Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

I'd like to make a little update to my rant about manufacturing unions yesterday ...... then I'll stop the diversion.
My comments yesterday were mostly concerning the local UAW ..... not sure what union the state workers belong to.

I HAVE, been impressed by trade unions .... specifically the pipe fitters union and IBEW. In my experience, both of those unions training and apprentice programs result in very competent and knowledgeable workers.
The HVACR pipe fitters that worked for us needed to have an unbelievably wide range of knowledge ..... from working on chillers to pneumatic controls to a wide range of other mechanical skills. I was continually impressed with those guy and I was always careful NOT to any of their work and had a good rapport with most of them.
We always subcontracted electricians to do our install work, but tried to hire from companies that had done work for us before .... otherwise we would have to spend a LOT of time explaining the details of how we needed things done ..... a good electrician was like gold to us.

Union workers in a Mfg plant, however, mostly useless as tits on a boar.

Fooled On Climate and Energy by UN Lobbyists​

Most people probably believe that the IPCC and UNFCCC are honest UN agencies with great integrity. In effect, the IPCC as a lobbying co-ordinator and publiciser, and the UNFCCC as taking the IPCC’s lobbying and trying to pressure governments into political decisions, with both agencies using the might of the UN’s media machine to further their aims.

The IPCC describes its role as … “to assess … information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

The outcome of this is that we have a lobbyist organisation with a single focus, in this case man-made climate change rather than the larger picture of why the climate might be changing.

Lobbying organisations often make distorted or deceptive claims, and fail to mention other important information. The IPCC is no exception; its reports have the characteristics of dishonest lobbying:

• Claiming the issue is very important

The latest IPCC report says that the 2011-2020 average global temperature was just 1.1 °C above the 1850-1900 average global temperature, which if we take the middle of each period is over 140 years. That’s less than 0.8 °C/century, which is no threat whatsoever (and is arguable exaggerated). The evidence that there is a threat is weak to non-existent.

• Falsely claiming to have thoroughly assessed the relevant literature

There’s no evidence that IPCC reports assess the relevant literature in any way other than whether it supports the IPCC’s basic premise of human-induced climate change. We see this in, to give just two examples, the “hockey stick” temperature graph, cited eight times in the IPCC’s 2001 report but proven false by MacIntyre and McKittrick a few years later, and in its second report (1995) citing an unpublished paper, written mainly by authors of the IPCC’s report, that was widely criticised when it was finally published.

• Ignoring material that undermines the lobbyists’ claims …

The IPCC ignores papers that find that natural forces play a major part in climate change and, by implication, that the human influence is small. These are important findings regards the risks associated with human-induced climate because they indicate that the risk is negligible.[1]

• … and cherry-picking material that supports them

For example, the IPCC’s sixth report (AR6, 2021) cited a single paper that implied that there had been an increasing trend in US hurricanes and ignored eight other papers that found there was no increase.[2]

• Failing to verify data fundamental to the lobbying

The IPCC admitted this in a response to my comments when I reviewed the IPCC’s 2013 report. My 3017 PhD thesis and my 2018 audit of the HadCRUT4 temperature dataset revealed more than 70 problems. This implies that earlier, highly influential, IPCC reports were based on false temperature data.

• Ignoring the potential benefits of what the lobbyists are against

The IPCC reports contain very little discussion of the multiple benefits of warming. These include reducing the number of fatalities from extreme cold, increasing the area of land suitable for agriculture and boosting the growth of vegetation.

• Using unproven methods to support one’s claims

The IPCC cites many studies that used climate models to do one or more of the following

• Estimate past temperatures
• Estimate the human influence on temperatures
• Predict future temperatures (ceased in the fifth IPCC report after repeated failures)

No climate models have been formally validated (i.e., proven correct in a range of situations) and the record of models is poor. Worse, most climate models used in the IPCC’s 2013 report exaggerated the warming during 1998-2012[3], and the latest generation of climate models, the CMIP6 set, produce a wider range of output than the earlier CMIP5 models.[4]

• Presenting false or distorted science

IPCC reports habitually present false or distorted science. The concept of Global Warming Potential (GWP) is false both because it considers each gas in isolation rather than mixed with others as they are in the atmosphere. Sometimes in combination those gases already absorb 100% of the infrared radiation at a given wavelength, so adding more of those gases can’t absorb more.

The IPCC reports also false claim that greenhouse gases trap energy but all they do is slow the the energy’s escape into space and the energy budget diagrams in each IPCC report misleadingly over-simplify what happens in the atmosphere and have little value.

• Making false claims about the accuracy and applicability of certain data

IPCC reports imply that the global average pre-industrial temperature in known to fractions of a degree but only four weather stations, all in Europe, recorded the temperature before the start of the Industrial Revolution. In a similar fashion, the reports have implied that rings from just a few trees are accurate guides to the northern hemisphere average temperature.

• Making false claims about the strength of one’s “evidence”

Many IPCC reports claim to have multiple lines of evidence for man-made warming but those lines of evidence are a mixture of the facile (e.g., that warming has occurred), claims based on the output of climate models, instances of correlations that by themselves don’t prove cause or are just speculation.

• Implying that the material it cites is the truth

The IPCC reports cite findings made in reports, books and published papers (sometimes single papers) as if they were proven truths. A remarkable number of scientific papers make findings that cannot be replicated and some, probably only a small proportion, are withdrawn/retracted.[5]

After the main text of the reports have been drafted and refined via the review process, the IPCC presents government representatives with a draft Summary for Policymakers (SPM), written by selected authors of chapters of the main text. These representatives, some of which might know little about the subject, negotiate the wording of the SPM within the framework presented to it, and eventually formally approval the document[6]. Governments would find it difficult to reject IPCC claims after their representatives have been coerced into approving the document.

