Day: May 30, 2024

Of Heat Engines: an Addendum

“The atmosphere is a heat engine/refrigerator, and it works like this. When the lapse rate is less than the DALR (about 9.8 K/km), when air is forced to rise by turbulence, it expands and cools adiabatically as pressure reduces. The cooling rate is basically the DALR. With this greater than the lapse rate, the air becomes cooler and denser than the neighboring air, and so work is done pushing it higher. That comes from the KE of the wind. Work is done to transfer “cold” upwards – ie heat downwards, against the temperature gradient. It is a heat pump….”

From Watts Up With That?

Kevin Kilty

Figure-1. It’s a great day for heat transfer.

In a recent guest blogger essay a side debate broke out between Nick Stokes and I over whether or not it is possible for thermal convection from a surface, such as Albuquerque on August 3, 1993, which was my boundary layer example, to reach high above, and produce substantive cooling of the surface.

The debate started thusly from Nick:

“The atmosphere is a heat engine/refrigerator, and it works like this. When the lapse rate is less than the DALR (about 9.8 K/km), when air is forced to rise by turbulence, it expands and cools adiabatically as pressure reduces. The cooling rate is basically the DALR. With this greater than the lapse rate, the air becomes cooler and denser than the neighboring air, and so work is done pushing it higher. That comes from the KE of the wind. Work is done to transfer “cold” upwards – ie heat downwards, against the temperature gradient. It is a heat pump….”

Continued thusly:

“If the lapse rate is 7 K/km, and DALR is 10 K/km, then air that leaves the surface 3K warmer than surrounds [sic] will lose that excess at height 1000m. Then it works against gravity to go higher, so slows down.

If the lapse rate is 9 K/km, it can rise to 3 km. It can happen, but such thermals are not easy to find.”

And ended here with my final reply:

“ I would agree with you if all there was was a parcel with a tiny bit of K.E. in an environment lapse rate of 7-10 C/km; but that’s not all there is, and I am sayin’ no more until I have thought it all out…”

Last night I went looking for data that I hoped to find which would make my point. I found it in several forms in several different places.

First, rather than reiterate all the examples I gave in the original essay, I will reference the paper by Renno and Williams from which the RPV data came, and point specifically to Section 6, the discussion, which is jam-packed with such, and which ends with this…[1]

“The observation that the air participating in natural moist convection originates in the surface layer is not surprising. More than half of the solar radiation energy absorbed at the surface is transferred to the atmosphere as both sensible and latent. This energy is vertically transported by the convective motions, and then radiated to space.”

I would only add that the same is true for dry convection as well.

In addition, a typical spring/summer fair weather day here as one that begins largely clear, by 10 am or so fair weather cumuli appear, these may grow to a steady state density covering a great deal of the sky by 4 pm some days. After midday the cumulus may attain vertical development but by 8 pm the cumuli become pancake shaped and may vanish completely. 

I would also ask readers to examine the video in a comment by David Dibbell found here. What this fascinating Band 16 timelapse of the western hemisphere shows is, repeatedly one day after another is this. The hottest portion of the day (brightest yellow) begins in the east and propagates across Argentina/Chile, then Mexico and finally across the U.S. Southwest. In between, in what is the Amazon basin, and in time order with all the other activity in the video, is the flaring up of thunderstorms with tops near the tropopause. Action follows the Sun. Surface heating organizes it all.

Now, regarding the RPV gathered data at Albuquerque on August 3, 1993, the story is told in a couple of atmospheric soundings, which I fetched from the archive at University of Wyoming. A sounding made at 6am local time and a second one made at 6 pm local time are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Soundings at 6 am and 6 pm. Albuquerque. August 3, 1993

Overnight, the ground surface and air with a kilometer of the surface cooled, became mechanically stable. At 6 am (Figure 2A) the potential temperature (theta) is lowest near the ground surface, but the Sun begins heating the surface to a superadiabatic layer. This is soon unstable and begins to convect – at first in a shallow layer near the surface then step by step to increasingly higher levels. Radiation from the warming surface also contributes heat to this layer.

The atmosphere is not static. It is dynamic and it is bootstrapping its way into a deeper and deeper layer of instability. By 6 pm (Figure 2B) the entire atmosphere from ground to 4,200m (2,600 above surface) has uniform potential temperature and any parcel heated to as little as 1K higher theta will always be adequately buoyant to reach a high elevation. Recall that surface measurements at 1:00 pm showed a pool of superadiabatic air at the surface 6K or more warmer than rising parcels. Overnight something like Figure 2A re-establishes itself through radiation cooling, perhaps some subsidence and adiabatic warming, and contact with the ground surface.

MONEX

In the summer of 1979 a field experiment (MONEX) designed to study the South Asian monsoon had discovered this same scenario taking place in the atmosphere above the Empty Quarter of the Arabian peninsula.[2] Peter Webster devotes Chapter 12 in his textbook to desert climates and makes use of the MONEX results.[3]

Conclusion

Just to head-off one objection early, I admit that mesoscale conditions may contribute to lesser or more development of this boundary layer convection. I have, in fact, observed surface turbulence and even a hydraulic jump in the atmosphere downstream from wave clouds over the Front Range. But not in the warm season. Perhaps boundary layer convection draws occasionally on some pre-existing potential or kinetic energy. Yet, where did this potential energy or kinetic energy come from? My view is it is a fraction of remaining available work from heat transfer by many other, earlier regional weather events, some of which makes its way into the general circulation.

