Day: March 22, 2023

From Watts Up With That?

By Andy May

In the latest IPCC major report, AR6, they report: “a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C, with a very likely range of 2°C to 5°C”.^[1] They also report that CO₂ concentration might control climate change.^[2] This estimate includes the laboratory estimate that CO₂ alone, if doubled in the atmosphere, would increase the average global surface temperature about 1.2°C.^[3] The remaining 1.8°C (60%) is supposedly achieved through feedbacks to the initial CO₂-caused warming. The main proposed feedback mechanism is an increase in atmospheric water vapor caused by the CO₂ warmed air.^[4] Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO₂, due to its greater abundance, and can cause more warming.^[5]

The IPCC estimates the water vapor feedback using the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. The relation states that as temperature increases, more evaporation occurs and atmospheric water vapor increases, especially in the upper atmosphere.^[6] Models suggest that relative humidity should remain “roughly constant,” as climate changes.^[7] According to AR5 and AR6:

“… total column water vapour (TCWV) very likely increased since the 1970s, at a rate that was overall consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship (about 7% per °C) given the observed increase in atmospheric temperature.”(IPCC 2021, p 330).

Later in the report they write this:

“The Clausius–Clapeyron equation determines that low-altitude specific humidity increases by about 7% °C^–1 of warming, assuming that relative humidity remains constant, which is approximately true at a global scale but not necessarily valid regionally.”(IPCC 2021, p 1065).

A corollary to the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship is that as the specific humidity (total water vapor in the air, the units used here are kg of water vapor per kg of dry air) goes up precipitation also increases by about the same amount, keeping relative humidity about the same. Model studies suggest that the increase in precipitation is less, around 3%.^[8] These assumptions make some sense logically, but they are not definitively supported by real world data. Further, it appears that the rate of evaporation is strongly influenced by wind speed, as well as temperature in the real world.^[9]

AR6 makes an oblique reference to the evaporation and total atmospheric precipitable water (TPW, shown here as kg/m²) dependence upon wind speed but refers to it as a “dynamical process.”

“According to theory, observations and models, the water vapour increase approximately follows the Clausius–Clapeyron relationship at the global scale with regional differences dominated by dynamical processes …. Greater atmospheric water vapour content, particularly in the upper troposphere, results in enhanced absorption of LW [longwave] and SW [shortwave] radiation and reduced outgoing radiation. This is a positive feedback.”(AR6, p 969).

The Clausius-Clapeyron relationship between specific humidity and temperature is sound in the laboratory, but observations show the relationship between humidity, temperature, and precipitation in the real world is more complex. Benestad (2016) reported that the European Centre for Medium-range Weather forecasts (ECMWF) interim reanalysis shows the total volume of water vapor in the atmosphere decreasing by -0.018 kg/m² per decade from 1979-2011, a period of rapid global warming. This is a decrease of about .07%/decade or 0.007%/year (1979-2011).  Miskolczi (2014)  reports that the NOAA R1 dataset shows that global surface air temperature has increased 0.687K between 1948 and 2008, but the water content has decreased by 0.636% or -0.0106%/year, like what is seen in the ECWMF dataset.

The NOAA R1 dataset still exists and is a weather reanalysis dataset maintained by NCEP, it has been updated since Miskolczi used it in 2014. Figure 1 shows it and its successor NCEP R2, as well as the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature dataset.

Figure 1. NCEP R1 (orange) and R2 (blue) reanalysis global total precipitable water records compared to the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature dataset (black).

In figure 1 we see that before 1978, NCEP R1 TPW declines more steeply than temperature, but both decline. After 2005, temperature and both NCEP reanalysis datasets increase, but again at different rates. Between 1978 and 2005 TPW declines in both datasets and temperature increases quickly. This is a 27-year period, why opposite trends? Obviously, global temperatures are not the only thing influencing TPW and the impact of temperature is not that significant. Yu and Weller^[10] emphasize that wind speed is a strong modulator of surface latent heat flux (evaporation). Wind moves saturated air out of the way, so that evaporation can continue. Evaporation stimulates circulation since water vapor is less dense than dry air and humid air usually rises as a result.

NCEP reanalysis 1 and 2 are separated when plotted in kg/m², but they look much more alike when plotted as anomalies from the 1988-2022 mean as shown in figure 2. We have also added the HadCRUT4 global temperature anomaly from the 1988-2021 mean. The difference between the temperature anomaly and the TPW anomalies in the blue shaded area is more dramatic between 1978 and 2005 in this plot.

Figure 2. The NCEP reanalysis datasets compared to HadCRUT4 as anomalies.

Carl Mears and colleagues^[11] have published a satellite microwave brightness record of TPW over the world’s ice-free oceans, from roughly 60°S to 60°N. In addition, to covering only the ice-free oceans, heavy rain affects the signal, and these areas must be excluded. Since it is not truly a global dataset, like NCEP R1 and R2, and it excludes the drier land and polar areas, it has a much higher absolute TPW than the NCEP datasets. But we can compare it to NCEP as an anomaly to the 1988-2022 mean, see Figure 3.

Figure 3. The NCEP and ECMWF reanalysis datasets compared to HadCRUT4 and the RSS TPW dataset. The RSS dataset is 60N to 60S and ocean only. The agreement, especially with the ECMWF dataset, is pretty good outside the blue area.

The more recent ECMWF-ERA5 specific humidity plotted in figure 3 has different units than the NCEP or RSS datasets. The ECMWF-ERA5 values plotted are the global area-weighted average specific humidity (kg water vapor per kg of dry air) from 1000 mbar to 1 mbar (roughly .1 km to 32 km altitude). Figure 3 is quite busy, so to make the relationship between the modern ECMWF-ERA5 specific humidity and HadCRUT4 clearer, I include Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. A comparison of ECMWF-ERA5 global atmospheric specific humidity (.1 km to 32 km) and the HadCRUT4 global surface average temperature.

Figure 3 shows that the apparent correlation between global temperature and the RSS TPW dataset is just that—an apparent correlation. The RSS TPW rises much faster than temperatures, and the comparison ignores both polar regions. Figure 5 shows where the RSS data comes from in brighter colors. The darker blue and black areas are not used in the RSS “global” average.

