold snaps. Hopefully improvements will be made over time.
In Norway almost 25% of the cars are electric. So far this winter there have been 34,000 assistance requests from drivers with only 13% of the requests coming from EV owners compared to 87% of the gas/diesel owners.
Adjusting for vehicle age I would say both types of transportation have a lot more problems in extreme weather with a slight edge to the fossil fuel vehicles.
https://electrek.co/2024/01/17/electric-vehicles-fail-lower-rate-than-gas-cars-extreme-cold/
That’s good to know. I’m reading also that there are problems with the charging stations, not necessarily the EV proper.
Wouldn’t you have to know how many EVs and ICEVs were attempting to drive? Could it be EV owners are well-to-do and maybe they don’t have to get out?
So I flew across the Atlantic to see what the fuss was about. I discovered a Norwegian EV bonanza that has indeed reduced emissions — but at the expense of compromising vital societal goals. Eye-popping EV subsidies have flowed largely to the affluent, contributing to the gap between rich and poor in a country proud of its egalitarian social policies.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23939076/norway-electric-vehicle-cars-evs-tesla-oslo
More on hacking. How many of you have had your account information hacked in the last 5 years?
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is now seeing hackers attempt to infiltrate its systems 45 billion times a day as the Wall Street giant and its rivals continue to deal with a surge in global cybercrime.
…
“The fraudsters get smarter, savvier, quicker, more devious, more mischievous,” Erdoes said. “It’s so hard and it’s going to become increasingly harder and that’s why staying one step ahead of it is really the job of each and everyone of us.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-17/jpmorgan-sees-hacking-attempts-on-systems-double-to-45-billion-per-day
Toss more trillions down the “green” black hole.
Dozens of energy policy experts signed a Tuesday letter to lawmakers urging them to reject the PROVE It Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that would represent the potential first step toward imposing a carbon tariff on imported goods.
The bill would commission the Department of Energy (DOE) to study the carbon intensity of American products and compare them to competing products from other countries on that basis, paving the way for a carbon tariff on imported goods that could itself open the door for a domestic carbon tax, the letter warns.
“This legislation is a gateway for a carbon tax on imported goods and a domestic carbon tax. It is shocking that legislators would contemplate advancing policy that would increase taxes, drive up prices for American families, harm workers and those on fixed incomes and punish energy use,” the letter states.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/16/dozens-energy-experts-congress-oppose-carbon-tax-bill/
Jim2,
this is a tariff. that means revenue coming in. the claim in the quote makes no sense to me. if the purpose is for american products to compete on a fair playing field, there is no reason to think it would be extended to become a u.s. tax. what’s more, how does this legislation “harm workers” or “increase taxes”? when we imposed tariffs on china i don’t remember anyone calling it a tax increase.
1. It’s a carbon tax.
2. It’s a slippery slope. That’s the point.
Also, in the case of China, they have expressed hostile intentions towards the US. We should do nothing to increase their wealth in any shape or form.
This article seems over the top to me concerning heat waves, but whatever …
London isn’t ready to deal with climate risks including flooding and overheating, according to an independent review of government measures.
An interim report commissioned by the city’s mayor concluded that the British capital isn’t adapting quickly enough to mounting risks from global warming. That includes the potential failure of flood defenses along the Thames River, surface flooding from heavy rainfall, threats to water supplies and increasingly severe heat waves.
Compared with efforts to cut emissions, a relatively small amount of money has been invested globally in infrastructure and programs to adapt to climate change. That failure could end up costing billions in damages in the long run. The United Nations estimated in 2019 that spending around $1.8 trillion on adaptation measures by 2030 would generate $7.1 trillion in benefits.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-17/london-faces-climate-risks-including-thames-flooding-heat-waves
fizzy … in response to Sabine Hossenfelder and determinism, I thought you might find this interesting. It’s long for the monitor, so I’m not sure it will come through.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Democracy in America, Volume 2, Chapter 20 On Some Tendencies Particular To Historians in Democratic Centuries
In aristocratic centuries when the attention of historians is diverted to individuals at every moment, the sequence of events eludes them, or rather they do not believe in a sequence like this. The thread of history seems to them broken at each instant by the passage of one man.
In democratic centuries, on the contrary, the historian, who sees the actor much less and the acts much more, can readily establish a relationship and a methodical order among them.
Ancient literature, which left us such beautiful histories, does not offer a single great historical system, whereas the most miserable modern literature swarms with them. It seems that ancient historians did not make enough use of the general theories that ours are always near to abusing.
Those who write in democratic centuries have another, more dangerous tendency.
When any trace of the action of individuals on nations is lost, it often happens that one sees the world moving without discovering its motor. As it becomes very difficult to perceive and analyze the reasons that, acting separately on the will of each citizen, in the end produce the movement of the people, one is tempted to believe this movement is not voluntary and that, without knowing it, societies obey a superior, dominating force.
Even if one should discover on earth the general fact that directs the particular wills of all individuals, that does not save human freedom. A cause vast enough to be applied to millions of men at once and strong enough to incline all together in the same direction easily seems irresistible; having seen that one yields to it, one is quite close to believing one cannot resist it.
Historians who live in democratic times, therefore, not only deny to a few citizens the power to act on the destiny of a people, they also take away from peoples themselves the ability to modify their own fate, and they subject them either to an inflexible providence or to a sort of blind fatality. According to them, each nation is invincibly attached, by its position, its origin, its antecedents, its nature, to a certain destiny that all its efforts cannot change. They render generations interdependent on one another, and thus going back from age to age and from necessary events to necessary events up to the origin of the world, they make a tight and immense chain that envelopes the whole human race and binds it.
It is not enough for them to show how the facts have come about; they also take pleasure in making one see that it could not have happened otherwise. They consider a nation that has reached a certain place in its history and confirm that it was constrained to follow the path that led it there. That is easier than instructing us on how it could have acted to take a better route.
In reading the historians of aristocratic ages and particularly those of antiquity, it seems that to become master of has fate and to govern those like him, a man has only to know how to subdue himself. In running through the histories written in our time, one would say that man can do nothing about himself or his surroundings. Historians of antiquity instruct on how to command, those of our day teach hardly anything other than how to obey. In their writings, the author often appears great, but humanity is always small.
If this doctrine of fatality, which has so many attractions for those who write history in democratic times, passed from writers to their readers, thus penetrating the entire mass of citizens and taking hold of the public mind, one can foresee that it would soon paralyze the movement of the new societies and reduce Christians to Turks.
I say, furthermore, that such a doctrine is particularly dangerous in the period we are in; our contemporaries are only too inclined to doubt free will because each of them feels himself limited on all sides by his weakness, but they still willingly grant force and independence to men united in a social body. One must guard against obscuring this idea, for it is a question of elevating souls and not completing their prostration.
When I was growing up, when someone would point out the superior system in the US, certain people (probably socialists or communists or foreigners ) would say it’s because the US was endowed with copious natural materials. But as we can see, there are plenty of countries with valuable raw materials, but they still fail. Some of these failures are due to the government (such as dictators, socialism, or communism), some are due to culture, and some due to excess crime, which is probably related to government and culture.
Capitalism and the free market aren’t perfect and do require some regulations, but it’s still the best system in the world.
The World Almanac compiled a list of 450 of the most significant inventions, innovations and discoveries over the last 400 years.
Americans were involved in 250 of those 450.
The Soviets were involved in just 1. High octane gasoline.
Individual freedom means freedom to think.
jim & kid … agreed.
I believe AdT wrote that after his second trip and probably published around 1850? For context, Marx had been actively writing in the 1840s. Hegel died in 1831. And there was a large utopian movement in the first half of the 19C. For me, much of his observations in this quotation, while from an aristocrat, give us a front row seat on what was happening with what I’ll call first generation left. Very interesting in that it’s phrased without present day jargon.
Oh, he rags on the Robert Fulton’s of America as he thinks America doesn’t value pure science as much as it does engineering (my word) or inventors, which he claims are everywhere hoping to get rich. :-)
AdT always puts ideals first. Gotta love him for that. He compliments and criticizes America as he sees it.
Bill
He was certainly prescient with this.
“ The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
Everyone in Washington is now paralyzed with the burgeoning debt. They all know what has to be done but also know it’s a death sentence for saying it.
Bill: “And he’s one of the fairest writers you’ll find, equally critical and supportive of elements of both.”
Definitely. (or, as is now the proper expression, ‘absolutely’).
Meant to reply to Bill below.
Bill – Thanks for those thoughts of de Tocqueville on attitudes about free will and the destiny of peoples. (Nice to know that someone actually reads de Tocqueville, rather than just toss out the usual derived platitudes.)
I suppose you browsed Hossenfelder into this subject (free will), but my original comment was merely an attempt to clear up some apparent confusion about chaos and tipping points, implied by a comment of jim2.
I appreciate de Tocqueville’s reference to people (potentially) subjected to either “an inflexible providence or to a sort of blind fatality.” Reminds me of those who, with regard to climate change, invoke either “God’s will” or “climate has always changed”.
Good ol’ de Tocqueville; he thought and wrote about so much, one can usually find an apt quote or reference. Kinda like the Bible, or the I Ching. :-)
Kinda like the Bible, or the I Ching. :-) or Climate Change ;)
hey fiz … glad you liked it. By the way, I forgot to add it was Volume 2, Part One. The two finger typist can only be trusted so far.
It never fails to amaze me how quotes, whether short or long, can be interpreted differently, legitimately. Where you say: I appreciate de Tocqueville’s reference to people (potentially) subjected to either “an inflexible providence or to a sort of blind fatality.” I took that to apply perfectly to CO2 = catastrophe. :-) Although it is certainly aimed at such concepts as Historical Materialism.
His perceptions are entertaining, particularly considering mass communication methods were limited to books, pamphlets and speeches. Yet, he understood their mass affect and how they can be/are used in social control. I believe he saw that quite vividly, witnessing the changes from aristocracy to democratic movements. And he’s one of the fairest writers you’ll find, equally critical and supportive of elements of both.
He’s not a philosopher, but sometimes art/literature has a way of capturing concepts that tend to hamstring philosophy/science. I thought he captured free will and determinism quite nicely.
Some say Auguste Comte is the/a father of sociology. Maybe, but AdT ain’t no slouch.
Enjoy your day.
‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.’ ―Alexis de Tocqueville
Let’s say it out loud, Western academia and the anti-Americanism of the UN and dead and dying Old Europe are the systemic causation underlying global warming alarmism. Leftist ideology represents a systemic divergence from the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility and a systemic acceptance of behaviors outside traditional morals and ethics that prize honor, ingenuity, productivity and accountability. Outside the West there are no fears about runaway global warming, people do not look to secular, socialist schoolteachers as saviors of the world and climatology is likened to the ancient science of astrology. What is needed is a change in global politics beginning right here at home with energy independence and a smaller government that respects individual liberty over consensus and free enterprise over socialism.
Wagathon,
There is no evidence toqueville said this, nor does it sound anything like him. per googling, the quote appears to be from alexander fraser Tytler, an 18th century british monarchist who did not believe in democracy.
‘Sometimes it’s credited to Alexis de Tocqueville. And it goes like this, give or take a word…’
Relatedly, Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”
The fall of the blue states will move especially quickly if the federal hegemony over human activities is supplanted by a greater state autonomy. This could happen if the secular, socialist Big Government’s use of the Commerce Clause to diminish personal liberty becomes a dead man walking and if the peoples’ right to keep what they earn is reaffirmed.
