Day: March 23, 2023

From STOP THESE THINGS

Chaotically intermittent wind and solar are at the heart of surging retail power bills. As wind and solar generation capacity increases, so do power prices. Call it an ‘immutable law’.

No country that’s made any serious commitment to ‘transitioning’ to the ‘unreliables’ has seen power prices fall. No, the evidence is all the other way – add the intermittents, sit back, and watch retail power prices hit the stratosphere, in next to no time.

Steve Goreham explains why.

Electricity prices are soaring in leading wind-energy states
WND
Steve Goreham
2 March 2023

United States electricity prices are rising rapidly, up 18.1% over the last two years. Renewable-energy advocates claim that wind and solar installations produce cheaper electricity than traditional power plants, but power prices are rising as more wind and solar is added to the grid. In fact, electricity prices are soaring in leading wind-energy states.

Over a 12-year period, from 2008 to 2020, U.S. average electricity prices rose only 8%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This was much lower than the inflation rate of 20% over the same period. But power prices rose 5% from 2020 to 2021 and an additional 12.5% last year. Most of this rise was due to rising U.S. inflation, but the share of electricity generated from wind also rose, from 8.4% in 2020 to 10.2% in 2022.

Headlines announce that electricity generated from renewables is lower cost. Scientific American stated in 2017, “Wind Energy is One of the Cheapest Sources of Electricity, and It’s Getting Cheaper.” In October 2020, Bloomberg announced that “Wind and Solar Are the Cheapest Power Source in Most Places.”

United States electricity prices are rising rapidly, up 18.1% over the last two years. Renewable-energy advocates claim that wind and solar installations produce cheaper electricity than traditional power plants, but power prices are rising as more wind and solar is added to the grid. In fact, electricity prices are soaring in leading wind-energy states.

Over a 12-year period, from 2008 to 2020, U.S. average electricity prices rose only 8%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This was much lower than the inflation rate of 20% over the same period. But power prices rose 5% from 2020 to 2021 and an additional 12.5% last year. Most of this rise was due to rising U.S. inflation, but the share of electricity generated from wind also rose, from 8.4% in 2020 to 10.2% in 2022.

Headlines announce that electricity generated from renewables is lower cost. Scientific American stated in 2017, “Wind Energy is One of the Cheapest Sources of Electricity, and It’s Getting Cheaper.” In October 2020, Bloomberg announced that “Wind and Solar Are the Cheapest Power Source in Most Places.”

It is true that the cost of building U.S. wind and solar generating facilities has come down. Wind construction costs are down about 20% since 2013, and solar construction costs have fallen more than 50%, both approaching the costs for natural gas power plants. But construction costs are only part of the cost of electricity generation.

Electricity prices in states with the highest penetration of wind systems are rising faster than the national average. U.S. average electricity prices rose 27% from 2008 to 2022. But in eight of the top 12 wind states, power prices rose between 33 and 73% over the 14-year period. Prices rose in Iowa (36%), Kansas (54%), Illinois (33%), Colorado (37%), California (73%), Minnesota (53%), Nebraska (37%) and Washington (35%), which are the number 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 leading states in terms of electricity generated from wind, respectively. Price increases were lower than average in Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota and New Mexico, the other four leading wind states. The data shows that deployments of wind systems produce higher electricity prices.

In Europe, the nations with the most wind and solar capacity deployed, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Sweden, experience the highest residential electricity prices. Residents of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania, where few renewables are deployed, pay half as much per kilowatt-hour as the leading renewable countries. Denmark and Germany have deployed over 1,600 watts per person of wind and solar, the highest density in Europe. Electricity prices for Denmark (29 eurocents per kilowatt-hour) and Germany (32 eurocents/kW-hr) are the highest in Europe, and two-and-a-half times the prices in the U.S., where renewable penetration remains lower. In Europe, like the United States, wind (and solar) deployments raise electricity prices.

Wind systems increase electricity prices in three ways. First, wind intermittency raises power prices. Wind system electricity output can vary between full-rated output to near zero within a period of only a few hours. Wind systems typically produce between 25% and 40% of rated output. In 2020, U.S. power plant utilization levels were nuclear (92.5%), natural gas (56.6%), hydroelectric (41.5%), coal (40.2%), wind (35.4%) and solar photovoltaic (24.9%).

The intermittency of wind and solar means that, if always-on electricity is to be supplied, reliable coal, natural gas and nuclear generators must be maintained as wind and solar systems are added to the power grid. Power system operators know that up to 90% of the capacity of traditional generators must remain operational to prevent system blackouts. Therefore, addition of renewables boosts both the capacity and the number of needed systems, raising the cost of electricity.