Figure 5. Monthly valid monthly satellite observations used in the construction of the RSS TPW dataset. Only cells with more than 160 valid observations are used, which excludes all the dark blue and black areas. This causes the RSS TPW “global” average values to be much higher than the NCEP averages, which include the poles and land areas. Map from the RSS web site here.

It is pretty clear that while temperature must have some influence on total precipitable water, it isn’t the only influence. Many will argue that TPW estimates from NOAA, ECMWF, and the satellite measurements by RSS are all poor, and they would be correct. But the trends in all the datasets agree after 1960, except in the blue anomalous area. NCEP R1 and the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) have similar trends as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6, is the straight AMO, and not the detrended AMO index you often see, thus the units are degrees C. It is the area-weighted average sea surface temperature from, roughly, 0 to 70°N latitude and 0-80°W longitude (see here).

Figure 6. A Comparison of the AMO and the NCEP R1 TPW reanalysis.

The AMO and other ocean oscillations might influence TPW, but it is hard to tell since many have questioned the quality of the early weather balloon hygrometer data, and modern estimates of TPW, like ECMWF-ERA5 show less of a correlation.

Over the short term, say 3-4 years (ENSO spans of time), the correlation between TPW and temperature trends is good, as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 shows that El Niños and ENSO in general, have a large influence on TPW, but since these oscillations affect the transfer of both heat and moisture from the ocean to the atmosphere, this is not surprising. Over the blue shaded 27-year period, using the ECMWF-ERA5, NCEP R1 and R2 data, the correlation is poor. In this period TPW trends downward as temperature increases, why? I don’t think anyone knows. As seen in figures 2 and 3, the correlation deteriorates in earlier time periods, probably due to poor data quality. The correlation is visually good after 2005. The time period and the data selected matters. We can see why AR5 and AR6 do not provide plots that compare global surface temperature to TPW.

TPW in the Upper Troposphere

As Garth Paltridge, et al.^[12] have noted climate models predict that specific humidity will increase in the upper troposphere as global warming continues. Yet, this is not what they see in the NCEP reanalysis 1 data as shown in Figure 7. Paltridge, et al. found that all levels above 850 mbar (~1.5 km) have a negative trend through 2007 in the tropics and southern midlatitudes in that dataset.

Figure 7. Global average TPW (blue line) from 500 mbar to 300 mbar or roughly 5.6 km to 9 km altitude compared to the HADCRUT4 temperature anomaly. Data sources: NCEP reanalysis 1 and Met Office Hadley Centre.

Remember the quote from AR6 from earlier in the post? I repeat part of it here:

“Greater atmospheric water vapour content, particularly in the upper troposphere, results in enhanced absorption of LW and SW radiation and reduced outgoing radiation. This is a positive feedback.”(AR6, p 969).

Specific humidity from the more modern ECMWF-ERA5 dataset correlates better with surface temperature at 500 mbar (~5.6 km). This point is made by Dessler and Davis^[13] in a rebuttal to Paltridge, et al. However, the correlation between 1985 and 2008 is still poor and neither Dessler and Davis, nor the IPCC address this problem. The area of poor correlation is highlighted in this post with blue shading. At 500 mbar, the poor correlation is moved forward about seven years, as shown in figure 8, but it is still there.

Figure 8. A comparison of ECMWF-ERA5 global area-weighted specific humidity at 500 mbar (~5.6 km) and HadCRUT4 global average surface temperature. The correlation is pretty good except from 1985-2009.

In many ways the opposite trends in figure 7 are counterintuitive since logically we would expect more evaporation with warming. More evaporation should cause a higher TPW, unless rain efficiency increases. From Paltridge, et al.:

“Negative trends in q [TPW] as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO₂.”(Paltridge, Arking and Pook 2009).

This was also the conclusion reached by Ferenc Miskolczi (Miskolczi 2014). Others, such as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, have suggested that warmer temperature will cause more clouds, which will increase the albedo of the Earth and lower temperatures or reduce the rate of warming (provide negative feedback) as a result. David Enfield, et al.^[14] show that rainfall patterns in the United States are closely related to the AMO, yet the climate models do not take the AMO into account. Obviously, rainfall affects TPW. The world is more complicated than the Clausius-Clapeyron relation suggests.

Dessler and Davis rebuttal

AR6 has very little discussion of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and refers to AR5:

“According to AR5, radiosonde, Global Positioning System (GPS) and satellite observations of tropospheric water vapour indicate very likely increases at near global scales since the 1970s occurring at a rate that is generally consistent with the Clausius–Clapeyron relation (about 7% °C–1 at low altitudes) and the observed atmospheric warming”(IPCC 2021, p 1080).

AR6 provides no chapter number, section or page number in AR5, but we were able to find the following:

“Because global temperatures have been rising, the above arguments imply WVMR [water vapor mixing ratio, that is the specific humidity] should be rising accordingly, and multiple observing systems indeed show this … A study challenging the water vapour increase (Paltridge et al., 2009) used an old reanalysis product, whose trends are contradicted by newer ones (Dessler and Davis, 2010) and by actual observations.”AR5 p 586 Ch 7.

Dessler and Davis point out that the newer reanalysis datasets, like ECMWF, do not show a downward trend in specific humidity and that ENSO is reflected in the specific humidity. This is true. However, AR5, AR6, and Dessler and Davis, do not plot surface temperature versus specific humidity as we have done here. Thus, they do not explain why the trends do not correlate well over the 1978-2008 period. Dessler and Davis point out that:

“Our understanding of upper tropospheric water vapor suggests that it should be in relatively close thermodynamic equilibrium with the surface temperature on time scales of longer than about 1 month [e.g., Minschwaner and Dessler, 2004]. Thus, the water vapor response to a climate fluctuation with a time scale of a few years (e.g., ENSO) should be about the same as for long‐term warming.”(Dessler and Davis 2010)

We have no problem with the one-month equilibrium period, but concluding that ENSO-related warming should be the same as long-term warming is inconsistent with the data shown above for the 1978-2008 period. Data that the IPCC and Dessler and Davis ignore.

Conclusions and Summary

The various estimates of total atmosphere TPW and specific humidity available do not agree with one another very well. Even the two NCEP estimates, both global, vary by 3% over 1988-2022. The NCEP R1 data gathering and processing procedures were very complex and prone to error, which was why NCEP R2 was developed.^[15] NCEP R2 was of much higher quality than NCEP R1, but since NCEP R1 goes back to 1948, it has been cleaned up as much as possible, and is still used. It must be viewed with the understanding that the data prior to 1979 is of lower quality.

