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

[aenyc]

The EV Tax Credit Is a Climate Lemon​

The Inflation Reduction Act’s consumer tax credit for electric vehicles (EVs) is a fiscal blowout and a gift to Chinese mineral companies. If that isn’t bad enough, it also swindles American taxpayers into paying up to $821 per ton of avoided emissions, which is several multiples above the Biden Administration’s own estimates of the cost of carbon. At that staggering price, the scheme is a spectacularly inefficient way to reduce emissions.

Through the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, taxpayers subsidize the purchase of new electric vehicles by up to $7,500. But how many tons of carbon emissions does that actually stop from reaching the atmosphere? Compared to a conventional vehicle, the International Energy Agency estimates that using an EV avoids the equivalent of around 22.24 tons of carbon dioxide across its lifecycle. This means that the EV tax credit costs around $337 to avoid each ton of carbon emissions.

However, the true cost is actually higher because proper accounting should exclude EV consumers who would buy electric vehicles regardless of the tax credit. Because the tax credit doesn’t sway those consumers, the associated avoided emissions shouldn’t be attributed to the credit. The credit has the same $7,500 value, but the scheme is actually avoiding fewer carbon emissions, so the price per ton is higher.

According to a 2021 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, 70% of consumers who claimed the federal EV tax credit would have done so in its absence, which would imply a $1,123 implicit cost of carbon. Since then, the Inflation Reduction Act introduced new conditions on the tax credit, including limits on eligibility for high-income buyers. Even if one generously assumes that the remaining pool of very motivated buyers is only half the size — meaning only 35% would purchase an EV without it — then the implicit cost of carbon is still $519 per ton.

The federal splurge on carbon gets a further boost thanks to President Biden’s onerous fuel efficiency standards. Mandating higher fuel efficiency means that a shift from a conventional vehicle to an EV has less of an effect in terms of avoided emissions. In May 2022, the Department of Transportation mandated that new cars on the roads in 2026 be 33% more fuel efficient than the 2021 standards. When consumers choose EVs over these more efficient gas-fueled vehicles, the implicit price of carbon within the EV credit jumps to $775. As the Biden Administration progressively ratchets these efficiency standards higher, so too goes the implicit price on carbon. By 2031, federal taxpayers will be forking over the equivalent of $821 for each ton of carbon the EV tax credit prevents from reaching the atmosphere.

Frittering away more than $800 for a ton of carbon is a rip-off that not even the most unscrupulous used car salesman could dream up. Compare this figure to recent estimates of the “social cost of carbon,” which the federal government uses to quantify the impact of emissions when making regulatory decisions. While the Trump Administration estimated it to be between $1 to $7 per ton, the Biden Administration blew the roof off in 2023 by raising that cost to $190. That progressive overstatement now looks like a steal.

Even within the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax and spend circus, the EV tax credit is a spectacularly wasteful way to reduce carbon emissions. For example, the natural gas tax, which solely punishes the oil and gas industry under a thin guise of environmentalism, levies a fee equivalent to $36 per ton of carbon. Meanwhile, the tax credit for vacuuming emissions out of the air is worth up to $180 per ton. These dramatically different prices, even within a single act of Congress, underscore the practical futility of calculating an efficient price on carbon for a carbon tax or tariff.

Progressives like to measure the success of their policies by how much taxpayer money they can burn through, and the White House periodically reminds taxpayers that the Inflation Reduction Act is the largest single climate spending spree in human history. What they don’t mention is that the American public is being ripped off at the car lot with a climate lemon of a tax credit.

 

[aenyc]

Fossil Fuels Remain The Future. VW To Invest 60 Billion Euros In Combustion Engines!​

In a surprising move, Volkswagen announced it plans to invest 60 billion euros in the development of new combustion engines as confidence in electric mobility plummets in Germany and elsewhere.
Strategy adjustment

“This change in strategy shows that the transition to electromobility is progressing more slowly than expected,” reports Germany’s Blackout News here. “Just last year, Volkswagen assumed that electric cars would account for 80 percent of annual sales in Europe by the end of the decade. However, the lukewarm reception for its own ID models is forcing the company to adjust its strategy.” Also see (motor1: 07.06.24).

As German sales of electric vehicles fall way short of government targets due to their unpopularity and high costs, manufacturers are seeing the writing on the wall: Electric mobility still has a long way to go.

Reality check

Originally, the Wolfsburg-Germany based VW planned to invest 180 billion euros only for the next generation of electric vehicles, but now it also plans to invest 60 billion euros for internal combustion engine development.

“The future is electric, but the past is not over yet. It is a third and it will remain a third.” Arno Antlitz, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Volkswagen Group.

Electric mobility gets postponed

The announcement underscores the importance of internal combustion engines in the future, despite declarations from the media and governments claiming they would disappear over the next 1 or 2 decades.

Volkswagen said in 2022 it would sell only electric cars by 2033. This obviously is not not longer the case.

Other luxury VW brands like Bugatti, Lamborghini and Bentley are also focusing on continuing the combustion engine, but steering towards synthetic, alternative fuels.

Blackout News also reports, “Ford no longer believes it will be all-electric in Europe by 2030. Aston Martin has also decided to build cars with combustion engines into the next decade.”

What’s behind the sudden swing back to combustion engines and the growing aversion to electric cars?

As the recent European election results starkly show, customers are tired of being told what to buy and what rules to follow. Germany’s Green Party lost nearly half its voter base in last Sunday’s EU election. Moreover, China’s ability to produce electric cars cheaply is being increasingly viewed as a threat.

“The electric offensive from China is worrying established car manufacturers,” comments Blackout News. “Car manufacturers must react flexibly and invest in both electric and conventional technologies. This is the only way they can meet market and regulatory requirements.”

 

[aenyc]

GCMs Cannot Predict Climate​

In March, my article “Traffic Lights and Roundabouts – Why the Climate Models will never work” was presented on WUWT. That was a somewhat light-hearted analogy between road traffic and climate, saying in essence that the techniques used in climate models wouldn’t work for road traffic, so why would you trust them to work for climate. The reason for writing it was to give people an argument that could be used in conversation with those whose eyes would glaze over if you tried to talk about the inner workings of climate models.

Another reason for writing it was that I had been putting off writing a proper critique of climate models, knowing how much work it would be. Well, comments on “Traffic Lights and Roundabouts” have spurred me into action, and I have now written up a proper analysis, and it has been published – General Circulation Models cannot predict climate.

