When EVs become better products than ICE vehicles- they’ll sell like hot cakes. As to what makes anything a better product, it’s up to the customer to decide, not some burro-crat or ivory tower “never got their hands dirty” twit.
Wokeachusetts is going to push hard to promote EVs. Being near the bottom of the economic ladder here – if they want to give me one, I’ll take it! If they want to promote solar on roofs and they want to install them on my house at no cost to me- I’ll take them! I hardly ever drive far- so the distance thing wouldn’t be a problem. I have a semi- heated garage (attached to the house so it never gets below freezing)- it might even work in winter. uh….. oh, that’s right, it’s a fire hazzard so putting it in the garage ain’t gonna work- my wife has a severe phobia about fire – she made me buy special asbestos (?) containers to put my tiny lithium batteries in for my camera.
You might get it out of the garage in the dead of Winter, but will it get you home after sitting in the mall parking lot after hours of Christmas shopping?
If your battery temp is 32 F or less, and you decide to charge your EV with your at-home, level 2 charger, the Li ions will arrive at the anode at a greater rate than they can be absorbed, which means they will plate out on the surface of the anode, permanently damaging it. You are so screwed!!
“at no cost to me” Well, who would blame you? It sure is going to cost somebody though. Maybe future generations. Maybe present ones. No such thing as “free’
The only thing that will ever make EVs competitive with ICE vehicles is if/when they standardize the batteries, and it only takes around 5 minutes to swap them out. I believe there was an article recently about a city where they were doing that for E-bikes now. Of course a ‘fill up – battery swap’ is always going to cost more than a ‘gasoline fill up’. It would always have to include not only the price of energy but rental and depreciation on the batteries plus overhead.
I have a weedwacker with two batteries
When one goes low, I put in the second battery
I keep both batteries charged
I keep both batteries INSIDE my house during winter
Why the hell in this day and age are they building more of those monstrosities?
If they took just 2 two (of the 6) of the conductors on any AC high voltage line and buried them, they could transport Five Times more power using DC than the 3-phase AC twin-circuit pylons they took the wires down from.
and for much greater distances…….
As I recall. The Limit is = ‘places about the size of the UK’
i.e. Do NOT attempt to move any more than 650MW from one end the UK to the other.
You can try, nothing to stop you, but you will come to regret it.
That line will take on a mind (and a life) of its own – a lot like a garden water-hose when the connector falls off the far end
I was told that if you took one lead of a voltmeter and stuck in in the ground in the US and the other lead into the ground in the UK, the meter would read about 200 volts.
Problem only encountered by TransAtlantic cables.
Cuz buried high voltage lines have very high maintenance, high rates of failure, high rates of digging equipment strikes, and high installation cost due to being essentially installed in a pressurized conduit, such that if all power lines were underground, it would quadruple the cost of delivered electricity. Sure, it can be done, just like you can take a mini-sub to visit the Titanic.
These aren’t old bangers and replacing them in this way is utterly bonkers. But then, what in net zero land does make any sense? Still, Khan had an opportunity to answer the public…
“Sadiq Khan’s refusal to answer questions is an insult to the public
Last week, Londoners had the penultimate People’s Question Time before hopefully Sadiq Khan is shown the door at the next Mayoral election. It was a dire performance from him, and the bar was already low. London was reminded once again why we desperately need change.
I’ve faced Sadiq Khan regularly at Mayor’s Question Time and he has always been evasive and slippery when we hold him to account him on his shockingly bad record. It doesn’t take long in these sessions for him to reach the end of his script and start becoming rude and condescending to members of the Assembly, particularly towards women.
However, when Londoners got their vanishingly rare opportunity to put questions to him directly, his attitude towards members of the public surprised even me. One of the last questions of the event was about the masked TfL enforcers policing his unfair ULEZ expansion, which Londoners overwhelming rejected in his sham of a consultation.
Understandably the questioner raised concerns that they were not wearing their SIA badges, meaning residents cannot tell if they are thugs wanting to steal their possessions, or merely TfL workers wanting to make off with their money.
I think it was on an Open Thread a few threads ago CTM simply said, “It broke”.
I remember Anthony saying WUWT was being moved to a more secure venue.
We’ve lost a few things, here and there to keep WUWT “up” and secure.
(I can only image the behind the scenes efforts to shut it down or compromise it!)
The side bar used to have a feature “Most Recent Comments” that’s been gone for several years at least. I miss it and the “Search” for past comments seems to not work right.
I don’t know if the issues are on WUWT or WordPress’s end or which needs to fix it.. (Maybe hitting the “Donate” button more often would help. Lax myself on that.)
Bottom line, I’m just thankful WUWT is still here at all!
If there are some unusual expenses related to maintaining or upgrading features, I’m sure that a candid announcement will open wallets.
I was recently trying to find a couple of WUWT articles that showed surface temperatures for (I think) India and Tokyo. I spent about 1/2 hour and couldn’t find them.
I don’t know if this works across all browsers but you can try entering
“wattsupwiththat: (Then you search)” then it may only search this site.
(I don’t know if you need add “.com” or not.
One of tricks added to a Turing Test bot was to have it make occasional mistakes in spelling and grammar. They would also slow down the typing speed. It was thought the judges would be more likely to think they were communicating with a human instead of a bot.
I presume it is buried in the basic design of the system and has to do with coming up with some way of locking for update/replacement any comment, in a series of comments, once they have been released to multiple interactive users. I was somewhat amazed that they ever allowed it in the first place. But, it’s been several years since I worked on that sort of problem so my knowledge is probably pretty down level by now.
😎
I used to make sooo many typos that I sometimes (not often enough), would type my comments into Word first to correct my spelling before WUWT had a functioning “spellcheck”.
“Nope. Maybe you can edit an original comment not a reply ???” Now I’m going to say, “Nope. Maybe you can edit a plagerized comment not a reply ???” I’m post it then see if I can fix it.
Re: ENSO/SST Ocean Temp Chart – always posted on lower right hand margin of this page
I read WUWT several days each week. I have never seen any articles or comments about the super heated ocean surface temperature anomaly in the northwest corner of the Pacific Ocean during the last six months.
Specifically, the area involved is the Sea of Japan (west and northwest of Japan), the Sea of Okhotsk (around Sakhalin Island), and a small area of Pacific Ocean off the northeast coast of Japan.
The ocean surface temps in that region have been dark red to black (the hottest anomaly) for at least six months.
In addition, the exceptional heat has briefly expanded several times to the Yellow Sea (west of Korea), to the northern Sea of Okhotsk (west of the Kamchatka Peninsula), and, within the last six weeks, the heated surface water has begun flowing straight east, towards North America.
Curiously, the hottest anomaly off NE Japan is exactly where the tsunami developed that destroyed the Japanese nuclear power plant several years ago.
Does anyone have an explanation or a link for this anomaly? Thank you!
Does anyone have an explanation or a link for this anomaly? Thank you!
My take.
The long term trend is that the northern hemisphere is warming up. NH is warming faster than SH is cooling down so, on average, the surface of Earth is warming.. These trends are driven by the precession cycle.
The water just south of Japan got up to the limit of 30C in September. This appears to be related to the developing El Nino in the equatorial Pacific.
The heat has gradually spread north with the Kuroshio current and the anomaly was widespread and peaked in September per attached.
It is now subsiding but resulting in record snowfall across northern China now and expect Japan to set new snowfall records this year as well. The snow transfers heat from the oceans to dissipate over land as the land cools off.
The may be some validity in the Somoanian volcano ejecting lots of water into the atmosphere that is still lingering above the troposphere.