About this time the UNFCCC exaggerates the IPCC’s claims even further by talking about “the threat of climate change”, urgent action being required and there being a “climate emergency”. None of this is true but the UNFCCC pressure governments into acceding to demands for international agreements such as the Paris Climate Agreement and Net Zero.

Lobbying is easy when the opposition is greatly handicapped. Both the IPCC and UNFCCC use the huge United Nations media machine to spread their claims around the world in a multitude of languages. Papers that present counter-arguments and counter-claims to the IPCC’s reports don’t have that level of reach and don’t have a similar ability to plant stories in the local media. These alternative views struggle for exposure and are probably rarely seen by governments or the public.

Governments have been pressured into funding climate research that supports IPCC beliefs and supporting, via subsidies to certain bodies, the UNFCCC’s baseless push towards renewable energy and Net Zero.

The IPCC probably learnt to lobby from one of its co-sponsor UN agencies, the UNEP. From 1975 to 1992, across a period that saw several contentious environmental issues, the UNEP was headed by microbiologist Mustafa Tolba. He is on record as saying that the success of one of the UNEP’s lobbying exercises could be attributed to

• A core group of countries that wanted the ban
• Strong personalities – scientists and others – endorsing the claims and ban
• Mobilising public opinion, and that opinion pressuring governments into action

(The second and third points are particularly relevant to IPCC and UNFCCC lobbying.)

But what happened with the contentious issues that the UNEP lobbied hard for during Tolba’s reign?

• Its claim in the 1970s that acid rain was killing trees was proven false everywhere except for a small and very heavily polluted region of eastern Europe.
• Its lobbying to discourage the use of DDT, as a prelude to an outright ban, probably caused about 20 million people to die from malaria[7]. Only a last-minute effort by over 300 doctors, who pointed out that DDT was a cheap and effective countermeasure against malaria, prevented that ban being put in place.
• Its claim, based on a single scientific paper, that CFCs were damaging the ozone layer seems highly unlikely. After almost 30 years and billions of dollars spent switching to alternatives, there’s no sign that the ozone hole is shrinking. Many scientists have pointed out that the occurrence and magnitude of the hole are inconsistent with the UNEP’s claims[8].

The UNEP’s lobbying of false claims has entrenched certain information so deeply in the minds of the public and governments that counter-claims are very rarely considered. Even now some branches of the media are still supporting the UNEP’s beliefs and in doing so, manipulating public opinion.

On each matter the UNEP jumped to conclusions long before scientists had properly investigated the subjects, then forced those assumptions onto the world. The establishment of the IPCC was also driven by assumptions and conclusions before scientists had the chance to consider all the issues and potential causes of warming. (The IPCC was created, in part, as a consequence of the warming in the 1980’s but the sudden increase in El Nino events after 1977 can explain that warming.)

UN Secretary-General Guterres could be described as a strong personality who endorses the lobbying claims of the IPCC and UNFCCC. His recent nonsense about the Earth boiling is just wild exaggeration that’s inconsistent with the IPCC’s statement of about 1.1 degrees C warming in about 140 years.

Unfortunately, Guterres been joined by various so-called scientists who are lobbying perhaps not so much for the IPCC as to protect their incomes and reputations.

Ultimately the scare about man-made warming is not based on science but on lobbying by the IPCC and UNFCCC, and flawed lobbying at that. The Paris Climate Agreement and the push for Net Zero, and the associated issues like forcing electric vehicles onto us all, are very weak on scientific justification but the result of lobbying that manipulates global media outlets and pressures governments.

The Many Problems With Batteries​

As a source of energy information for many global and U.S. policymakers, International Energy Agency (IEA) reports speak with great authority. In its report released in April, Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions, the agency charts out a path for massive growth in battery energy storage consistent with the goal of ‘Net Zero’ by 2050.

Batteries provide an essential lynchpin in plans to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions in the Net Zero vision. The dramatic global expansion of in-battery energy storage over the coming decades is deemed necessary to facilitate the growth of wind and solar power and electrified transportation, all essential elements in the ‘Energy Transition.’

The fact that batteries are critical to the energy system of the future is treated as a given. Data from the past decade showing rising investments and lower costs for batteries are commonly offered as proof of past market success and future market viability. Projections anticipate sharp and sustained increases in global battery energy storage capacity over the next decades. It is an open question whether transforming the global market for battery energy storage by 2050 will influence other parts of the energy system. Nonetheless, in line with the zeitgeist, the authors answer this question with confidence.

The starting point is 2050 and policies must work backwards from there. The argument assumes that rapidly eliminating the internal combustion engine will leave society with no choice but to use battery powered vehicles. Similarly, the unpredictable timing of sun and wind will force humanity to reckon with the need for batteries to compensate for the intermittent renewable energy resources of the future.

A little background: Despite the advances in battery technology and the decline in their costs, some scientific and engineering realities distinguish batteries from other forms of energy storage. Like fuels, batteries store their energy chemically. In practice, however, batteries store energy less efficiently than hydrocarbon fuels and release that energy far more slowly than fuels do during combustion. Absent major breakthroughs, the technologies for storing energy and providing power using electrochemical batteries require far more mass and volume than technologies that do the same using fuels. The energy density of a storage technology is defined by its ability to store energy in a given volume or with a given mass. It is relevant and more than ironic that the energy density of biomass fuels like straw and animal dung is twenty times greater than the today‘s best lithium-ion batteries, and gasoline has an energy density over 50 times greater.