The paper is based on Chaos Theory, of course, and two very interesting (to my mind) facts emerged:

1. Climate is sufficiently complex that its various parts have different ‘prediction horizons’. A prediction horizon is the length of time beyond which we can no longer accurately forecast a chaotic system’s behaviour. So some parts of a climate model, like hydroclimatic processes (the water cycle) break down very quickly, while other parts, like tropical ocean surface temperatures, can work for quite a long time.

2. For climate, prediction horizons are nested. If you get past the short term prediction horizon of maybe a few weeks, you hit a new one of maybe a few years. Past that, there is a decadal horizon, then centuries, then millenia, etc. It may even be better to think of prediction horizon as a continuum rather than nested.

In “Traffic Lights and Roundabouts”, I said that I was not the first person to say that the climate models will not work. In this ‘GCMs cannot predict climate’ paper, I also recognise that I am not the first person to make many of the points in the paper, and hopefully I have made this clear via references. However, I might be the first to put it all together in a journal. If not, I apologise, I couldn’t find it in the literature.

In summary, the main point is that the grid-based physical processes and parameteristions in the GCMs cannot predict climate because there is a short prediction horizon for most of what goes on in climate. That is, a tiny error will very quickly increase in size until it has completely swamped the predictions. It has been shown that GCM results can be dramatically improved if a grid-level process is replaced by a higher-level parameterisation (see “seasons” in the paper). My argument is basically that this applies to just about all longer term climate features in the GCMs (I actually think it really is all). In other words, when the physical processes and small-scale parameterisations in the GCMs (I’ll call these their “grid-level processes”) hit a prediction horizon for a particular feature, the barrier can be overcome by analysing the feature externally and then feeding it back into the model. There is no point at which the model, after being fed with a number of such longer term features, can ever reliably predict any other longer term features, because it necessarily hits a new prediction horizon when it steps outside the areas that it has been given.

The end result is that the grid-level processes in a GCM cannot predict anything into any kind of longer term future. All longer term features must be analysed externally and then be fed into the GCM if the GCM is to produce reasonable results. But then the grid-level processes in the GCM aren’t predicting anything. If the grid-level processes are still in the GCM, they are now simply ‘obeying orders’.

Even longer term features, like ocean oscillations, have their own prediction horizon. Will they speed up or slow down, get stronger or weaker, or even stop for a while – we don’t know. So there is a limit to how far we can extrapolate them into the future. For example, we are used to the 11-ish year cycle of sunspots, but for several decades within the Maunder Minimum they virtually stopped. Maybe Earthly cycles can do that too. Maybe William Herschel was right, that there really was a causal connection between what we now call the sunspot cycle and wheat prices, it’s just that things changed at the end of the Dalton Minimum. Today’s scientists often claim that William Herschel was wrong, based on the fact that the correlation he observed did not continue, but they do not take into account the fact that the Dalton Minimum did not continue either.

Many years ago, a well-known climate scientist told me they didn’t know the mechanisms that caused periods like the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) or the Little Ice Age (LIA), so they could not code them into the climate models. My paper says that they can now put in the MWP/LIA pattern without knowing the mechanisms.

The paper ends up arguing that a GCM calculates weather at each time step and this is then amalgamated into a final prediction of climate, but a realistic long term climate model would instead calculate climate and then weather would be deduced from the climate.

The abstract of the paper:

Abstract

This study draws on Chaos Theory to investigate the ability of a General Circulation Model to predict climate. The conclusion is that a General Circulation Model’s grid-level physical processes and parameterisations cannot predict climate beyond maybe a few weeks. If a General Circulation Model is to be used at all, longer term climate features can be analysed externally and fed into the model but they cannot be represented by the model any better than by the external analysis. The external analysis, which is likely to be simpler, has the added advantage that the assumptions that are used, and the uncertainties in the results, are much more likely to be explicitly identified, quantified, and understood. Consequently it would be clear which aspects of the climate are being predicted, and how reliable those predictions are. The longer the timescale is, the less relevant the grid-level physical processes and parameterisations in a General Circulation Model become. Although a General Circulation Model can be made to represent climate over a longer time scale, its grid-level physical processes and parameterisations cannot predict the climate. A General Circulation Model calculates weather at each time step and this is then amalgamated into a final prediction of climate. This process is back to front. A realistic long term climate model would calculate climate and then weather would be deduced from the climate.

The full paper is here.

Maybe no-one has ever put it all into a paper before because, once you see it, it is all so blindingly obvious – except that the way the climate models are revered it seems not to be so blindingly obvious to some people. Well, now that there is a paper that states explicitly that GCMs can’t predict climate, and explains why, will it make any difference? I doubt it. As Upton Sinclair said nearly a century ago: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

 

[aenyc]

 

[aenyc]

 

[Bob B]

As you're not a believer in man-made climate change, then China's emissions don't mean anything - so why bring it up? It's not proof global warming isn't real. Is it just some odd belief that it's okay to be a denier because we are all helpless victims? We're not. But... if you have suddenly become a believer, what can be done about it and who is more guilty? The U.S., or them? The chart to the right shows the U.S. and Europe both far outweigh China in cumulative emissions. The half-life of CO2 is over a century, it's our cumulative emissions that cause the problems, not what anyone has done in the last year.

Per Person, China has lower Emissions The other bit about your graph that is misleading is it looks at the emissions of the country. Who would use more water, a house with 4 kids or a house with 1 kid? China is a big country with a population of 1.425 billion compared to our 341 million. So of course they're going to emit more if they are on parity. But they are not at parity. Take a look at the graph to the left. If you want to point a finger at someone, the mirror is the appropriate place to start.

Can we do Anything about China?
When I was a child and my excuse for not doing something because my brother hadn't done it either my parents didn't fall for it. Using China as an excuse to not fix your own problems is idiotic. As big as China's emissions are, they're only 27% of the CO2 emitted and they have 28.7% (ref) of the global manufacturing output.

But there are things we can do. China was the sixth largest buyer of coal from the U.S. (ref) and they import from other countries too.

We and our allies could stop exporting coal and ban all other fossil fuels over night. That would make a big dip in CO2 emissions right? ; -)
Unfortunately, it would also cripple economies around the world. A more practical approach might be increase the price so alternative solutions are more economic. That's a simplistic answer though. You might be interested in the paper Reassessing the embodied carbon emissions in China’s foreign trade: a new perspective from the export routes based on the global value chain for alternatives.