References:

1-Renno and Williams, Quasi-lagrangian measurements in convective boundary layer plumes and their implications for the calculation of CAPE, 1995, Mon. Weather Rev., September, 2733.

2-Eric A. Smith, 1986, The Structure of the Arabian Heat Low. Part II: Bulk Tropospheric Heat Budget and Implications, Mon. Weather Rev., v.114, p. 1084. Note: I can’t seem to find Part I of this publication, but Part II contains more than adequate data and commentary.

3-Peter Webster, Dynamics of the Tropical Atmosphere and Oceans, Wiley Blackwell, 2020.

DOWNPLAYING LIGHT STRESS TO HYPE GLOBAL WARMING MISINFORMS THE PUBLIC ABOUT CORAL BLEACHING

Why have major coral bleaching events occurred during EL Nino events?

By Jim Steele

Why have major coral bleaching events occurred during EL Nino events?

During an El Nino, warm water stored in the Pacific Warm Pool of the Coral Triangle sloshes eastward. That lowers the ocean temperatures in the western Pacific and raises temperatures in the eastern Pacific (illustration A). It also shifts the centers of convection eastward and the resulting changes in atmospheric circulation cause downward air flow typical of heat domes and clearer skies over the western Pacific and Atlantic Ocean (Illustration D). That causes more intense solar radiation and coral light stress.

Due to the biochemistry governing photosynthesis, high light stress causes the increased production of dangerous oxidants (aka ROS: Reactive Oxygen Species). Dangerous oxidants damage living tissues, which is why all organisms naturally produce and ingest anti-oxidants. So, when corals’ symbiotic algae produce too much ROS and overwhelm a coral’s natural anti-oxidant systems, to prevent further damage, the coral eject their symbiotic algae and that causes bleaching.

As peer reviewed science explains, “The most likely explanation to the commonest form of mass coral bleaching involves the production of Reactive Oxygen Species associated with Photosystem I of photosynthesis (and to some extent Photosystem II): namely superoxide (O2- ), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and singlet oxygen.”

See“A Review: The Role of Reactive Oxygen Species in Mass Coral Bleaching Szabó (2020)

Alarmist scientists with a global warming agenda (i.e. Hughes, or Hoegh-Guldberg) always tell click-bait media the same narrative, that global warming is the main cause of bleaching. But increased solar radiation creates both high light stress and heat stress and heat stress can affect the efficiency of the corals’ antioxidant protection. So, both excess heat and light can increase the accumulation of ROS.

Which is the primary cause?

Unfortunately, rarely have studies satisfactorily separated the two factors. But those that have suggest light stress is the main factor. For example read: Antioxidant responses to heat and light stress differ with habitat in a common reef coral Hawkins (2015). For the species Stylophora pistillata they state,

“Overall, changes in enzymatic antioxidant activity in the symbionts were driven primarily by irradiance rather than temperature, and responses were similar across depth groups. Taken together, our results suggest that in the absence of light stress, heating of 1C/day to 4C above ambient, is not sufficient to induce a substantial oxidative challenge”.

That’s why regions of reduced cloud cover during El Nino events correlate with so-called “global bleaching events” that happened in 1998, 2010, and 2014-2017 and now 2023-24.

Major eastern-Pacific El Nino events also happened in 1997–98, 2014–16, and 2023–24 and a Modoki El Nino 2009-2010. As seen in illustration B’s white circles, the death rate from bleaching during the 2023–24 El Nino, is associated with regions where El Nino induced atmospheric subsidence and reduced cloud cover that increases light stress.

The alarmists seeking power can’t control solar radiation, but they want to control the public’s use of energy. So, they unscientifically ignore changes in clooud cover choosing to blame global warming for coral bleaching and evidence that rising CO2 is killing coral! Alarmists deny the science!

Offshore Wind Turbines Could Mess With Ships’ Radar Signals

We found out last year that offshore wind turbines scramble Air Force Radars. RAF pilots already use the turbines in training exercises to help them hide. But ships also use radar and a new study quietly reported a couple of years ago that offshore wind will interfere with shipping radar, may cause collisions, and interfere with search and rescue. The 2022 report was from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the US.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

by Lieven

But who needs radar right?

We found out last year that offshore wind turbines scramble Air Force Radars. RAF pilots already use the turbines in training exercises to help them hide. But ships also use radar and a new study quietly reported a couple of years ago that offshore wind will interfere with shipping radar, may cause collisions, and interfere with search and rescue. The 2022 report was from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the US.

But it’s OK right, we just need to upgrade all the old radar systems, keep boats out of the area, or wrap the blades of the turbines in the same material we use on stealth aircraft. (That will add to the costs of wind power). No doubt GPS and AI systems can help, but radar adds an independent and well developed layer of safety. Who wants to purely rely on the satellite connection on a stormy night?

And after we’ve built all the wind towers, upgraded the boats and planes, then we can build the second and third generation of turbines and fill holes in the ground with the waste from the first. After we’ve paid for that and for the collisions and lives lost, and the whales killed, and the porpoises deafened, we hope that in one hundred years the rain will be more evenly spread, and the storms more well behaved. It’s like the neolithic raindances never ended.

You never know, maybe some groups will benefit from the radar noise —  like drug runners, pirates and people smugglers?

