Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s and Federal Highway Administration’s proposed tailpipe emissions standards for greenhouse gases would constitute a de facto electric vehicle (EV) mandate that exceeds both its regulatory authority and any practical environmental or economic benefit.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s and Federal Highway Administration’s proposed tailpipe emissions standards for greenhouse gases would constitute a de facto electric vehicle (EV) mandate that exceeds both its regulatory authority and any practical environmental or economic benefit.
The ruling, which would effectively require that EVs make up two-thirds of car sales in 2032, directly conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), which held that on matters of great political or economic significance, agencies must identify “clear congressional authorization” for their claimed authority.
This is clearly not the case since Congress never granted the FHWA regulatory authority to do so.
Given that the only way automakers could meet the emissions restrictions is by producing more EVs and fewer gas-powered cars, a responsive House GOP bill up for determinate voting will bar any regulation that would “mandate the use of any specific technology” or “result in limited availability of new motor vehicles” based on the type of engine or electric power system.
As noted by Wall Street Journal editors, “While the rules don’t dictate the specific cars or models that must be made, the [Biden] administration is remaking a major industry in a way that is ‘Chinese-style central planning’ as automakers answer first to their political overlords rather than consumers and investors.”
Reasons to pump the breaks on such blatant government overreach are many.
For starters, it’s apparent from piling up dealer inventories that most automobile purchasers don’t want EVs because they simply don’t meet their needs.
In September, it took retailers over two months to sell an EV, compared with around a month for gas-powered vehicles and only three weeks for a gas-electric hybrid.
EVs lack long-range distance and rapid “refueling” capacities enjoyed by gasoline vehicles, a competitive disadvantage that increases as battery efficiencies drop under cold operating conditions.
According to Consumer Reports, frigid temperatures can reduce an unplugged EV’s range by about 20%, running cabin heaters and defrosters further saps batteries, and recharging takes longer than in warm weather.
This helps to explain why most EV buyers live in temperate urban settings and are affluent enough to purchase them as second vehicles.
In California, the state with more EVs than any other, the highest concentrations — between 10.9% and 14.2% of all vehicles — are in ZIP codes where residents are at least 75% white and Asian, whereas ZIP codes with the largest percentages of Latino and Black residents have extremely low proportions of EVs.
Although requiring about 40% less labor to build, EVs are also more expensive to produce than gasoline models.
Consequentially, EVs are heavily subsidized in multiple ways: through direct federal and state tax benefits to purchasers, through government loan incentives to manufacturers, and through added production costs passed on to gasoline vehicle purchasers.
Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, Honda, Nissan, and Subaru have meanwhile all had to adjust sales prices upward due to the scarcity of semiconductors, a supply condition that will only become more precarious as government-mandated EV numbers multiply.
Consider that China controls a stranglehold monopoly of about 80% of the global rare earth mineral supply needed for large EV batteries, with the Republic of Congo a 90% source of vital cobalt.
Meanwhile, the same anti-drilling ideologues who push for dependence upon enormous quantities of foreign rare earth minerals mined by slave labor in China and Congo are restricting U.S. mining and processing of the same under far more responsible U.S. social and environmental safeguards.
Mountain Pass in California is the sole U.S. remaining operating rare earth mine that lost two years of production due to a 2016 bankruptcy continues to send its mined ore to China for processing.
Since EVs make up less than 3% of most auto makers’ fleets, ramping numbers up to 66% by 2032 — or any foreseeable date — would be an economic disaster forcing automakers to raise prices on gas-powered cars to offset losses on EVs.
Ford reportedly lost $62,016 for every EV it sold in the third quarter of this year.
The only producer alternative is to buy bureaucratic regulatory credits from EV manufacturers such as Tesla, which pocketed about $2,380 in credit sales for each car it sold in the U.S. during the first six months.
This still leaves a huge electricity deficit, which would result from putting all those proposed EVs on already overstressed power grids, requiring trillions of dollars of new spending to upgrade this infrastructure, including transmission lines from remote locations and tens of thousands of recharging stations.
Tesla founder Elon Musk estimated as of 2021, the U.S. power network could only handle about 24 million EVs.
As for hypothetical environmental benefits, forget those also.
Whereas Democrats accuse Republicans of attacking “EPA’s authority to protect Americans from dangerous air pollution,” they conveniently ignore that EVs may produce more fine particulate matter — pollutants that lodge deep in the lungs — because their battery weight increases wear and tear from tires.
All of this insanity is premised upon addressing a non-existent climate crisis, applying enormously costly and destructive measures with no measurable benefits.
A scenario simultaneously empowering the sort of government tyranny we claim to deplore in adversarial countries that now exploit our consequential self-inflicted weaknesses.
To not do her homework and hide in the Climate Industrial Complex turns ignorance into bad public policies for ratepayers.