You might also be interested in the NOAA article Does it matter how much the United States reduces its carbon dioxide emissions if China doesn’t do the same?

Solar with Storage is already Cheaper than fossil fuels

But really you don't have to go to such extremes. From Lazard's, Solar PV is the lowest cost of energy ($-0.015/kWh) and for reliability with Battery storage is only slightly more than natural gas (+$0.007/kWh), as battery prices continue to fall, so will the LCOE. China knows this. That's why they're canceling fossil fuel projects and deploying renewables. In 2023 China deployed more renewables than any other country. In 2024, they plan to deploy even more. Let's also look at the tip of your graph:

View attachment 222209

China is decreasing emissions The downdip a few years ago was from Covid. But see how the tip is leveling off. They're not there yet, but they are working hard to reduce their emissions. If you want to worry, worry about fossil fuel companies make sweetheart deals with India (who are desperate for energy).

So sorry Bob; but the chart you want to put on speed-dial looks like meaningless to me and the point you're trying to make back-fires.
Yes, the world is stuck with all those new coal power plants they just built for the next 30 years, but that's why the Net-Zero goal is targeted for 2050, to give those plants (and ours) time to recoup their costs and be retired from age.


The proposed 50.4 MPGe standard for new cars for 2031 is not impossible. For example, numerous cars today already exceed the standard: the Audi A4 L gets 53 MPGe, the quattro 68 MPGe, the BMW 330e 75 MPGe, the Lincoln Corsair 78 MPGe. Of course, BEVs do a lot better; the 2021 Tesla Model 3 has an impressive 134 MPGe.

Reducing emissions does help with the "real" problem IMO.


If you believe in climate change, wouldn't it be insane to not look at what's causing GHG emissions and see what simple things you can do to save the world?


It's a 30s clip of Bill talking about farmers not currently being able to grow crops and how he's at a meeting to talk about possible solutions and what he can do to help. In short, there wasn't anything "radical" about it. As to the destruction of our food system, that's what is currently happening around the world due to climate change and what they want to fix.

Seems to me you are still in China denial ..... Whether GHG is the cause of global warming or not, reduction in GHG is the intent of all the crazy things being proposed.

How much are all the crazy things Bill and AL can dream up to destroy the food system going to decrease total world wide GHG emissions?
It simply isn't sane for everyone else in the world to do a bunch of crazy stuff that isn't going to have any real effect on the total GHG emission of the world.

The cumulative numbers everyone tries to throw out there to confuse the issue are irrelevant ..... If the actual intent of all this activism is to reduce GHG emissions, what matters is what's going on RIGHT NOW ...... Unless you a time travel machine hidden away somewhere.

By continuing to post this chart, I'm just trying to inject a dose of reality ...... It doesn't seem to me that anyone involved in the GHG hysteria is paying any attention to reality.

 

[aenyc]

They do not care about reality. Their goal is to create some bogeyman to make people give up whatever remaining freedoms they have.
They are all hypocrites - their own rules don't apply to them as you can see from their behavior (private jets, megamansions etc).
And on China 100% spot on, but like classical hyppocrites, they always ignore the elephant in the room in hopes that you wont notice it either.

 

[svetz]

Seems to me you are still in China denial ..... The cumulative numbers everyone tries to throw out there to confuse the issue are irrelevant ..... By continuing to post this chart, I'm just trying to inject a dose of reality ...... It doesn't seem to me that anyone involved in the GHG hysteria is paying any attention to reality.

Seems to me you're cherry picking data from sources and ignoring everything to the contrary.... It's really disheartening to see you're giving up on honest discourse.

As you're not a believer in man-made climate change, then China's emissions don't mean anything - so why bring it up? It's not proof global warming isn't real. Or have you given up on the science trying to disprove climate change since your past posts were debunked? There's a reason for that.

It's because global warming is real and all the evidence pretty solidly points it to being caused by GHG emissions from humans, Yes, China should work to reduce their emissions. It's something every country should work on. Fortunately, all responsible countries are.

The U.S. is still the largest total contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere ...The cumulative numbers everyone tries to throw out there to confuse the issue are irrelevant ..... Give the half-life of CO2 is over a century, it's our cumulative emissions that cause the current climate problems. So, how much over time a country has emitted is hardly irrelevant. The responsibility for a large chunk of the Global Warming you see today has been caused by the United States as shown to the right. Will China overtake the U.S. as the single largest contributor someday? It could happen. Does this mean China gets a pass? No, it does not. Who's to blame? How about those knowingly forming and spreading misinformation?

Per Person, China has lower Emissions The other bit about your graph that is misleading is it looks at the emissions of the country. Who would use more water, a house with 4 kids or a house with 1 kid? China is a big country with a population of 1.425 billion compared to our 341 million. So of course they're going to emit more if they are on parity. But they are not at parity. Take a look at the graph to the left. Per person they produce half as much. So yes, they produce more than any other nation...but it's because it's a big-ass nation. On a per person basis, the US and the EU are the biggest emitters. Other countries governments have a responsibility to bring the standard of living for their people up, and that means more energy per person. The US/EU have a responsibility to bringing down the emissions per person and increasing the energy per person. That means more renewables and nuclear if we can get the LCOE down.

Can we do Anything about China?
When I was a child and my excuse for not doing something because my brother hadn't done it either my parents didn't fall for it. Using China as an excuse to not fix your own problems is idiotic. As big as China's emissions are, they're only 27% of the CO2 emitted and they have 28.7% (ref) of the global manufacturing output.

But there are things we can do. China was the sixth largest buyer of coal from the U.S. (ref) and they import from other countries too.

We and our allies could stop exporting coal and ban all other fossil fuels over night. That would make a big dip in CO2 emissions right? ; -)
Unfortunately, it would also cripple economies around the world. A more practical approach might be increase the price so alternative solutions are more economic. That's a simplistic answer though. You might be interested in the paper Reassessing the embodied carbon emissions in China’s foreign trade: a new perspective from the export routes based on the global value chain for alternatives.

You might also be interested in the NOAA article Does it matter how much the United States reduces its carbon dioxide emissions if China doesn’t do the same?

Solar with Storage is already Cheaper than fossil fuels

But really you don't have to go to such extremes. From Lazard's, Solar PV is the lowest cost of energy ($-0.015/kWh) and for reliability with Battery storage is only slightly more than natural gas (+$0.007/kWh), as battery prices continue to fall, so will the LCOE. China knows this. That's why they're canceling fossil fuel projects and deploying renewables. In 2023 China deployed more renewables than any other country. In 2024, they plan to deploy even more. Let's also look at the tip of your graph:

China is decreasing emissions The downdip a few years ago was from Covid. But see how the tip is leveling off. They're not there yet, but they are working hard to reduce their emissions. If you want to worry, worry about fossil fuel companies make sweetheart deals with India (who are desperate for energy).