Unfortunately wind turbines are usually built close to shore, where our shipping lanes often are…

Visual Capitalist

Offshore Wind Turbines Could Mess With Ships’ Radar Signals

Eric Niiler, Wired, March 2022

It turns out that massive wind turbines may interfere with marine radar systems, making it risky for both big ships passing through shipping channels near offshore wind farms and smaller vessels navigating around them. While European and Asian nations have relied on offshore wind power for more than a decade, the big wind farms proposed off the US continental shelf are larger and spaced further apart, meaning that ships are more likely to be operating nearby. These farms are proposed along the East Coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina, as well as for a handful of locations off the California coast, according to data from the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded in a report issued last week that wind turbines can create two different problems. First, their steel towers can reflect electromagnetic waves, interfering with ships’ navigational radar systems in ways that might obscure a nearby boat.

The turbine’s rotating blades can also create a form of interference similar to the Doppler effect, in which sound waves shorten as a moving object approaches the observer. In this case, the spinning blades shorten and distort the radar signals sent from passing ships and can produce what’s called “blade flash” on a ship’s radar screen. These flashes can create false images that look like boats and could confuse a human radar operator on the bridge.

“If you have something that’s moving toward you and you are illuminating it with a radar signal, then the signal that is returned will actually have what’s called a phase shift. Essentially, it appears that you have the object coming closer,” says Jennifer Bernhard, professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a member of the National Academies panel that produced the report. Bernhard says that phenomena does not completely block the radar image, “but it does create clutter “…

There are no easy answers:

While the report offered some ways for mitigation, it noted that there is “no simple modification” that could allow marine vessel radar to operate in “the complex environments of a fully populated continental shelf wind farm.”

Deadly open-seas collisions and hampered search and rescue efforts

Disrupted radar systems are not mere hassles of dealing with cluttered displays. They can result in deadly open-seas collisions. The turbines can “cast radar shadows, obfuscating smaller vessels exiting wind facilities in the vicinity of deep draft vessels in Traffic Separation Schemes.”

The US Coast Guard wrote about this last year:

Offshore Wind Energy: A Rising Challenge to Coast Guard Operations

… offshore wind turbines have been shown to affect the capabilities of the Coast Guard’s Search and Rescue Optimal Planning System (SAROPS), which is used for drift modeling and search planning. The oscillating rotor blades and generator of a wind turbine emit high levels of electromagnetic interference that can affect high frequency radar capabilities around an [offshore renewable energy installation] (OREI).

The map suggests multiple wind plants could severely limit radar operation:

Report: Wind Turbine Generator Impacts to Marine Vessel Radar

h/t David Maddison

China, India break coal production records

Back in April the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new final rule that will force U.S. coal-fired power plants to install carbon capture systems or shut down operations. The rule is a key part of President Biden’s pledge to eliminate all energy sources that emit carbon dioxide by 2035 in the electricity sector and by 2050 for home heating, steel production, and all other uses.

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

Back in April the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new final rule that will force U.S. coal-fired power plants to install carbon capture systems or shut down operations. The rule is a key part of President Biden’s pledge to eliminate all energy sources that emit carbon dioxide by 2035 in the electricity sector and by 2050 for home heating, steel production, and all other uses.

But, as Tsvetana Paraskova reported in May, the Biden Administration plan faces insurmountable problems, given that fossil fuels still provide 60 percent of total U.S. electricity generation. Coal’s share has fallen to 16 percent, while natural gas accounts for 43 percent. Coal-fired power generation is highest during summer heatwaves when wind power is intermittent. Thus, coal still supplies more electric power than wind (11 percent), hydropower (6 percent), or solar (4 percent).

The push seeks to eradicate not just coal but all fossil fuels from American society. The fly in Biden’s ointment is more like the elephant in a tiny room. Around the world, countries large and small are far more concerned about providing energy and electricity for their citizens than pursuing a fearmonger-led “crusade” to rid the planet of life-giving carbon dioxide.

Here at home, five states – North Dakota, Missouri, Kentucky, Wyoming, and West Virginia – still rely on coal for more than half their electricity generation. Data centers, artificial intelligence, and electric vehicles are using greater and greater shares of existing power, taxing utilities struggling to keep energy supply at levels sufficient to meet energy demand.

Over in Europe, where official enthusiasm for ending fossil fuels has at times surpassed that of America’s even Germany has reopened a coal-fired power plant and other European countries are pondering their own need for alternatives to Russian natural gas. EU lignite production had dropped to 240 megatons in 2020 from over 300 megatons in the 2010s.

Four EU countries mine hard coal, led by Poland and Germany, with annual production at about 150 megatons a year in the recent past. Coal still provides 70 percent of Poland’s electric power, while coal’s share in Germany is well above 25 percent. Coal provides about 11 percent of Russia’s electricity, making it the world’s fifth largest consumer of coal.

Prior to invading Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin had announced a new national goal to achieve net zero carbon dioxide by 2060 – long after the West’s self-imposed deadline. Other nations outside the globalist cabal based in Doha and Brussels (and Washington, DC) are even less inclined to end coal production, India and China, notably, are moving in the other direction.

Back in April, Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi was overjoyed to report that his nation had produced over 1 billion metric tons of coal and lignite in the 2023-24 fiscal year, at nearly 100 million tons more than in 2022-23. Modi, whose nation still needs a lot more electric power to meet its first-world goals, lauded the production as “a remarkable feat and a historic milestone toward self-reliance” in a vital sector.