By Robert Bradley Jr. — December 14, 2023
“I assume you think the earth is flat and dinosaurs never existed and the sun rotates around the earth and vaccines don’t work? I mean, since science isn’t real…” (Durand to Bradley)
“The ‘settled science’ is toward the benefits of CO2 fertilization. The middle-way science in the face of climate models and other uncertainties is global lukewarming, with positives as well as negatives.” (Bradley to Durand)
Patty Durand is a candidate for the Georgia Public Service Commission special election. She is rightly critical of Plant Vogtle #3 and #4 but falls off the cliff when it comes to climate alarmism and forced energy transformation. Patty is in the tank of the climate industrial complex, the sea of cronies not unlike her enemy, Georgia Power Company (Southern Company). [1]
Do you care about climate change? How about inequality – is that your issue? What about democracy and election integrity- or racism? We’ve got it all going on right here in one state agency: the Georgia Public Service Commission!
I assume you think the earth is flat and dinosaurs never existed and the sun rotates around the earth and vaccines don’t work? I mean, since science isn’t real…
The ‘settled science’ is toward the benefits of CO2 fertilization. The middle-way science in the face of climate models and other uncertainties is global lukewarming, with positives as well as negatives.
Climate alarmism is a species of deep ecology that sees nature as fragile and optimal. Free market energy is necessary to adapt to change, natural or anthropogenic. (Industrial wind, solar arrays, and batteries are full of eco-sins, another story.)
Are you keeping up with the debate from both sides? I challenge you to do so…. Might begin with Judith Curry and continue with Alex Epstein.
The more you explain the worse it sounds. There is no both sides to climate change. 99% of climate scientists and experts not only say that global warming is happening, it’s accelerating faster than predicted. You find 1 or 2 who disagree and call it both sides. Nothing both sides about it.
Incorrect again. You are just not following the real debate.
The “consensus” of Malthusianism has been the same and wrong since the 1960s with Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb. From the MIT/Club of Rome model in 1972 to climate models today, exaggeration based on worst-case scenarios have become part of the narrative. And repeatedly falsified.
Global greening from CO2 fertilization is laboratory understood and empirically observed. Climate models do not know and cannot incorporate the microphysics of climate (clouds).
Incremental warmth has strong positives to climate economists. Warmer winters (the GHG ‘signal’ is oriented toward winter, night, and high latitude) are net positive, to make one point.
It is up to you to study the case against climate alarmism and forced energy transformation. And read the Climategate emails if you want to know what is driving climate ‘science.’
In her quest for election to the Georgia Public Service Commission, Durand wants to replace politicians with politicians, cronies with cronies. It is high time she broaden her perspective to 1) question climate alarmism; 2) reconsider forced energy transformation (to wind, solar, batteries); and 3) study the free-market option of de-franchising public utilities and eliminating rate regulation. Her motto “let’s regulate utilities better” is age-old tried-and-failed.)
To not do her homework and hide in the Climate Industrial Complex turns ignorance into bad public policies for ratepayers.
Patty Durand is the founder of Cool Planet Solutions, LLC and candidate running for Georgia Public Service Commission. There will be a special election in 2023, date TBD. Learn more at pattyforpsc.com. Patty has expertise on consumer engagement and education around the topics of energy technology and climate change.
In her years as President of the Smart Energy Consumer Collaboration, she has focused on helping energy stakeholders understand consumer motivations, values, and knowledge in order to provide consumers the products & services they need.
And also has experience as state director for the Georgia Sierra Club and worked at Georgia Tech on smart grid research projects.
Durand is the founder of Cool Planet Solutions, LLC. She is a consultant offering services to utilities and regulators with a focus on consumer engagement/education around the topics of energy technology and climate change. Her expertise includes organizing and hosting workshops, presentations, facilitation and reports/research.
Cop28 live: landmark deal to ‘transition away’ from fossil fuels agreed – The delegate for Paraguay welcomes the agreement as “auspicous” but points out that “we need to see a big increase in climate financing”.
ADOPTED: With an unprecedented reference to transitioning away from all fossil fuels, The UAE Consensus is delivering a paradigm shift that has the potential to redefine our economies.#COP28#UniteActDeliver#UAEConsensuspic.twitter.com/wmdta57peF
What did I say? After the near collapse of climate talks, global leaders “rescued” COP28 at the last minute, scoring top marks in Climate Bingo: the talks are “historic“, “landmark“, “unprecedented” and use the actual phrase “transition away from fossil fuels” for the first time ever. Be still my beating heart.
What did I say? After the near collapse of climate talks, global leaders “rescued” COP28 at the last minute, scoring top marks in Climate Bingo: the talks are “historic“, “landmark“, “unprecedented” and use the actual phrase “transition away from fossil fuels” for the first time ever. Be still my beating heart.
