Day: October 29, 2023

The UK’s Net Zero Policy – an Update

Net Zero would be socially and economically disastrous.

From Climate Scepticism

BY ROBIN GUENIER

1. It’s unachievable. Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, agriculture, heavy transportation, emergencies, commercial shipping, aviation, the military and construction) and products (for example concrete, steel, plastics, fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, paints, adhesives, tyres and asphalt) essential to our lives and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives; there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Then (a) wind power (the only truly practical source of renewable energy in the UK) is becoming increasingly expensive; (b) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable net zerogrid by 2035 (2030 for a Labour government) – not least the need for a huge increase in grid capacity and (c) the vast scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly expensive material are required because the ‘energy density’ of wind and sun is so low) make it unlikely that the UK will be able to generate sufficient renewable electricity for current needs let alone the mandated electric vehicles and heat pumps. In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably about a million) to do the multitude of tasks that would be essential to achieve net zero.

2. It would be socially and economically disastrous. That’s especially so as neither the Government’s nor Labour’s all-renewable energy project includes a fully costed (or indeed any) engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun. Yet without such a plan, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – ruining many businesses and causing seriously damaging problems for millions of people, including dreadful health consequences threatening everyone but in particular the poor and vulnerable. And that’s not the only aspect of net zero for which costs have yet to be determined. All that’s clear is that the overall cost of the entire project would almost certainly be unaffordable: for example, a recent National Infrastructure Commission projection of £1.3 trillion is probably far too low. The borrowing and taxes required to pay costs in the trillions would destroy Britain’s credit record and/or put an impossible burden onto millions of households and businesses.

Net zero would have two other dire consequences: (i) as China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting our energy and overall security at most serious risk and (ii) the vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of net zero would make all this far worse.

3. Above all, it’s pointless. Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of CO2 emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future whatever the UK (the source of less than 1% of global emissions) may or may not do. It therefore makes absolutely no sense for Britain to pursue this unachievable and disastrous policy.

– October 2023

New York City Zero Emission Vehicle Fleet Legislation

The New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services fleet management department has a sustainability program in place that tests options for lower emissions and zero emissions vehicles.  Some of their tests are working and others are not. 

UNITED STATES – AUGUST 15: Manhattan skyline is dark as the sun comes up on the morning after a massive power failure caused the largest power outage in the nation’s history, affecting 50 million people in parts of seven states and Canada. (Photo by Mike Albans/NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images)

From Watts Up With That?

Roger Caiazza

A recent post, New York City Goes Pedal to the Metal on Electric Vehicles, at Watts Up with That described new legislation that will require vehicles procured by the City to be zero emissions.  The author of the article, Charles Rotter, included a note at the top: “I can’t wait for Francis Menton or Roger Caiazza to weigh in on this.”  It is a rainy Saturday and I don’t have anything else to do so I will take a shot at it.

Benefits

I try to look at environmental policy pragmatically balancing benefits and costs.  The benefits used to rationalize the law are weak.  Rotter quoted the Statements made by two of the politicians responsible for the legislation that make benefits claims:

“New York City continues to set the standard for sustainability by becoming the largest city in the nation to require its fleet to be entirely made up of zero emission vehicles,” said Speaker Adrienne Adams. “The Council is proud to champion legislative efforts to address the environmental and health impacts of vehicle pollution, reduce our carbon footprint, and prepare our workforce for the repair and maintenance of electric vehicles. I thank Majority Leader Keith Powers for his leadership on this critical legislation, my Council colleagues for supporting policies that transition us to a more sustainable future, and Mayor Adams for signing the bill into law.”

“New York City continues to lead the country in creating a greener, more sustainable world,” said Majority Leader Keith Powers. “Today’s signing of Intro. 279 enacts a historic piece of legislation that will drive down our city’s carbon footprint and advance environmental justice. Starting in just two years, our city’s fleet of over 30,000 vehicles will lead the way towards a zero-emissions future. I am proud to have worked with numerous partners to have made today a reality.”

The majority of New York City and State politicians cater to the climate advocate constituency and these statements reflect that.  Adams ticks all the boxes in the narrative that reducing GHG emissions also reduces pollutants that will have environmental and health benefits, the existential threat of climate change will be reduced, and the transition will create jobs.  Even a cursory review shows how shallow those claims are.  The shift to “zero-emissions” ignores the reality that all energy production creates emissions somewhere.  In this case there may not be emissions in New York City, but the mining, processing, and manufacturing of the needed batteries necessary certainly creates emissions.  Jobs created by the “green” technologies are always mentioned but the jobs lost are rarely mentioned. 

Another characteristic of these politicians is innumeracy.  The city fleet has 30,000 vehicles.  I calculate that those vehicles are responsible for about 400,000 tons of CO2 emissions per year.  Driving down the “city’s carbon footprint” needs to be considered in the context of global emissions.  The Global Energy Monitor mission is “to develop and share information in support of the worldwide movement for clean energy”.  As part of their mission, they have prepared a spreadsheet with data on all coal-fired power plants in the world.  Table 1 is based on that data.  It lists capacity and projected annual CO2 emissions for three categories of power plants: operating, permitted but not yet under construction, and under construction.  Every hour the operating coal-fired power plants emit 1,245,158 tons of CO2.  That means that the CO2 reductions due converting the New York City owned fleet of vehicles will be subsumed by coal fired emissions elsewhere on the globe in 0.3 hours or 19 minutes.  This law will not have any discernable effect on global warming.