A new report from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) says that coal power plant permitting, construction starts, and new project announcements accelerated dramatically in China in 2022, with new permits reaching the highest level since 2015. China’s coal power capacity starting construction was six times as large as that in the rest of the world combined.

National Public Radio’s Julia Simon reports that China’s heat waves increased demand for air conditioning and dried up rivers, forcing Chinese hydropower facilities to shut down. Aiqun Yu, co-author of the CREA-GEM report, noted that high prices for liquefied natural gas due to the Russia-Ukraine war led another Chinese province to turn to coal.

The CREA-GEM report somewhat greenwashes China’s commitment to coal, claiming that the “massive additions of new coal-fired capacity don’t necessarily mean that coal use or CO2 emissions from the power sector will increase in China.” After all, China is also building wind, solar, and nuclear energy facilities and President Xi has “pledged that China would reduce coal consumption in the 2026-2030 period.”

This, the authors said apologetically, “would mean a declining utilization rate” rather than continued growth in coal-fired power generation. Surely, they say without words, China will phase out these expensive new coal plants within the next eight years. And pigs fly.

Still, the CREA-GEM team found it necessary to include some “policy recommendations” to instruct President Xi in how to stay in the good graces of the Net Zero overlords. First, they said, China must impose strict controls on new coal power capacity and reject or revoke permits to projects not necessary for “supporting grid stability” or “supporting the integration of variable renewable energy.”

Way back in 2020 UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told India it should commit to carbon neutrality by ending fossil fuel subsidies and investing in solar power. Claiming that investing in coal is “bad economics,” Guterres said India can only become a “true global superpower in the fight against climate change if it speeds up its shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.”

Did Prime Minister Modi bow and scrape to Guterres?

Guterres in the same year went all the way to Beijing to “urge” China to stop funding coal projects, because (OMG!) the Paris climate agreement goals will slip out of reach without China’s cooperation. There, too, he begged the “economic superpower” to genuflect, whispering that “the way in which China restores growth will have a major impact on whether we can keep 1.5C within reach” in the post-pandemic world (spoken at the height of the pandemic!).

Was President Xi so flattered by the former Prime Minister of Portugal that he immediately stopped all future plans for new coal-fired power plants in China?

Back in November 2021, forty-something countries, including coal-reliant Poland, Vietnam, and Chile, all committed to shift away from coal. The U.S. and 19 other nations would only pledge to end public financing for “unabated” fossil fuel projects abroad by the end of 2022.

What would happen if only the West and its friends abandon fossil fuels?

Building the Global Nuclear Energy Order Book

The outlook for nuclear power is bright on the world stage. Global demand for clean nuclear energy is higher than we have ever seen. The U.S. and 20 allied nations pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050 at COP28, and a multinational survey reaffirmed last year — the world wants new nuclear.

From Watts Up With That?

By Niko McMurrayDavid Gattie

The outlook for nuclear power is bright on the world stage. Global demand for clean nuclear energy is higher than we have ever seen. The U.S. and 20 allied nations pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050 at COP28, and a multinational survey reaffirmed last year — the world wants new nuclear. 

In Washington, D.C., bipartisan support for nuclear energy has never been greater. Propelled by the House passing the ADVANCE Act 393-13 this month and momentum for passage in the Senate, Congress deserves some credit this year for working to help speed up the deployment of next-generation reactors, fueling hope for an American future powered by clean energy. 

This support is promising, but masks a concerning trend. While the U.S. leads the world in the development of innovative nuclear technologies, the U.S. has fallen behind China and Russia. As of May 2024, Russia and China collectively have 29 commercial reactors under construction. The U.S. has zero. 

The prospect of reinvigorating production in the U.S. is exciting, but we have to think bigger to realize the promise of the next generation of nuclear energy — and now is the moment to capitalize. So, how do we get it done?

Private companies need to secure the necessary investments and build the infrastructure required for their technologies. Interest in next-generation reactors is already high and is only expected to grow, so we need new sources of funding to meet the moment. Throughout the history of nuclear innovation, first movers have been critical to attaining the “proof of concept,” and new reactors are no different. Once the potential of these technologies is realized, the order book for energy users can follow, and more capital will be available to developers. 

Due to the need for more reliable energy, the nuclear industry is seeing significant interest from both traditional and non-traditional customers. Utilities continue to consider adding nuclear energy capacity, and data centers and industrial customers are also considering new nuclear. For example, the partnership between X-energy and Dow in Seadrift, Texas, demonstrates the diverse applications of nuclear energy, as the proposed reactor will replace retiring systems to produce clean energy for the chemical facility. With nuclear power, industrial companies can continue to utilize reliable and affordable energy for their operations, cleanly. The project came to fruition with the support of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP), a prime example of how federal government and private industry partnerships can make advanced nuclear technology a reality. In addition to X-energy, the DOE is partnering with TerraPower, which just submitted its construction permit to the NRC, to build its first reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming.

To meet demand and compete in the market, the industry must build an order book to encourage commercial investment in new nuclear projects. Expanding to global customers bolsters the U.S. market and encourages international trade, but we cannot export technology we are not building here. With a diverse and more robust customer base, companies can attract significant investments while achieving cost reductions.