In addition, the slower release of energy from batteries is evident in the long charging times of electric vehicles and the need for ultra-high voltages to speed up charging. The mass and volume of battery energy storage only expands when one includes the power conditioning equipment, such as inverters and transformers, and the transmission lines required to integrate distributed energy resources with these facilities and with the grid. These system features will profoundly affect the technical performance, and the economics, of battery energy storage in the future.

The report addresses the challenge of supplying the many critical minerals necessary for enormous increases in battery manufacturing, including a chart showing a projected five to 30 times increase in demand for the different battery metals by 2050. However, the authors hasten to characterize this, and other daunting challenges, as “obstacles” to be managed. As in an earlier 2021 IEA publication, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, this report regards steep increases in demand for critical battery metals as inescapable and any difficulties arising from market pressures as manageable. With the complacent tone of bureaucrats that have reached consensus, the authors assume policy mandates and technical fixes will solve the complex problem of securing batteries minerals. They call for policy fixes to “create secure, sustainable supply chains” in order to meet the prospective growth in mineral demand. The prospect of raging geopolitical tensions and the immense scale of the necessary industrial build out are met with confidence-boosting adjectives.

Other potential drawbacks of a rapidly expanding global battery market get short shrift. The Chinese dominance in manufacturing batteries, and processing the minerals used to make them, is acknowledged but its implications left unexplored. Any mention of waste from batteries comes in connection with downstream wastes and the need for future recycling with little attention paid to the upstream wastes generated prior to battery manufacture. Passing mention of High-Pressure Acid Leaching avoids noting the recent massive implementation of this Chinese-financed, highly polluting, coal-powered process to manufacture battery-grade Nickel in Indonesia. There are no allusions to the other waste streams that would accompany enormous increases in battery manufacturing. The flammability of lithium-ion batteries, already a safety factor in aviation and maritime trade and in crowded urban areas, only merits mention in the context of new battery chemistries – Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) and Sodium-ion – that pose reduced fire risks are also far less energy dense.

In fact, the inherent bulkiness of battery energy storage quickly shows itself in real world applications. Using current technologies, half of the power produced by the battery pack of an electric vehicle goes to moving the batteries themselves, a basic problem for a mobile power source. Nonetheless, because battery costs play such a dominant role in the price of electric vehicles, manufacturers are turning to less expensive battery chemistries, like LFP, that exclude rare metals but have lower energy densities than current Lithium-ion batteries. For residential power grids, the volume of batteries needed to keep a city going for a full day is staggering. Consider the greater Seattle area. Powering the Seattle grid for 24 hours using batteries would require a cylinder over sixty meters in diameter at the height of the Space Needle (184 meters), filled with manufactured battery packs. Today, at the Kapolei Energy Storage outside Honolulu, over 6,000 tons of LFP batteries (enough to fill a pole one meter in diameter and the height of Mauna Loa (4170 meters)) can supply the electricity demanded by a sixth of the million residents of Oahu for three to six hours.

The report neglects options for incremental changes to the energy system that might reduce emissions more effectively and have greater potential for implementation. Consider the fact that increasing power production from natural gas and nuclear energy could reduce carbon emissions more effectively than building and maintaining the elaborate physical infrastructure necessary for solar and wind and batteries. Or the fact that hybrid electric vehicles require much smaller battery packs, leverage consumer familiarity, and may offer more promise for reducing aggregate vehicular emissions than do fully electric vehicles in the long run. Instead, the authors show a preference for algorithms that seamlessly manage real world residential and industrial energy systems. Enthusiasm pours out for “smart charging” to improve the efficiency of massive vehicle charging, “variable tariffs” to balance daily electricity demand, and “AI for innovation and sustainability.”

Climate ideology is now so pervasive that its assumptions are taken as global policy imperatives without reservation. The report ignores the sheer magnitude of industrial (and polluting) activity needed to support the market growth for battery technologies at the scale imagined, as well as the dis-economies of scale that result from the inherent limits of batteries as an energy storage technology. The lack of critical scrutiny is finally evident in the expectation that consumers and taxpayers will absorb the higher costs indefinitely through government subsidies.

In a world awash in international tensions and wars, modernizing the global energy system such that people everywhere have increasing access to affordable energy is vital to ensuring future peace and prosperity. Providing that energy abundance with the least amount of impact on nature requires confronting the realities of physics and chemistry. Massive increases in battery electric storage may be essential to an energy future imagined by resolute Net Zero technocrats. But closer scrutiny reveals serious defects in the technical basis for implementing batteries as a comprehensive solution. There are easier ways for humanity to avoid the problems that batteries are intended to solve.

"A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to get."

Outer Banks homes are collapsing, but U.S. coastal property values are booming anyway

Mexico elects a climate scientist as president

... the historic first is overshadowed by 34 candidates or aspiring candidates for political office being killed ref

Click to expand...

New York's Climate Change Superfund Act

“This is peanuts to these companies,” she said. “It requires big oil payers to pay $3 billion a year for 25 years in a row, that’s $75 billion for climate damage repair, resilience, and protection.”

Click to expand...

76.2% of the 3000 largest U.S. companies examine climate change as a risk
Opinion: It's probably mostly weather related, I suspect how significantly COVID disrupted the supply chain was a big wake-up call. I wonder if that will decrease business from areas at risk as they seek "more reliable" providers?


Oil industry asks Supreme Court to block climate change lawsuits

Fossil fuel companies fund a number of denier organizations (e.g., Heartland, Cato, Heritage, API, AEI), but what do the CEO's say?

