The UN COP27 concluded in mid-November with an agreement to work toward establishment of a funding mechanism to compensate developing countries for “loss and damage” resulting from the effects of anthropogenic climate change. This concept is problematic on several levels.

First, weather events such as floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, tornadoes and lightning ignited wildfires have always caused “loss and damage”. The frequency, duration and severity of these events has varied over time. No nation or group of nations is in any way responsible for the occurrence of these weather events. However, nations affected by these weather events are, at least in part, responsible for the magnitude of the “loss and damage” caused by the events as the result of placing infrastructure and people in harm's way in flood plains and on seashores and by failing to build flood control dams and water storage reservoirs. This is the case in both developed and developing countries.

Second, climate has always changed over the entire historical period we have been able to study. It is not possible to measure the alleged effects of anthropogenic emissions on climate change. Both climate warming and cooling events occurred prior to the period in which humans began adding CO2 and other GHGs to the atmosphere; and, they have continued since. Had climate been unchanging prior to the advent of anthropogenic emissions, it might have been possible to attribute changes in climate to the anthropogenic emissions. However, that is not the case.

The “loss and damage” compensation issue raised at COP27 is based on the assumption that incremental climate change caused by CO2 and other GHG emissions from the developed nations has somehow contributed to the frequency and/or severity of these various weather events. However, observations do not support the assertions of increased frequency, duration or severity of adverse weather events. Data do support assertions of increased absolute financial costs of the “loss and damage” from these weather events resulting from increased infrastructure investment in areas subject to damage from the weather events, though there is no increase relative to GDP.

The assertions of increased “loss and damage” from anthropogenic climate change are based on the outputs of a class of climate models referred to as attribution models. These models are of relatively recent origin. They are unverified and unvalidated, as are the global climate models on which they are based. The current ensemble of global climate models project temperature anomaly increases, on average, twice as large as the observed temperature anomaly increases.

The attribution models attempt to identify the differences between the actual weather event as it occurred and what the event might have been like in the absence of anthropogenic climate change. For example, there was much discussion regarding the potential effects of anthropogenic climate change on what was expected to be an above average Atlantic hurricane season in 2022. The actual 2022 Atlantic hurricane season was far below normal, suggesting that our understanding of the effects of climate change on weather events is “not ready for prime time”.

Our understanding is certainly not sufficient to serve as the basis for massive transfer payments from the developed nations to the developing nations based on “responsibility” for computer estimated incremental “loss and damage”.

From: Manhattan Contrarian

By: Francis Menton

Date: December 10, 2022

The Impossibility Of Bridging The "Last 10%" On The Way To "100% Clean Electricity"

As my last post reported, the Official Party Line from our government holds that we have this “100% Clean Electricity” thing about 90% solved.  As the government-funded NREL put it in their August 30, 2022 press release, “[a] growing body of research has demonstrated that cost-effective high-renewable power systems are possible.”  But then they admit that that statement does not cover what they call the "last 10% challenge” — providing for the worst seasonal droughts of sun and wind, that result in periods when there is no renewable power to meet around 10% of annual electricity demand.  That last 10%, says NREL, will require one or more “technologies that have not yet been deployed at scale.”  

But hey, we’ve got 90% of this renewable transition thing solved.  How hard could figuring out that last 10% really be?

And on that basis the government has embarked upon forcing the closure of large numbers of power plants that use fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, as well as on suppressing exploration for fossil fuels and other things like pipelines and refineries.  After all, if we’re transitioning at least 90% to renewables, we won’t need 90% of the fossil fuel infrastructure any more, will we?

Actually, that’s completely wrong.  Until the full solution to the so-called “last 10% challenge” is in place, we need 100% of our fossil fuel backup infrastructure to remain in place, fully maintained, and ready to step in when the wind and sun fail.  

Let’s take a brief look at what bridging the last piece of the renewable transition actually looks like.