However, it is important to make sure that U.S. companies can compete on the global stage to counter the growing influence of Russia and China. Updates to civil nuclear export regulations, developing an export strategy and increasing access to financing from entities like the U.S. Export-Import Bank and International Development Finance Corporation will be critical. Partnering with allied nations and supporting the development of technical expertise in countries that are interested in building these new designs will be needed as well. 

Building a robust order book and increasing commitments from both domestic and international customers can help build momentum to commercialize next-generation facilities. The U.S. can finish what it started: ensuring the deployment of new nuclear projects will provide clean, reliable and affordable energy globally.

Niko McMurray is the Managing Director of International and Nuclear Policy at ClearPath.

Dr. David Gattie is an Associate Professor at the University of Georgia’s College of Engineering, a Senior Fellow at UGA’s Center for International Trade & Security and a member of the Nuclear Matters Advocacy Council. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Claim: Biden’s Clean Energy Policies are Failing Because Everyone Elses Fault

Saving energy is a bad joke in the context of the AI revolution – you can have an AI powered future, or you can save energy, but you cannot have both.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

MIT Innovation Fellow and former Biden economic advisor Brian Deese explaining why everyone should be doing more to help.

The Next Front in the War Against Climate Change

By Brian Deese

Clean-energy investment in America is off the charts—but it still isn’t translating into enough electricity that people can actually use.By Brian Deese

…

Because even though unprecedented sums of money are flowing into clean energy, our current electricity system is failing to meet Americans’ demand for clean power. If we don’t fix it, the surge in investment will not deliver its full economic and planetary potential.

…

For decades, the biggest obstacle to clean energy in the U.S. was insufficient demand. That is no longer the case. The problem now is the structure of our electricity markets: the way we produce and consume electricity in America. We need to fix that if we want the biggest clean-energy investment in history to actually get the job done.

…

Many utilities, however, won’t prioritize installing batteries, and they won’t invest in solutions that let consumers do more with less energy. That’s becausethese programs lower utilities’ capital expenditures, which lowers the rates they charge consumers and, in turn, their profits. If utilities don’t get paid for innovating, they’re unlikely to do it.

…

On a policy level, this isn’t rocket science. In Australia, households are paid for sending electricity back into the grid. Lo and behold, Australia today has the highest rate of rooftop solar panels per capita of any country. In the U.S., state legislatures and regulators in places as varied as Utah and Hawaii have figured out how to pay households to install batteries and send electricity back to the grid. Last year, Montana unanimously passed a law that gave utilities a financial incentive to use more advanced materials in their transmission lines. But these remain the exceptions to the rule.

…

Shifting this approach will not happen without a new vocabulary and new coalitions. The climate movement must recognize that its primary target is no longer just Big Oil; it’s the regulatory barriers that keep clean energy from getting built and delivered efficiently to American homes. The movement also needs to pressure Big Tech companies, whose AI offerings are driving upenergy demands, to follow through on their lofty climate talk by supporting reform in the utility system as well.

…Read more: 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/climate-change-investment-utilities/678455/

According to his bio, Brian Deese is an innovation fellow at MIT, who served as director of the White House National Economic Council from 2021 to 2023.

How many times have we read or heard left wing politicians and academics whining others didn’t do enough to help?

Big Tech companies don’t want to invest in more grid capacity, they want co-located nuclear reactors, to minimise their exposure to the USA’s incompetently managed electricity grid.

Nobody is investing in batteries at anything like the required scale because batteries are too expensive. Battery capital costs make nuclear reactors look cheap.

Saving energy is a bad joke in the context of the AI revolution – you can have an AI powered future, or you can save energy, but you cannot have both.

As for citing Australia as an example, that is the biggest joke of the whole article. Citing the Australian grid as aspirational is an utter absurdity. An Australian state government just cut a deal to pay a single coal plant $225 million per year to stay open, in a desperate bid to stave off a total collapse.

Deep down I suspect Brian Deese knows his precious green energy revolution will not survive the AI revolution – which is likely why he devoted a paragraph to abusing tech giants.

The skyrocketing demand of the AI revolution is the final nail in the coffin of green energy. What we are watching now is its death throes.

How weather extremes worsened by climate change are now a major national public health threat–New study

Cold weather is not worsened by global warming. Did you really think it did?

On the contrary a warmer climate must mean that the public health threat is reduced. To claim that excess deaths in winter are only now a “major national public health threat” is grossly dishonest.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

I’ve come across plenty of junk climate studies, but this has to be one of the most amateurish:

The study, led by the University of Bristol and published today in Nature Communications, showed how the death toll from temperature hazards overtook the number of deaths from COVID-19 in the South West region of England, when the UK was in the throes of the pandemic.

Lead author Dr Eunice Lo, Research Fellow in Climate Change and Health at the University’s Cabot Institute for the Environment and Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, said: “The statistics are stark and illustrate how high the health burden of adverse weather is in the UK in the current climate. I anticipated higher levels of mortality than normal as the country was also experiencing a record heatwave during the peak of the pandemic, but the extent of the increases are surprising and concerning.”

The researchers sprang into action after Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK Government’s former Chief Scientific Adviser, highlighted at COP26 that the climate crisis was a far bigger problem than COVID-19, which would prove more fatal without immediate changes.

Their findings clearly evidence such claims with analysis revealing temperature-related mortality exceeded COVID-19 mortality by 8% in South West England between 2020 and 2022. Temperature-related deaths were also just a quarter less than deaths from COVID-19 in London and not far from a third less (58%) in East Midlands over the same period.