OMG people! Use your brains! Toqueville did not say,
“THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC WILL ENDURE UNTIL THE DAY CONGRESS DISCOVERS THAT IT CAN BRIBE THE PUBLIC WITH THE PUBLIC’S MONEY”. Does this sound even remotely like him? Have you considered that he was travelling in the U.S. in the 1831 and the income tax did not exist until 1862???
I knew immediately this had to be nonsense and a minute’s fact-check showed that it is.
https://checkyourfact.com/2019/10/08/fact-check-alexis-tocqueville-american-republic-congress-bribe-public-money/
What does CoPilot have to say about this?
The quote “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money” is often attributed to Alexis De Tocqueville, a French political thinker and historian known for his works “Democracy in America”123. However, according to Wikiquote, the real author of the quotation is Polybius, an ancient Greek historian4.
Alexis De Tocqueville is known for his comprehensive examination of American society, politics, and culture in the early 19th century, with a focus on the democratic values and institutions of the United States1. His observations continue to be influential in political science, sociology, and cultural studies.
Polybius, on the other hand, was a historian from the Hellenistic period known for his work “The Histories”, in which he covered the period of 264–146 BC in detail. His work is of great significance to our understanding of this period, particularly the rise of the Roman Republic4.
Please note that there is some debate about the origins of this quote41. Regardless of its source, the quote is often used to express concerns about the potential for democratic governments to undermine their own stability by offering financial incentives or benefits to the public41.
while Polybius may have said something similar, i doubt his quote actually started with “the american republic…” :)
I found it interesting someone realized the concept over 2,000 years ago. Human nature hasn’t changed.
So it appears Polybius delineated the concept.
So when they begin to be fond of office, and find themselves unable to obtain it by their own unassisted efforts and their own merits, they ruin their estates, while enticing and corrupting the common people in every possible way. By which means when, in their senseless mania for reputation, they have made the populace ready and greedy to receive bribes, the virtue of democracy is destroyed, and it is transformed into a government of violence and the strong hand. For the mob, habituated to feed at the expense of others, and to have its hopes of a livelihood in the property of its neighbours, as soon as it has got a leader sufficiently ambitious and daring, being excluded by poverty from the sweets of civil honours, produces a reign of mere violence. Then come tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments, redivisions of land; until, after losing all trace of civilisation, it has once more found a master and a despot.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D6
Hey Dan
If he didn’t say it, he should have because it is exactly what is going on.
Or do you not understand politics either.
dan … I caution you that AdT wrote several books, diaries and letters not just Democracy in America, which became popular in the 1970s, a decade most of us old people on here were educated in. I’m not saying you are right or wrong. Honestly, I don’t know as I’ve been reading DA for the first time since the 70s. I believe most of his snippets have been quoted as being from DA, but I’m sure some may have been from his other writings. Just sayin’.
Glad the comment has you thinking!
By the way, you are absolutely (ala fizzy) correct about the USA income tax, however the USA has always had income streams from the beginning.
What does CoPilot have to say about EV batteries and cold weather?
Cold weather can significantly affect the battery life of electric vehicles (EVs). Here’s how:
Battery Chemistry: Cold temperatures can slow down the chemical reactions inside the battery that allow it to create power12. This impacts not only the range an EV can get on a charge, but also how quickly it can recharge1.
Operating Temperature: EV batteries operate best within a certain temperature range, typically between 40 and 115 degrees Fahrenheit1. Outside this range, the battery’s performance can be affected1.
Energy Consumption: Heating the car’s cabin, running the defroster, and running the onboard computer systems all require power, which can drain the battery more quickly in cold weather1.
Charging and Regenerative Braking: Lithium-ion batteries take longer to charge when they’re cold, and regenerative braking features don’t work as well either1.
Overall, the adverse effect of cold weather can reduce EV battery capacity by as much as 41%1. However, it’s important to note that not all EVs handle winter the same way, and some models may perform better in cold weather than others1. There are also several strategies to help protect EV batteries from the cold and minimize the amount of charge lost1.
Jim2
Yes, I have seen a loss of range in my EV in the last week because of the cold, but because of my driving habits it is inconsequential.
I want to tell you about an incident last Friday. I had to be at my destination at 9:00 AM. (I was the designated coffee maker for a bridge tournament.) I live in Montana. The thermometer out my kitchen window that morning read -28F. On the way in to get the coffee ready I got a phone call. Another who needed to get there early couldn’t start her old-fashioned internal combustion engine. I came to her rescue in my EV. It is a VW ID 4 with all wheel drive, which I need to get up my steep driveway. There was no problem energizing the heated seats.
That’s great, David. Thanks for sharing the story.
Of course, your experience is one in thousands. I’ve found it difficult to get good data on the EV experience. For example, the story shared by jacksmith about Norway. The missing element there is the number of EVs actually in use vs the number of ICEVs. Without that, we only have the ownership stats.
It is still of value to keep an ear to the ground on this issue, IMO.
David
I assume you have a charger at home. Two questions.
How large of a difference in charging time between at home and from away?
How large of a difference in charging time at 70F and -28F?
Thanks
Do bridge tournaments start before noon Fridays in Montana?
I charge from home from an ordinary 110v outlet using a little rectifier and cable that came with the car. This is a “Level 1” charger that delivers about a kw. The car gets 3+ miles per kw-hr, so an overnight charge is good for 40-50 miles. I don’t typically drive that far in a day, so I don’t bother plugging it in every night. I wait until the battery falls to about 40% and then charge to 80%. The manufacturer recommends only going above 80% if a long trip is planned, for the sake of battery life. I might sometime install a “Level 2 charger” in my home that would use 220v power like an electric drier and approximately double the charging rate, but haven’t done so yet and there is no pressing need. I have only had the car for 2 and a half months. There is a commercial “Level 3” charger a few miles away with a substantially higher charging rate that I have yet to use.
My wife and I now use this vehicle as our primay car, but we have another that is a hybrid. At this stage of battery technology and charging infrastructure, we would use the hybrid for a long trip. Based on $4/ gallon gas and $.15/kw-hr electric power, we are getting the economic equivalent of something over 80 miles/gallon. We also don’t have to change the oil, though the service guy at the VW dealer keeps sending ads promising a 10% discount on oil changes. The nominal range of the car is 280 miles. I suspect that there is a good market for low operatiing cost vehicles in two car families that are backed up by gas powered cars for long trips.
The battery is heated in cold weather to improve its performance, but that of course takes energy. I believe, therefore, that I am losing efficiency with my short trips because of the battery heater. I cannot give accurate statistics which would depend on both trip length and temperature.
The ACBL Sectional bridge tournament last weekend had morning sessions starting at 10:00 Fri & Sat, and 9:30 Sunday. Attendance was down from previous years because it was too damn cold, and there was a blizzard Thursday night that kept out-of-towners away. We had about 50 show up.
On 1/16 natural gas and coal supplied about 80% of Texas’ electricity.
A strong increase in the SOI could mean the end of El Niño.
Apparently Sweden is backing off left-wind extremists climate change goals. They now are pushing for more nuclear power.
In the new year, Sweden REMOVED climate taxes on fuel, causing diesel prices to collapse by over 4 SEK per litre.
In 2022 when the Socialist democrats were in power, the diesel price reached a whopping 28 SEK per litre. After the right-wing government removed climate taxes, prices in the new year reached almost as low as 17 SEK per litre. That is around 39% lower diesel prices. Wow!
But further steps have been taken…
…
The new government has cut the budget to municipalities and regions co-operation for Agenda 2030.
And now during the Christmas holidays, they have REMOVED the Agenda 2030 goals from the directives to government organizations …s.
https://petersweden.substack.com/p/huge-sweden-scrapping-agenda-2030
Be careful what you wish for!
But that will not be enough to fix Germany’s structural problems. One is a lack of domestic energy sources: The country relies on imports to sustain the industries that have formed the backbone of its economy for decades. They include car making, steel and the chemicals industry, which reported that production fell 11 percent last year.
Overall, Germany’s industrial sector is struggling to cope with not only the high price of energy but with the transition to a future that is more nimble and more digital.
https://dnyuz.com/2024/01/18/germany-once-a-powerhouse-is-at-an-economic-standstill/
Mann v Steyn is on! You can find links to watch it on WEBEX here:
https://www.steynonline.com/14023/and-so-it-begins
I’m watching Simberg’s lawyer make her opening statement. Wow she’s good! I’m about ready to call it. Mann is toast.
Thanks for the link – Started listening halfway through Steyn opening statement (he is acting as his own lawyer).
Having participated in numerous legal suits, Steyn should have an attorney, his presentation is not poor.
Did Steyn give his openning statement? Are you sure it wasn’t his discovery response?
I have a weird situation where my computer won’t play the audio from the trial so I have to watch it on my computer and listen to it on my phone.
From 2:00 pm CST until 2:27 CST, I have only heard Steyn in is opening statement. He has put up several exhibits which I am not sure are proper in opening statements ( civil procedures is outside my knowledge base). There have been no witnesses so that is why I am presuming it is opening statement. There is considerable rambling in his presentation. Though he did make a very strong point the frequency of lying by Mann with the multiple times Mann claimed to be a nobel prize winner.
Simberg’s lawyer also brought up the Nobel prize stuff. Mann’s side called Raymond Bradley. There was lots of dramatic pictures of tree ring coring and ocean scrapping plus some thick textbook dropping. Otherwise it was a snoozer. Trial resumes at 9:30 Eastern Monday. I Wonder if the judge will excuse him if he pukes (I think that’s his Climategate quote)?
In response to Mike D at 4.49 – I listened to parts (small parts) of Mann’s co-author Bradley testimony. He came across conveying the impression that measuring temperature has been very simple stuff and the data since the 1800’s has been very accurate. ie very easy to get it right. While I disagree, it was the impression that he was trying to convey and to an uninformed juror, that would be the logical conclusion.
I caught too little of the tree ring and coral measurement testimony, though he also gave the impression that capturing temp info from tree rings was fairly straight forward.
Fwiw – with regard to the trial – I will limit my comments to the testimony and not to the quality or the scientific merit / accuracy of the testimony.
Well, I for one was very happy to hear Simberg’s lawyer. She is whip smart, very organized, talks fast (in contrast to Steyn) and has a very commanding, confident presence. Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, looks a bit desperate and just about every third word out of his mouth is “denier”. I think Simberg’s lawyer will have much more appeal to the jury than Steyn and I’m glad she’s there. She may save his bacon.
From the podcast from the first day, the judge admonishes Williams for trying to add 5400 pages of stuff at the last minute. He seems very fair and professional.
There’s a podcast that’s reporting on every day on the progress of the trial. They have actors doing reenactments with a good Shakespearian voice for Steyn.
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/unreported-story-society4/episodes/Ep–1–A-Mann-Apart-e2eig36
Thanks, Mike.
More on EVs in the cold …
Do electric cars have less range cold temperatures? Yes, the 18 popular EV models that we analyzed had an average of 70.3% of their range in freezing conditions, but each model performs differently as our chart illustrates.
Other key findings:
Heat pump technology is extending EV range above 14F, if not colder, making it a key consideration for people who live in cold climates.
Hyundai Kona continues to exceed EPA estimates in many driving conditions.
Audi e-tron distinguishes itself as a winter leader by dropping the least range in cold conditions.
Vehicles with LFP batteries should not experience noticeably more range loss than their NCA counterparts in normal cold conditions, although winter charging times may be a bit slower.
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss
By Kenneth Richard on 18. January 2024
We have updated our “Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity” scientific paper list with new papers added from 2022 and 2023 and some newly discovered papers from the past.
