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

We can be thankful that the much-predicted “climageddon” has not occurred and does not appear to be imminent, or even reasonable, despite the constant chorus of “climate crisis”, “existential threat” and “climate emergency” from the UN, governments and the sycophantic media.

We can be thankful that there are still no significant trends regarding the frequency, intensity or duration of “extreme” weather events, such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, floods and wildfires.

We can be thankful for the continuing “global greening”, most of which is attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and for the modest warming which has  extended growing seasons and expanded acreage suitable for farming and grazing.

We can be thankful that the alarmist interest in ”climate lockdowns”, travel restrictions and dietary restrictions have gained little traction in the US, though they are beginning to have an impact in the EU and UK. There is diminishing interest in “veggie burgers”,  virtually no interest in “Franken meat”, and revulsion regarding “bug burgers”.

We can be thankful that farmers in the EU and UK are aggressively resisting government programs to remove agricultural land from production and destroy meat and dairy animals. These programs are inconsistent with concerns about maintaining and improving dietary condition for a growing global population.

We can be thankful that the climate alarmist interest in “15-Minute Cities” has not yet resulted in a federal program to construct such cities in the US. The US experience with high density, multi-use developments has been less than encouraging.

We should be concerned about the growing pressure in the US and globally for the declaration of a “climate emergency”, which could empower global governments to suspend freedoms and impose mandates and restrictions.

We should be concerned about Covering Climate Now, the global climate propaganda cooperation of nearly 400 media organizations flooding the media with climate alarmism and effectively drowning out skeptical discussions regarding climate change.

We should be concerned about US “climate czar” John Kerry’s focus on agriculture and animal husbandry as a contributor to climate change and his calls for reducing that contribution.

We should be concerned about the Administration’s continuing “war” on the fossil fuel industry, including its efforts to choke off fossil fuel supplies by limiting exploration and production.

We should be concerned about the recent focus of US electric utilities, ISOs and RTOs on grid stability and reliability in the face of expanding renewable generation and declining conventional generation resources.

We should be concerned about suggestions that occasional grid blackouts might be acceptable as an approach to combating climate change, particularly regarding the impacts on customers with critical health issues, hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities and prisons. This concern could become acute if fossil-fueled on-site standby generation is banned.

We should be concerned about the rising cost of energy in the US economy and globally as investments in redundant renewable generation infrastructure increase. Rising energy costs have shuttered some manufacturing facilities in the EU and UK and have created energy poverty for growing portions of the population.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”, H. L. Mencken

From: Watts Up With That

By: Kevin Kitty

Date: November 5, 2023

Setting Utility Rates

Until about a year ago, I thought about public utility regulation as too boring, too far outside my education, and unrelated to my interests and experience to bother with. I was wrong.

Figure 1. The relationships among interest on bonds and dividends to preferred shares (collectively called debt) and return on capital to return to ordinary shareholders (equity)

What prompted my change of view was recognizing that a frontline in the war, if you will, to remake the electric grid will take place not in arguments about the reality of climate change, but when utilities decide to change the way they generate electrical energy and pay for these changes. The permission to make these changes, and how the ratepayer gets hit afterward, are decided in the public service commissions which by law have to make their deliberations substantially transparent to the public. In particular permission for changes are gained in hearings of public necessity and convenience; how the ratepayer gets hit is decided in rate cases. I plan to examine only rate setting in this brief essay.

My principal goal is this. Many of us are pretty certain that pouring more renewable energy into a network makes delivered energy more expensive and less reliable. We often point to a graph that shows costs rising with percent renewable contributions to generating capacity. Yet, our antagonists claim that adding energy from renewables should, and in fact does, reduce utility costs. They have data, too. We strengthen our case by demonstrating specific reasons, or lack thereof, for rising utility bills. The rate setting process ought to make those reasons visible.

I also suspect most people know little about rate setting and are unaware about its complexity. It’s important to understand this bit of the order of battle.

Where I live we are in the middle of a general rate case affecting one-half the state.  It calls for substantial rate increases (21.6% or over $140 million) and has become exceptionally contentious. It resembles rate cases that have been decided or are in progress across the U.S.[1] The application for this general rate case includes thousands of pages of exhibits and appendices. (continue reading)

Setting Utility Rates

Free Range: allowed to range and forage with relative freedom
(Merriam-Webster)

Residents of the developed nations have largely been “free range” people, free to live where they choose to live, work where they choose to work, travel when and where they choose to travel, eat what they choose to eat and buy what they choose to buy within their means.