Costs

My concerns with New York State and New York City (NYC) “zero-emission” transition costs are related to reliability and affordability.  Noodling around on the NYC fleet management site I found this description:

New York City operates over 30,000 owned and leased vehicles, the largest municipal fleet in the United States. NYC maintains fleet units at 37 main repair locations and has over 400 in-house fueling and 400 separate electric charging locations. More than 2,000 staff work full-time in fleet repair and garage operations across over 50 fleet operating agencies and offices. In total, nearly $1 billion is spent annually on fleet repair, fueling, and procurement.

I found a page that includes a table that describes the fleet daily service report which lists the number of vehicles for each agency and what they are used for to give an idea of the importance of reliability.  The NYC fleet includes the police department and fire department vehicles which must provide reliable service.  I suspect that relying on electric-only fire equipment will be very risky because of the high energy demands needed to operate those trucks.  The last thing in the world you want to have happen is for a pumper truck to lose power when fighting a fire.  The vehicle fleet includes sanitation trucks which are also used to plow snow.  However, there is an issue: “city officials have declared they have yet to find an electric garbage truck powerful enough to plow snow. The sanitation department already tested electric trucks, and they couldn’t plow snow for more than four hours, as they ran out of battery. “

Digging deeper into the fleet management site, there is a sustainability page that claims that “New York City’s fleet is the greenest in the nation”. They already have some electric vehicles:

The City of New York operates over 2,260 on-road electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids. Full EVs include over 250 Nissan Leafs and over 300 Chevy Bolts, among others. The City has over 600 additional off-road EV and solar units. Please see our presentation Let’s Talk about EVs to learn how to charge an EV and the differences between an EV and the conventional fuel vehicles you may be used to driving.

The sustainability page also notes:

DCAS is rapidly expanding its base of electric chargers to support its electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. We have installed over 1,600 charging ports across over 1,025 charging stations, including over 180 fast-charging stations, at City garages and parking locations around the city. We have deployed over 80 solar carports that allow EVs to be completely independent from the electrical grid and fossil fuel energy. We have partnered with City schools to provide both solar chargers and EVs to support education programs and adopted other solar powered city equipment.

It appears to me that the vehicle fleet service has been given the charge to look at a transition to lower emission vehicles and are proceeding on that path.

I have been following the transition to electric vehicles and have been struck by the higher cost of electric vehicles so I wondered about the costs of this law.  I checked the law itself and supporting documents to see if costs had been addressed.  The law is titled A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the purchase of zero emission vehicles by the city.  The description states:


This bill would require that all light- and medium-duty vehicles procured by the City after July 1, 2025 be zero emission vehicles such that all light- and medium-duty vehicles in the City’s fleet are zero emission vehicles by July 1, 2035. This bill would also require that all heavy-duty vehicles procured by the City after July 1, 2028 be zero emission vehicles, such that all heavy-duty vehicles in the City’s fleet are zero emission vehicles by July 1, 2038. Further, this bill would require that all motorcycles in the City’s fleet are zero emission vehicles by July 1, 2035. The requirements to procure zero emission vehicles are subject to certain exceptions, such as cost, availability, and lack of charging infrastructure.

The last sentence is a welcome reality slap – the procurement requirements are conditional upon costs among other things.  I thought the Fiscal Impact Statement would provide information about costs relative to this condition.  The following excerpt from that statement is a head scratcher:

I guess the current fiscal impact statement is a placeholder.  Presumably sometime before Fiscal Year 2029 the expenditures and source of funds will be determined.  Then the cost exception requirements to procure zero emission vehicles will be considered.

Conclusion

The New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services fleet management department has a sustainability program in place that tests options for lower emissions and zero emissions vehicles.  Some of their tests are working and others are not.  The key point is that these are the folks responsible for keeping the vehicles necessary to protect the city and provide services and they are working on it.  Mind you I think trying to convert the NYC vehicle fleet to zero-emissions is a waste of time and effort that will likely do more harm than good.

Enter the politicians.  The legislation does include conditions upon deployment but it appears that the issue is already being addressed.  I would bet a lot of money that the fleet staff reacted to the bragging by the politicians who supported this legislation with exasperated sighs and eye-rolling.  As far as I can tell this legislation only provides street cred for politician target constituencies and does nothing but get in the way of the people who are trying to get things done. 

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.

Storm Babet Review

The rainfall on the wettest day of Babet was 22.76mm averaged across England & Wales. There have been 44 wetter days since 1931 alone. In Scotland it was even less remarkable, ranking only 253rd.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Euan Mearns

The Met Office have been desperate to hype Storm Babet into something exceptional:

Microsoft Word – 2023_08_storm_babet_v1.docx (metoffice.gov.uk)

2023_08_storm_babetHerunterladen

We now have the official data available from the UK Regional Precipitation Series, and it shows it to be nothing of the sort.