Second, backup coal and natural gas systems must be run at lower utilization rates as operators push for higher percentages of renewable output. The low utilization levels for coal and natural gas systems in 2020 mentioned above are because these systems are scaled back in favor of wind and solar output. Backup systems are not able to operate profitably at low utilization levels, raising system costs and electricity prices.

Third, wind (and solar) systems require more and longer transmission power lines than traditional power plants. Coal, gas and nuclear plants are located near population centers and tend to be large-capacity plants. These plants can be connected to the grid with relatively short, high-capacity transmission lines. Wind systems tend to be located in remote areas, such as on ridge lines, often far from cities. Wind and solar are spread out over wide areas and require 100 times the land of traditional plants. Longer transmission systems over wide areas need to be deployed for wind and solar, raising system costs and electricity prices.

As more wind systems are added to the power grid, residents should prepare for soaring electricity prices.
WND

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 22. March 2023

How wood pellet power plants are fueling climate change

By Klimanachrichten
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

German public broadcasting show SWR3-Wissen had a podcast about burning wood in Europe. In Germany’s forests, less wood is taken than what grows back, but in Europe it’s different. Here, the forest is losing total area, which also means that carbon sinks are disappearing. But deforestation is not the only problem; forests also store water and release it with a delay. These “sponges” are lost after clear-cutting. Apparently, the EU’s plans to substitute wood for coal call for expanding that as well.

In the United Kingdom, the former Drax coal-fired power plant burns significant amounts of wood.

Europe massively subsidizing a forest-destroying energy source

“Nearly nine million tons of pellets per year are burned by the Drax power plant. That’s three times Germany’s pellet production and one and a half times the UK’s wood production. With this huge amount of wood, the power plant generates seven percent of the UK’s electricity needs and gets plenty of subsidies for it: 3.5 million euros per day. Like the British, the EU is also promoting the conversion of coal-fired power plants to wood – with its Renewable Energies Directive adopted in 2009. Taxes on CO2 emissions from fossil energy are rising, but wood-burning is exempt.

Coal plants across Europe are converting to wood pellets

Several power plants in the Netherlands and Denmark have already converted from coal to wood. French power plant operator Veolia has just announced that it is converting a coal-fired power plant in Hungary over to biomass. German power plant operators are currently still hesitant. The operators of the Onyx coal-fired power plant in Wilhelmshaven are considering burning 2.9 million tons of pellets annually. Vattenfall’s power plant in Berlin’s Moabit district is to be converted; and the East German energy company LEAG has already bought two pelleting companies.”

US forests being cut down largescale to make Europe “green”

Wood pellets come to a good part from the USA. In this context, once again the reference to the US documentary Burned. It is about forest loss in the southwestern United States. A review of the film has already been presented in this blog 2020. The documentary has lost none of its topicality.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Don Braid reports at Calgary Herald Liberals are striving to change Canada’s very nature. The future rests with Supreme Court.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Liberals want more than just climate action — they want to change the nature of Canada

It’s nonsense, plain and simple, to paint opponents of the Liberal Impact Assessment Act as climate-change laggards and deniers.  But the epic Supreme Court case that started March 21 is the ultimate clash of climate-change virtue signals, with Ottawa on one side and the provinces — especially Alberta — on the other.

The federal Impact Assessment Act, formerly Bill C-69, has been in force for several years. The federal Liberals will fight to overturn an Alberta Appeal Court ruling that the Act is unconstitutional.

The feds will probably succeed, given the leanings and precedents of the justices, but they’ll do it against the wishes of Alberta and seven other provinces.

Quebecers may be Canada’s most ardent advocates of climate action. In Vancouver and much of coastal B.C., people would argue they’re just as zealous. The need for action is fiercely pressed in the politically powerful Greater Toronto Area.

So how is it that the governments of the three biggest provinces are lined up behind Alberta, essentially agreeing the federal law is unconstitutional?

They’re genuinely fearful that the federal bill goes much too far toward federal control of virtually every kind of resource or agricultural project, effectively imposing a national veto over key areas of the economy.

If the court agrees with the Liberals, the judges will go a long way toward permanently changing the nature of this country, one of the most successful federations on earth.  Constitutionally, provincial rights are unassailable in project approval and economic development, with one exception.

The Supreme Court has started to use “national interest” — interpreted as a threat to environment and climate — to supersede provincial jurisdiction.
A federal victory in this case would solidly entrench that position.