NREL’s August 2022 Report titled “Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035” lays out several scenarios for supposedly achieving that goal.  For all the scenarios, the most important piece is the same:  building and deploying lots more wind turbines and solar panels.  (The scenarios differ in the degree of deployment of other elements like transmission lines, battery storage, carbon capture technology, and additional nuclear.). As foreseen by NREL, by 2035, total electricity generation capacity in the U.S. has more than tripled, with the large majority of the additions being wind and solar.  There is substantial overbuilding of the wind and solar facilities, presumably to provide enough electricity on days of light wind or some clouds, while having large surpluses to discard on days of full wind and sun.  Some storage has been provided, but mostly “diurnal” (intra-day) and not seasonal. (continue reading)

The Impossibility Of Bridging The "Last 10%" On The Way To "100% Clean Electricity"

“Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”, Yogi Berra, American philosopher

Considering Yogi’s caution above, I will not make predictions regarding climate science or climate change policy in 2023. Rather, I will discuss what I believe should happen in 2023 to advance the state of climate science and climate change policy.

An important first step in advancing the state of climate science is improving the quality of the data being used to measure the impacts of climate change. This includes expanding the coverage of both near-surface land temperatures and sea surface temperatures, so that “infilling” of estimated temperatures is no longer necessary. It also includes improving the quality of the data, so that “adjustments” to the data are no longer necessary. The US Climate Reference Network and the Argo buoys provide suitable data quality, but they do not provide global coverage. Satellite temperature measurements provide near-global coverage in the troposphere but display differences with the near-surface land and sea surface temperatures which should be analyzed and resolved.

There is also a major data quality issue regarding the rate of sea level rise which should be addressed and resolved. The sea level rise measured by satellite is approximately twice the rate measured by tide gauges in geologically stable locations. The rate of sea level rise measured by the satellites has increased inexplicably with each new satellite placed into service, while the rate of rise measured by the tide gauges has not changed. The tide gauge record begins well before the presumed start of anthropogenic warming, so it records natural variation associated with the recovery from the Little Ice Age.

The projections of future anthropogenic warming rely on the outputs of numerous climate models, none of which have been verified and validated. All of the climate models over-project warming relative to both near-surface and satellite-based observations and their outputs diverge significantly into the future. The models have been “tuned” by hindcasting to the near-surface temperature anomaly records which have issues as described above. A single, validated and verified model would constitute a far more solid basis for climate policy formation than the current situation.

There remains major uncertainty regarding the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. IP AR6 identifies a range of 2.5 – 4 degrees C, with a likely value of 3 degrees C and a very low likelihood of a value lower than 1.5 degrees C. However, recent research not reflected in AR6 suggests that sensitivity might well be less than or equal to 1.5 degrees C. This uncertainty has a dramatic effect on the range of projected temperature futures and should be the focus of aggressive research to resolve it.

There also remains uncertainty regarding the magnitude of climate feedbacks and whether the feedbacks are net positive or negative. The assumption of positive net feedback increases the temperature increases projected by the climate models.

There also remains uncertainty regarding the Representative Concentration Pathway used to project future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. While it is not possible to predict the actual future pathway, there is growing agreement that RCP 8.5 is implausible and should not be assumed to represent a “business-as-usual” future scenario.

Each of the above issues is of far greater significance to the formation of rational climate policy than the production of “scary scenarios” based on RCP 8.5, which has been a persistent focus of recent climate research.

The UN and national governments should abandon the “climate crisis”, “existential threat”, “climate emergency” political narrative, which is not supported by the climate science, and refocus on getting the climate science right.

Politicians would do well to contemplate the following observation.    
 
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”   Groucho Marx

From: Manhattan Contrarian

By: Francis Menton

Date: December 8, 2022

Looking For The Official Party Line On Energy Storage

If you’ve read my energy storage report, or just the summaries of parts of it that have appeared on this blog, you have probably thought:  this stuff is kind of obvious.  Surely the powers that be must have thought of at least some of these issues, and there must be some kind of official position on the responses out there somewhere.