Dr Lo said: “The pandemic rightfully generated huge media attention with the spotlight on daily briefings announcing the latest death toll and public health interventions. Although many, and in some parts of the country more, people were dying from high and low temperatures, this largely went under the radar.

“Ironically the record temperatures, topping 40 degrees, were associated with positive news of people enjoying the sunshine which perhaps reflects a general lack of awareness about how harmful excess heat can be.”

The research highlighted how the coinciding crises presented by COVID-19 coupled with a heatwave or conversely an extreme cold snap put health services under unprecedented pressure, potentially increasing avoidable loss of life.

Findings showed combined excess deaths from extreme temperatures and COVID-19 between 2020 and 2022 were at least twice as high than the previous decade, depending on the region.

Dr Lo said: “The figures strongly demonstrate how negative consequences compound when there are co-occurring major health and weather-related events. For instance, extreme cold during the outbreak of an unexpected disease puts massive strain on hospital bed availability. This research therefore underscores how the UK must be more robustly prepared for such eventualities, which are likely to coincide more often in future with the growing spectre of a changing climate and other global health threats.”

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2024/may/hot-and-cold-weather-extreme-deaths-paper.html

And this is the paper:

Abstract

Extreme weather and coronavirus-type pandemics are both leading global health concerns. Until now, no study has quantified the compound health consequences of the co-occurrence of them. We estimate the mortality attributable to extreme heat and cold events, which dominate the UK health burden from weather hazards, in England and Wales in the period 2020-2022, during which the COVID-19 pandemic peaked in terms of mortality. We show that temperature-related mortality exceeded COVID-19 mortality by 8% in South West England. Combined, extreme temperatures and COVID-19 led to 19 (95% confidence interval: 16–22 in North West England) to 24 (95% confidence interval: 20–29 in Wales) excess deaths per 100,000 population during heatwaves, and 80 (95% confidence interval: 75–86 in Yorkshire and the Humber) to 127 (95% confidence interval: 123–132 in East of England) excess deaths per 100,000 population during cold snaps. These numbers are at least ~2 times higher than the previous decade. Society must increase preparedness for compound health crises such as extreme weather coinciding with pandemics.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48207-2

For a start, the study rehashes the claim that the UK recorded 40.3 °C unprecedented extreme heat4 and a record number of around 3000 heatwave excess deaths.

But as the ONS clearly explained at the time, these deaths were merely brought forward a few days or so; those people were already dying, and were not killed by the heat, as Eunice Lo implies. Over the summer as a whole, the death rate was by a long way the lowest of any season, so there were never any “excess deaths”.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/10/16/no-bbc-there-were-no-record-excess-deaths-this-summer/

But Eunice’s paper gets worse, a lot worse!

According to the paper:

Figure 1a shows that heat-related mortality (red lines, with red shading indicating its 95% confidence interval) in England and Wales primarily occurred between July and September during the study period of 30 January 2020 to 31 December 2022. A total of 8481 excess deaths (95% confidence interval: 6387–10,493) were attributable to high temperatures.

In months other than July, August and September, cold-related mortality (blue lines, with blue shading indicating its 95% confidence interval) dominated over heat-related mortality. Over the study period, a total of 128,533 excess deaths (95% confidence interval: 107,430–153,642) were attributable to low temperatures, indicating a fifteen-fold larger cold-than-heat mortality burden.

So deaths from cold far exceed any from heat? Well, yes Eunice, I think we already knew that. But it has nothing to do with climate change.

So where pray did this ridiculous headline come from?

Cold weather is not worsened by global warming. Did you really think it did?

On the contrary a warmer climate must mean that the public health threat is reduced. To claim that excess deaths in winter are only now a “major national public health threat” is grossly dishonest.

What is most interesting though is this sentence in the press release:

The researchers sprang into action after Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK Government’s former Chief Scientific Adviser, highlighted at COP26 that the climate crisis was a far bigger problem than COVID-19, which would prove more fatal without immediate changes

So perhaps we should put the real blame on Vallance for this shockingly bad study. He was clearly looking for some data to support his climate crisis scare, no matter how dodgy.

No doubt poor Eunice just did what she was asked to do!

Good News About Our Climate

Is climate change an existential crisis? Judith Curry, former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has spent her career studying this question. Her answer might surprise you.

A good and recent example of climate and energy realism.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

The Good News about Climate Change by Judith Curry

Is climate change an existential crisis? Judith Curry, former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has spent her career studying this question. Her answer might surprise you.

A good and recent example of climate and energy realism.

Transcript

Let’s start with the good news.

All things considered, planet Earth is doing fine. In fact, humans are doing better than at any other time in history.  Over the last hundred years, when temperatures have warmed by about two degrees Fahrenheit:

Global population has increased by 6 billion people…

While Global poverty has substantially declined.

And the number of people killed from weather disasters has decreased by 97% on a per capita basis.

We are obviously not facing an existential crisis.

Anyone who tells you that we are is not paying attention to the historical data.  Instead, they are concerned about what “might” happen in the future, based on predictions from inadequate climate models, driven by unrealistic assumptions.

I offer this positive diagnosis after a lifetime of study on the issue. Until recently, I was a professor of climate science and Chair of the  School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

But it’s not all good news.

The biggest problem with climate change is not climate change, per se, it’s how we’re dealing with it.

We’re attempting to control the uncontrollable, at great cost, by urgently eliminating fossil fuels. We’ve failed to properly place the risks from climate change in context of other challenges the world is facing.

