Climate Change

The electric vehicle “market” in the US is a creature of the EPA 2009 Endangerment Finding, “unachievable” Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, extremely restrictive NOx emission standards, the California Zero Emission Vehicle mandate, federal subsidies for EV purchase, federal funding for EV fueling infrastructure, federal loan guarantees for the manufacture of EVs and EV batteries, federal incentives for the purchase of EV school buses, transit buses, fire emergency vehicles and medium and heavy duty trucks, etc. Essentially these programs were designed to end the market for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

This incentivized “market” led to the introduction of a broad range of electric vehicles by numerous manufacturers, including medium and heavy duty trucks, transit and school buses, fire trucks and trash compactors. US EV sales peaked in the 4th quarter of 2024 at an 8.7% market share, but declined to 7.5% in the 1st quarter of 2025.

Each of these vehicle types has been plagued with spontaneous battery fires which propagate rapidly, burn extremely hot, are prone to explosion and are very difficult to extinguish. EVs have also had difficulty charging in extremely cold weather and lose significant range in both hot and cold weather. California has also asked EV owners not to recharge their vehicles in the late afternoon and early evening when grid demand is high due to grid capacity constraints.

The Congress has voted to terminate the California EV mandate waiver, which would also terminate “copycat” waivers in several other states. The Administration intends to eliminate the current EV subsidy and terminate the public vehicle fueling infrastructure program. The Administration is also reviewing the loan guarantees issued by the DOE Loan Office for vehicle and battery production facilities.

Electric vehicles will likely continue to be produced by the current EV manufacturers, though the number of vehicles produced will likely decrease as the subsidies and incentives are terminated. Several marginal EV manufacturers will likely terminate production and sale of their vehicles and file bankruptcy petitions, which would not bode well for the availability of parts and service for their vehicles. Proterra, the largest US transit bus manufacturer, has filed bankruptcy but is continuing operations. Several transit operators report buses out of service because of replacement parts availability issues.

The industry had great hopes for major sales into the rental vehicle market. However, Hertz has discontinued purchase of EVs for their rental fleets and has sold off many of their EVs at very low prices because of lack of rental customer interest or rental customer concerns about vehicle range and fueling infrastructure.

The termination of state EV mandates and the reductions of federal purchase incentives and charging infrastructure support will likely continue to reduce EV market share and the variety of EVs available. The market will likely shift towards hybrid and plug hybrid vehicles.

There has been strong resistance to the mandates for heavy duty trucks because of their high cost and driving range issues. It appears likely that, without mandates, the heavy-duty EV truck market will not develop.

From: CFACT

By: CFACT Ed

Date: June 2025

EPA Releases Proposal to Rescind Obama-Era Endangerment Finding, Regulations that Paved the Way for Electric Vehicle Mandates

OFFICIAL EPA RELEASE

INDIANAPOLIS – At an auto dealership in Indiana, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin released the agency’s proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which has been used to justify over $1 trillion in regulations, including the Biden-Harris Administration’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate. If finalized, the proposal would repeal all resulting greenhouse gas emissions regulations for motor vehicles and engines, thereby reinstating consumer choice and giving Americans the ability to purchase a safe and affordable car for their family while decreasing the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver. Administrator Zeldin was joined by U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Indiana Governor Mike Braun, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, U.S. Representative Jim Baird (R-IN-04), Indiana Secretary of Energy and Natural Resources Suzanne Jaworowski, and the Indiana Motor Truck Association.

Since the 2009 Endangerment Finding was issued, many have stated that the American people and auto manufacturing have suffered from significant uncertainties and massive costs related to general regulations of greenhouse gases from vehicles and trucks. Finally, EPA is proposing to provide much needed certainty and regulatory relief, so companies can plan appropriately, and the American people can have affordable choices when deciding to buy a car.

“With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin. “In our work so far, many stakeholders have told me that the Obama and Biden EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year. We heard loud and clear the concern that EPA’s GHG emissions standards themselves, not carbon dioxide which the Finding never assessed independently, was the real threat to Americans’ livelihoods. If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families.” (continue reading)

EPA Releases Proposal to Rescind Obama-Era Endangerment Finding, Regulations that Paved the Way for Electric Vehicle Mandates

Recently a Dutch “white hat” hacker demonstrated that the Chinese solar collector systems installed in the UK could be interfered with remotely, either caused to cease functioning temporarily or potentially destroyed. Examination of system components determined that the Chinese manufacturers of the power inverters used to convert the DC output of solar and wind generation systems to AC had installed cellular radio addressable “kill switches” in their products.