The Supreme Court’s Hearing 40195 will be held over Tuesday and Wednesday. The lineup is fascinating.  First up is the federal government, supported by 12 “interveners”, all of them environmental or Indigenous groups, including Alberta’s Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.

They have every right to make their case. But it’s noteworthy that not a single provincial or civic government will argue on Ottawa’s side.

On Day 2, Alberta will have 17 supporters, including the governments of Ontario, Quebec, B.C., Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan.  As you’d expect, business groups, including oil and gas, also back Alberta. So does government-owned Hydro-Quebec. The Woodland Cree First Nation is in support.

The federal bill is a slippery thing. It claims to operate in federal lands but then refers to projects “in Canada.” It also assumes power over projects with environment effects “outside Canada.” It promises co-ordination with provinces, but no province is reassured.

The world has just had a new warning of looming climate catastrophe. Every Canadian province is deeply worried about this and has plans to act.   A serious federal government would encourage them all to develop their own plans, in co-ordination with commonly agreed national goals. That’s the way the government of a federation behaves. Canada isn’t a unitary state — yet.

There will always be debate over how we react and what the plans are. But there is no cause to alter the basic nature of the country.

That’s a goal driven solely by Liberal hubris and overreach.

Two sides of the same coin.

From Climate Depot

City council members will cap its 21,000 residents to just six stations – One legislator who voted said they felt an ‘obligation’ to fight global warming 

‘We have an obligation to take every step possible to address the changes to our climate that are ravaging our planet and directly impacting the health, well-being and livelihoods of the constituents we represent in Louisville,’ council member Maxine Most said. … The suburb, around 20 miles outside of Denver, currently has five gas stations, and although a sixth was recently approved for development, the resolution could make that facility its last. 

‘We should be taking whatever incremental steps to not create additional fossil fuel infrastructure,’ said the councilmember, who also serves on the city’s Economic Vitality Committee. Most added: “I understand that there are negative consequences for certain parties when we make these sorts of decisions. But I personally believe we are well past the point where we have that luxury. If we’re really committed to sustainability and we really recognize there’s a climate crisis, that means every time we have the choice to do something about it, we need to do something about it.”

By: Admin – Climate Depot

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11888771/Dem-led-Colorado-city-bans-building-new-gas-stations-bid-tackle-climate-change.html

By WILL POTTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

Dem-led Colorado city BANS new gas stations in bid to tackle climate change: Now limited to six in town of 21,000 people

• Louisville, Colorado has voted to ban gas stations to fight climate change 
• City council members will cap its 21,000 residents to just six stations
• One legislator who voted said they felt an ‘obligation’ to fight global warming 

The blue-run city of Louisville, Colorado will ban all new gas stations as local lawmakers say they feel an ‘obligation’ to fight climate change.

City councilors in the town of 21,000 approved a proposal Tuesday evening to cap the number of gas stations for their constituents to just six.

A seventh station would only be permitted if a large retailer swoops in, but the limitation was praised by a Louisville legislator who said the move was necessary to combat global warming.

‘We have an obligation to take every step possible to address the changes to our climate that are ravaging our planet and directly impacting the health, well-being and livelihoods of the constituents we represent in Louisville,’ council member Maxine Most told Fox News.

The proposal includes a spate of climate-oriented provisions intended to reduce Louisville’s emissions.

Alongside limiting gas stations in the town, new or modified stations will also be required to install at least two charging ports for electric vehicles.

The suburb, around 20 miles outside of Denver, currently has five gas stations, and although a sixth was recently approved for development, the resolution could make that facility its last.

The plans also include a ban on all gas stations within 1,000 feet of existing stations, and special use approvals for existing gas stations will be needed if any station is closed for a year.

Speaking before the vote, councilwoman Most admitted that the move wouldn’t stop climate change, but said the small community should continue with the plan anyway.

‘We should be taking whatever incremental steps to not create additional fossil fuel infrastructure,’ said the councilmember, who also serves on the city’s Economic Vitality Committee.

Louisville’s green policies are intended to meet several of its climate change fighting goals, including meeting the entire city’s municipal electricity needs with carbon-free sources by 2025.

The community has also set goals of reducing its greenhouse gas emission levels in the coming years, and generating 75 percent of its residential, commercial and industrial needs with carbon-free sources by 2030.

According to the recently approved policy, the law’s authors felt a push to introduce electric cars will entice motorists to make the switch away from gas.

‘Gasoline station bans may also be seen as promoting the use of Electric Vehicles (EVs), thus, reducing vehicle emissions and encouraging low-carbon and cleaner energy options for transportation,’ it says.