In the long run, a lot more of the northern oceans will reach the 30C limit and snowfall records will be a feature for millennia.
If localized heat keeps showing up at the surface in the same place in the ocean, with no evidence of horizontal transport from the equatorial region, I’d suggest considering underwater volcanic activity. A new volcano recently broke the surface in the ocean near Tokyo.
Up to now, the results of climate simulations have sometimes contradicted the analysis of climate traces from the past. A team led by the physicist Thomas Laepple from the Alfred Wegener Institute in Potsdam and the climatologist Kira Rehfeld from the University of Tübingen has therefore brought together experts in climate models and climate tracks to clarify how the discrepancies come about. The surprising result has now been published in the journal Nature Geoscience: in a way, both sides are right. Climate models correctly simulate global temperature trends, but often underestimate the strength of regional climate fluctuations, especially over the course of decades to centuries.
In order to understand the causes and consequences of climate fluctuations, researchers examine climate archives, such as trees, lakes and marine sediments or even ice. Over the course of centuries and millennia, the climate has continuously varied, leaving behind traces. Understanding natural climate changes enables better assessments of what lies ahead with human-made climate change. Anticipating how humankind can prepare for the consequences of increasing global warming is of paramount importance. “We will feel the effects of climate change primarily regionally,” says physicist Prof. Dr. Thomas Laepple of the Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) in Potsdam. “In some regions, droughts will become more frequent, potentially leading to crop failures over extended periods. Elsewhere, we will witness more powerful hurricanes.” The problem is that global climate models are often unable to represent regional variations in detail when projecting several centuries into the future. While they are good at accurately simulating the global warming trend, they still lack the ability to accurately simulate local conditions. This makes it difficult to plan and implement concrete measures to adapt to the climate — for example, in agriculture to switch at the right time to crops that can tolerate higher temperatures. Thomas Laepple and his colleagues already pointed out the problem of local predictive power about ten years ago: In an analysis of the climate evolution over the last 7000 years, they had then uncovered a striking discrepancy between global climate simulations on the one hand and local analysis of climate traces from centuries- or even millennia-old marine sediments, tree rings, pollen or corals. These indicators shed light on past temperatures in specific regions of the Earth. On a regional scale, climate simulations and sediment sample analyses differed in their temperature estimations, sometimes by a factor of 50, leading to controversial discussions among experts. “At the time, we were faced with a conundrum,” recalls Thomas Laepple. “We couldn’t say with certainty whether the climate models were incorrect in the selected examples or whether the temperature data derived from the sediment samples were based on faulty assumptions.” Subsequently, Thomas Laepple and climatologist Kira Rehfeld from the University of Tübingen successfully drew attention to this problem. Among other initiatives, workshops brought together experts in climate models and those who evaluate climate traces. Laepple and Rehfeld also collaborated with colleagues to establish the international working group CVAS (Climate Variability Across Scales), which delved into the discrepancy between regional and global scales in greater detail. Now, in collaboration with Kira Rehfeld and other colleagues, a review article has been published in the journal Nature Geoscience, highlighting these discrepancies. Co-authors also include students and workshop participants who contributed to the study through literature research and scientific illustrations. The most significant finding: in a sense, both sides are correct — the climate modeling experts and those who evaluate the climate traces. “We found that climate models are skillful at tracing past global temperature trends,” says Thomas Laepple. “However, the longer the time period you examine, the more regional deviations are averaged out. Trends in regional temperature values become overly smoothed.” One reason might be that global climate models do not account for various regional buffering phenomena — such as regional ocean currents that stabilize the climate in coastal regions for many years or even decades, even as the global average temperature changes.
hmmm…. but…. but… I thought the science is settled? doesn’t look like it
At least they admit, “Over the course of centuries and millennia, the climate has continuously varied, leaving behind traces.”
Except of course as of about 1850 all natural climate change stopped and it’s all due to “carbon pollution”. Recently I’ve started to notice an update of that term- it’s been elevated to “climate pollution”. WTF?
It took me about 15 minutes to find this article with associated 3 minute video in which at about the 2:20 mark, Jane Fonda said she has been a climate scientist for decades.
Well that’s it then, you know they’re getting desperate when they wheel Jane out. Not a very good actor and the kiss of death for most causes she joins.
And a traitor to boot. I refuse to watch any movie she appears in. She was cackling a few years ago about how COVID was made-to-order for her
“Communist” side.
Here is an attempt at proofs that man’s CO2 IS NOT causing serious global warming:
Here is the evidence – short description of several lines of evidence
1.—-
THE CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED!
5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warm period
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
1000 years later, came our current warm period.
Climate alarmists are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.
2————
1. Our current climate started warming 200 years BEFORE man’s CO2 emissions started to rise . NOT before.
2. Previous Holocene warm periods were warmer than now.
3. Solar fits climate better than CO2
4. There is nothing unusual about today’s climate compared to before man emitted CO2.
5. Recent warming is a same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s CO2. (More of a cause should cause more effect.)
6. Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming.
7. Man emits only 5% of annual CO2. Plus CO2 only causes 9-26% of greenhouse effect.
8. Human CO2 release warms the climate less than 0.03◦C https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf
See DebunkingClimate.com for evidence
3.———-
1. The IPCC says the earth warmed less than 0.8 degree from 1850 up to 2012. See Pg. 209 of the IPCC WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
2. Man only emits 6% of total annual CO2 emissions (Nature emits 94%). Add the numbers on the NASA diagram of the carbon cycle.
3. CO2 only causes 26-32% of the greenhouse effect. (H2O is 60-75%) see wikipedia greenhouse_effect page and Table 3 of: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 78, No. 2, February 1997
4. We do not have enough data to say that hurricanes have increased. pg 178 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
5. We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased. pg 178 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
6. Sea level has been rising for centuries, it HAS NOT RISEN FASTER recently. Page 306 WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
7. There is little, if any, global scale changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods. pg 230 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
8. Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness pg 178 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
9. Long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Page 774 of IPCC third Assessment Report (2001) Section 14.2.2.2
In view of this, why does anyone think we have a climate problem?
(based on research by: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html https://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/10/04/extreme-weather-ipc-56243
And this from Statistics Norway:
The report concludes:
“[T]he results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.” https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/10/another-nail-in-the-global-warming-coffin.php
5 —-
One way to detect what is really going on is to follow the money.
* The anti fracking video/”film” included at least on Middle east oil producer in its credits.
* The mainstream media has carried some articles about russian money financing some of the anti-pipeline protests
* Several European sources have carried similar stories about Russian money in the groups opposing domestic energy production.
* Before Putin’s folly, Russian energy exports was a very significant source of russian income.
* Financial markets have been looking a a TRILLION dollar market for carbon emissions trading.
* Many large corporations are making money (or trying to!) off of wind and solar energy and their massive government subsidies. Of course some of this money finds it way back to politicians through campaign donations and, as we are finding out – outright bribes.
* News media, daily, carries false accusations of global warming being caused by fossil fuels.
References: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html http://www.debunkingclimate.com/trillion_dollar.html http://www.debunkingclimate.com/bigmoneyscaring.html http://www.debunkingclimate.com/green-money.html http://www.debunkingclimate.com/paid%20by%20the%20fossil%20fuel%20industry.html
And the main page of DebunkingClimate.com
You might find the following exchange between myself and Bing to be entertaining:
Spencer: Can a case be made that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature?
Bing: The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is complex and multifaceted. While it is true that natural increases in carbon dioxide concentrations have periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is responsible for the observed increase in global temperature over the past century. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a warming effect known as the greenhouse effect. The observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change.
While it is possible that increasing temperatures could cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature.