As of 2016 this list had only 50 papers on it (as indicated by the web address). In less than 8 years the list has grown to 159 (as of today).
https://notrickszone.com/2024/01/18/nearly-160-scientific-papers-detail-the-minuscule-effect-co2-has-on-earths-temperature/
Christos
An interesting book for me would a compilation of interviews of all of these 160 coauthors, the coauthors of solar papers and the coauthors of geothermal activity under GIS and WAIS, asking what their reaction has been to generally being ignored in the IPCC reports.
Good reading material. I don’t remember seeing this list before.
Quite a few names unfamiliar to me, so it’s not just the “cranks”.
Thank you, cerescokid .
Thanks, Christos.
From what I’ve read, IC engines run on a dynamometer actually produce more horsepower. But this isn’t the same as driving the car.
Correction: From what I’ve read, IC engines run on a dynamometer IN COLD AIR …
This winter will probably sink EV demand even deeper.
Ford Motor Co. cut production of its F-150 Lightning electric truck amid fading demand for electric vehicles.
About 1,400 employees will be impacted as the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center transitions to one shift beginning April 1, the Dearborn, Michigan-based automaker said Friday in a statement
. The company said it expects continued growth in global EV sales in 2024, though it will be less than anticipated.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-19/ford-cuts-production-of-f-150-lightning-electric-truck
I think all the manufactures missed an opportunity to market these new EVs as whole home backup systems.
I would have made every EV equipped with bi-directional charging and package it with a turn-key Level 2 bi-directional charger, They could skip the high cost of upgrading the home’s electrical panel with this:
https://connectder.com/
jack … Ford actually advertised the F-150 electric pickup exactly that way. It didn’t seem to help, as they are down to one shift on the production line. Demand is far weaker than thought.
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/ford-to-cut-production-of-electric-f-150-pickups-amid-weaker-demand-df2f2763?st=yg2bgs5a09hszd1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Bill,
When I looked at the details of the Ford Lighting I noticed they are just a V2L (Vehicle to Load) and not a true V2G (Vehicle to Grid). V2G requires smarter bi-directional chargers that are able to sync to the grid AND be able to ‘island’ the home with 240v 50/60 cycle pure sine-wave inverters. Nissan and Kia have a few models that support V2G but I’m not sure what chargers they are using.
I thought you were referring to emergency home power, which is what their commercials allude to. My bad.
As air temperature is changed, horsepower is altered by about 1% for every 10°F. In simplest terms, engines consuming cooler air can produce more power.
https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/understanding-the-differences-in-horsepower
From my days as a private pilot I can tell you air density (more oxygen per cubic foot) is where most of that extra power comes from. If I want more power from a ICE at all temperatures I would look at turbochargers.
Along with jacksmith4tx reply there is another consideration – efficiency. Don’t get a bigger engine than you need, and then run it at half its potential.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of efficiency of ICE vs EV. By that I mean account for all energy expenditures to determine the energy at the wheels.
So imagine 100 BTU of wind. Then account for the amount of that 100 captured by the turbine. Then how much of that is transformed to electricity. Then how much of that is left by the time it hits the charging station. Then how much of that is transferred to the battery. Then how much of that is transferred to the wheels.
Then do the same with 100 BTU of oil.
That is a complex and a somewhat biased comparison.
Wind is free; its controlling it and getting energy out of it and to where it is needed when it is needed that’s a pain. Losses tend to accumulate
Oil you buy and store; and there is a pump/station every 3km. (here)
But I remember other times long ago when there were no pumps and grandpa had an open top 40 gal tank for agricultural use. It was a pain to get supply.
(some mental calc: 1donkey-power/hour working water bucket chain was near equal to 1 hour kerosene 2sT pump with I liter kero. It was a time of transition)
This is also a time of transition. What if EV’s picked their supply from the road for inter-city? A wild idea? Maybe, but that’s how it starts. Something like this perhaps https://witricity.com/media/blog/what-is-efficiency-how-do-you-measure-it-and-why-should-you-care
jim2,
My EV gets 3+ miles per kw-hr, so I am paying less then $.05/mile for energy. Someone buying $4 gas for a 25mpg car is paying $.16/ mile for energy. The electric vehicle pathway is more efficient. I think most of the energy saving is in the car itself. Remember that engine blocks in ICE’s get hot. Not so much in electric engines. And my EV has a lot of pep. I could take you in a drag race any day.
Well, Dave, you are burning a lot of fossil fuels after all. Gotta wonder what that price would be if all electricity was generated by wind and solar plus all battery backup needed to keep the lights on. You probably couldn’t afford it.
David
“ And my EV has a lot of pep. I could take you in a drag race any day.”
When I read that, I instantly thought of the wonderful drag racing scene in American Graffiti. The director was wise in using a 55 Chevy and 32 Ford instead of a vintage VW. The nostalgia thing and all that.
I owned a 56 Ford, 57 Chevy and 54 Chevy…. in a 3 year period. With rust and other problems back then, it wasn’t uncommon to have the car go kaput after only 7-8 years. In 2 of those cars, the automatic transmission just went clunk.
My 87 year old golfing buddy drives a 20 year old van with 200,000 miles on it. He said he will drive it until either he or his van drops.
Cars aren’t what they used to be. In a lot of ways.
Jim2,
Of course, for now some of the energy propelling my EV is from fossil fuels. But let me underscore what you have not acknowledged. EV’s use less energy, from whatever source, than ICE’s. They don’t need radiators and fans to stay cool. They don’t need oil changes. They don’t have a transmission. They are simpler than ICE’s. Yes, if your daily commute is over 100 miles an EV might not be right for you today. If you plan a cross country trip and don’t have an ICE backup vehicle, an EV might not be right for you today. But battery technology and charging infrastructure will not sit still. EV’s are the future, even disregarding their emissions advantage.
I get all that David. But I’ll still beat you in a cross country race.
Jim … It would be interesting to know the energy efficiency of EV from windmill to wheels and ICE from wellhead to wheels. From the engine only, it’s hands down that the EV (80-90%) is the winner over ICE (40%).
Breaking it down, our society has used electric motors for over a hundred years. The work they do is indispensable. The thing is, they are, for the most part, stationary and connected to the grid. The EV is designed as a mobile electric platform. Thus, batteries.
It really does come down to cost and convenience. And those vary with the scope of work. Meaning, Dave uses his EV for short trips and limited loads. His scope of work (use) occurs during non-charging times, and so is not impacted by them. In short, the EV works for Dave. It is the most efficient for him.
If you start to increase the scope of work, the ICE is far more adaptable, and so more efficient. I’m guessing Dave is retired? The scope of work changes dramatically for a young person. Is their job in one location, or does it involve moving locations, that requires their own transportation? Do they live in an area where they need to drive to get to entertainment? That could mean driving at night, as they’re not playing bridge. ;-) If you’re a stay at home mom and have to drive a lot during the day does her scope of work exceed the EV capability? Defining efficiency for her must take into account convenience.
What about uses beyond ‘normal’? I’m retired but I drive off road for entertainment. I have a 2006 Hummer H3. When I use the dealer for servicing, a salesman always runs over to ask if I want to sell it. Of course, he wants to sell me one of the new electric Hummers. Honestly, I’d take one in a heartbeat … if I could afford it … but it doesn’t meet my scope of work. If I go out into the wilderness I want to have a good idea as to the chances of getting back. She’s an old gal, but I don’t have concerns about range, which I can expand with extra tanks.
Expanding to commercial and industrial environments, there are few mobile electric platforms and their scope of work is limited, i.e. electric forklifts, manlifts, etc. Think of heavy equipment or long haul.
So, the efficiency debate really is about the range, reliability and cost of batteries to fulfill the scope of work that’s needed.
I agree with all you said there. I like my ICE vehicle for the reasons you mentioned. One you didn’t mention is gas stations vs charging stations. Also, the time to refill is much better with an ICE vehicle. And one thing you mentioned it taking along extra fuel. You just can’t beat gasoline for BTU/lb.
I still work but no longer have a long commute. My fuel bill just isn’t a concern. Even when I had a 20 mile commute, it wasn’t that big a concern.
Time will tell on maintenance and value with age. I’m interested to see if EV fires spike due to the batteries freezing. I believe it is said not to be a problem, but …
At any rate, I’m truly happy that David is happy with his EV. They aren’t for me, but I don’t have anything against them. May primary concern there is that the government is trying to push everyone to use an EV. I am not good with that proposition AT ALL!!
To David I would say also that I’m not the ones causing the news stories about problems with EVs, I’m just the messenger. Keep that in mind. That said, I think everyone considering an EV to go into the deal with eyes wide open.
Bill,
” From the engine only, it’s hands down that the EV (80-90%) is the winner over ICE (40%).”
I do not owe a vehicle. It is a good thing if the cost of “energy” consumed is at lower price for EV .
Does the use of EV increase the electric energy demand? Yes it does.
Will the electricity become even more expensive? Yes it will.
Should worldwide the governments subsidize the EV market on the poor people’s expence? No they shouldn’t.
I cannot get benefitial from all that, because I am not going to have a car.
Also actually I use very little electricity for our simple domestic needs only. When living in the appartment house we do not have any place available, nor the money to apply any renewable energy-production equipment.
Also we do not want to make things for us more complicated.
When strugling to make ends meet, what we need is a cheaper and always available electricity, and a cheaper prices on food.
Let do all this progress, but not at the poor people’s expence. Move forward and have renewables, but give all users a cheaper electricity and better standards of living.
The electricity is very cheap for those who own renewables, but they should afford it to invest and to wait untill it returns.
For us it will always be the higher cost of electricity and the higher cost of living.
Christos, you underscore a very important narrative that the Left in many parts of the world remain pitifully ignorant of, especially for the brat woke culture of the US Left who haven’t learned any of the realities you speak of.
No free lunch is a difficlut platitude to measure, though it’s a truism for realists; it’s an incomprehensible concept for most on the Left however. Therein is the global problem in a nutshell. Neo-Marxists believe in free lunches; and many other metaphorical unicorns.
Disillutioned diaper Marxists will ultimately only have Vodka to satiate inner calm after Orwell’s future hits these in the proverbial face, worst case scenario; if the “globalism” Davos “planning” culture wins. Otherwise realists will only get to say “told you so”, they’ll feel the undeserved pain nonetheless.
“But, as a shortcut to common ground, I always encourage EV skeptics to just drive one. Then we’ll talk. The consumer experience is superior: quicker, quieter, more refined and responsive, more efficient, more connected and cheaper to operate than its gas-powered equivalent. The market demand is organic, the desire real and nonideological. After a few miles in an EV, going back to internal combustion feels like returning to whale-oil lamps.”
WSJ 1/19/24
And, Andrews, you believe this immediate discussion is about EV’s.
Thank gawd someone finally elevates cultural salvation on the back of the upper middle class.
Christos … I agree completely. I think we will see the market dictate the penetration and usage of EVs. Jungletrunks’ point about government thumb on the scale, via the left, undoubtedly is what has enabled the EV to penetrate as far as it has. My comment to Jim was to narrow the discussion of efficiency, which is an interesting and valid discussion, to the battery pack. If … if batteries can be advanced, and economically produced, where they can equal the range of ICEs and charging time can be reduced substantially, then EVs will have a much greater penetration.
IMHO, they will not replace ICEs for heavy equipment, etc. Maybe hydrogen fuel cells will.
As for city folk, like you, if the battery technology progresses, I wouldn’t be surprised if the left pushes public vehicles, much like public bicycles. Or, if the AI technology progresses, driverless vehicles at public disposal. But again, it all will come down to the battery and the scope of work (use).