So I thought to look around for the closest thing I could find to the Official Party Line on how the U.S. is supposedly going to get to Net Zero emissions from the electricity sector by some early date.  The most authoritative thing I have found is a big Report out in August 2022 from something called the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, titled “Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035.”  An accompanying press release with a date of August 30 has the headline “NREL Study Identifies the Opportunities and Challenges of Achieving the U.S. Transformational Goal of 100% Clean Electricity by 2035.”  

What is NREL?  The Report identifies it as a private lab “operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract.”  In other words, it’s an explicit advocacy group for “renewable” energy that gets infinite oodles of taxpayer money to put out advocacy pieces making it seem like the organization’s preferred schemes will work.

Make no mistake, this Report is a big piece of work.  The Report identifies some 5 “lead authors,” 6 “contributing authors,” and 56 editors, contributors, commenters and others.  Undoubtedly millions of your taxpayer dollars were spent producing the Report and the underlying models (which compares to the zero dollars and zero cents that the Manhattan Contrarian was paid for his energy storage report).  The end product is an excellent illustration of why central planning does not work and can never work.

So now that our President has supposedly committed the country to this “100% clean electricity” thing by 2035, surely these geniuses are going to tell us exactly how that is going to be done and how much it will cost.  Good luck finding that in here.  From the press release: (continue reading)

Looking For The Official Party Line On Energy Storage

Climate science focuses on two fundamental issues: the current status of the changed climate; and, projections of future changes in the climate. The science is not “settled” regarding either of these issues.

The key aspects of interest regarding the current status of the changed climate are: atmospheric GHG concentration; global average near-surface temperature; tropospheric temperature; sea level; extreme weather events; and, ocean pH. Projections of future changes in the climate also focus on these issues and rely on climate models.

The Mauna Loa data on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 are broadly accepted and document a rough doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration since the pre-industrial period.

The global average near-surface temperature data and sea surface temperature data remain problematic as the result non-uniform global coverage, particularly in the Southern hemisphere and in the global oceans, urban sprawl, aging and malfunctioning measuring stations and large areas with no measuring stations. This continues to result in “adjusting” measurements and “infilling” estimates where no data are available. The US Climate Reference Network continues to demonstrate the ability to measure near-surface temperature accurately and reliably, but there appears to be little interest in establishing such a network on a global basis.

The tropospheric temperature data provide almost complete global coverage and indicate a slower rate of warming than the near-surface temperature anomaly products. The reasons for this discrepancy remain unexplained.

The sea level data are also problematic. The rate of sea level rise measured by satellite is approximately twice the rate of increase measured by geologically stable tide gauges. This discrepancy also remains unexplained.

There are no increasing trends in the frequency, severity or duration of extreme weather events, including floods, droughts, tropical cyclones or tornadoes, despite frequent political handwringing to the contrary.

Ocean pH has decreased very slightly but remains solidly basic at 8+.

There are numerous climate models used to project future global near-surface temperature change. All the models have projected temperature increases greater than observed, on average nearly twice as great. None of the models have been validated and verified. The models influence and are influenced by climate sensitivity, climate forcings and feedbacks, as well as by the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) selected to estimate future atmospheric CO2 increases.

The climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is unknown, but is estimated to range from 1.5 – 4.5 degrees C. Recent research suggests that sensitivity is near, or even below, the bottom of that range. The magnitude of climate forcings are also estimated. The magnitude and direction of climate feedbacks are also unknown but estimated. Finally, the rate at which additional CO2 will accumulate in the atmosphere is unknown, though there are several Representative Concentration Pathways in current use. The combination of these uncertainties results in model projections of future temperatures which vary significantly and diverge rapidly into the future.

The most commonly used RCP is RCP8.5, which projects the greatest increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. RCP8.5 has frequently been referred to as the “business-as-usual” scenario, though there is growing recognition that it is implausible. It does, however, produce the scariest scenarios of future climate catastrophe.

Models are also being used to attempt to attribute some fraction of some extreme weather event to climate change. However, these models are also unverified and unvalidated. Most recently, there has been a growing effort to provide “instant attribution” to take advantage of the news cycle immediately after the event.