I hope this helps!
Spencer: In the question that you just answered for me, you are citing the opinions of agencies rather than individuals. Can you provide independent evidence for causation, such as the timing of temperature and CO2-concentration increase?
Bing: Certainly! The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is a well-established scientific fact that has been studied by many researchers over the years. According to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), there is a strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up, and when the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.
The NCEI also states that the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
The timing of temperature and CO2-concentration increase is also well-documented. According to a study by the NCEI, the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. That the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the Antarctic temperature so closely suggests that processes in the ocean around Antarctica play an important role in the rise in CO2.
While it is possible that increasing temperatures could cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature.
I hope this helps!
Spencer: You contradict your assertions. You stated, “…, the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years.” How can something that follows an event be responsible for causing it?
Bing: I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is complex and multifaceted. While it is true that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is responsible for the observed increase in global temperature over the past century. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a warming effect known as the greenhouse effect. The observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change.
While it is possible that increasing temperatures could cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature.
I hope this clarifies my previous response. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Spencer: You are again relying on anonymous sources for your assertions and have ignored my question about the temporal relationship between cause and effect. How can something be caused by something that follows it in time?
Bing: I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is complex and multifaceted. While it is true that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) states that there is a strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up, and when the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.
According to a study by the NCEI, the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. That the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the Antarctic temperature so closely suggests that processes in the ocean around Antarctica play an important role in the rise in CO2.
While it is possible that increasing temperatures could cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature.
I hope this clarifies my previous response. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Spencer: You appear to be stuck in a loop, repeating assertions for which you are ignoring the temporal order necessary for cause and effect. You again repeated the claim that, “…, the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years.” That is not possible if the CO2 increase is causing the increase in temperature. Focus on this contradiction and explain in the context of cause and effect how temperature can increase before CO2 increases if CO2 is causing the increase in temperature.
Bing: I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is complex and multifaceted. While it is true that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) states that there is a strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up, and when the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.
According to a study by the NCEI, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. This delay is due to the fact that as the temperature of the ocean around Antarctica rises, it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which then amplifies the warming effect.
While it is possible that increasing temperatures could cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature.
I hope this clarifies my previous response. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Spencer: You continue to repeat illogical assertions and aren’t dealing with the fundamental question about cause and effect. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of thinking logically. Thank you.
Bing: I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to provide you with the information you were looking for. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Have a great day!
Nice job… looks like He/She/Them/They/It has a basic problem with understanding the difference between and deciding between the actual data and the proclamations/opinions of authority. And, it has been ‘brain washed’, if you can say that about an AI, to accept authority or data.
Kids are suppose to use this in their studies? Oh well, guess it’s about as smart as the current crop of teachers :<)
I don’t (knowingly) do any of the AI stuff.
I wonder what it would say if asked, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” or, better yet, “Has Bill Gates stopped beating his wife?”. 😎
I have read that the Antarctic Law Dome C (?) ice core shows temperature changes occurring about 800 years before the CO2 changes. However, I don’t have a link for you.
Is corporate America tiring of the product of wokester college degrees and it’s back to the future- They just want competent workers not indoctrinated crazy dumb people. – YouTube
(the compare is apparently a popular commentator on where the crazy feminist college girls are going wrong getting ‘wifed up’ in the dating scene as they get done over by their dream 5 percenters until they’re too old and welcome to ‘passport bros’ for the average guys) It’s a very different dating scene out there nowadays with some very mixed up ignorance of fundamental biology it seems.
Cycles, it always comes back to cycles. Not this stupid ‘straight-line to infinity’ crap peddled by the climate enthusiasts.
wilpost
November 19, 2023 6:56 am
Offshore Wind
Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, say things that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines in Siemens, Oersted, etc., stock prices, starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out
All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See URL
US/UK governments have extremist offshore wind goals, such as:
1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the posse of extremists in the US government
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK government
Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See article https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off…
One commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable”
That shows the types of ignorami driving the bus
WIND AND SOLAR ARE NEVER, EVER RELIABLE
The evidence shows, W/S will always require the following very costly items:
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the W/S, up/down output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365,
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked, 5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have producedPlus W/S variable outputs could not be physically fed into the grid, without the last 4 items, of which the LCOEs are provided for free by taxpayers, ratepayers, or added to government debts, to make W/S look politically competitive with fossil fuels.
Are Batteries an Alternative to Power Plant Fleets?
Turnkey capital costs of large scale-battery systems are $575/installed kWh; based on 2023 pricing of Tesla-based systems. See article
With 6.5% money and 10% for owner return on investment and 6% inflation, and throughput at 10% of installed electricity delivery capacity, a delivered kWh costs about 91.9 c/kWh, on top of the cost of the electricity fed to the batteries; at 40%, about 23 c/kWh, on top
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 3) system losses from HV grid to HV grid, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect the battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. NOTE 1: The 40% usage is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% usage, i.e., not charging above 80% and not discharging below 20%. Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded be owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve.
They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system and to increase the rating of the expanded system. http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
THE PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC FUTILITY OF W/S HAS BEEN CLEAR TO ENERGY SYSTEMS ANALYSTS SINCE ABOUT 2000
I just found out the above URLs became corrupted.
Here are the new one, which are good, because I tested them.
The Hornsdale URL is referenced in the battery article
We need to get rid of anything invented, created, or produced by old white guys except the ideas of climate change and communism.
Russell Cook
November 19, 2023 7:19 am
From my GelbspanFiles blog: “Covering Climate Now,” the enviro-outfit suppling 300+ mainstream media news outlets with their climate issue talking points demonstrates once again, via the latest repetition of its 26 year-old ‘one-trick pony’ accusation about industry-paid skeptic climate scientists, how it is the one that pushes disinformation in this game.
The scoudrels always accuse others of doing what they are doing themselves.
It’s projection in some cases, but more probably deflection.
Michael in Dublin
November 19, 2023 7:52 am
India lost the ICC World Cup 2023 cricket because of the Indian commentators.
India were winning when the commentators were very loud.
Australia were winning when the commentators were rather quiet.
Here is a good example of logic and the confusion of causation and correlation.
This illustrates the confusion of climate alarmists.
Congratulations to the Australian team.
Not to mention congratulations to the on-field umpires. Both English.
Hey, you’ve gotta take the wins where you can get them, sometimes.
rah
November 19, 2023 8:30 am
If it doesn’t fit the narrative…
Most of you all probably have not heard or read that much of coastal Alaska has been getting pounded by snow storms. This month Anchorage has gotten 38.1″ of snow. Their record snowfall for the month of November is 38.8 inches set in 1994.
You sure hear about it when Alaska has a warm winter or doesn’t get as much snow as usual, but when it goes the opposite way you are not likely to be informed by the “news”. It doesn’t fit the narrative.
Just like this last Typhoon season. Typically during El Nino years the NW Pacific basin has a lot of powerful storms. During the Super El Nino of 2015 they had:
38 tropical depressions resulting in
27 storms, of which
18 became Typhoons, of which
9 were classified as Super Typhoons (Think CAT IV or V hurricanes)
This year during this El Nino there were:
28 tropical depressions resulting in
16 storms, of which
10 became Typhoons, of which
4 were classified Super Typhoons.
Again. Doesn’t fit the narrative so they don’t want to talk about it.
Why such a big difference? As I have stated before this year high Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) dominated the oceans. The formation and strengthening of Tropical Cyclones requires not just high SSTs but contrasts in the temperatures and pressures of air masses and those contrasts were muted by the high SSTs which dominated all over the ocean.
The hurricane season here in the U.S. ends November 30.