As for electric demand, yes it will increase. But there are other demand loads that will also have a huge effect on supply, not least AI, crypto mining, etc. I don’t view increasing demand a problem. The issue is what are we going to use as supply and ramifications to the grid.
IMHO, I think you’ll see the use of more nuclear, particularly small modular reactors. Why? If only because Microsoft, Amazon, Google, et al will want plentiful, secure power that they can control for their operations. Industry has done this in the past, aluminum smelters, steel mills, etc. So eventually all the unreliable renewables will be left for us. ;-)
Jungletrunks employs a fascinating taxonomy of societal entities:
“the cult class”
“the woke class”
“the neo-marxist woke class”
“the brat woke culture”
the “billionaire class”
“disillutioned (sic) diaper Marxists”
“the “globalism” Davos “planning” culture””
and now, finally, the plain old
“upper middle class”.
I suspect I fit in there someplace….
Quaintly, Fizz, obviously you do.
Finally, something that hasn’t been affected by global warming.
“ More than a trillion cicadas will be coming to the U.S. in an event that has not happened since Thomas Jefferson was U.S. president in 1803.
Cicada broods often emerge together, the University of Connecticut says, but 2024 will mark the first time in more than 200 years that Brood XIX, which arrives every 13 years, and Brood XIII, which arrives every 17 years, will emerge at the same time.
The next co-emergence of these broods won’t happen for another 221 years.”
https://time.com/6564594/cicadas-us-trillions-2024/
It appears their ranges don’t overlap. So, it won’t be twice as loud ;)
The equivalent MPG of EVs is vastly exaggerated.
From Bing CoPilot:
Petroleum-equivalent fuel economy is a measure used to compare the energy consumption of alternative fuel vehicles, including electric vehicles (EVs), with conventional internal combustion vehicles1. This measure is expressed in miles per gallon (MPG) and is used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) among others1.
The petroleum-equivalent fuel economy is calculated for an electric vehicle and reported to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for use in determining the vehicle manufacturer’s corporate average fuel economy2. The calculation procedure involves converting the measured electrical energy consumption of an EV into a raw gasoline-equivalent fuel economy value3. This value is then divided by 0.15 to arrive at the final petroleum-equivalent fuel economy value, which is then used in the calculation of the automaker’s corporate average fuel economy3.
The unit of energy consumed is deemed to be 33.7 kilowatt-hours without regard to the efficiency of conversion of heat energy into electrical energy, also measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh)1. The equivalence of this unit to energy in a gallon of gasoline is true if and only if the heat engine, generating equipment, and power delivery to the car battery are 100% efficient1. Actual heat engines differ vastly from this assumption1.
It’s important to note that the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy does not necessarily represent an equivalency in the operating costs between alternative fuel vehicles and the MPG rating of internal combustion engine vehicles due to the wide variation in costs for the fuel sources regionally1. The EPA assumes prices that represent the national averages1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-II/subchapter-D/part-474
More refs:
https://www.exro.com/industry-insights/corporate-average-fuel-economy-help-to-accelerate-fleet-electrification
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/11/2023-06869/petroleum-equivalent-fuel-economy-calculation
Jim2,
You are sowing confusion with all your detail on efficiencies. The bottom line of $/mile includes all the inefficiencies. See my numbers posted previously. While there is a lot of variability in ICE mpg, gas prices and electricity prices, there is no doubt whatsoever that EV’s are cheaper to operate than ICE’s, by something like a factor of 3.
David – doubtfull that the cost difference is by factor of 3
My quick calc for 15,000 miles ICE vehicle is about $5000 per year counting gas, insurance, maintenance, tires, etc.
EV costs for 15,000 miles is approx $3,000 including electricity, maintenance tires insurance. (using 3.5 miles per kw).
My comment highlights Federal regulations, not effective MPG. Please read again. The Free Market in the US is a joke.
Joe,
My 3x was for energy costs only. If you add other costs like insurance and tires, you are correct the % advantage gets smaller. But EV’s also save a little with no oil changes required. The first recommended maintenace for my EV is at 10,000 miles.
Jim2,
OK, you are against government regulations. That opens up a huge topic, probably too large for this thread. I will just ask two questions:
1.) I live along a river. Do you think it should be OK for me to dump my raw sewage in the river? That would be cheaper for me than a septic system. Do you think it a violation of Free Market Principles that a govenment agency says I cannot do that?
2.) Suppose for a moment that CO2 emissions are harmful and therefore fossil fuel burning has hidden costs. Do you think that the government should ignore that in deference to Free Market Prinicples?
David Andrews | January 21, 2024 at 12:47 pm |
Joe,
My 3x was for energy costs only. If you add other costs like insurance and tires, you are correct the % advantage gets smaller.
David – your 3x factor is another example of factually correct statement which is highly deceptive.
Same issue with renewables. The generation cost of electricity from renewables is less expensive than the generation cost of electricity from fossil fuels, yet the total cost of renewables is greater that the total costs of generation from fossil fuels.
Hey David. Show me where I said there should be no government regulations. I won’t hold my breath.
Jim2,
Ok, we agree that with government regulations, the devil is in the details. You have criticized CAFE, but I am not inclined to argue about that particular regulation in detail.
CAFE standards are a good example of Federal regulations making life difficult for the poor via high vehicle prices.
Relatedly, NHTSA announced tougher fines for automakers not meeting CAFE standards for model years 2019-2022. The penalties for model years 2019-2021 increased from $5.50 to $14 for every 0.1 mpg that new vehicles fail to meet, multiplied by the number of new vehicles sold that do not meet the standards. The fine for 2022 model year vehicles increased to $15. Significantly, this is the first increase since 1997, when the penalty increased from $5 to $5.50. Some automakers will be impacted by tougher fines more than others. Most auto manufacturers have improved or maintained estimated real-world fuel economy over the last five years, as shown in Figure 1.
https://www.motor.com/2022/04/overview-and-implications-of-new-cafe-standards-and-penalties/
“Helping the poor” is also a joke in the US. I once drove a car with a kaput A/C unit for a whole summer on a freeway, on a long commute, during rush hour, with 90-100 degrees F temperature. Was it comfortable? Not at all, but I survived it.
There are plenty of Africans of modest means who would love to have a reliable vehicle even without A/C. This is what we could have here were it not for government regulations.
The Toyota Tacoma pickup is built in America for Americans and Canadians, to dodge the “chicken tax,” but 181 other countries around the world get the Toyota Hilux pickup. It looks a bit like our Tacoma, but more basic. You’d recognize it from global news footage of relief aid or conflict areas. Well, apparently it had gotten a trifle fancy and at about $15,200 to start, it was pricing itself out of some of those markets. The Toyota IMV 0 intends to fill in that low-cost space beneath the Hilux with a target starting price of $10,000. It made its debut at the 2023 Japan Mobility Show, wearing cool Land Cruiser 70 Series style. Shortly after the Tokyo show, we took one for a spin.
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2025-toyota-imv-0-pickup-truck-first-drive-review-japan-mobility-show/
Sorry. “Africans” should have been Americans. I need to figure out how to get rid of the helpful (not) look-ahead.
In Greece the 2023 year electricity demand (45.3 TWh) was the lowest in a decade, even lower than that of the first year of the pandemic in 2020.
–
Also people get warmed in winter by extensive use of fire place. Some families provide their households with wood during the year, so they are properly prepared with enough wood supply.
–
Interesting, does the wood burning considered as a renewable source of energy?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nat Gas has carried the day in Texas many times in the last two weeks. Texas can’t afford enough batteries to do that. I’m not even sure that quantity of batteries could be made without spking raw materials prices.
The Communist geniuses running China’s economy have run it into the ground. They restricted couples to one child per family, then started building Potemkin villages, which eventually crashed the property market. Locking people in their apartments during the pandemic probably didn’t help the people’s enthusiasm.
Skepticism over Chinese assets is spreading beyond stocks, with investors expecting the yuan and government bonds to underperform in a year when the Federal Reserve’s dovish pivot is set to buoy emerging markets.
Bearish sentiment toward China has intensified as the latest data confirmed the world’s second largest economy remains in the doldrums. While the gloom adds impetus for the People’s Bank of China to lower interest rates, investors say the monetary authority has less room to cut than its major global peers, whose borrowing costs are now at multi-year highs.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-21/gloom-over-china-assets-is-spreading-beyond-battered-stocks
melitamegalithic … you posted this comment a few days ago:
> This is also a time of transition. What if EV’s picked their supply from the road for inter-city? A wild idea? Maybe, but that’s how it starts. Something like this perhaps https://witricity.com/media/blog/what-is-efficiency-how-do-you-measure-it-and-why-should-you-care
I read the piece and thanks for sharing it. I thought of something similar twenty years ago when I was living in NYC. I agree with your general sentiment that ideas, such as this one, should always be encouraged.
Next time you’re on an electric train, subway or electric trolley take the time to kook at the electric infrastructure. You will be able to see how the cars connect to the power source, either via a third rail or a catenary. The distribution system isn’t continuous, but the gaps are related to length of cars so there is always a contact point.
The voltages for such systems vary, but the ones I’m familiar with in NYC run on 600-710 volts DC. A single electric car is not the same as a ten car train or a two car trolley. What they do have in common is a distribution system. Any wireless charging pad for a cell phone, in your car or your house, is hard wired to a power source. The electromagnetic field from the pad to the device is a wonder to behold. Yet, there is still the need to power the pad.
I worked on a small, very small, contract to pull feeders for the Metro-North Railroad (710VDC). We pulled positive feeders from a distribution system 110 feet below Grand Central Station to splice points to track sections. After pulling +26,000 feet of cable (2000MCM) we completed our section, which went from 42nd ST (under GCS) to … 50th St. It doesn’t seem very far for such an undertaking, does it?
Even if we say the cables for the EVs may be smaller (although I would caution that the demand calculation would have to be for a rush hour situation where many vehicles may be present), the cables will need to have a raceway system (i.e. conduit, pull/junction points, etc) connecting the ‘pads’ to a power distribution station. Yes, the ‘pads’ might be able to be long and embedded in the asphalt, but that brings engineering challenges as asphalt expands, contracts, cracks, etc.
I’ll stop before the point of what goes into the distribution stations and how they are powered. So, while I also had a similar idea, the reality of building it is quite complex, and expensive. I’m not saying it can’t be done, nor that it might be done. But transitions don’t just happen because of an idea. They all start with an idea, but to come to fruition the engineering must be completed and … above all … the cost needs to be justified.
What I see is that the renewable push has not been adequately vetted with engineering and cost analysis. For comparison, the NYC subway system was privately owned when it started. No public investment, aside from the cost of the fare. They all went bankrupt and were bought out by the city. The ICE has an extensive infrastructure. All of it from the wellhead to the pump provided and maintained by private industry.
The renewable industry relies on existing public infrastructure, and needs that infrastructure expanded at public expense. Until they can show the ‘pay back’, you’ll have what we see now with cancelled projects and shrinking demand. Yes, I believe there’s a place for renewables. How much penetration, how quickly and at what cost are (must be) the limiting factors.
Germany’s suicidal move to “green” energy is the real problem here.
i>A key element of the new industrial strategy is a heavily subsidized electricity price for certain industries that are suffering disproportionately from rising energy prices in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Germany’s roughly two decades of outstanding economic success had been firmly rooted in cheap Russian energy that companies here turned into goods with a competitive advantage on world markets. Germany was the so-called export champion of the world for many years, and products “Made in Germany” became global hallmarks of quality.
Without cheap Russian gas, industrial companies now have to rely on supplies of more expensive liquefied natural gas (LNG).
As a result, German electricity prices surged to become the highest in the world due to the expensive reliance on gas for power production.