The rainfall on the wettest day of Babet was 22.76mm averaged across England & Wales. There have been 44 wetter days since 1931 alone. In Scotland it was even less remarkable, ranking only 253rd.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/

Even in the Central region of England, it was only the 15th wettest day.

The Met Office have therefore resorted to what is known as data mining to get the result they wanted. The daily rainfall data did not provide the required results, or nor did the 2-day data, nor for that matter the 4-day data. So they presented the 3-day data, in order to claim that it was the 3rd wettest in England & Wales, and wettest in the English Midlands.

On the 2-day data, Babet was only the 11th wettest, whilst the 4-day period was the 8th wettest in England & Wales:

Of course, some areas inevitably are worse affected than others, that’s weather. But there is no evidence that Babet  brought unprecedented amounts of rain overall.

The England & Wales Rainfall series only has daily data back to 1931, and we know there were many severe floods prior to then. But we do have daily data from Durham dating back to 1900 – the North East was said to be one of the worst affected areas during Babet.

According to the Met Office, rainfall was between around 50 to 80mm in the Durham area in the four days of the storm, the higher numbers presumably in the hillier inland regions:

Compare that to the highest 5-day amounts, which often exceed that 60mm, and it is plain that Babet was nothing exceptional, in Durham at least.

https://www.ecad.eu/utils/showindices.php?jd8m5lg0uenalld3gp29iie9nf#

The wettest 5-day period occurred in September 1976, with 140.7mm; as the Met Office explained at the time, the month as a whole was exceptionally wet across the country, with some areas receiving up to 400% of its usual rain.

https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/IO_0c690483-2749-4636-a8ff-ded4e67efd3f/

On the 11th, Durham recorded 87.8mm, on top of the 32.3mm the day before:

Durham Rainfall per KNMI

Sheffield is another town highlighted by the Met Office during Babet, with about 100mm falling over the four days. But again we find that there have been much wetter spells in the past:

https://www.ecad.eu/utils/showindices.php?jd8m5lg0uenalld3gp29iie9nf

As the Met Office should have learnt by now, storms like Babet not that uncommon at all.

Virginia – Don’t Follow Net-Zero Lemmings Over the Energy Cliff

States that link climate and energy policies to California and ‘climate crisis’ will pay high price. Mandates for electric vehicles, wind and solar power, and a magical transition to a fossil-fuel-free energy utopia are critical issues this year and in 2024.

From Watts Up With That?

States that link climate and energy policies to California and ‘climate crisis’ will pay high price

Paul Driessen

Seventeen states – including Virginia – tie their vehicle emission standards and electric vehicle sale mandates to California, the most climate-centric state in the Union. Unless current laws change, by 2035 all their new cars, pickups and SUVs must be electric (or hydrogen-powered).

In further obeisance to California, most of these states also require that their utility companies generate 100% of their electricity from “renewable sources” by 2045 or 2050. They and the federal government also mandate that electric models replace gas-fueled furnaces, water heaters, driers, stoves and ovens within a decade or less. 

This means electricity demand will double in the near future – at the same time that reliable, affordable fossil-fuel (and nuclear and hydroelectric) electricity generation plummets. Charging massive batteries to ensure power on windless, sunless days would double demand yet again.

Home, hospital, school and business lighting, heating, cooling, cooking and computing costs will likely double or triple, hitting poor and minority families hardest. Blackouts could become commonplace.

No wonder citizens in European countries are revolting against net zero laws, forcing politicians to delay or terminate their green dictates.

And yet Democrats in Virginia and elsewhere have refused to budge. They’re so convinced that climate cataclysms are imminent – and government mandates will magically usher in a renewable energy era – that they are willing to compel families and businesses to follow them and other virtue-signaling lemmings off the net-zero cliff.

That’s why – even with attention now focused on Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan and other global hot spots – voters also need to think long and hard about looming US energy cataclysms.

Democrats, some Republicans, and their media and environmentalist allies are determined to sweep vitally important energy realities under the rug. Voters mustn’t let that happen.

Not one village on Earth – much less a city or state – has shown that wind and solar power backed up by grid-scale batteries can enable them to function normally … or merely survive …  for even a week, winter or summer. And yet President Biden and the Climate Industrial Complex want to impose an all-electricity “green energy transformation” on the entire United States.

This total transformation would require literally millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, and tens of thousands of miles of new transmission lines. Billions of Tesla-EV-equivalent battery modules would be needed to stabilize increasingly large and complex electricity grids … and back up sporadic, weather-dependent electricity … to prevent repeated and widespread blackouts.

Building this equipment would involve billions of tons of steel, aluminum, copper, cobalt, lithium, concrete, plastics and other materials; hundreds of billions of tons of ore and overburden from thousands of mines; fossil fuels for mining, processing and manufacturing; and unprecedented greenhouse gas emissions, toxic air, water and ground pollution, and wildlife habitat destruction.

