Day: March 25, 2024

California’s Electricity Disaster In Seven Charts

Residential electricity prices jumped nearly 12% in 2023 and they are going higher. But the carbon intensity of power generation isn’t falling and low-income ratepayers are subsidizing the rich.

From Watts Up With That?

By Robert Bryce’s Substack

Residential electricity prices jumped nearly 12% in 2023 and they are going higher. But the carbon intensity of power generation isn’t falling and low-income ratepayers are subsidizing the rich.

California’s energy woes are getting worse. According to the latest numbers from the Energy Information Administration, the state’s residential electricity prices, already among the highest in America, jumped by 3 cents per kilowatt-hour last year, an increase of 11.9%. The average California homeowner now pays 28.9 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity, which is the third-highest price in the U.S., behind only Connecticut and Hawaii.  

Unfortunately, the 2023 price increases are only a hors d’oeuvre. California’s electric rates are headed for the exosphere. As I explained last March in “California Screamin,” in 2022:

The California Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved a scheme that aims to add more than 25 gigawatts of renewables and 15 gigawatts of batteries to the state’s electric grid by 2032 at an estimated cost of $49.3 billion. In addition, the California Independent System Operator released a draft plan to upgrade the state’s transmission grid at a cost of some $30.5 billion. The combined cost of those two schemes is about $80 billion.

Given the raging inflation in utility products, that $80 billion estimate is undoubtedly too low. Whatever the ultimate price tag, the state’s aggressive alt-energy plans will inflict more economic pain on the low-income residents of a state with the dubious distinction of having the highest poverty rate in the United States.

From natural gas bans to aggressive alt-energy mandates and bans on vehicles with internal combustion engines, the Golden State provides a clear example of what not to do. While California’s lunatic energy policy decisions go back decades, the most relevant regulations began in 2008. That’s when, as McClatchy newspapers explained:  

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order calling on utilities to provide one-third of their power from renewable resources by 2020. “This will be the most aggressive target in the nation,” he said. Increased reliance on renewable energy conceivably could hike future rates, however, because of higher production costs and the need to upgrade transmission facilities. Schwarzenegger’s order came on the eve of today’s international summit on global climate change in Los Angeles. (Emphasis added.)

These seven charts show how California’s electricity policies have unfolded since 2008.

Chart 1

The following chart uses a graphic created by Grant Chalmers, who works in information technology at the University of Brisbane. It shows that despite the massive increases in wind and solar production, the carbon intensity of California’s electric generation isn’t falling. To be clear, total electricity use in California is falling. All-sector electricity use in the state fell 11.2% between 2008 and 2023. (Hat tip to Joe Toomey.) That reduction in power use has likely helped reduce the state’s overall CO2 emissions, which, as seen in this December 14, 2023, California Air Resources Board report, have declined since 2008. But California is nowhere near net zero, and the carbon intensity of electricity production hasn’t budged in more than a decade.

Chart 2

Meanwhile, the state’s electricity prices are exploding.

Chart 3

Chart 4

The following chart shows the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Although the average price of residential electricity in California is 28.9 cents per kilowatt-hour, it’s even more expensive in the state’s biggest cities.

Chart 5

A devastating February 8 report from The Public Advocates Office, estimated that rooftop solar incentives in California will cost “customers without solar an estimated $6.5 billion in 2024.” The report is astonishing for its brevity and its findings. The office, which is part of the California Public Utility Commission, concluded that the cost of solar subsidies for ratepayers who don’t have solar has nearly doubled since 2021. It explains: “The recent cost increases are driven by two main factors: (1) a surge in customers installing solar prior to the phase out of unsustainably lucrative program compensation terms, and (2) higher compensation to customers with rooftop solar for the excess energy their systems generate.” The report goes on, saying the main incentive for homeowners to install rooftop solar is a program called net energy metering which compensates those homeowners for “the electricity they generate by more than seven times its relative value to the grid.” (Emphasis added.) It continues:

The Public Advocates Office estimates Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric customers without solar will pay an additional $6.5 billion in 2024 to support the program. In 2021, the cost was approximately $3.4 billion. Our analysis estimates that in 2024, more than 15% of the average household’s electricity bill will go to subsidizing the program across all utilities if they do not have solar. The amount has trended upward in recent years: the program made up 8 to 17% of the average customer’s bill in 2022, according to a prior CPUC estimate.

On January 10, less than a month before the Public Advocates Office published its report on rooftop solar, the Legislative Analyst’s Office sent a 16-page letter to Senator Maria Elena Durazo, a Democrat from central Los Angeles, that detailed the myriad ways in which California’s climate policies — in the words of The Two Hundred for Homeownership, a non-profit group that advocates for low- and moderate-income communities — “disproportionately burden lower-income people.” The letter found that the state’s net metering policies for rooftop solar:

Have historically subsidized electricity costs for households with rooftop solar while raising them for everyone else and researchers note that NEM is one driver of high increases in residential electricity prices. The average customer without rooftop solar pays 10 percent to 20 percent on their electricity bills to subsidize rooftop solar on the homes of others. (Emphasis added.)

None of this should be surprising. I spotlighted the class divide over solar energy and the transfer of wealth from poor to rich in 2017 in the Wall Street Journal. I wrote:

According to a study done for the California Public Utility Commission, residents who have installed solar systems have household incomes 68% higher than the state average. Ashley Brown, executive director of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, calls the proliferation of rooftop solar systems and the returns they provide to lucky people like me, “a wealth transfer from less affluent ratepayers to more affluent ones.” It is, Mr. Brown says, “Robin Hood in reverse.”

This graphic shows the change in effective solar subsidies between 2021 and 2024. Rooftop solar and net energy metering would have horrified Robin and other denizens of Sherwood Forest.

Chart 6

There’s plenty of evidence the state’s energy mandates are punishing low-income Californians. On March 10, Rob Nikolewski, a sharp-eyed reporter at the San Diego Union-Tribune, published an article that began, “Roughly one-quarter of San Diego Gas & Electric customers are still behind on their monthly bills.” He continued, saying that about 3.48 million California ratepayers had “fallen behind on their monthly payments, as of January.” He then quoted Mark Wolfe, the executive director at the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, who said the numbers in California are “alarming.” Wolfe added: “The underlying problem is energy is very expensive in California and it’s not surprising to see people owing as much as they do.”

Chart 7

Given California’s soaring energy costs and exorbitant cost of living, it’s unsurprising that people are leaving for less-expensive pastures. In December, the Census Bureau reported that California lost some 75,000 residents in 2023, an exodus surpassed only by New  York, which lost about 102,000 people. In January, Fox News reported, “For the fourth year in a row, liberal California topped U-Haul’s Growth Index list for having the largest net outbound movers in 2023.”