From: Manhattan Contrarian

By: Francis Menton

Date: December 4, 2022

My Energy Storage Report: Hydrogen As An Alternative To Batteries

As mentioned in the last post, my new energy storage report, The Energy Storage Conundrum, mostly deals with issues that have previously been discussed on this blog; but the Report goes into considerable further detail on some of them.

One issue where the Report contains much additional detail is the issue of hydrogen as an alternative to batteries as the medium of energy storage.  For examples of previous discussion on this blog of hydrogen as the medium of storage to back up an electrical grid see, for example, “The Idiot’s Answer To Global Warming: Hydrogen” from August 12, 2021, and “Hydrogen Is Unlikely Ever To Be A Viable Solution To The Energy Storage Conundrum” from June 13, 2022.

At first blush, hydrogen may seem to offer the obvious solution to the most difficult issues of energy storage for backing up intermittent renewable generation.  In particular, the seasonal patterns of generation from wind and sun require a storage solution that can receive excess power production gradually for months in a row, and then discharge the stored energy over the course of as long as a year.  No existing battery technology can do anything like that, largely because most of the stored energy will simply dissipate if it is left in a battery for a year before being called upon.  But if you can make hydrogen from some source, you can store it somewhere for a year or even longer without significant loss.  Problem solved!

Well, there must be some problem with hydrogen, or otherwise people would already be using it extensively.  And indeed, the problems with hydrogen, while different from those of battery storage, are nevertheless equivalently huge.  Mostly, to produce large amounts of hydrogen without generating the very greenhouse gas emissions you are seeking to avoid, turns out to be enormously costly.  And then, once you have the hydrogen, distributing it and handling it are very challenging.

Unlike, say, oxygen or nitrogen, which are ubiquitous as free gases in the atmosphere, there is almost no free hydrogen available for the taking.  It is all bound up either in hydrocarbons (aka fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas), carbohydrates (aka plants and animals), or water.  To obtain free hydrogen, it must be separated from one or another of these substances by the input of energy.  The easiest and cheapest way to get free hydrogen is to separate it from the carbon in natural gas.  This is commonly done by a process called “steam reformation,” which leads to the carbon from the natural gas getting emitted into the atmosphere in the form of CO2.  In other words, obtaining hydrogen from natural gas by the inexpensive process of steam reformation offers no benefits in terms of carbon emissions over just burning the natural gas.  So, if you insist on getting free hydrogen without carbon emissions, you are going to have to get it from water by a process of electrolysis.  Hydrogen obtained from water by electrolysis is known by environmental cognoscenti as “green hydrogen,” because of the avoidance of carbon emissions.  Unfortunately, the electrolysis process requires a very large input of energy. (continue reading)

My Energy Storage Report: Hydrogen As An Alternative To Batteries

The electric utility industry functions within the framework of federal, state and local legislation and regulation. The legislators and regulators are influenced by the renewable energy industry and by numerous environmental advocacy groups. In this environment, the utilities have been required to connect wind and solar generation to the grid and to accept all of the electricity generated by these intermittent renewables on a priority basis whenever it is available.

This intermittent renewable electricity displaces output from conventional electric generators owned and operated by the utilities and their wholesale suppliers to the extent that it is available. However, the conventional generators are still required to provide power during periods when the renewable sources are not generating. Therefore, the fixed costs of the conventional generation are largely unaffected, but the revenue from generation and the associated variable costs are reduced. The net result in an increase in the cost of the power produced by the conventional generators.

Increasing renewable generation further decreases the cumulative output of the conventional generators, but does not reduce the conventional generation capacity required to satisfy grid demand when renewable generation is unavailable. In fact, increased electric demand from customer load growth and fuel switching would increase the capacity of conventional generation required to support the grid even as renewable generation capacity increased, though a portion of the increased conventional capacity requirement could be offset by the addition of electricity storage.

Utilities have agreed to accept the output of renewable generation as produced, without smoothing to eliminate the frequent fluctuations in renewable output or storage capacity sufficient to render the renewable generators dispatchable. This approach reduces the apparent cost of the renewable electricity, but increases the cost and complexity of utility operations.