Installing all that equipment would impact thousands of square miles of habitats, scenic areas and croplands – decimating wildlife all across rural America – to serve major urban areas that have the votes to impose their views, but not the room or desire to have those impacts in their own backyards. Disposing of worn out and broken solar panels and wind turbine blades would require hundreds of huge landfills, also in rural America’s backyards.

The costs would be astronomical. Net Zero Reality Coalition experts have calculated that grid-balancing and backup batteries alone would cost up to $290-trillion, depending on which capital cost, hourly or daily or weekly electricity generation data, and other factors are employed.

The wind industry loves to say such-and-such wind or solar project has the “capacity” to power 100,000 homes. That may be true – when the wind is blowing or sun is shining at optimal levels. However, that rarely happens. On an annual basis, those unreliable systems would likely generate electricity 20-40% of the year, in short intervals, at totally unpredictable times.

Since the Biden Administration and environmentalists steadfastly oppose mining in the USA, most resource extraction will be done overseas. The raw materials will mostly come from or through China, which often employs slave and child labor, zero to minimal environmental standards, subpar wage and workplace safety standards, and minerals as a political weapon.

That means wind, solar and battery power is actually the antithesis of clean, green, renewable, sustainable and ethical. All the dirty, evil, unsustainable activities just get done in faraway places, where they can be ignored; so they needn’t be mentioned in slick product and campaign ads.

An all-electric economy also requires that home, neighborhood, local, state and national transmission systems be significantly upgraded to handle the massive additional electric loads. That’s more trillions of dollars, further increasing the cost of electricity and every product and service.

Personal needs and choices will disappear. You will be told what cars you can buy and how far you can drive them; how big your home can be, and how warm or cool you can keep it; how often and how far you can travel on vacation; even what foods you can eat.

Where’s the beef? Not on the menu. And just imagine being in your EV, in a massive traffic jam, during a blizzard or a hurricane evacuation. But as California goes, so will you if your legislators demand it.

Delving into specifics: President Biden wants 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind electricity by 2030. That would require 2,500 gigantic 12-MW wind turbines. But even if the wind is blowing optimally, their output would barely meet New York State’s peak summertime electricity needs – today, prior to its transformation to a fossil-fuel-free, all-electric economy.

Equally crazy, New York’s plan for 24,000 megawatt-hours of battery storage would provide backup for barely 45 minutes on a sweltering windless day – with today’s power demands. And even that minuscule storage would require 300,000 Tesla 80-kilowatt-hour battery modules.

The 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act requires that utilities have 3,100 megawatt-hours of electricity storage. If that’s provided with 19-MWh Tesla Megapack battery modules, costing $10-million apiece, Virginia taxpayers and ratepayers would have to lay out $1.6 billion. For that they’d get one-half-hour of statewide windless/sunless day backup!

Ask your elected officials how many offshore turbines would be needed to power your state – or the entire USA. How many onshore turbines with a nameplate capacity of perhaps 6 MW. How many solar panels sprawling across vast scenic areas, croplands and wildlife habitats – in sunny Arizona or frosty Wisconsin. How many battery modules for a full week of backup storage.

Demand to know how much all this will cost – and how much mining, processing, manufacturing, toxic pollution, CO2 emissions, slave and child labor, and habitat destruction would go into making all that equipment. Watch the politicians bob and weave, run for cover, or have the police remove you for asking such impertinent questions.

Mandates for electric vehicles, wind and solar power, and a magical transition to a fossil-fuel-free energy utopia are critical issues this year and in 2024. Think carefully about them before you head to the polls.

Your vote – and whether you help your friends vote wisely – will determine whether we end this insanity … or must live beneath the iron fists of increasingly oppressive climate authoritarians.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

Los Angeles Times Misrepresents California Central Valley “Weather” as “Climate”

Weather is only temporary. For example, a blizzard can turn into a flood after just a few warm spring days. Climate, on the other hand, is more than just a few warm or cool days. Climate describes the typical weather conditions in an entire region for a very long time— 30 years or more.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The LA Times article shown below addresses recent heat, drought and flood weather related events of California’s Central Valley and falsely portrays them as being cause by “climate change” (code actually intended to mean “man-made climate change”) while at the same time using climate alarmist hyperbole to mischaracterize these weather events.

Climate is defined by the World Meteorological Organization as representing the variability of average weather conditions including temperature, precipitation, wind, etc. over long time periods which WMO typically defines as an interval of 30 years.

The LA Times article starts with a discussion of recent March 2023 rainstorms in Tulare County which it portrays with alarmist hyperbole as:

“Outside, torrential downpours — the likes of which some lifelong residents of his small Tulare County town had never seen — filled rivers, clogged storm drains and sent water gushing through streets and into people’s homes.”

This anecdotal hype is cast as representing a “climate change” driven result impacting the California Central Valley without, of course, providing any actual measured weather data to support its hype which is typical of the LA Times climate alarmist propaganda campaign articles.

The NOAA graph below displays the precipitation data for Tulare County California showing annual rainfall levels over the period from 1895 through September 2023.

