Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is no better or worse than its membership. If the companies like the free market, they are on solid consumer, taxpayer grounds. If the membership tilts toward special government favor (rent-seeking), API works against consumers and taxpayers.
“Energy policy will be on the ballot this fall, and American voters deserve meaningful answers from all candidates about how to drive production of affordable and reliable natural gas and oil for decades to come.” – American Petroleum Institute
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is no better or worse than its membership. If the companies like the free market, they are on solid consumer, taxpayer grounds. If the membership tilts toward special government favor (rent-seeking), API works against consumers and taxpayers.
Oil and gas companies should work from fundamental consumer demand out rather than political correctness in. They would have avoided boondoggles like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the 1970s and hydrogen and carbon capture today. They also should have fought hard against wind and solar for on-grid electricity and for batteries to overcome intermittency.
Today, API has many free-market views, given the Biden-Harris Administration’s anti-oil-and-gas agenda, 250 actions (and counting) worth. Yes, the upcoming U.S. election is about energy. And one major party candidate is pro-oil-and-gas (and coal)–another rabidly against (via her handlers). No mystery there.
API’s Mark Green summarized the issues as follows:
“With demand for affordable, reliable energy rising here in the U.S. and around the world, the oil and natural gas industry stands ready to work with any administration to advance a policy agenda that helps secure America’s energy future and reduce inflation.”
Energy policy will be on the ballot this fall, and American voters deserve meaningful answers from all candidates about how to drive production of affordable and reliable natural gas and oil for decades to come.
Protecting Consumer Choice – The Biden administration is using regulation – EPA’s tailpipe emissions rule and new fuel-economy standards – to force automakers to produce more electric vehicles and push Americans to buy them. Consumers – all of whom have different budget and family needs – deserve more freedom, not less, when it comes to deciding which vehicles they will buy and drive.
Restoring the Role of American Energy in Bolstering Our Geopolitical Strength – American liquefied natural gas (LNG) was a lifesaver for Europe when Russia invaded Ukraine and restricted natural gas supplies. LNG offers other countries an opportunity to reduce emissions from using other fuels – as the U.S. has done in its power sector. The U.S. Energy Department should lift the ongoing pause on new LNG permits and promptly approve pending export applications to support America’s status as the world’s top LNG supplier.
Leveraging Our Abundant Natural Resources – For today and the future, America must plan for robust production so that families and businesses have access to affordable, reliable energy – for transportation, home heating and cooking, and countless consumer products that are staples of modern life. Anchored by U.S. oil and natural gas, strong domestic energy production also helps control energy-related costs for Americans, even as inflation has greater impacts on the costs of food, health care, education and other necessities.
Fixing Our Broken Permitting System – America needs to be able to build critical energy infrastructure of all kinds, not just oil and natural gas projects. But this is being impeded by a federal permitting process that can take years to complete. Comprehensive reform, such as the proposals in new bipartisan Senate legislation introduced this week, is needed.
Advancing Sensible Tax Policy – America’s oil and natural gas industry supports 11 million jobs and drives billions in investment that boosts the nation’s economy. U.S. tax policy must be made competitive with policies of other nations, because capital flows to where it is most welcome. And investment in American industries is vital to a strong, diversified economy, helping to sustain the jobs, economic growth, and tax revenues that support our states and communities.
API’s roadmap is a practical, sensible, workable path forward on American energy, which should be treated as a national, strategic asset and foundational to our country’s economy and security.
“As the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas, America brings stability in a time of chaos, making our industry the envy of the world. This critical framework highlights our commitment to maintaining America’s energy advantage for decades to come.”
As the election season kicks into high gear, we look forward to an important national conversation about energy.
Final Comment
API’s 550-word summary above is pretty solid as far as it goes. But political correctness and internal rent-seeking prevents API from condemning the anti-consumer, taxpayer-enabled energies. At this late hour, principle must join pragmatism to advocate an across-the-board free market, classical-liberal energy policy. To this end, the oil, gas, coal, and internal combustion engine industries should unite against climate alarmism and forced energy transformation.
A single ruling from a judge appointed by President Joe Biden may end up halting oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in December.
Judge Deborah Boardman, the Biden-appointed district judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, sided with suing environmentalists in August to vacate a key National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) environmental review — known as a biological opinion — underlying offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Unless the federal government manages to revise the biological opinion by Dec. 20, and barring intervention from a higher court or the Congress, the ruling could force offshore oil and gas drilling to grind to a halt as developers decide whether to proceed at their own risk or shut down their operations until a new review is issued, according to multiple energy sector experts and stakeholders.
“The revocation of a duly issued permit such as this on such specious grounds by a single judge places all other duly issued permits in the areas occupied by this endangered and other endangered or threatened species in jeopardy,” David Blackmon, a 40-year veteran of the oil and gas industry who now writes and consults on energy issues, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Operators now will have to consider whether they’re willing to risk millions of dollars in capital in projects only to find their own permits being revoked on the whims of a judge sympathetic to the radical climate lobby.” (RELATED: Biden Concedes A Gas Export Approval, But It May Just Be A ‘Political Tactic’ To Help His VP)
Biden Admin Releases Robust Leasing Schedule For Struggling Green Industry After Issuing Restrictive Oil And Gas Plan https://t.co/q4gV9mN71s— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 25, 2024
“Absurd judicial decisions like this one threaten to destroy billions of dollars in investments in the U.S. by destroying the ability of companies and investors to have confidence in the proper, consistent application of laws and regulations,” Blackmon added. “Unfortunately, the destruction of this longstanding American advantage to attract capital has been a consistent feature of this administration and the activist judges it favors.”