The Power Hungry Podcast Is On Hiatus

After nearly four years, 223 episodes, and over 900,000 downloads, I am putting the Power Hungry podcast on hiatus. I have enjoyed doing the podcast and sincerely appreciate everyone who came on the show or tuned in. My colleague, Tyson Culver — who also directed and produced our new docuseries, Juice: Power, Politics & The Grid — has been a dependable podcast producer. But I’ve been stretched too thin lately. So, I’m hitting the pause button. I may come back to the podcast or I might start putting video content here on Substack. But those are decisions for another day. I look forward to having more time to focus on my speaking business and my writing here on Substack. Thanks to all of you who listened to the podcast.

Media Hits

1. Tyson and I were on the Pacific Research Institute’s podcast, Next Round, this week, discussing our docuseries. It was a good chat. Click here to listen.

2. Reporter John Moritz quoted me in a piece about the Texas grid that was published Monday in the Austin-American Statesman. John contacted me after reading my February 20, piece “Out of Transmission Revisited.” I was glad to get quoted saying, “The number of line-miles of high voltage transmission over the last few years has been declining…So these claims that we hear routinely that, ‘Oh, we’re just going to massively expand the grid.’ No, that is not going to happen.”

3. David Staples of the Edmonton Journal published an excellent piece yesterday on the backlash against alt-energy in Canada and the U.S. He quotes me and mentions our new docuseries and the Renewable Rejection Database.

If you don’t click that ♡ button, you will be required to pay the electric bill at Arnold Schwarzenegger’s mansion in Pacific Palisades. (With apologies to Doomberg.)

Senator Roger Marshall committed to fighting various Biden land grabs

In Episode 424 of District of Conservation, Gabriella catches up with U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) since their first interview in fall 2020. Senator Marshall shares how his hunting season went, bills he’s working on, the Biden administration’s attacks on hunters and gun owners, fighting natural asset companies, and lead bans on America’s public lands. Tune in to learn more!

From CFACT

By Gabriella Hoffman

“I’m probably more concerned about their [the Biden administration’s] land grabs that’s going on right now…They’re going to try to create a national monuments in a refuge area, or create wilderness areas. And when they do that, then they’re going to limit access to hunt hunters, to sportsmen and women as well. So we’re trying to push back on that, of course…And then they’re doing these natural assets companies on the private side of this. But these companies are going are are grabbing and bringing money together to go in and control some of the wildlife that’s that’s owned by the federal government. And again, they’re going to limit the agricultural practices, energy exploration, let alone access to sportsmen and women.” — Senator Roger Marshall on District of Conservation – March 25, 2024

In Episode 424 of District of Conservation, Gabriella catches up with U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) since their first interview in fall 2020. Senator Marshall shares how his hunting season went, bills he’s working on, the Biden administration’s attacks on hunters and gun owners, fighting natural asset companies, and lead bans on America’s public lands. Tune in to learn more!

Listen on Apple Podcasts

EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust – District of Conservation

In Episode 579 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses the permitting reform bill – aka BAAJA – that is gaining traction in Congress now. The Senate will hold a cloture vote starting at 3:30pm ET in a motion to proceed. Gabriella discusses the status quo without permitting reform, how BAAJA is good for the environment and affordability. Tune in!SHOW NOTESBipartisan Policy Center: BAAJA ExplainerEstimating the US Energy System Impacts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act
  1. EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust
  2. EP 578: Midterms, CO Amendment 83, Disneyland Goes Electric
  3. EP 577: Kaylyn Glenn – Florida Gladeswoman & Conservationist
  4. EP 576: Chiricahua National Park & Energy Security Index
  5. EP 575: Menhaden Madness (ft. Whit Fosburgh, Forage Fish Campaign)

The extraordinary climate events of 2022-24

The unlikely volcano, the warmest year, and the collapse of the polar vortex.

FILE PHOTO: The eruption of an underwater volcano off Tonga, which triggered a tsunami warning for several South Pacific island nations, is seen in an image from the NOAA GOES-West satellite taken at 05:00 GMT January 15, 2022. CIRA/NOAA/Handout via REUTERS

From Climate Etc.

by Javier Vinós

The unlikely volcano, the warmest year, and the collapse of the polar vortex.

The climate events of 2022-24 have been were truly extraordinary. From an unlikely undersea volcanic eruption to the warmest year on record to the collapse of the polar vortex after three sudden stratospheric warming events. This rare convergence presents a unique learning opportunity for climatologists and climate aficionados alike, offering insights into a climate event that may not be repeated for hundreds or even thousands of years.

  1. January 2022, the unlikely volcano

Never before have we witnessed an undersea volcanic eruption with a plume capable of reaching the stratosphere and depositing a large amount of vaporized water. This extraordinary event occurred in January 2022 when the Hunga Tonga volcano erupted. The conditions for such an event are rare: the volcano must be deep enough to propel enough water with the plume, but not too deep to prevent it from reaching the stratosphere. Most undersea volcanoes do not produce plumes at all, which makes Hunga Tonga’s eruption all the more remarkable.

The Hunga Tonga volcano occupied a unique “sweet spot” at a depth of 150 meters the day before the eruption. In addition, the eruption itself must be exceptionally powerful for water vapor to rise into the stratosphere. The January 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga was the most powerful in 30 years, since the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

Figure 1. The Hunga Tonga eruption from space.

Active undersea volcanoes at the appropriate depth are rare, and the likelihood of one erupting with such intensity is relatively low. We may be looking at an event that occurs once every few centuries, or maybe even once every millennium. Undoubtedly, it was an exceptionally rare event.

While the most powerful eruptions, such as Tambora in 1815, can indeed strongly influence hemispheric weather for a few years, our observations of eruptions such as Agung (1963), El Chichón (1982), and Pinatubo (1991) suggest that their effects dissipate within 3-4 years.

The idea that the Little Ice Age (LIA) was caused by increased volcanic activity is popular. However, the data suggest otherwise. Volcanic activity during the LIA was not unusually high, but rather lower than the Holocene average (although volcanic activity was exceptionally high in the early 19th century, towards the end of the LIA). The primary unusual climate forcing factor during the LIA was exceptionally low solar activity.

Volcanic eruptions that penetrate the stratosphere trigger significant radiative, chemical, and dynamical changes, with sulfur playing a key role. Volcanic sulfur dioxide (SO2) oxidates, combines, and aggregates forming sulfate aerosols. These aerosols scatter incoming shortwave radiation, resulting in reduced surface insolation and consequent surface cooling. They also absorb both incoming and outgoing infrared radiation, contributing to stratospheric warming.

The effect of the Hunga Tonga eruption, however, is quite the opposite. While there was some sulfur dioxide associated with Hunga Tonga, the main impact was from water vapor. Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, so the sudden 10% increase in stratospheric water vapor in a single day increased stratospheric opacity to outgoing infrared radiation. Unlike the lower troposphere, where the greenhouse effect is relatively saturated, the stratosphere, well above the Earth’s average emission altitude (about 6 km), experiences a much more pronounced effect from the addition of water vapor. Also, the increased stratospheric water vapor content enhances infrared emissions from the stratosphere, thereby cooling it significantly.

Figure 2. Stratospheric water vapor in ppm by latitude over time at 31.6 hPa altitude. The evolution of the Hunga Tonga water vapor is clearly seen from its tropical injection toward the poles.

The unlikely inverse volcanic eruption of Hunga Tonga is currently cooling the stratosphere while warming the surface. However, this effect will gradually diminish over time as the excess water vapor exits the stratosphere over the next 2-4 years. Figure 2 illustrates the movement of volcanic water from the tropical regions, where the dehydrated air from the troposphere enters, to the mid and high latitudes, where it will gradually leave the stratosphere in the coming years.

The question arises: why did it take more than a year to detect the effects of stratospheric changes on surface temperature after the explosion? Typically, radiative effects are expected to be instantaneous once water vapor or sulfate aerosols are placed in the stratosphere. However, our understanding of how volcanoes affect weather remains incomplete, and climate models struggle to accurately reproduce these phenomena.

Transport within the stratosphere is rapid in the longitudinal direction, but very slow with respect to latitude and altitude, with significant seasonal variations. Depending on factors such as the latitude of the eruption and the time of year, the effects of a volcanic eruption on weather can vary widely. The eruption of Tambora provides a precedent: it occurred in April 1815, but its effects on weather, which led to the “year without a summer,” were not detected until June 1816, a span of 15 months after the eruption. This historical example underscores the possibility that events occurring more than a year after an eruption could indeed be attributed to it.

  1. 2023, the hottest year on record

Beginning in June 2023, the last seven months of the year marked the warmest period on record, significantly exceeding previous records. Such an event is quite remarkable, given the considerable temperature variability observed from month to month. But how unlikely is it?

Using the HadCRUT5 dataset, we find that there have been 17 record-breaking warmest years since 1870. Any year in HadCRUT5 that beats all previous years becomes a record year, and the record increase is measured as the temperature difference above the prior record year (highest mark until then).  For example, 2009 was the warmest year, but it was only 0.005ºC warmer than 2007, the previous record year. 2023 was the warmest year and was 0.17ºC warmer than 2016. It is the biggest difference from one record year to the previous record year in the entire series.

Figure 3 shows that in 2023, the temperature increase from the previous record was the largest in 153 years, at +0.17°C. This level of increase from previous records is remarkable, even for a year that has been recorded as the warmest on record.

Figure 3. The warmest years in the HadCRUT5 dataset from 1870 with the temperature increase from the previous record. 2023 constitutes the biggest jump.

In the warmest years, several months often stand out as the warmest (Figure 4, blue bars). In 2023, there were seven such months, trailing only 2016 and tying 2015. Notably, these seven warmest months were consecutive, spanning from June to December. The red bars in Figure 4 illustrate the number of consecutive record months for each record year. It’s clear from the figure that years in the data set with five or more consecutive warmest months coincide with very strong El Niño years: 1877-78, 1997-98, and 2015-2016.

Figure 4. The number of record months in the record years is shown in blue. In red is the number of those record months that were consecutive.

In 2023, the temperature statistics reflect conditions similar to the strongest El Niño years in over a century. But was this really the case? Determining whether El Niño was the catalyst for the record warming in 2023 is challenging. Relying solely on the surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean as the criterion for El Niño would lead to circular reasoning. El Niño is a complex phenomenon involving both the atmosphere and the ocean. The Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI v2) uses five variables – sea level pressure, sea surface temperature, surface zonal winds, surface meridional winds, and outgoing longwave radiation – to create a time series of ENSO conditions from 1979 to the present.

This index, when averaged over the entire year, shows that of all the record years since 1980, only 1997-98 and 2015-16 were the result of a very strong El Niño. 2023 was actually a weak El Niño year, despite very high sea surface temperatures.

Figure 5. Yearly average Multivariate ENSO Index values for the warmest record years.

We can conclude that 2023 stood out as an exceptionally unusual record-warm year. While it rivaled very strong El Niño years in terms of exceeding previous temperature records, it did not actually fall into that category. Remarkably, despite the lack of a strong El Niño, it managed to set the highest temperature record by the largest margin in the data set spanning a century and a half.

In an article entitled “State of the climate – summer 2023“, Judith Curry showed how unusual 2023 was in terms of the global radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere, the components of the surface energy balance, and the internal modes of climate variability driven by atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns.

The magnitude of the anomalies displayed in 2023 across a wide range of variables has never before been recorded. It is an unprecedented climate event in our records.

  1. January-March 2024, the collapse of the polar vortex

The polar vortex is a circular wind pattern that develops on rotating planets with an atmosphere. It results from the conservation of potential vorticity, a property depending on the Coriolis force and the potential temperature gradient. The potential temperature refers to the portion of the temperature of an air parcel that is not affected by its potential energy, and is often defined as the temperature the parcel would have if it were brought to the surface (1,000 hPa).

In the Northern Hemisphere, toward the end of summer, the Arctic experiences a sharp drop in temperature as the days shorten. To maintain potential vorticity, the wind around the polar regions intensifies in a west-to-east direction (known as the westerlies). The formation of the polar vortex in the stratosphere occurs when the prevailing easterly winds shift to westerly winds. This shift is evident in the zonal wind speed, which changes from negative to positive around September (see Figure 6). Finally, the vortex dissipates around April.

Winds in the stratospheric polar vortex can reach 180 km/h (110 mph) and form a formidable barrier to heat transport from the tropics. As a result, the atmosphere and surface inside the vortex become very cold and dry, reducing the energy loss to the planet, as cold surfaces radiate less.

In the atmosphere, as in any fluid, waves occur, the largest of which are planetary waves. These planetary waves originate in the troposphere as a result of large mountain ranges and temperature differences between oceans and land. They are most prevalent and pronounced during winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Under favorable conditions, these waves travel rapidly, similar to tsunamis, colliding with the boundaries of the polar vortex and imparting an easterly momentum. As a result, the winds that form the polar vortex reduce their speed, weakening it and allowing warmer air to enter, pushing cold air outward. This exchange causes colder winter conditions in the mid-latitudes.

When the winds slow enough to reverse direction, the polar vortex breaks into two or three smaller, displaced vortices. Stratospheric air entering the area previously occupied by the vortex descends, warming significantly in the process. This phenomenon, known as a sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event, can raise temperatures in the polar stratosphere by up to 40°C in a matter of days. SSWs are relatively common in the Northern Hemisphere, typically occurring about once every two years. They often lead to harsher winter conditions in certain regions, especially eastern North America and eastern Eurasia, in the following weeks.

El Niño years typically promote SSW events and polar vortex breakdowns. This could be due to the increased ocean temperature contrasts during El Niño, which generate larger-amplitude planetary waves. Occasionally, about once every 10-20 years, two SSW events occur in the same winter. However, this winter’s extended period (November to March) marks the first time since records began in the 1950s that three SSW events have been observed. The breakdown of the polar vortex occurred in January, February, and March, as shown in Figure 6 from NOAA’s SSW monitoring. Each time, the red line representing the westerly wind speed dropped to the zero line. At this time of year, it is possible that the stratospheric polar vortex may not reform.

Figure 6. Westerly (positive) stratospheric zonal winds at 60°N (red line) reached the zero-speed line three times this year, indicating a sudden stratospheric warming event and polar vortex break down each time.

According to Adam Scaife of the UK Met Office, this event isn’t just unprecedented – it could be a once-in-250-year event. This finding comes from a recent statistical study of SSW events conducted using a seasonal forecasting system within a climate model. However, it’s important to note a caveat: climate models still struggle to accurately represent the stratosphere and fail to reproduce the observed phenomenon that La Niña years also increase the likelihood of SSW events.

The impact of three SSW events this winter isn’t particularly dramatic. While normal weather patterns may shift, leading to unusual temperatures and precipitation in some areas, the effects are temporary. However, these events do affect Arctic temperatures and therefore the amount of energy leaving the planet. The weakening of the polar vortex, as shown in Figure 6, results in increased heat transport to the Arctic this winter, leading to higher temperatures in the region.

Figure 7 illustrates this trend, with an orange line representing Arctic temperatures in 2023 according to the Danish Meteorological Institute, and a green line representing temperatures this year. Since the greenhouse effect is relatively weak during the Arctic winter due to limited water vapor in the atmosphere, the result is that more energy escapes from the planet due to the weakened vortex. This serves to mitigate and reduce the unusual warming observed in the second half of 2023, which contributed to it being the warmest year on record.

Figure 7. Arctic surface temperature for the year 2023 (orange) and 2024 (green), compared to the 1958-2002 average (blue).

Despite the additional heat being transported to the Arctic, leading to increased temperatures, there hasn’t been a corresponding decrease in Arctic sea ice extent. In fact, this winter’s sea ice extent exceeds the 2010-2020 average. It appears that, contrary to widespread fears of its disappearance, Arctic ice remains resilient and stable.

Figure 8. Arctic sea ice extent in 2024 compared to the 2001-10 and 2011-20 decadal averages from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

  1. What can we expect in the near future?

The unlikely volcanic eruption is the likely cause of the extraordinary warming, which in turn led to the occurrence of the unprecedented three SSW events. Our understanding of the effects of these events supports this interpretation.

Historical data on the warmest years suggests a high probability that 2024 will again break the temperature record, similar to what happened in 1877-78, 1980-81, 1997-98, and 2015-16. However, if we have correctly identified a major cause of the warming as the Hunga Tonga eruption, we can expect that as the excess water vapor exits the stratosphere, it will induce a cooling effect at the surface, potentially lowering temperatures for the next 3-4 years. Studies such as Solomon et al. (2010) have already shown the negative impact on global warming of stratospheric drying. We should see the reversing of all the warming caused by the Hunga Tonga volcano.

In addition, other factors affecting temperatures, such as the decline in solar activity after the maximum of Solar Cycle 25 and a future shift of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to its cold phase, could contribute to a large pause in global warming. Using the 2023-24 temperature as a reference point, we could even see some cooling in the coming years. These are indeed interesting times in terms of climate dynamics.

Wind farms investigated after ‘overcharging customers by £100m’

Wind farm owners are being investigated by the energy watchdog for alleged market manipulation after they were accused of overcharging consumers by £100m.

Companies face market manipulation review for alleged inflation of compensation payments.

Wind farm owners are being investigated by the energy watchdog for alleged market manipulation after they were accused of overcharging consumers by £100m. The Telegraph has the story.

Ofgem is to examine claims that renewable energy companies artificially inflated compensation payments given to them for switching off their turbines on windy days when the grid did not need extra capacity.

It has been handed a dossier gathered by analysts at the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), which suggests wind farm companies could be boosting the price of “virtual energy” they never actually generated.

An Ofgem spokesman confirmed that the claims had been received and an investigation has begun into whether any rules were broken.

John Constable, director of REF, a charity that has frequently highlighted excessive payments to wind farms, said: “Our evidence suggests that multiple wind farm operators have been charging over the odds to reduce their output on windy days, generating no energy but costing consumers a fortune.

“We estimate it added £100m to overall consumer bills in 2023 alone.”

REF claims that operators overcharged for constraint payments, the cash given to electricity generators to switch off wind farms and other assets when the national grid risks being overloaded.

On windy days, the output from Scotland’s turbines surges to an unmanageable level because there are too few national grid links to carry their power to England’s cities.

When this happens, the National Grid Electricity System Operator (NGESO) tells wind farms to “constrain” their output – meaning they must switch off, and therefore earn less money from the subsidy system that underpins renewable generation.

The farms are then allowed to claim compensation for this lost income, with the costs added to consumer bills. However, the complexity of the system has given rise to multiple opportunities for overclaiming.

Ofgem is already investigating a separate allegation of wind farm overcharging that is estimated to have cost bill payers £51m since 2018.

Earlier this month, the regulator ordered Dorenell Wind Farm in northern Scotland, which is owned by EDF Renewables, to repay £5.5m.

Read the full story here.

ECB / Potsdam: Global Warming will Drive Up Food Inflation, Unless Farmers Adapt

The problems being experienced by Europe are because of EU incompetence, not climate change.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… in a low emission-scenario most impacts could be removed by adjustment once global temperatures stabilise …”

Global warming and heat extremes to enhance inflationary pressures

Maximilian Kotz, Friderike Kuik, Eliza Lis & Christiane Nickel 

Abstract

Climate impacts on economic productivity indicate that climate change may threaten price stability. Here we apply fixed-effects regressions to over 27,000 observations of monthly consumer price indices worldwide to quantify the impacts of climate conditions on inflation. Higher temperatures increase food and headline inflation persistently over 12 months in both higher- and lower-income countries. Effects vary across seasons and regions depending on climatic norms, with further impacts from daily temperature variability and extreme precipitation. Evaluating these results under temperature increases projected for 2035 implies upwards pressures on food and headline inflation of 0.92-3.23 and 0.32-1.18 percentage-points per-year respectively on average globally (uncertainty range across emission scenarios, climate models and empirical specifications). Pressures are largest at low latitudes and show strong seasonality at high latitudes, peaking in summer. Finally, the 2022 extreme summer heat increased food inflation in Europe by 0.43-0.93 percentage-points which warming projected for 2035 would amplify by 30-50%.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01173-x

But farmers will apparently be able to adapt to these upheavals, “once temperatures stabilise”;

… Although the empirical evidence indicates that adaptation to temperature shocks has been limited historically, we explore the potential of adaptation via adjustment to changing temperatures to reduce these future impacts. We do so by using empirical models in which temperature shocks are defined relative to a 30-year moving average rather than a constant baseline (Fig. S6k–t), and by evaluating potential impacts using future temperatures defined in this way. This method indicates that adaptation via adjustment could substantially reduce future impacts (Supplementary Fig. S14). In particular, in a low emission-scenario most impacts could be removed by adjustment once global temperatures stabilise (Supplementary Fig. S14c, d). However, in scenarios of un-mitigated warming, persistent impacts of considerable size remain despite introducing adjustment of this type which has not been observed historically (Supplementary Fig. S14). …

Read more: same link as above

The study authors also admit renewables may be increasing sensitivity to adverse weather.

… Second, our empirical results refer predominantly to food and headline inflation, whereas we find a limited response of other price aggregates to weather changes. However, the strong response of electricity demand to temperature5,6 suggests that impacts on electricity prices are plausible. Indeed, we find that electricity prices show some consistent and persistent response to temperature increases (Supplementary Fig. S1k), but with much larger uncertainty which precludes statements of significance at conventional levels. Lesser data availability for this more detailed price aggregate as well as complex and heterogeneous electricity price-setting practices may contribute to these large errors. However, as electricity supply is increasingly met with renewable sources, the price sensitivity to weather may change. A detailed analysis of electricity and other price aggregates may be a fruitful avenue of future work. …Read more: same link as above

Naturally the study makes heavy use of RCP 8.5.

In my opinion, citing 2022 in Europe as an example of climate disruption caused food inflation is absurd. The problems being experienced by Europe are because of EU incompetence, not climate change.

Food inflation in Europe is a problem, because European farmers are under attack by radical greens. Ongoing demands farmers restrict use of fertiliser and chemicals, and insane attempts to cut the number of farmers, by coercing farmers to sign agreements to never farm again, are probably not encouraging farmers to invest in upgrading their land. Dutch police shot live ammo at farmers protesting climate rules in 2022.

In 2022, in response to fertiliser shortages triggered by the war in Ukraine, there were crazy policy responses to the looming food shortages. The Scottish Agriculture Minister refused to release more land for agriculture to help farmers maintain food supply. “We are still in a nature emergency that hasn’t gone away… so it’s a no“

Europe experienced fertiliser shortages in 2022, because of their reliance on Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine and Russia are (were?) major suppliers of fertiliser, because they have lots of cheap energy. Producing fertiliser is energy intensive.

Europe’s disastrous green energy policies have made it uneconomical to produce fertiliser in Europe, which made Europe vulnerable to the supply shock caused by the Ukraine war.

In addition the EU operates a strict tariff regime, The European Common Agricultural Policy, which taxes imports of food, and restricts Europe’s ability to combat weather shocks by importing more food from outside the EU.

I’m not disputing that in 2022 Europe suffered adverse weather conditions, but there were confounding factors. If Europe hadn’t made such a mess of their agriculture, climate and energy policies, there would have been a lot less food inflation.

As for adaption, why would a regime of continuous warming be so different to stabilisation at a higher temperature?

Are the researchers suggesting farmers are too dumb to pick up the phone? Why would persistent impacts remain in scenarios of unmitigated warming? Can’t farmers talk to their friends down South, to discover what crops and techniques work in warmer climates?

Farmers all over the world adapt the same crops to radically different temperatures. Subtropical Bundaberg can grow Maine potatoes at 25 degrees South of the Equator, a few hours drive from the 23.4 degree tropic of Capricorn, the boundary of the Southern tropics, because they plant the potatoes in Fall, then harvest them in Spring before the Summer heat kills them.

If temperature rose significantly every year, farmers would adapt by borrowing last year’s planting practices from their friends 50-100 miles South, or switch to new crops.

The Potsdam researchers are wrong about farmers not adapting to a warmer climate. Canadian Geographic admitted in 2020 that global warming is opening millions of square kilometres of new agricultural land. This is a continuation of the process which begun with the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. Farmers will move into these lands the moment they become viable, unless agriculture hating politicians prevent them from doing so. Similar land openings would occur in Greenland and far Northern Europe, were global warming to continue.

As for drought and flood, there is no evidence extreme weather is getting worse. Upgraded water infrastructure could capture and store floodwater, and transport water to where it was needed. If Western governments spent a fraction of the cash they squander on useless renewables, on building infrastructure which is actually needed, floods and droughts would be much less of a problem.

Unusual Cold Plagues Both Northern, Southern Hemispheres….Arctic Sea Ice Strengthens

Temperatures in Greenland have fallen sharply as the thermometer in Summit showed -55.1 °C on Saturday.
On Monday it got even colder, falling to -57.9 °C, That’s about 15 °C below the seasonal norm.

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

What follows are excerpts from EIKE

Unexpected snow in Saudi Arabia

In the desert of Afif, west of Riyadh, it snowed unexpectedly, both citizens and tourists were shocked.

The significant drop in temperatures was expected with strong north-westerly winds making it even colder. Last year (2023), parts of Saudi Arabia saw its first snowfall in 100 years.

Bolstered by the increasing snowfall in recent years (and despite the “devastating effects of climate change”), Saudi Arabia is working to improve its mountain tourism with its own ski resort to be built by 2026.

Freezing Australia

This past week, the Australian continent saw temperature anomalies of up to 28°C below the multi-decadal norm, affecting large regions:

GFS-2m temperature anomalies (°C) March 20 – 26, 2024 [tropicaltidbits.com]

–57,9°C in Greenland

Temperatures in Greenland have fallen sharply as the thermometer in Summit showed -55.1 °C on Saturday.

On Monday it got even colder, falling to -57.9 °C, That’s about 15 °C below the seasonal norm.

Link: https://electroverse.substack.com/

The exceptional cold in the far north has contributed to Arctic sea ice extent to be above the average for the period 2011-2020, and is rapidly approaching the average for the period 2001-2010.

Chart: https://electroverse.substack.com/

Obviously the Arctic is surprising the experts, who warned that sea ice there was supposedly in rapid decline.

Unusual, record-breaking cold in India

Intense cold persists in Indian cities like Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Puri, Chandbali, Paradeep and Baripada, which are experiencing record-breaking low temperatures. On Wednesday, many places in the eastern state of Odisha experienced the coldest March days ever. In Bhubaneswar, a maximum temperature of only 19.2 °C was recorded yesterday, breaking the previous record of 24.3 °C by a whopping 5°C!

In northern India, snow from the north is bringing down temperatures in the lower latitudes in central and southern India. In many cities, including the eastern metropolitan cities of Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Puri, Chandbali, Paradeep and Baripada, record low March temperatures were recorded, beating benchmarks from the 1970s and beyond.

Record low in New Zealand

In the southern hemisphere, where summer has come to an end, the temperature in Whanganui, New Zealand dropped to 4°C on Wednesday morning, the second lowest March temperature in the town’s history. The lowest March low of all time was recorded on March 28, 1985 (solar minimum of the 21st cycle) at 2.5 °C.

New lows recorded in Australia

A severe cold snap has hit southeastern Australia. In the mountains of New South Wales, there was frost in the Perisher Valley with temperatures as low as -5.7°C. This is only 1.4°C above the national record for the month of March. Thredbo recorded -4.4°C. Cooma also recorded an impressive -1.9°C.

In Mt. Hotham, Victoria, the national record was missed by just 1.2°C, at -3.1°C. Monthly records also fell in Omeo, Victoria: on Thursday morning, the temperature of -0.7°C was a whole 1°C below the previous record (2021).

And in Cleve, South Australia, the temperature of 6.8 °C also exceeded the old record by 1 °C (yet to be confirmed).

Temperature in Antarctica plummets to near -68°C

On March 21, the seasonal minimum at Concordia dropped to -67.7°C, from -67.4°C on March 20.
Antarctica is cooling, the data is clear…

Full report (in German) at EIKE here:
Compiled by Christian Freuer

Also see: electroverse.substack.com/

Time: More Chinese Communism can Save Us from Climate Change

China is not a model to copy. At least Professor Brett Christophers admitted renewables are unprofitable, but Chinese government officials directing banks to invest in unprofitable renewables is not helping China’s beleaguered banks to balance their books, and has almost certainly exacerbated the Chinese Communist economic crisis.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

China is apparently doing such a good job at transitioning to renewables, we should all ditch democracy and copy their example.

Capitalism Can’t Solve Climate Change

BY BRETT CHRISTOPHERS
MARCH 20, 2024 9:00 AM EDT

Christophers is professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, and author The Price Is Wrong: Why Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet and Our Lives in Their Portfolios: Why Asset Managers Own the World

…

Veiled by discussion of headline global trends in new renewables capacity investment is the fact that almost all the incremental progress is currently being made in one country: China. …

…

While China surges ahead, the rest of the world remains stuck.

This raises a crucial question. What is different about the development of solar and wind resources in China from the rest of the world?

The main answer is that in China, such development is capitalist in only a very limited sense. Certainly, the entities centrally involved in building out new solar and wind farms in China are companies. But almost all are state-owned. Take wind. Nine of the country’s top 10 wind developers are owned by the government, and such state-owned players control in excess of 95 percent of the market.

…

Add to this the fact that the banks financing all the new renewables development in China are generally also state-owned and directed, and a stark reality comes into focus. This is essentially central planning in action.

…

Why are renewables returns so low? Numerous factors conspire to drive down profits, but one is particularly important: competition. … There is no OPEC-like cartel in renewable electricity.

…

The alternative? To face a growing risk of climate catastrophe.Read more: https://time.com/6958606/climate-change-transition-capitalism/

The reality is Chinese central planners have made a colossal mess of their economy, because of their incompetence, economic mismanagement and Covid lockdowns. For at least 30 years the Chinese Government has been keeping interest rates too low to encourage development, but the result has been enormous resource misallocation and huge asset bubbles. The Chinese realestate bubble has popped, creating a catastrophic mess of bad loans in their realestate sector. Even worse, Chinese regional governments have for years been creating fake economic growth to meet central targets by issuing government bonds, and many are now likely bankrupt.

One day soon Chinese people will realise most of their investment savings have been lost by incompetent and corrupt bank managers and government officials, or even worse, that their savings are still in the bank, but have lost all their value. There have already been minor bank runs and collapses, though so far the Chinese government has somehow contained the situation, my guess is by printing more money to rehydrate the failed banks.

And of course there is the other side of China’s energy policy which Professor Brett Christophers conveniently ignores – China’s massive investment in new coal capacity.

China is not a model to copy. At least Professor Brett Christophers admitted renewables are unprofitable, but Chinese government officials directing banks to invest in unprofitable renewables is not helping China’s beleaguered banks to balance their books, and has almost certainly exacerbated the Chinese Communist economic crisis.

Professor Brett Christophers is right that the free market has not produced the climate outcomes he wants, but this is because the free market is driven by demand. People just don’t want expensive unreliable energy. The communist part of our economies, government subsidies for green energy and other boondoggles, is not something to be admired, it is something to be excised, like the political tumor it is.

Let us hope the 2024 election cycle delivers us the politicians we need, to set our societies right.

Update (EW): Anyone who is curious why China is building wind and solar AND coal, the answer is they are building wind turbines because Xi Jinping told them to build wind turbines.

In 2021, Xi wanted to pimp China’s emissions record in time for the next COP conference, so he issued strict district level energy quotas, demanded more wind turbines and solar, and ordered a transition to renewables. 

The order for quotas was obeyed, but Xi forgot to tell everyone to reduce their energy use, to ensure the quotas lasted until the end of the year. As a result, China burned through their quotas and ran out of energy by July 2021, and much of the Chinese economy shut down for a few weeks while people waited for new orders from the Communist Central Committee. 

The central committee did the only thing possible, but it took time for news of the crisis to filter through the communist bureaucracy and for a decision to be made – they relaxed the coal quotas.

What other evidence do we have the wind turbines are a political stunt? In 2023, the BBC broke the news that China is firming their wind and solar farms with coal plants. 

This might seem a total absurdity, until you consider that commands from Xi Jinping and the Central Committee cannot be disobeyed, mid level officials can lose their life disobeying an order from a senior communist. 

But the Chinese have had thousands of years practice at creative re-interpretation of the orders of the emperor. 

So the commands to use green energy are being obeyed – but they firm the wind turbines and solar panels with coal, because this is the cheapest option for firming renewables, and nobody told them not to.

This isn’t the first time Xi Jinping’s communist regime has messed up the energy market. Shortly before the winter of 2017, Xi Jinping ordered coal plants be shuttered and everyone convert towns and cities to heat buildings with gas. The gas conversion was performed, but nobody checked whether the gas would be available – or more likely, people who were aware of the problem didn’t dare disobey the gas conversion order, even though they knew it would lead to disaster. As a result, in 2017 home and school heating failed throughout Northern China, and kids were forced to attend school in unheated classrooms, in the middle of a winter in which temperatures dipped well below 0F / -18C.

This is what I mean by Chinese Communist energy policy and economic incompetence. This is the incompetence and callous disregard for ordinary people’s priorities which Professor Brett Christophers appears to want the West to embrace.

WMO Jumps the Warming Shark

Here we go again. The temperature changes they are talking about are tiny and their link to human activities is just a wobbly theory. There is no proof that human activities had any impact at all.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Considering the relentless fear mongering by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the acronym should  be pronounced “Whaammo.”  The latest is their hype about temperatures in 2023 as reported in the Daily Mail Climate change is ‘off the charts’:

Damning report reveals how records were smashed for greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures and sea level rise in 2023 – and scientists warn ‘changes are speeding up’

Their killer graph is this one:

John Ray explains the exaggerations in comments at his blog In talics with my bolds and added images.

Here we go again. The temperature changes they are talking about are tiny and their link to human activities is just a wobbly theory. There is no proof that human activities had any impact at all.

All the warming since 1947 followed three strong El Nino events.

And note the chart. It is calibrated in TENTHS of one degree and has to go back to 1850 to show anything like a smooth rise. A more detailed chart would show long periods of stasis and falls, unlike CO emissions, which have been rising fairly steadily as industrial civilization has progressed. It is all just asssertion and even they admit that recent rises could be due to El Nino rather than CO2 emissions

And note that they show NO details of the CO2 changes which they allege to be at fault.

The sharp rise in ocean temps in 2023 has uncertain causes, but cannot be attributed to slow systemtic increases in CO2.

Counting:  Exactly What and Exactly How

Omnia in mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti  — Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.

79587747 – a group of children are holding a number

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen

Omnia in mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti  — Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.

– credited to Solomon’s Book of Wisdom

The basis of physical science is measurement.  Measurement is just another word of quantification.  Quantification is another word for counting.

In addition to quantification, science entails the qualification of things.

quantify means to find or calculate the quantity or amount of (something).

qualify means to characterize by naming an attribute, basically it means to state any property or characteristic of something. [ reference ]

Taxonomy  is a qualitive science – it classifies life forms according to types, characteristics, etc.

The so-called “hard sciences” depend on quantification: measurement and counting. [ reference ]

There is little controversy about the importance of measurement and counting in the enterprise of the sciences, despite the occasional objections from philosophers.

In our modern Mass and Social Media world, numbers are presented to give a sense to “factualness” to ideas.  It has been known that numbers have been used to tell lies probably since the beginning of the general use of numbers.  “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff was published in 1954 to explain this phenomenon and became a classic. 

Forbes published an interesting piece by Christopher Kim in 2013 “6 Ways Numbers Can Lie To Us”. Kim’s list includes:

1.  Small sample size:  Drawing conclusions from small samples

2.  Using Big Meaningless Numbers:   14,097,321  . . .

3.  Correlation, not causation:  Numbers stated in such as way as to imply causation, when they only show a correlation

4.  Selection bias:  using numbers imply that data came from a random sample when in actuality, the sample has been carefully (or carelessly) chosen

5. Visual trickery:  Think Global Temperature graphs with a top-to-bottom range of 3 degrees, to make the increase look huge and alarming or this example:

6. Arbitrary cutoffs: “This is another form of selection bias. Setting arbitrary start-and-end points that impact the meaning of data.”

Great list, but certainly not exhaustive.

And the Biggest Omission?  Failing to admit that Numbers are Just Numbers.   Numbers are not the things they quantify.  Sounds so obvious, doesn’t it?  Of course, just telling you the number “687” isn’t useful or informative if I don’t also tell you “687 whats” – 687 apples, 687 inches of string — 687 degrees Celsius – 687 touchdowns.

Similarly, telling you “627 then 687!” has the same problem – nonsensical without the “whats” and “whens”. 

And the #2 Biggest Omission?   Failing to make a clear statement of exactly what was counted/measured and exactly how the counting/measurement was done.  (this could and often does extend to exactly whens.)

In order to prevent the Biggest Omission – How many whats? – every number needs to be accompanied by (even if just implicitly) a clear statement of what has been counted and how it has been counted. 

If we want any number to be considered scientific, the rules for this specification [“describing or identifying something precisely”] become stronger and stronger – we should consider this requirement paramount. In a scientific journal paper, this information is sketched out in the ‘Methods’ section and hopefully is more fully specified in the Supplemental Materials. 

When this is not done properly, we end up with numbers and graphs like those we see in the Climate Change field:  Global Sea Level Rise and Global Surface Temperature.   The general public, encouraged by the activists, climate change crisis advocates and complicit journalists, are led to believe that these “numbers” are something real and are, in fact, the thing they are labelled:  that the numbers on the graphs are something that could be found in the physical world.    This is not true – and I have exhausted myself explaining this here in the past. 

Today I will share an example that has created a controversy in the field of medical statistics.  An unlikely topic for discussion here at WUWT, but it is a near perfect example and will avoid all the food-fighting over Climate Change.

Maternal Mortality Rate

The topic pops up in the journal Science in an article that is the push-back to another study:  “Have U.S. deaths from pregnancy complications tripled? CDC pushes back on study claiming overestimates”

The media has been reporting that maternal deaths [Maternal Mortality Rates] have “spiked”, “climbed dramatically”, “are getting worse”, and that we have an “unacceptably high U.S. maternal mortality rate”.

These stories are reporting the CDC’s announcement, released in March 2023, titled “Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2021”. [ or as a .pdf here ]

The report starts with this:

“A maternal death is defined by the World Health Organization as “the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and the site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes. Maternal mortality rates, which are the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, are shown in this report by age group and race and Hispanic origin.”

The news carried by the media is based on the simple statement:

“In 2021, 1,205 women died of maternal causes in the United States compared with 861 in 2020 and 754 in 2019 (2). The maternal mortality rate for 2021 was 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with a rate of 23.8 in 2020 and 20.1 in 2019.” And this graph:

Clearly, as shown the total U.S. MMR [Maternal Mortality Rate] nearly doubled from 2018 through 2021. 

That is a shocking statistic.  To round out the picture of MMR, here’s two international views:

Our World In Data supplied the above charts on MMR around the world.  The little inset in the left panel shows the slight uptrend in the US MMR over the period reported by the CDC.   The good news, that MMRs have dramatically fallen, almost everywhere, to near zero since 1950 (invention of antibitoics, I suggest) is not mentioned.  But the barely visible uptick in U.S. MMR is shouted from the rooftops and front pages.