• Ken Cohen, Exxon CEO: ... Climate change is real and appropriate steps should be taken..." ref
• Mike Wirth, Chevron CEO" “Climate change is real. There’s no doubt about it,” ref
• Gretchen Watkins, Shell CEO: "...urgent need for action on climate change" ref
• Darren Woods, Exxon CEO 2023: Climate change is real, Human activity plays a major role, and, it is one of the major problems facing the world today... to address the very real threat of climate change....To get serious about net zero, the world needs to get real. ref

Woods, I thought, gave a pretty good speech imploring the world to not paint them as villains. If it weren't for funding the denier sites and lobbying to delay change just to increase their profits at the expense of humanity I'd have a lot more sympathy for them. There have been calls (ref) to put them on trial. Given the anticipated death toll attributed to it will be higher than any other atrocity committed by a country it'll probably happen at some point; but by then the really guilty ones will have passed away.

It's a complex issue that touches on both business ethics and legal responsibilities. Fiduciary responsibility is the obligation of a Company to act in the best interest of another party. In a corporate context, this typically means that a company's management has a duty to make decisions that benefit shareholders, which often involves maximizing profits. Corporate malfeasance on the other hand, refers to wrongful actions performed by corporate officers or executives, which can harm the company and its stakeholders, including the public.

Fossil fuel companies are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility by maximizing profits and funding PR campaigns that protect its interests. However, the company knowingly causing harm and attempting to discredit the science behind that harm is certainly an act of corporate malfeasance. But they did inform the government of global warming as far back as LBJ (early 60's). It's not like no one knew until Carl Sagan testified before congress in 1985. There are also no laws against emitting GHGs despite the government knowing. What do you think?

From the you cant make this shit up if you tried dept LOL

Almost All Recent Global Warming Caused by Green Air Policies – Shock Revelation From NASA​

The world of climate science is in shock following extraordinary findings from a team of high-powered NASA scientists that suggest most of the recent global temperature increases are due to the introduction of draconian fuel shipping regulations designed to help prevent global warming. The fantasy world of Net Zero is of course full of unintended consequences, but it is claimed that the abrupt 80% cut in sulphur dioxide emissions from international shipping in 2020 has accounted for 80% of global warming since the turn of the decade. Although the extra heat is described as “transient”, the warming is extraordinary and is expected to rise during the 2020s at a rate of 0.24°C a decade, 20% higher than the claimed warming trend since 1980.

The news is likely to cause considerable concern among the mainstream climate hoaxers in media, academia and politics. They have had a field day of late by pointing to rises in temperature as evidence for their evidence-free prediction that the climate is in danger of imminent collapse. But the NASA scientists, working out of the Goddard Space Flight Centre, predict a trend of rising temperatures due to the IMO2020 regulations going forward, and state, “the 2023 record warmth is within the ranges of our expected trajectory”.

The science behind the NASA findings, which have been published in Nature, is simple. Fewer fuel particles injected into the atmosphere reduce cloud droplet density and this leads to clouds that reflect less solar radiation back into space. As the scientists note: “IMO2020 effectively represents a termination shock for the inadvertent geoengineering experiment through a reverse marine cloud dimming through reducing cloud droplet number concentration.” In the course of their work, the team calculated large particle reductions in major shipping routes in the North Atlantic, the Caribbean Sea and the South China Sea.

The NASA paper is likely to be fiercely contested, not least because it blows holes in all the attribution pseudoscience attempting to blame recent temperature rises and individual weather events on human-induced increases in carbon dioxide. Already the climate activists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact say the observation period is too short, and man-made greenhouse gases continue to play the decisive role in climate change. Much of this thinking, that provides the ’settled’ science base for the planned Net Zero collectivisation, is supported by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC promotes the view that almost all climate change since around 1900 is caused by the activities of humans. This unproven opinion looks shakier by the day. The NASA scientists have forced the issue of particles, or aerosols, to the centre of the climate debate, although there are other explanations for the recent rise in temperatures. These include a now departing strong El Niño, and possible changes in the upper atmosphere caused by the huge injection of water by the early 2022 Hunga Tonga submarine eruption.

The El Niño effect is well known and strong past oscillations, which involve global transfers of heat from oceans to the atmosphere, have shown short-term temperature spikes. As the current El Niño declines, to be likely replaced in short order by the cooling effects of a La Niña, there are signs that sea temperatures are falling. It will be up to the scientists to fight it out over what has played a more significant role in recent temperature rises – aerosols or El Niño – with some backing for third place Hunga Tonga. Moving further out in the betting – odds lengthening all the time, it seems – is the inventive notion that humans control the overall climate by burning hydrocarbons. What is clear, of course, is that climate is impossible to predict. The recent temperature rise is tiny and well within the natural variation seen across all known and reliable records. When it comes to making political decisions about human society, computer models that claim to replicate and forecast future climate trends need careful examination, while in the hands of powerful people with wrongheaded or even sinister agendas they are potentially dangerous.

The effect of the Hunga Tonga eruption continues to intrigue some scientists, although their curiosity is not reciprocated by the all-in mainstream CO2 promoters. Recently a team of Australian climatologists used the eruption, which increased the amount of water vapour in the stratosphere by up to 10%, as a ‘base case’ for further scientific work. Working out of the University of New South Wales, they reported that volcanoes blasting water vapour – a strong if short-lived ‘greenhouse’ gas – into the high atmosphere, “can have significant inputs on the climate system”. In fact they found that surface temperatures across large regions of the world could increase by over 1.5°C for several years, although some areas could cool by up to 1°C.