The Gulf of Mexico is one of the largest sources of oil and gas in the U.S., with the region providing nearly 15% of all American crude oil production and 5% of total dry natural gas output, according to the Energy Information Administration. If it were a country, the Gulf of Mexico would be one of the 12 biggest oil producing states in the world, according to Bloomberg News.
Notably, oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico is less carbon-intensive than oil produced elsewhere; one May 2023 analysis commissioned by the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) found that oil extracted offshore in the Gulf of Mexico is 46% less carbon-intensive than the global average excluding the U.S. and Canada.
The biological opinion at the heart of the possible disruption to the industry was issued in 2020, and it assessed how oil and gas operations could potentially impact protected species living in the region, according to Bloomberg. Regulators typically use the biological opinion as a blanket analysis instead of issuing individual assessments on a case-by-case basis.
Provided developers are in compliance with the biological opinion, federal regulators had approved “takes,” meaning that developers are legally permitted to harm or harass a given number of particular species, an official for an industry stakeholder involved in efforts to solve the impasse told the DCNF. Without a valid biological opinion in place to limit liability via these takes, companies “will have to decide whether they continue to operate at their own risk” or instead cease their operations until the situation is resolved, according to an Aug. 29 memo published by Holland & Knight, a major law firm.
In the absence of a solid biological opinion, regulators responsible for approving development in the Gulf of Mexico would also probably have to weigh in on hundreds of different decisions each year, an amount of paperwork that could inundate the regulators, the official for an industry stakeholder told the DCNF. Such an outcome could cause problems for offshore green energy developments, in addition to disrupting things like vessels supplying offshore drilling platforms, operation of existing wells and future offshore oil and gas development, according to Bloomberg. (RELATED: Biden Admin Locks In Skimpiest Offshore Oil And Gas Leasing Schedule In US History As Prices Remain High At The Pump)
Biden Admin Slow Rolls Oil Sanctions Against Russia, Iran In Bid To Keep Gas Prices Down Ahead Of Electionhttps://t.co/djI88OrygK— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 26, 2024
The NMFS has started the process of putting together a new biological opinion, but the agency may not be able to complete it until as late as the spring of next year, according to Bloomberg.
The agency “is aware of the court’s ruling on Sierra Club et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, and [it is] working with [its] federal agency partners on [their] next steps,” a spokesperson for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), of which NMFS is a sub-agency, told the DCNF.
The environmental groups suing the government over the biological opinion include the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, according to Reuters. Some industry stakeholders, including NOIA and the American Petroleum Institute (API), have intervened in the litigation on the side of the government, according to Bloomberg.
Mike Sommers, API’s president and CEO, wrote a Friday letter to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to express his concern about the unfolding legal situation in the Gulf of Mexico.
“Without a solution in place, this decision will create a significant bureaucratic bottleneck for the federal government and potentially halt all oil and natural gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico,” Sommers wrote, adding that “this court decision has the potential to halt or seriously slow all operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, leaving a critical source of energy supply and economic security in jeopardy.”
Additionally, industry groups and affected corporations are engaged in a lobbying blitz to try to avoid their worst-case scenario, and stakeholders have also communicated with lawmakers’ office in pursuit of a legislative solution, according to Bloomberg. They are also considering legal strategies for relief if a solution does not come together sooner than later.
“There should be a high level of concern regarding potential disruptions to the energy flow from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, ” NOIA President Erik Milito said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “As it currently sits, the court order related to the Biological Opinion for the Gulf of Mexico energy sector could create roadblocks to continued energy development from the region. Such disruptions would likely cause considerable economic and national security harm to our country … Given the vital importance of the Gulf of Mexico, we remain optimistic that cooler heads will prevail, and we will see much-needed resolution to this issue through the judicial process, regulatory efforts, or Congressional action.”
The White House, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Department of the Interior did not respond to requests for comment. The Department of Justice declined to comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Satellite observations from CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) indicate cloud cover has been declining since 2000. Declining cloud cover has meant less shortwave radiation has been reflected to space, resulting in an increase in the solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s surface (ocean).
“Earth’s energy imbalance has doubled from 0.5 ± 0.2 W/m² during the first 10 years of this century to 1.0 ± 0.2 W/m² during the past decade. The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 W/m² increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR)…” − Loeb et al., 2024
Satellite observations from CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) indicate cloud cover has been declining since 2000. Declining cloud cover has meant less shortwave radiation has been reflected to space, resulting in an increase in the solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s surface (ocean).
Earth’s Energy Imbalance (the net difference between incoming and outgoing energy) has been increasingly positive since 2000, rising from an average +0.5 W/m² from 2000 to 2010 to +1 W/m² in the last decade. This positive trend is the consequence of the +0.9 W/m² increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) due to this observed decline in cloud cover.