Examination of renewable generation systems installed in the US including Chinese components revealed the presence of “kill switches” in the US systems as well. At the current penetration rate of Chinese renewable generation equipment in the US market, these “kill switches” represent a potentially expensive nuisance. However, as the renewable generation system share of electric generation increased and the US became more dependent on renewable generation and battery storage, these “kill switches” could become a significant national security risk.

The Trump Administration’s actions on numerous fronts will likely slow the adoption of renewable generation and battery storage in the US market and delay the potential security risk. This will also provide time for the existing systems to be examined and any “kill switches” removed. It is also likely that the Administration would ban the installation of Chinese renewable generation equipment or require a thorough inspection of all Chinese provided components to assure that there are no “kill switches” installed in any of the components.

US government agencies are prohibited from purchasing electronic equipment produced in China or containing components produced in China. The concern has not historically been for operational interference as much as for intelligence gathering, particularly of sensitive national defense intelligence. The recent supply chain interruptions and constraints have created serious issues for many US suppliers of electronic equipment since, in many cases, the only available source of certain essential electronic components was China.

The UK and the EU have expressed concerns regarding the potential installation of equipment used for spying in Chinese produced electric vehicles and have restricted access of these vehicles to military bases and other potentially sensitive locations. The extensive electronics installed in modern vehicles and the external sensors they support represent fertile opportunities to incorporate spying functionality.

China has made no secret of its continuing interest in and focus on global domination. It has used its “Belt and Road Initiative” to establish influence on and dependency of African nations with large deposits of rare earth minerals to expand their control over their supply. Its reliance on low-cost coal power generation, prison and slave labor has allowed it to undercut the prices of metals and cement in world markets, driving the production of these materials from Western nations, especially in the UK and the EU.

While the UK, EU, Canada and Australia have continued to pursue Net zero by 2050, China has continued to pursue additional coal generation capacity and increase its share of world markets at their expense. The Trump Administration has moved aggressively to reverse that trend in the US with significant success.

The US Middle Atlantic and Southeast states experienced five days in a heat dome from June 23-27, 2025. This extensive heat dome stressed the electric generation, transmission and distribution resources of the region, including those of the Pennsylvania / New Jersey / Maryland (PJM) Regional Transmission Operator (RTO), the largest ISO in the US. PJM issued an emergency declaration in anticipation of the effects of this heat dome on demand and consumption, requiring all generation resources to be available for full capacity operation throughout the period, as displayed on the PJM Live Dashboard.

The graphs below show the sources and magnitudes of the generation resources employed throughout the five days.

On Monday, June 23rd, demand peaked at approximately 160 GW, including 7.73 GW of solar and 4.52 GW of wind. Natural gas generation was adjusted to follow growing load from 44.32 to 72.93 GW. Hydro and oil generation were also increased to meet peak.

On Tuesday, June 24th, demand again peaked at approximately 160 GW, including 8.87 GW of solar and 1.22 GW of wind. Natural gas generation was adjusted to follow growing load from 49.7 GW to 74.38 GW. Hydro and oil generation were again increased to meet peak.

On Wednesday June 25th, demand again peaked at approximately 155 GW, including 9.15 GW of solar and 1.0 GW wind. Solar had peaked earlier at 10.85 GW. Wind peaked later at 1.79 GW. Natural gas generation was adjusted from 49.19 GW to 70.79 GW throughout the day. Hydro and oil generation were also increased.

On Thursday, June 26th, Peak demand decreased to approximately 147 GW, including 7.45 GW of solar and 1.6 GW of wind. Solar peaked earlier at 10.81 GW. Wind peaked later at 3.21 GW. Natural gas generation was adjusted from 46.9 GW to 64.73 GW to meet demand. Hydro and oil generation were also increased.

On Friday, June 27th, demand peaked at 130 GW, with solar at 7.02 GW and wind at 3.98 GW. Solar peaked earlier at 8.14 Natural gas generation was adjusted from 44.37 GW to 54.13 GW to meet demand. Hydro and oil generation were also increased.

Nuclear generation remained constant throughout the week at 32.71 GW. Coal generation varied from approximately 20 to 25 GW. The maximum renewable contribution did not exceed 11 GW during the week. Storage made no significant contribution, although PJM does have pumped hydro storage available.