A chemical plant in Frankfurt, Germany
https://www.dw.com/en/german-industry-can-the-backbone-of-the-economy-be-saved/a-67271427
I keep reading about how much unreliable renewable energy the EU has installed, but coal, natural gas, and nuclear make up a huge part of electricity generation. Seems like there is still a lot of hype about this.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1413130/eu-monthly-electricity-generation-by-source/
The Chicago EV experience.
Once their car is finally plugged in, it takes longer than usual to power up. “You have to come up here, wait two hours to get into the charger. They tell you it’s fast, but then it takes two hours to charge your car,” Marcus Campbell tells NBC Chicago.
“I’ve never seen it like this before,” says one driver on TikTok as she scrolls through her Tesla app, which shows 20- to 30-minute wait times at most Superchargers near her. “Don’t get a Tesla,” she says, unless you live in a warm climate.
…
Making matters worse, many manufacturers are switching to a different type of battery in their entry-level models, known as an LFP battery. Though cheaper, they have a lower energy density, making them even more susceptible to the cold. Tesla, Rivian, and Ford use them in the base model of the Model 3, R1S/R1T, and Mustang Mach-E.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/dont-buy-a-tesla-chicagos-ev-drivers-struggle-with-sub-zero-temperatures
I doubt there is a direct link between energy density and a susceptibility to cold.
“The ICE has an extensive infrastructure. All of it from the wellhead to the pump provided and maintained by private industry.”
–
What is the cost and what is the inflation when ICE is abandoned? The rich have they assets secured, the poor have some small accounts in bank – the savings for the worse.
–
The poors are those who subsidize the renewables implementation in the first place, because it is their money which get inflated!
The poors are those who subsidize the renewables implementation in the first place, because it is their money which get devalueted!
2023 analysis …
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/
A well researched analysis. They took the time to try and distinguish between trends and variability as they did with the linkage between N. Atlantic marine heat wave and Sahara dust. A lot of unusual events had to synchronize to push up the global temperatures. Odds are that won’t happen this year with a waning El Niño.
I can’t help but wonder if “climate action” brought the EU to this point?
Populist “anti-European” parties are heading for big gains in June’s European elections that could shift the parliament’s balance sharply to the right and jeopardise key pillars of the EU’s agenda including climate action, polling suggests.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/24/anti-european-populists-on-track-for-big-gains-in-eu-elections-says-report
The government continues to meddle in the energy market. Now they may derail the one energy source most responsible for reduction of CO2.
The Biden administration is set to unveil plans within days for intensifying environmental scrutiny of applications to export natural gas, potentially stalling massive planned projects for months, if not longer.
…
A halt in approvals or other significant changes to Energy Department reviews of plans to widely export liquefied natural gas threaten to disrupt development of huge LNG terminals along the Gulf Coast and elsewhere. That includes Venture Global LNG Inc.’s massive proposed CP2 export terminal that has drawn fierce opposition from environmentalists, as well as Commonwealth LNG’s project, both in Louisiana.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-24/biden-lng-export-plan-spurs-natural-gas-lobbying-blitz
AI came along at an inopportune time for Climate Doomers. Here is a partial CD wish list:
1. All homes and businesses powered by electricity.
2. All vehicles electric.
3. All electricity from wind and solar.
4. All transportation electric or non-existent hydrogen.
So now AI needs so much power that coal plant are being retained.
This is how it is in much of the US, where electric utilities and regulators have been caught off guard by the biggest jump in demand in a generation. One of the things they didn’t properly plan for is AI, an immensely power-hungry technology that uses specialized microchips to process mountains of data. Electricity consumption at US data centers alone is poised to triple from 2022 levels, to as much as 390 terawatt hours by the end of the decade, according to Boston Consulting Group. That’s equal to about 7.5% of the nation’s projected electricity demand. “We do need way more energy in the world than we thought we needed before,” Sam Altman, chief executive officer of OpenAI, whose ChatGPT tool has become a global phenomenon, said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last week. “We still don’t appreciate the energy needs of this technology.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-25/ai-needs-so-much-power-that-old-coal-plants-are-sticking-around
It could be worse. You could be in Ireland where foreign owned data centers already consume almost 25% of the grid’s power and they expect it to reach 32% by 2026. (In 2015 it was only 5%). Just wait till AR/VR starts to take off. It will take a huge amount of compute and megawatts of energy to support all those virtual devices too.
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/ireland-data-centres-electricity-consumption-demand-iea-grid
The Democrats continue to meddle in the energy market. They may derail the energy source that has prevented the most CO2 emissions.
The Biden administration is set to unveil plans within days for intensifying environmental scrutiny of applications to export natural gas, potentially stalling massive planned projects for months, if not longer.
…
A halt in approvals or other significant changes to Energy Department reviews of plans to widely export liquefied natural gas threaten to disrupt development of huge LNG terminals along the Gulf Coast and elsewhere. That includes Venture Global LNG Inc.’s massive proposed CP2 export terminal that has drawn fierce opposition from environmentalists, as well as Commonwealth LNG’s project, both in Louisiana.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-24/biden-lng-export-plan-spurs-natural-gas-lobbying-blitz
Nothing like a good ole old ICEV!
Electric vehicles, despite having fewer parts than those with traditional internal combustion engines, take more than 20 days to repair on average, 40% longer than non-EVs, according to CCC Intelligent Solutions. The risk of fire spurs many manufacturers to require that an EV’s massive lithium-ion battery be drained and disconnected before a repair. If welding or a trip through a hot paint bay is required, then the battery has to be removed entirely.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-25/here-s-why-your-car-insurance-bill-has-never-been-more-expensive
I think the plunge in BEV sales is ricocheting over to the residential solar market too. Back in 2022 a large percentage of people considering a BEV were planning on adding solar to their homes. Now with slowing BEV sales combined with higher interest rates and new less generous net metering the residential renewable energy market has tanked. All that synthetic capital (tax credits) looses its effectiveness when interest rates went up. Some utility scale projects have lost 20% of their ROI due to those higher interest rates.
1.24.2024 Mann claims he had significant drop in grants after the “defamation”.
1.25.2024 On cross examination – Simberg’s attorney points out the multiple interrogatory answers where Mann states that any information associated with grants, etc is not relevant to any claim or defense in the case. Quite of bid of backtracking by Mann. He knows he has been caught
1.24.2024 Mann orally testified that he had lost grants post defamation post.
1.25.2024 on cross, attorney points out he did not provide any information to jury , she points out the Mann has not provided any witnesses – Ie had not provided any back up support for his claims. He responses show he knows he has been caught.
To be fair he claims that he and his attorneys were confused by the question in the interrogatory. Though the question was specifically asking if any “other” parties had defamed him he claims to have been confused and thought they were referring to Simberg and Steyn, the defendants on the case.
Mann was also confused on whether he was a Nobel Prize winner or not.
Ron – being confused by an interrogatory is dubious since you have 2-3 weeks to develop a full understanding of the question and draft a coherent response. Unlike needing to think quickly during cross.
I get the feeling that some are hoping that an old defamation case will somehow disprove ACC. Good luck with that – such disproof has to come from science itself (and it hasn’t), not a court of law.
I know I don’t believe that.
BA, yes so the MBH hockey stick presented in the 2001 WMO and IPCC Third Assessment Report jacket cover shows a 1000-year time series fusion of several types of data. Those include sediments that show virtually no trend but are downweighted, due to being assumed to be poor proxies, thus they have little affect on the chart. Then you have different tree ring studies that have only several out of dozens that track with the instrumental trend in the early 20th century. Because they did they were deemed “reliable” though this is poor scientific reasoning because they were selected out of a larger group that was unreliable, (cherry picked). These “reliable” studies were rewarded with 32X the weight of the most unreliable, according to McIntrye and Mckitrick. These included the infamous Gaspe’, North American bristlecone pines and foxtail pines. Again, according to M&M the hockey stick collapses without these key proxies. Remember, MBH did not publish their data or code. This was all found by dedicated “harassment” over many years of FOI requests and lobbying to journals. Anyone is free to correct my understanding of the above or elaborate.
Whatever. It is good for science, in that many higher-level journals now support links for supplementary information/data. (better access for the statistical assassins ;-)
Those “assassins” as you put it actually tried to reproduce the results. Part of the scientific method is to reproduce the results. Something apparently not done by the pal reviewers. :)
The results have been reproduced many times by now – that’s the science, what’s left is a sandbox fight.
You are speaking of other attempts to ascertain global temperature. Not the topic here. Mann’s was wrong, no matter how you slice it.
Yes, that is how hypotheses are tested – by independent experiments. The much higher scrutiny given to paleo-reconstructions and use of satellite metrology has only improved our knowledge/understanding of the coupled systems.
What is this “hypothesis” you speak of in the attempts to reconstruct global temperature?
“statistical assassins” – be careful, Dr. Mann might sue you.
The one that says GMST has been quite stable with slow cooling since the Holocene optimum (about 0.2 C/thousand years. That was until addition of polyatomic molecules to the atmosphere became significant ~150 years ago, and has now grown to the point where temperature is increasing about 2 C/hundred years.
At this point it has been tested enough to be called a theory, not a hypothesis.
BAB – again, that hypothesis isn’t related to any attempted global temperature estimates.
On that note, could you share a link to the best, IYO, global temperature reconstruction?
“statistical assassins”
I think BA Bushaw (ganon1950) was referring to us.
By the way, do you prefer if we shorten it to Gannon, BA or go with the full handle?
BA, are you familiar with all of the purported deceptions that went into the hockey stick? Even if you watched my video links they did not touch on half of them. The actual statistical mis-steps are what took Biffa’s flat line reconstruction to Mann’s hockey stick.
Also, the “divergence problem,” (the decline that needed to be hidden), is not a statistical problem, it’s a falsification of hypothesis problem.
That theory has been used to make predictions of global temperature since 1896 … and they’ve been mostly “big picture” correct.
As for best reconstruction – what time period? I prefer the instrumental age, plenty to understand there with less uncertainty in the input data. I think paleoclimatic reconstructions are informative and useful, but do not make a good deflection from what has been happening over the last 100+ years.
Ron, you can refer to me as Bruce, (Mr./Dr) Bushaw, or ganon – I don’t really care.
Yes, I am familiar with purported deceptions and “data management errors” in Mann’s graph.
BA, do you understand the issue at hand is about the reconstruction of the last 1000 years of global mean surface temperature?
Dr. B – an accurate paleo temperature reconstruction is required in order to place the instrumental record in context. What, IYO, is the best paleo temp recon paper?
” BA, do you understand the issue at hand is about the reconstruction of the last 1000 years of global mean surface temperature?”
Yes.
Jim,
“Dr. B – an accurate paleo temperature reconstruction is required in order to place the instrumental record in context. What, IYO, is the best paleo temp recon paper?”
No, rather: An (overlapping) instrumental record is needed to place a paleo temperature reconstruction (accurate or not) in context.
Like I said before, what time scale? For general purpose (I have no idea if it is “the best”), I’d go with:
https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-history-uncovered-puts-current-changes-in-context/
And references therein, because of the multiple time scales covered, and worldwide proxies.
ganon
It’s not that hard to get the T since 1900 just accepting coming out of the LIA, being in the warm phase of AMO, a little bit of UHI effect and this in 2.2.1 IPCC6.
“ A new reconstruction of solar irradiance extends back 9 kyr based upon updated cosmogenic isotope datasets and improved models for production and deposition of cosmogenic nuclides (Poluianov et al., 2016), and shows that solar activity during the second half of the 20th century was in the upper decile of the range.”