Thus, the 2000-2022 increase in sea surface temperatures (SST) can be explained by increases in shortwave (SW) forcing, and not an enhanced greenhouse effect due to rising greenhouse gases.
The reason we can say greenhouse gases cannot explain modern warming is because the positive shortwave (SW) forcing driving SST increases has been partially offset – reduced – by a declining greenhouse effect or longwave (LW) forcing (-0.4 W/m²) over this period. This is manifested as an increasing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) trend (more energy lost to space) during the first 23 years of the 21st century.
The LW forcing trend is partially impacted by trace greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4, as well as by water vapor.
“…part of the -OLR trend is associated with reduced emission resulting from increases in water vapor and WMGG [well mixed greenhouse gases] above the cloud top…”
But the predominant factor affecting OLR is the decadal-scale trend in cloud cover, referred to as the cloud radiative effect (CRE). While declining cloud cover results in increasing absorbed solar radiation (see the red positive SW bar on the CRE chart), it simultaneously enhances, rather than reduces, the outgoing longwave trend (as shown in the blue negative LW bar in the CRE chart).
In other words, the greenhouse effect impact, manifested as the trend in OLR, has been heading in the opposite direction of what it should have been if anthropogenic CO2 emissions were indeed driving global warming. CO2 emissions are not impactful enough to reverse the overall sign of longwave radiation.
According to Cess and Udelhofen (2003), a negative greenhouse effect influence – enhancing cooling – was also observed over the 1985-1999 period. Thus, extending the 2000-2022 trend another 15 years, the total greenhouse effect forcing may have actually been cooling the Earth for more than 35 years.
Models say an enhanced greenhouse effect due to increasing trends in well-mixed greenhouse gases explains the rise in SSTs in recent decades. These model results are not supported by observations.
Last year, Georgina Rannard of the BBC reported that “scientists say” a weakening Gulf Stream could collapse as early as this year, a dire process that would bring catastrophic changes in the weather in the northern hemisphere. Routine fear mongering, of course, from the Net Zero promoting BBC and this ‘tipping point’ scare is common among alarmists. After all, everyone knows about the 2004 dystopian Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow. ‘Most of us are going to die’ is a great scoop, it is just a shame about the facts. Ground-breaking new work from scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has discovered that the huge flow of tropical water through the Florida Straits has remained “remarkably stable” for over 40 years.
Last year, Georgina Rannard of the BBC reported that “scientists say” a weakening Gulf Stream could collapse as early as this year, a dire process that would bring catastrophic changes in the weather in the northern hemisphere. Routine fear mongering, of course, from the Net Zero promoting BBC and this ‘tipping point’ scare is common among alarmists. After all, everyone knows about the 2004 dystopian Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow. ‘Most of us are going to die’ is a great scoop, it is just a shame about the facts. Ground-breaking new work from scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has discovered that the huge flow of tropical water through the Florida Straits has remained “remarkably stable” for over 40 years.
The Florida current is a key component of the Gulf Stream, which is an important part of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). This current flows north, raising temperatures in the higher latitudes by up to 10°C. Warm tropical water flows between the Florida Peninsula, Cuba and the Bahamas at speeds up to seven kilometres per hour and provides most of the heat taken north by the AMOC. The paper notes that several recent studies have used a possible flow decline to speculate about a collapse in the Gulf Stream and the AMOC. Thus, clickbait science papers using computer models have been picked up by mainstream media and politicians to provoke fear of a Gulf Stream catastrophe.
Using data derived from motion-induced change in submarine cable voltages, and adjusting for errors caused by past geomagnetic data processing, the NOAA scientists state that their new 40-year record “challenges” the previously made assertions on the statistically significant decline of the Florida current. The respected climate scientist Judith Curry has hailed the new paper from the U.S. weather service as “important” and notes that the AMOC is not weakening despite it being touted as a climate tipping point.
It is unlikely that mainstream media will touch this paper since it kicks much of their fear mongering on the Gulf Stream into touch. Last year’s excitement suggesting imminent collapse was caused by a paper written by Peter Ditlevsen from the University of Copenhagen, who told the constantly worried Guardian that “we should be very worried”. The alarmists’ alarmist Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact and Research said the Ditlevsen paper added to the “evidence” that the AMOC collapse “is much nearer than we thought”. We can’t rule out crossing the tipping point in the next decade or two, he added.
The NOAA scientists note that most climate models suggest a 34-45% decline in the present strength of the AMOC within less than 80 years. A number of ‘proxy’ records are said to indicate that the AMOC may already be slowing down on a centennial scale. There has been criticism of the Ditlevsen findings, with a subsequent paper observing that the uncertainties, mostly around sea surface temperature data, were too large to predict a tipping point for the AMOC. Such is the unreliability of climate computer models that the tipping point could occur anywhere between now and infinity. It all depends, it would seem, what is loaded into the model in the first place. But whatever is loaded, there appears to be a near guarantee that unquestioning activists in mainstream media will report any fear-packed message to a wider public.