A hundred billionaires met with 70,000 groupies, using millions of dollars mostly taken from other people, and have decided they need to do it all again.
The point of these meetings is to issue more press releases, reward the faithful underlings, arrange golden handshakes behind the scenes, and transfer billions of dollars from the riff raff to the Private-Jet-Class. This glorious goal is achieved when the Grand UN Performance of vague non-binding Hopium is used to fool investors and voters in domestic theatres.
And so it comes to pass that all nations have finally agreed to do what they were doing anyway. But UN-speak translates the nothingness into hyperbole:
“The agreement marks “the beginning of the end of fossil fuels” — UNFCCC
The president of the European Commission has welcomed the COP28 agreement, hailing it a “global turning point”. –more Sky News.
Despite that — the world continues on the transition to fossil fuels and away from wood and donkeys, while everyone — except the patsies — plays the game and pretends to power themselves with sunshine and breezes.
Oblivious to the trillions of dollars being spent, 82% of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels, and the new annual growth in fossil fuels is so fast that all the additional unreliable energy sources added this year cannot even keep up with it.
The spokeswoman for a bunch of small islands told the world the deal was nothing much and got a two minute long standing ovation anyway:
The lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, Anne Rasmussen, criticised the deal as unambitious.
“We have made an incremental advancement over business as usual, when what we really need is an exponential step change in our actions,” she said.
But she did not formally object to the pact, and her speech drew a standing ovation that lasted nearly two minutes. — Reuters
It doesn’t matter what she said, just like it doesn’t matter that 90% of their islands are not sinking either. The islands are the token mascots and must be cheered. It’s a performance religion.
It’s the empty UN landmark deal that almost no one will achieve
Even the propaganda machine in Geneva has to admit that the “central outcome” is just a stocktake, which shows emissions *need* to be cut by an impossible amount and people are not achieving it. This is as good as it gets:
The global stocktake is considered the central outcome of COP28 – as it contains every element that was under negotiation and can now be used by countries to develop stronger climate action plans due by 2025.
The stocktake recognizes the science that indicates global greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut 43% by 2030, compared to 2019 levels, to limit global warming to 1.5°C. But it notes Parties are off track when it comes to meeting their Paris Agreement goals. — UNFCCC
The UNFCCC hopes everyone will turn up with better plans next year:
In the short-term, Parties are encouraged to come forward with ambitious, economy-wide emission reduction targets, covering all greenhouse gases, sectors and categories and aligned with the 1.5°C limit in their next round of climate action plans (known as nationally determined contributions) by 2025.
If your government is one of the ones sincerely trying to meet impossible, stupid targets, you know you live in The Patsy State.
Readers have been in touch over their heat pump ordeals. Some have given outlandish quotes. Others have been told that their house is too old, or that the technology will not keep them warm enough in this climate.
Allow me to relate my parallel experience in France. Our dilapidated stone farmhouse is a good test case of claims and counter-claims of heat pumps. If they can do a passable job during a French winter in this draughty pre-Revolutionary relic they can work in almost any house anywhere in Britain.
The rest of the article is frankly a load of twaddle, in which he blames the British public’s refusal to have anything to do with the useless things on them falling for the propaganda from the gas mafia!
Basically his argument is that having spent £16,000 on just the heat pump alone, he has still had to install a giant separate water heater, and also still uses wood-burning stoves. And even then his farmhouse is cold!
The wood he gets himself for free from the local forest.
He does not tell us where he lives in France. But unless it is half way up the Alps, the climate will be much milder than in Newcastle.
And he can’t understand why Brits don’t do the same!
In this paper, we discuss the radiation budget observed by satellite over an annual cycle. In this radiation budget, only two fluxes are measured: the incoming flux of 340 W and the flux emitted by the surface of the Earth + Oceans system of 240 W.
Dr. Paul Pettré provides a damning critque of textbook climate science taught to impressionable students.
Paul Pettré is Honorary Chief Meteorological Engineer. His scientific training took place at the Pierre and Marie Curie University (Paris VI) where he obtained a PhD in geophysics with Professor Paul Queney. His career developed at Météo-France by analyzing aerological campaigns on local winds and air pollution problems. At the end of his career, Paul Pettré turned to the study of atmospheric circulation and climate in Antarctica, where he carried out seven missions. Paul Pettré has published numerous articles in high-level peer-reviewed journals internationally and has established collaborations with several international research teams.
His article in French is at the blog Association des climato-réalistes Critique objective du concept d’effet de serre (Objective Critique of Greenhouse Gas Effect). The paper in French is hereas a Word Document. Below is an English translation I produced using an online translator (any mistakes you can attribute to Mr. Google). Later on I post some insightful comments with responses from the author, which really served as a tutorial on earth’s climate system and its thermodynamics. Dr. Pettré’s summary comment in that thread serves as an overview to the paper and discussion. (bolds are mine along with some images).