Those freedoms were interrupted, to one extent or another, by government edicts in response to the COVID19 pandemic. Travel was restricted, “non-essential” businesses were forced to close, offices and schools were closed and employees and students worked and studied from home over the internet.  In retrospect, it appears that much of this interruption of individual freedoms was unnecessary and, in some cases, counterproductive.

The pandemic lockdowns, however, resulted in a small but measurable decrease in global CO2 emissions. Government officials and climate change alarmists realized that similar, more extensive and longer-term lockdowns had the potential to reduce CO2 emissions to assist in achieving Net Zero emissions goals. There appeared to be little concern regarding the losses of freedom which would result from such actions.

There is growing discussion regarding climate lockdowns of various forms, including travel restrictions. Air travel restrictions are already in place in France, requiring shorter trips to be taken by train.

A climate initiative proposed by a group of major city mayors has proposed banning meat and dairy consumption, banning personal vehicles and limiting clothing purchases to three items per year per person. Producers are conducting major promotions for “veggie burgers”, “Frankenmeat” and nut-based dairy substitutes, while some governments are taking actions to remove farmland from production and to destroy meat and dairy animals.

The New York Times has declared the end of vacations to eliminate the associated CO2 emissions. So far, that demand has not been adopted by governments.

Urban Planners are touting the benefits of 15-Minute Cities, discussed here and here. One obvious “benefit” would be elimination of the need for personal vehicles, since most products and services would be available in the 15-minute city. While those who are interested in living in a 15-minute city should have the opportunity to do so, those not interested should not be pressured into moving into a highly concentrated urban environment.

Governments are imposing bans on internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and power equipment, natural gas and propane appliances, and fossil-fueled electric power generation and the use of fossil fuels in industrial production. In the US, the goal is to move to all-electric everything by 2050, with fixed dates for the elimination of coal (2030) and natural gas (2035) power generation.

The Ration Book shown in the cartoon below is unfortunately only a slight exaggeration of the measures which have been proposed to reduce CO2 emissions by restricting personal freedoms on a permanent basis.

There is growing pressure on the US federal government to declare a “climate emergency”, though there is clearly no such emergency. However, such a declaration would arguably empower the President to take many of the actions discussed above by executive fiat, avoiding the need for congressional action.

“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”, Lord Acton

From: Climate Etc.

By: Iain Aitken

Date: October 31, 2023

Climate Change: A Curious Crisis

As explained in my new eBook, Climate Change: A Curious Crisis, the climate change ‘debate’ has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, ‘you are either with us or against us’ war of words in which both sides accuse the other of being closed-minded and refusing to accept the ‘facts’.

Instead of a respectful exchange of views and the seeking of mutual understanding and common ground we tend to find sarcasm and ridicule and ad hominem attacks, as mutually intolerant, entrenched positions have arisen based on different interpretations of the science and evidence and different perceptions of risk. What should have been a mutually cooperative, disinterested, value-free search for the truth (basically, ‘science’) has morphed into a combative, biased, value-laden promotion of positions and ‘point scoring’ over opponents (basically, ‘politics’). Lest they yield any dialectical ground to their opponents, ‘doomsters’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly natural and benign – and ‘deniers’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly man-made and dangerous.

So what is the doomsters’ story? One of the most prominent and vocal doomsters is António Guterres, the UN Secretary General, who, in August 2021, described the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report as ‘a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk'.

And in response to the news that July 2023 was likely to be the warmest July since records began he stated, ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.’ So what is all this ‘irrefutable evidence’ of the climate crisis that has so convinced Guterres and his fellow doomsters? Let’s examine a few representative examples:

(1) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (e.g. by burning fossil fuels) will cause global warming to occur. (continue reading)

Climate Change: A Curious Crisis

Oxymoron: (Merriam-Webster)
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness)
broadly : something (such as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

Members of the consensed climate science community, climate alarmists, politicians with an agenda and the compliant mass media have produced and promulgated a “veritable plethora” (HT: Howard Cosell) of oxymorons intended to “sell the science” and demean skeptics.

Climate Denier – Supposed “shorthand” for more complex descriptions, such as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptic or Global Climate Change skeptic. Ridiculous because there is no one who denies that the earth has a climate. Demeaning because of the intended association with Holocaust denial.