So sorry Bob; but the chart you want to put on speed-dial looks like meaningless to me and the point you're trying to make is just hysteria.
Yes, the world is stuck with all those new coal power plants they just built for the next 30 years, but that's why the Net-Zero goal is targeted for 2050, to give those plants (and ours) time to recoup their costs and be retired from age.

Is it sane to be setting impossible fuel efficiency standards... when none of that addresses the REAL problem?

The proposed 50.4 MPGe standard for new cars for 2031 is not impossible. For example, numerous cars today already exceed the standard: the Audi A4 L gets 53 MPGe, the quattro 68 MPGe, the BMW 330e 75 MPGe, the Lincoln Corsair 78 MPGe. Of course, BEVs do a lot better; the 2021 Tesla Model 3 has an impressive 134 MPGe.

Reducing emissions does help with the "real" problem IMO.

Is it sane to be ... re-engineer the entire world food system when none of that addresses the REAL problem?

If you believe in climate change, wouldn't it be insane to not look at what's causing GHG emissions and see what simple things you can do to save the world?

Bill wants radical action to shift the world food economy in his direction. Tell me how the destruction of our food system is going to fix this problem.

Did you even watch it? It's a 30s clip of Bill talking about farmers not currently being able to grow crops and how he's at a meeting to talk about possible solutions and what he can do to help. In short, there wasn't anything "radical" about it. As to the destruction of our food system, that's what is currently happening around the world due to climate change and what they want to fix. Sounds like a good thing.

 

[Checkthisout]

They're up to 90% removal of methane from cows with simple natural additives.

The bit about eliminating methane would actually (slightly) reverse global warming in the short term was news to me. Sounds a lot better than direct air capture or geo-engineering as short term measures.

Seems to me you're cherry picking data from sources and ignoring everything to the contrary....
As you're not a believer in man-made climate change, then China's emissions don't mean anything - so why bring it up? It's not proof global warming isn't real.

Give the half-life of CO2 is over a century, it's our cumulative emissions that cause the problems. So, how much over time a country has emitted is hardly irrelevant. The responsibility for most of the Global Warming you see today has been caused by the United States as shown to the right.

Per Person, China has lower Emissions The other bit about your graph that is misleading is it looks at the emissions of the country. Who would use more water, a house with 4 kids or a house with 1 kid? China is a big country with a population of 1.425 billion compared to our 341 million. So of course they're going to emit more if they are on parity. But they are not at parity. Take a look at the graph to the left. If you want to point a finger at someone, the mirror is the appropriate place to start.

Can we do Anything about China?
When I was a child and my excuse for not doing something because my brother hadn't done it either my parents didn't fall for it. Using China as an excuse to not fix your own problems is idiotic. As big as China's emissions are, they're only 27% of the CO2 emitted and they have 28.7% (ref) of the global manufacturing output.

But there are things we can do. China was the sixth largest buyer of coal from the U.S. (ref) and they import from other countries too.

We and our allies could stop exporting coal and ban all other fossil fuels over night. That would make a big dip in CO2 emissions right? ; -)
Unfortunately, it would also cripple economies around the world. A more practical approach might be increase the price so alternative solutions are more economic. That's a simplistic answer though. You might be interested in the paper Reassessing the embodied carbon emissions in China’s foreign trade: a new perspective from the export routes based on the global value chain for alternatives.

You might also be interested in the NOAA article Does it matter how much the United States reduces its carbon dioxide emissions if China doesn’t do the same?

Solar with Storage is already Cheaper than fossil fuels

But really you don't have to go to such extremes. From Lazard's, Solar PV is the lowest cost of energy ($-0.015/kWh) and for reliability with Battery storage is only slightly more than natural gas (+$0.007/kWh), as battery prices continue to fall, so will the LCOE. China knows this. That's why they're canceling fossil fuel projects and deploying renewables. In 2023 China deployed more renewables than any other country. In 2024, they plan to deploy even more. Let's also look at the tip of your graph:

View attachment 222314

China is decreasing emissions The downdip a few years ago was from Covid. But see how the tip is leveling off. They're not there yet, but they are working hard to reduce their emissions. If you want to worry, worry about fossil fuel companies make sweetheart deals with India (who are desperate for energy).

So sorry Bob; but the chart you want to put on speed-dial looks like meaningless to me and the point you're trying to make back-fires.
Yes, the world is stuck with all those new coal power plants they just built for the next 30 years, but that's why the Net-Zero goal is targeted for 2050, to give those plants (and ours) time to recoup their costs and be retired from age.


The proposed 50.4 MPGe standard for new cars for 2031 is not impossible. For example, numerous cars today already exceed the standard: the Audi A4 L gets 53 MPGe, the quattro 68 MPGe, the BMW 330e 75 MPGe, the Lincoln Corsair 78 MPGe. Of course, BEVs do a lot better; the 2021 Tesla Model 3 has an impressive 134 MPGe.

Reducing emissions does help with the "real" problem IMO.


If you believe in climate change, wouldn't it be insane to not look at what's causing GHG emissions and see what simple things you can do to save the world?


It's a 30s clip of Bill talking about farmers not currently being able to grow crops and how he's at a meeting to talk about possible solutions and what he can do to help. In short, there wasn't anything "radical" about it. As to the destruction of our food system, that's what is currently happening around the world due to climate change and what they want to fix.

You don't have to fall for every trick in the book Svetz.

It's ok to not be a gullible enabler. You can say no, even if you believe climate change is real you can still say no to the proposed solutions.

It's ok.

 

[svetz]

Weather Risks

Analyzing data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), ClaimGuide ranked counties across the U.S. from most to least prepared for natural disasters based on three key metrics

Opinion: Interesting map, but there are more factors at play then they account for. For instance in Monroe county, community resilience is nothing short of amazing. Buildings aren't likely to fall down as in other counties. It's because severe storms (aka hurricanes) are common. We usually have a hurricane blow though the neighborhood every year, so (despite Florida striking Climate Change from the books for political reasons) we take it seriously and are prepared (mostly, flooding and surges are a big issue there doesn't seem like there's much we can do about). The places that are really at risk are those whose emergency plans have dust on them... they won't be prepared because they don't have the experience. It's probably an easy spot for a local politician to cut budgets because "nothing bad has ever happened", or worse, because rampant misinformation has lulled them into thinking climate change isn't real and they can save the city a lot of money. Imagine if your city had a denier at the helm.