These global estimates are 16% lower than the RSS ocean-only ~60S to 60N TPW estimate. However, this is explainable. The atmospheric water vapor content over oceans and in the lower latitudes is much higher than over land and in the higher latitudes. The three estimates are compared in Figure 9.

Figure 9. A comparison of TPW estimates from NCEP 1, NCEP 2, and RSS.

Since about 2005 all the total atmospheric water vapor estimates trend upward, as the AMO begins to flatten at a high level. Prior to 2005, the story is more complex. The longer NCEP reanalysis 1 estimate trends down from 1948 to 1975 in sync with the AMO, but different from the HADCRUT4 and ECMWF trends. All datasets agree that short term ENSO changes (~5 years) are reflected in total atmosphere TPW, but it is not clear that longer-term changes (>30 years) in TPW are related solely to global surface temperatures, they seem to be impacted by other factors as well, perhaps including the AMO.

Global climate models predict that global warming will increase upper tropospheric specific humidity, but reanalysis, based mainly on weather balloon data, shows a decline in specific humidity and in TPW from 1978 to 2005 in the global atmosphere, and a flattening from 1985 to 2008 in the upper troposphere, both are periods of rapid surface warming. The humidity data declines in quality with altitude and lower temperatures, but even in the tropics where water vapor concentration is high at high altitudes, this trend persists. This also contradicts satellite data, but the ability of satellites to separate the signal of the upper troposphere water vapor from the lower is unclear. The accuracy of the specific humidity calculations in the upper troposphere can be questioned. However, both the NCEP reanalysis and the European reanalysis show a decline or flattening during the period of interest.

Consider this quote from Pierrehumbert (Pierrehumbert 2011):

“For present Earth conditions, CO₂ accounts for about a third of the clear-sky greenhouse effect in the tropics and for a somewhat greater portion in the drier, colder extratropics; the remainder is mostly due to water vapor.”(Pierrehumbert 2011).

So, we see the crucial role assumed for water vapor in the entire man-made climate change catastrophe hypothesis. CO₂ has only a minor role to play in warming the Earth. It is only the assumed, but poorly measured, feedback from water vapor that allows a possibly large impact on our climate to be calculated. Yet, as shown above, this assumed feedback cannot be measured with any accuracy with the data we have available. In fact, over some climate-relevant time scales (~30 years) we cannot even be sure the net feedback is positive. There is a strong correlation between surface temperature and total atmospheric water vapor concentration over short time periods, but it falls apart over, at least some, longer periods. I agree some of the data presented in this post is questionable, but it is data, and data trumps IPCC models. From Paltridge, et al.

“… it is important that the trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be ‘written off’ simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models—or indeed on the basis that they are not supported by the few relevant satellite measurements.”(Paltridge, Arking and Pook 2009).

Bottom line, water vapor feedback is a huge (66% according to Pierrehumbert) part of the dangerous greenhouse gas hypothesis. Total atmospheric water vapor content is very difficult to measure accurately, but the measurements and trends we have today do not support the hypothesis over all time periods. It seems likely that the Clausius-Clapeyron relation is not the only factor affecting TPW. This casts considerable doubt on the CMIP6 model results, which rely only on Clausius-Clapeyron, human activities, and sporadic volcanism.

AR5 and Dessler and Davis^[16] claimed in 2013 and 2010 respectively, that:

“In summary, radiosonde, GPS and satellite observations of tropospheric water vapour indicate very likely increases at near global scales since the 1970s occurring at a rate that is generally consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (about 7% per degree Celsius) and the observed increase in atmospheric temperature.”(IPCC 2013, p 208)

AR6 simply references these sources and assumes that specific humidity (TPW) responds to temperatures and is a positive feedback. However, the data shown in this post casts doubt on the quote above and the AR6 assumption. Thus, the data we have, poor as it is, does not support the idea that the Clausius-Clapeyron relation works at all time scales.

The R code and other information, including spreadsheets containing the data used to make the figures in the post can be downloaded here.

Download the bibliography here.

1. (IPCC 2021, p 93) ↑
2. (IPCC 2021, p 179), (Manabe and Wetherald 1967), and the National Research Council Charney Report (Charney, et al. 1979) ↑
3. (Lacis, et al. 2010), (Lacis, et al. 2013), (Dessler 2013), (Wijngaarden and Happer 2020) ↑
4. (Lacis, et al. 2010) ↑
5. (Wijngaarden and Happer 2020) ↑
6. (IPCC 2021, p 969) ↑
7. (Allen and Ingram 2002) ↑
8. (Allen and Ingram 2002) ↑
9. (Yu 2007) ↑
10. (Yu and Weller 2007) ↑
11. (Mears, et al. 2018) ↑
12. (Paltridge, Arking and Pook 2009) ↑
13. (Dessler and Davis 2010) ↑
14. (Enfield, Mestas-Nunez and Trimble 2001) ↑
15. (Kanamitsu, Ebisuzaki, et al., NCEP-DOE AMIP-II Reanalysis (R-2) 2002) ↑
16. (Dessler and Davis 2010) ↑

Sky News Australia

Atmospheric Physicist Richard Lindzen says climate change isn’t “particularly dangerous” as climate alarmism and eco-anxiety continues to escalate.

“The strange thing – and this is what I find very peculiar about the UN’s IPCC, there’s only one section of it dealing with science, and that’s the working group one report,” Mr. Lindzen told Sky News host Andrew Bolt.

“Although it is biased, I won’t deny that, it never comes out with predictions of catastrophe.”

From Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The government leaders of the U.S., EU and UK can’t seem to bring themselves to acknowledge that global energy outcomes regarding the world’s future energy growth, fuel use as well as emissions growth is out of their control and has been for years.

The comprehensive year 2022 BP world energy statistical review report data shows that China’s energy use alone in year 2021 exceeds the energy use of the U.S., EU and UK combined and represents 26.49% of all global energy use which is by far the largest of any global nation. 

China has achieved this level of energy consumption by hugely increasing its use of coal fuel from 2005 to 2021 by over 30 exajoules with that increase alone in year 2021 energy use being 12.6% greater than the entire world’s energy provided by wind and solar in 2021. China’s growth in coal energy is larger than their increased use of both petroleum and natural gas combined during this same period.