Plain Language Overview
In this paper, we discuss the radiation budget observed by satellite over an annual cycle. In this radiation budget, only two fluxes are measured: the incoming flux of 340 W and the flux emitted by the surface of the Earth + Oceans system of 240 W. All other terms of the Earth’s energy balance are estimates. The IPCC says that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium, implying that the energy emitted to the cosmos is 340 W to balance the incoming energy.
The IPCC says that the Earth + Ocean system emits to the atmosphere all the energy received from the sun estimated at 240 W, implying that the Earth + Ocean system is a black body. What physics says is that the thermodynamic system Earth + Oceans + Atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium and that it has entropy.Physics also says that the Earth + Oceans thermodynamic system is not a black body and therefore the energy emitted from the surface of the system to the atmosphere is not equal to the energy received.
The IPCC’s energy balance is therefore wrong for these two reasons, which are purely a matter of thermodynamics. In this false assessment, a certain amount of energy is missing, which comes from hazardous estimates attributed to what the IPCC calls the “greenhouse effect”. This missing energy, estimated at 155 W, was calculated according to the “Earth’s energy budget” proposed by NASA/NOAA, which is agreed upon by the IPCC.
Objective Criticism of the Greenhouse Effect Concept
The scientific consensus introduced by the IPCC several years ago is that the Climatic warming observed since the mid-19th century would be the consequence of the increase in the concentration of “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) resulting from the concomitant increase in the industrial activities that consume the fossil fuels such as coal and oil.
For example, the chemistry textbook for university students (Th.L.Brown, H.E. LeMay, Jr. a.o. Chemistry. The Central Science. Pearson Education. 2009. ISBN 978-0-13-235-848-4. 1117 pp.) says on page 761 [1, p 761]:
“In addition to protecting us from harmful short-wavelength radiation, the atmosphere is essentially at a reasonably uniform and moderate temperature at the Earth’s surface. The Earth is in global thermal equilibrium with its environment. That means that the planet is emitting energy into space at a rate equal to the rate at which it absorbs energy from the sun. (…)
A portion of the infrared radiation that covers the surface of the the Earth is absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In Absorbing this radiation, these two atmospheric gases help to maintain a uniform and livable temperature at the surface by retaining, so to speak, infrared radiation, which we feel as heat. The influence of H2O, CO2 and certain other atmospheric gases on the temperature of the Earth is called the “greenhouse effect” because, by trapping infrared radiation, these gases act like the glass in a greenhouse. The gases themselves are called “greenhouse gases” (GHG).”
This definition corresponds to the current scientific consensus of what is known as the “greenhouse effect” advocated by the IPCC and supported by most of the national scientific institutes such as NOAA in the United States or CNRS in France.
However, this definition lacks scientific rigour due to approximations or neglect and ignorance of the physical laws that govern general circulation of the atmosphere at the origin of what is known as the climate.
The first three sentences of the first paragraph of this definition are erroneous from a scientific point of view:
1. The atmosphere does not maintain a uniform and moderate temperature at the surface of the Earth.
The atmosphere of planet Earth is the gaseous fluid that surrounds its surface. This gas is held together by gravitational attraction and is set in motion by the unequal heating of its surface (thermodynamics) and by the rotation of the planet (force of of Coriolis).
The general circulation of the atmosphere is characterized by a very strong predominance of horizontal displacements, which are themselves generated by the predominance of meridional temperature or pressure gradients. On a global scale, it is considered that there is a close correlation between the distribution of the wind and pressure, and therefore also temperature by virtue of the hydrostatic equation.
It is therefore necessary to consider seasonal mean meridional distribution of temperature, pressure, and meridional component of the wind. In the troposphere, the average temperature decreases upwards at an average rate of 6 to 7°C per km, and horizontally towards the pole in each of the temperate zones, maximum amplitude in winter and minimum amplitude in summer. Horizontal meridional gradients are especially important in temperate zones and very low in all seasons in the equatorial zone.
As a result, the Earth’s global atmospheric circulation has bands alternating zonal circulation resulting from meridional temperature gradients, separated by areas of convergence and divergence of winds, which result from the Coriolis force generated by the rotation of the Earth on the herself. It is not scientifically possible to separate the global atmospheric circulation climate.
As a result, the control of climate models cannot be based on a criterion that has no physical link with the overall atmospheric circulation.
Control of climate models based on an average surface temperature should, in order to be scientifically credible, be based on five meridian zones: -90° at -60°, -60° to -30°, -30° to +30°, +30° to +60° and +60° to +90°, where the – and + signs denote the southern and northern hemispheres.