Scientific Consensus – Implying that what many or most climate scientists believe must then be true, even though science is not conducted by consensus. The whole concept is based on a cursory review of the abstracts of a small subset of scientific papers dealing with climate.

Settled Science – Implying that the scientific study is complete and the science is understood. This concept is ridiculous in climate science, since the sensitivity of climate to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is not known, though it is asserted to fall within an identified range of values; and, since the magnitude of feedbacks is unknown, including whether the feedbacks are positive or negative.

Climate Model - Implying that a mathematical model exists which is capable of accurately simulating the function of the climate and also capable of projecting the future response of climate to perturbations. However, there remain numerous “climate models”, none of which accurately and completely simulate the function of the climate when compared to measurements and observations.

Instant Attribution – The claim that computerized climate attribution models can estimate the extent to which identified climate changes such as atmospheric or ocean warming contribute to changes in current weather events, such as the frequency, intensity, speed of movement and precipitation intensity and volume of precipitation associated with specific tropical cyclones. Some also claim attribution capability regarding tornadoes, droughts, floods and even wildfires.

Climate Crisis – The assertion that an increase of global average near surface temperature of 1(+/-0.2)°C over a period of 150 years, or the potential increase of an additional 1°C over the next 80 years represents a “crisis”, or an “emergency” or an “existential threat”. This despite the fact that the near surface temperature increases and decreases by ~10°C every day, or approximately 0.8°C per hour; and that the near surface temperature increases and decreases by ~25°C seasonally.

Carbon Pollution – Implying that CO2 is the same as carbon and is a pollutant rather than an essential factor in the health and growth of all types of plants, including the cereal grains which constitute a major component of human and animal diets. This oxymoron ignores the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on global greening.

Inflation Reduction Act – The progressive fantasy that pumping additional money into an already inflating economy, also suffering from supply chain disruptions, to subsidize the sale of uneconomic products and the installation of redundant facilities would somehow magically reduce inflation.

These oxymorons are used by other types of morons to harass and vilify skeptics, to mislead the public on the status of climate science and to frustrate the advancement of climate science.

From: Electroverse

By: Cap Allon

Date: October 24, 2023

Top Climate Scientist Slams Climate Alarm: Carbon Dioxide Is A “Particularly Ridiculous” Choice As A Pollutant

TOP CLIMATE SCIENTIST SLAMS CLIMATE ALARM

Warming by carbon dioxide is logarithmic due to ‘saturation’ within the infrared spectrum, and any future doubling of the gas in the atmosphere will be associated with the same warming of around 1°C.

This is considered obvious by atmospheric scientist and Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, and hardly controversial — although in today’s politicized environment, where CO2 has been forged into a scary and taxable ‘stick’ to bop the global population over the head with, this thinking does fatally undermine the ‘settled’ science concept of the AGW Party and so is regarded as heresy punishable by censorship and demonetization.

Professor Lindzen notes that the present “absurd ‘scientific’ narrative” leaves us with a quasi-religious movement — atop of all this has been the ”constant Goebellian repetition by the media of climate alarm”.

In a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Lindzen warns that unless we wake up to the absurdity of the motivating narrative, “this is only likely to be the beginning of the disasters that will follow from the current irrational demonization of CO2”, disasters which include the “hobbling” of Western energy systems.

CARBON DIOXIDE IS A “PARTICULARLY RIDICULOUS” CHOICE AS A POLLUTANT

Lindzen considers it “absurd” to assume that the controlling factor for temperature changes Earth’s complex three-dimensional climate system is the small contribution of CO2.

He notes the evidence from the Antarctica Vostok ice core that showed cooling preceded decreases in CO2 during the glaciation cycles of the last 700,000 years; and for the paleoclimatic record, which goes back 600 million years, it is shows “no suggestion of any correlation with carbon dioxide at all.”

Carbon dioxide is a “particularly ridiculous” choice as a pollutant, continues Lindzen, because its primary role is as a fertilizer and currently “almost all plants are starved of CO2”. (continue reading)

Top Climate Scientist Slams Climate Alarm: Carbon Dioxide Is A “Particularly Ridiculous” Choice As A Pollutant

Know;
1a(1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of
2a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

Imagine:
1: to form a mental image of (something not present)
2: suppose, guess
3: to form a notion of without sufficient basis

Project
1a : to devise in the mind : design
  b : to plan, figure, or estimate for the future

Source: Merriam-Webster

We “know” what can be observed or measured, either from personal experience or from the experience of others, past and present. However, there are limits to our knowledge, imposed by our limited exposure or the reliability of the reporting of others with different or broader experience, or with agendas. What we “know” about the past becomes less detailed and less certain the further it is removed in time from the present, especially in periods prior to direct measurement, when what we “know” is based on proxies. In the interpretation of proxies, what we “know” frequently is more what we believe.