Climate change has become a convenient scapegoat.  As a result, we’re neglecting the real causes of these problems.

There are countless examples, but let me give you just one.

Lake Chad in Africa is shrinking. Nigeria’s president Muhammadu Buhari blames it on you-know-what. “Climate change,” he pronounced, “is largely responsible for the drying up of Lake Chad…”

But it’s not.

Yes, the initial water level decline was caused by long droughts in the 1970s and 1980s. But the lake has remained virtually empty over the past two decades, even while rainfall has recovered. During this time, rivers flowing into the lake from Cameroon, Chad, and Nigeria have been diverted by government agencies to irrigate inefficient rice farms.

In short, climate change has little to do with the declining water level of Lake Chad. Instead, bad human decisions are the cause. Climate Change is just a convenient excuse, hiding poor management and governance.

Blaming every major weather disaster on man-made global warming defies common sense, as well as the historical data record.

For the past 50 years, the global climate has been fairly benign. In the US, the worst heat waves, droughts, and hurricane landfalls occurred in the 1930s—much worse than anything we’ve experienced so far in the 21st century.

Population growth, where and how people live, and how governments manage resources are much more likely to create conditions for a disaster than the climate itself. We’ve always had hurricanes, droughts, and floods, and we always will.

Maybe you think I’m being too cavalier about the dangers we face. Isn’t it true that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing dangerous climate change?

Well, here’s what all climate scientists actually agree on:

•  The average global surface temperature has increased over the last 150 years.

•  Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

•  And carbon dioxide emissions have a warming effect on the planet.

However, climate scientists disagree about the most consequential issues:

•  How much warming is associated with our emissions

•  Whether this warming is larger than natural climate variability.

•  And how much the climate will change in the future.

There’s a lot that we still don’t understand about how the climate works.  Ocean circulation patterns and variations in clouds have a large impact. But climate models do a poor job of predicting these.  Variations in the sun and volcanic eruptions also have a substantial impact, but these are simply unpredictable.

The fact is, we can’t predict the future climate. It’s simply not possible. And everybody should acknowledge that. And every scientist does.

While humans do influence the climate, we can’t control the climate. To think we can is the height of hubris, the Greek word for overconfidence.

What we can do is adapt to whatever Mother Nature throws our way. Human beings have a long history of being very good at that. We can build sea walls, we can better manage our water resources, and implement better disaster warning and management protocols.

These are things we can control.

If we focus on that, there’s every reason to be optimistic about our future.

I’m Judith Curry for Prager University.

Footnote:  Dr. Curry deals with alarmist pushback at her blog:

Fact checking the fact checkers on my Prager U video

The Ideological Capture of Academia: Scientific Censorship Motivated by Prosocial Concerns

An article published last November from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) titled “Prosocial Motives Underlie Scientific Censorship by Scientists: A Perspective and Research Agenda” exposes a profound issue within the scientific community—censorship driven by ideological motives under the guise of prosocial concerns. This phenomenon has far-reaching implications, suggesting that academia and scientific institutions may be increasingly influenced by leftist or Marxist ideologies, leading to a skewed representation of scientific knowledge that aligns with regime-approved narratives.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

An article published last November from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) titled “Prosocial Motives Underlie Scientific Censorship by Scientists: A Perspective and Research Agenda” exposes a profound issue within the scientific community—censorship driven by ideological motives under the guise of prosocial concerns. This phenomenon has far-reaching implications, suggesting that academia and scientific institutions may be increasingly influenced by leftist or Marxist ideologies, leading to a skewed representation of scientific knowledge that aligns with regime-approved narratives.

Overview of Scientific Censorship

Scientific censorship, as defined by the authors, involves actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality. Historically, censorship has been associated with authoritarian regimes and dogmatic institutions. However, this paper posits that contemporary censorship is often propagated by scientists themselves, motivated by self-protection, benevolence towards peers, and concerns for societal well-being.

“Science is among humanity’s greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality)”

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

The article further challenges popular narratives, stating,

“Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups”.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

The Role of Ideological Bias

One of the critical points raised in the article is the role of ideological bias in scientific censorship. The authors highlight that most modern academics lean politically left, which predisposes them to censor right-leaning perspectives. This ideological homogeneity creates an environment where certain viewpoints, particularly those challenging prevailing leftist ideologies, are systematically suppressed.

The paper notes,

“Most modern academics are politically left-leaning, and so certain right-leaning perspectives are likely targets for censorship”

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

This bias not only stifles scientific debate but also distorts the scientific record, leading to a false consensus on various issues.

Historical Context and Modern Parallels

The paper draws parallels between historical instances of censorship and modern practices. It references the persecution of Galileo by Aristotelian professors, who used the Church’s authority to punish him for his heliocentric views. Similarly, today’s academics often leverage institutional power to suppress dissenting voices, whether through formal rejections or more subtle forms of social punishment.

“Although the Church ultimately sentenced Galileo, his persecution was driven primarily by Aristotelian professors who appealed to the Church’s authority to punish him. In the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, state censors (often academics themselves) revised and rejected manuscripts in a system similar to peer review”.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

The authors provide a taxonomy of censorship, distinguishing between “hard” censorship (exercised by authorities like governments and universities) and “soft” censorship (social punishments like ostracism and reputational damage). Both forms are prevalent in modern academia, often justified under the pretext of protecting vulnerable groups or preventing harm.