Additionally, the non-OECD (which includes China) nations growth in yearly coal energy use between 2005 and 2021 increased by 48.32 exajoules with this increased 2021 coal energy being 77% larger than the entire world’s energy provided by wind and solar in that year.

China’s coal fuel use alone in 2021 is more than 9.3 times greater than its use of wind and solar in that year with its total fossil fuel use being more than 14 times larger than its wind and solar energy.

Biden’s Secretary of Energy seems to be completely oblivious to China’s and the non-OECD nations colossal energy use and emissions that are largely driven by its globally dominate and huge use of coal fuel as described here.             

The tables and data provided below reflect year 2021 world energy statistical analysis data from the BP year 2022 Report. 

Table 1 below provides data listed in rank order of world region largest percent of total global energy use with the percent of each world regions energy use obtained from both wind and solar as listed in the BP Statistical Analysis Report of 2022. 

Wind and solar are the energy resources most associated with alleged zero CO2 emissions but with significant toxic material waste disposal problems that are ignored by advocates as, for example, described here. Wind and solar represent about 70% of total global renewable energy use with biomass being most of the remainder.

Additionally, wind and solar resources require the use of massive emissions producing quantities of materials and increased mining as well as significant manufacturing emissions because of their very low energy density compared to fossil fuels resources.

California is included in these tables because, incredibly, the state’s politicians foolishly operate under the delusion that the state plays some grand role in “fighting global climate change” which is a complete farce as indicated by the numbers in this and other tables in this essay. 

California’s total energy use data is obtained for year 2020 (the latest year available) from the EIA data source here.

Wind and Solar energy are alleged as zero emissions energy resources that will save mankind from the climate alarmists ridiculous and science unsupported claim of a “climate emergency”.

Wind and solar provided only 4.58% of total global energy use in year 2021 after decades of global government mandated use of these costly and unreliable energy resources including the use of trillions of dollars in huge global government driven subsidies. Germany alone has spent at least $800 billion euros  on its failed green energy transition campaign. 

The dominant global energy use non-OECD nations (representing 61.37% of total year 2021 global energy use) utilized less wind and solar energy (only 13.14 exajoules) compared to the OECD nations (representing only 38.63% of total year 2021 global total energy) with wind and solar use at just 14.13 exajoules.

The above highlighted huge disparity in non-OECD and OECD percent of total global energy will be addressed again later in this essay because it is a crucial global energy outcome that is concealed and ignored by renewable energy advocates and climate alarmists. 

These advocates and alarmists don’t want the public to be aware of the futility and incompetence of OECD absurd energy policy schemes trying to decrease use of global fossil fuel energy while advocating increased use of unreliable and costly renewable energy, especially wind and solar.  

In 2021 non-OECD nations used 60% more total energy than the OECD nations but used less wind and solar than OECD. This outcome shows that non-OECD nations clearly lack government mandates and priorities for wind and solar energy.

The BP energy use data also shows that between 2005 and 2021 the OECD nations energy use of nuclear and hydro declined by 17% while use of these resources increased by over 72% for the non-OECD nations during this period with these nations using 13.5% more nuclear and hydro energy than the OECD nations in 2021.

OECD nations environmentalists and anti-nuclear activists appear to have been successful in curtailing growth of nuclear and hydro is these nations.        

Reliable and cost-effective fossil fuel energy resources including coal, petroleum and natural gas continued (thank goodness) to provide the great majority of world (82.28% in year 2021) and all world regional energy use requirements as presented in the Table 2 below based on the BP year 2021 world energy use statistical analysis.

Note the non-OECD nations globally dominate 85.34% fossil fuel use to achieve their year 2021 energy needs. Even globally insignificant and climate alarmist renewable energy mandate focused California used fossil fuels for 70% of its total energy use in year 2020.

Fossil fuels in year 2021 provided the world with 18 times greater energy than did wind and solar (489.66 exajoules versus 27.27 exajoules) after decades of OECD global government mandates requiring use of costly and unreliable wind and solar even with trillions in global government driven subsidies and mandates.

BP data shows the U.S. decreased its fossil fuel use between 2005 and 2021 by about 11% and most significantly decreased the use of coal fuel by 54%. These significant achievements which are discussed further below are largely ignored and concealed by Democrats in Congress that have consistently supported Biden’s incompetent efforts to decrease natural gas production and use. 

In September 2020 the EIA released a report showing that the U.S. replaced coal fuel with higher efficiency, lower cost and lower emissions natural gas fuel with this change contributing the great majority (61.2%) of a cumulative 5.475 billion metric tons of reductions in CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2019.

Table 3 below presents data on World, Selected World Regions, Country, and California showing total energy use for the years 2005 and 2021 with the energy use growth percent from 2005 to 2021 also provided. 

The OECD nations (which accounted for only 38.63% of total global energy use in 2021) led by the U.S. and EU experienced energy use declines between the period 2005 and 2021with these nations shrinking energy use by -4.3% during this period (as shown in Table 3).

The globally dominant energy use non-OECD nations (which accounted for 61.37% of total global energy use in 2021) increased their energy use by +66.7% during this same time period.    

This BP energy data establishes that the non-OECD nations are by far the world’s largest and fastest growing energy users with these nations now completely dominating total global energy, growth, and fuel use both present and future outcomes. 

The non-OECD nations increased fossil fuel use by 113.94 exajoules (311.73 exajoules in 2021 versus 197.79 exajoules in 2005) in the period from 2005 to 2021 with this increased use of fossil fuels being 435% times larger than the entire world’s increased use of wind and solar (27.27 exajoules in 2021 versus 1.08 exajoules in 2005) during year 2021. 

The 2005 to 2021 periods large increase in global fossil fuel use overwhelming dominates global energy use growth despite renewable energy advocate tactics of hyping large percent increase comparisons for wind and solar energy growth based on these resources changes from their tiny initial starting values.

The non-OECD nations are continuing to grow their already dominate energy use requirements and are fully committed to significant further increased use of coal, as well as increased use of natural gas and petroleum that achieved growth of over 65% between 2005 and 2021. 

These nations will continue to increase their future dominance over the OECD nations in global energy growth as well as for increased growth globally of fossil fuels which will inexorably grow in much larger absolute proportions than solar and wind.

The OECD nations cannot stop this from happening and despite their nefarious efforts otherwise cannot conceal this global energy growth and fuel use (as well as emissions growth) reality.