As what we “know” transitions from contemporary observation and measurement to recorded observation to interpretation of proxies we are forced to imagine details for which we have no proxies or for which the proxies are ambiguous. We are forced to imagine and develop scenarios which appear to be consistent with the proxy information available. The existence of multiple scenarios based on available proxies clearly marks the transition from “know” to “imagine”, since we cannot “know” two things which are inconsistent or in conflict with each other.

The future is uncertain and, like the past, becomes less certain the longer the timeframe being considered. Regarding the future, over any timeframe, we cannot “know” anything. We are reduced to projecting futures based on our knowledge of the present and the past. Uncertainties regarding details of conditions in the past and present are magnified as those uncertainties are projected into the future.  Uncertainties regarding the effects of factors which might influence projections of potential future conditions result in future scenarios which diverge into the projected future. It is not possible to know which, if any, of these future scenarios is accurate.

There is also significant risk in attempting to analyze what we measure or observe based on what we “know” about the past or about conditions which existed when the event occurred. This is the intent of “attribution science” which purports to model a recent event and then calculate how that event might have been affected by observed conditions at the time of the event. Attribution modeling tells us, on one hand, that a particular event could not have happened without the presence of an event or change we have observed; or, on the other hand, that an event was more likely, or more intense, or otherwise varied because of the occurrence of an event or change we have observed. These “attribution studies” are based, not on what we “know”, but rather on what we “believe” about what we “know”. Regrettably, they are frequently presented as certainty, though they lack sufficient basis for such certainty.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” (Attribution uncertain)

From: CFACT

By: Rupert Darwall

Date: October 12, 2023

Book review: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, By Judith Curry

Just over three decades ago, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed by President George H. W. Bush in Rio de Janeiro. It has one objective: to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so as to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” This objective incorporates three assumptions that collectively constitute a scientific and policy paradigm of climate change.

The first assumption is that climate change is caused exclusively by human emissions of greenhouse gases, principally from the combustion of fossil fuels. The second asserts that all the climate impacts from burning fossil fuels are unambiguously bad for people and the planet. The third is that the solution is the progressive—and preferably rapid—elimination of fossil fuels, requiring mankind to do without its main source of energy.

Five presidents and a generation later, this paradigm has been elevated into an overriding planetary imperative. Yet, on its own terms, the UNFCCC has failed. In the ten years before it was signed, global emissions of carbon dioxide rose from 18.88 giga-tonnes (GT) in 1982 to 22.58 GT in 1992, a decadal increase of 3.70 GT. By 2022, CO2 emissions had risen to 37.49 GT, implying an average decadal increase of 4.97 GT—a rise 34% higher than the increase in the decade prior to the UNFCCC. Despite the UNFCCC being further from its stated objective—global net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases—than when it was signed, paradoxically, the three assumptions that underpin it have hardened into unquestioned and unquestionable propositions driving the West’s futile attempt to decarbonize the global economy. Seen in these terms, the UNFCCC might well be the most consequential international agreement of all time.

Initially, these propositions did not command the universal assent of climate scientists. In its first assessment report, released in 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) observed that the average global temperature had increased by between 0.3°C and 0.6°C over the previous hundred years. “The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability,” the IPCC declared. (contine reading)

Book review: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, By Judith Curry

Nature has intervened in the climate change narrative in a major way with the eruption of the Hunga-Tonga (HT) volcano on the South Pacific seabed. The eruption has experienced minimal exposure in the media because it did not result in major loss of life or property damage. However, it might well prove to be one of the most consequential volcanic events in recent history.

NASA has estimated that the sub-sea eruption expelled sufficient water vapor into the stratosphere to increase stratospheric moisture concentration by approximately 13%, completely overwhelming the minor reduction in stratospheric moisture concentration measured over the past several decades.

Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. A rapid increase of 13% in stratospheric moisture content should have an easily measurable impact on long wave infrared emissions and thus an easily calculable impact on global near-surface temperatures which can be compared to the observed impact. The heated water vapor also transported a significant amount of thermal energy to the atmosphere. The increased water vapor concentration should also ultimately lead to changes in global precipitation.

There has been little or no information provided on other impacts of the eruption. For example, the eruption involved a massive release of both thermal and mechanical energy, both of which contributed to the massive water vapor emission, vaporizing the sea water above the volcano and expelling it to the atmosphere as heated vapor.

However, not all of the water in the immediate vicinity of the volcano was heated sufficiently to vaporize, resulting in a large pool of heated water which should be easily identified and tracked by satellites and the Argo buoys. This pool of heated water might have measurable impacts on the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone and the current El Nino.

The volcanic eruption was a geological event, but it is very likely to influence both weather and climate over a period of several years as the result of the moisture and thermal energy additions to the global atmosphere.

Climate science has a rare opportunity to observe and analyze the effects of a significant step change in atmospheric conditions. Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) reported an increase of 0.35C in the global temperature anomaly in July. He suggested that it was unlikely that this increase was attributable to the developing El Nino, as it is too early in its development. He suggested that it might be the result of the volcanic eruption, at least in part.

Analyzing the effects of the volcanic eruption offers an excellent opportunity to test the projections of the climate models against observations and refine the models to more accurately model the global atmosphere and its response to changing conditions.

There have been suggestions that the recent, rapid increase in North Atlantic Ocean water temperatures might be the result of undersea volcanic eruptions in the Atlantic basin of lesser magnitude than the HT eruption. Analysis of satellite data and data from the Argo buoys might make it possible to confirm this hypothesis and to locate the volcanoes involved.

The HT eruption offers numerous exciting opportunities to advance the state of climate science.

From: Eigen Values - SubStack

By: David Turver

Date: October 7, 2023

Dismantling the Royal Society Large-Scale Electricity Storage Report

The Royal Society report makes extraordinary claims that do not stand up to scrutiny.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Summary

The Royal Society (RS) has recently released its Large-Scale Electricity Storage report that says we can provide the electricity we need using wind and solar power supported by large-scale hydrogen storage. The report makes some extraordinary claims that are interrogated by this report that also seeks to find the extraordinary evidence required to validate their claims. One positive aspect of the RS report is the painstaking analysis of the variations in wind and solar power we might expect over yearly and decadal timescales that drive the need for a very large energy store. The RS report also effectively rules out batteries as a viable alternative as a large-scale energy store.

However, the positive parts of the report stop there. They begin by assuming that electricity demand will be 570TWh in 2050 that represents roughly halving the energy demand across residential, transport and industrial and commercial categories. The evidence from Our World in Data shows that rich economies require high energy consumption to thrive. There are no rich countries with low energy consumption and those countries that have reduced energy consumption have grown more slowly, or even shrunk. The first extraordinary claim of low energy consumption fails because the evidence shows that if we allow that to happen, we will be much poorer.

The report then goes on to assume that the profile of electricity demand will be the same as today. However, as we move from gas to electricity to heat our homes and offices, the winter surge in electricity demand will be further exaggerated. Moreover, demand will change from year to year such as during the cold winter in 2010 that also coincided with a calm period when we would have generated much less renewable electricity. These variations in demand profile will lead to more generation capacity and an even bigger energy store than RS assumes, pushing up costs.

On the supply-side, the report assumes unrealistic load factors for both onshore and offshore wind. They assume that the installed capacity in 2050 will have load factors far higher than has been achieved so far. Even allowing for some technological improvements, the capacity they need to meet their low generation target will need to increase by at least 20%. This would mean a sizeable increase in the capital costs of generation to deliver their plan, pushing up the costs of wind power very significantly. In fact, the costs they assume for renewable electricity generation are three or four times lower than we pay today through Contracts for Difference (CfDs) and Feed-in-Tariffs (FiTs) and are very much lower than achieved in the latest auction round. Using more realistic assumptions about generation costs would double their weighted average generation cost to around £90/MWh. (continue reading)

Dismantling the Royal Society Large-Scale Electricity Storage Report

Several narratives have evolved around the issue of climate change. The narratives originate in the science, but focus on different aspects of the science and different interpretations of its meaning.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 scientific narrative focuses on global temperature anomalies, climate sensitivity, climate forcings and feedbacks, and climate model projections of future warming. The AR6 narrative attributes most or all of the measured warming to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It projects that the globe would warm by 2.5 – 4.5°C if global annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not reduced toward zero in the future.