The chart below summarizes the PJM experience through the heat dome, showing the contributions of the various generating sources through the period. Fortunately the heat dome began to dissipate after the first two days, providing some relief to the natural gas and oil generation resources.

The chart below summarizes the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) experience during the heat dome. MISO adjusted both coal and natural gas generation output to match demand. Wind made significant contributions on days one, three and four. MISO also took advantage of electricity imports from adjacent utilities on all five days, as well as undefined “other” resources.

The chart below summarizes Duke Energy (Carolinas) experience during the heat dome event. Duke adjusted both coal and natural gas generation to meet peak demand. Duke also relied on significant pumped storage on peak, as well as hydro. There was very limited solar contribution and no wind contribution on peak.

It appears that all three systems operated without significant disruption during the heat dome. However, all three systems appear to have experienced significant stress during the period. It is clear in all cases that these systems remain heavily reliant on coal and natural gas generation. It will be important for all three systems to continue to operate their existing coal generation plants to maintain generating capacity until new generation resources can be brought online to replace them and meet expected demand growth.

The recent blackout on the Iberian Peninsula was apparently triggered by an as yet unidentified “event” on the Spanish grid, which was being powered by approximately 70% renewable generation, mostly solar, which provides no inertia to the grid. It appears that the combination of conventional generation on the grid and the power provided by the interconnection to the French grid did not provide sufficient inertia to carry the grid through the “event” and the grid shut down when it exceeded either voltage or frequency tolerance limits.

This blackout has raised numerous questions about the stability and resilience of renewable powered grids. These questions include:

•     Can a renewable plus storage grid operate reliably and stably?
•     What is the maximum percentage of renewables consistent with reliability?
•     Is there a maximum percentage of solar generation on a reliable grid?
•     Is there a maximum percentage of wind generation on a reliable grid?
•     Does a reliable grid require inertia; and, if so, how much?
•     Is the physical location of the inertia sources on the grid important?
•     What is the relative inertia contribution of steam turbines vs. gas turbines?
•     What would be the inertia contributions of small modular nuclear generators?
•     What is the effect of modulated output on inertia contribution?
•     What effect does grid-scale storage have on inertia?
•     Can inertia be effectively provided electronically?

The first question is the most fundamental. It cannot currently be answered based on observation, since there are currently no 100% renewable plus storage grids. Grid reliability concerns have continued to grow as the percentage of renewable generation on grids has increased. These concerns have been magnified as conventional generating capacity on these grids has been retired, reducing capacity reserve margins and inertial capacity.

The Spanish grid is one of the most renewable dependent grids. This blackout suggests that the Spanish grid might have reached or exceeded the maximum percentage of renewables or the maximum percentage of solar on the grid without the application of grid-forming inverters and expanded battery storage capacity.

Conventionally powered grids are powered by multiple steam and gas turbine generators which provide inertia. This inertia is frequently relied upon when there is a system “event” which affects voltage or frequency on the grid. Operation of renewable grids presents additional challenges, as both solar and wind generator output can transition rapidly from full rating plate capacity output to very low or zero output. Grid-scale battery storage can respond rapidly to changes in generator output, but its contribution to inertia is uncertain, especially since current grid-scale battery storage is very limited relative to the rating plate capacity of existing renewable generators.

It is likely that the location of either conventional generation or grid-scale battery storage capacity relative to the location of the “event” and the capacity of the grid between the inertia source and the disturbance “event” would affect the ability of the grid to survive the event. This might represent an advantage for the application of small modular nuclear generators as they would likely be located at a larger number of locations distributed throughout the grid service area.

The Trump Administration has led the US off the path to Net Zero by 2050 using Executive Orders, which could be easily reversed by a later climate activist/alarmist administration. The Trump EOs provide a 4- year respite for the US, while climate activist administrations in the EU, UK, Canada and Australia continue their pursuit of Net Zero through the rapid expansion of renewable generation and battery storage.

There has still not been a successful demonstration of a renewable plus storage grid, though there have been several resounding failures of high percentage renewable grids in the Canary Islands, Australia and recently in the Iberian Peninsula. However, the governments of the developed nations, with the exception of the US, are still aggressively pursuing renewable nirvana while exposing their citizens to rising energy costs, the threat of energy poverty and reduced electric grid stability and resilience.

I have written previously (here, here, here and here).advocating a carefully controlled and monitored demonstration program. I have also issued a more limited demonstration challenge (here). Several others have also advocated for either a demonstration program or a detailed engineering plan to no avail.