Add in a pinch of CO2 with the uncertainty of pre 1900 because of 12% SH coverage, and you are almost home.
Solar activity in the top 10% in the last 9,000 years ought to get at least a nod. But IPCC once again shirks its responsibility and blows it off….as expected.
The IPCC6 quote is also in Javier’s book. Which reminds me, have you taken out a loan to buy his book?
Kid,
I already own his second book.
I missed. BA, my comment that belongs here is https://judithcurry.com/2023/12/31/2023-2024/#comment-999839
I’ll check it out.
Dr. B – Thanks for the paper. It indicates the temperature was much higher in the past. Also, the CENOGRID data has a resolution of 2000 years, so it won’t be a reliable indicator of temperatures on time scales shorter than that.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Denis-Didier-Rousseau/publication/369366751_41598_2023_30592_MOESM1_ESMpdf/data/6417538c66f8522c38ba9aff/41598-2023-30592-MOESM1-ESM.pdf
You’re welcome. I don’t think the CENOGRID data are the only proxies used in the reconstruction. And since you wouldn’t specify what time period you were interested, I’ll take your objections as weak and uninteresting.
It’s an observation, not an objection.
OK, so it’s a observation. CENOGRID data has time resolution of about 0.003%. Still a weak (already known) and uninteresting observation.
The point is, DR. B. is that the actual annual temperature swings might be far greater than those indicated by the CENOGRID data. This ain’t rocket surgery.
Jim,
You asked for my opinion on a “best” global paleo temperature reconstruction. I asked you to be specific about time frame, you didn’t answer that, so I gave you my “general purpose” choice and reasons why. If you don’t like my choice, I’d be glad to hear about better data sets and analysis, if you have any. Otherwise, you are just pointing out known limitations.
How about you describe any kind of event in the last 10,000 years (where we have sub-decadal resolution) that is in any way similar to what has been happening for the last 100+ years. I.e., don’t try to dismiss what is happening now as something that has happened before (we just must have missed them).
Dr. B. You seem to be hallucinating statemenst that I haven’t made, then arguing about them.
Jim,
“What, IYO, is the best paleo temp recon paper?”
Is that not your query? It is pretty clear who is hallucinating and playing out an agenda.
Do you have recommendations for better paleo reconstructions?
Dr. B, I am interested in the what is the best reconstruction like most here but the MBH hockey stick question is whether scientific practices were abandoned in favor of political.
Did you ever watch Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth? If not I am sure your children and nieces and nephews have in school. It’s the move that gave Al and the IPCC the Nobel Prize that Mann proudly claims. Do you admit that the movie misinformed a generation of school children and probably is still misinforming them on the evidence for AGW?
For example do you think school kids or anyone watching that film knows that MBH98/99 only dealt with the northern hemisphere? What is your guess on whether paleoclimatology favors the idea that the northern and southern hemispheres act in sync?
Ron Graf wrote:
Dr. B, I am interested in the what is the best reconstruction like most here but the MBH hockey stick question is whether scientific practices were abandoned in favor of political.
Explain why the hockey stick isn’t the expected result based on simple physics.
David Appell, I think you gave the answer – “simple” physics. That lends itself to a political tool…
J Anderton commented:
“David Appell, I think you gave the answer – “simple” physics. That lends itself to a political tool…”
Prove my logic wrong.
I didn’t think you could prove my logic wrong. Thanks.
We need to elect a President who does not meddle in the energy markets. He is just going to make the LNG business move elsewhere, and accomplish ZERO.
WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden on Friday paused approvals for pending and future applications to export liquefied natural gas from new projects, a move cheered by climate activists that could delay decisions on new plants until after the Nov. 5 election.
The Department of Energy (DOE) will conduct a review during the pause that will look at the economic and environmental impacts of projects seeking approval to export LNG to Europe and Asia where the fuel is in hot demand.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-pauses-approval-new-lng-export-projects-win-climate-activists-2024-01-26/
jim2 wrote:
We need to elect a President who does not meddle in the energy markets.
Why, when “markets” don’t account for negative externalities.
Biden is looking out for the future, and even today, when people are being affected by heat waves and sea level rise.
“Biden is looking out for the future, and even today, when people are being affected by heat waves and sea level rise.”
He is not looking out for anything but his moment at hand. The advisors are looking to wield control and to please the hand(s) that feed (money).
They are also throwing spit-balls hoping some will stick to stay in power.
The energy market itself will limit production if there is no demand. There will not be any demand to import LNG into, lets say, Europe, if their alternatives are producing enough juice to keep people warm in the harsh winter and meet manufacturing demands.
Other areas the administration has stated as “looking out for the future” might also include consideration of Europe’s support of Ukraine. Ensuring Europe does not have to look elsewhere (Russia) to import LNG to supplement the “green” stuff.
It appears you forget about winter? It is still around and continues to demonstrate short comings of so-called “green” energy.
It’s an imperfect world in many ways, but there is usually a “best path” to take. I’m pretty sure an accounting of externalities, POSITIVE as well as negative, would show everyone is better off with fossil fuels.
The Climate Doomers make pronouncement like High Priests. They have no credible proof the hockey stick is correct and can’t even prove the costs of fossil fuels outweigh the benefits. It’s all just huffery puffery.
Another wind project gets blown over.
Orsted A/S withdrew from an agreement with regulators in the US state of Maryland to sell electricity from a big offshore wind farm it plans to build in the Atlantic Ocean.
It’s the latest step for the Danish firm to reconfigure a portfolio of American projects after soaring costs forced it to take billions of dollars of writedowns last year. Orsted’s executives intend to update investors Feb. 7 on how they’ll reset the company after the setbacks.
The prices set in the power contract for the Skipjack Wind project were no longer viable because of inflation, high interest rates and supply-chain problems, the Danish company said
late Thursday. Orsted will still move forward with the almost 1 gigawatt project.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-25/orsted-orsted-withdraws-from-power-contract-for-maryland-offshore-wind-farm
A cooling trend in summer (May–August) daytime temperatures since the mid-twentieth century over the central United States contrasts with strong warming of the western and eastern United States. Prior studies based on data through 1999 suggested that this so-called warming hole arose mainly from internal climate variability and thus would likely disappear. Yet it has prevailed for two more decades, despite accelerating global warming, compelling reexamination of causes that in addition to natural variability could include anthropogenic aerosol–induced cooling, hydrologic cycle intensification by greenhouse gas increases, and land use change impacts. Here we present evidence for the critical importance of hydrologic cycle change resulting from ocean–atmosphere drivers. Observational analysis reveals that the warming hole’s persistence is consistent with unusually high summertime rainfall over the region during the first decades of the twenty-first century. Comparative analysis of large ensembles from four different climate models demonstrates that rainfall trends since the mid-twentieth century as large as observed can arise (although with low probability) via internal atmospheric variability alone, which induce warming-hole-like patterns over the central United States. In addition, atmosphere-only model experiments reveal that observed sea surface temperature changes since the mid-twentieth century have also favored central U.S cool/wet conditions during the early twenty-first century. We argue that this latter effect is symptomatic of external radiative forcing influences, which, via constraints on ocean warming patterns, have likewise contributed to persistence of the U.S. warming hole in roughly equal proportion to contributions by internal variability. These results have important ramifications for attribution of extreme events and predicting risks of record-breaking heat waves in the region.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/36/20/JCLI-D-22-0716.1.xml
Eventually, it will dawn on the Climate Doomers that the trillions per year needed for their Unicorn Green Dream don’t exist.
Germany’s plans to build new hydrogen-ready gas power stations remain stalled for now as a top government meeting ended without a decision.
Negotiations will continue this week as Europe’s top economy — which switched off its remaining nuclear power plants last year — continues to phase out coal and is looking at new gas power plants to fill a massive power gap. An agreement is expected “soon,” a government spokesperson said on Wednesday, without giving any details.
The government is aiming for around 40 to 50 new power plants — 8.8 gigawatts for hydrogen and 15 gigawatts to initially run on natural gas before they can be connected to the hydrogen grid by 2035. That’s because renewables like wind and solar power are not available around the clock and the nation needs reliable back-up capacity.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-24/germany-s-expansion-plan-for-gas-power-plants-still-in-limbo
In the meantime, this will be the ultimate “solution” to phasing out fossil fuels.
The European Union is stepping up efforts to roll out small modular nuclear reactors in the next decade as it seeks to tap atomic power to help meet net-zero targets.
The European Commission is due to unveil its European Industrial Alliance on SMRs next month to encourage collaboration in a sector that has yet to get off the ground, according to a draft declaration seen by Bloomberg News. The technology can make a “key contribution” to the bloc’s new target to cut emissions 90% by 2040, which is set to be adopted on Feb. 6.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-25/eu-backs-efforts-to-kickstart-rollout-of-mini-nuclear-plants
Some people think Biden shut down the LNG projects in Texas due to Texas’ action to stop illegal immigration at its border.
EV Hell. Or, The Joys of an Analog Auto.
Our Blazer EV hasn’t been immune to these issues, even before we drove it home. On our way to the local dealership where we purchased our Blazer EV, we got a call telling us that we couldn’t pick it up until a technician from GM performed a software update. Once we got the car, several drivers reported that the center display screen and the gauge cluster behind the steering wheel would flicker and become unusable. Sometimes the radio turned on and off when the vehicle was parked and turned off in our garage. In addition, our mechanics found the carpet and padding beneath the pedals wasn’t installed correctly, and the rear seat belt buckles were hidden beneath the rear seat—we suspect most owners would have had to return to the dealership to address those issues. We intend to stay on top of any future software updates.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/2024-chevrolet-blazer-ev-review-a1328332871/
First time commenter here. I’ve seen Ms Curry on a few YouTube interviews most recently a National Association of Scholars video where she mentioned this blog.
I have a question for the forum. There’s one aspect of the so-called “climate crisis” that I don’t understand. Why is it that under both Democratic and Republican administrations the climate skeptics continue to be sidelined?
I can understand how this would happen under Democratic administrations because they use the issue as a political tool to gin up support. But when Republican administrations have been in power (George W. Bush, Donald Trump) why haven’t the skeptical scientists been given funding for their research and their voices elevated so that the public is aware that the science on the issue isn’t settled at all?
An excellent question. Why are both The New York Times and the Washington Post so pro-Democrat and anti-Republican at all times? Why are 90% of university professors supporting Democrats? Why are Democrats supporting Hamas?
I take it that most of the funding for scientific research comes from the National Science Foundation (NSF). So is the problem that the NSF is controlled by leftist administrators who are so completely bought into the “climate crisis” that they refuse to fund anything that goes against the narrative? But then why didn’t the Bush or Trump administrations change the leadership at the NSF when they were in the office?
I’d like to understand this aspect of the issue better so that I can explain it better when I discuss climate change with other people.
The danger is these Democrats change their stripes for the election, then, when elected, revert to the Climate Doomer agenda.
Vulnerable Democrats in swing states are increasingly sounding the alarm about Biden environmental policies that risk turning off cost-conscious moderate voters they need to win at the ballot box.
The warnings pose an election year challenge for US President Joe Biden, whose plans to slash power plant pollution, boost electric vehicle sales and pause natural gas exports are popular with climate activists
— but politically poisonous for some congressional Democrats.
The latest sign of pushback comes as a dozen Democrats — including Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jon Tester of Montana — plead with the Biden administration to dial back a planned regulation limiting greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s power plants.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-29/vulnerable-democrats-oppose-biden-climate-plans-on-evs-power-plants
Beware the Clarion Call of the Climate Doomer Green Unicorn! It’s snake oil, folks.