The incompetence of the OECD global nations costly and unreliable zero emissions hyped government schemes needs to be acknowledged and curtailed.

As demonstrated by decades of failed efforts the OECD nations cannot control future global energy, growth, and fuel use (or emissions) energy outcomes as the BP year 2021 comprehensive global energy statistical analysis data clearly displays.     

From CFACT

By CFACT Ed 

Both houses of the Indiana legislature unanimously voted to pass HB 1007 which requires the state agency that oversees utilities — the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission – to primarily consider five things: reliability, affordability, resiliency, stability and environmental sustainability, in most of its decisions.

This bill will help protect Indianans from electricity shortages and ever higher costs. Shortages and higher costs are caused by the rapid closures of full-time, low-cost, reliable coal plants. Often they are still being paid off and have decades of useful life left.

This bill incorporates many of the provisions that CFACT, Truth in Energy and Climate, and the Net Zero Reality Coalition had a hand in developing: The Abundant, Reliable, and Resilient Electricity Act.

The passage of HB 1007 is another major victory for protecting the nation’s electricity grid.

Coal plant closures have left PJM and MISO, the two largest electric grids in the country, short of electricity. Together they serve more than 100 million people, about a third of the US.

The bill’s author, Rep. Ed Soliday (R-Valparaiso), said grid operators are concerned the U.S. could face more rolling blackouts as utilities rely more on the grid.

“They said everyone is buying and no one is selling,” he said.

PJM, MISO, other grid operators and the regulator, NERC, have warned that it is likely they will be short of electricity when it is needed the most for years into the future. And it will likely get worse. The fast transition to “renewables” is making our electric grids more like third world countries, with unreliable electric grids.

If the Biden administration regulates coal plants out of existence, we will be drastically short of electricity across the nation. Coal provided 22% of our nation’s electricity in 2021, while wind provided 9% and solar 3%. Remember, coal produces electricity when needed, while wind and solar do not.  Electric grids must have full-time power delivered to them.

When it is very hot or cold electricity demand spikes. This is known as peak demand. This bill requires an insurance or reserve margin of 15% above estimated peak demand for the hot Indiana summer days.

It also requires that the vast majority of the electricity be generated by Indiana utilities.

This guards against what is happening in many states.

Many other states are relying on the grid to supply their needs, rather than their own homegrown electricity production. So, they are closing down coal plants. They aren’t building enough wind and solar replacements to meet the future demand. Which means we will be even shorter of full-time power, which can be relied on to keep the lights on and electricity flowing when there is no wind or no sunshine, which is most of the time.

Industrial batteries are wildly expensive. There just isn’t enough lithium in the world to make them for our electric grids and for millions of electric cars at the same time.

Without full-time power, we will have blackouts like the ones we just saw during winter storm Elliott or winter storm Uri that caused blackouts for more than five million people.

Frank Lasee, President of Truth in Energy and Climate, praised this bill and the Indiana legislature for being proactive. “They have recognized a problem, if everyone is depending on everyone else for enough electricity generation, the grid will fail. This bill takes major steps in the right direction.”

Lasee went on to say, “People have no idea that unreliable, part-time, weather-dependent wind and solar cannot be relied on to keep the lights on when we need them the most. There are many people pretending that they can. In addition, paying for part-time wind and solar and full-time reliable power is expensive.

“It is like a family that buys additional cars that rely on the wind and the sun’s energy, because they don’t have to pay for gas. Only to find out they only work 30% of the time.

“They must pay for their full-time cars and their part-time cars to get to work and their kid’s soccer games. Their car costs just went up tremendously. This is what is happening to our electric rates.” Lasee said.

Author

• CFACT Ed
• CFACT — We’re freedom people.

From Watts Up With That?

Book Review by Kip Hansen — 21 March 2023

Bill Pekny has written a terrific book on the tricky subject of Earth’s Climate. 

But who has ever heard of Bill Pekny?  Almost no one.  Why?  He is a humble man who just does good work (and good works) and isn’t shining a spotlight on himself.   He should, though, because his book is just the thing many of the readers here have been looking for.

“A Tale of Two Climates: One Real, One Imaginary” was published in 2020, it is nevertheless right up to date, it has no outdated charts or graphs – all of which are very professionally done and just beautiful.

Pekny has been very careful with this book.  The typography itself is very clear, with lines spaced for reading ease.  Included, at the beginning of each chapter, is a table giving all the acronyms and units of measurement abbreviations used in that chapter.  Definitions are set apart in the text to help readers grasp unfamiliar topics.  Each chapter ends with Chapter Takeaways.   All great features, especially for the non-scientists among us. 

The author takes his readers carefully through all the major subjects that add up to Climate and Climate Change, one at a time in a sensible order, each chapter building on the previous one,  with informative and readable prose that makes each topic transparently clear thus making this 250-page book a valuable resource for those who have been wishing for a book to present to a colleague or relative who needs to understand climate change better.

The hardcover book is suitable for use as a “coffee table book”.   Leave it around for visitors to pick up and leaf through…almost every page has a graphic of some sort that will catch their eye and text that will inform them. Also available in a Kindle version.

Get a couple copies of this book to give as presents to your closest colleagues, friends and family for Earth Day 2023 (April 22).

Get one for yourself too.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

H. Sterling Burnett contributed to this report.

The U.S. Public Broadcasting Service’s (PBS) program, NewsHour, hosted an interview in which they claimed extreme weather, like droughts, floods, hurricanes, and heat waves, are becoming more severe as a result of climate change, citing the new “Climate Change 2023” report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as evidence. The claim is false, no matter how many times it is repeated. Data refuting this claim is easily available to those who care to look for it. Indeed, there is no new science presented in the IPCC’s 2023 report, rather it refers back to the “IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis,” and the science there refutes the alarming claims made in the 2023 IPCC report and on the NewsHour.

The NewsHour segment titled, “UN scientists warn drastic steps needed to prevent climate change catastrophe,” consists of an interview between PBS NewsHour hosts, Geoff Bennett and Amna Nawaz, and Katharine Hayhoe from Texas Tech University, the chief scientist for the environmental group Nature Conservancy, discussing the IPCC’s Climate Change 2023 report.

The segment begins with an ominous warning, saying:

Scientists warned that human-induced climate change is warming the planet to the point where it is causing irreversible damage in some parts of the world.