‘The proposal for a cap but not a full ban on new gasoline and automobile service stations is in recognition that there will continue to be some demand for gasoline and automobile service stations as more EVs enter the market and gasoline vehicles are transitioned out of the market over time.’

#

Town of Louisville enacts ’emergency’ ban on new gas stations; initiative seeks to make move permanent –

#

LA Times: California cities ban new gas stations in battle to combat climate change – “We didn’t know what we were doing, actually,” said Petaluma Councilwoman D’Lynda Fischer, who led the charge last year to prohibit new gas stations in the city of 60,000. “We didn’t know we were the first in the world when we banned gas stations.”

Since Petaluma’s decision, four other cities in the Bay Area have followed suit, and now, leaders in California’s most car-centric metropolis are hoping to bring the climate-conscious policy to Southern California.

By Jo Nova

Now that half the US knows that climate science has become a religion, let’s all thank the IPCC for working hard to convince the other half.

Here comes Fire, Brimstone, and Ticking Bombs again:

Like all successful bureaucracies, The IPCC is here to pretend to save you from problems it invented.

The taxpayer funded doomsday cult wants you to think of them as a brave bomb disposal team, putting their lives on the line to do anything humanly possibly to make storms go away, except for using a tried and tested technology with a 50 year record of zero emissions. Nobody say n.u.c….

IPCC climate scientists issue ‘a survival guide for humanity’, warning window closing to reduce emissions

“The climate time-bomb is ticking,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres, at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which this week released its final “synthesis report”, marking six years of work by about 700 scientists.

“Today’s IPCC report is a how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb,” he said. “It is a survival guide for humanity.”

Senior marketer of renewable energy, Sarah Prophet Kirkpatrick says we are all doomed unless we buy more Chinese solar panels, even though China is making most of them with coal:

University of New South Wales Associate Professor Sarah Perkins Kirkpatrick said it had to be done before 2030.

“Bottom line, we need to stop burning fossil fuels — 80 per cent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions actually comes from burning fossil fuels [such as] coal, oil and gas,” she said.

Quick, buy my panels, she says, they come with nice weather eighty years from now after you’re dead, but only if you sign here by Friday.

The Perfect Doom Sale:

The panic is now perfectly tuned like a Boxing Day sale — stocks are limited but there is hope if you act fast. Every warning is the last chance, every catastrophe is ten years away, and every final clearance sale has a discount for early responders…

“This is the final warning to limit the climate warming,” Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick said.

“In the next 10 years, we’ll overshoot that 1.5-degree threshold, but then we can bring it back down again — with heavy climate mitigation, heavy investment in renewable energy and also carbon capture and storage,” she said.

Macquarie University’s Professor Lesley Hughes … “One of the things this IPCC report emphasises is that the window of opportunity for a safer climate in the second half of this century is closing rapidly, but it’s not yet closed,” she said.

16 years ago we had only ten years to save the world:

The Guardian

Pagan witchery and voodoo meets catholic guilt

The ABC include no evidence at all in this round of perfect panic — just the words “drought” and “flood” and gospel of the 700 scientists of the high realm of the IPCC is enough. The new IPCC report, is just like all past reports: it depends on climate models that ignore solar magnetic effects, solar wind, cosmic rays, and changes in the solar spectrum to pretend that CO2 causes all the changes they can’t otherwise explain. It’s argument from authority that depends on argument from ignorance with circular reasoning and it’s based on a simulated planet that has a tropospheric hot spot which 28 million weather balloons can’t find here on Earth, but nevermind. It’s only data!

But a foreign unaudited committee says “it’s unequivocal” and it will cost us trillions, and the ABC can’t see any problem with that.

Just lay on the guilt trip  — what kind of evil person wants to send their own children to hell, I tell you…

Macquarie University’s Professor Lesley Hughes said what happens in the next seven years would be vital if we’re to leave a world that’s habitable for our children and grandchildren.

Think of the children!               |               Image by Garten-gg.

Gone are the days when the media would even try to communicate science. Now it’s like reality TV. Tug my heartstrings — one poor man in Torres Strait is being terrorized by witchdoctors in lab coats.

The ABC is exploiting his macabre fear of the bones of his parents being washed out to sea. This is climate science reporting in 2023:

On Australia’s Torres Strait islands, Warraber man Daniel Billy has been taking photos of what has already been lost as the sea creeps up on his homeland.

“Just to see a lot of the land mass taken out from the islands, it’s really sad,” he said. “It’s destroying places. “It’s very sad and it’s scary at the same time, as it’s slowly coming up to the community.”