Utilities could have and likely should have fought to require renewable generators to provide smoothed and dispatchable power meeting the same requirements as their own and their wholesale suppliers’ generators. That approach would have reflected the full cost of renewable generation, which would have been several times the cost of “source of opportunity” generation.

This issue will become critical as renewable generation proliferates and conventional coal and natural gas generators are required to discontinue operation under federal mandates over the next 13 years. The grid support currently provided by the conventional generators would have to be provided by electricity storage, while the stability provided by the inertia of the large rotating turbine generators would have to be provided by power electronics.

Electric utilities earnings are based on an allowable rate of return on net physical plant in service. Electric utility physical plant is typically 70-80% generation. Displacement of utility coal and natural gas generation with third party generation reduces utility earnings potential. This is currently causing utilities to seek to invest in renewable generation capacity, as well as to focus on the investment required to provide electricity storage to support the grid through periods of low/no renewable generation. These investment requirements will be substantially increased by the federal push for “all-electric everything”.

It appears highly unlikely that pursuing this path would result in the long-promised reduced energy costs.

From: The Global Warming Policy Foundation

By: Francis Menton

Date: December, 2022

THE ENERGY STORAGE CONUNDRUM

Introduction and Executive Summary

Advanced economies – including most of Europe, much of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and others – have embarked upon a quest to ‘decarbonise’ their economies and achieve ‘Net Zero’ emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Net Zero plans turn almost entirely on building large numbers of wind turbines and solar panels to replace generation facilities that use fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to produce electricity. The idea is that, as enough wind turbines and solar panels are built, the former coal, oil, and gas-burning central stations can gradually be closed, leaving an emissions-free electricity system.

But wind and solar facilities provide only intermittent power, which must be fully backed up by something – fossil fuel generators, nuclear plants, batteries, or some other form of energy storage – so that customer demand can be matched at times of low wind and sun, thus keeping the grid from failing. The governments in question have then mostly or entirely ruled out fossil fuels and nuclear as the backup, leaving some form of storage as the main or only remaining option. They have then simply assumed that storage in some form will become available. Their consideration of how much storage will be needed, how it will work, and how much it will cost has been entirely inadequate.

Energy storage to back up a predominantly wind/solar generation system to achieve Net Zero is an enormous problem, and very likely an unsolvable one. At this time, there is no proven and costed energy storage solution that can take a wind/solar electricity generation system all the way to Net Zero emissions, or anything close to it. Governments are simply setting forth blindly, without any real idea of how or whether the system they mandate might ultimately work or how much it will cost. The truth is that, barring some sort of miracle, there is no possibility that any suitable storage technology will be feasible, let alone at affordable cost, in any timeframe relevant to the announced plans of the politicians, if ever.

This report seeks to shine a light on the critical aspects of the energy storage problem that governments have been willfully ignoring.

Section 1 shows that full backup is indispensable in an electricity grid powered mainly by intermittent generation. Without it, there would be frequent blackouts, if not grid collapse. It doesn’t matter if one builds wind and/or solar facilities with capacity of ten or one hundred or even one thousand times peak electricity usage. On a calm night, or during days or weeks of deep wind/sun drought, those facilities will produce nothing, or close to it, and only full backup of some sort – that is, backup sufficient to supply all of peak demand for as long as it takes – will keep the grid from failing. (continue reading)

THE ENERGY STORAGE CONUNDRUM

Electric utilities find themselves positioned between the renewable generation industries (wind and solar) and electricity end users. Their relationships with these groups are controlled or influenced by legislation and regulation at the federal, state and local levels. Utilities are coming to regret some decisions they have made in this highly politically charged environment as the percentage of renewable energy generation increases.

Several electric utilities agreed to serve residential and small commercial customers with on-site solar generation capacity using simple net metering, in which the customers’ electric meters run backwards when customer generation exceeds on-site energy demand. This was viewed as a trivial issue when on-site solar installations were  less common, but has become a significant issue as on-site solar generation has proliferated.