The climate alarmists haven’t had much to talk about this season.
According to climate alarmists, the more CO2 that goes in the air means more hurricanes and more powerful hurricanes, but more CO2 has gone into the air, yet we don’t see more hurricanes or more powerful hurricanes, we see fewer hurricanes.
Climate alarmists predictions strike out again.
John Aqua
November 19, 2023 10:48 am
News story: “Crushed Rock is used to capture Carbon.” Michelle Ma with Bloomberg. A new startup is trying to reverse climate change by spreading rock with olivine crystals on farm ground. Let me get this straight. You mine this rock using fossil fuel powered vehicles; you crush it by using fossil fuel powered equipment; you haul it to remote locations using fossil fuel powered vehicles; you spread it out on farm ground using fossil fueled vehicles and equipment, and then watch it weather to capture carbon and that is supposed to reverse climate change. How stupid have things gotten? The first test (guesstimate most likely) captured 50 tons of Carbon. What scale up is going to make this work? This is pure insanity. The article stated that is unproved so far.
“though it remains far from proving it’s a viable pathway for removing some of the billions of tons of CO2 that scientists estimate will need to be removed from the atmosphere annually by midcentury to stave off the worst effects of global warming.” You think?
Key phrase and key company names:
Enhance Rock Weathering (ERW)
Eion and Stripe Climate.
Well if you’ve got an abundance of olivine-laden rock and some idiot is going to pay you to do this with it then why not? At least they’re not suggesting it can be used as a power source!
Mike
November 19, 2023 5:17 pm
To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?
. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.
Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.
Study: 58% of world’s richest companies quietly lobby against climate policies
By A.L. Lee
Nov. 17 (UPI) — Pledges by the world’s largest corporations to fight climate change frequently do not align with their lobbying efforts, with more than half of companies at risk of engaging in misleading practices known as “net zero greenwashing,” according to a new report.
The study by the London-based research center InfluenceMap, titled “Net Zero Greenwash: The Gap Between Corporate Commitments and their Policy Engagement,” released on Wednesday, examined the lobbying activities of nearly 300 of the largest public companies around the world while exposing efforts by airlines, and gas, energy, and manufacturing companies to sidestep accountability.
The results showed 58% of corporate giants did not align their influence initiatives with emerging climate policies, while publicly claiming to fully support the Paris Climate Agreement to shrink global warming through the next century.
Instead, the study found a majority of Forbes-listed companies had consistently lobbied against worldwide climate efforts, contradicting their own commitments to achieve net-zero emissions goals, the report claims.
A New Worry That Every Electric-Vehicle Owner Should Know About
While owning electric vehicles provide a lot of benefits, they also come with their share of headaches. Case in point…
Rob Lenihan
Jul 17, 2023
First, they came for the catalytic converters.
Thieves have long targeted the part of your car that converts engine-exhaust pollutants into something less harmful to the environment.
In May, the National Insurance Crime Bureau said the U.S. experienced more than 64,000 catalytic converter thefts in 2022, with Texas and California leading the way.
Electric vehicles don’t produce exhaust and they don’t need need catalytic converters. So EV owners have nothing to worry about, right?
Well, actually … no.
It seems that electric vehicle owners are discovering that the cables they use to charge their cars are a hot item for thieves, NBC Los Angeles reported.
The thieves either post them on popular resale websites or sell them for scrap metal since they’re full of expensive copper wiring.
Copper prices surged during the pandemic, and while they may have come down, thieves are still stealing the malleable metal.
More than 1 million electric vehicles are on California roads, and the state is responsible for about half the total U.S. EV market share, so charging-cable theft is big news.
The NBC report described how one Los Angeles homeowner left his house one morning and found his EV charging cord had gone MIA.
The victim checked his Ring security camera. A man in a hoodie and mask had walked up his driveway in the early morning, unplugged the cord from his car, unplugged the other end from the outside wall socket, and took off on a bike.
“This guy was so quick,” the victim said. “He was so fast at it.”
On apps like Nextdoor people across Southern California are posting videos showing thieves stealing the EV charging cables, often in about 13 seconds or less.
end excerpt
Geoff Sherrington
November 19, 2023 6:12 pm
What is wrong with a world view of climate like this?
The Earth has existed in a relatively stable state for millions of years. It is still with us.
The best future expectation is that it will continue to do the same.
The baseline for climate assumptions should therefore be a stady state punctuated by minor changes up and down that self-correct and lead to a reversion to the mean.
The mean changes with the interval selected to measure it. Modern climate research milks this opportunity to cherry pick.
All the present fuss about an alleged global warming of 1.5 deg C (or whatever) over the past century is overcooked. This is just another of the minor, self-correcting changes. 1.5 deg C is really a tiny quantity, quite difficult to measure among the earthly noise.
It you want to argue that people have to try to change it, you need far better evidence than has been produced to date.
Sleep peacefully, don’t be upset by extremist propaganda about climate.
Geoff S
Ireneusz Palmowski
November 19, 2023 11:40 pm
Regular winter in Scandinavia and Russia, severe cold in Scandinavia.
Michael S. Kelly
November 21, 2023 4:05 pm
Story Tip [?]. My wife and I just returned from a Linblad/National Geographic “expedition” in the Galapagos Islands (highly recommended). A couple of things to watch for in the future. Global warming might endanger the various Galapagos tortoise populations. In the process of restoring the tortoise population after centuries of over-hunting, they’ve found that the incubation temperature of the eggs profoundly affects the male/female ratio of the hatched tortoises. At ~78 F, the eggs produce mostly males, while at ~85 F they produce mostly females. The “mostly” is on the order of 90%, so it is not a small effect. They speculate that global warming might break down the tortoise repopulation effort by overproducing females. Also, the negative effect of El Nino on the Galapagos penguin population is of concern. Normally, the Humboldt current brings enough cold water to the Galapagos to keep the population of small fish (e.g. anchovies) up such that the Galapagos penguins have an abundant source of them for food. El Nino years warm the current to the point where the penguin population is actually threatened. We’re in the middle of a really strong El Nino right now, which my wife and I were happy for since snorkeling was pleasant in the ~78 F water (it normally isn’t, apparently). Now, neither of us had any idea that Galapagos penguins even existed, but they do, and we saw a number of them. They’re cute little guys. You may be reading stories about global warming threatening to wipe them out.
The climate changers won’t be able to continue the overt and covert subsidies for EVs for all with 100% EVs-
True Cost of Electric Vehicles Is More Expensive Than Expected | Positive Encouraging K-LOVE (klove.com)
The true reason the EV’s cost more is because government is involved. Allways trust the free and open market for the answer.
When EVs become better products than ICE vehicles- they’ll sell like hot cakes. As to what makes anything a better product, it’s up to the customer to decide, not some burro-crat or ivory tower “never got their hands dirty” twit.
Hmm, it’s a tough one: fill up in ~5 minutes and go or wait however long the charger takes?
Wokeachusetts is going to push hard to promote EVs. Being near the bottom of the economic ladder here – if they want to give me one, I’ll take it! If they want to promote solar on roofs and they want to install them on my house at no cost to me- I’ll take them! I hardly ever drive far- so the distance thing wouldn’t be a problem. I have a semi- heated garage (attached to the house so it never gets below freezing)- it might even work in winter. uh….. oh, that’s right, it’s a fire hazzard so putting it in the garage ain’t gonna work- my wife has a severe phobia about fire – she made me buy special asbestos (?) containers to put my tiny lithium batteries in for my camera.
You might get it out of the garage in the dead of Winter, but will it get you home after sitting in the mall parking lot after hours of Christmas shopping?