. . .

The new report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, found that, within a decade, the world is likely to miss its goal of holding global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.

If or when the planet reaches that level, scientists say Earth will pass tipping points that will lead to catastrophic environmental damage, including dangerous sea level rise, entire species going extinct, and even greater suffering in many nations, especially the poorest.

There is no evidence that any tipping point leading to a climate disaster exists, at all, much less that some magic threshold or point of no return will be crossed if the Earth surpasses a 1.5℃ rise in average temperature above pre-industrial levels. Citing hard data and real world evidence, Climate Realism has discussed this fact repeatedly, here, here, and here, for example.

Even Hayhoe acknowledges this fact, correcting Nawaz saying, “[o]ne-and-a-half degrees is not a magic threshold or a tipping point. Rather, it is a goal that we have set ourselves, knowing that the science is very clear. Every bit of warming matters.”

Later, Hayhoe pushes the decidedly unscientific idea that “we have always had droughts and floods and hurricanes and heat waves. But, in a warming world, they’re getting stronger and more dangerous.” Real world data and the IPCC’s 2021 Physical Science report refute this claim.

Despite the fact that media and activist-scientists like Hayhoe broadly claim that “drought” is getting worse, the IPCC makes a much more nuanced claim. It divides drought into four categories. Only two of those four have detectable and attributable trends, according to the IPCC; ecological drought, and agricultural drought.

The definition of agricultural and ecological drought, found in the IPCC AR6 Working Group 1 report’s glossary, is this:

“Depending on the affected biome: a period with abnormal soil moisture deficit, which results from combined shortage of precipitation and excess evapotranspiration, and during the growing season impinges on crop production or ecosystem function in general.”

The other kinds of drought are: Hydrological, which deals with groundwater and deficits in rivers, lakes, and reservoirs; Meteorological, which deals with a precipitation deficit.

The IPCC report says that the latter two forms of drought have seen no detected or attributable trends.

As Climate Realism previously reported , even the IPCC’s claims about changes in agricultural/ecological drought are limited and speculative. The IPCC divides the world into 47 separate regions of study when analyzing drought trends, and its data suggest ecological and agricultural drought may have increased during the period of modest warming in 12 of those 47 regions. However, in only two of those regions does the IPCC have even “medium confidence” for any human role in the observed increase. For the remaining regions experiencing a possible increase in droughts, the IPCC has low confidence human activities have had any discernible impact.

The claim that incidences of flooding are increasing or more severe is simply false. The IPCC AR6 physical science report, which the 2023 synthesis report is supposed to be based upon, confirms that there is no detection or attribution of any trend for flooding. This is consistent with previous reports, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Floods. Peak flow trends are increasing in some regions of the world, and decreasing in others.

Hard data on hurricanes and tropical cyclones (TCs) likewise refute the claims made by in the PBS report. The IPCC says there is “low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency-or intensity-based metrics,” and publicly available Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) data. (See figure below)

As climate scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. discusses in his detailed substack post, “How to Understand the New IPCC Report: Part 2, Extreme Events,” the IPCC report downplays the best available hurricane data, seemingly trying to give an “out” to alarmist claimss, but the data is available regardless and hard to dismiss.

Once again, citing hard data, Climate Realism has repeatedly refuted the assertion made by Hayhoe that hurricanes are “getting stronger and more dangerous,” for instance, here, here, and here.

While the IPCC report asserts that “[i]t is virtually certain that there has been increases in the intensity and duration of heat waves and in the number of heat wave days at the global scale,” this is not consistent from region to region. IPCC says that those particular trends “likely occur in Europe, Asia, and Australia.”

Despite the alleged “likely” or “virtually certain” increases in heatwaves claimed by the IPCC, recent studies have shown the number of people suffering the ill effects of climate-related events like heatwaves has plummeted over time. (See figure below)

The interview’s final falsehood comes when Nawaz asks Hayhoe if current predictions about future warming scenarios could also be wrong, since previous ones were. Hayhoe first insists that “previous predictions were not wrong,” which is verifiably false as discussed here, here, and here, for example.

Hayhoe then said that before the Paris Agreement in 2015, “the world was heading towards a future that was between four to five degrees Celsius warmer than today,” implying that climate change agreements like the one in Paris have had some significant impact. This is false on two fronts. First, as Hayhoe is well aware the four to five degree Celsius claim is based upon the thoroughly debunked RCP 8.5 scenario.

Second, when Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide CO₂ data from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego is overlain with climate agreements, it demonstrates that there has been no noticeable impact of various climate agreements on the steady rise of atmospheric CO₂.

Warming and CO₂ emissions continue, unabated, regardless of intergovernmental climate agreements.

The Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC’s 2023 Synthesis report is fraught with alarmist messaging, but no new science. Although the more science-focused Working Group reports are much more cautious, detailing areas of uncertainty, they also display their share of biases and problems. The PBS segment was a shameful work of propaganda. Overall, Earth is becoming a more hospitable place, not less, and the trends of most extreme weather events show no evidence that they are worsening in any measurable way.

Linnea Lueken

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.

While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”

Linnea Lueken

From Blackout News

The press abroad has already ridiculed the German energy transition in the past. The Wall Street Journal previously described German energy policy as “The stupidest energy policy in the world” (Blackout News: 10.12.23). Now the Wall Street Journal is once again following up with the article “Coal keeps Germany’s lights burning” (Wsj: 09.03.23).

Coal, as a saviour of energy supply and resistance to nuclear power. Wall Street Journal makes fun of energy transition.

Coal saves Germany’s energy supply

Germany did itself and Europe a favor by averting an energy shortage this winter, and now we know how they did it: with supposedly bad coal. The published data for 2022 shows the role of coal in electricity generation, which is growing in Germany for the second year in a row.

According to the Federal Statistical Office, coal accounted for a total of 2022.33% of electricity generation in 3, up from 30.2% in 2021. This is partly because coal has made up some of the gap in natural gas, whose share of electricity generation has fallen from 12.6% to 11.4%, as a halt to gas imports from Russia forced Germany to use other fuels. But the resurgence of coal began as early as 2020, before the Ukraine war sparked fears of a gas crisis.