The Trump Administration could perform an important service by conducting such a demonstration, which could clearly demonstrate the complexity and cost of a renewable plus storage grid, its effects on consumer costs and its impacts on grid reliability and resilience. It is essential that this demonstration include no federal or state subsidies or tax benefits not available to other grid participants. Such a demonstration could dissuade future US administrations from returning to pursuit of a renewable plus storage grid. Other nations could also benefit from such a demonstration.

The Trump Administration could also perform an important service by contracting for the installation and operation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) on an existing coal generating station and an existing natural gas combined-cycle generating station which were scheduled to be retired from service. The Biden Administration EPA Clean Power Plan 2 (CPP2) regulation asserted that CCS was the Best Available Control Technology for such generators and required that such plants be controlled to remove 90% of CO2 from the plant exhausts or removed from service.

The demonstration installations should be designed, installed and commissioned by mechanical contractors with extensive utility generation experience. The goals would be to demonstrate the cost of equipping existing coal and natural gas generators with CCS, the capability of achieving 90% emissions reduction, the increase in plant operating costs and the decrease in net plant generation capacity for each plant. Such a demonstration could dissuade future administrations from reinstituting CPP2 or similar CO2 emission control requirements. Other nations might also benefit from the results of such a demonstration.

It is doubtful that any rational utility management would commit to the major investment required to install CCS on an existing generator in the absence of a successful demonstration, or that any rational state utility commission would agree to including such an investment in the utility rate base.

From: CO2 Coalition

By: Richard Lindzen, William Happer

Date: June 13, 2025

Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm

More Carbon Dioxide Will Create More Food.
Driving Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Net Zero and
Eliminating Fossil Fuels Will Be Disastrous for People Worldwide.

SUMMARY
At the outset it is important to understand that carbon dioxide has two relevant properties, as a creator of food and oxygen, and as a greenhouse gas (GHG).

As to food and oxygen, carbon dioxide is essential to nearly all life on earth by creating food and oxygen by photosynthesis.  Further, it creates more food as its level in the atmosphere increases.  For example, doubling carbon dioxide from today’s approximately 420 ppm to 840 ppm would increase the amount of food available to people worldwide by roughly 40%, and doing so would have a negligible effect on temperature.

As to carbon dioxide as a GHG, the United States and countries worldwide are vigorously pursuing rules and subsidies under the Net Zero Theory that carbon dioxide  and other GHG emissions must be reduced to Net Zero and the use of fossil fuels must be eliminated by 2050 to avoid catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather.  A key premise stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is  the “evidence is clear that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change,” where “main driver means responsible for more than 50% of the change.”

The Biden Administration adopted over 100 rules and Congress has provided enormous subsidies promoting alternatives to fossil fuel premised on the Net Zero Theory. The EPA Endangerment Finding, for example, asserts “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and to endanger the public welfare of current and future generations.”

On April 9, 2025 President Trump issued a “Memorandum on Directing Repeal of Unlawful Rules” and Fact Sheet stating “agencies shall immediately take steps to effectuate the repeal of any [unlawful] regulation” under Supreme Court precedents, inter alia, where “the scientific and policy premises undergirding it had been shown to be wrong,” or “where the costs imposed are not justified by the public benefits.”  We understand the Supreme Court has also ruled in the leading case State Farm that an agency regulation is arbitrary, capricious and thus invalid where, inter alia:

“the agency has … entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem”
“the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.”
We are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2  and GHGs affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere.  In our scientific opinion, contrary to most media reporting and many people’s understanding, the “scientific premises undergirding” the Net Zero Theory, all the Biden Net Zero Theory rules and congressional subsidies are scientifically false and “wrong,” and  violate these two State Farm mandates.(continue reading)

Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm

President Trump has issued several Executive Orders (EOs) intended to encourage the continued operation of existing coal generating stations, to return some recently shuttered generating stations to operation and to restore access to available coal resources to help meet the expected rapid growth of electricity demand and consumption.

While these EOs would likely help avoid some further loss of reliable, dispatchable generating capacity, it is unlikely that they would stimulate investment in major life extension projects for existing generators or in new coal generating facilities, since the EOs could easily be reversed by a subsequent federal administration focused on Net Zero by 2050 or some other CO2 emissions reduction goal.