Yet more fascinating, conflicting and debatable climate science that under no circumstances should be drawn to the attention of the general public.

New Study in journal Nature reveals ’85 years of glacier growth & stability in East Antarctica​

Early aerial expedition photos reveal 85 years of glacier growth and stability in East Antarctica

Published: 25 May 2024 – Mads Dømgaard, Anders Schomacker, Elisabeth Isaksson, Romain Millan, Flora Huiban, Amaury Dehecq, Amanda Fleischer, Geir Moholdt, Jonas K. Andersen & Anders A. Bjørk

Nature Communications: Our results demonstrate that the stability and growth in ice elevations observed in terrestrial basins over the past few decades are part of a trend spanning at least a century, and highlight the importance of understanding long-term changes when interpreting current dynamics. … However, in Antarctica, the scarcity of historical climate data makes climate reanalysis estimates before the 1970s largely uncertain10,23, and observed trends cannot clearly be distinguished from natural variability24,25.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48886-x

Early aerial expedition photos reveal 85 years of glacier growth and stability in East Antarctica


Abstract (Emphasis added)

During the last few decades, several sectors in Antarctica have transitioned from glacial mass balance equilibrium to mass loss. In order to determine if recent trends exceed the scale of natural variability, long-term observations are vital. Here we explore the earliest, large-scale, aerial image archive of Antarctica to provide a unique record of 21 outlet glaciers along the coastline of East Antarctica since the 1930s. In Lützow-Holm Bay, our results reveal constant ice surface elevations since the 1930s, and indications of a weakening of local land-fast sea-ice conditions. Along the coastline of Kemp and Mac Robertson, and Ingrid Christensen Coast, we observe a long-term moderate thickening of the glaciers since 1937 and 1960 with periodic thinning and decadal variability. In all regions, the long-term changes in ice thickness correspond with the trends in snowfall since 1940. Our results demonstrate that the stability and growth in ice elevations observed in terrestrial basins over the past few decades are part of a trend spanning at least a century, and highlight the importance of understanding long-term changes when interpreting current dynamics.

Introduction

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) contains more than 52 m of potential sea level equivalent (SLE)1. Recent observations indicate that the EAIS is more vulnerable than previously anticipated2, and has made a considerable contribution to the continent-wide mass loss during the past decades3. The losses have primarily occurred in some of the marine-based catchments in Wilkes Land4, and are largely attributed to the intrusion of modified Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW)2. The terrestrial catchments, where the majority of the ice is grounded above sea level, have recently shown a mass gain caused by increased accumulation5,6,7,8, which has balanced some of the overall mass loss9,10. Observational time series of glaciers in East Antarctica pre-dating the satellite era are rare11 and consequently not long enough to determine if recent trends are independent of natural fluctuations2,12. Historical datasets from early expeditions serves as a crucial link connecting records from the pre-satellite era, such as those derived from ice cores13 or geological14 and geomorphological evidence15, to quantitative observations of mass change acquired from satellites5,6,7. While geological and geomorphological records cover longer time scales with temporal uncertainties of up to thousands of years14,15, SMB estimates from ice cores are generally very local and spatially confined16. In contrast, data from historical aerial expeditions often provide extensive coverage across large areas, with detailed temporal and spatial information17,18,19. Additionally, historical data provide an important baseline for forward modeling of glacier dynamics, allowing for long-term reanalysis data and more accurate model calibration20. In Greenland and Svalbard, long-term observations from historical aerial images have been vital for determining the historical response of glaciers to climate change18,19,21,22. However, in Antarctica, the scarcity of historical climate data makes climate reanalysis estimates before the 1970s largely uncertain10,23, and observed trends cannot clearly be distinguished from natural variability24,25.

Here, we rediscover and utilize the images from the earliest large-scale aerial photography campaign conducted on the Antarctic continent, allowing us to extend the era of observational records of glacier evolution back to the 1930s. Since the beginning of the 20th century, several expeditions were launched to Antarctica with the aim of exploring and capturing aerial images for the production of geographical maps26,27,28,29,30. However, just a handful of studies have previously used these data for generating digital elevation models (DEMs) and only for glaciers located in West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula11,31,32, dating back to 194732. On the Antarctic Peninsula, these observations show widespread near-frontal surface lowering and inland stability since 196031. On the other hand, historical observations of the Byrd Glacier over the past 40 years indicate a constant surface elevation, stable grounding line, and surface flow velocity11.

…

Currently, the earliest ice-sheet wide mass balance estimates start in the late 1970s3,6,7, and since then all the sub-regions examined in this study have exhibited either an overall mass gain or been relative unchanged.

…

Regardless of potential climatic changes, our results indicate that the glacier in Kemp and Mac Robertson Land and along Ingrid Christensen Coast, have accumulated mass during the past 85 years which inevitably have mitigated parts of the more recent mass loss from the marine basins in East Antarctica and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). This positive accumulation trend and positive mass balance is anticipated to persist as snowfall is expected to increase over the entire EAIS in the next century54,55, and ice sheet modeling studies project positive mass balance estimates in all three sub-regions across all future RCP scenarios56.

Lastly, we determine frontal changes of 21 glaciers from 1937 to 2023 (Table S1 and Fig. S11). From the 85 years of observations, we find two distinct regional patterns; one of constant glacier surface elevations and one of ice thickening.

Another crazy conspiracy theory comes to life. First mileage tax, then banning private auto. Because of the weather gods you know, lol

California Considers Placing a Mileage Tax on Drivers​

Transcript

The state says it needs more money for road repairs, and the gas tax just isn’t cutting it. KPIX Five’s Phil Matier reports on Sacramento wanting to take a look at your odometer. Phil.