Image: Franzfoto, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

When wind and sun fail: Germany’s use of coal as an alternative

You can blame renewables and the politicians who love them so much. The renewable share of German electricity generation has increased from 42.3% to 46.3% in 2022, which is highlighted in the presentation of the data. But wind and sun don’t work if the wind isn’t blowing or the sky is cloudy. Utilities need cheap and simple alternative energy sources to match supply and demand in an advanced industrial economy. Cheap and simple means coal, which is why the share of coal in German electricity has increased, although the overall share of conventional energy sources has fallen from 57.7% to 53.7%.

Germany’s irony: coal, as the saviour of energy supply and resistance to nuclear power

Another explanation for the resurgence of coal is the political hostility of the Green Left in Germany to nuclear power, whose share of electricity generation fell from 12.6% to 6.4% when three reactors were shut down a year earlier, leaving only three this spring. Germany could tap its shale gas reserves for a cleaner-burning alternative to coal, but that option is also politically toxic. In a hilarious green irony, coal keeps the lights burning.

Berlin still plans to ban coal by 2030. Perhaps politicians in Berlin will catch up before that day what the market already knows: fossil fuels remain indispensable for powering modern economies.

from Daily Caller

By MICHAEL BASTASCH

Like clockwork, the United Nations is out with yet another climate report, and the usual suspects are already blaring the global warming alarm sirens.

The New York Times warned the planet is on track “to cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade” and the only way to “hold global warming to relatively safe levels” would “require global cooperation, billions of dollars and big changes.”

The Associated Press declared the world is on “thin ice” due to warming. The BBC characterized the UN report as a “survival guide” — if we don’t follow it, we’ll see “the worst effects of climate change.”

The alarmist frenzy was joined by prominent scientists, eco-activists, Democratic politicians and even the UN chief himself, who called the report a “how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb.

In other words, the media, elites and the scientific establishment want you to take this report very, very seriously. The problem is no one who actually cares about sound science should give it the time of day.

Any scientific credibility the new UN report might have otherwise had is immediately called into question by its extensive use of “woke” buzzwords.

Variations of the words “equity” and “inequity” appear 31 times in the 36-page document. Variations of “inclusive” and “inclusion” appear 17 times. The document even mentions “colonialism” and repeatedly refers to climate and social “justice” for “marginalized” groups.

“Equity,” if you remember, is that word then-candidate Kamala Harris famously described as a system where “we all end up in the same place.” Sounds a lot like socialism, doesn’t it?

The UN report also contains an entire section titled “Equity and Inclusion,” which states “[e]quity remains a central element in the UN climate regime.” The report goes on to state that “[r]edistributive policies … that shield the poor and vulnerable, social safety nets, equity, inclusion and just transitions, at all scales can enable deeper societal ambitions and resolve trade-offs with sustainable development goals.”

In other words, the “woker” the policies, the better. How’s that for science?

Now, if you think “equity” is a fundamental pillar of scientific knowledge, then this is the report for you. But if you’re like most people and don’t think far left political priorities have a place in scientific documents meant to advise policymakers, this should alarm you.

No reading between the lines is necessary to decipher the real goal of this new UN report. In fact, the report’s accompanying press release is quite explicit about its goal: “Taking the right action now could result in the transformational change essential for a sustainable, equitable world.”

The release goes on to quote one of the report’s authors, who says: “Climate justice is crucial because those who have contributed least to climate change are being disproportionately affected.”

Sounds like political science, not climate science.

Another author calls for “prioritizing climate risk reduction for low-income and marginalized communities, including people living in informal settlements,” adding that “[i]nsufficient and misaligned finance is holding back progress.”

The report’s scientific rigor is further called into question by its insistence that warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times represents a catastrophe. There is precisely zero verifiable, peer-reviewed science supporting a 1.5-degree climate threshold, but there’s tons of research on the staggering costs of complying with UN models.

One 2020 study in Nature found the cost of meeting the 1.5 degree goal would be “5 trillion dollars per year in 2020.” Given it’s 2023, the price tag is likely even higher.

An analysis by McKinsey & Company illustrates just how meeting the UN’s goal means more than shelling out trillions to overhaul global energy supplies. They note “a 1.5-degree pathway would imply a large dietary shift: reducing the share of ruminant animal protein in the global protein-consumption mix by half.”

Sounds like a dream for wannabe dictators. And they seem more than willing to peddle junk science in order to get it.

Mike Bastasch is managing editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

 March 21, 2023 by oldbrew

Image credit: tahoeskiworld.com

They’re calling it „the winter that just doesn’t want to end“ as the figures close in on the all-time record for the area. Another atmospheric river is imminent. Records show that ’several of the snowiest winters logged at least one-fourth of their season total after March 15′.
– – –
No one really knows how much snow fell on the infamous Donner Party when the pioneers were trapped atop the Sierra Nevada for months and dozens died near Lake Tahoe in the winter of 1846-47, says Phys.org.

But this season has now etched its way into the history books as the second snowiest in the 77 years of record-keeping at the Central Sierra Snow Lab—more than 56.4 feet (677 inches, 17.2 meters) with no end in sight.

And there’s still a chance it could surpass the record of 67.7 feet (812 inches, 20.6 meters) set in 1951-52 when more than 200 passengers on a San Francisco-bound luxury train from Chicago were stranded for three days near Donner Pass west of Truckee, California.

Over the weekend, the „winter that just doesn’t want to end“ as the National Weather Service in Reno put it, topped the previous No. 2 record of 55.9 feet (671 inches, 17 meters) set in 1982-83.

That was the second of back-to-back blizzard buster seasons remembered most for an avalanche that killed seven at a Tahoe ski resort on March 31, 1982.

Since December, a parade of atmospheric storms have dumped so much snow on the Sierra that Tahoe ski resorts have been forced to shut down multiple times.

The final day of the Nevada high school state skiing championships was canceled. Roofs collapsed under the weight of snow and schools shuttered for days. Interstate 80 closed several times between Reno and Sacramento.

„It started early and it seems to just keep going,“ said Eric Sage, 45, of Sparks, who shoveled his way through many big winters growing up in Truckee but doesn’t remember one like this. „Stacked up, big storm after big storm after big storm—wham, wham, wham.“

The official record book keeper is UC-Berkeley’s Central Sierra Snow Lab, founded in 1946 in Soda Springs, California, northwest of Lake Tahoe.