DeSantis declares state of emergency as more than 25 inches of rain slam South Florida (there is no climate change in Florida! ; -)​

 

[svetz]

Electricity from Algae gobbling up CO2

When the algae perform photosynthesis... electrons are captured by the membrane, creating an electric current. This setup can even generate electricity without direct sunlight, though it works better with sunlight.

Opinion: You know I love algae! Assuming I can find the paper and if there's anything really cool in it I'll post it.


Revolutionary' Bill Gates Nuclear Project

TerraPower applied for a construction permit for the plant's Natrium reactor...The completed plant will feature a 345 megawatt reactor, developed in partnership with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, and a built-in energy storage system capable of boosting the facility's output to 500 megawatts.

Opinion: Terrapower's plant should be operational fairly quickly (6 or so years) and has a number of innovations... but these aren't the micro-reactors.

NASA Says Official US Methane Estimate Is Wrong

new satellite analysis, an international team of scientists found that methane emissions in the U.S. were [13%] higher in 2019 than previously estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The Global Methane Pledge

The Global Methane Pledge (GMP) was launched at COP26 by the European Union and the United States. Participants joining the Pledge agree to take voluntary actions to contribute to a collective effort to reduce global methane emissions at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030. This is a global, not a national reduction target.

Opinion: Neither Russia nor China have signed up.

Lake Tahoe Full For First Time in 5 Years
Opinion: The wet winters have really helped with lakes, probably more El Nino than anything else. Map of U.S. lakes at capacity.

 

[aenyc]

 

[aenyc]

Recommended Sites​

Climate at a Glance	Climate Realism
Heartland’s Climate Page	Heartland’s Climate Conferences
Environment & Climate News	Watts Up With That
Liberty & Ecology	Heartland’s Energy Conferences
Junk Science (Steve Milloy)	Climate Depot (Marc Morano)
CFACT	CO2 Coalition
Climate Change Dispatch	Net Zero Watch (UK)
GlobalWarming.org (Cooler Heads)	Climate Audit
Dr. Roy Spencer	No Tricks Zone
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry)	JoNova
Master Resource	Cornwall Alliance (Cal Beisner)
International Climate Science Coalition	Science and Environmental Policy Project
CAR26.org	Gelbspan Files
1000Frolley (YouTube)	Climate Policy at Heritage
Power for USA	Global Warming at Cato
Science and Public Policy Institute	Climate Change Reconsidered NIPCC)
Climate in Review (C. Jeffery Small)	Real Science (Tony Heller)
WiseEnergy	C3 Headlines
CO2 Science	Cartoons by Josh
The Climate Bet	Steve Milloy on Twitter
CAR26	Chris Martz

 

[aenyc]

A Preview on Some of The New York Energy Impossibility​

Dr. Benny Peiser and I have now begun our 2024 GWPF U.S. speaking tour. Yesterday we appeared for an event at the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin, Texas. Between in person and online, we understand that over 400 people attended the event. (I believe that video of this event will be posted at some point on the TPPF website, but I don’t find it there yet.). Tonight we will be speaking at the 3 West Club, 3 West 51st St. in New York City, at 6 PM.

As mentioned previously in my post two weeks ago announcing tonight’s event, the title is “Europe’s Net Zero rebellion, European elections, and the coming U.S. reckoning.” Benny will cover the European piece of the subject matter, while I am taking on the “coming U.S. reckoning.” I’ll give you here a brief preview to whet your appetite.

The reason I use the term “reckoning” is that people in positions of authority, who have no idea what they are doing, in their zeal to eliminate “carbon emissions,” have set up mandates and goals that are completely irreconcilable. As a matter of physics or economics or both, the things that have been mandated to occur cannot all be accomplished at the same time, let alone within the time frames specified, or at anything close to affordable cost. Some time soon, a reckoning is inevitable.

Many examples of the irreconcilability can be cited, both at the federal level and among blue states that have eagerly sought the mantle of “climate leader” without ever doing even a cursory investigation of feasibility. For this preview I’ll focus on one particular example: the mandates in New York that dispatchable natural gas power plants be closed at the same time that demand on the grid dramatically increases from simultaneous mandates for electric cars and electric building heat.

New York has multiple agencies involved in the supposed energy transition. A Climate Action Council, plus an agency called NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Agency) actively promote the development of wind and solar generators as the wave of the future, without knowing or caring how it will all work. Then there is the New York Independent System Operator, NYISO, that is responsible for making sure that the grid works. NYISO knows full well that the various mandates cannot be achieved simultaneously, but they also recognize that that view is not in favor politically at the moment. So NYISO puts out documents that seem on their face to be saying that everything is fine; but if you read between the lines, you realize that they are sounding the alarm.

Here is NYISO’s document called the “2023-2032 Comprehensive Reliability Plan,” issued November 28, 2023. Read it without a skeptical eye, and you might come away at first thinking that all is well, or at least close to it. Phrases like “meets all currently applicable reliability criteria . . .” are sprinkled around. Yes, there are references to things like “a variety of risk factors to the long-term plan,” and the possible need to keep some natural gas peaker plants around longer than might be hoped, but that is only “as a last resort,” and only until some “permanent solution” is in place.

We then come to the following chart, presented at page 6 with little comment. Oh wait, it shows a big drop in “existing supply” in 2025 — next year — due to the forced closure of some of these natural gas plants, and expected demand then being right in the middle of a part of the bar labeled “deficiency.” That’s rather soon. Oh, it seems that (after this document was issued) they have just delayed the closure of those natural gas plants. Crisis averted, for the moment. Then in 2026 there is an addition to supply, shown in blue, representing the opening of a new transmission line to import hydro power from Quebec. But that’s only about 1 GW of additional capacity, out of 11+ GW of so of peak demand. By 2031, we are back to projected deficiency, which becomes more serious every year — and could be much larger depending on how fast demand grows with all those new mandates.

But the killer is the supposed “long term solution.” You have to get all the way to page 52 to find out that they have no idea what that might be, and even then it is written in code:

With high penetration of renewable intermittent resources, DEFRs are needed to balance intermittent supply with demand. Resources with these characteristics must be significant in capacity. . . .”