2. The Earth is not in thermal equilibrium with its environment.
According to William Lowrie, the Earth’s internal heat is its greatest source of energy. It feeds into global geological processes such as the tectonics of the plates and the generation of the geomagnetic field. The Earth’s Internal Heat comes from two sources: the decay of radioactive isotopes present in rocks of the crust and mantle, and the primordial heat from the formation of the of the planet. Internal heat must find a way to remove itself from the Earth. The three main forms of heat transfer are radiation, conduction, and convection. Heat is also transferred during the transitions of composition and phase. Heat transport by conduction is the most important in solid regions of the Earth, while thermal convection occurs in the viscous mantle and the molten outer core.
According to the KamLAND collaboration, the Earth has cooled since its formation, but the decay of radiogenic isotopes, in particular uranium, thorium and potassium, in the interior of the planet, are a source of permanent heat. The current total heat flux from Earth to space is 44.2±1.0 TW, but the contribution from the primary waste heat and the radiogenic decay remains uncertain. However, the disintegration of radiogenic radiation can be estimated by the flux of geoneutrinos, electrically neutral emissions that are emitted during radio decay and that can cross the Earth practically unaffected. Here we combine precise measurements of the geoneutrino flux made by the antineutrino detector Kamioka, Japan, with existing detector measurements Borexino, Italy.
We find that the decay of uranium-238 and of Thorium-232 both contribute to the Earth’s heat flow. Neutrinos emitted by the decay of potassium 40 are below the detection limits of our experiences, but they are known to contribute 4 TW. Overall, our Observations indicate that the heat from the radioactive decay contributes to about half of the Earth’s total heat flux. We therefore conclude that the primordial heat of the Earth is not yet exhausted.
3. The Earth emits more energy into space than it receives from the sun
The sun is not the Earth’s only source of heat. The sun provides the Earth a net solar radiation of 235 W/m2. In order for the Earth to be in thermal equilibrium, it would have to move into space as soon as possible 244 W/m2. In this case, the Earth would behave like a black body and there would be neither global warming nor cooling of the surface. For an emission of 235 W/m2 from Earth to space, that is, if the Earth were a black body, corresponds, by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law with an albedo of 1, an average Earth’s surface temperature of -19°C.
But the Earth emits 390 W/m2 to space. So the Earth is not a black body since it emits 155 W/m2 more than it receives. For an emission of 390 W/m2, corresponds, applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law with an average albedo of 0.3, an average surface temperature of the Earth of 15°C. The mere fact that the Earth is not a black body, but a body with an average albedo has been estimated at 0.3 results in a warming of the average temperature Earth’s global surface temperature of about 30°C.
The CNRS in an article written by Marie-Antoine Mélières explains what warming by the “greenhouse effect” would provide the 155 W/m2 required for emission from the Earth’s surface of 390 W/m2. This theory assumes that the Earth and its atmosphere are two separate bodies, each in thermal equilibrium, and that all the energy received independently by one and the other is fully reissued by each one. This concept is demonstrably false since it would require that the Earth and the atmosphere be black bodies.
The Earth cannot be a black body because: on the one hand, it has an average albedo estimated at 0.3, which means that it does not re-emit all the energy received. And on the other hand that its core is made of molten material that radiates heat to the surface that it warms up. The volcanic regions are a clear proof of this. Similarly, there is no physical evidence that the atmosphere is a black body. It could not be since you can’t define its upper limit: it has no surface area above a given temperature.
As a result, it must be noted that the definition of the “greenhouse effect” that is proposed by the IPCC and generally supported by scientific institutions is a concept that cannot be not be scientifically proven.
We have seen that in the radiative balance of the Earth the 155 W/m2 that are emitted into the atmosphere can not be attributed to the “greenhouse effect. “That assumes the Earth behaves in a way like a black body, which it clearly is not, since it is scientifically accepted that it has a mean albedo different from 1 (O,3). And at least one can observe and evaluate locally, the heating of the surface by the Earth’s internal heat.
The CNRS statement (cited above) states: “The global effect of the greenhouse effect (is estimated): 155 watts per m2 surface heating (of which approximately 100 Watts related to the role of water vapour and 50 watts to CO2, all other remaining greenhouse gases constant”. That statement is therefore not physically demonstrated, nor is there any evidence of the effects claimed for the doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Comment Thread at Association des climato-réalistes
Various commenters participated, a few quite adversarial, and many inquisitive, with several responses provided by the author Dr.Paul Pettré. Not surprising was the dismissing of earth internal heat as a climate factor. The author responded accordingly.
Contrary to what you say, I do not give in my article the value of 44 TW for “the terrestrial heat flux”, but for one of the two terrestrial fluxes identified in the article cited in reference and estimated at 155 W per m2. Meteorology and climate are not exact sciences, but the mechanisms that govern them must always be able to be explained by physics. This requires working with proven scientific methods and some approximations or assumptions are permitted, but a responsible scientist must always keep in mind the assumptions on which he or she has based his or her study and be willing to examine contradictions if they arise.