This readily available NOAA scientific measured data ignored by the LA Times shows that the March 2023 Tulare County rainfall of 8.89 inches is well within the normal range experienced by Tulare County and far below the maximum recorded rainfall year of January 1969 of 16.84 inches. This normal rain outcome (based on historical data records) is certainly not, as the LA Times falsely portrays, an event “the likes of which some lifelong residents of this small Tulare County town had never seen”. 

More alarmist hyperbole is used later in the LA Times article where claims of excessive “climate change” driven rainfall and heat are also inferred for the San Joaquin Valley where the LA Times article notes: 

“The floods arrived following three years of severe drought, while extreme heat, lung-searing smog have become all-too-common occurrences.”  

“Experts say it’s not just bad luck that has made the San Joaquin Valley one of the front lines of climate change in America.” 

Again, as usual the LA Times article provides no measured scientific data to support its alarmist hyperbole concerning the rain, drought, and temperatures in the San Joaquin Valley.


The graph shown below presents NOAA precipitation data for the San Joaquin Valley for the period 1895 through September 2023. 

The NOAA data shows that the recent San Joaquin Valley rainfall is well within normal ranges experienced by that region with the January 2023 amount of 7.09 inches (with that amount having occurred in numerous prior years including January 2017 at 7.44 inches) well below the peak of 10.59 inches in January 1911 meaning the 2023 resulting floods that occurred clearly have also been experienced in prior time periods.  

Neither the Tulare County nor San Joaquin County NOAA measured rainfall data shows anything supporting phony “climate emergency” claims driven by “climate change” as hyped by climate alarmists regarding this region.

The LA Times article completely fails to address the very well established and long history of significant drought and flood weather events in California and the Western U.S. (as discussed in the article shown below ) which occurred well before the “blame every weather event on climate change” politically contrived incompetence became in vogue as falsely portrayed by climate alarmists.

The Lithograph image displayed in the photo above represents the Great Flood of 1861-1862 that affected the Western U.S. including California, Oregon, Idaho. Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico and shows the City of Sacramento in the middle of the resulting “Great Flood” river. 

The floods were created by atmospheric rivers of rain coming off the Pacific Ocean (as illustrated below) which of course continues in present times as well. These “rivers” have been around the Western U.S. for centuries.

There were no climate alarmists around back then to blame these natural climate events on man-made climate change as would be the case today.

The results of these storms in the California Central Valley created a massive lake with the entire Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys being inundated in a 300 mile long and 20-mile-wide lake with a depth of up to 30 feet.

The same article also presents the results a study evaluating the more than 1,000 year long pattern of drought climate event history of the Western U.S.as shown below with 100 year+ long drought periods determined to have occurred in the past with present major droughts far less severe.

None of this prior extensive flood and drought climate behavior in the Western U.S. is addressed by the LA Times article since these events don’t fit into its alarmist “climate change” driven hyperbole.

The LA Times hyperbole of “extreme heat” and “severe drought” in the San Joaquin Valley being all to “common occurrences” implies that this is something new to this region and of course it must be because of “man-made climate change”. These claims are also false as shown by NOAA measured data which is, of course, unaddressed by the LA Times. 

The NOAA graph shown below shows the history of all monthly maximum temperatures for the San Joaquin Valley from 1895 to September 2023.

The data clearly show that the pattern of maximum temperatures is consistent throughout this entire period with the highest maximum temperature occurring in July 1931 during the “1930s dust bowl era” then followed July 2017, July 1906, July 1926, etc. and spread out over the entire 1895 to 2023 period.

Likewise NOAA data showing the history of drought in the San Joaquin Valley (provided below) for the period from 1895 to September 2023 does not support the LA Times inference of increasing drought severity in the San Joaquin Valley which is clearly a region having a long history of extensive occurrences of droughts.

The PDSI index (where wet is colored green and drought is colored orange) shows significant San Joaquin Valley drought durations of over 7 years between 1927 to 1935, over 4 years from 1946 to 1950, 4 years from 1958 to 1961, 7 years from 1986 to 1992, 3 years from 2006 to 2009, 4 years from 2011 to 2015 and 3 years from 2019 to 2022.

The LA Times article also hypes “climate change” driven extreme heat in the Central Valley and notes that “Already, Fresno saw 65 days over 100 degrees last year” but again fails to provide any readily available NOAA measured temperature data records over the last 100 years.

Provided below is NOAA monthly maximum temperature data for Fresno over the period from 1895 to September 2023.

The data show consistent maximum temperature patterns over the entire period with monthly temperatures over 100 degrees F occurring for the last 43 years between July 1981 to July 2023 with the highest temperature occurring in July 2021 at 103.3 F which was only 0.1 F above the prior high in July 2006 of 103.2 F. This pattern of maximum temperatures does not represent a “climate emergency” driven by alarmists flawed claims of “climate change”.

The NOAA monthly maximum temperature data for the state of California shown below also shows a consistent pattern of outcomes during the period from 1895 to September 2023.

The highest maximum monthly temperature for California occurred in July 1931 during the dust bowl period of the 1930s at a temperature of 95.6 degrees F which is 1.4 F above the next highest California maximum temperature of 94.2 F of July 2006. 