“DEFRs”? What are those? They are the elusive “Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources.” Just like fossil fuel plants, they can be turned on and off on command to meet demand, but they make no carbon emissions. Voilà — problem solved! Oh, wait — if such a thing existed, wouldn’t we be using it already?

Although they never say it in quite these words, the entire plan post-2030 relies on something that has not yet been invented or deployed at scale. What might it be? Nuclear? That is completely blocked in New York by a hostile political and regulatory environment, and would take at least 15 years to deploy if we started on a crash program today. “Green” hydrogen? That costs something like 20 to 50 times what natural gas costs, and would require an entire new infrastructure of production facilities, pipelines, and power plants, none of which exists or is under construction or even in a serious planning stage. Batteries? Batteries just to get through one calm night (16 hours) would cost about the same as the entire New York State annual budget. Batteries to be sufficient to provide full back-up to a grid without fossil fuels (500 – 1000 hours of average usage) would cost a multiple of New York’s entire GDP.

So in fact, there is no real plan. You can see New York hitting the wall in that chart. The mandates are in place. We march forward, until we can’t any more.

 

[aenyc]

‘Wildly Emotional’ Lib MP Goes Full Intersectional Feminist For Climate Change™​

“Here comes an avalanche of [Climate Change™] bullshit.” -Marla Singer

‘Depopulation by pandemic’: The WEF Way​

Via The Counter Signal: (emphasis added):

“In a tweet that has since been deleted, Bill McGuire, a professor at the WEF-funded University College London, posted a controversial message, suggesting that a deadly pandemic leading to the depopulation of billions is the only means to combat global warming.
The far-left professor tweeted, ‘If I am brutally honest, the only realistic way I see emissions falling as fast as they need to, to avoid catastrophic #climate breakdown, is the culling of the human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate.’
Following the backlash for his polarizing statement, McGuire attempted to rephrase his original message in another tweet.”

WEF Bill later attempted to reframe his call for human depopulation by clarifying that he was advocating reduced economic activity, not population— despite literally calling in no uncertain for a high-fatality-rate pandemic to “cull” the human population.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1789692038033645891

It’s like they don’t even try with the gaslighting anymore. For Christ’s sake, if you’re going to insult the rabble’s intelligence, put a little effort into it, Bill. Make us believe you’re the true übermensch you fancy yourself with that fine argumentation.

(Another) study suggests killing your dogs for Climate Change™​

I am, for Kafkaesque reasons, on many strange mass email lists, none of which I ever signed up for and have no idea how I got on.

These include Nancy Pelosi’s office, which regularly demands in hysterical tones in BOLD RED UNDERLINED UPPERCASE FONT that I wire her money ASAP to save Democracy™ from the Bad Orange Man. I also hear from time to time from various African royalty diaspora who need my help to regain their illegally confiscated fortunes, etc.

This one was in my inbox recently:

“Hi Ben,
I hope this message finds you well. I'm reaching out to share a compelling new study published by Daily Dog Stuff that sheds light on the significant carbon footprint of pet ownership in the United States for 2024. The report reveals some eye-opening statistics about CO2 emissions from dogs and cats by state, and the broader environmental impact of our pets. Given your focus on climate change, I believe this information will resonate with you and your audience.”

The gentleman from Daily Dog Stuff, who apparently knows me on a first-name, basis graciously included a link to the study about what evil the animals are perpetrating against the environment.

Via Daily Dog Stuff (emphasis added):

“We live in an increasingly eco-conscious world where consumers make more environmentally friendly purchasing decisions than ever. But there's one area of modern life that many people in the United States fail to realize contributes to their overall carbon footprint: Pet ownership.
Estimates suggest that dogs and cats alone are responsible for a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions related to animal agriculture. The impact is more significant than most realize, adding tens of millions of tons of greenhouse emissions every year.
While science is still divided about the true effect of owning cats and dogs on climate change, there's no denying that caring for an animal substantially increases one's carbon footprint in many ways…
Cats and dogs contribute to emissions in many ways, including manufacturing processes for every item they use. The biggest offender is a pet's diet.
Commercial dog and cat food is among the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Cats and dogs eat an estimated 20 percent of the world's meat and fish*. One study found that cats and dogs alone are responsible for 30 percent of the total environmental impact of meat consumption in the United States.”

*20 percent of the global supply of meat, and they don’t even contribute a red cent to Blackrock’s bottom line!

I don’t know where this goes from here other than a mass roundup campaign to ship the beloved house pets of America off to a FEMA concentration camp where “work will set them free.”

Vegan Lady Hitler would certainly approve.

‘Wildly emotional’ Climate Change™ lib goes full intersectional feminist​

It’s not just unhinged ultra-libs with graduate degrees in African Non-Binary Diaspora Film Studies or whatever who peddle this kind of stuff. Canadian MPs work themselves up into a performative Social Justice™ tizzy too, for the Womb of Gaia, and for Equity™!

“I want to start off by addressing one of the comments that was made by the witnesses around ‘climate hysterics’…
Climate emergencies are not gender neutral. The degradation of ecosystems disproportionately impacts women and girls, and I am wildly emotional…
[Climate change] is the existential crisis of our time. And to hear that asking for high ambition is climate hysteria, that makes me wildly emotional, absolutely... When I think about my womb and the two children that I bore from that womb and what future we are leaving them, I am wildly emotional…
We need to think about the intersection of gender and the climate crisis.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796107885002314133

Related: Hillary Claims Climate Change™ Targets Pregnant Women

How many cats is Laurel Collins with the frazzled hair going to own by the age of 40? How many cats is the Vegan Lady Hitler going to have to excavate from her basement for the Kitty Death Camps?

Where might have Laurel Collins gotten the “climate crisis is not gender neutral” talking point?

Via UN Women (emphasis added):

“Historically, climate change scientists, researchers and policymakers have struggled with how to make the vital connections between gender, social equity, and climate change. As more and more data and research reveal their clear correlation, it’s time to talk about the disparate impacts of climate change and the linkages between women’s empowerment and effective, global climate action…
The climate crisis is not ‘gender neutral’. Women and girls experience the greatest impacts of climate change, which amplifies existing gender inequalities and poses unique threats to their livelihoods, health, and safety.”

It’s really super awesome for the people of Canada that their elected representatives are advocating policy based on the unhinged pseudoscience peddled by an unaccountable offshore supranational technocracy, eh?