Mr Billy is worried about the cemetery, metres from the shoreline, where his parents have been laid to rest. “I don’t want to pick up my parents’ remains from the reef,” he said. “I don’t want my children, or their children, my nieces and nephews to pick up my remains.”

Someone needs to show Mr Billy the study of 700 Pacific islands which are almost all growing (thanks to climate change). As long as he buried his parents on an inhabited island, they’ll be fine. The only islands disappearing are sand drifts with a population of zero that are just a hundredth of a square kilometer in size.

It’s war, I tell you, War! sayth NonScientist magazine:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a global group of climate scientists, has released its latest report today. It yet again warns that without immediate and massive emissions reductions, limiting global warming to 1.5°C will be beyond reach.

“If we don’t act with the necessary speed, we will shoot past 1.5 degrees and possibly even 2 degrees,” says Peter Thorne at Maynooth University in Ireland, one of the authors of the report. “Really it’s a call to arms.”

Hyperbole knows no bounds.

REFERENCE

Synthesis Report, Sixth Assessment Report, IPCC, Working Group I, II and III.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

The best context for understanding decadal temperature changes comes from the world’s sea surface temperatures (SST), for several reasons:

• The ocean covers 71% of the globe and drives average temperatures;
• SSTs have a constant water content, (unlike air temperatures), so give a better reading of heat content variations;
• A major El Nino was the dominant climate feature in recent years.

HadSST is generally regarded as the best of the global SST data sets, and so the temperature story here comes from that source. Previously I used HadSST3 for these reports, but Hadley Centre has made HadSST4 the priority, and v.3 will no longer be updated.  HadSST4 is the same as v.3, except that the older data from ship water intake was re-estimated to be generally lower temperatures than shown in v.3.  The effect is that v.4 has lower average anomalies for the baseline period 1961-1990, thereby showing higher current anomalies than v.3. This analysis concerns more recent time periods and depends on very similar differentials as those from v.3 despite higher absolute anomaly values in v.4.  More on what distinguishes HadSST3 and 4 from other SST products at the end. The user guide for HadSST4 is here.

The Current Context

The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST4 starting in 2015 through February 2023.  A global cooling pattern is seen clearly in the Tropics since its peak in 2016, joined by NH and SH cycling downward since 2016. 

Note that in 2015-2016 the Tropics and SH peaked in between two summer NH spikes.  That pattern repeated in 2019-2020 with a lesser Tropics peak and SH bump, but with higher NH spikes. By end of 2020, cooler SSTs in all regions took the Global anomaly well below the mean for this period.  In 2021 the summer NH summer spike was joined by warming in the Tropics but offset by a drop in SH SSTs, which raised the Global anomaly slightly over the mean.

Then in 2022, another strong NH summer spike peaked in August, but this time both the Tropic and SH were countervailing, resulting in only slight Global warming, later receding to the mean.   Oct./Nov. temps dropped  in NH and the Tropics took the Global anomaly below the average for this period. After an uptick in December, temps in January 2023 dropped everywhere, strongest in NH, with the Global anomaly further below the mean since 2015. In February Global SSTs stayed the same, with slight warming in SH offset by further cooling in NH and Tropics

A longer view of SSTs

The graph above is noisy, but the density is needed to see the seasonal patterns in the oceanic fluctuations.  Previous posts focused on the rise and fall of the last El Nino starting in 2015.  This post adds a longer view, encompassing the significant 1998 El Nino and since.  The color schemes are retained for Global, Tropics, NH and SH anomalies.  Despite the longer time frame, I have kept the monthly data (rather than yearly averages) because of interesting shifts between January and July.1995 is a reasonable (ENSO neutral) starting point prior to the first El Nino. 

The sharp Tropical rise peaking in 1998 is dominant in the record, starting Jan. ’97 to pull up SSTs uniformly before returning to the same level Jan. ’99. There were strong cool periods before and after the 1998 El Nino event. Then SSTs in all regions returned to the mean in 2001-2. 

SSTS fluctuate around the mean until 2007, when another, smaller ENSO event occurs. There is cooling 2007-8,  a lower peak warming in 2009-10, following by cooling in 2011-12.  Again SSTs are average 2013-14.

Now a different pattern appears.  The Tropics cooled sharply to Jan 11, then rise steadily for 4 years to Jan 15, at which point the most recent major El Nino takes off.  But this time in contrast to ’97-’99, the Northern Hemisphere produces peaks every summer pulling up the Global average.  In fact, these NH peaks appear every July starting in 2003, growing stronger to produce 3 massive highs in 2014, 15 and 16.  NH July 2017 was only slightly lower, and a fifth NH peak still lower in Sept. 2018.