One of the biggest selling points for electric cars and hybrids is that they save you big money at the pump – but at what cost to the rest of us? If you own an older vehicle that is fueled by gas, you’re paying gas tax to maintain the roads. Someone who has an electric vehicle is paying much less than you but they are still using the roads. And that’s one reason why State Senator Scott Wiener and others are saying that when it comes to road taxes, it’s time to start looking at charging you by the mile rather than by the gallon. “People are going to use less and less gas in the long run,” says Wiener. And less gas means less gas tax and less money for road repair. “We want to make sure that all cars are paying to maintain the roads,” Wiener adds.

One idea would be installing devices that would clock your mileage every time you pull up to the pump or electric car charging station. Or put a tracker on every car. “The reality is that if you have a smartphone the data of where you are traveling is already in existence,” Wiener explains.

None of this is sitting well with Joshua Li, owner of a super hybrid BMW. Matier asks, “How much are you saving by not using gas?” Li responds, “I save around $200 a month.” Matier then asks, “How would you feel if they charged you anyway?” “I’m definitely not happy about that,” says Li.

“If you buy a small car that gets great fuel economy, we don’t get enough money to repair the roads – and there is a pothole right there. But the fact of the matter is, people are buying trucks – like that vehicle there and that vehicle there,” says Randy Rentschler of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. He suggests that the real answer is to raise the gas tax and up the fee for electric cars.

“And what do the people we talked to, tanking up today say?” Matier continues. “I drive all over Northern California for work, so definitely it would be a problem,” says one motorist. “These are all consumption taxes – just taxing poor people,” comments another.

So, assuming a “mileage fee” plan goes ahead, what would happen to the gas tax? Would we still pay that? Thanks, Phil.

It is just fine to destroy and kill as long as it is for the god of "alt energy".

Top Gear: 'Torrent' of EV misinformation​

Mr Willson told the UK Parliament’s Transport Committee it was “realistic and achievable” to ban the sale of new petrol, diesel, and hybrid cars by 2035 – but warned the target could be held back by myths, misinformation, and disinformation”.

Click to expand...

Opinion: Hat's off to the Top Gear crew! Top Gear loves ICE cars, so for them to speak out regarding all the EV BS really speaks to their integrity.

fpgt72 said:

It is just fine to destroy and kill as long as it is for the god of "alt energy".

Click to expand...

Definitely not fine. But, I think you have to look at both sides.... Is it fine to keep destroying and killing as we are doing with fossil fuels? Would you be as annoyed about it if was a pipeline? Did you post about any of them (e.g., Cadiz pipeline) and the environmental damage they would do?

But thanks for posting that! I'd be surprised if that solar farm happens without them needing to move, replant, or otherwise working around the trees, it's California after all.

Update:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also conducted a review and concluded that Joshua trees do not require protection under the Endangered Species Act3.

Click to expand...

While the project will impact Joshua trees during construction, the company argues that more Joshua Trees are being threatened by climate change caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions, which the Aratina solar project directly addresses1.

Click to expand...

...a 2,300-acre solar project...... about 4,700 Joshua trees on the site, and the company plans to cut down about 3,500 of them1.

Click to expand...

Joshua Tree Plant Adoptions​

svetz said:

Top Gear: 'Torrent' of EV misinformation​

Opinion: Hat's off to the Top Gear crew! Top Gear loves ICE cars, so for them to speak out regarding all the EV BS really speaks to their integrity.


Definitely not fine. But, I think you have to look at both sides.... Is it fine to keep destroying and killing as we are doing with fossil fuels? Would you be as annoyed about it if was a pipeline? Did you post about any of them (e.g., Cadiz pipeline) and the environmental damage they would do?

But thanks for posting that! I'd be surprised if that solar farm happens without them needing to move, replant, or otherwise working around the trees, it's California after all.

Update:

Joshua Tree Plant Adoptions​

Click to expand...

Your hypocrisy knows no ends does it.

Oh wait! Did you mean the bit in the bottom of the post about cutting down the Joshua Trees for the Solar farm? Where you wrote:

fpgt72 said:

It is just fine to destroy and kill as long as it is for the god of "alt energy".

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with 'Alt' and everything to do with energy. America has a long history of ignoring the environment in favor of energy. I didn't protest the Alaska pipeline, drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dakota Access, the Keystone project or pretty much any other oil project (I did once type in a post about the Mountain Valley pipeline being a waste of money, but that's economic rather than environmental). From what I read, Joshua trees are not endangered and can be planted (ref). Seems like people that care about them can just plant some more (or bring a law suit against the solar farm to get them to replace them). Just because we're going to renewables doesn't mean we need to crawl into caves and lower our standard of living, I fully expect Americans to use even more energy in the future (albeit, clean energy).

I get the LA Times and Green environmentalists being outraged, it's California and they're environmentalists. But, it's only hypocrisy if for example, you bring up save the Joshua trees and never protested any of the other energy projects that have harmed the environment, that is you are solely doing it to prove climate change is bad. To me climate change is an urgent problem and if we need to sacrifice some trees for it I'm okay with that.