Referring to the recent controversy, the NOAA scientists state that the ability of temperature based indices to represent the AMOC has been questioned. The recent reductions of sea surface temperatures in the subpolar North Atlantic is often assumed to be an indication of an AMOC slowdown. But the scientists suggest it could “largely be driven by the atmosphere alone without any changes in ocean circulation”. Further up the Gulf Stream, between New Jersey and Bermuda, the NOAAS authors go on to note that direct measurements from 1992 do not support suggestions that the AMOC has started to substantially slow down. Hydrographic data are said to be sparse, but “no significant weakening of the AMOC has been detected”.
The variations of the AMOC are being hotly disputed in scientific circles. Much of the research into this important ocean circulation is recent and a great deal needs to be learnt. The NOAA authors point out that investigating the variability of the Florida current “is of particular importance for detecting and better understanding changes in the Earth’s climate system, as well as for interpreting regional variations in weather, sea level and eco-systems”.
But all too often we see how ‘settled’ science – a harmful unwillingness to consider all climate variation other than those assumed to be caused by humans – debases much of the effort. ‘Blacklists’ of climate sceptics are compiled, academics lose their careers and fines and imprisonment are demanded for those who fail to toe the authorised line. Mainstream media only seem interested in silly sci-fi predictions of the imminent demise of the Gulf Stream. It grabs the headlines, is easy work if you can get it and plays out to an agreed political narrative. Like the multi-year record growth of coral at the Great Barrier Reef, the cyclical Arctic sea ice, the obvious corruptions in many temperature measurements and the astonishing CO2 ‘greening’ of the planet, the lies are all told by omitting obvious, easily obtainable and important facts.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Even though the evidence for a climate catastrophe is “overwhelming” and they have the media licking their shoes, Greenpeace have somehow failed to persuade the voters to share their outrage and cancel the pipelines that carry “fossil” fuels. So they moved to lawfare and allegedly a slow sabotage through dubious protests that stopped companies from carrying out legal business activity. Now finally, after years of battling, one pipeline billionaire is said to be “within spitting distance” of winning a $300 million dollar case against them. His company is called Energy Transfer.
Greenpeace USA say it may be bankrupted by a pipeline billionaire
Even though the evidence for a climate catastrophe is “overwhelming” and they have the media licking their shoes, Greenpeace have somehow failed to persuade the voters to share their outrage and cancel the pipelines that carry “fossil” fuels. So they moved to lawfare and allegedly a slow sabotage through dubious protests that stopped companies from carrying out legal business activity. Now finally, after years of battling, one pipeline billionaire is said to be “within spitting distance” of winning a $300 million dollar case against them. His company is called Energy Transfer.
In 2016, Greenpeace and some native American tribal groups and activists camped for months in a corner of North Dakota to stop the crude oil pipeline his company was building.
The case is set for trial in February in North Dakota. Obviously the outcome is not known, but everyone seems to be acting as if they do know. The first line of the Wall Street Journal says the billionaire “is about to land a knockout punch on Greenpeace. ”
Donors to Greenpeace will not be happy if their money ends up with a crude oil pipeline company.
Energy Transfer’s lawsuit alleges several Greenpeace entities incited the Dakota Access protests, funded attacks to damage the pipeline, and spread misinformation about the company and its project. The case is set for trial in February in a North Dakota state court, where both sides expect a fossil-fuel-friendly jury. Energy Transfer is seeking $300 million in damages, which would likely wipe out Greenpeace USA, according to the group’s leadership.
Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace USA’s acting co-executive director, said the lawsuit is “an existential threat” to the group.
Kelce claims people have not wanted to take on these protestors for fear it would “look wrong”:
“Everybody is afraid of these environmental groups and the fear that it may look wrong if you fight back with these people,” Warren said in a 2017 TV interview. “But what they did to us is wrong, and they’re gonna pay for it.”
If the Pipeline billionaire does win the $300 million suit, it will wipe out Greenpeace USA (but not the rest of the Greenpeace international circus.) Greenpeace say they had a “limited role”. The lawsuit alleges they funded attacks on the pipeline, incited protests and spread misinformation.
May the floodgates open
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, the European arm of Greenpeace has just been ordered to pay $50,000 in fines for getting in the way of oil tankers in 2022:
A court in the town of Svendborg in Denmark has imposed fines totalling DKK360,000 (US$53,000) against the local branch of environmental activist group Greenpeace in connection with some of its members’ actions in attempting to disrupt the movement of crude oil imported from Russia.
After years of petulant attention-seeking antics, Greenpeace has lost community sympathy and its sacred un-suable glow (at least in some states). This is the company with a budget in the hundreds of millions, which threatened people with “we know where you live”.
The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and scepticism. If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like. If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fuelling spurious debates around false solutions and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.
But ponder what a travesty the justice system is. The pipeline was delayed in 2016, and instead of authorities protecting a legal activity at the time, here we are eight years later, after a million or two has been send to lawyers, and we still don’t have certainty. Meanwhile, Greenpeace and others delayed a product that people wanted. Some poor deplorables must have paid more than they would have for crude oil based products during the delay, but they won’t get a cent back in compensation. If only people could sue the justice system…
Harry Prothero says: “Great news!!! How do I contribute to Mr. Warren’s lawsuit against these jackals?“
Mark Limbruner: Thank goodness an oil & gas executive that’s not running to a foxhole and hiding but is taking the fight to his company’s opponents!