 

[RussNM]

for the Womb of Gaia

This is THE sole reason for climate change trash.. Gaia worship. Aka mother earth and any other retarded foolish worship in the name of the earth. Its worship of the creation instead of the Creator. Look how many "fools" have decided to follow this moronic trash. Its just a downright shame how people throw away their lives for this worthless earth worship junk.

 

[Checkthisout]

Bad News for Rivian Investors | The Motley Fool

According to a recent survey there's even more reason to be concerned about the U.S. electric vehicle market.

www.fool.com

 

[teal95]

Amazon is still buying EV vans as fast as they can be made. I guess for them they do work reasonably well, but I have to imagine it does does reduce their cargo weight capacity significantly. The question is are the weight or volume limited?

 

[Checkthisout]

Amazon is still buying EV vans as fast as they can be made. I guess for them they do work reasonably well, but I have to imagine it does does reduce their cargo weight capacity significantly. The question is are the weight or volume limited?

EV delivery vans make 100% sense.

They "return to base" every night and the frequent stop and go at lower speeds means excellent energy recovery. Slower traveling vehicle uses less energy to push air out of the way for a given distance. And the frequent stops to deliver means no engine start cycling I.E. no shut down and restarts that UPS trucks etc have to do.

Electrical vehicles make excellent sense in the city and for delivery vehicles.

 

[svetz]

This is THE sole reason for climate change trash.. Gaia worship.

Changing the climate doesn't hurt the Earth. As climate change affects humans and their structures negatively, Gaia worshippers are probably happy about it.

There are lots of sound reasons why anyone that has seriously looked into the issue would believe in climate change. For example:

Scientific reasons why people believe:

• 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

While it is true most scientist believe it, even experts in the fossil fuel industry agree it's a crisis:

• 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

Economic Reasons:

The conservative WEF plan to correct climate change is about $1.19/day per person for a few decades. A cup of coffee costs $4.90, so yeah, we're arguing about a 1/4 cup of coffee a day Vs. the health of the world and to avoid a crisis of epic proportions. They are not even new costs. It's costs we were going to pay anyway. For example, over the next 30 years most coal and natural gas power plants will hit their end-of-life and need replacements. If they're replaced with renewables/ESS that have the same or lower LCOE, so we actually save money in the long run. Climate change can impact human health and productivity, leading to economic losses (ref). The agriculture sector is particularly vulnerable to climate risk via drought, new diseases and insect migrations. Increased water temperatures kill corals which disrupt the food chain and affect the livelihood of fisherman. Heat waves kill cattle increasing the price of food (ref).

Costs of weather disasters (adjusted for inflation) follow Climate Change The longer we delay the more it costs us. For example, this graph shows how severe weather has been increasing, and so has the repair bill. $600 Billion last year alone.

Climate Change is Real
So, sorry Russ. Hopefully this post illustrates why perfectly reasonable people believe Climate Change is real. There's not only solid scientific evidence, there are real measurable costs of not doing anything that increase year by year. It's not hypothetical, it's happening and in the news everyday. But the good news is, at least in terms of fossil fuels, is that lower LCOEs of renewables means capitalism now works to help reverse climate change. Will it be enough, was it fast enough? Who knows. Why are there so many disbelievers, flat-earthers, and moon-deniers? Personally I blame the lead in the gasoline reducing everyone's IQ (ref).

 

[svetz]

Massive heat wave heading for USA 6/17 thru 6/21 The incoming heat could set records from Texas to New England... Every day of extreme heat in the United States claims about 154 lives... Opinion: Stay cool out there! Remember, water can actually be bad to hydrate with if you've already sweat a lot. Skim milk and electrolyte liquids are best!

 

[aenyc]

Climate Change has Decimated Societies Around the World​

The Great Famine of the 1870s resulted in 50 million deaths from drought-induced mass starvation across South America, Africa, and Asia. It was an all-natural climate event during colder times with lower CO2 concentrations and those drought-causing climate dynamics are still in play today. To understand if the world could again suffer such a drought, it helps to view climate change from a 10,000-year perspective starting with the African Humid Period. During the Holocene Optimum the Sahara was covered with lakes and rivers and abundant wildlife as depicted by the rock art of the many African societies that thrived in the Sahara (graphics B & C). Then around 6,000 years ago it turned to desert.


In the tropics, rainy and dry seasons alternate depending on the position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ- graphic D). The ITCZ is seen in satellites as a narrow band of clouds where world’s greatest amounts of precipitation fall. The ITCZ is very sensitive to solar heating. During the northern hemisphere’s summer when the sun’s strongest rays move northward, so does the ITCZ. As the sun migrates southward, so does the ITCZ and its band of rains.


A 40,000+ year cycle of the changing tilt of the earth’s axis, referred to as obliquity, also determines how far north and south the suns strongest rays will migrate. Ten thousand years ago the tilt was at a maximum and the ITCZ migrated further north than today, bringing more moisture to the Sahara (graphic F; ITCZ average northern location=yellow dashed line). As the tilt decreases to its minimum, the ITCZ moves southward (graphic G). Thus, as the ITCZ migrated southward, the rains decreased enough over the Humid Sahara to turn it to a desert. The axis tilt will continue to decline for another 10,000 years. Another orbital cycle, precession, contributed to the ITCZ southward migration by causing the southern hemisphere to slightly warm while the northern hemisphere slightly cooled.


Research has also found that as the ITCZ moved southward over the past 6000 years, El Nino activity has increased. El Nino events caused extreme drought in southeast Asia in 1998, as well as in southern Africa such as was recently experienced in 2023-2024. Likewise, the Great Famine of the 1870s coincided with the strong El Nino of 1877-1878, while the ITCZ was at its most southward location (graphic E).


The Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1900 AD coincided with sunspot minimums. The reduced solar heating caused the ITCZ to contract further towards the equator. That altered atmospheric circulation to bring drought to the tropics and the Great Famine of 1870 as well as colder temperatures to North America and Eurasia. It also brought the northern rain-belts further south, bringing heavy snowfall and growing glaciers. Manchuria suffered famines not from drought but from cold winters. Growing glaciers in the Swiss Alps destroyed farmland and towns.

The last 150 years has witnessed the ITCZ migrating northward as sunspots exhibited a maximum, bringing a warm rebound from the LIA (graphic E). Small changes in solar irradiance are not enough to warm the climate directly. However small changes in solar irradiance affects the ITCZ which then has global impacts that can have bigger warming effects.