The IPCC scientific narrative is the basis for the IPCC political narrative, which evolves through the development of the Summary for Policymakers and the Synthesis Report. The AR6 political narrative declares climate change to be a “crisis”, an “existential threat” and an “emergency”. The need to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the future evolves into the professed need to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 through the elimination of fossil fuel combustion for all energy end uses. This political narrative proclaims the worsening of extreme weather events, though the IPCC scientific narrative does not detect any significant trends in extreme weather frequency, intensity or duration.

The skeptical narrative includes scientific results ignored or excluded by the IPCC in the development of AR6. These include studies suggesting significantly lower climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and studies which establish that the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is essentially saturated. These studies suggest that further climate warming would be less than 1°C. The skeptical narrative also focuses on the positive results of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, such as the greening of the globe, reduced plant sensitivity to drought, longer growing seasons and increased crop yields.

The renewables narrative extols the perceived benefits of a transition to a renewable energy economy, including reduced energy costs and reduced air pollution. Combined with the political narrative, it perceives a transition to an “all-electric everything” energy economy by 2050, based almost solely on wind and solar generation.

The energy equity narrative defends the right of developing nations to continue to rely upon and increase their use of fossil fuels in support of their economic development objectives. The support for continuing and expanding fossil fuel use flies in the face of the scientific and political narratives which call for reductions in fossil fuel use. It also flies in the face of the renewables narrative, since it acknowledges that renewable generation is not the best economic development option for these nations. Clearly, if renewables were the path to a lower cost, reliable energy economy with lower air pollution these financially constrained developing nations would not choose to develop a fossil fuel infrastructure which would then be replaced by renewable infrastructure at a later date at additional cost.

The energy equity narrative is more consistent with the skeptical narrative, which is far less concerned about increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

From: Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

By: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Date: September 26, 2023

Summer warming 1895-2023 in U.S. cities exaggerated by 100% from the urban heat island effect

We are now getting close to finalizing our methodology for computing the urban heat island (UHI) effect as a function of population density, and will be submitting our first paper for publication in the next few weeks. I’ve settled on using the CONUS (Lower 48) U.S. region as a demonstration since that is where the most dense network of weather stations is. We are using NOAA’s V4 of the GHCN monthly dataset.

I’ve previously described the methodology, where I use many thousands of closely-spaced station pairs to compute how temperature between stations change with population density at 10×10 km resolution. This is done for 22 classes of 2-station average population density, and the resulting cumulative UHI curves are shown in Fig. 1. (continue reading)

Summer warming 1895-2023 in U.S. cities exaggerated by 100% from the urban heat island effect

Social Cost of Carbon: The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate, in dollars, of the economic damages that would result from emitting one additional ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The SCC is a highly malleable and deeply flawed climate change policy tool. The selection of values for future emissions, climate sensitivity, expected damages, discount rates, etc. can produce an order of magnitude difference in the calculated SCC.

The SCC is not based on actual, documented damage caused by incremental carbon dioxide emissions, but is an estimate of potential future damage which might result from such emissions.

“Estimates of the SCC are calculated in four steps using specialized computer models.

• Step 1: Predict future emissions based on population, economic growth, and other factors.
• Step 2: Model future climate responses, such as temperature increase and sea level rise.
• Step 3: Assess the economic impact that these climatic changes will have on agriculture, health, energy use, and other aspects of the economy.
• Step 4: Convert future damages into their present-day value and add them up to determine total damages.

These four steps are completed to obtain a baseline value for the damages of emissions.”

The federal government is required to perform cost/benefit analysis as a component of regulatory analysis. However, based on the above definition and procedure, no analysis is performed regarding the benefits of incremental carbon dioxide emissions ,which are both real and current as opposed to potential and projected. NASA has documented significant global greening over the past 35 years and attributes 70% of this greening to CO2 fertilization resulting from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Research has also attributed a significant percentage of the increase in field crop productivity to CO2 fertilization; and, has determined that plants also use available water more efficiently in a CO2 enriched atmosphere, making them more drought tolerant. These represent major benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

A major challenge in assessing potential future damage resulting from increased CO2 emissions is the absence of current damage from the atmospheric CO2 increases which have already occurred. There is no documented damage resulting from the modest increase in global average near surface temperature which has already occurred, supposedly as the result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The documented increase in global mean sea level began prior to any significant potential impact from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and has continued at a consistent pace since.