NEWS ITEM
If your battery temp is 32 F or less, and you decide to charge your EV with your at-home, level 2 charger, the Li ions will arrive at the anode at a greater rate than they can be absorbed, which means they will plate out on the surface of the anode, permanently damaging it. You are so screwed!!
Just google
“at no cost to me” Well, who would blame you? It sure is going to cost somebody though. Maybe future generations. Maybe present ones. No such thing as “free’
Or fill up while you sleep?
Plug it into an overnight diesel-powered EV charger.. and sleep in the gutter next to it.
That’s the way ,
Or I suppose you could sleep in the car while its charging! 😉
The only thing that will ever make EVs competitive with ICE vehicles is if/when they standardize the batteries, and it only takes around 5 minutes to swap them out. I believe there was an article recently about a city where they were doing that for E-bikes now. Of course a ‘fill up – battery swap’ is always going to cost more than a ‘gasoline fill up’. It would always have to include not only the price of energy but rental and depreciation on the batteries plus overhead.
I have a weedwacker with two batteries
When one goes low, I put in the second battery
I keep both batteries charged
I keep both batteries INSIDE my house during winter
No, they tried that in Israel, did not work, new batteries last much longer than old batteries.
Is this ‘just’
“””Autumn Statement: Homes close to new pylons to get £1,000 off bills.PS That is £1,000 per year as well – not a none-off.
BBC
Why the hell in this day and age are they building more of those monstrosities?
If they took just 2 two (of the 6) of the conductors on any AC high voltage line and buried them, they could transport Five Times more power using DC than the 3-phase AC twin-circuit pylons they took the wires down from.
and for much greater distances…….
As I recall. The Limit is = ‘places about the size of the UK’
i.e. Do NOT attempt to move any more than 650MW from one end the UK to the other.
You can try, nothing to stop you, but you will come to regret it.
That line will take on a mind (and a life) of its own – a lot like a garden water-hose when the connector falls off the far end
It’s the death throes of the Tories landing in the lap of the new British islamic party
As for pylons etc it’s a postcode lottery.
I was told that if you took one lead of a voltmeter and stuck in in the ground in the US and the other lead into the ground in the UK, the meter would read about 200 volts.
Problem only encountered by TransAtlantic cables.
Quicker and cheaper than burying every thing.
And the UK weather/climate doesn’t present the difficulties experienced in many other parts of the world.
Even frozen pipes in winter is an unusual problem for many. Global boiling is bad news for plumbers, I guess.
Cuz buried high voltage lines have very high maintenance, high rates of failure, high rates of digging equipment strikes, and high installation cost due to being essentially installed in a pressurized conduit, such that if all power lines were underground, it would quadruple the cost of delivered electricity. Sure, it can be done, just like you can take a mini-sub to visit the Titanic.
Or attempt to — once.
Here’s a fun fact. Every year is a crisis in the NHS. And I do mean every year….
“2011 ‘could be toughest year’ ever for NHS” – BBC etc etc
So fast forward to 2022/3…
“Extra funding announced for NHS only half of what is needed, experts warn
Thinktanks say new £3.3bn in each of next two years won’t account for the £2.5bn inflation and other unexpected cost pressures”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/17/nhs-to-get-33bn-in-each-of-next-two-years-but-experts-say-its-only-half-of-funds-needed
Unexpected cost pressures?
“NHS forced to spend almost £65m to make hundreds of ambulances compliant with London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ scheme
Each vehicle costs £140,000 to replace. The South East Coast Ambulance Service has until October 2025 to replace 279 vehicles. The London Ambulance Service said 27 per cent of its frontline fleet is not compliant, so 255 vehicles need replacing.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12766063/NHS-forced-make-ambulances-ULEZ-compliant-Sadiq-Khans-scheme.html
These aren’t old bangers and replacing them in this way is utterly bonkers. But then, what in net zero land does make any sense? Still, Khan had an opportunity to answer the public…
“Sadiq Khan’s refusal to answer questions is an insult to the public
Last week, Londoners had the penultimate People’s Question Time before hopefully Sadiq Khan is shown the door at the next Mayoral election. It was a dire performance from him, and the bar was already low. London was reminded once again why we desperately need change.
I’ve faced Sadiq Khan regularly at Mayor’s Question Time and he has always been evasive and slippery when we hold him to account him on his shockingly bad record. It doesn’t take long in these sessions for him to reach the end of his script and start becoming rude and condescending to members of the Assembly, particularly towards women.
However, when Londoners got their vanishingly rare opportunity to put questions to him directly, his attitude towards members of the public surprised even me. One of the last questions of the event was about the masked TfL enforcers policing his unfair ULEZ expansion, which Londoners overwhelming rejected in his sham of a consultation.
Understandably the questioner raised concerns that they were not wearing their SIA badges, meaning residents cannot tell if they are thugs wanting to steal their possessions, or merely TfL workers wanting to make off with their money.
He had one minute left to answer. He didn’t. He chose instead to sit in silence, smirking as he ran down the clock. It is hard to think of a more insulting reply to a genuine question from a London resident. Sadiq Khan has no respect for scrutiny or the people he was elected to serve.”
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1836248/sadiq-khan-susan-hall-peoples-question-time
Khan is never going to change his spots and he will resort to any tactic in true islamist fashion.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120318121727/http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/wimbledonnews/8451614.Election_race_infected_by_anti_Ahmadiyya_hate_campaign/
To quote Peter Cook (& Dudley Moore) What a f—— c—
Seriously, can someone explain the reason for the loss of the “edit” facility?
Then can the reason be reversed so that we can have it back, please, pretty please?
No they can’t and they won’t.
Why would they?
The silence is deafening.
I think it was on an Open Thread a few threads ago CTM simply said, “It broke”.
I remember Anthony saying WUWT was being moved to a more secure venue.
We’ve lost a few things, here and there to keep WUWT “up” and secure.
(I can only image the behind the scenes efforts to shut it down or compromise it!)
The side bar used to have a feature “Most Recent Comments” that’s been gone for several years at least. I miss it and the “Search” for past comments seems to not work right.
I don’t know if the issues are on WUWT or WordPress’s end or which needs to fix it.. (Maybe hitting the “Donate” button more often would help. Lax myself on that.)
Bottom line, I’m just thankful WUWT is still here at all!
If there are some unusual expenses related to maintaining or upgrading features, I’m sure that a candid announcement will open wallets.
I was recently trying to find a couple of WUWT articles that showed surface temperatures for (I think) India and Tokyo. I spent about 1/2 hour and couldn’t find them.
I don’t know if this works across all browsers but you can try entering
“wattsupwiththat: (Then you search)” then it may only search this site.
(I don’t know if you need add “.com” or not.
I dunno, Oldseadog, though I often think the same.
On the bright side, AI spam probably makes fewer spelling errors, so that is one way of knowing that you are connecting to a human.
One of tricks added to a Turing Test bot was to have it make occasional mistakes in spelling and grammar. They would also slow down the typing speed. It was thought the judges would be more likely to think they were communicating with a human instead of a bot.
I presume it is buried in the basic design of the system and has to do with coming up with some way of locking for update/replacement any comment, in a series of comments, once they have been released to multiple interactive users. I was somewhat amazed that they ever allowed it in the first place. But, it’s been several years since I worked on that sort of problem so my knowledge is probably pretty down level by now.
Write your comments in a word processors and edit all you want, then copy and paste hear. 😉
😎
I used to make sooo many typos that I sometimes (not often enough), would type my comments into Word first to correct my spelling before WUWT had a functioning “spellcheck”.
I have edited OK recently. Let’s see if I can edit this …..