Small changes in solar irradiance are not enough to warm the climate directly. However small changes in solar irradiance affects the ITCZ which then has global impacts that can have bigger warming effects. The ITCZ is the driver of the Hadley circulation that drives circulation changes from the equator to the poles (graphic H). A southward migration of the ITCZ causes a weakening of the polar vortex and the polar jet stream. In turn that allows cold air that is normally contained in the Arctic to flow southward and cool North America and Eurasia. A strong polar vortex that constrains cold air transport causes a warming global temperature. The decrease in sunspots during the Little Ice Age, as well as since 1990s coincides with a weaker vortex and winter cooling across sub-polar regions.


The Hadley circulation, driven by the ITCZ strength and location, creates a tropical rain-belt, a mid-latitude dry belt or the desert-latitude belt, and a sub-polar rain-belt. (graphic I; blue more precipitation vs red more evaporation). As the ITCZ moves southward so does the regions of dryness and rainfall. Accordingly, as the ITCZ brought drought to tropical regions, it simultaneously brought heavy snow fall and devastating glaciers to the sub-polar rain-belts.


People must understand, anomalous droughts and floods, anomalous cold and heat, are the natural consequence of the earth’s natural circulation patterns and solar variations. Similar to El Nino effects, weather changes can bring both floods and droughts. Likewise, the ITCZ migration brings warmer tropics and colder sub-polar regions. These natural dynamics do not claim that there is no greenhouse effect. However, those dynamics simply reveal how much natural climate dynamics affect our lives, global temperatures, and weather extremes. Anyone arguing CO2 is driving all the climate changes and all the extreme weather events are either very ignorant of these weather dynamics, or dishonest grifters trying to manipulate your support for their political agenda! The greatest Climate Injustice of all will happen if the world’s under-served people are denied the inexpensive energy from fossil fuels that best allows them to deal with natural climate extremes!

 

[aenyc]

Germany May Sales Of Electric Cars Plummet 30.6% Compared To Year Earlier​

Back to fossil fuels!

The figures for the registration of new electric cars in Germany are looking increasingly awful. In May 2024, the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) reported that it had registered only 29,708 vehicles with electric motors.

May e-car sales in Germany plummet more than 30% compared to a year earlier. AI image Chat GPT.

That is 30.6% down on the result for the same month last year.



CO2 emissions of new German cars also rose 3.3%…indicating the green transition has stalled and is reversing.

Hat-tip: Blackout News

The KBA also adds that 89,498 passenger cars were equipped with a gasoline engine – an increase of 2.1 percent compared to the same month last year.

44,893 new cars were diesel-powered, an increase of 3.2 percent compared to the same month last year.

71,451 new cars had a hybrid drive in May 2024, accounting for a share of 30.2% (-0.3%), including 14,038 plug-in hybrids (+1.7%/5.9%).

 

[aenyc]

Science of Heat Waves Reveals Blaming CO2 is a Scam!​

With a disproportionate focus on the greenhouse effect and fossil fuels, most people are totally unaware that the earth’s surface is cooled primarily by convection currents carrying warm buoyant air up and away. Indeed, with water vapor and CO2 making the lower 1000 meters of the atmosphere opaque to most escaping infrared, thus preventing radiative cooling, the earth’s surface only cools sufficiently via convection. All honest scientists know heatwaves are caused by suppressed convection.

Graphic A shows a typical heat dome resulting from a high-pressure system that causes sinking air that suppresses rising convection. Air sinking from the colder upper atmosphere is dry and thus maintains clear skies that increase solar heating. A warmer earth surface from climate change should cause rising air, so what causes sinking air?


In the tropics, the greatest warming happens around the equator and that draws in air from the northern and southern hemisphere. Where that surface air converges (aka Intertropical Convergence Zone) air is forced upwards. What goes up must come down, and to maintain balance the air sinks around 30 degrees north and south, forming high pressure systems over the desert latitudes (Hadley Circulation). Outside the tropics the main driver of high-pressure systems is the convergence of upper atmosphere winds in wavy jet streams.

As a kid we loved to play “crack the whip” when skating. A line of 4 or more kids had a single kid on one end stop, which caused the moving line to make an arc. The kid on the other end naturally speeds up to cover the arc’s bigger circumference and thus “whips” around. Likewise, the ridge of a wavy jet stream in the upper atmosphere causes air flow to speed up. When the air flow enters a trough, the air flow slows down. The fast-moving air mass then collides with the slow-moving air causing an upper air convergence that forces air downward generating a high-pressure system (graphics B & C). Similarly, anyplace where upper air currents converge will cause a high-pressure system. How intensive the resulting heat wave depends on how fast the high-pressure system moves eastward.


In the upper atmosphere, the winds of the jet stream average 80–140 miles per hour eastward. That steers the pressure systems of the lower atmosphere. Friction with earth’s surface reduces the speed of a pressure systems to about half the speed of the jet stream. As the jet stream moves over or around mountains, or moves between water and land, or cold air interacts with warm air, or interacts with other pressure systems, the jet stream may be forced to loop more north and south. That reduces the eastward steering speed of the jet stream which causes surface high-pressure systems to slow down or stall. In that case, a lingering high-pressure system will cause an intensifying heat wave.


The wavier jet stream over the northeast Pacific Ocean commonly generates a “blocking high” in that region (graphic D). That blocking high caused Canada’s record high temperatures during a heatwave that stalled over Lytton, British Columbia June 29, 2021. The wavier jet stream also causes frequent blocking highs over Greenland, which caused excessive melting during July 2021. Meteorologist studying heat waves have mapped out regions where blocking highs are most likely to form (graphic E). Combined with monitoring of the jet stream and interacting pressure systems, meteorologist can predict when and where a heat wave is likely to form.


Any warming of the earth’s surface from the greenhouse effect or any other cause, would cause air to rise, the exact opposite of how heat waves are formed. To blame heat waves on rising CO2, alarmists must use statistical attribution tricks. They simply claim higher global average temperatures make the heat wave hotter, even when the heat wave is centered over regions where the has been no local warming. Clearly there are lies, damn lies and statistics and most alarmist climate scientists know how to manipulate statistics.

 

[aenyc]

This is THE sole reason for climate change trash.. Gaia worship. Aka mother earth and any other retarded foolish worship in the name of the earth. Its worship of the creation instead of the Creator. Look how many "fools" have decided to follow this moronic trash. Its just a downright shame how people throw away their lives for this worthless earth worship junk.

I wish they worshipped Gaia.
Its a depopulation death cult. Just wish they started with themselves