Investment in construction of new coal generating capacity would likely require Congressional action to assure that those powerplants, once constructed, would be permitted to operate throughout their expected useful lives, preferably including life extension, without the imposition of extremely expensive high percentage carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems which would both increase operating costs and reduce powerplant net generating capacity to support the parasitic power requirements of the CCS systems.
 
Coal powerplants have the advantage of relatively inexpensive onsite fuel storage to assure their availability even during periods of fuel supply disruption. Their output can also be adjusted to match changing grid demand as well as the changing supply from intermittent renewable generators, though they cannot adjust as rapidly as natural gas combined-cycle or simple-cycle turbine generators.

States with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), while they would likely allow continued operation of existing coal generating facilities as backup for intermittent renewable generation, would also likely resist life extension for those coal plants or the construction of new coal generation capacity, even if additional conventional generation capacity were required to provide additional backup for a growing renewable generation fleet.

State RPSs were intended to achieve Net Zero by 2050, and to achieve zero emissions from electricity generation by some earlier date, typically 2035 or 2040. The transition of energy end uses other than electric generation would require an approximate tripling of electric generation capacity by 2050. The anticipated growth of AI and other data centers would require substantial additional growth of generating capacity.

However, the developers of AI and data centers are unwilling to rely on intermittent renewable generation to power their facilities. Various developers have taken differing approaches to reliable electricity supply, including restarting currently inactive nuclear generating capacity, installing multiple natural gas combined-cycle powerplants and installing fleets of small modular nuclear generators (SMRs). Most of these proposed approaches would be independent of the existing, regulated electricity generation systems in the regions in which they would be located.

While these independent generation facilities would likely be acceptable in states without RPSs, it is uncertain how the states with RPSs would respond to the installation of large generating facilities which did not advance the percentage of renewable generation operating in the states. This issue could have a major influence on the location of AI and data centers.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Russ Schussler

Date: May 28, 2025

Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part III: The problem with power markets

Part 3 of this series examines power markets, promoted by policymakers (FERC) and industry advocates to lower costs through competitive bidding and merit-order dispatch. While markets can optimize resource allocation in many sectors, they struggle to deliver affordability and reliability in electricity systems dominated by intermittent renewables. This post first explains how power markets operate, then highlights their challenges, and finally explores why they amplify the cost challenges associated with wind and solar.

In Part 1 of this series, we explored how the fat tail problem undermines the cost-saving potential of wind and solar.  It’s easy to supply electricity most of the time.  The fat tail occurs in the rarer periods of maximal demands, when wind and solar are not available.  These periods, not savings during easy times, drive system economics.  Part 2 discussed how rate structures distort perceptions of affordability for solar applications. 

How Power Markets Work (and Fail)

Power markets use a merit-order dispatch system, where generators bid their costs, and the market sets prices based on the most expensive unit needed. During “easy” times—when demand is low or renewable output is high—wind and solar often dominate. Their near-zero marginal costs (no fuel expenses) allow them to bid low, displacing higher-cost fossil fuel plants and driving down market prices. This creates the appearance of cheap electricity and fuels the narrative that renewables are inherently cost-effective.

However, during peak or extreme conditions, wind and solar often underperform due to weather or diurnal constraints. For example, wind speeds may drop during heatwaves, or solar output may be negligible at night or during cloudy winters. When demand spikes or renewables falter, markets rely on dispatchable resources—combined cycle plants, combustion turbines, or even older coal units—to meet the shortfall. These resources have higher marginal costs and are often called upon during the most expensive hours, driving market prices skyward. During Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, ERCOT prices surged to $9,000/MWh as renewables underperformed and demand soared. As discussed in the first posting, doing well most of the time is not enough. The challenge in providing costly backup during peak shortages exposes the limitations of power markets, as explored below. (continue reading)

Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part III: The problem with power markets

Increasing the capacity of the electric utility grid requires both expansion of electricity transmission and the expansion of natural gas production and pipeline transmission capacity.

Increasing electric transmission capacity to support coal, natural gas and nuclear generators would be relatively straightforward compared with increasing capacity to support wind and solar generation and storage. The conventional generators would require a smaller number of sites and could be located adjacent to existing transmission corridors, whereas renewable generation installations are generally lower generating capacity facilities, frequently located in remote areas some distance from existing transmission corridors and requiring construction of new transmission facilities in new rights of way.