Nope. Maybe you can edit an original comment not a reply ???
“Nope. Maybe you can edit an original comment not a reply ???”
Now I’m going to say, “Nope. Maybe you can edit a plagerized comment not a reply ???”
I’m post it then see if I can fix it.
Nope.
Re: ENSO/SST Ocean Temp Chart – always posted on lower right hand margin of this page
I read WUWT several days each week. I have never seen any articles or comments about the super heated ocean surface temperature anomaly in the northwest corner of the Pacific Ocean during the last six months.
Specifically, the area involved is the Sea of Japan (west and northwest of Japan), the Sea of Okhotsk (around Sakhalin Island), and a small area of Pacific Ocean off the northeast coast of Japan.
The ocean surface temps in that region have been dark red to black (the hottest anomaly) for at least six months.
In addition, the exceptional heat has briefly expanded several times to the Yellow Sea (west of Korea), to the northern Sea of Okhotsk (west of the Kamchatka Peninsula), and, within the last six weeks, the heated surface water has begun flowing straight east, towards North America.
Curiously, the hottest anomaly off NE Japan is exactly where the tsunami developed that destroyed the Japanese nuclear power plant several years ago.
Does anyone have an explanation or a link for this anomaly? Thank you!
My take.
The long term trend is that the northern hemisphere is warming up. NH is warming faster than SH is cooling down so, on average, the surface of Earth is warming.. These trends are driven by the precession cycle.
The water just south of Japan got up to the limit of 30C in September. This appears to be related to the developing El Nino in the equatorial Pacific.
The heat has gradually spread north with the Kuroshio current and the anomaly was widespread and peaked in September per attached.
It is now subsiding but resulting in record snowfall across northern China now and expect Japan to set new snowfall records this year as well. The snow transfers heat from the oceans to dissipate over land as the land cools off.
The may be some validity in the Somoanian volcano ejecting lots of water into the atmosphere that is still lingering above the troposphere.
In the long run, a lot more of the northern oceans will reach the 30C limit and snowfall records will be a feature for millennia.
Except that it isn’t.
Lots of land and sub sea volcanoes, as well as maritime earthquakes, in that part of the world.
If localized heat keeps showing up at the surface in the same place in the ocean, with no evidence of horizontal transport from the equatorial region, I’d suggest considering underwater volcanic activity. A new volcano recently broke the surface in the ocean near Tokyo.
The anomalous temperature is associated with the tropical Pacific. The higher temperature is just going further north than other years.
The anomalous region is not static and you can guarantee the ocean will be cooler at depth than the surface so heat is not coming from below.
So the trade winds that would normally move that heat aren’t doing so this year?
That is the average or typical behavior. If there is an under water eruption, all bets are off.
Keeping an eye on the regions when it comes to climate change
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/11/231106134804.htm
hmmm…. but…. but… I thought the science is settled? doesn’t look like it
The climate hysteria crew has ALWAYS got a new story!
So, today, they can explain and predict GLOBAL climate change – but…
REGIONAL climate change is just too variable to explain or predict.
At least they admit, “Over the course of centuries and millennia, the climate has continuously varied, leaving behind traces.”
Except of course as of about 1850 all natural climate change stopped and it’s all due to “carbon pollution”. Recently I’ve started to notice an update of that term- it’s been elevated to “climate pollution”. WTF?
Alarmists seem to have a knack for inventing catchy, pejorative phrases.
It took me about 15 minutes to find this article with associated 3 minute video in which at about the 2:20 mark, Jane Fonda said she has been a climate scientist for decades.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jane-fonda-arrested-climate-change-strike-capitol/story?id=66209415
The video is entertaining. With wide open arms she says something like “there is one issue (you guessed it) this is not hyperbole…”
Well that’s it then, you know they’re getting desperate when they wheel Jane out. Not a very good actor and the kiss of death for most causes she joins.
And a traitor to boot. I refuse to watch any movie she appears in. She was cackling a few years ago about how COVID was made-to-order for her
“Communist” side.
The Queen of urinal targets!
Here is an attempt at proofs that man’s CO2 IS NOT causing serious global warming:
Here is the evidence – short description of several lines of evidence
1.—-
THE CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED!
5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warm period
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
1000 years later, came our current warm period.
Climate alarmists are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and thus CO2 is not causing warming or any unusual climate effects that are frequently blamed on warming.
Evidence that those warm periods actually occurred:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatehistory.html
Evidence that the Roman & Medieval warm periods were global:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/warm_periods.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/page216.html
2————
1. Our current climate started warming 200 years BEFORE man’s CO2 emissions started to rise . NOT before.
2. Previous Holocene warm periods were warmer than now.
3. Solar fits climate better than CO2
4. There is nothing unusual about today’s climate compared to before man emitted CO2.
5. Recent warming is a same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s CO2. (More of a cause should cause more effect.)
6. Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming.
7. Man emits only 5% of annual CO2. Plus CO2 only causes 9-26% of greenhouse effect.
8. Human CO2 release warms the climate less than 0.03◦C https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf
See DebunkingClimate.com for evidence
3.———-
1. The IPCC says the earth warmed less than 0.8 degree from 1850 up to 2012. See Pg. 209 of the IPCC WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
2. Man only emits 6% of total annual CO2 emissions (Nature emits 94%). Add the numbers on the NASA diagram of the carbon cycle.
3. CO2 only causes 26-32% of the greenhouse effect. (H2O is 60-75%) see wikipedia greenhouse_effect page and Table 3 of: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 78, No. 2, February 1997
4. We do not have enough data to say that hurricanes have increased. pg 178 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
5. We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased. pg 178 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
6. Sea level has been rising for centuries, it HAS NOT RISEN FASTER recently. Page 306 WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
7. There is little, if any, global scale changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods. pg 230 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
8. Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness pg 178 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
9. Long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Page 774 of IPCC third Assessment Report (2001) Section 14.2.2.2
In view of this, why does anyone think we have a climate problem?
(based on research by:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/10/04/extreme-weather-ipc-56243
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/ipcc_says.html
4——————
Here is the climate truth from genuine scientists:
Will happer & Richard Lindzen:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/article/two-princeton-mit-scientists-say-epa-climate-regulations-based-on-a-hoax-5460699
Their Report: https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf
Lindzen on hydrodynamics of climate: https://youtu.be/KhCKYvETYDc
And this from Statistics Norway:
The report concludes:
“[T]he results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/10/another-nail-in-the-global-warming-coffin.php
5 —-
One way to detect what is really going on is to follow the money.
* The anti fracking video/”film” included at least on Middle east oil producer in its credits.
* The mainstream media has carried some articles about russian money financing some of the anti-pipeline protests
* Several European sources have carried similar stories about Russian money in the groups opposing domestic energy production.
* Before Putin’s folly, Russian energy exports was a very significant source of russian income.
* Financial markets have been looking a a TRILLION dollar market for carbon emissions trading.
* Many large corporations are making money (or trying to!) off of wind and solar energy and their massive government subsidies. Of course some of this money finds it way back to politicians through campaign donations and, as we are finding out – outright bribes.
* News media, daily, carries false accusations of global warming being caused by fossil fuels.
References:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/trillion_dollar.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/bigmoneyscaring.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/green-money.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/paid%20by%20the%20fossil%20fuel%20industry.html
And the main page of DebunkingClimate.com
You might find the following exchange between myself and Bing to be entertaining:
Spencer: Can a case be made that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature?
Bing: The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is complex and multifaceted. While it is true that natural increases in carbon dioxide concentrations have periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is responsible for the observed increase in global temperature over the past century. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a warming effect known as the greenhouse effect. The observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change.