Mary Ann Jones, 83, didn’t realize this had happened to her until she received a call last year from GoodLeap, a financial technology company, saying she owed $52,564.28 for a solar panel loan that expires when she’s 106, and costs more than she originally paid for her house.
In 2022, she says, a door-to-door salesman from the company Solgen Construction showed up at her house on the outskirts of Fresno, Calif., pushing what he claimed was a government program affiliated with her utility to get her free solar panels. At one point, he had her touch his tablet device, she says, but he never said she was signing a contract with Solgen or a loan document with GoodLeap. Unbeknownst to Jones, the salesman used “yoursolarguyujosh@gmail.com” as her purported email address—that of course, was not her email address. She’s on a fixed income of $960 a month, and cannot afford the loan she says she was tricked into signing up for; she’s now fighting both Solgen and Goodleap in court.
Her case is not uncommon. Solar customers across the country say that salespeople obscure the specific terms of the financial agreements and cloud the value of the products they peddle. Related court cases are starting to pile up. “I have been practicing consumer law for over a decade, and I’ve never seen anything like what we are seeing in the solar industry right now,” says Kristin Kemnitzer, who represents Jones and says her firm gets “multiple” calls every week from potential clients with similar stories.
https://time.com/6565415/rooftop-solar-industry-collapse/
And here’s the billionaire that got rich off government solar programs …
Hayes Barnard is cofounder and CEO of GoodLeap, which has helped finance $18 billion in loans to homeowners making climate-friendly home upgrades.
https://www.forbes.com/profile/hayes-barnard/?sh=546d1b292b28
jim2,
Most leased residential solar is a scam. Last time I checked (2022) residential solar breaks down into 4 groups. 27% cash, 23% Home equity loan, 25% bank loan+% down payment and 25% solar lease. The rise in interest rates crushed the economics of leased and financed solar.
In the sunny state of Texas I estimate only 15%-20% of all homes would save money by going solar and that is if they go all cash and plan to keep the original equipment for 20 years. Solar done right can pay for itself but you actually save more money by upgrading your home to be more energy efficient before adding solar.
Without dirt cheap batteries or the mass rollout of bi-directional EVs I think home solar is a tough sell.
Sort of related. The new “EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra” battery looks like a great addition for a new solar owner.
More on this here:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/01/28/1724216/could-americas-rooftop-solar-industry-be-on-the-verge-of-collapse
New type of flow battery.
With the basic science problem resolved, Katsoudas adds, Influit is now developing a battery with an energy density rated at 550 to 850 watt-hours per kilogram or higher, as compared to 200 to 350 Wh/kg for a standard EV lithium-ion battery. The company expects larger versions would also beat old-style flow batteries at backing up the grid because the nanoelectrofuel can be reused at least as many times as a flow battery—10,000 or more cycles—and it will probably be cheaper.
The fuel would be created as needed, he says, eventually at such a scale as to replace fossil fuels. The fuel could be transported to depots much as gasoline is today, either by tanker trucks or via existing upgraded pipelines. At the depot, the spent fuel could be recharged with electricity from any source—solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, or fossil fuels. The recharging could also be done at a service station or in the EV itself. In the latter case, the recharging would work just as it does for today’s battery electric vehicles.
What if there were a tanker crash or a pipeline rupture?
“The NEF turns into a pastelike substance, which you then sweep up,” Katsoudas explains. If you don’t want to wait for it to dry, he adds, you can add more water to reduce the acidity, “then you just shop-vac it up.”
https://spectrum.ieee.org/flow-battery-2666672335
I wonder how this flow battery would hold up in the latest cold snap in the Northern states?
This article asserts ESG has been politicized and that has caused ESG funds to perform poorly. But the truth is, ESG was NOT a product of the free market. ESG was a political entity from the beginning.
Last year, conventional green stocks were mostly a losing bet, with the S&P Global Clean Energy Index falling more than 20%. The index is down an additional 10% so far this year.
Investors redeemed roughly $13 billion from US-based ESG funds in 2023, the Morningstar data show. And even though flows into European ESG funds continued, it wasn’t enough to offset the declines in the US. In all, global net outflows totaled $2.5 billion in the fourth quarter, marking an all-time low for the ESG fund industry.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-29/goldman-jpmorgan-weigh-in-as-esg-fund-flows-hit-historic-low
In the meantime, demand for easy on-line shopping is driving a major carbon intensive delivery industry. That industry is having a hard time swearing off fossil fuels.
Although there are signs of progress — DHL and Amazon have blown past competitors to deploy the most electric delivery trucks in Europe and the US, respectively — delivery companies have scaled back many climate pledges and the industry isn’t keeping pace with climbing emissions from the global surge in deliveries.
Amazon eliminated its 2030 goal and is instead promising to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040. UPS scotched its 2025 emissions-reduction pledge. And FedEx’s emissions continue to rise as its EV deployments trail many of its competitors.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-30/amazon-fedex-and-ups-struggle-to-meet-climate-goals-as-deliveries-surge
In the meantime, people with skin in the game are more clear minded than the typical Climate Doomer. They realize Unicorn Dreams don’t come true overnight.
Demand for oil is still there and it would be “irrational and insane” not to adjust and adapt the strategy to reflect the true pace of the world’s shift to low-carbon energy, Giuseppe Bivona, partner and chief investment officer at the hedge fund, said in an interview with Bloomberg television on Tuesday.
BP’s new Chief Executive Officer Murray Auchincloss has an opportunity to shift the strategy, Bivona said, adding that he hasn’t asked the company to completely halt clean energy investment. He declined to comment on the size of the Bluebell’s stake in BP, but said it represents a big position for the fund.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-30/bp-is-wrong-to-set-oil-output-reduction-target-activist-investor-bluebell-says
I think we are getting close to hitting the wall of reality. The more trillions Climate Doomers want to spend, the more resistant the sane people in the world will become.
China is behind the US on “green” spending at $500/capita vs $900/capita in the US.
Total spending surged 17% last year to $1.8 trillion, according to a report Tuesday from BloombergNEF. These include investments to install renewable energy, buy electric vehicles, build hydrogen production systems and deploy other technologies. Add in the investments in building out clean-energy supply chains, as well as $900 billion in financing, and the total funding in 2023 reached about $2.8 trillion.
…
“The opportunity is large and spending is accelerating, but we need to do so much more,” Albert Cheung, BNEF’s deputy chief executive officer, said. Total spending on the energy transition last year was well short of the more than $4.8 trillion that the London-based research provider estimated will be needed annually from 2024 to 2030 to get the world on a net-zero pathway.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-30/china-leads-global-clean-energy-spending-which-record-1-8-trillion-in-2023
The Biden administration’s meddling in the energy market is in the process of losing business and, therefore, jobs in the US.
Following Biden’s announcement, buyers in Asian nations that import LNG — particularly China and Japan — are reviewing options, including new talks with already-licensed projects in the US or suppliers from other nations, Bloomberg has reported.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-30/canada-energy-minister-sees-opportunity-in-us-pause-on-lng
Texas regulators on Tuesday formally asked the state’s attorney general to challenge the Biden Administration’s rule that seeks to lower emissions from the oil and gas sector.
The Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees the state’s massive oil and gas industry and has nothing to do with railroads, voted to ask Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue the federal government over the rule issued in December by the US Environmental Protection Agency after hearing public commentary
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-30/texas-oil-regulators-ask-state-to-sue-epa-over-methane-rule
EV sales are tanking!
EV Maker Stocks That Were Adding Billions Face Bleak Future
Week of bad news confirms how far EV stocks have fallen
Renault pulled Ampere IPO citing equity market conditions
…
A torrent of bad news for the sector this week confirms how far it has fallen in just a few years. First Renault SA scrapped an initial public offering of its EV and software arm Ampere citing valuation concerns. Then, Bloomberg reported Volkswagen AG has put efforts to seek outside investors for its PowerCo battery unit on the back burner.
…
Now analysts are slashing their earnings forecasts for the EV sector as sales growth slows.
…
EV shares have now tumbled from their peaks, with Lucid Group Inc. and XPeng Inc. losing more than 80%. The Ampere offering was expected to be one of the biggest this year in Europe, with Renault Chief Executive Officer Luca de Meo seeking a valuation of as much as €10 billion ($10.8 billion) for the business — almost on par with Renault’s market value.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-30/ev-stocks-were-worth-100-billion-now-they-face-a-bleak-future
This probably has something to do with the Chinese economy tanking. Last I looked their market was down 40%. China sells about 59% of all EVs
It’s affecting the EU and the US also. (per the article)
I understand, but China’s 59% EV sales figure is global. I know that the EU is a major market for China’s EVs, but I can’t discriminate any further detail beyond this. It’s an interesting stat.
Simply a guess, but I’m wondering if China’s lower end EV price point simply captured the price sensitive EV enthusiast, this market demographic is saturated?
Good questions. It might be interesting to ask CoPilot on Bing and see what it comes up with. It will give references so if nothing else, it is a place to start.
Also, once you start a conversation with CoPilot, or other LLM AIs, it retains context. So you can continue with questions and constraints to get more targeted information.
If a planet (EARTH) was a perfect uniform surface content spherical object. But it is not.
–
The Northern Hemisphere is crouded with land, and the Southern Hemisphere is mostly ocean.
So the two hemispheres have a very different respond when interacting with incoming the Solar EM energy.
–
There is Earth’s axial tilt. Earth’s axis is pointed to the star Polaris.
Thus Earth has big differences on its surface interaction process with solar energy during Earth’s yearly orbit around the sun.
–
It is not an exageration to say, that the Earth’s Hemispherical yearly seasons are the orbitally forced on the shortest time-scale (one year) the two orbitally forced “climate changes” – the warming
period and the cooling period. Both they are consisting a yearly cycle.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The EU continues to shoot itself in the economic head.
A dozen glistening storage tanks on a windswept island in the North Sea are one of the few visible signs of a costly experiment aimed at making a tiny fraction of Europe’s industrial pollution disappear.
Part of a $2.6 billion network, the facility on Norway’s Blomoyna is set to pump climate-warming carbon dioxide from manufacturing sites in the Netherlands and elsewhere into an untouched saline aquifer deep below the seabed.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-01-31/norway-s-carbon-capture-scheme-boosted-by-germany-s-change-of-heart
Africa CDC is blaming “climate change” for a recent outbreak of cholera. Of course, citing this as the cause will open an avenue to steal money from other countries’ citizens.
The proposed rules for gas stoves will disproportionately affect restaurants, a business that already has low margins. They are the ones that use the higher BTU stoves. The Climate Doomers like to say it will affect only 3% of stoves, but those will be the ones in restaurants. Get ready for even higher meal prices and for some restaurants to go out of business entirely. Id EEEE OTS!!!
This article attempts to pin more cost on “climate change” when the actual problem is the government. The government got into the insurance business. And that’s the problem.
FEMA needs to be transitioned to an agency that helps the poor move to safer ground when their property is badly damaged by floods or hurricanes. And there would also have to be a rule that anyone who chooses to build near the coast or a flood zone is on their own to pay for whatever damages occur.
The US is hurtling to a near-certain government shutdown beginning Oct. 1 as Congress remains divided over spending levels and border and asylum policies. That could put further strain on FEMA.
FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell recently testified that she has instituted an “immediate needs funding” mandate, which limits spending — this means funding for ongoing recovery and aid for previous disasters may be cut off as funds are routed to emergencies.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-fema-disaster-relief-fund-extreme-weather-climate-aid
jim2 wrote:
This article attempts to pin more cost on “climate change” when the actual problem is the government. The government got into the insurance business.