The capacity of conductors in existing transmission corridors would have to be increased to accommodate the output of the additional generators, but approvals for such capacity expansion would be expected to be less difficult and more rapid than approvals for new transmission corridors. The incremental investment would also be far lower than for new transmission corridors. The incremental transmission investment required to connect renewable generation facilities could also be reduced by the impact of grid-scale storage at the renewable generation sites.

The situation for natural gas transmission is similar. The natural gas transmission and storage system is designed to meet current customer demands. Many existing natural gas generators rely on curtailable or interruptible transmission service and on spot market gas availability to reduce costs. However, during periods of peak demand, transmission service to these customers is frequently curtailed and spot market gas is unavailable or in very short supply. This situation significantly affects electric utilities ability to meet peak demand.

Data centers and AI facilities would require firm transmission service and firm gas supply contracts. However, this should not be a significant issue for them, since their demand is relatively consistent throughout the year, reducing cost per unit delivered. However, satisfying their demand would require pipeline capacity expansion, though much of that expansion could likely be accomplished by installing parallel pipelines in existing pipeline rights-of-way and/or adding compression and storage. The additional capacity requirements of other additional natural gas generation facilities could be included in the pipeline and storage expansions.

The extent of the generation and transmission expansion would be reduced, at least in the short term, by the termination of the federal “all-electric everything” focus, which would have required a rough tripling of generation, transmission and distribution capacity to replace the energy currently supplied by natural gas, propane and fuel oil in the residential, commercial and industrial markets.

Again, Congress could improve the investment environment by clarifying the intent of the Clean Air Act regarding CO2 emissions. The investments required to support data center and AI energy requirements are very large and would typically be subject to 40-year straight line depreciation. It would be essential that the investors be able to rely on fully depreciating their investments over their useful lives. A consistent policy and regulatory environment would reduce the costs and risks associated with the required investments and consequently the consumer costs.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Andy May

Date: May 26, 2025

Musings on the AMO

We hear a lot about the AMO, or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. How much does it influence the global mean surface temperature or GMST? Exactly what is the AMO? These are the issues we will discuss. First let’s look at various definitions of the AMO.

Enfield, et al.: “The AMO index [is a] ten-year running mean of detrended Atlantic SSTA [sea surface temperature anomaly] north of the equator.”

Gray, et al.: Uses detrended raw tree-ring measurements to demonstrate a strong and regular 60-100 year variability in basin-wide (0-70°N) North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) that has been persistent for the past five centuries.

Trenberth & Shea: “To deal with purely Atlantic variability, it is highly desirable to remove the larger-scale global signal that is associated with global [anthropogenic] processes, and is thus related to global warming in recent decades … Accordingly, the global mean SST has been subtracted to derive a revised AMO index.”

NCAR uses the Trenberth & Shea method, but NOAA uses the original methodology and detrends the North Atlantic temperatures using a least squares linear trend. We will also use the original Enfield and Gray method in this post.

The reason for the AMO SST 60-70-year pattern is unknown, but according to Gray et al. it extends back to 1567AD, so it is a natural oscillation of some kind. Some have speculated that it is a result of the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic or a “combination of natural and anthropogenic forcing during the historical era.” (Mann, Steinman, & Miller, 2020). But while interesting these ideas are speculative. Further if the oscillation has existed since 1567, it seems unlikely that it is caused by human CO2 and aerosol emissions.

It is clear that “global” warming is mostly an extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere phenomenon. This is discussed here in figures 1A & 1B and here in the discussion around figure 1, which is also shown as figure 1 below. Regions outside the extratropical Northern Hemisphere don’t change temperature as quickly or as drastically. (continue reading)

Musings on the AMO

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) have warned that the reliability of the US electric grid is threatened by the increasing percentage of intermittent wind and solar generation being connected to the grid and the premature closure of conventional generation capacity, particularly coal, but also natural gas and nuclear generators. The transition to renewable generation has been driven by massive federal incentives for renewable generation and state renewable portfolio standards, all focused on achieving Net Zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. The FERC and NERC concerns are heightened by the projected rapid increases in electricity demand and consumption required to serve data centers and AI.

The Trump Administration has shifted focus from Net Zero by 2050 to achieving American energy dominance. The Administration has removed restrictions on new coal mining projects and is encouraging the retention of existing coal generation and the construction of new coal generation facilities. The Administration is also working to eliminate restrictions on natural gas production and gas pipeline expansion. The Administration also plans to remove unnecessary restrictions on and excessive delays in approval and construction of new nuclear generation facilities including small modular reactors (SMRs).