While it is possible that increasing temperatures could cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature.
I hope this helps!
Spencer: In the question that you just answered for me, you are citing the opinions of agencies rather than individuals. Can you provide independent evidence for causation, such as the timing of temperature and CO2-concentration increase?
Bing: Certainly! The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is a well-established scientific fact that has been studied by many researchers over the years. According to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), there is a strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up, and when the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.
The NCEI also states that the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
The timing of temperature and CO2-concentration increase is also well-documented. According to a study by the NCEI, the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. That the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the Antarctic temperature so closely suggests that processes in the ocean around Antarctica play an important role in the rise in CO2.
While it is possible that increasing temperatures could cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature.
I hope this helps!
Spencer: You contradict your assertions. You stated, “…, the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years.” How can something that follows an event be responsible for causing it?
Bing: I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is complex and multifaceted. While it is true that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is responsible for the observed increase in global temperature over the past century. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a warming effect known as the greenhouse effect. The observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change.
While it is possible that increasing temperatures could cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature.
I hope this clarifies my previous response. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Spencer: You are again relying on anonymous sources for your assertions and have ignored my question about the temporal relationship between cause and effect. How can something be caused by something that follows it in time?
Bing: I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is complex and multifaceted. While it is true that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) states that there is a strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up, and when the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.
According to a study by the NCEI, the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. That the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the Antarctic temperature so closely suggests that processes in the ocean around Antarctica play an important role in the rise in CO2.
While it is possible that increasing temperatures could cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature.
I hope this clarifies my previous response. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Spencer: You appear to be stuck in a loop, repeating assertions for which you are ignoring the temporal order necessary for cause and effect. You again repeated the claim that, “…, the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years.” That is not possible if the CO2 increase is causing the increase in temperature. Focus on this contradiction and explain in the context of cause and effect how temperature can increase before CO2 increases if CO2 is causing the increase in temperature.
Bing: I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is complex and multifaceted. While it is true that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) states that there is a strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up, and when the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.
According to a study by the NCEI, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years. This delay is due to the fact that as the temperature of the ocean around Antarctica rises, it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which then amplifies the warming effect.
While it is possible that increasing temperatures could cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the current increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of increasing temperature rather than being responsible for the increase in temperature.
I hope this clarifies my previous response. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Spencer: You continue to repeat illogical assertions and aren’t dealing with the fundamental question about cause and effect. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of thinking logically. Thank you.
Bing: I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to provide you with the information you were looking for. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Have a great day!
Nice one, Skippy.
So I guess we can conclude that “The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is complex and multifaceted.”
🙂
That seems to be the consensus — repeated several times.
Nice job… looks like He/She/Them/They/It has a basic problem with understanding the difference between and deciding between the actual data and the proclamations/opinions of authority. And, it has been ‘brain washed’, if you can say that about an AI, to accept authority or data.
Kids are suppose to use this in their studies? Oh well, guess it’s about as smart as the current crop of teachers :<)
Indoctrinators
“The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is complex and multifaceted.”
Well, that sounds like “boilerplate”.
It also sounds like Bing has a lot of other alarmist climate change boilerplate programmed into it.
I don’t (knowingly) do any of the AI stuff.
I wonder what it would say if asked, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” or, better yet, “Has Bill Gates stopped beating his wife?”. 😎
This was my first attempt at tweaking the dragon’s tail, just to see how it would handle contradictions.
Good post. So what we’ve learned is that climate models and AI are both governed by the GIGO principle. Good to know.
I’ve had similar conversations with Google’s Bard. They are stuck in a propaganda loop when it comes to climate.
Does anyone have a link to this claim handy :
“According to a study by the NCEI, the CO2 concentration follows the increase in temperature with a delay of no more than a few hundred years.“
I have read that the Antarctic Law Dome C (?) ice core shows temperature changes occurring about 800 years before the CO2 changes. However, I don’t have a link for you.
It’s old, but it’s an interesting link addressing your concern.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
Is corporate America tiring of the product of wokester college degrees and it’s back to the future-
They just want competent workers not indoctrinated crazy dumb people. – YouTube
(the compare is apparently a popular commentator on where the crazy feminist college girls are going wrong getting ‘wifed up’ in the dating scene as they get done over by their dream 5 percenters until they’re too old and welcome to ‘passport bros’ for the average guys) It’s a very different dating scene out there nowadays with some very mixed up ignorance of fundamental biology it seems.
Courtesy of Tony Heller
“Arctic sea ice extent is almost identical to this date in 1996.”
Cycles, it always comes back to cycles. Not this stupid ‘straight-line to infinity’ crap peddled by the climate enthusiasts.
Offshore Wind
Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, say things that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines in Siemens, Oersted, etc., stock prices, starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out
All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offsho…
US/UK governments have extremist offshore wind goals, such as:
1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the posse of extremists in the US government
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK government
Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See article
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off…
One commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable”
That shows the types of ignorami driving the bus
WIND AND SOLAR ARE NEVER, EVER RELIABLE
The evidence shows, W/S will always require the following very costly items:
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the W/S, up/down output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365,
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have producedPlus W/S variable outputs could not be physically fed into the grid, without the last 4 items, of which the LCOEs are provided for free by taxpayers, ratepayers, or added to government debts, to make W/S look politically competitive with fossil fuels.
Are Batteries an Alternative to Power Plant Fleets?
Turnkey capital costs of large scale-battery systems are $575/installed kWh; based on 2023 pricing of Tesla-based systems. See article
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital…
With 6.5% money and 10% for owner return on investment and 6% inflation, and throughput at 10% of installed electricity delivery capacity, a delivered kWh costs about 91.9 c/kWh, on top of the cost of the electricity fed to the batteries; at 40%, about 23 c/kWh, on top
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 3) system losses from HV grid to HV grid, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect the battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.
NOTE 1: The 40% usage is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% usage, i.e., not charging above 80% and not discharging below 20%. Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded be owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve.
They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system and to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
THE PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC FUTILITY OF W/S HAS BEEN CLEAR TO ENERGY SYSTEMS ANALYSTS SINCE ABOUT 2000
I just found out the above URLs became corrupted.
Here are the new one, which are good, because I tested them.
The Hornsdale URL is referenced in the battery article
World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
Then there is the density of the turbines.
https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2023/nov/10/talks-needed-over-density-of-offshore-windfarms-in-europe-warn-experts
We need to get rid of anything invented, created, or produced by old white guys except the ideas of climate change and communism.
From my GelbspanFiles blog: “Covering Climate Now,” the enviro-outfit suppling 300+ mainstream media news outlets with their climate issue talking points demonstrates once again, via the latest repetition of its 26 year-old ‘one-trick pony’ accusation about industry-paid skeptic climate scientists, how it is the one that pushes disinformation in this game.
Beware These 6 Outright Clima-Disinformation™ bits when you’re told to ‘Beware These 10 Climate Myths’“
The scoudrels always accuse others of doing what they are doing themselves.
It’s projection in some cases, but more probably deflection.
India lost the ICC World Cup 2023 cricket because of the Indian commentators.
India were winning when the commentators were very loud.
Australia were winning when the commentators were rather quiet.
Here is a good example of logic and the confusion of causation and correlation.
This illustrates the confusion of climate alarmists.
Congratulations to the Australian team.
Not to mention congratulations to the on-field umpires. Both English.
Hey, you’ve gotta take the wins where you can get them, sometimes.
If it doesn’t fit the narrative…
Most of you all probably have not heard or read that much of coastal Alaska has been getting pounded by snow storms. This month Anchorage has gotten 38.1″ of snow. Their record snowfall for the month of November is 38.8 inches set in 1994.