„We’ve seen bigger storms in other years and years with higher snow water equivalent totals … but the relentlessness of this season is likely what makes it most unique,“ said Andrew Schwartz, the lab’s manager and lead scientist.

More snow is forecast over the next 10 days, but nobody knows what the spring will bring.

„Historically, some of our big seasons have continued to be active right on through the end of spring,“ said Tim Bardsley, the senior hydrologist for the National Weather Service in Reno.

Full article here.

– – –
Related:
California is once again being deluged by atmospheric rivers. What are they, and will climate change make them worse? (MARCH 20, 2023)
Quote: it appears that catastrophic atmospheric river events occur every 100 to 200 years, with the phenomenon contributing to the Great Flood of 1862.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Another report by Jay Valentine on the abuse of government databases in his American Thinker article A Gigantic Egg All Over Brad Raffensperger’s Face.  The title refers to a statement by the Georgia Sec. of State saying anyone questioning the ERIC voter databases is “extremist.”  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Last week, when Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger publicly supported ERIC after it was tossed out of Florida, West Virginia, and Missouri, we issued the Raffensperger Challenge.

The Raffensperger Challenge is the application of Fractal analysis
to any entity that currently uses ERIC. 

Brad Raffensperger says anyone outing ERIC is “extremist.”  Today, two more extremists joined in: the secretaries of state of Iowa and Ohio.  Looks like lots of extremists showing up for work.

Much in our complex lives is a matter of opinion. Still, there are a few things that are a matter of data, and we are so looking forward to helping Brad Raffensperger, and the diminishing remaining Republican secretaries of state, see how useless ERIC truly is.

This week, we finished the first Raffensperger Challenge — in ERIC “cleaned” Washoe County, Nevada.  Let’s go there.  This is a county with about 600,000 people on the voter rolls.  Many are C = cancelled, others I = inactive.  Our friends there want to include all voters in the analysis, since we have such a deep history of secretaries of state converting inactive voters to “active,” voting them, and turning them back to inactive.

Every person on every Nevada voter roll we examined was “cleaned” by ERIC. Not a couple of them, not the left-handed ones, but every single voter was ERIC-certified as being a real person, protected by our laws and needs to vote.

We chose to use two data sources — both official — as our original data for comparison: the official Nevada voter roll, published by its secretary of state. We added the Washoe County property tax roll, published by the Washoe County tax authority.

We compared the address on the tax roll with the names and addresses on the voter roll:

• People registered in vacant lots: over 4,200
• Registered in hotels: over 2,000
• Registered in parking lots: over 2,500
• Registered in R.V. parks: 1,600

Amazing how voter rolls — cleaned by ERIC — grow voters like barnacles in hotels and vacant lots up to an even-year election date — then they disappear afterward. This is in the data!  We have the official tax records saying a “residence” is a field and the voter roll saying the same address is a residence — leaving off that it is a field.

Some states who use ERIC, like Arizona, allow people to register in hotels, and we are told some states, again Arizona, allow voters to register in vacant lots. Perhaps. We are further informed that some states, like Arizona and Nevada, allow the registration of “no known address.”

Voters are certainly registered there — at places that are no known address. If it is legal or not, we leave to others.   We have a much bigger story to share with you, dear reader: how do people in hotels, R.V. parks, vacant lots, and “no known address” get a mail-in ballot?  You cannot mail a ballot to a vacant lot — it doesn’t get mail. You can mail a ballot to the R.V. park, but the guy registered in 1991 — do you think he is still there in his camper?

In 2021, we worked with former sheriff Clarke and the Wisconsin team to find phantoms. Phantoms were found by the trainload; they were unfortunately not able to be taken off voter rolls.  In 2023, we are focusing on addresses — conveniently and precisely provided by widely available property tax records. We can now profile every address of every building in every city, town, or hamlet in America — down to square feet, number of baths and bedrooms, description, and category — updated monthly.

For every address in America, every single one, we can know with precision:

• This address cannot receive mail (vacant lot, field).
• This address can receive mail but not a ballot (bank, insurance company).
• This address can receive mail, and a ballot, but it cannot receive a ballot for Jim Smith because Jim does not have his apartment number on his voter registration record.

Welcome to the Undeliverable Ballot Database.
Like it or not, the world of mail-in ballots is upon us.

State after state is registering 16-year-olds, and the registration becomes active when they turn 18. Every vagrant in every homeless shelter has at least one registration. We found, in Michigan, some people with 17 registrations.

The issue in 2024 is “who can receive a mail-in ballot?”  The presidency of the most powerful country in history rests on a single question: who can get a mail-in ballot?  Well, now we know. ERIC doesn’t.

We know with precision, or can know, for every physical entity in America, which is listed on a tax roll — even if it is not taxed, like a church — whether it can get a ballot or not. We now can determine in every multi-unit apartment building in every city in every state for every voter — can that person legally be mailed a ballot or not?

Having better technology than the government is a very entertaining experience — as we are learning in Washoe County, and as Brad Raffensperger is about to learn when we publish Brad’s Georgia tax comparison data. It’s really ugly — for Brad.

The Fractal team at Project Omega is working, again, with 14 states, many using ERIC, to deliver demonstration projects like Washoe County, Nevada. We have enough experience in most of these states from 2022 to know the end of the movie. Their voter rolls do not match their tax rolls — to a degree embarrassing to any secretary of state.

There’s more:   $$$$

Three county sheriff’s departments contacted our team because they were interested in this kind of voter fraud — registered voters in vacant lots. They each, separately, performed other analyses and found that vacant lots had accumulated fraud.

Many of those addresses harbored clearly fake voters — or real voters who were not there. When they ran those addresses against the PPP (Payroll Protection Program), where Biden gave out free dough — guess what! You got it! Those address might not be able to get mail, but somehow, they got the dough!

An intrepid team in Florida, working with law enforcement, found some of those scammy addresses harbored “contribution mules.” The contribution mule is the guy who has no discernible wealth but makes 4,000 donations a year, to candidates all over the country, in $50 increments. So where does that guy get his dough?

ERIC protected voter rolls from scrutiny for years. The Gateway Pundit guys busted the gig with their reporting. The Fractal team started showing voter teams how inaccurate ERIC really is.

Now the game is up. ERIC is bleeding clients. It’s just a matter of time until they are running lefty states with zero credibility.

So next time you get depressed because the good guys never seem to win, check in on ERIC and smile as you see it bleed into obscurity.