Brian Thomas at the WSJ:
During this process – I recall on conversation with a utility industry professional who works in ND who shared a plane ride to NYC with a self-proclaimed professional activist who bragged about the money he made as a protester, including bonus payments for getting his pictures in the paper as part of raising publicity against the pipeline. Hoping that justice prevails vs. Greenpeace and the cleansing light of day shines on the “professional shakedown “ industry of environmental protesting.
The experts involved in SIPN are expecting SII 2024 September to be much lower than 2023 and 2022, based largely on the large deficits SII is showing in July and August. The way MASIE is going, this September looks to be lower than its average, but much higher than SII. While the daily minimum for the year occurs mid September, ice extent on September 30 is typically slightly higher than on September 1.
Figure 1. Distribution of SIO contributors for August estimates of September 2024 pan-Arctic sea-ice extent. No Heuristic methods were submitted in August. “Sun” is a public/citizen contribution. Image courtesy of Matthew Fisher, NSIDC.
The August 2024 Outlook received 24 pan-Arctic contributions (Figure 1). This year’s median forecasted value for pan-Arctic September sea-ice extent is 4.27 million square kilometers with an interquartile range of 4.11 to 4.54 million square kilometers. This is lower than the 2022 (4.83 million square kilometers) and 2023 (4.60 million square kilometers) August median forecasts for September. . .This reflects relatively rapid ice loss during the month of July, resulting in August Outlooks revising estimates downward. The lowest sea-ice extent forecast is 3.71 million square kilometers, from the RASM@NPS submission); the highest sea-ice extent forecast is 5.23 million square kilometers, submitted by BCCR.
These are predictions for the September 2024 monthly average ice extent as reported by NOAA Sea Ice Index (SII). This post provides a look at the 2024 Year To Date (YTD) based on monthly averages comparing MASIE and SII datasets. (18 year average is 2006 to 2023 inclusive).
The graph puts 2024 into recent historical perspective. Note how 2024 was slightly above the 18-year average for the first 5 months, then tracked slightly lower to average through August. The outlier 2012 provided the highest March maximum as well as the lowest September minimum, coinciding with the Great Arctic Cyclone that year. 2007 began the period with the lowest minimum except for 2012. SII 2024 started slightly higher than MASIE the first 3 months, then ran the same as MASIE until dropping in August 400k km2 below MASIE 2024 and also lower than 2007 and 2012.
The table below provides the monthly Arctic ice extent averages for comparisons (all are M km2)
Monthly
MASIE 2024
SII 2024
MASIE -SII
MASIE 2024-18 YR AVE
SII 2024-18 YR AVE
MASIE 2024-2007
Jan
14.055
13.917
0.139
0.280
0.333
0.293
Feb
14.772
14.605
0.167
0.096
0.152
0.121
Mar
14.966
14.873
0.093
0.111
0.199
0.344
Apr
14.113
14.131
-0.018
0.021
0.118
0.418
May
12.577
12.783
-0.207
-0.038
0.123
0.150
June
10.744
10.895
-0.151
-0.072
0.024
-0.082
July
8.181
7.884
0.297
-0.107
-0.160
0.188
Aug
5.617
5.214
0.404
-0.267
-0.423
0.033
The first two data columns are the 2024 YTD shown by MASIE and SII, with the MASIE surpluses in column three. Column four shows MASIE 2024 compared to MASIE 18 year averages, while column five shows SII 2024 compared to SII 18 year averages. YTD August MASIE and SII are below their averages, SII by nearly half a Wadham. The last column shows MASIE 2024 holding surpluses over 2007 most of the months, and nearly the same in August.
Summary
The experts involved in SIPN are expecting SII 2024 September to be much lower than 2023 and 2022, based largely on the large deficits SII is showing in July and August. The way MASIE is going, this September looks to be lower than its average, but much higher than SII. While the daily minimum for the year occurs mid September, ice extent on September 30 is typically slightly higher than on September 1.
Footnote:
Some people unhappy with the higher amounts of ice extent shown by MASIE continue to claim that Sea Ice Index is the only dataset that can be used. This is false in fact and in logic. Why should anyone accept that the highest quality picture of ice day to day has no shelf life, that one year’s charts can not be compared with another year? Researchers do this, including Walt Meier in charge of Sea Ice Index. That said, I understand his interest in directing people to use his product rather than one he does not control. As I have said before:
MASIE is rigorous, reliable, serves as calibration for satellite products, and continues the long and honorable tradition of naval ice charting using modern technologies. More on this at my post Support MASIE Arctic Ice Dataset
MASIE: “high-resolution, accurate charts of ice conditions” Walt Meier, NSIDC, October 2015 article in Annals of Glaciology.
Wind mills, solar farms and giant batteries. How to wreck the English countryside for no good reason!
Mega projects designed to store renewable energy are drawing the ire of rural communities
The bucolic Buckinghamshire village of Granborough, while picturesque, is not much of a landmark. Mentioned in the Domesday Book, it briefly became a point of interest for James Bond fans when the abandoned rail station was referenced in the 2012 film Skyfall.
But the farmland around the village has been scoped out as the potential site for not one, but two giant battery installations and a solar farm.
The energy companies Statera and Statkraft have applied for permission to build two 500-megawatt sites near a new electricity substation, arguing it can support the move to a decarbonised electricity grid.