You sure hear about it when Alaska has a warm winter or doesn’t get as much snow as usual, but when it goes the opposite way you are not likely to be informed by the “news”. It doesn’t fit the narrative.
Just like this last Typhoon season. Typically during El Nino years the NW Pacific basin has a lot of powerful storms. During the Super El Nino of 2015 they had:
38 tropical depressions resulting in
27 storms, of which
18 became Typhoons, of which
9 were classified as Super Typhoons (Think CAT IV or V hurricanes)
This year during this El Nino there were:
28 tropical depressions resulting in
16 storms, of which
10 became Typhoons, of which
4 were classified Super Typhoons.
Again. Doesn’t fit the narrative so they don’t want to talk about it.
Why such a big difference? As I have stated before this year high Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) dominated the oceans. The formation and strengthening of Tropical Cyclones requires not just high SSTs but contrasts in the temperatures and pressures of air masses and those contrasts were muted by the high SSTs which dominated all over the ocean.
The hurricane season here in the U.S. ends November 30.
The climate alarmists haven’t had much to talk about this season.
According to climate alarmists, the more CO2 that goes in the air means more hurricanes and more powerful hurricanes, but more CO2 has gone into the air, yet we don’t see more hurricanes or more powerful hurricanes, we see fewer hurricanes.
Climate alarmists predictions strike out again.
News story: “Crushed Rock is used to capture Carbon.” Michelle Ma with Bloomberg. A new startup is trying to reverse climate change by spreading rock with olivine crystals on farm ground. Let me get this straight. You mine this rock using fossil fuel powered vehicles; you crush it by using fossil fuel powered equipment; you haul it to remote locations using fossil fuel powered vehicles; you spread it out on farm ground using fossil fueled vehicles and equipment, and then watch it weather to capture carbon and that is supposed to reverse climate change. How stupid have things gotten? The first test (guesstimate most likely) captured 50 tons of Carbon. What scale up is going to make this work? This is pure insanity. The article stated that is unproved so far.
“though it remains far from proving it’s a viable pathway for removing some of the billions of tons of CO2 that scientists estimate will need to be removed from the atmosphere annually by midcentury to stave off the worst effects of global warming.” You think?
Key phrase and key company names:
Enhance Rock Weathering (ERW)
Eion and Stripe Climate.
Well if you’ve got an abundance of olivine-laden rock and some idiot is going to pay you to do this with it then why not? At least they’re not suggesting it can be used as a power source!
To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
From the abstract…..
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2023/11/17/net-zero-greenwashing-58-large-corporations-lobby-against-climate-efforts/7141700219198/
Nov. 17, 2023
Study: 58% of world’s richest companies quietly lobby against climate policies
By A.L. Lee
Nov. 17 (UPI) — Pledges by the world’s largest corporations to fight climate change frequently do not align with their lobbying efforts, with more than half of companies at risk of engaging in misleading practices known as “net zero greenwashing,” according to a new report.
The study by the London-based research center InfluenceMap, titled “Net Zero Greenwash: The Gap Between Corporate Commitments and their Policy Engagement,” released on Wednesday, examined the lobbying activities of nearly 300 of the largest public companies around the world while exposing efforts by airlines, and gas, energy, and manufacturing companies to sidestep accountability.
The results showed 58% of corporate giants did not align their influence initiatives with emerging climate policies, while publicly claiming to fully support the Paris Climate Agreement to shrink global warming through the next century.
Instead, the study found a majority of Forbes-listed companies had consistently lobbied against worldwide climate efforts, contradicting their own commitments to achieve net-zero emissions goals, the report claims.
end excerpt
What a surprise, they are hypocrits!
https://www.thestreet.com/electric-vehicles/new-worry-for-electric-vehicle-owners-everyone-should-know-about
A New Worry That Every Electric-Vehicle Owner Should Know About
While owning electric vehicles provide a lot of benefits, they also come with their share of headaches. Case in point…
Rob Lenihan
Jul 17, 2023
First, they came for the catalytic converters.
Thieves have long targeted the part of your car that converts engine-exhaust pollutants into something less harmful to the environment.
In May, the National Insurance Crime Bureau said the U.S. experienced more than 64,000 catalytic converter thefts in 2022, with Texas and California leading the way.
Electric vehicles don’t produce exhaust and they don’t need need catalytic converters. So EV owners have nothing to worry about, right?
Well, actually … no.
It seems that electric vehicle owners are discovering that the cables they use to charge their cars are a hot item for thieves, NBC Los Angeles reported.
The thieves either post them on popular resale websites or sell them for scrap metal since they’re full of expensive copper wiring.
Copper prices surged during the pandemic, and while they may have come down, thieves are still stealing the malleable metal.
More than 1 million electric vehicles are on California roads, and the state is responsible for about half the total U.S. EV market share, so charging-cable theft is big news.
The NBC report described how one Los Angeles homeowner left his house one morning and found his EV charging cord had gone MIA.
The victim checked his Ring security camera. A man in a hoodie and mask had walked up his driveway in the early morning, unplugged the cord from his car, unplugged the other end from the outside wall socket, and took off on a bike.
“This guy was so quick,” the victim said. “He was so fast at it.”
On apps like Nextdoor people across Southern California are posting videos showing thieves stealing the EV charging cables, often in about 13 seconds or less.
end excerpt
What is wrong with a world view of climate like this?
The Earth has existed in a relatively stable state for millions of years. It is still with us.
The best future expectation is that it will continue to do the same.
The baseline for climate assumptions should therefore be a stady state punctuated by minor changes up and down that self-correct and lead to a reversion to the mean.
The mean changes with the interval selected to measure it. Modern climate research milks this opportunity to cherry pick.
All the present fuss about an alleged global warming of 1.5 deg C (or whatever) over the past century is overcooked. This is just another of the minor, self-correcting changes. 1.5 deg C is really a tiny quantity, quite difficult to measure among the earthly noise.
It you want to argue that people have to try to change it, you need far better evidence than has been produced to date.
Sleep peacefully, don’t be upset by extremist propaganda about climate.
Geoff S
Regular winter in Scandinavia and Russia, severe cold in Scandinavia.
Story Tip [?]. My wife and I just returned from a Linblad/National Geographic “expedition” in the Galapagos Islands (highly recommended). A couple of things to watch for in the future. Global warming might endanger the various Galapagos tortoise populations. In the process of restoring the tortoise population after centuries of over-hunting, they’ve found that the incubation temperature of the eggs profoundly affects the male/female ratio of the hatched tortoises. At ~78 F, the eggs produce mostly males, while at ~85 F they produce mostly females. The “mostly” is on the order of 90%, so it is not a small effect. They speculate that global warming might break down the tortoise repopulation effort by overproducing females. Also, the negative effect of El Nino on the Galapagos penguin population is of concern. Normally, the Humboldt current brings enough cold water to the Galapagos to keep the population of small fish (e.g. anchovies) up such that the Galapagos penguins have an abundant source of them for food. El Nino years warm the current to the point where the penguin population is actually threatened. We’re in the middle of a really strong El Nino right now, which my wife and I were happy for since snorkeling was pleasant in the ~78 F water (it normally isn’t, apparently). Now, neither of us had any idea that Galapagos penguins even existed, but they do, and we saw a number of them. They’re cute little guys. You may be reading stories about global warming threatening to wipe them out.
Just a little heads up….
Found some humor with NY ability to actually implement its heat pump policy:
https://www.theverge.com/23951214/heat-pump-nycha-public-housing-electric-sustainable