Residential and small commercial electric rates typically consist of a fixed monthly service charge and a variable consumption charge. These charges are set in rate cases filed with state utility commissions. It is common for the fixed monthly service charge to recover only a fraction of the utilities’ fixed costs (25-50%). The remainder of the fixed costs are recovered in the variable portion of the rate, based on the quantity of electricity sold to each customer class during a “test year”.

Simple net metering allows the on-site generating customers to be compensated not only for the current wholesale cost of avoided incremental electricity generated or purchased by the utilities, but also for the portion of the utilities’ fixed costs included in the variable portion of the rate. This causes the utilities to under-recover their fixed costs until the next rate case, when that portion of the fixed costs could be reallocated, increasing the variable rate paid by all customers in the class.

Simple net metering results in a subsidy from non-generating customers to on-site generating customers. Several electric utilities have approached their regulatory commissions to switch from simple net metering to an arrangement which compensates the on-site generating customers for only the utilities’ avoided wholesale cost of power. These efforts have been aggressively resisted by the solar energy industry and by on-site generation consumer groups and climate advocacy groups, because this compensation approach significantly reduces the on-site generation customers’ annual electricity cost savings.

Many customers’ solar purchase decisions were and are based on the assumption of continued simple net metering. Compensation at a reduced rate decreases the attractiveness on on-site solar for both existing and potential future solar generation customers. Existing on-site generation customers believe they are entitled to continue to benefit from the cost shifting to non-generating customers, since their purchase decisions were based on this compensation approach. Solar contractors see their future business volumes threatened by the reduced customer compensation per kilowatt hour returned to the grid.

Several state utility commissions have attempted to take the Solomonic approach to resolving the issue, suggesting customer compensation somewhere between the wholesale and retail cost of electricity. However, such an approach only reduces, but does not eliminate, the cross subsidy from non-generating to on-site generating customers. It remains unfair to the utilities and their non-generating customers.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Planning Engineer (Russell Schussler)

Date: November 28, 2022

Exploiters Versus Experts

The unfolding saga around FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange currently in bankruptcy, appears to share some similarities with factors which led to the demise of Enron. Enron and FTX both initially achieved success because they were able to exploit some of the inefficiencies present in a complex system.

While it is a great thing to identify and correct inefficiency, the abilities of those who do so may be greatly overestimated at times.  As with Enron, it may have taken a special brilliance for Sam Bankman-Fried to capitalize on some shortcomings in crypto markets. But is the influence he received, the many speaking engagements and the adoring press commensurate with accomplishments and abilities?

You don’t have to be an overall expert in regards to a complex system in order to discover and tinker with particular inefficiencies and shortcomings within that system. In fact, successful exploiters may be grossly ignorant or worse, misinformed about major factors of the complex system. The ability to exploit a system does not mean that the exploiter is capable of redesigning the system, building a system ground up or even maintaining their edge. This post examines the initial success and ultimate failure of Enron’s attempt to transform the energy market before concluding with some thoughts around exploiters and experts.

Before Enron

In the period prior to the emergence of Enron and other power marketers, utilities operated in a more isolated fashion when developing, operating and scheduling their power supply. While there were power sales between utilities which might be triggered by supply and demand imbalances, the concept of short-term sales of energy based on incremental cost differentials was not even on the radar of many within the power industry. (continue reading)

Exploiters Versus Experts

The principal thrust of the UNFCCC and the IPCC has been on climate change mitigation through reductions in global annual emissions of CO2 and other ‘Green House Gases’ (GHGs). The focal point of their efforts has been keeping the increase in the global average temperature anomaly to 2°C (later 1.5°C), primarily through reductions in global annual CO2 emissions. Increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations are believed to be driving the global average temperature anomaly increase and to be exacerbating the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme weather events.

The EU nations, the US, Canada and Australia have adopted goals to reduce annual CO2 emissions and to achieve net zero annual CO2 emissions by 2050. The path to achieving these emissions reductions involves closing coal and natural gas generating units, and in some cases nuclear generating units, and replacing them with intermittent renewable wind and solar generation, supported by electricity storage and “Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources” (DEFRs).