The plan has provoked heavy local opposition. “This might become an industrial area more than the farming land it’s been for the last thousand years,” says Jamie Ingham Clark, of the Claydons Solar Action Group.
“Battery storage sites should be on brownfield – they should not take away our ability to grow food.”
Campaigners say they are particularly concerned about fire risk from the batteries, after a major fire at a facility in Liverpool four years ago.
Supporters of grid batteries – mega projects featuring banks of bus-sized blocks able to power thousands of houses at once – say they are the missing piece in the puzzle, drawing excess power from wind and solar when the weather allows and releasing it when it is dark, calm and people need to heat and light their homes.
A total of 1,862 grid-scale battery storage projects have been built or proposed in Britain, according to RenewableUK, compared to just 215 that are currently operational.
If all these projects were built, this would provide 108.87 gigawatts (GW) of power – more than double the peak electricity demand of the whole country last winter. This would be up from just 4.6 GW currently, and zero eight years ago, suggesting an unprecedented battery boom is on the horizon.
“There’s been significant growth in the span of eight years, and that’s been made possible by a more decarbonised system. With that comes the requirement for battery storage,” says Yonna Vitanova, of RenewableUK.
Yes, Yonna! The silly woman obviously does not realise she has got it backwards. Because useless wind and solar power is so intermittent, we must spend more billions on batteries, wrecking rural communities in the process.
As for this silly little reporter, James Titcomb, who claims that “If all these projects were built, this would provide 108.87 gigawatts (GW) of power – more than double the peak electricity demand of the whole country last winter”, does he not realise that this could only power the country for an hour or two? What on earth are we supposed to do when we have a week without wind?
Heaven help us all if this is the standard of the Telegraph’s journalism now.
Citing the need for more electricity to continue growing the artificial intelligence (AI) sector and keep the U.S. tech industry ahead of China, former President Donald Trump on Sept. 5 vowed in a second term to issue a “national emergency declaration to achieve a massive increase in domestic energy supply.”
Citing the need for more electricity to continue growing the artificial intelligence (AI) sector and keep the U.S. tech industry ahead of China, former President Donald Trump on Sept. 5 vowed in a second term to issue a “national emergency declaration to achieve a massive increase in domestic energy supply.”
But standing in the way of ramped up domestic energy production is a federal permitting process notorious for its foot-dragging. Some in Congress acknowledge the problem, but their latest effort to rectify the situation risks being overtaken by surging energy demand and troubling geopolitical realities.
Hoping to unravel the reams of red tape that have tied up transportation, energy, and mining projects for years, and in some cases killed them altogether, Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Sen. John Barasso (R-Wyo.) want their colleagues to approve their “Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.” Centralizing decision-making on power transmission nationwide is the centerpiece of their legislation. Accordingly, it would bolster the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) authority to approve interstate transmission lines and require interregional transmission planning.
In a bid to satisfy as many conflicting interests as possible, the bill establishes deadlines for filing lawsuits over energy and mining projects, and sets requirements for onshore and offshore oil, gas, coal and renewable energy leasing and permitting. It also includes provisions on hard-rock mining and sets a 90-day deadline for the secretary of Energy to grant or deny liquified natural gas (LNG) export applications, according to a summary of the legislation.
Many of the wind, solar and transmission-line projects favored by these groups have encountered the same permitting and litigation delays that have bedeviled fossil-fuel producers. On the other hand, the Sierra Club opposes the measure, finding it insufficiently hostile to fossil fuels and saying it “would open up federal lands and waters to more leasing and drilling and unnecessarily rush reviews of natural gas export projects…”
Aside from all the problems inherent in vesting so much authority in one federal bureaucracy, FERC, to handle the nation’s power transmission challenges, such conventional approaches are no match for the transformative developments already roiling America’s electricity supply. While politicians, along with some less-than-savvy investors, have been content to pour wads of public and private cash into the green energy transition, artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly upending the world elites thought they knew.
Energy-hungry data centers — there are currently over 2,700 in the United States with hundreds more planned — need electricity 24/7/365 if they are to meet the extraordinary demands of AI. The amount of electricity AI-driven data centers require cannot be produced by intermittent solar and wind power transmitted hundreds if not thousands of miles from the sunny Southwest or the gusty plains of the Upper Midwest. Big Tech’s demands on an already shaky grid far outstrip anything politically fashionable solar panels and wind turbines can ever deliver. To their chagrin, the Big Four data center developers — Amazon Web Services, Google, Microsoft and Beta — now find themselves increasingly dependent on the very fossil fuels and — where available — nuclear power they have been so quick to dismiss over the years.
But given the choice of meeting their lofty Net-Zero carbon emissions goals or cashing in on AI’s financial promise, Big Tech will choose the second option. And the stakes go well beyond the companies’ respective bottom lines. Data centers are essential to AI, and AI is essential to national security. If the U.S. is not the global leader in AI, China (along with its junior partner, Russia) will be.
“AI can be the foundation of a new industrial base it would be wise for our country to embrace,” Sam Altman, co-founder and CEO of OpenAI, recently wrote in the Washington Post.