That’s because affluent people who live along vulnerable coastlines and in the path of other climate change dangers insist on it. The government, viz taxpayers, will be paying an enormous amount to bail out coastal homes when they can’t get insurance elsewhere, and when their homes are no longer inhabitable. In fact, the government is already doing this.
I bet people here would insist upon the same, were they impacted. No one is going to just kiss their house, a major asset, goodbye. “It wasn’t my fault!”
Keep your wallets open.
That’s right David. FEMA’s mission should be changed to helping the poor move from the coast out of the danger of hurricanes. Each gets a one-shot move, then no more. Anyone who buys are builds on the coast is on their own.
Wind power will be more expensive than we thought!
In retrospect, that conflagration appears to have nurtured the seeds of the industry’s renewal. The UK in November lifted the price ceiling on offshore auctions by 66%. A month later, Orsted announced it would go ahead with its Hornsea 3 project, taking advantage of the new rules. The 2.9 gigawatt offshore farm will be the world’s largest when completed in 2027, and was widely predicted to have been on the verge of cancellation.
Far from collapsing, the offshore market seems to be resetting at prices that better reflect developers’ costs — exactly what the industry was lobbying for. At an auction last week, New Jersey issued licenses totaling 3.7 gigawatts at a price 23% higher than the previous record, according to estimates
by BloombergNEF analyst Atin Jain.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-30/wind-power-takes-a-leaf-out-of-big-oil-s-book-in-pursuit-of-net-zero
Stellantis NV’s Carlos Tavares is gearing up for an era of auto-industry consolidation, predicting the rush to offer more affordable electric vehicles will end in a “bloodbath.” He’s paid particularly close attention to one company he perceives as vulnerable: Renault SA.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-31/dealmaking-stellantis-ceo-is-ready-to-seize-on-renault-s-setback
Wind farm scams … costing us more and more every day that goes by …
Dozens of British wind farms run by some of Europe’s largest energy companies have routinely overestimated how much power they’ll produce, adding millions of pounds a year to consumers’ electricity bills, according to market records and interviews with power traders.
These extra costs are linked to a growing problem with Britain’s outdated electricity network: On blustery days, too much wind power risks overloading the system, and the grid operator must respond by paying some firms not to generate. This “curtailment” costs consumers hundreds of millions of pounds each year.
Adding to that expense, some wind farm operators exaggerate how much energy they say they intend to produce, which boosts the payments they receive for turning off, according to nine people — traders, academics and market experts — most of whom agreed to discuss this controversial behavior only on condition of anonymity.
In effect, they said, the grid has paid some wind farms not to generate power that they wouldn’t have produced anyway.
Bloomberg News analyzed 30 million records from 2018 through June 2023 to compare wind operators’ daily forecasts of the energy they planned to generate to their actual production when they weren’t curtailed. Out of 121 wind farms in the analysis, 40 overstated their output by 10% or more on average, and 27 of those overestimated by at least 20%
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-uk-wind-farms-overstate-output
Volvo, An Early Electric Car Adopter, Cuts Off Funding For Its EV Affiliate
Move follows other retrenchments by big automakers as sentiment turns against EVs
https://www.wsj.com/business/earnings/volvo-car-evaluating-potential-reduction-of-shareholding-in-polestar-85e29826
President Joe Biden’s move to pause liquefied natural gas export approvals won praise from progressives and climate activists – but some moderate Democrats from gas producing states are saying not so fast.
A group of 10 Democratic House lawmakers from states including Texas, Alaska and California sent a letter to Biden asking him to “refocus” his policies on LNG exports.
“The United States must continue to lead the way in ensuring the security of our own energy supplies and those of our allies,” the lawmakers, led by Texas Representative Marc Veasey, wrote in the letter made public Friday. “Every molecule of US LNG exported helps limit the growth of global emissions and provides energy security around the world.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-02/biden-s-lng-export-freeze-draws-fire-from-moderate-democrats
UK, one of the crash test dummies for unreliable electricity, is suffering the consequences of its rush over the green energy cliff.
An auction to ensure the UK has sufficient back-up power is poised to attract record prices, which could bolster the nation’s reliance on natural gas just as it’s trying to decarbonize.
Britain’s grid operator on Feb. 27 is set to begin its auction to procure generating capacity for delivery in 2027-28. Clearing prices
— the amount that producers require to be available — could be as high as £68 per kilowatt, according to commodity research firm ICIS.
The supply balance forecast for 2027-2028 looks “especially tight,” analyst Robert Jackson-Stroud said by email. “There will be a need to secure gas peaking plants for sure.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-05/uk-power-auction-set-to-draw-record-prices-for-tight-market
This additional cost should be accounted for in the LCOE calculations for “green” energy sources like wind and solar.
More EV news …
An Abrupt Swing in Sentiment
A clear pattern has emerged a couple weeks into this quarterly earnings season: Electric-vehicle leaders are taking it on the chin, while those lagging behind are rewarded for cutting their losses.
Tesla got the industry off to an inauspicious start last week by warning of a “notably lower” rate of sales growth this year. The stock plunged 12% the next day, costing the company $80.1 billion in market capitalization.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-02-02/ev-slowdown-turns-the-table-for-leaders-and-laggards
Naturally, the shortage of supply of “green” jet fuel will eventually require more taxpayer money, of course. But in the meantime, it’s such a dumb idea. Why?
Another key challenge will be bringing down the cost of SAF, according to Van Passel, who said the lower-carbon fuels are two to three times more expensive than conventional jet fuel.
“Given the magnitude of the cost, it would drive any airline into losses within a matter of months,” he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-31/cathay-pacific-sustainable-aviation-fuel-supply-crunch-endangers-climate-plan
While the US looks for more ways to shoot it’s economy in the head, China is burning coal to beat the band. We in the US are really stoop id to make our economy less efficient with the Climate Doomer “green” energy “solutions”.
China was home to the vast majority of the world’s new coal power plants last year as it sought to bolster energy security, even as many other governments push to phase out the fuel.
China accounted for 96% of new coal power construction, 81% of newly announced projects, and 68% of generators coming online, according to data released Tuesday by Global Energy Monitor. Beijing has massively expanded its world-leading coal fleet after a series of power shortages in 2021 and 2022.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-06/china-is-dominating-the-world-s-new-coal-power-plant-pipeline
Yep, the Chinese Comms are absolute geniuses running the economy. Smart guys, those.
From afar, China Evergrande Group had all the makings of a killer distressed-debt trade: $19 billion in defaulted offshore bonds; $242 billion in assets; and a government that appeared determined to prop up the country’s faltering property market. So US and European hedge funds piled into the debt, envisioning big payouts to juice their returns.
What they got instead over the course of the next two years is a harsh lesson in the dangers of trying to bargain with the Communist Party. The talks are now dead — a Hong Kong court has ordered Evergrande’s liquidation, and the bonds are nearly worthless, trading in secondary markets at just 1 cent on the dollar.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-08/a-99-bond-wipeout-hands-hedge-funds-a-harsh-lesson-on-china
A paper just published today finds models of the Antarctica continental shelf have a warm bias which could influence projections for sea level rise.
“ The warm bias on the continental shelf could impact the modeling of ice-ocean interactions in Antarctica.”
“ The presence of a warm bias in the ocean model can possibly result in an overestimation of thermal forcing and basal melt rates in the cavities.”
“ In several regions, large differences between high-resolution models are directly attributed to the use of poor bathymetry. In a few areas of high importance for sea level projections, the SOhi model results are more consistent with oceanographic surveys than the ISMIP6 reconstruction because SOhi uses improved bathymetry. Hence, both higher resolution and improved bathymetry are essential to provide a realistic reconstruction of the ocean state on the continental shelf and in front of ice shelves in Antarctica. Finally, we find that the models overestimate the sea ice cover, which could limit air-sea heat exchange. The pan-Antarctic overestimation of sea ice cover may be the root cause for the residual warm bias of the high-resolution models on the continental shelf and deserves future study”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL106377
This is exactly how science is supposed to work — hash it out in the scientific literature.
This US graph on the Palmer Drought Index looks like many tidal gauges without significant acceleration. Flat trend in spite of fastest warming rate in bazillions of years.
One would think that if we had unprecedented warming these kinds of graphs would show more of a signal.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGJecDTW0AAEGKE?format=jpg&name=large
You are missing a big piece of the picture.
https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/feb/04/groundwater-levels-are-falling-in-parts-of-california-and-food-growing-regions-worldwide/
“Examining 1,693 aquifers worldwide, they found that 36% of the aquifers declined significantly from 2000 to 2022 — at a median rate of at least 4 inches per year — while 6% of aquifers saw water levels rise at least that much, and others had relatively small changes.
They studied trends from 1980 to the present in 542 aquifers, for which they had long-term data, and found that declines have worsened or accelerated in 51% of those areas.”
While agriculture takes the majority of aquifer and surface water I would also note it takes billions of gallons of fresh water to frack for oil & gas which then has to be permanently sequestered miles underground because its so polluted.
Wind and solar don’t need water.
That would be due to humans using the water. Not a big warming signal, I think.
Jack
This document says irrigation is not included in the Index. Rather it’s a measurement of temperature and precipitation. But you make a good point about depleting aquifers. This is another area where humans are impacting the natural balance of the hydrological cycle. With millions of acres of wetlands and floodplains destroyed and hardened, flooding and cooling of our surface temperatures most likely have been affected.
Transfer of water storage to the oceans has been a subject of studies by Wada and others in its impact on GMSLR.
https://wwa.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/2021-09/IWCS_2007_July_feature.pdf
Jack – the pollution in the water used for the fracking would be almost entirely from the salt water in the formation and very little from the components added to the fracking water.
joe,
Fracked water is very polluted and not by just the ‘proprietary’ chemicals and brine. Many oil companies have programs to reuse fracking wastewater but with limited success. Farmers and ranchers won’t touch the stuff.
“The level of radiation in hydraulic fracturing wastewater has been measured to be as high as 18,035 pCi/L, thousands of times the maximum allowed by the federal standard for drinking water.”
A few years ago, Judith had prepared a major summary document on climate change. I used to see links to it everywhere. Now I can’t even find it here on Curry’s own blog.
1. Does anyone have the name of the document or a link?
2. Is there a reason it is no longer posted? Is it outdated? Did it make some points that are no longer supported?
3. Does anyone else have a document they would recommend as a concise (10-50 pg) summary of climate change?
Her email address is in the “About” section if you want to ask her more directly.
Pete EE,
Are you looking for the ground breaking research where Prof. Curry predicted we would be well into a cooling trend by now.
https://news.gatech.edu/news/2013/10/10/stadium-waves-could-explain-lull-global-warming
“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.
…
“While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability.”
She and her co-author Wyatt were marketing it as the “Stadium Wave” AKA wicked climate science.
jacksmith4tx wrote:
Are you looking for the ground breaking research where Prof. Curry predicted we would be well into a cooling trend by now.
https://news.gatech.edu/news/2013/10/10/stadium-waves-could-explain-lull-global-warming
Ouch.
Jack, cracks me up that the subtitle for the GT news article was:
“Newly-published research suggests that climate variability may be more predictable than previously assumed.”
If there weren’t enough problems in having consumers embrace EVs. Trade in value will always be part of the consideration for purchasing a new vehicle.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGRB5_cWUAAzfs-?format=png&name=large
Not always, some people keep their vehicles until they have very little trade-in value. E.g., 20 years/200k miles. If you are actually worried about the economics, that is also the way to get the most for your money.
Once the battery is degraded, it’s junk.
https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/how-long-should-an-electric-cars-battery-last. (200k)