The UN has determined that these nations are not achieving the emissions reduction pledges they have made and is calling for “greater ambition” on their part. These efforts are being bolstered by declaration of a “red alert” and repeated cries of “climate crisis”, “existential threat" and “climate emergency”. The response of these nations, in the face of a global energy crisis, has been “lip service”, delays in planned nuclear and fossil generating plant closures and an increase in fossil generation.

The increased CO2 emissions resulting from the developed nations response to the energy crisis are being swamped by rapid increases in developing nation CO2 emissions, primarily from increases in coal-fired generation, but also from increases in natural gas generation. The result has been an unabated rate of increase of global annual CO2 emissions, rather than the reduction perceived to be necessary to reduce or eliminate climate change.

This situation is focusing increased attention on efforts to adapt to climate change by adapting to the impact of severe weather events which might be affected by climate change. Severe weather events, such as droughts, floods, tropical cyclones and tornadoes are not new occurrences and any affect of climate change on the frequency, severity and duration of those events is questionable at best. Wildfires are not severe weather events but are often triggered by weather events such as lightning storms.

Adaptation efforts can include construction of reservoirs to retain flood waters to prevent or lessen downstream damage and provide additional supplies of water for irrigation and residential, commercial and industrial consumption. Adaptation can also include avoiding placement of infrastructure on shorelines and in flood plains. Structures can be hardened to resist the effects of tropical cyclones and tornadoes. Forests can be cleared of underbrush and debris to reduce the availability of combustibles in the path of fires.

Mitigation efforts will not end climate change, which has been occurring for the entire history we have been able to study, though they might reduce or eliminate any anthropogenic component of future climate change. Adaptation efforts will not eliminate losses from severe weather events, though they reduce the resulting loss of life and property damage.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Judith Curry

Date: November 2, 2022

The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be

Growing realization by the climate establishment  that the threat of future warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years.

Summary:  The climate “catastrophe” isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC AR5 Report, RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5 oC by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed RCP4.5 with 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach (now deemed to be the “threshold of catastrophe”),[i] the goal posts were moved in 2018 to reduce the warming target to 1.5 oC. Climate catastrophe rhetoric now seems linked to extreme weather events, most of which are difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency.

The main stream media is currently awash with articles from prominent journalists on how the global warming threat less than we thought.  Here are some prominent articles:

• NYTimes David Wallace-Wells: Beyond catastrophe: A new climate reality is coming into view.
• WSJ:  Good climate change news is fit to print.  Slowly its percolating into the journalistic mind that recent research is upbeat
• NYT Bret Stephens: Yes Greenland’s melting but . . .(continue reading)

The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be

Fascism
1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Elements of fascism have reared their ugly heads in the US response to climate change including autocratic government, economic regimentation and forceable suppression of opposition.

Examples of autocratic federal government actions include: ordering an end to coal-fired electric generation by 2030; ordering an end to natural gas-fired generation by 2035; ordering an end to fossil fuel combustion by 2050; terminating oil and gas leasing and revoking oil and gas production permits; ordering half of vehicles sold to be EVs by 2030; and, ordering all new vehicles sold to be EVs by 2035.

Ending coal and natural gas generation will shutter numerous generators which have not yet reached the ends of their useful lives, destroy the primary market for bituminous coal and a major market for natural gas, terminate the employment of numerous powerplant workers, coal miners and oil and gas field workers and strand $ trillions of coal and natural gas reserves. The federal government is effectively expropriating the property of the power plant and coal mine owners, likely with no compensation for their losses. Shuttering the coal and natural gas generating stations will also remove the primary sources of the power required to compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar generation.

Terminating oil and gas leasing and operating permits will cause oil and gas availability to decline as existing producing wells are depleted. The federal government has made no obvious provisions to assure that oil and gas supplies will remain sufficient to meet demand as supplies are depleted.