Pettré provides a context regarding Earth internal heat:
Any thermodynamic system that is not in equilibrium, i.e. if a temperature gradient and/or movement is observed within the system, will necessarily tend for physical reasons to eventually reach a state of equilibrium. The Earth is no exception to this rule: it consumes energy that is not renewable and it is inexorably cooling. The problem is therefore to assess the entropy of the Earth and, knowing its energy reserve, to estimate its lifetime.
The loss of energy by radiation is not the only one to be taken into account because there is also the friction due to its rotation on itself and its displacement in the cosmos which is not empty. There may be others that I don’t know about, but I guess the energy lost through radiation is the most important. What is shocking about the very low value in mW/m2 that is proposed to us is that it leads to the Earth being almost eternal, which is probably not consistent with generally accepted astronomical theories.
I believe that the Earth’s energy reserve is evaluated on the basis of the mass of iron that constitutes the core of the Earth and its temperature, which has recently been re-evaluated, to the order of 6250°C, close to that of the surface of the sun. The objective of the referenced article was to assess the Earth’s life reserve. The authors’ conclusion is that there was no need to worry about this.
The problem we are interested in is whether the heat transfer from the centre of the Earth to the cosmos is the one identified so far of 44 TW or whether there could be another one of unidentified electromagnetic origin. The referenced article identified such a source of electromagnetic radiation measurable by complex methods and gave an approximate estimate of 155 W/m2, but this assessment was not the objective of the study and is given as a guideline. Nevertheless, it is of great value to us because it is a new result for the Earth’s energy balance.
To answer your question, we need to take into account the functioning of the Earth’s core and the influence of solar radiation on it. These questions are the subject of arduous discussions among astronomers which I cannot go into. Basically, in the center of the Earth, there is a core made of iron at a temperature of 6250°C. The energy source is nuclear fission. Around this core there is magma at a temperature between 680°C and 1200°C. Around the magma there is the Earth’s crust formed by tectonic plates.
Magma is in motion because the Earth rotates and it is subject, like the atmosphere, to the Coriolis force which varies with latitude, zero at the poles, maximum at the equator and combines with centrifugal force. It is this movement of the plasma that explains why there is a certain thrust on the Earth’s crust that displaces the tectonic plates. Over a very long period of time, on the order of billions of years, this force moves continents and modifies the climate.
Some authors believe that magma is isothermal and therefore not a source of electromagnetic radiation. Other authors consider the fact that the earth is in the atmosphere of the sun and subject to solar electromagnetic radiation which would have an effect on the magma which would be anisotropic from a magnetic point of view with an outward orientation. This electromagnetic anisotropy of the magma would explain the electromagnetic radiation observed by the authors.
Solar electromagnetic disturbances have a known period of 11 years. We are currently at the maximum of these disturbances, which may explain the increase in the frequency of some of the events currently observed. I can mention the auroras because the connection is obvious. To conclude, I would say that the discussion around these 155 W/m2 can take place, but it is not possible to dismiss this observation without serious argumentation.
A paper published in the Planetary Science Journal reports a surprising new twist in the mystery of the Geminids, a strong annual meteor shower that has puzzled astronomers for more than a century.
Dec. 13, 2023: (Spaceweather.com): Every great mystery novel has an unexpected twist. Apparently the same is true of meteor showers.
A paper published in the Planetary Science Journal reports a surprising new twist in the mystery of the Geminids, a strong annual meteor shower that has puzzled astronomers for more than a century.
“Our work has upended years of belief about 3200 Phaethon, the source of the Geminids,” says co-author Karl Battams of the Naval Research Lab. “It’s not what we thought it was.”
Above: Geminids over the Czech Republic in 2018. Credit: Petr Horálek
The Geminids peak every year in mid-December, scattering hundreds of bright meteors across northern winter skies. Numerically it is the best meteor shower of the year.
As meteor showers go, Geminids are newcomers. They first appeared in the mid-1800s when an unknown stream of debris crossed Earth’s orbit. Surprised, 19th century astronomers scoured the sky for the parent comet, but they found nothing. The search would continue for another 100 years.
Enter NASA. In 1983, the space agency’s Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) found an object now called “3200 Phaethon.” It was definitely the source of the Geminids. The orbit of 3200 Phaethon was such a close match to that of the Geminid debris stream, no other conclusion was possible. Yet here was a puzzler: 3200 Phaethon appeared to be a rocky asteroid.