Ceding the United States’ current lead in AI to China would be a blow from which America’s industrial base, and thus its military preparedness, would be hard pressed to recover. Data centers, powered by a steady flow of reliable energy, are now key assets in the perilous world of 21st century geopolitics.
As neighbors in the communities in which they are located, data centers are a mixed blessing. They generate enormous revenues to local governments but can be seen by nearby residents as disruptive to their community. The non-descript but noisy buildings comprising data centers house thousands of computer servers processing the data that make the internet, cloud computing and AI possible. They not only require gobs of power but also plenty of water used to lower temperatures.
Together with government-driven efforts to put more EVs on the road, data centers further complicate the challenges facing the already stressed electric grid. These developments are beyond the reach of the horse-trading that goes into Capitol Hill legislation. What is clear, however, is that the vaunted green-energy transformation will never be equal to the task before us.
Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
Originally published by The Daily Caller. Republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The study on atmospheric rivers has given us a valuable insight into the complexity of Arctic sea ice variability. The role of ARs in both ice melt and recovery provides a clear challenge to the simplistic view that Arctic changes are primarily driven by CO2 levels. This should prompt us to rethink the way we approach climate science and, more importantly, climate policy.
The dominant narrative in climate science holds that Arctic sea ice loss is almost entirely driven by human-induced global warming, primarily from CO2 emissions. Yet, a Nature Communications study titled Role of Atmospheric Rivers in Shaping Long-Term Arctic Sea Ice Variability highlights a crucial factor that has been largely overlooked: atmospheric rivers (ARs). These ARs—narrow, intense streams of water vapor originating in tropical and mid-latitude regions—play a significant role in Arctic sea ice variability, a phenomenon that traditional climate models fail to adequately capture.
By concentrating so heavily on CO2 as the main culprit of Arctic sea ice decline, mainstream climate models ignore the complex interactions between natural atmospheric phenomena and sea ice variability. This omission exposes the significant limitations in our understanding of the Arctic’s climate, and by extension, the reliability of the climate models driving current policy.
What Are Atmospheric Rivers, and Why Are They Important?
Atmospheric rivers are immense, fast-moving channels of water vapor that can transport moisture across vast distances. These rivers are known for delivering enormous quantities of water in the form of rain or snow when they make landfall, but their influence on the Arctic is less understood. The Nature Communications study shows that ARs can have a profound impact on the Arctic’s sea ice cover, both in terms of accelerating melt and contributing to periods of ice recovery.
These atmospheric rivers inject warm, moist air into the Arctic, which increases the temperature in the region and melts sea ice. The moisture they bring also plays a significant role in cloud formation, which in turn affects the energy balance of the Arctic system. Yet, despite this, ARs are often left out of the conversation when discussing Arctic ice loss, as the focus remains firmly fixed on CO2 emissions. This begs the question: why are such natural forces so often ignored in the narrative?
Abstract
Atmospheric rivers (ARs) reaching high-latitudes in summer contribute to the majority of climatological poleward water vapor transport into the Arctic. This transport has exhibited long term changes over the past decades, which cannot be entirely explained by anthropogenic forcing according to ensemble model responses. Here, through observational analyses and model experiments in which winds are adjusted to match observations, we demonstrate that low-frequency, large-scale circulation changes in the Arctic play a decisive role in regulating AR activity and thus inducing the recent upsurge of this activity in the region. It is estimated that the trend in summertime AR activity may contribute to 36% of the increasing trend of atmospheric summer moisture over the entire Arctic since 1979 and account for over half of the humidity trends in certain areas experiencing significant recent warming, such as western Greenland, northern Europe, and eastern Siberia. This indicates that AR activity, mostly driven by strong synoptic weather systems often regarded as stochastic, may serve as a vital mechanism in regulating long term moisture variability in the Arctic.
One of the most valuable contributions of this study is how it emphasizes the complexity of Arctic sea ice variability. The study documents that atmospheric rivers play a dual role in the Arctic: at times, they can melt sea ice by delivering heat, while in other instances, they help stabilize or even recover sea ice under certain conditions. This nuanced effect is vital to understanding why Arctic ice levels are not following the simplistic, linear trajectory of decline that CO2-centric climate models predict.
For example, in years with fewer or weaker atmospheric rivers, sea ice can recover, even in the context of an overall warming trend. Conversely, strong or frequent AR events can lead to accelerated ice loss. This dynamic, episodic interaction starkly contrasts with the popular portrayal of Arctic sea ice loss as an inevitable, unidirectional consequence of increasing CO2 levels. Instead, it points to a system where natural variability and short-term weather events play as significant a role as long-term climate trends.
The Limitations of Current Climate Models
The study’s findings expose significant deficiencies in the climate models that underpin much of the global warming narrative. These models, which are the foundation for policies like Net Zero and the Green New Deal, are primarily driven by the assumption that rising CO2 levels are the dominant force behind climate change. Yet, as the Nature Communications study reveals, atmospheric rivers—completely unrelated to CO2 emissions—are major drivers of Arctic sea ice variability.
Why do current climate models fail to account for such phenomena? The answer lies in the inherent limitations of these models. Climate models are built on assumptions and simplifications that struggle to accurately capture complex, chaotic atmospheric interactions like ARs. As a result, their projections tend to overestimate the impact of CO2 and underestimate or outright ignore natural variability.