The highest summer NH peaks came in 2019 and 2020, only this time the Tropics and SH were offsetting rather adding to the warming. (Note: these are high anomalies on top of the highest absolute temps in the NH.)  Since 2014 SH has played a moderating role, offsetting the NH warming pulses. After September 2020 temps dropped off down until February 2021.  Now in 2021-22 there are again summer NH spikes, but in 2022 moderated first by cooling Tropics and SH SSTs, then in October to January 2023 by deeper cooling in NH and Tropics.  The graph shows the warming spikes since 2015 lifted the Global anomaly by about 0.2C above the mean since 1995.

What to make of all this? The patterns suggest that in addition to El Ninos in the Pacific driving the Tropic SSTs, something else is going on in the NH.  The obvious culprit is the North Atlantic, since I have seen this sort of pulsing before.  After reading some papers by David Dilley, I confirmed his observation of Atlantic pulses into the Arctic every 8 to 10 years.

But the peaks coming nearly every summer in HadSST require a different picture.  Let’s look at August, the hottest month in the North Atlantic from the Kaplan dataset.

The AMO Index is from from Kaplan SST v2, the unaltered and not detrended dataset. By definition, the data are monthly average SSTs interpolated to a 5×5 grid over the North Atlantic basically 0 to 70N. The graph shows August warming began after 1992 up to 1998, with a series of matching years since, including 2020, dropping down in 2021.  Because the N. Atlantic has partnered with the Pacific ENSO recently, let’s take a closer look at some AMO years in the last 2 decades.

This graph shows monthly AMO temps for some important years. The Peak years were 1998, 2010 and 2016, with the latter emphasized as the most recent. The other years show lesser warming, with 2007 emphasized as the coolest in the last 20 years. Note the red 2018 line is at the bottom of all these tracks. The heavy blue line shows that 2022 started warm, dropped to the bottom and stayed near the lower tracks.  Note the strength of that summer’s warming pulse, in September peaking to nearly 24 Celsius, a new record for this dataset. January 2023 starts similar to 2022.

Summary

The oceans are driving the warming this century.  SSTs took a step up with the 1998 El Nino and have stayed there with help from the North Atlantic, and more recently the Pacific northern “Blob.”  The ocean surfaces are releasing a lot of energy, warming the air, but eventually will have a cooling effect.  The decline after 1937 was rapid by comparison, so one wonders: How long can the oceans keep this up? If the pattern of recent years continues, NH SST anomalies will likely decline in coming months, along with ENSO also weakening will probably determine a cooler outcome.

Footnote: Why Rely on HadSST4

HadSST is distinguished from other SST products because HadCRU (Hadley Climatic Research Unit) does not engage in SST interpolation, i.e. infilling estimated anomalies into grid cells lacking sufficient sampling in a given month. From reading the documentation and from queries to Met Office, this is their procedure.

HadSST4 imports data from gridcells containing ocean, excluding land cells. From past records, they have calculated daily and monthly average readings for each grid cell for the period 1961 to 1990. Those temperatures form the baseline from which anomalies are calculated.

In a given month, each gridcell with sufficient sampling is averaged for the month and then the baseline value for that cell and that month is subtracted, resulting in the monthly anomaly for that cell. All cells with monthly anomalies are averaged to produce global, hemispheric and tropical anomalies for the month, based on the cells in those locations. For example, Tropics averages include ocean grid cells lying between latitudes 20N and 20S.

Gridcells lacking sufficient sampling that month are left out of the averaging, and the uncertainty from such missing data is estimated. IMO that is more reasonable than inventing data to infill. And it seems that the Global Drifter Array displayed in the top image is providing more uniform coverage of the oceans than in the past.

USS Pearl Harbor deploys Global Drifter Buoys in Pacific Ocean

Footnote Rare Triple Dip La Nina Likely This Winter

Here’s Where a Rare “Triple Dip La Niña” Might Drop the Most Snow This Winter Ski Mag

The unusual weather phenomenon might result in the snowiest season in years for some parts of the country.

The long-range winter forecast could be good news for skiers living in the certain parts of the U.S. and Canada. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that the chance of a La Niña occurring this fall and early winter is 86 percent, and the main beneficiary is expected to be mountains in the Northwest and Northern Rockies.

If NOAA’s predictions pan out, this will be the third La Niña in a row—a rare phenomenon called a “Triple Dip La Niña.” Between now and 1950, only two Triple Dips have occurred.