The LA times continues its climate science measured data deficient alarmist propaganda campaign which is devoid of readily available NOAA long time period temperature and other highly relevant measured climate science data which the Times ignores because this data does not support its alarmist propaganda campaign claims.

The LA Times article discussion regarding excessive San Joaquin Valley and other Central Valley areas water use, agriculture development, land use, ground water pumping, etc. are consequences of population growth and inadequate state and local community political oversight that further aggravate the regions available water, land use capabilities and other limited resources. The LA Times article attempts to portray these issues as being driven by “climate change” which is incorrect and unsupported in the article.

The LA Times articles failure to even mention the monumental “Great Flood of 1861-1862” with its 300-mile-long river covering the entire Central Valley as well the Western U.S. extensive and century long droughts from the past is incomprehensible.

The LA Times prior articles falsely claiming that July through August 2023 was the “hottest summer ever” is addressed here and shown below.

These flawed summer of 2023 claims have been shown to be false based on NOAA maximum temperature data measurement that climate alarmists failed to address and evaluate as was the case with the many claims of “extreme heat” that were claimed in the LA Times California Central Valley article discussed in this post.    

Wind industry confirms Great Green Lie

The cost deceptions of wind power lobbyists can’t be maintained any longer. Tom Glover, country chair of RWE’s UK arm, said the price offered by the Government to wind farm operators must rise by as much as 70pc to entice companies to build. Cheap green energy is a big lie.

From Net Zero Watch

Campaign group Net Zero Watch says that the wind industry has effectively admitted that it has been deceiving the British public over the cost of the energy “transition”. RWE Renewables has just told the Government that it needs its subsidy “strike price” to rise by 70% if any more wind farms are to be built.

Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:

“Rishi Sunak has said that there has been a long-term deception of the British public. RWE’s demand for more subsidy confirms it. The Green Blob has been lying about renewables costs for years. The truth is that wind power is expensive, and becoming more so. The energy “transition” is a transition to poverty, but few in Westminster seem to have the guts to say so.”

Notes for editors

For many years, the wind industry has claimed that they had seen a dramatic fall in costs, and signing “Contracts for Difference” (CfDs) to deliver power at extraordinarily low prices. This was subsequently revealed as a scam, with windfarms refusing to activate CfD contracts, and making hundreds of millions in windfall profits as a result.

The Government’s decision to close this loophole led to the complete failure of the last CfD auction.

RWE’s demand for a dramatic increase in the subsidy shows that the industry is now being forced to make bids that better reflect the true costs of windfarms.

It’s That Man Again

Roger Hallam, founder member of Extinction Rebellion wants the scientists to follow him! Well, when I say scientists, I mean doctors of music, socio-spatial planning, social and cultural anthropology, sociology, clinical psychology and education, etc. 

From Climate Scepticism

BY JOHN RIDGWAY

It doesn’t seem that long ago that I was on here pouring scorn upon the efforts of two psychology professors who were claiming to know how hapless folk such as you and I could fall into the trap of disbelieving the scientists. Theirs was a counsel that supposedly had two major benefits: By following their advice others could avoid the same ‘anti-science’ trap and, even better, they would be ready and prepared to deal with those who had. Like bedbugs, the anti-scientific are deemed a growing problem, but these two psychologists also have a serious pesticide. Or so they say.

Such academics can only think that way because they presume for themselves an understanding of the science that is superior to the sceptic. As far as they are concerned, sceptics had the option of thinking things through carefully, but chose instead to reject scientific authority and replace it with their own sloppy version of thinking. Trust in science is very much seen as the hallmark of the critical thinker; they see no room in the critical thinker’s armoury for re-evaluating the significance of scientific consensus.

And why does all of this matter? It’s because such ‘anti-scientism’ can lead to all sorts of dangerous perspectives, such as those held by people who insist on vaccines being properly tested, or that the risks of net zero should be properly thought through. Or maybe you are one of those people who even doubt the need for a precipitous transition to net zero. Perhaps you can’t see the urgency. How anti-scientist is that?

Not very, according to Roger Hallam, founder member of Extinction Rebellion. In a recent proclamation he explained that failing to see the urgency has nothing at all to do with anti-scientism – in fact it is quite the opposite. If you want to be a critical thinker, like he is, he says the very last thing you should be doing is listening to the scientists. ‘But how come?’, I hear you ask. Surely organisations such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil have been claiming scientific endorsement for their eschatology from the very outset. So Hallam, of all people, must surely be the first to condemn anyone who disbelieves a scientist. Well he might have done in bygone days, but no longer. This is how he puts it now:

Some of us have attempted over the years to responsibly communicate the extreme and cascading risks, and the severe consequences of not taking emergency action. Despite founding the movement on the precautionary principle we found ourselves being ground down. For years we were moderated, and moodsplained by experts from narrow disciplines who demanded we change our press releases, our lectures, and play down the reality and potential speed of catastrophic consequences.

So if one cannot trust ‘experts from narrow disciplines’, who should you trust? Why, Hallam, of course:

The rapid heating and extreme events of the last year demonstrate that overall predictions of institutionalised climate science were less accurate than the conclusions of generalist scholars and leading climate activists, who better saw the frightening signals through the noise produced from siloes, hierarchies, and privilege.