The federal government and several state governments have mandated a transition from ICE vehicles to EVs. Manufacturers are being forced to transition their product lines to EVs until all new vehicles sold must be EVs. Purchasers will face declining vehicle choices, higher vehicle prices, reduced vehicle utility and expensive battery replacement. This transition is being forced in the face of unresolved issues with spontaneous battery fires in personal vehicles, light duty trucks and transit buses. Owners retaining ICE vehicles will be faced with challenges regarding fuel and maintenance availability.

The federal government is also coordinating with the broadcast and print media and with internet social media organizations to suppress skepticism regarding the government’s climate change initiatives. The various media organizations are employing “fact checkers” to suggest that information from skeptical sources is labeled as disinformation or misinformation. The federal government has also acted against numerous climate scientists who question the government’s narrative regarding the future dangers of climate change. These scientists’ employers have been periodically harassed by senators and congressmen. Some scientists have been removed from state and federal government positions for refusing to support the government narrative.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Jim Steele

Date: October 28, 2022

Climate Fear Mongering Bad Analyses Cause Bad Remedies

A review of how the media has been fear mongering a fabricated climate crisis which is only misdirecting and obscuring the best remedies needed to address environmental issues, and instead promoting solutions that are ultimately dangerous.

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.

Transcript below.

Thanks for having me here. First, I am not a climate scientist. I am an ecologist, and I humbly note ecology requires a higher degree of thinking to untangle the many contributing causes of complex problems.

While director of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, I was monitored 6 meadow systems in the Sierra Nevada for the Forest Service. One meadow began to dry, vegetation withered, and wildlife began disappearing. When I showed students and colleagues this meadow’s deterioration, I was struck by their knee jerk response. Despite just a half-hour visit, most declared this was just what global warming theory predicted. Rising CO2 was making the land warmer, drier and causing animals to go extinct. (continue reading)

Climate Fear Mongering Bad Analyses Cause Bad Remedies

We have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving and much to be concerned about as well.

We can be thankful that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to increased agricultural productivity, which is essential to feed our growing population.

We can be thankful that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to global greening, both by increasing tree and plant growth and by making plants more efficient in their use of available water.

We can be thankful that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to modest warming and has not resulted in the far greater warming predicted by the climate models.

We can be thankful that the modest warming has manifested primarily as warmer minimum temperatures rather than as increased maximum temperatures.

We can be thankful that the predicted increases in the frequency, intensity and duration of adverse weather events such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, floods and heat waves have not occurred.

We can be thankful that the modest rate of increase of sea level which began toward the end of the Little Ice Age has continued, contrary to predictions of much more rapid rise which might have submerged islands and inundated low-lying coastal communities.

We can be thankful that ongoing research indicates that our climate is less sensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 than had been predicted.

Finally, we can be thankful that there is no evidence of a current or impending climate “crisis”, or that the current climate change represents an “existential threat” to our survival or the survival of the planet, or that there is scientific justification for declaring a climate “state of emergency”.

We should be concerned about efforts to unnecessarily and rapidly transition our energy economy from reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear energy, hydroelectric and geothermal generation to reliance on intermittent renewable forms of generation such as wind and solar combined with yet-to-be-developed long-duration storage and/or as yet undefined “Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources”.

We should be concerned about the pace of decommissioning of the conventional generation resources required to provide backup generation during periods of renewable generation intermittency.

We should be concerned about the reliance of intermittent renewable generation and storage systems on materials controlled largely by unfriendly and aggressive foreign nations and produced frequently by child and slave labor in unhealthy working conditions.

We should be concerned about the continued affordability of energy in the US economy and about the continued reliability of our energy supply and energy delivery infrastructure.

We should be concerned about our growing reliance on energy supplies from unfriendly foreign nations.

We should be concerned about our government’s efforts to destroy a US industry which is essential to the continued supply of reliable and affordable energy.

We should be concerned about our government’s efforts to prohibit the production and sale of internal combustion engine vehicles and force their replacement with electric vehicles. We should be particularly concerned about the government’s intent to force a transition from diesel engine transit and school buses to electric buses in light of the numerous spontaneous battery fires which have rapidly destroyed transit buses in Germany, France, China and the US.

Finally, we should be concerned about the growing fascism of our government as it advances its climate change agenda.