This new federal policy direction would permit utilities to select the best mix of generation technologies to serve the needs of their markets, although utilities in states with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) would be constrained to comply with the RPS requirements, unless they were modified or eliminated by state or federal actions. The Trump Administration should strongly encourage the RPS states to reconsider the application of those standards, which are driving increasing electricity costs.

The data center and AI developers have made it clear that they are not satisfied with the reliability and stability of renewable generation. In states with RPS, they are likely to build dedicated conventional generation facilities to serve their needs, rather than expose themselves to the growing utility renewable generation fleets. Several are planning to build natural gas combined-cycle generators while others are considering nuclear SMRs. In non-RPS states, they are considering either connecting to the serving utility or partnering with the serving utility to construct additional generation.

Unfortunately, the policy changes implemented by the Trump Administration could be reversed by a subsequent Administration committed to Net Zero by 2050. This creates an uncertain investment environment for utilities and independent generation developers, particularly those operating and developing coal and natural gas generation capacity. Reinstitution of controls such as the Biden Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) could adversely affect the generating capacity and operating economics of those generators or ultimately require their premature closure.

Congress should act to clarify its intent regarding CO2 and Methane emissions under the Clean Air Act. That action, in combination with the recent Supreme Court position on Chevron Deference, would improve the investment environment and make utilities, independent generation developers and their investors more willing to move forward timely and aggressively to restore and maintain grid reliability and resiliency.

Fires require a source of ignition at a temperature above the ignition temperature of the available combustible material and possessing sufficient energy to raise the temperature of the available combustible material above its ignition temperature. The common natural source of ignition is lightning. However, faulty electric transmission and distribution infrastructure, accidental spread of cooking and campfires from homeless encampments and intentional arson are also common sources of ignition which cause fires which can develop into wildfires if there is sufficient combustible material available.

Climate change has been accused of making wildfires more frequent and/or more intense. However, climate change cannot cause a fire because it does not possess the necessary characteristics of a source of ignition, so it is incapable of making wildfires more frequent. Wildfire intensity is a function of the mass and condition of available combustible material, which some have suggested are more available or more prone to ignition as the result of climate change. However, there are far more significant factors which affect combustible material availability, including poor forest and grassland management. No data are available to support an assertion of incremental climate change effect.

However, the pursuit of climate change policies by governments have introduced several new “fire starters” which could cause wildfires if not properly managed. Solar collector arrays, wind turbines and grid-scale storage systems all have the potential to catch fire and to start secondary fires in the presence of combustible materials.

This image shows a fire in a ground mounted solar collector array. The solar array is surrounded by grass, which could easily spread the fire if it were sufficiently dry. One recent fire in Australia spread to tall grass in the area surrounding the collectors. Australia has experienced fires at solar installations caused by electric transformer and inverter failures. Damage to solar collector arrays caused by high winds or tornadoes can damage collector electrical connections and interconnecting wiring. Solar array fires are relatively easy to address because the collectors and other system components are located near the ground and accessible to firefighters.

Wind turbine fires are more frequent than solar array fires, and are not accessible to firefighters because of the height of the turbine assemblies. The most common cause of wind turbine fires is lightning strikes, which can ignite the turbine blades or the lubricating oils in the turbine machinery. Firefighters are limited to controlling the spread of secondary fires on the ground surrounding the wind turbine resulting from burning debris falling from the burning turbine. Such fires can spread quickly if the wind turbines are surrounded by relatively dry vegetation. Firefighters must also maintain a safe distance from the base of the turbine in case the unipole on which the turbine is mounted fails and falls onto the ground.

Grid-scale battery storage systems have experienced numerous fires. These fires are believed to have resulted from internal faults in the batteries, rather than from any external cause. The recent fire at the Moss Landing facility in California destroyed the older portion of the facility. These battery fires are very intense and very difficult to extinguish. Fire personnel have learned to allow them to burn themselves out while protecting the surrounding areas from secondary fires ignited by the burning batteries. These batteries also emit massive quantities of toxic smoke when they burn, frequently requiring evacuation of local residences and commercial buildings.

Most government environmental regulations are based on observations of atmospheric concentrations, exposure durations and adverse health effects. Specific sources of emissions of the pollutants in question are measured individually and the combined exposure levels calculated. Studies are conducted to determine the safe exposure to each pollutant as a function of concentration and frequency and duration of exposure. The technologies available to control emissions from each of the sources of concern are evaluated to determine their technical and cost effectiveness. Regulations are then developed which establish the emissions limits for each controlled source required to establish and maintain safe exposure.