You see, it’s the generalists and activists that we should have been listening to all along, not ‘institutionalised climate science’. But how was it that institutionalised climate science got away with so many years of ‘moodsplaining’?

Because these people carry an identity associated with ‘authority’ they were not challenged enough by journalists, lay people, or activists.

It turns out that there is little difference between a climate change sceptic and your average doomsplaining cult leader. Both dislike the idea of authorised facts and both wish that journalists and laypeople would do more to challenge it. The only difference is that, whereas we are wracked with uncertainty and worry about practicalities, the doomsplainer general is on a moral crusade and lives by a truth known only unto him and his followers. As Hallam puts it:

We committed five years ago in October 2018 to live in truth. Our movements need to look directly at that truth and act according to reality. That means being in resistance, standing for peace, justice and freedom.

I have no reason to believe that Hallam is being insincere here. I suspect that he has created for himself the persona of the repressed messiah who is, nevertheless, only too willing to forgive the blasphemers just as long as they are prepared to repent. Why else would he say this?

Understanding how this repression happened is important. We would welcome any career climatologists, academics and journalists who undermined our communications in public to make amends, especially as they have influenced attitudes amongst those who judge us.

Far from encouraging others to follow the scientists, Hallam wants the scientists to follow him! And before you dismiss his megalomania too readily, you should reflect upon the fact that his amnesty has already resulted in a degree of success. Only seven days after his sermon on the mount, a massive 70 scientists responded by plighting their troth to the activists. Well, when I say scientists, I mean doctors of music, socio-spatial planning, social and cultural anthropology, sociology, clinical psychology and education, etc. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention the founding member of the Research Collective for Decolonizing Fashion.

So it was really just another bunch of generalists and laypeople, rather than the mass conversion he must have hoped for.

I may mock, but it’s a start. Hallam is a man in resistence and he stands for peace, justice and freedom. Previous messiahs have achieved a great deal more with far less scientific support, and never forget that there are grandmas prepared to climb gantries for this guy.

New Climate Institute Claims Microsoft is “Unjustly” Quarantining Their Emails

Hundreds of governmental and non-governmental organisations working on climate change appear to have been experiencing disruption to email communication when their communications contain any reference to the NewClimate URL.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Trojan, virus, hack or Microsoft defect?

MICROSOFT ERROR OR EXTERNAL ATTACK CAUSING DISRUPTION TO EMAIL COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNITY

Publication date 27 Oct 2023

Since 17 October, to our knowledge any email with the NewClimate URL (newclimate dot org) in the email body, link, signature, reply header or contained anywhere in an attachment is unjustifiably quarantined by Microsoft email servers without any notice, regardless of who sends or receives the email.

That our own email flow is disrupted is the least of our problems: all Microsoft tenants are afflicted by the same issue when this URL appears in their emails, or any attachments they share, even when we are not a party to the communications.

…Read more: https://newclimate.org/news/microsoft-error-or-external-attack-causing-disruption-to-email-communication-across-the

I feel a bit sorry for them, having your email system arbitrarily shut down is an unpleasant experience.

But they really should read some help pages on what to do. Microsoft in particular provides clear guidance on what to do if their system accidentally flags you as spam.

Their SPF record looks reasonable:

“v=spf1 +a include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:spf.mandrillapp.com -all”

The SPF record is an entry on your website DNS registration which tells other email servers who is allowed to send legitimate emails on your behalf. New Climate’s SPF record means anything on their own domain server (+a), outlook or mandrilapp.com (a mass email provider) is allowed to send emails on behalf of new climate.

All internet exposed websites are under continuous attack by automated malware bots, so it is possible either one of these bots found a weakness, or they innocently tripped the paranoid hair trigger of one of today’s email systems.

I also ran their site through a malware checker, which didn’t spot any malware. When websites are infected one of the first things which tends to happen is they start sprouting malware on all their web pages. Though sometimes the malware is sneaky and only appears at random intervals, so the malware test is not definitive.

I wish new climate good luck restoring their email system. I believe a big part of the solution to the climate panic is better communication between all parties, so if interrupting new climate’s communications is a deliberate act, it is a deplorable and heinous act which does no good for anyone.

NOAA Predicts a Quicker, Stronger Solar Max

Since the Solar Cycle was discovered over 180 years ago, its progression has been monitored by counting the number of sunspots and sunspot groups visible (through a solar telescope) on the solar surface each day. Solar cycle 25 is the current solar cycle, the 25th since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. 

From Spaceweather.com

By DR.TONY PHILLIPS

Oct. 25, 2023 (Spaceweather.com): When Solar Cycle 25 began in 2020, leading forecasters thought it would be weak and slow to develop. Fast forward three years: NOAA is now predicting a quicker, stronger solar cycle. The revised forecast, published yesterday, shows Solar Max coming sometime between January and October 2024:

NOAA’s original prediction for Solar Cycle 25 is shown in pink (), the broad band indicating the uncertainty of the forecast. It has become clear in recent years that the original prediction was too low, which prompted NOAA to issue a new one. The magenta line () traces the new forecast, and takes into account recent high sunspot counts.