Above: An artist’s concept of 3200 Phaethon
Asteroids are not supposed to make meteor showers. Unlike comets, they don’t have tails and they don’t spew meteoroids. Yet 3200 Phaethon was different. In 2009 and 2012, NASA’s STEREO spacecraft caught 3200 Phaethon sprouting a tail when it passed close to the sun. Apparently, intense solar radiation was blistering meteoroids off 3200 Phaethon’s rocky surface. Astronomers dubbed it a “rock comet,” and the mystery was solved.
Or was it?
Astronomer Qicheng Zhang, lead author of the new paper, was never convinced. For one thing, the Geminid debris stream is massive (1013 kg), while the tail of 3200 Phaethon is puny, providing less than 1% of the mass required to explain the Geminids.
“The tail we see today could never supply enough dust to supply the Geminid meteor shower,” says Zhang.
Zhang, Battams, and colleagues decided to take a closer look. Using coronagraphs on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), they monitored Phaethon as it passed by the sun in 2022. Color filters on the spacecraft revealed no dust or rock. Instead, Phaethon’s tail is made of sodium gas.
Above: SOHO’s orange-filtered view (left), which can detect sodium, shows asteroid 3200 Phaethon glowing brightly.
And therein lies the twist. Meteor showers are made of meteoroids, not gas. Suddenly, the Geminids are a mystery again.
“We’re back to square one,” says Zhang. “Where do the Geminids come from?”
3200 Phaethon is still the main suspect. At least one study suggests that Geminid meteoroids are 1,000 to 10,000 years old. Perhaps something hit the asteroid millennia ago. Phaethon’s rapid rotation makes it susceptible to sudden episodes of mass loss, so even a relatively small impact could create the necessary meteoroids.
The best way to test this idea is to look at the surface of Phaethon with a space probe. Japan plans to do just that. JAXA is building a spacecraft called DESTINY+ to fly by 3200 Phaethon for a closer look. Launch is scheduled for 2025.
Until then, the Geminids remain a beautiful mystery. Look for them streaking across the night sky this week!
California’s journey with solar net energy metering (NEM) is a case study in the complexities of energy policy. What began as an ambitious drive to boost solar energy has evolved into a contentious battleground of policy shifts and market reactions.
Solar Net Energy Metering in California: From Rosy Inception to Rocky Realities
California’s journey with solar net energy metering (NEM) is a case study in the complexities of energy policy. What began as an ambitious drive to boost solar energy has evolved into a contentious battleground of policy shifts and market reactions. The recent developments, marked by job losses in the clean energy sector as reported by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), are a testament to these complexities.
California initiated solar net energy metering in the 1990s to encourage solar adoption. Under NEM, solar users could sell surplus electricity back to the grid at retail rates, offsetting their electricity costs. This policy aimed to stimulate solar energy use, reducing reliance on traditional energy sources.
The policy lead to a significant increase in solar installations. California’s solar industry saw a surge in growth, heralded as a triumph of renewable energy policy, but saddling utilities and non-solar customers with an additional cost burden.
As solar adoption grew, these concerns grew. Utilities argued that NEM shifted costs to non-solar customers, as maintaining the grid became increasingly funded by a shrinking base. These concerns led to policy revisions aimed at balancing the incentives for solar users with broader economic impacts.
In recent years, California has seen further adjustments to its NEM policies. These include reducing the rates paid for excess solar power and introducing new charges for solar users. These changes were designed to address the cost shift to non-solar users and ensure the economic sustainability of the energy grid.
These policy shifts have had a tangible impact on the solar market. The reduction in incentives has made solar installations less financially attractive, leading to a slowdown in new installations. This EWG report bemoans this downturn, noting widespread job losses in the clean energy sector as generous subsidies are being removed.
SAN FRANCISCO – California’s once-thriving residential solar industry is in ruins after state officials slashed rooftop solar incentives, causing thousands of job losses, said clean energy advocates and solar industry representatives during a recent virtual briefing.
The incentives played a crucial role in outfitting solar panels on approximately 2 million homes, establishing the state as the leader in the clean energy revolution. But the California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, bowed to demands from Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric to roll back those incentives.
The policy changes, essentially attempting to distribute costs fairly across consumers, appear to have dampened the growth of the solar sector, a critical component of California’s renewable energy strategy.
That decision has now led to the loss of over 17,000 solar jobs in California, says a new analysis by the California Solar and Storage Association, or CALSSA, discussed during the briefing. Many more layoffs and bankruptcies are likely by the end of the year and beyond.
Critics of the recent policy changes argue that California is undermining its own renewable energy goals. They contend that the state is backtracking on its commitment to clean energy by making solar less accessible and attractive. This perspective ignores the increasing costs to consumers of NEM subsidies.
“The volume [of solar installations] has dropped by 80 to 90 percent of the volume of activity, the volume of interest,” said Beccar. “Because it just doesn’t make any sense for a homeowner who goes solar and does it overwhelmingly to save money.”