According to the IPCC, there is little or no confidence that the modest warming generally attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations has had any impact on the frequency, intensity or duration of weather events including tropical cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts, heat and cold waves and wildfires.

The predicted massive, climate change driven migration has not occurred, nor has the submersion of Pacific islands or low-lying coastal regions. In fact, most Pacific islands have gained area in the face of rising sea levels.

Indur M. Goklany has stated that the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration has been a net benefit to society and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

From: Robert Bryce - SubStack

By: Robert Bryce

Date: July 1, 2023

The Energy Transition Isn't

Despite $4.1 trillion spent on wind and solar, they aren't even keeping pace with the growth in hydrocarbons

We are inundated with claims about the “energy transition.”

In February, E&E News, reporting on the State of the Union speech said,  “President Joe Biden laid out his vision for the energy transition Tuesday night.” In March, a reporter for Politico declared “The U.S. energy transition is well underway.”

Also in March, during a speech at the CERAWeek conference in Houston, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said that "As this transition progresses, our energy mix will change." Or consider the March 9 press release from the White House, which said “The Administration is continuing to implement the Inflation Reduction Act, which is already galvanizing our clean energy transition and making clean and energy efficient technologies more affordable for American families.”

I could list many more examples like the ones above. But the hard truth is this: the energy transition isn’t. The numbers from the just-released Statistical Review of World Energy show, once again, that despite rapid growth in wind and solar, those two forms of energy are not even keeping pace with the growth in hydrocarbons. That’s true both globally and in the U.S. (continue reading)

The Energy Transition Isn't

Developers of renewable energy generation installations frequently focus their marketing efforts on estimates of the number of homes the installations would serve. The developers’ estimates are not based on consistent assumptions and cannot be directly compared.

Orsted’s recently approved Ocean Wind 1 development, to be located off the New Jersey coast near Atlantic City and Ocean City, would consist of one hundred 11MW wind turbine generators, for a total capacity of 1,100 MW. This would suggest annual generation, at a 100% capacity factor, of 9,600 GWh. The International Energy Agency uses a capacity factor of 50% for offshore wind. We will use that figure here, since there is no offshore wind capacity factor data for the US East Coast. This suggests annual production of approximately 4,800 GWh for Ocean Wind 1.

Orsted projects that Ocean Wind 1 would serve 500,000 homes. The US Energy Information Administration reports average US residential electricity consumption as 10,600 kWh per year. Based on these numbers, Ocean wind would have to generate 5300 GWh per year, or a capacity factor of approximately 55%.

Dominion Energy’s proposed Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) development, to be located off the Virginia coast near Norfolk, would consist of one hundred seventy-six 15 MW wind turbine generators, for a total capacity of 2,600 MW. This would suggest annual generation, at a 100% capacity factor, of approximately 22,800 GWh, or approximately 11,400 GWh at a 50% capacity factor.

Dominion projects that CVOW would serve 660,000 homes, which would require generation of approximately 6,996 GWh based on the EIA residential consumption figure. That would suggest a capacity factor of approximately 30%, far lower than the IEA figure, and even lower relative to the Orsted estimate for Ocean Wind 1.

The estimates above are based on a number of averages: average wind resource; average capacity factor; average maintenance and repair allowances; and, average residential electricity consumption. The available wind resource varies on time scales from minutes to hours to days to seasons, as does residential energy consumption and demand. The use of averages loses a lot of the detail of the match between customer load and generator output.

Since each of these industrial wind installations would be connected to a grid with a far larger customer base than the claimed number of residential customers served, above average output would be absorbed by other loads on the grids, displacing a portion of the output from some form(s) of conventional generation. Below average generator output would require support from some form(s) of conventional generation.

Arguably, fluctuations in generator output and customer load could also be compensated for by additions to and withdrawals from some type of energy storage capacity. However, there is no energy storage capacity included in either of the wind projects discussed above. The issue of storage can be deferred as long as there is sufficient excess conventional generating capacity available to compensate for the fluctuation of the output of the wind facilities and maintain a capacity reserve margin. However, as conventional generating capacity is retired due to age or regulation, and additional intermittent renewable generating capacity is added, addressing the issue of storage cannot be avoided.