Smith also notes that winters on the East Coast are similarly tricky to predict during La Niña years. “In the West, you’re simply looking for above-average precipitation, which typically translates to above-average snowfall, but in the East, you have temperature to worry about as well … that adds another complication.” In other words, increased precip could lead to more rain if the temperatures aren’t cooperative.

The presence of a La Niña doesn’t always translate to higher snowfall in the North, either, as evidenced by last ski season, which saw few powder days.

However, in consecutive La Niña triplets, one winter usually involves above-average snowfall. While this historical pattern isn’t tied to any documented meteorological function, it could mean that the odds of a snowy 2022’-’23 season are higher, given the previous two La Niñas didn’t deliver the goods.

Watts Up With That?

Comment by Kip Hansen — 23 March 2023

Now, you may think I’m trying to put one over on you.  But I’m not, really.  This advice comes from the Washington Post’s Climate Coach.

Say what?  Climate Coach?  Is that like a Life Coach?  A Planet-Saving Life Coach?  Well, sort of – the Post’s Climate Coach is Michael Coren.  Oh, not the famous Canadian theologian, radio host and writer.  A different Michael Coren, this one. 

What does he do?  He writes an advice column.  He is the Dear Abby for the climate concerned.  He (and other authors of the Green Living section)  has advised readers of the Washington Post on home composting, how to buy Green Bonds, offered energy-saving tips for our home appliances, advised readers on green funeral options (from composting to natural burial to water cremation – NB: Those with weak stomachs should not follow the link on water cremation.), told us that we you should almost always wash our clothes with cold water and that we should be taking flights on planes burning re-processed French-fry oil.  All in the service of saving the planet, of course.

His latest advice for  the “Save the Planet®” crowd is: “eat lentils every day”.

“Lentils conceal their superpowers with a dowdy exterior. Pound for pound, raw lentils have more protein than steak. While not as protein-dense once cooked, they pack even more iron than meat, in addition to other vitamins and minerals…..Today, the lentil is again on the front lines. This time, against climate change. While start-ups scramble to engineer a sustainable protein, from lab-grown meat to fake burgers, lentils are a ready solution, one with a proven record…..When it comes to combating climate change, the lentil may be the perfect legume. They’re also, as the caviar mention implies, delicious. So why do Americans eat fewer lentils than almost everyone else?….There’s a good reason. While not as dense or digestible as meat once they are cooked, lentils become a complete protein similar to meat when combined with many grains. They’re also a slow burn, satiating hunger for hours.”

And, lentils have:  “Climate impacts:  What’s good for you is also good for the land. America’s most popular crops, like wheat and corn, often degrade the soil over time. Legumes like lentils rebuild it.”

One more thing —  in the United states, the kids have a little ditty that goes:

♬ Beans, Beans, the musical fruit ♬

♬ The more you eat, the more you toot ♬

Lentils, being legumes, have the same ‘feature’ – which is what Coren is referring to when he says: “not as … digestible as meat”.  Eating lentils causes “gas”, yes, the tooting of smelly methane gas.   If all 8 billion or so of us humans begin to eat lentils at any large scale, we’ll have to be taxed, like New Zealand is taxing sheep.  (For the same reason.)

So, friends, eating lentils may not actually save the planet (may cause an increase in atmospheric methane)  – it may result in an infinitesimal decline in the eating of meat in the United States.  It will not make the slightest difference in the overall emissions of CO₂ and even if it did reduce CO₂ emissions, it would not make the slightest difference …..well, in anything at all (well, maybe a bit of discomfort in crowded elevators and other confined spaces.). 

But, hey, thanks for the advice, Mr. Coren.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

Yet another, need I say, oddly cute column boosting absolutely silly and entirely ineffective ways people can make themselves feel better after being clubbed over the head, day after day, with climate scare stories in the Washington Post.

Full Disclosure:   I eat lentils, lots of different types. I like lentils.  We have five-gallon pails of lentils in our emergency food storage.  My wife puts them in soups and other dishes.   I just don’t think I’m saving the planet when I eat them.

Oh, just one more thing (h/t Columbo) – if your culture has a similar little ditty about eating beans, let’s hear it in comments.

Thanks for reading.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

For ice extent in the Arctic, the bar is set at 15M km2. The average peak in the last 17 years occurs on day 62 at 14.986M km2 before descending, though some years the extent can be above 15M much later.  Ten of the last 17 years were higher than 15M, and recently 2020, 2022 and now 2023 ice extents cleared the bar at 15M km2. The actual day of annual peak ice extent varied between day 59 (2016) to day 82 (2012).