Speakers during the briefing strongly condemned the CPUC for acquiescing to the monopoly utilities’ demands to eliminate their only source of competition: families with rooftop solar.
They made clear their ire toward state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom for permitting such actions to happen in a state that, until a few months ago, had been the unmatched leader in advancing clean energy and climate policy. In particular, they blamed Newsom and the CPUC for the decision.
California’s experience with solar net energy metering is instructive. Initial policies fueled rapid growth in solar adoption, with accompanying rises in electricity rates, subsequent adjustments in response to economic and infrastructural challenges have led to a cooling of the market. The state now faces the reality of fostering renewable energy with excess subsidies, while finally having to balance economics, and grid stability. This situation serves as a reminder that energy policy is a complex ecosystem, where changes can have far-reaching and sometimes unintended consequences, and the road to hell is usually paved with good intentions.
In 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an oil embargo against the United States, triggering a crude oil crisis that sent the U.S. economy into a recession.
Aerial view of three (white) DOE crude oil storage tanks in the foreground at the sunoco terminal near Nederland, Texas.
In 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an oil embargo against the United States, triggering a crude oil crisis that sent the U.S. economy into a recession. To mitigate from any future shortages of oil, President Gerald Ford signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, which established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
The SPR is centrally located along the Gulf Coast where the oil can be distributed to nearly half of all U.S. oil refineries using interstate pipelines or barges.
Interestingly, California, the 4th largest economy in the world, has no access to the SPR as there are no pipelines over the Sierra Mountains to reach the “California Energy Island”.
A few years after the SPR was authorized, in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis in 1977, the Department of Energy was established to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
Now, after 50 years, the Department of Energy (DOE) is comprised of approximately 14,000 federal employees and over 95,000 management and operating contractors, and 83 field locations, and a $48 billion dollar budget, the United States remains a net crude oil importer. Although exports increased in the first half of 2023, the United States demands have also been increasing, resulting in imports exceeding exports, meaning the U.S. remains a net crude oil importer.
50 years after the oil embargo crisis of 1973, there remain no American policy for crude oil independence. America continues to INCREASE its dependence on China for “green” minerals and metals, and on OPEC, Russia, and other countries for oil. Today, with LESS independence, America is more vulnerable to another embargo than we were 50 years ago!
Over the same period, California Governors have been continually decreasing California’s in-state oil production. The emissions policies of past and current Governors continue to force California, the 4th largest economy in the world, to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil feedstock to in-state refineries from foreign countries. The States Governor leaders over the decades have been:
Gov. Gavin Newson (D) 2019 – 2027
Gov. Edmund Brown (D) 2011-2019, and 1975-1983
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) 2003-2011
Gov. Gray David (D) 1999-2003
Gov. Pete Wilson (R) 1991-1999
California’s growing dependency on other nations over the last several decades, some not particularly friendly to America, is a serious national security risk for all of us. It also deprives Californians of jobs and business opportunities and forces drivers to pay premium prices for the fuels and products manufactured at the decreasing number of in-state refineries.
In the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis, the Department of Energy was established 46 years ago in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Today, with 14,000 employees and a $48 billion dollar budget, California, the 4th largest economy in the world, imports most of its crude oil demands from foreign countries to run the States’ 9 International airports, 41 Military airports, and 3 of the largest shipping ports in America!!
U.S. President Joe Bidens’ Administration has chosen to delete/sell off, much of the SPR inventory, which is currently less than half its capacity, resulting in an emergency reserve of just 20 days of supply remaining to deliver to U.S. based refineries.
The SPR was created almost 50 years ago, because of the OPEC crude oil reductions in availability in the early 70’s. Since Biden has no plan to restore this emergency oil reserve supply, if OPEC, or other countries cuts back oil availability substantially again as they did back in the early-mid 70’s, those of us who experienced the motor fuel shortages back then, can expect to reexperience the very long fueling station vehicle lines, and other product shortages we experienced 50 years ago.
The USA consumes about 19 million barrels of oil per day, while the United States and California are pursuing the elimination of crude oil production to focus on wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, China has no intentions of abandoning its economic, military, or strategic ambitions—all of which rely on non-renewables such as crude oil and coal. Asia is the region with the greatest number of future petroleum refineries. As of 2021, there were 88 new refinery facilities in planning or under construction in Asia.
Americans have obviously have not learned much in the 50 years since the Oil Embargo of 1973, as the following persist:
California, the 4th largest economy in the world, was virtually independent of foreign oil in 1973, but now imports MOST of its crude oil demands to run the States’ 9 International airports, 41 Military airports, and 3 of the largest shipping ports in America, AND
The USA remains a net importer of foreign crude oil, AND
The possibility of importing manufactured fuels and petrochemicals from new Asian refineries in the coming years to support the American economy may soon become a reality.
Due Dissidence
You must be logged in to post a comment.