Uncertainties in the new forecast are bounded by different shades of magenta. There is roughly a 25% chance that the smoothed sunspot number will fall within the dark-shaded region; a 50% chance it will fall in the medium-shaded region; and a 75% chance it will fall in the lightest of the shaded regions.

If this new forecast is correct, Solar Cycle 25 could land in the ballpark of Solar Cycle 23, which peaked in 2000-2001, and produced the famous Halloween Storms of 2003. However, the odds still favor Solar Cycle 25 being a bit weaker than Solar Cycle 23. Either way, next year’s Solar Max could be potent.

NOAA plans to update this new forecast every month. Check out their Space Weather Prediction Testbed for the latest prediction.

The energy transition is social vandalism

Dismantling our current energy-supply system may go down as one of the greatest acts of economic, environmental and social vandalism in human history. The motives of those standing behind it must be questioned.

From Bizpac Review

 By Euan Mearns

What is reported daily as an energy transition bears none of the hallmarks of previous shifts in the energy system that is a fundamental driver of global economies.

In the early 19th century, many homes were heated with wood, and transport was by horse, sailing ship or shank’s pony. Industry was powered by water wheels, and agriculture by horses. Whale oil, candles or gas lamps provided light after sunset. The majority of people lived in grinding poverty, and in 1820 the life expectancy of the global population was about 26 years.

By the end of the century and the close of the Victorian era, society was well into an energy transformation. Coal heated many homes. The first electric street lighting had been installed along with coal-fired power generation and a rudimentary power grid in the industrializing world. Coal-powered railways were everywhere. Steam engines fueled with coal-powered mighty steel-hulled ships and industrial plants. In 1900, global life expectancy had risen to around 31 years.

This transition paralleled the Industrial Revolution launched by the introduction of coal, which has double the energy density of wood, and the 18th-century invention of the steam engine.

Accelerating the transformation was Edwin Drake’s 1859 discovery of a small quantity of “rock oil” in Pennsylvania. And then in 1901, the Spindletop gusher was drilled in Texas, marking the true beginning of the oil age.  Refined rock oil (kerosene) could be used in oil lamps. The replacement of whale oil with kerosene for light, effectively saved a leviathan from early extinction just as the move to coal for heating preserved many forests.

The mid-19th century also saw the development of early internal combustion engines, although at that time there was insufficient fuel for a motor industry. The Spindletop gusher and subsequent discoveries changed all that. The world was now awash with oil without any real market. Then in 1908, Henry Ford rolled out his Model T to begin the age of the car and mass transit. The Wright brothers’ first powered flight in 1908 led quickly to commercial air travel and eventually to the jet age.

Unparalleled development came with the 20th century and the introduction of nuclear power plants whose uranium fuel contains more than 16,000 times the energy content of coal, oil and natural gas. At the same time, hydroelectric power rapidly expanded and natural gas (the most energy-dense of the fossil fuels by mass) became more available for electricity generation and home heating and cooking. 

The introduction of gas-fired central heating enhanced the well-being of populations. Whole homes would be heated by hot-water radiators, and no longer would families have to huddle ’round a dirty coal fire. By 2000, life expectancy in world population had risen to 66 years, 78 years in the now developed countries.

There are lessons to be learned from this short history.

As new energy sources were added over the centuries, the rough sequence has been wood, human slaves, draft animals, water wheels, windmills, coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric power and nuclear power.

These additions have been driven by the advantages of new energy sources over the old in terms of power, energy density, efficiency and cost. Populations embraced the new because it enhanced living standards.

An important thing to grasp is that, at the global scale, this is an additive process happening gradually through the endeavors of many individuals throughout society in many places. Wood and draft animals, and, tragically, human slaves are still widely used.

At no point in human history has a political decision been made by a relatively few elite to replace cheap, efficient forms of energy like fossil fuels with inferior and more expensive technologies like solar and wind. You cannot run public services on an energy source that is consuming taxes instead of paying them.

However, the current so-called transition is being forced upon the masses by politicians and through diktats and vast handouts (of our money). Taxes are being squandered, special interests enriched and citizens saddled with expensive and unreliable energy supplies and diminished living standards.

Virtually everything we have – roads, buildings, cars, TVs, clothes, computers, aircraft, agriculture, education systems, healthcare systems, military capabilities – exist thanks to fossil fuels. Their continued use and nuclear power’s further development promise to improve the lives of billions. Yet, the long, upward climb of humankind — propelled through natural incentives and governed by economics and physical laws — is being horrifyingly short-circuited by the misguided and self-interested.

Dismantling our current energy supply system may go down as one of the greatest acts of economic, environmental and social vandalism in human history. The motives of those standing behind it must be questioned.

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Euan Mearns provided analytical services to the global oil industry for more than 20 years. He has edited a book on nuclear energy and co-authored another on The Great Tangshan Earthquake and a paper on Swiss net-zero energy policy, A proud member of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia, he has a B.S. in geology and a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry, both from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland.