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.
We are now close enough to the April 8 total eclipse that the skill of our models is now appreciable.
And many of these increasingly skillful forecasts indicate a real threat to good viewing over Texas and much of the Midwest, where many plan to go.
A double threat exists: clouds associated with two features: the subtropical jet and a low-pressure area moving in from the southwest U.S.
This blog will describe these important features and the current uncertainties in the forecast.
Let me start with the forecast cloud cover near the time of the Monday eclipse (11 AM PDT, 2 PM EDT, 8 April) made by the European Center model this morning. The center of the line of totality is shown by the blue line. If this forecast was exactly correct, folks in Texas would be ok, but the cloud fields will surely shift a bit.
There are two major cloud fields to be concerned about. The first is a long line of clouds (red arrow) associated with the subtropical jet (or jetstream). The other is a cloud field associated with a low-pressure center over New Mexico and Colorado. A shift in either feature, which is pretty much guaranteed, would be a real problem. The predicted cloud field of the U.S. model (the GFS) is also very bad for eclipse lovers (see below), with the subtropical jet stream clouds moving right into Texas and most of the path of totality covered with clouds.
So what is a subtropical jetstream?
Many of you have heard about the polar or midlatitude jet stream, the one that generally affects the Pacific Northwest. But there is another jet stream to the south, the subtropical jet stream (see picture below), which is located near the northern boundary of the tropics.
The subtropical jet stream often entrains moisture (and clouds) from the tropics that moves into the midlatitudes.
In fact, there was a nice subtropical jet stream this morning, which brought loads of moisture into the southwest U.S.
The other crucial element of this forecast is the upper-level low/trough that is over the southwest, with a second low over South Dakota (see charter below at the same time as the pictures above). This chart shows the situation around 18,000 ft (500 hPa). There is upward motion and clouds to the east of these features.
There is technology to get at the uncertainty in this forecast, looking at an ensemble of many forecasts, each slightly different. The following “plume diagram” shows the amount of water vapor above Dallas, TX for each of the forecasts. The critical time is shown by the red arrow. Many of the forecasts show a lot of water vapor, which means lots of clouds. Not good.
The new U.S. (GFS) forecast just came out (below). The subtropical jet stream moisture covers Texas, and clouds from the northern low and associated frontal clouds are messing up much of the path over the Midwest.
At this point, I would probably head to northern New England. There is still some uncertainty in the prediction, but we should pretty much know the final story by Friday.
The market share of battery electric vehicles (EVs) declined last month, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said. The Telegraph has the story.
EV registrations rose only 3.8pc from a year earlier, compared with a 10pc advance in the overall car market. Hybrid and petrol-powered cars showed the strongest growth.
Petrol-engine sales rose 9.2pc and accounted for more than half of the total, while plug-in hybrids saw a 37pc increase.
What gains EVs did achieve in March were driven entirely by fleet and business purchases, with sales to ordinary drivers dropping, the SMMT said.
The figures add to evidence that the immediate market for battery-powered cars is a limited one. Early adopters desperate to drive a zero-emissions vehicle have already made the switch but the mass market is proving more reluctant.
EVs cost significantly more than a similar diesel or petrol model, which is a major deterrent. Concerns about the UK’s sparsely spread charging infrastructure also continue to stoke so-called range anxiety.
The SMMT’s figures came as Carlos Tavares, the head of carmaking giant Stellantis, whose brands include Vauxhall, Peugeot and Fiat, warned that electric vehicles are unlikely to ever be universally popular among drivers.
Mr Tavares said at the company’s Freedom of Mobility Forum: “We should move away from a dogmatic thinking where one size fits all.
It appears that technological developments and federal government programs that were touted to make our lives more efficient, address energy needs, and finally save the planet from the ravages of climate change aren’t working out quite as promoted.
It appears that technological developments and federal government programs that were touted to make our lives more efficient, address energy needs, and finally save the planet from the ravages of climate change aren’t working out quite as promoted.
Some of them, in fact, are making almost everything worse – a looming energy shortage that portends leaving domestic and commercial consumers literally in the dark.
Expect the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by power-hungry government agencies to centrally monitor and control more and more aspects of our daily lives with an ant farm economy while also imposing huge additional power demands.
Be prepared to have millions of EPA-mandated electric vehicles (EVs) and tens of thousands of federally subsidized recharging stations added to ancient distribution grids never designed for such loads.
Further, add government Environmental Social Guidance (ESG) pressures on energy investors to replace reliable existing systems that provide abundant fuel and electricity we count on with anemic, weather-dependent, short-life systems that don’t at a time when energy demands are ramping up dramatically along with costs.
U.S. electricity demand growth projections over the next five years have doubled from a year ago.
PJM Interconnection, a utility that operates the wholesale power market across 13 Midwest and Northeast states, recently doubled its 15-year annual demand growth forecast in its service regions.
The company has projected a 10-gigawatt increase in power demand by 2029, about twice the current daily amount consumed in Manhattan.
Meanwhile, as New York shuts down nuclear and fossil fuel power in favor of wind and solar, a new upstate Micron chip factory to supply EVs is projected to require as much power by the 2040s as New Hampshire and Vermont combined.
Citing growth in new industries such as EV and battery factories, a recent forecast by Georgia Power recently projected a 17-fold increase in its winter demand by 2031.
AEP Ohio warns that new data centers and Intel’s planned $20 billion chip plant will strain its grid as well because chip factories and data centers can consume 100 times more power than typical businesses.
Electricity demand by data centers is projected to increase by 13% to 15% compounded annually through 2030. That power is needed around the clock, 24/7, competing with nighttime EV recharging demands, particularly when there is no sunlight and the wind isn’t blowing.
According to CBRE Group, a commercial real estate firm, a current power supply shortage is already delaying the opening of new data centers by two to six years.
This circumstance has prompted Amazon to purchase a data center in Pennsylvania powered by an on-site 2.5-gigawatt nuclear plant.
The gap between power demand and supply will rapidly expand as existing fossil fuel plants are retired, with PJM’s market monitor warning that they might lose up to 30% of their installed capacity by 2030.
The company blames much of this on “the role of states and the federal government in subsidizing resources and in environmental regulation,” adding, “The simple fact is that the sources of new capacity that could fully replace the retiring capacity have not been clearly identified.”
Transitioning to renewables, which are characteristically located far remotely from metropolitan hubs and industrial centers, offers no near-term salvation given that it typically takes 10 to 12 years to create the long transmission lines needed to connect with power grids.
The Wall Street Journal notes that about 20 gigawatts of fossil fuel power are scheduled to retire over the next two years — enough to power 15 million homes — including a large natural gas plant in Massachusetts that serves as a crucial source of electricity in cold snaps.
Whereas some of those plants have exhausted their useful lifespans, the onslaught of costly regulation is cited as an even bigger cause, including a soon-to-be-finalized EPA rule requiring natural gas plants to install expensive and unproven carbon capture systems.
Although the cost of producing steady, reliable power from natural gas is roughly the same as using intermittent, unpredictable wind and solar, huge government subsidies afforded to the latter through the ironically named “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA), make it harder for both fossil fuel and nuclear plants to compete.
IRA tax credits can offset up to 50% of a renewable operator’s costs.
Such policies have put utilities and the energy-consuming public in a no-win “Catch 22” dilemma.
While the intermittent and unreliable nature of renewables makes it necessary to have a “spinning reserve” of fossil or nuclear energy available to keep power grids balanced second-by second with reserve capacity to supply extended baseload needs, depleted and unprofitable markets make it increasingly difficult to do so.
Many Texans will painfully recall the week-long February 2021 power outage when frigid temperatures froze wind turbines.
The Wall Street Journal quotes Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Mark Christie offering some basic math: “We are subtracting dispatchable [fossil fuel] resources at a pace that’s not sustainable, and we can’t build dispatchable resources to replace the dispatchable resources we’re shutting down.”
In short, federal policies aimed at shutting down energy we depend on in exchange for paltry and non-existent alternatives and benefits as demands skyrocket don’t add up.
This bill was introduced by the Alaska Senate Resources Committee on March 1, 2024. Per the sponsor statement, “Senate Bill 257 lays the groundwork for an electric system that is more affordable, more sustainable, more equitable, a grid that can power a prosperous future for generations of Alaskans to come.”
“Our utilities are working in collusion with NGOs and ENGOs that promote decarbonization over affordability and reliability. Compromised utility board members will waste no time using this change in statute to gaslight everyone around them into believing this is what is best for them.”
“An Act relating to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska; relating to public utilities; relating to electric reliability organizations; relating to the Alaska Energy Authority; relating to the Railbelt Transmission Organization; and providing for an effective date.”
This bill was introduced by the Alaska Senate Resources Committee on March 1, 2024. Per the sponsor statement, “Senate Bill 257 lays the groundwork for an electric system that is more affordable, more sustainable, more equitable, a grid that can power a prosperous future for generations of Alaskans to come.”
Sustainability and equity in our electric system? The last thing needed is an energy framework based on the highly politicized and dangerous United Nations Sustainability Goals. Equity means socialism. Sustainability is the Tyranny of the 21st Century. Our legislators should be protecting us by rejecting these constructs with every ounce of “energy” they have.
Senate Bill 257 was referred to three committees – Senate Labor and Commerce, Senate Resources, and Senate Finance. The bill is currently in the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, chaired by Jesse Bjorkman. The bill is being heavily sold by Senator Cathy Giessel, her staff, as well as Gwen Holdmann with University of Alaska Fairbanks’s Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP). Gwen’s expertise includes decarbonization, energy transitions, and greenhouse gas inventories.
The sponsor statement claims that the bill’s “open-access transmission network … will provide sound long-term governance and planning.” Planning? Government or market? Why central planning by unelected bureaucrats and technocrats where we can least afford it? They go on to state, scarily, that this “open-access transmission network” will enable and accelerate the energy transition in Alaska.
Further justification for this bill reads:
The electric transmission system that provides electricity from Homer to Fairbanks serves more than 70% of our population along a 700 mile-long corridor. This system, however, is challenged with insufficient transfer capacity, outdated technology, and inefficient pricing, all of which threaten reliability and prevent new, diverse generation sources from serving ratepayers at the lowest possible cost.
The open-access idea is for Independent Power Producers (IPPs) to come onto the grid and provide power without paying for fees and upgrades required. ACEP’s presentation suggests we should adopt Texas’s methodology to “pool backbone transmission system costs and allocate those costs based on a coincident peak or load share ratio basis.” After-all, Texas (the state most hampered by government intervention) had it all right during the historical energy crisis from Winter Storm Uri. These policies in Texas actually cost blood. Must we follow?
The bill amends the statute that defines what a utility can request rate changes for. It adds clarification that the RCA “may” consider diversity of energy supply, promotion of load growth or enhanced energy reliability or security in determining if an electric utility’s rate is just and reasonable. Non distinctly it erodes and redefines the RCA’s mission which is to “Ensure that safe, efficient, and reliable utility and pipeline services are provided to the public at just and reasonable rates, thereby protecting consumer interests and promoting economic development.”
Our utilities are working in collusion with NGOs and ENGOs that promote decarbonization over affordability and reliability. Compromised utility board members will waste no time using this change in statute to gaslight everyone around them into believing this is what is best for them.
Senate Bill 257 stands up and transfers power to yet another bureaucracy, the Railbelt Transmission Organization (RTO), and gives them the right to identify and transfer assets that may fall under the ownership of our member-owned co-ops. The bill states the transfer of management of assets to the RTO shall be done on or before July 1, 2026. If they do not transfer the management of the assets, they will be subject to fines as determined by the RCA.
This bill appears to remove a lot of the duties originally granted to the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). It repeals the ERO tariff, which we are currently paying for (see ERO surcharge on your power bill). It removes the entire ERO Integrated Resource Planning statute and sets out the ability for the RTO to establish tariffs related to the backbone transmission system. Upon RCA approval, it creates a revenue mechanism so the RTO can recover costs for their central planning services – to the tune of over $4M per year for agenciesestimated. It is unclear what will happen with the existing ERO, the Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC).
Their continued presence is mentioned in the bill and clarifies their responsibility is to “ensure the stable operation of the interconnect bulk-electric system served by the ERO and specifically require coordination with the RTO when developing reliability standards.” It is also unclear how the board seats of the RRC will evolve as the RTO states it will have representatives from each of the Railbelt utilities. The RRC has co-op members on their board today. Utility rate payers sure pay a lot of money for their executives to facilitate central planning and energy transitions to be done to us.
Public testimony is scheduled for Friday, April 5th at 1:30 PM in the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. Oppose the creation of another state-owned enterprise.
Email the committee at Senate.Labor.And.Commerce@akleg.gov.
You can also submit a 50 word Public Opinion Message (POM) to the committee through the AK Leg website.
If the makers of this bill are heartfelt about the sales pitch and propaganda behind “reliable and affordable,” we propose an amendment that calls for repeal of this bill when it does not deliver as promised, and that promise is an overall reduction in cost to ratepayers and demonstrated increase of reliability. Similar to United States Senator Lisa Murkowski’s carbon tariff, PROVE IT act, we call this the PROVE IT amendment to demand performance for all of the empty promises to come.
Legislative Scoring
To summarize – this bill is a monstrosity. This as demonstrated in the detailed legislative scoring:
The score for this bill in its present state is a -8 with -9 being the worst, 0 neutral and +9 being the best in the way of freedom and liberty.
1. Expand/Contract Government?
Does it create, expand or enlarge an agency, board or function/activity of government? Conversely, does it reduce the size/scope of government?
Does it give the government any new/expanded power to prohibit, restrict or regulate the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate/reduce govt intervention in the free market?
Score -1. The RTO will be a state-owned enterprise under the Alaska Energy Authority. Central planning is government free market interference. This sets up the framework for authoritarianism to make people do things they might not want to do. This is especially dangerous when this control can be used against the people. This legislation unfairly games power production, instituting fraud on a massive scale that IPPs are reliable and affordable. It places too many aspects of our economy and infrastructure and capital in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
3. Create / Remove Barriers to Enter Market?
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Conversely, does it remove barriers to market entry?
Score -1. It creates a lobsided playing field. If it was an open market, you would not make rate payers pay for the infrastructure and entry fees of Independent Power Producers to come onto the grid. This is taking the open market and subjecting it to corrupt crony controls. This is being setup by people calling themselves “stakeholders” when in reality they are nothing but rent seeking grifters. This bill is not removing barriers, it just makes someone else pay for them. If we were removing barriers, no power producers would be subjected to taxes and fees. Additionally, it creates expense for existing generators to make up for the expense of the IPPs. Voltage and frequency are stable when controlled by the utilities. The IPPs show up when we don’t need them, they don’t show up when they are needed most, and the utilities bear the brunt of thermal cycling. These decisions to prop up a market that doesn’t exist are placed in the hands of unelected bureaucrats that are not responsible to the rate payer.
4. Increase Taxes, Fees, Etc.
Direct/Indirect increase of taxes, fees/assessments? Conversely, does it reduce them?
Score -1. Section 5 repeals the Electric Reliability Organization’s Railbelt Reliability Council tariff and moves it over to state control to allow for the creation of yet another middleman, the RTO. Per the bill the “RTO is also given the authority to purchase, lease or acquire backbone transmission assets; construct, own, and operate new transmission assets; establish tariffs subject to the approval of the RCA” We see this charge on our electric bill currently, see “ERO Surcharge.” The only problem that we have today with energy transmission are the problems created by instituting the IRA to facilitate installation of IPP renewables and storage to enable them. These are solutions in search of a problem. The state has no business inserting itself into the process of picking winners and losers. This bill is wholesale state takeover and consolidation of power distribution assets where the RTO gets to “identify existing backbone transmission assets and that the Railbelt utilities will transfer management of those assets to the RTO by July 1, 2026.” The ERO Surcharge on your electric bill is only just the beginning.
5. Increase Govt Spending?
Does it increase govt spending or debt? Conversely, does it reduce govt spending/debt?
Does it grow government by displacing the private sector in the market? Conversely, does it eliminate or return a function of government to the private sector?
Score -1. Our co-ops are the private sector. This legislation is building up a giant co-op for the state. This legislation takes away the review and ownership from the utilities. The utilities will be nothing more than a billing entity that will not be able to determine its fate to properly serve their customers. Assets will be transferred to the state. Rate payers will lose control and representation of the decision-making process because it will be in the hands of the unelected and appointed bureaucrats. Revenues to be used to build and maintain utility reliability today will be spent on increased operations and maintenance costs caused by IPPs tomorrow.
7. Govt Redist. of Wealth Tax Policy Reward Special Interests
Does it increase govt. redistribution of wealth? Tax policy to reward special interests/businesses/govt. employees. Conversely does it decrease govt. redistribution?
Score -1. The major component of this bill aims to remove fees for IPPs to come onto the grid without paying for the upgrades needed for them to do so. The bill sets up a framework that would not need to exist if not for bureaucrats and special interests chasing federal dollars to “Upgrade” the grid for the allowance of more renewables. It shifts system reliability, operation and maintenance costs that shouldn’t exist to rate and taxpayers to enable opportunistic grifters to further take advantage of them for subsidies and credits while falsely claiming to be cheap and reliable.
8. Restrict Public Access to Information?
Does it restrict public access to information related to govt. activity or reduce accountability? Conversely, does it increase government transparency/accountability?
Score 0. Although this bill doesn’t restrict public access related to government activity, this bill adds layers of complexity to an already complex energy system. It reduces accountability to the utility and the utility boards that represents the rate payer when the state creates laws whose sole purpose is to consolidate power for the executive branch. How many different alphabet agencies need to be involved? The Railbelt Reliability Council, the Alaska Energy Authority, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, Regulatory Commission of Alaska, our local utilities and now the Railbelt Transmission Organization. Undoubtedly this complexity erodes effective public access to information. Interestingly, non-governmental organizations have more access and influence than private citizens, they are writing legislation and invited in as expert testimony to support what they authored. Right now if people wanted to be involved they can and would be through participating in their co-ops. How will it that look now with bureaucrats managing the process? This rating could very well be -1.
9. Violate U.S. Constitution or Alaska Constitution
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Alaska Constitution? Conversely, does it uphold either of those constitutions?
Score -1. Through section ten, the RTO has the right to identify and transfer assets that may fall under the ownership of Railbelt utilities over to the state. The Railbelt utilities shall transfer management of those assets to the RTO on or before July 1, 2026. If the Railbelt utility does not transfer management of backbone transmission assets, they will be subject to fines. This is seizure of private assets. Our forefathers never foresaw the problem we are having with the federal reserve and inflation – inflation is the mother of all taxes. This legislation would not exist if not for inflationary fed dollars. The IRA was written to morph and take over the state with massive subsidies for renewables and restriction on generation that we could be utilizing our abundant resources. This legislation is also in conflict with the Alaska Constitution Article 8 – “It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest.”
Total Score -8.
Please see the energy bills on the docket to be scored along with the ratings here
Massive retrospective alterations have been made to surface air temperatures by GISS, one of the main global databases run by the U.S. space agency NASA. Professor Ole Humlum has discovered that in the period January 1915 to January 2000, GISS changed past warming from 0.45°C to 0.67°C.
Massive retrospective alterations have been made to surface air temperatures by GISS, one of the main global databases run by the U.S. space agency NASA. Professor Ole Humlum has discovered that in the period January 1915 to January 2000, GISS changed past warming from 0.45°C to 0.67°C. This was a massive increase of 49%, which meant that almost half of the apparent warming in most of the 20th century was due to administrative changes made years after the initial measurements. On such evidence is the need for a global Net Zero collectivisation being promoted.
In his recently published 2023 climate report, Humlum notes that clearly such adjustments are important when evaluating the overall quality of the various temperature records. But such ‘evaluation’ is entirely missing from most mainstream media and science. It would seem they are afraid to question organisations such as the U.K. Met Office which collect corrupted data from unsuitable monitoring sites and regularly adjust the records on a retrospective basis. The lack of investigative inquiry points to the central role that temperatures play in terrifying populations to accept the appalling lifestyle changes needed to achieve Net Zero in less than 30 years.
If the adjustments showed rises and falls spread evenly throughout the record, suspicions about the practice would be considerably less. But almost invariably the changes cool a past period and warm the subsequent record to the present day. Humlum provides the graph below to show the accumulated effect of administrative changes made since May 2008 to the GISS global surface air temperature record, which extends back to 1880. The blue lines show where historic temperature measurements have been adjusted downwards and the red lines where they have been adjusted upwards, just in the last 16 years.
The massive adjustments made can be clearly seen with overall changes between –0.2°C to +0.2°C. Massive cooling has been forced into the record from around 1900 up to the 1970s and substantial heating added over the last 50 years. GISS is not alone in adjusting its database in this fashion. ‘Hockey sticks’ tend to rule in the world of climate science activism. The Met Office runs a similar global collection called HadCRUT, and in the last decade it has made two substantial revisions adding around 30% extra warming to the recent record. In doing so it removed an inconvenient temperature pause from around 2000 to 2012, a pause still visible in the satellite record.
Emeritus Professor Ole Humlum is a distinguished physical geographer and his annual climate report is a welcome antidote to the politicised and biased narrative found in the mainstream. He notes that the complex climate has remained in a quasi-stable condition within certain limits for millions of years. “Modern observations show that this normal behaviour is also characterising recent years, including 2023, and there is no observational evidence for any global climate crisis.” Believing that one minor constituent of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, controls nearly all aspects of climate is “naïve and entirely unrealistic”, he adds.
The great service that Humlum does every year is to put recent weather and climate events into much needed perspective. Arctic air temperatures have increased since 1979, but Antarctica recordings have remained essentially stable. The largest warming of the oceans at about 0.2°C is in the upper 100 metres, and mainly in the regions near the equator where the influence of the sun is most pronounced. Since 2004, the northern oceans between 55°-65°N have, on average, experienced a marked cooling down to 1,400m, and slight warming below that. Across the globe, the upper 1,900m of the ocean has seen net warming of about 0.037°C.
Global precipitation varies widely across the planet, from one year to the next and from decade to decade, “but since 1901 there has been no clear overall trend”. Storms and hurricanes display variable frequencies over time, but without any clear global trend towards higher or lower values. Global snow cover has remained “essentially stable” from the start of the satellite observation era in 1979, although with important regional and seasonal variations. Global sea ice extent has been quasi-stable since 2018, “perhaps even exhibiting a small increase”. Air temperatures in 2023 were noted to be the highest on record – since 1850, 1880 or 1979, according to the particular data series – but recent warming is not symmetrical and is mainly seen in the northern hemisphere.
To conclude, it might be added that the northern hemisphere is where a lot of the naturally warmer land is to be found, and where many of the urban-heat-corrupted, and frequently boosted, temperature measurements are sourced.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
A recent post from The Hill titled “Climate change endangers 70 percent of world’s wine regions: Study,” claims that climate change “could decimate” global wine production. This research cited by The Hill is speculative and is undermined by the growth in grape and wine production amid ongoing climate change.
A recent post from The Hill titled “Climate change endangers 70 percent of world’s wine regions: Study,” claims that climate change “could decimate” global wine production. This research cited by The Hill is speculative and is undermined by the growth in grape and wine production amid ongoing climate change.
The Hill’s post highlights a review article published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment.
Climate Realism has debunked the idea that wine is being threatened by climate change more than a dozen times, but it is worth looking at these claims again.
One section of the study analyzes other research and with the authors then producing maps which demonstrate regions that could possibly be impacted by global warming. Ever eager to paint the research in the direst light, The Hill emphasizes that the researchers estimate “as much as 70 percent of the world’s suitable regions for wine will become too warm this century, including as much as 90 percent of wine’s best traditional regions in Spain, Italy, Greece, and Southern California.”
The Hill asserts that temperature increases “reduce grape crops and the quality of wine, leading to lessened production over time,” however the study itself is a lot more nuanced on this point, noting that a variety of strategies are available to minimize the impact of heat or drought on grape production. The study’s authors write that “[s]ome adaptations to hotter and drier climates are already known and embody simple, sound agronomic principles.”
The study, and The Hill’s discussion of it, whipsaw between alarmist statements predicting doom, and moderating statements indicating nothing is certain and adaptation is possible. Far from world wine production being “decimated,” most of the commentary focuses on the idea that some regions may see changing flavor profiles, and other regions of the world that were unable to produce good wine grapes may become more suitable for wine production. Most glaring is when the Hill backtracks on its initial alarmist claims later in the article, admitting that the researchers “emphasized that the changing climate does not mean the end for wine, merely that its geographical range is changing.”
The study authors point out very reasonably that “[t]hroughout history, vineyard locations have changed continuously, at the local, national and international levels,” and those changes are driven by environmental conditions but also geopolitical and economic forces, and they point to wine production in Great Britain during the Roman warm period as an example.
Obviously, those ancient climate conditions were not caused by fossil fuel use.
The authors also note that many climate challenges can be overcome by simply changing the type of grape grown in a particular region.
One of the disappointing claims in the in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment study is that “increased heat and drought, extreme weather events, and unpredictability with regard to changing pest and disease pressure” are occurring, and that increased wildfires pose a threat to California production specifically. Data show that each of these claims is demonstrably false.
Extreme weather is not getting worse, and while average temperatures are modestly increasing, the frequency and severity of heatwaves and drought are not increasing. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that precipitation has actually increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere, which includes much of the wine-producing regions of Europe, during the past 70 years, and they have only “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.
Regarding wildfires, as Climate Realism has previously covered, here, for example, real world data shows that wildfires have declined significantly as the Earth has slightly warmed.
Pest and disease pressure may be “unpredictable” – but that’s not the fault of climate change, it’s an ever-present agronomy issue.
Wine production has good and bad years, like any agricultural product. In fact, just last fall, French winemakers chose to destroy enough wine to fill 100 Olympic swimming pools to prop up prices because they produced more wine than consumers demanded. Demand has dropped largely due to economic factors and, as it has, wine production has declined with it. In fact, wine demand has dropped since the early 2000s.
Grape production has not suffered from the warming of recent decades, as data from the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization demonstrate. (See figure below)
The most recent record for grape production was set in 2018, and overall, grape production has increased by 25 percent, and yields have increased 48 percent since 1990. Data show that 2018 through 2022 produced the five highest years for grape yields and four of the five highest years for production overall. No grape crisis is evident.
To their credit, The Hill admits that the study also estimates that “as much as 25 percent of current wine production regions could actually see better production due to warmer climate, in addition to making new areas suitable.”
In the end, if it were interested in informing its readers rather than alarming them, The Hill would have modified its headline and skipped its misleadingly alarming introductory paragraphs and stuck to the relatively balanced, presentation of the facts and current trends and adaptations that vintners have undertaken over the decades as climate has changed, keeping wine well stocked on store shelves. The only real question when it comes to wine production, is not whether wine grape production can meet demand, but whether or not trends towards lower consumption will continue, which certainly will discourage excess wine production or produce lower prices. Drinkers’ taste in beverages can hardly be fairly attributed to climate change.
Now I wonder why they would pick an 18-month period? Particularly one that includes two winters and one summer. Hardly very scientific is it, Met Office?
Now I wonder why they would pick an 18-month period? Particularly one that includes two winters and one summer. Hardly very scientific is it, Met Office? Are you claiming there is any significance of this compared with other periods which might include two summers and one winter, given that winter rainfall is generally much higher.
As for the claim it broke the previous record set last month is simply absurd – they are both part and parcel of the same run of weather.
So let’s do a proper analysis instead – indeed the one the Met Office should have done. We’ll start with a 12-month period, ending March:
It was actually a much wetter 12 months in 2000/01 and 2013/14. And the last 12 months has only been marginally wetter than 1872/73 and 1882/83.
What about the last 24-months then?
The results are even less exceptional, with the last 24 months being only the 7th wettest. Again 2000/02 and 2012/14 feature at the top, and we also find that 1871/73 was wetter.
The 1870s and 80s were clearly as wet as anything seen in the last decade; for instance the 24 months to March 1877 had only 10mm less rain than the current period, whilst 1881 to 1884 saw almost as wet weather.
The Met Office are only concerned propaganda, that our weather is becoming more extreme because of climate change. And they will use whatever statistical trickery they need to do it.
I challenge them to publish the full data and let the public see the whole story.
“…Bezos, the world’s second-richest person worth $203.7 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, announced in November that he was moving to Miami from the Seattle region. He shelled out $147 million for two mansions in Indian Creek, a man-made barrier island that’s so renowned for its wealth that it’s dubbed “Billionaire Bunker.” Other residents include Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, Tom Brady and Carl Icahn…”
Now, why would the owner of the Washington Post buy a mansion on a MAN-MADE barrier island when his paper is constantly exaggerating sea level rise?
I do not know how the others feel about climate change, but why would he do this? Does he read his paper?
My message to Jeff Bezos is this: You don’t need climate change to understand what can happen here. Look at the 1940s:
I also see you paid no attention to the Weatherbell.com hurricane forecast issued in December (No surprise. I am about as popular as Covid with the WAPO).
So why would someone who owns one of the major meteo-media outlets that weaponizes weather in the phony climate war buy a house on a MAN-MADE barrier island? Is he aware of what had happened before this phony climate agenda started? Did his employees reach out and say, hey, this could be risky? Does he know that the setup this year means a well-above-normal threat? And isn’t a MAN-MADE barrier island thumbing a nose at nature? That island is not even supposed to be there. What makes you think it should stay there and that nature is not going to take it back?
I can see Ivanka Trump, given that she is related to someone who thinks this is not a big deal. But similar to Obama at Martha’s Vineyard in a place that is a sitting duck for a southern storm surge, or Hunter Biden doing business with major fossil fuel interests abroad, the actions of these people defy what they are saying.
Of course, if what is just a matter of time happens, a major hurricane comes in and rearranges a lot of this, I am sure his paper will blame climate change. That is what propaganda outlets on climate do whenever anything happens, even if it should be intuitive that it has to happen sometime.
He can do what he wants with his money, that is fine. But it’s obvious he does not believe his own paper given their stance on this. Like I said, you don’t need climate change to be aware of the threat. Look at the 1940s. And, of course, if I am right, we know it will be blamed.
For many, the summer of 2022 sticks in the mind like a sweat-soaked shirt to the back beneath the country’s blazing 40C heatwave. [The summer, by the way, that was not as hot as 1976 or 1995 or 2018! – Ed)
For many, the summer of 2022 sticks in the mind like a sweat-soaked shirt to the back beneath the country’s blazing 40C heatwave. [The summer, by the way, that was not as hot as 1976 or 1995 or 2018! – Ed)
The UK saw temperatures smash records never seen before with the mercury hitting 40.3C in Lincolnshire, in what was the highest figure seen in UK climate history. But while Brits may have dodged a repeat of the infamous heat snap last year, 2023 was still Earth’s hottest on record overall – and fears are mounting over the dials rising again before summer even arrives.
Meteorologist Jim Dale claims Brits are in for a sweltering spring, seeing heat to rival that of 2022’s in April, while the Met Office has already projected overall temperatures this year to smash records again. Speaking to GB News, he said temperatures could climb unseasonably high this month as a result of climate change.
“We will see hot weather start to bake in during the course of April, and at times in the summer time,” Mr Dale said. “We are not divorced from what is going around the globe and what is going on is quite frightening in terms of the temperature profiles. The USA has just had its warmest winter ever.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.