Most people don't believe in climate change because they're environmentalists. We believe it because solid science says it's true. All the possible explanations (e.g., GHG, volcanoes, cosmic rays, solar output, fluctuating magnetic fields, maunder cycles) have all been examined and tallied up. The only theory to fit all the facts is that man-made GHGs are the cause of global warming and leading us towards some serious problems. I don't talk about it to 'save trees', it's about the prosperity of our nation, the prosperity of our kids. Here are some links to back up the claims on how we know it's not a hoax and how it is man-made:

• How we know Climate Change is not a hoax or wrong
• How we know Climate Change is Man-Made
• How The Greenhouse Gas Effect Works (with atmospheric layers)
• How Climate Change Became Politicized
• 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong

Human-caused global warming at all-time high

no evidence yet of climate change accelerating due to tipping points

Debunking eight common myths about climate change

Maryland’s Pollution Reduction Plan signed

World Health Organization: serious health impacts from climate change for pregnant women, children, and older people

Texas 2036
Opinion: Interesting site for the Texas Bicentennial. Didn't realize they were projecting +3C for the state by then. Pity Florida doesn't have as comprehensive information.

Climate Change Is Boosting the Bacteria That Devour Olive Trees

has already wiped out millions of plants... [also] generating million-dollar losses in the wine sector... with 4 more degrees, would rise to a “surprising” risk, they admit, of 47% and 63%

Click to expand...

R47627|Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals

What are states doing to make virtual power plants a reality?

Sunrun sets a record in California with the US's largest virtual power plant

Virtual power plants could ease growing strain on US electric grid

California budget cuts could decimate key virtual power plant programs

svetz said:

Huh? Not sure how quoting Top Gear that: is hypocrisy. Here's the definition of the word to help you out:

Oh wait! Did you mean the bit in the bottom of the post about cutting down the Joshua Trees for the Solar farm? Where you wrote:

It has nothing to do with 'Alt' and everything to do with energy. America has a long history of ignoring the environment in favor of energy. I didn't protest the Alaska pipeline, drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dakota Access, the Keystone project or pretty much any other oil project (I did once type in a post about the Mountain Valley pipeline being a waste of money, but that's economic rather than environmental). From what I read, Joshua trees are not endangered and can be planted (ref). Seems like people that care about them can just plant some more (or bring a law suit against the solar farm to get them to replace them). Just because we're going to renewables doesn't mean we need to crawl into caves and lower our standard of living, I fully expect Americans to use even more energy in the future (albeit, clean energy).

I get the LA Times and Green environmentalists being outraged, it's California and they're environmentalists. But, it's only hypocrisy if for example, you bring up save the Joshua trees and never protested any of the other energy projects that have harmed the environment, that is you are solely doing it to prove climate change is bad. To me climate change is an urgent problem and if we need to sacrifice some trees for it I'm okay with that.

Most people don't believe in climate change because they're environmentalists. We believe it because solid science says it's true. All the possible explanations (e.g., GHG, volcanoes, cosmic rays, solar output, fluctuating magnetic fields, maunder cycles) have all been examined and tallied up. The only theory to fit all the facts is that man-made GHGs are the cause of global warming and leading us towards some serious problems. I don't talk about it to 'save trees', it's about the prosperity of our nation, the prosperity of our kids. Here are some links to back up the claims on how we know it's not a hoax and how it is man-made:

• How we know Climate Change is not a hoax or wrong
• How we know Climate Change is Man-Made
• How The Greenhouse Gas Effect Works (with atmospheric layers)
• How Climate Change Became Politicized
• 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong

Click to expand...

That is where you are dead wrong, in everything in your post. Not just America, but EVERY NATION ON THE PLANET, ignored the environment. And some that you sing the praises of like China and India still are. You don't seem to have any issues with that.

You hate for this country tells me all I need to know about you.

fpgt72 said:

And some that you sing the praises of like China and India still are.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between 'singing praises' and responding factually to false claims that China is 'doing nothing'.

It's also not even 'my opinion', I don't know how true those things are. I try to pick what I believe are factual news sources (unlike many that post here) and I link those references and quotes so that others can understand why I believe it and evaluate it on their own. It also allows them to respond to any false claims in those references. For example no one has yet disputed the correctness of this:

China installed a larger amount of new solar capacity in 2023 than the total amount ever installed in any other nation, contributing to its already dominant position in the global renewable energy landscape, reports Bloomberg. According to the national energy administration (NEA), China added 217 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity in 2023, ref

Click to expand...

No one disputes that even Fossil Fuel CEOs have said Climate Change is a real and urgent threat:

• Ken Cohen, Exxon CEO: ... Climate change is real and appropriate steps should be taken..." ref
• Mike Wirth, Chevron CEO" “Climate change is real. There’s no doubt about it,” ref
• Gretchen Watkins, Shell CEO: "...urgent need for action on climate change" ref
• Darren Woods, Exxon CEO 2023: Climate change is real, Human activity plays a major role, and, it is one of the major problems facing the world today... to address the very real threat of climate change....To get serious about net zero, the world needs to get real. ref

And, no one has successfully disputed any of the claims in:

• How we know Climate Change is not a hoax or wrong
• How we know Climate Change is Man-Made
• How The Greenhouse Gas Effect Works (with atmospheric layers)
• How Climate Change Became Politicized
• 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong

(at least no one I haven't put on /ignore for personal attacks, I don't know WTF they're saying and don't care. For those guys I'd say check their sources, when I did it in the past they got upset at finding out they'd been bamboozled by paid-for disinformation).

fpgt72 said:

You hate for this country tells me all I need to know about you.

Click to expand...

Sure sure, no evidence and no proof to your beliefs that hasn't been shown to be false. So just make personal attacks on your fellow members despite forum rules to not do that. Way to rock a point and convince others.