This regulatory approach has worked well when applied to the emissions of pollutants which remain largely local or regional. It has been used to limit vehicle tailpipe emissions, powerplant emissions, refinery emissions and other industrial and commercial emissions. It has also been applied to eliminate the use of tetraethyl lead in gasoline and to ban the use of lead in paint and other coatings in combination with the application of the Linear No Tolerance (LNT) concept to emissions other than ionizing radiation.

However, this regulatory approach is not well suited to the regulation of “globally well-mixed trace gases” such as CO2, for several reasons. While atmospheric concentrations can be measured, no individual nation can regulate the atmospheric concentration of a “globally well-mixed trace gas” which is emitted by multiple sources in every nation on the globe. Control of exposure duration is also not possible because exposure is continuous globally. Finally, there are no observed adverse health effects at current exposure levels, or at exposure levels an order of magnitude higher than current exposure levels.

The supposed ”global” effort to control CO2 “pollution” is based on supposition of adverse effects on global climate which would lead to adverse human heath effects. This supposition is based on the outputs of numerous climate model studies which suggest the possibility of large global temperature increases, more frequent and more intense extreme weather events and ultimately crop failure. The timing and severity of these changes is very much a function of the climate model chosen and the starting assumptions for the model run.

However, current observations dispute the supposition. The potential atmospheric warming effect of CO2 is essentially “saturated”, in that additional CO2 concentrations would have a minor effect on atmospheric temperatures (<1°C for a doubling of CO2 concentration). Observations confirm that the additional atmospheric CO2 concentration has contributed to increases in agricultural production and to global greening, both as a result of CO2 fertilization and the ability of plants to use available water more efficiently Observations do not confirm any increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events and actually suggest some reductions in frequency and intensity, with the exception of heat waves which are typically not extreme (climatology plus 3°F for 2-3 or more days).

The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is well below the optimum concentration for plant growth and also well below the concentration at which adverse human health effects might be expected.

The supposed “endangerment” is unsupported and, in fact, countered by observations. It is an unreasonable basis for regulation.

“Nobody’s honest. Scientists are not honest. And people usually believe that they are. That makes it worse. By honest I don’t mean that you only tell what’s true. But you make clear the entire situation. You make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind”  — Richard Feynman “The Unscientific Age”

The Trump Administration has paused funding of climate research to allow it to develop a comprehensive inventory of the projects being funded and their importance from the Administrations perspective. The responses to this pause have ranged from concerns that the US is ending climate research and will forfeit its global research leadership position to concerns about the effects on researchers’ careers and the future of graduate research programs.

It is very likely that numerous “tactical” research programs intended to support the climate crisis narrative will be terminated, since supporting the crisis narrative is of no interest to the Administration. While the organizations directly funding those programs and the researchers conducting them will be affected, the loss of those programs will have little or no impact on our understanding of climate. There is already no shortage of computer model generated “scary scenarios” depicting potential future climate calamities. Many of these “scary scenarios” were developed based on high climate sensitivity estimates and unrealistic Representative Concentration Pathways.

Future US climate research will likely focus on improving our understanding of phenomena such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the various ocean current systems, underwater volcanism, clouds, climate sensitivity, forcings and feedbacks. There will likely also be attempts to develop a climate model which actually models the climate.

Future climate research contracts should require that the researchers provide open access to all project data, computer codes and the statistical analyses conducted to demonstrate the significance of the research results. Projects involving human subjects should code subject names, but provide all other subject characteristics.

Climate researchers have a history of unwillingness to provide access to all of the information which would be required to replicate the project results, as reflected in the Climategate e-mails. Climate research also has a history of shoddy and inappropriate statistical analysis, as reported by Steve McIntyre and William Briggs among others. This situation will need to be reversed to restore confidence in climate research.

A reproducibility crisis affects numerous scientific disciplines, including climate science. It certainly is not necessary that every scientific result be reproduced, but it is necessary that they be reproducible, and that the information required to conduct a reproduction effort be available. Certainly, some climate research will produce surprising or even shocking results. There will likely be efforts to reproduce such results to ensure that they are not erroneous. Irreproducible research results are of no value and their use in the development of government policy is totally inappropriate.

Climate researchers who do not comply with full disclosure should not be permitted to participate in future climate research efforts.