All of this means that 2023 peaked while passing the 15M km2 threshold two days later than average.  The graph below shows the situation evolving over the last four weeks anticipating the annual maximum.

The NH ice extent gap on day 77 is at 269k km2, or 1.8%.  After the day 62 peak, 2023 extents declined sharply until day 71 before recovering to reduce the deficit. (Note that ice extent is affected also by winds piling up drift ice, as well as melting from intrusions of warmer air or water.) SII has shown lower extents throughout this period, averaging 250k km2 less than MASIE.

March monthly average extents in recent years have been below average. While average extents will decline further, we shall see what this year does with only two weeks left to make a difference.

Region	2023077	Day 77 Average	2023-Ave.	2018077	2023-2018
(0) Northern_Hemisphere	14649553	14918812	-269258	14528206	121348
(1) Beaufort_Sea	1070966	1070266	700	1070445	521
(2) Chukchi_Sea	966006	965801	206	966006	0
(3) East_Siberian_Sea	1087137	1087109	29	1087137	0
(4) Laptev_Sea	897845	897837	7	897845	0
(5) Kara_Sea	934539	922767	11771	934807	-268
(6) Barents_Sea	605659	637818	-32159	689702	-84043
(7) Greenland_Sea	835991	617943	218048	514678	321313
(8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence	1249789	1546282	-296493	1399951	-150162
(9) Canadian_Archipelago	854843	853118	1724	853109	1734
(10) Hudson_Bay	1260903	1259573	1330	1257207	3696
(11) Central_Arctic	3243341	3217827	25514	3131403	111939
(12) Bering_Sea	739914	760728	-20814	445480	294434
(13) Baltic_Sea	67881	80745	-12864	127449	-59568
(14) Sea_of_Okhotsk	822356	982054	-159698	1136990	-314633

The main deficit to average is in Baffin Bay and Sea of Okhotsk, partly offset by a surplus in Greenland Sea. Smaller pluses and minuses are found in other regions.

Typically, Arctic ice extent loses 67 to 70% of the March maximum by mid September, before recovering the ice in building toward the next March.

What will the ice do this year?  Where will 2023 rank in the annual Arctic maximum competition?

Drift ice in Okhotsk Sea at sunrise.

For more on the Pacific basins see post Meet Bering and Okhotsk Seas

Climate Realists of Australia

Professor Ridd reviews the latest data on the state of the world’s coral reefs, which is extremely encouraging, especially for the Great Barrier Reef, the largest single reef system, with record high coral cover in 2022.

A brief explanation of “bleaching” is given, a brilliant adaptation for corals to cope with warming or cooling temperatures.

Finally, a brief comment is made on the subject of academic freedom and the general problem of freedom of speech and thought in universities and on the associated collapse of intellectual rigour and he raises questions on our failing universities and science institutions.

Professor Peter Ridd is a geophysicist with over 100 publications and 35 years’ experience working on the Great Barrier Reef; he developed a wide range of world-first optical and electronic instruments for measuring environmental conditions near corals and other ecosystems.

He was Professor of Physics at James Cook University in North Queensland for over a decade before being fired in 2018 for pointing out serious quality assurance issues in reef science.

He challenged his dismissal by the University and won in principle in the High Court but eventually lost the case on appeal on a technicality.

He now volunteers his time to the Institute of Public Affairs to improve quality assurance systems of “science” used by Australian governments to make environmental laws and regulations. He also runs the Reef-Rebels YouTube channel.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; “… Its all about planting little seeds of doubt” – CBC climate reporter Jaela Bernstien lamenting Twitter is not as enthusiastic as China’s TikTok at censoring climate skeptics.

From the video;

“… if people are exposed to this blizzard of false information about climate change, then their right to be informed about risk is being undermined…”

“.. misinformation can create a false sense that the science is still in question, when its not…”

“… there’s plenty of research showing that exposure to misinformation about climate change leads people to take it less seriously, and to be less willing to support climate actions …”

“… climate denial … erodes trust in science and undermines support for cutting emissions …”

“… misinformation can still slow support for the work that’s still going to decide all of our futures …”

“… we asked social media companies what are you doing about climate misinformation? Twitter didn’t respond, but Meta, TikTok Youtube all did. Two videos we flagged to TikTok are no longer on their site …”See it for yourself: https://youtu.be/cOYLDr0ZTog

I’d love for CBC reporter Jaela Bernstien to explain the difference between being a fascist, and supporting the suppression of dissenting views, to prevent the free exchange of ideas from undermining support for your political cause. But I’m not holding my breath while waiting for that explanation to be published.