If you love your country, isn't it best to test the reasons for your beliefs to make sure you're not adding to the pile of disinformation screwing it up? I started the thread as a denier, it was only as I worked through the science I came to believe. I could be wrong, but at least I've tried to the best of my ability to fully understand the issue and I hope I've always been respectful of my fellow members.

BREAKING: The First Domino Falls on EV Mandates in Virginia​

Governor Glenn Youngkin and Attorney General Jason Miyares: Virginia Will Exit California Electric Vehicle Mandate at End of Year​

RICHMOND, VA – Governor Youngkin today announced the end of the California electric vehicle mandate in Virginia, effective at the end of 2024 when California’s current regulations expire. An official opinion from Attorney General Jason Miyares in response to a request by the Governor and Senate Republican Leader Ryan McDougle confirms that Virginia is not required to comply with expansive new mandates adopted by the unelected California Air Resources Board (CARB) set to take effect January 1, 2025.

“Once again, Virginia is declaring independence – this time from a misguided electric vehicle mandate imposed by unelected leaders nearly 3,000 miles away from the Commonwealth,” said Governor Glenn Youngkin. “The idea that government should tell people what kind of car they can or can’t purchase is fundamentally wrong. Virginians deserve the freedom to choose which vehicles best fit the needs of their families and businesses. The law is clear, and I am proud to announce Virginians will no longer be forced to live under this out-of-touch policy.”

“Today, I’ve issued an official Attorney General Opinion that confirms that Virginians are no longer legally bound to follow the emission standards of California,” said Attorney General Jason Miyares. “EV mandates like California’s are unworkable and out of touch with reality, and thankfully the law does not bind us to their regulations. California does not control which cars Virginians buy and any thoughts that automobile manufacturers should face millions of dollars in civil penalties rather than allowing our citizens to choose their own vehicles is completely absurd.”

In 2021, the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation authorizing Virginia’s Air Board to adopt California’s “Advanced Clean Cars I” regulation pursuant to Section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently adopted “Advanced Clean Cars II,” set to take effect January 1, 2025, which would require 100% of new cars sold in Model Year 2035 to be electric vehicles. An opinion from Attorney General Jason Miyares confirms the law, as written, does not require Virginia to follow ACC II. Therefore, the Commonwealth will follow federal emissions standards on January 1, 2025.

“Throughout CARB’s ‘Advanced Clean Cars II’ regulation are references to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s executive orders and the unique environmental circumstances facing California. Virginia’s laws should not be determined by California politicians. Instead, our laws should be decided by Virginians who are elected to serve Virginia and address issues that face our Commonwealth, not a state nearly 3,000 miles away,” said Senator Ryan McDougle, who co-patroned legislation to repeal CARB’s mandate during this year’s legislative session along with Senator Richard Stuart, Senator John McGuire, Delegate Lee Ware, Delegate Tony Wilt, and Delegate Buddy Fowler.

Under Advanced Clean Cars II, beginning in Model Year 2026, 35% of the new cars sold would have been required to be electric vehicles, moving up to 100% in 2035. If an auto manufacturer sells a standard automobile out of compliance with California’s mandate, they may be required to pay a fine upwards of $20,000 per vehicle sold. Given that EVs only amounted to 9% of vehicles sold in Virginia in 2023, application of the misguided mandates could have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. Virginia auto consumers and dealers could be forced to bear these costs. Not only would this leave auto dealers with less money to pay staff, offer raises, and grow their businesses, it could force many small auto dealers to permanently close their doors.

Half Of German E-Car Buyers Regret Their Purchase or Lease!​

From the NoTricksZone
By P Gosselin on
Many Germans regret their purchase or lease of an e-car and Germans overall are increasingly unwilling to consider them.
Citing an article published in the online Merkur.de, Blackout News reports: “Half of German e-car owners regret their purchase or lease”.
Apparently German e-car owners are disappointed due especially to “rising electricity prices”.
Recently we reported here that the German e-car industry was “a crisis headed for a catastrophe” and that sales were plummeting.
Q1 2024, EV sales declined some 14.1% compared to Q1 of 2023.
e-car targets now a fantasy
Meanwhile sales of conventional engine cars have risen strongly over the same period. According to Blackout News, the share of electric cars sold from the entire automobile mix was just 12.2 percent. and new e-car registrations in the current year are “down significantly”.
Customers overall remain wary of e-cars and no sales boost is in sight. This means Germany will fall far short of its electric car targets.
According to Renate Köcher from the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research: “In the long-term trend, e-mobility has always been in the minority, but now we have reached a new low.”

Guardian Removes Article Claiming Renewables are Cheap as Advertising Watchdog Signals False Claims Will Not Be Tolerated​

Regular readers of my Substack might recall that back in April, I wrote an article rebutting a blatant piece of propaganda that appeared in an advertorial in the Guardian, paid for by the National Grid.


I complained to both the Guardian and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and there is both good news and bad news to report.

The bad news is that the Guardian dismissed the complaint saying:

Colleagues have been through the piece in light of your comments, and do not believe that there is a basis for amending the copy of the article.

Click to expand...

The good news is the ASA appear to have taken a dim view of the article. Its response noted that the article has now been removed from the Guardian’s website and it said:

We have decided to resolve your complaint through the provision of advice to the advertiser. Therefore, we have explained the concerns raised to the advertiser and provided it with guidance on how to ensure that its advertising complies with the Codes both now and in future.

Click to expand...

It is not clear whether the withdrawal of the article is related to the “advice” it gave or whether it is merely a coincidence. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that renewables are an expensive source of power and false claims can no longer be made in the press.

I think we should chalk this up as some sort of victory.