The reported increase in U.S. MMR was so shocking that a group of maternal health researchers, headed by K. S. Joseph, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, decided to re-evaluate the CDC data. Earlier this month, on 12 March 2024, their paper was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and titled:  ”Maternal mortality in the United States: are the high and rising rates due to changes in obstetrical factors, maternal medical conditions, or maternal mortality surveillance?”  [The study is Open Access and available for download as a .pdf from this page ]

Their title gives away their suspicions: 

“National Vital Statistics System reports show that maternal mortality rates in the United States have nearly doubled, from 17.4 in 2018 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births in 2021. However, these high and rising rates could reflect issues unrelated to obstetrical factors, such as changes in maternal medical conditions or maternal mortality surveillance (eg, due to introduction of the pregnancy checkbox).”

The big story is this:  “But controversy broke out last week over just how bad the situation is, when a paper by academic epidemiologists published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) provoked unusual pushback from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The paper suggested a widely reported tripling in the U.S. maternal mortality rate (MMR) over the past 2 decades was in fact largely due to a CDC-led recording change on death certificates, the addition of a “pregnancy checkbox.””  

“The “pregnancy checkbox” was inserted on death certificates starting in 2003 to address what was at the time a widely acknowledged, substantial underreporting of maternal mortality: At the time, as many as 50% of physicians completing death certificates failed to report that a woman was, or was recently, pregnant. On death certificates, physicians now are asked to check a box indicating a person was pregnant when they died, or within 42 days of the end of the pregnancy. Doctors are not to check the box if a person died of accidental or incidental causes unrelated to pregnancy, for instance, in a car crash or from a gunshot wound. Although the agency rolled out the feature in 2003, it took 14 years before all 50 states adopted the surveillance tool. After that happened in 2017, the agency began to compute the nationwide rate using the checkbox.”  [ as reported in Science]

Now we see the issue here.  There was a change in what was being counted.  When did this change?  2017.  When did MMR start “skyrocketing”?  At the end of 2017 (years 2018 onward).  Once all 50 U.S. states had a checkbox covering possible pregnancy, the CDC started using the checkboxes (counting checkboxes as opposed to counting maternal deaths) to determine Maternity Mortality Rate.

The Joseph et al. study concludes:

“The high and rising rates of maternal mortality in the United States are a consequence of changes in maternal mortality surveillance, with reliance on the pregnancy checkbox leading to an increase in misclassified maternal deaths. Identifying maternal deaths by requiring mention of pregnancy among the multiple causes of death shows lower, stable maternal mortality rates and declines in maternal deaths from direct obstetrical causes.”

The Joseph study looked at death certificates and only counted deaths as Maternal Mortality if the death certificate actually listed pregnancy as one of the contributing causes of death.  “Cause of Death” is seldom simple short of something as obvious as a bullet to the head —  I covered this during the Covid days in Cause of Death: A Primer – that essay has this image of a death certificate (which also shows  the pregnancy checkbox, labelled “If Female”,  in the center):

Joseph et al. maintain that the death be counted as a Maternal Mortality only if pregnancy or a related issue of childbirth is specifically mentioned in Parts I or II.  When the counting is re-done that way, Joseph et al. found “stable maternal mortality rates and declines in maternal deaths from direct obstetrical causes.”

It is that conclusion that has resulted in a broadside attack on Joseph et al. from the other stakeholders in maternal health, including  the CDC itself [quoted] and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).  Many mass media outlets covered the story  slamming Joseph et al. as threatening to “… reduce the U.S. maternal mortality crisis to an ‘overestimation’ is irresponsible and minimizes the many lives lost and the families that have been deeply affected.” [ source ]

This counting controversy isn’t restricted to the Joseph et al. paper.  The CDC’s very own National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in a report dated  January 30, 2020,  had previously reached the  exact same conclusions as Joseph:  “NCHS found that the increase in maternal mortality in the United States is not likely due to a true increase in the underlying extent of maternal mortality. Rather, the majority of the observed increase in the MMR is attributed to changes in data collection methods (i.e., the gradual adoption of the checkbox). Based on the pre-2003 coding method, the MMR was 8.9 in 2002 and 8.7 in 2018.” 

Bottom Lines:

1.  Nothing about this controversy changes the real-world number of women who died.  Those women died, from whatever cause.  Their families, their children, their husbands, their parents suffered their loss. 

2.  But the over-count has made a big difference in health politics.  If Maternal Health stakeholders can point to alarming statistics and create a National Health Crisis from them, more sympathy and money will pour into their cause.  More attention and money may actually be a good thing if it leads to more research and actions that can reduce maternal deaths. 

3.  However, it is never a good thing to create a crisis out of the miscounting, mis-measurement, and mis-reporting of numerical facts. 

4.  The numbers you see reported (and hyped) in the media are probably false, mis-counted, mis-measured, mis-labelled and do not factually represent the thing they claim to show. [follows from John P. A. Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”.]

5.  Always, if it is important to you, carefully dig in to find out exactly what was counted/measured and exactly how it was counted or measured.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

I shouldn’t have to point out the parallels between this controversy and Climate Science.  Alarming numbers are created, labelled as something shocking, public is alarmed and politicians react.  Cooler heads reexamine the numbers and point out that “it isn’t really that bad”.  Cooler heads are attacked and vilified (even though the official IPCC science agrees with them). 

We can all be fooled by numbers – this seems to be a human trait. Personally, I think it stems from a deep innumeracy.  This tendency can be overcome with doing due diligence and applying critical thinking skills.

At minimum, we need to ask:  What exactly did they actually count?  Exactly how did they count it?  Does the number really represent the thing (idea, physical fact, actuality)  they say it does? 

Thanks for reading.

Taxpayer Bung For Yarmouth EV Chargers

MP Brandon Lewis is ecstatic about the latest taxpayer bung for EVs

By Paul Homewood

h/t Russell Hicks

MP Brandon Lewis is ecstatic about the latest taxpayer bung for EVs:

Quite why taxpayer should pay for EV chargers is beyond me.

But what will the citizens of Great Yarmouth actually get for these millions?

Just 32 chargers, according to the local council:

https://www.great-yarmouth.gov.uk/evchargingpoints

And they are only 22 Kw chargers, so will take hours to charge up:

Yarmouth has 100,000 inhabitants, so I somehow don’t see 32 chargers being quite enough.

And for that poor guy who cannot charge at home, does Mr Lewis expect him to sit in a carpark for hours on end on the way home from work.

And heaven knows what will happen when there are a dozen cars in the queue ahead of him.

His frankly contemptuous comment about such drivers shows just how badly our politicians are detached from reality. I have little doubt that Lewis has a nice large house, with ample room for cars. And I also suspect he has a proper car to use, when he is not virtue signalling.