“Hard censorship occurs when people exercise power to prevent idea dissemination. Governments and religious institutions have long censored science. However, journals, professional organizations, universities, and publishers—many governed by academics—also censor research, either by preventing dissemination or retracting postpublication. Soft censorship employs social punishments or threats of them (e.g., ostracism, public shaming, double standards in hirings, firings, publishing, retractions, and funding) to prevent dissemination of research”.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

The Consequences of Censorship

The article warns of the significant consequences of scientific censorship. When certain ideas are systematically suppressed, the published literature becomes biased, leading to a distorted understanding of reality. This, in turn, affects policy-making and societal norms, as decisions are based on incomplete or skewed information.

“Systematic censorship, and thus systematic misunderstandings, could emerge if a majority of scientists share particular preferences or prejudices that influence their scientific evaluations”.

The authors illustrate this with a hypothetical scenario:

“The potential epistemic consequence of scientific censorship. Green stars are evidence that X is true. Red stars are evidence that X is not true. Assume that each piece of evidence is equally weighty. Censorship that obstructs evidence against X will produce a peer-reviewed literature that concludes that X is true when most likely it is not”.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

Recommendations for Transparency and Accountability

To address these issues, the authors call for greater transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making. They suggest empirical studies to examine the costs and benefits of censorship and advocate for clear, transparent criteria for evaluating research. This would help mitigate the influence of individual biases and ensure that scientific discourse remains open and robust.

“We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns”

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

Ideological Capture and Its Implications

The ideological capture of academia and scientific institutions is not a new phenomenon, but its implications are becoming increasingly apparent. When scientific discourse is dominated by a particular ideology, it undermines the fundamental principles of science—objectivity, critical inquiry, and evidence-based reasoning.

The alignment of academic institutions with leftist or Marxist ideologies exacerbates this problem. These ideologies often prioritize social and political goals over objective truth, leading to the suppression of research that contradicts their narratives. As the article notes,

“Science exists in tension with other institutions, occasionally provoking hostility and censorship”.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

This ideological capture is evident in various fields, in particular climate science, where dissenting views on issues like climate change and policy responses are almost always marginalized. The result is a monolithic perspective that discourages genuine scientific debate and innovation.

Conclusion

The PNAS article sheds light on a critical issue within the scientific community—censorship driven by prosocial motives and ideological bias. This phenomenon threatens the integrity of scientific research and undermines public trust in scientific institutions. To preserve the credibility and objectivity of science, it is essential to recognize and address the ideological influences that drive censorship and to promote a more open and balanced scientific discourse.

By fostering transparency, accountability, and ideological diversity, we can ensure that science remains a true reflection of reality, rather than a tool for advancing specific political agendas. Only then can we uphold the fundamental principle that evidence, not ideology, should guide our understanding of the world.

Read the full paper here.

clark-et-al-2023-prosocial-motives-underlie-scientific-censorship-by-scientists-a-perspective-and-research-agendaHerunterladen

CFACT squares off with JP Morgan CEO at shareholder meeting

CFACT’s Greg Neff directed a pointed question to CEO Jamie Dimon at a shareholder meeting on Thursday, May 23, taking aim at JP Morgan’s involvement with the “Net-Zero Banking Alliance” (NZBA). NZBA is a network that represents 40% of the global banking institutions that have come together to commit to financing projects that will transition the world economy to net zero by 2050.

From CFACT

CFACT’s Greg Neff directed a pointed question to CEO Jamie Dimon at a shareholder meeting on Thursday, May 23, taking aim at JP Morgan’s involvement with the “Net-Zero Banking Alliance” (NZBA). NZBA is a network that represents 40% of the global banking institutions that have come together to commit to financing projects that will transition the world economy to net zero by 2050.

“Agriculture officials from at least 11 states have raised concern about JP Morgan’s involvement with the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), saying that the policies promoted by this group will likely lead to food shortages and huge price increases for consumers. Is it wise for this board to step outside its expertise and make commitments to push forward the NZBA’s extreme agenda?” Neff queried.

It was immediately clear that this question had hit a nerve with the CEO. As it was read, Dimon gave a distinct sigh of annoyance and then proceeded to give an abbreviated non-answer that didn’t address a single point made in the query.

The CEO stated, “We dance to our own music here and we report that in our ESG report. Obviously, we care about the environment, farmers, and agriculture.” ESG refers to the controversial Environmental, Social, and Governance score program that has become all the rage on Wall Street in recent years. This scoring system of companies and individuals rates their adherence to many of the Left’s most sacred dogmas.

In addition to the Q&A period, CFACT also used its position as a stock owner in the company to vote on various proposals. The first of note sought to have JP Morgan create a report evaluating potential humanitarian crises being fostered by the forced transition to “green” energy. CFACT voted in favor of it. The second proposal sought to give additional rights to indigenous tribes, or more accurately leftwing organizations acting in the name of indigenous tribes, to veto any funding for fossil fuel projects in the name of environmental racism. CFACT voted against this one. Both proposals were ultimately defeated, landing CFACT a mixed bag of results.

CFACT will continue attending and reporting back on various shareholder meetings in which it holds shares. The broader implications of such engagements touch upon fundamental issues of environmental responsibility and economic viability. By challenging the radical left’s influence, CFACT aims to promote a balanced approach to corporate decision-making.