This creates a problematic situation where policymakers are making decisions based on incomplete or faulty data. If atmospheric rivers, which are unpredictable and chaotic, can exert such a significant influence on the Arctic, it calls into question the reliability of long-term projections made by models that neglect them.
Natural Variability: A Long-Ignored Factor
The role of natural variability in shaping the Arctic’s climate is another critical point highlighted by the Nature Communications study. Arctic sea ice levels have fluctuated significantly in the past, long before the industrial era. Periods of Arctic warming in the early 20th century, for example, occurred with no significant rise in CO2 levels, pointing to the influence of natural climate drivers, including atmospheric rivers and oceanic cycles.
This should make us question why modern climate science tends to downplay or ignore the role of natural variability in current climate trends. The idea that CO2 is the singular driving force behind Arctic changes is not supported by historical evidence. The Arctic has always been subject to complex interactions between atmospheric and oceanic forces, and atmospheric rivers are just one example of such natural drivers.
Yet, today’s climate models tend to gloss over these complexities, focusing instead on greenhouse gas emissions as the primary explanatory variable. This not only leads to inaccurate predictions but also promotes a one-dimensional understanding of climate dynamics, particularly in the Arctic.
ARs, which can cause rapid and extreme moisture surges, may lead to significant Arctic melt events and initiate positive feedback loops. Future studies are essential to explore these potential new roles of ARs in AA as the Arctic continues to warm.
Another inconvenient fact often omitted from the CO2-driven narrative is the occasional recovery of Arctic sea ice. While it’s true that there has been a long-term decline in sea ice, periods of recovery—such as those observed after the dramatic low in 2012—undermine the idea of a linear decline. The Nature Communications study suggests that atmospheric rivers can create conditions conducive to ice recovery, depending on their timing and intensity.
For example, a lower-than-average occurrence of ARs in certain years has allowed for the temporary recovery of Arctic sea ice. This goes against the projections of climate models that had forecast an ice-free Arctic by now. It turns out the Arctic is more resilient than many alarmist predictions would have us believe, largely because these predictions fail to consider the full range of forces—like ARs—that influence ice variability.
This raises an important point: how reliable are the models if they cannot account for the natural forces that occasionally lead to sea ice recovery? This is not just an academic question—it has serious implications for the climate policies being pursued around the world today.
Questioning Drastic Climate Policies
Given the findings of the Nature Communications study, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the extreme climate policies being advocated by governments and international organizations. The Net Zero agenda, which seeks to eliminate all carbon emissions, is premised on the idea that human-induced CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. But if natural variability, including phenomena like atmospheric rivers, plays a significant role in climate dynamics, then the rationale for these policies becomes less clear.
This doesn’t just affect scientific debates—it has real-world consequences. The costs of achieving Net Zero, in terms of both economic disruption and environmental degradation from mining for rare earth metals for renewable technologies, may far outweigh the supposed benefits. Worse, by focusing on CO2 reduction as the sole solution, these policies ignore more practical, adaptive strategies that could better help societies cope with the impacts of climate change—whatever its causes.
The Unsettled Science of the Arctic
Ultimately, the Nature Communications study serves as a reminder that the science of the Arctic, and by extension, climate change as a whole, is far from settled. Atmospheric rivers, oceanic cycles, and other natural phenomena play significant roles in shaping the Earth’s climate, yet they are often ignored in favor of simplistic, politically convenient narratives centered around CO2 emissions.
The failure to adequately model and predict the influence of ARs on Arctic sea ice is just one example of how climate science still has much to learn. Policymakers should take heed: enacting drastic climate measures based on incomplete or inaccurate models could do more harm than good.
The lesson here is one of humility. The Earth’s climate is a complex, dynamic system with many interacting parts. By reducing it to a single variable—CO2—we risk not only misunderstanding the problem but also implementing ineffective and potentially harmful solutions.
As the Nature Communications study shows, the influence of atmospheric rivers on Arctic sea ice variability is a critical factor that cannot be ignored. It’s time we move beyond the oversimplified, CO2-centric models and embrace a broader, more nuanced understanding of the forces at play in our climate system.
Conclusion: A Call for Rethinking Climate Models and Policies
The study on atmospheric rivers has given us a valuable insight into the complexity of Arctic sea ice variability. The role of ARs in both ice melt and recovery provides a clear challenge to the simplistic view that Arctic changes are primarily driven by CO2 levels. This should prompt us to rethink the way we approach climate science and, more importantly, climate policy.
By acknowledging the limitations of current models and embracing a more holistic understanding of climate dynamics, we can develop more effective, adaptive strategies that better serve both the environment and humanity. The Arctic’s fate is not as straightforward as many would have us believe, and neither should be the policies we enact in response to its changes.
Plans to build a large nuclear power station in Wales are at risk of being scrapped as Ed Miliband seeks to accelerate Britain’s switch to a net zero electricity grid.
Wylfa in Wales is seen as one of Europe’s most promising undeveloped nuclear sites
Plans to build a large nuclear power station in Wales are at risk of being scrapped as Ed Miliband seeks to accelerate Britain’s switch to a net zero electricity grid.
The Energy Secretary has told officials to review future nuclear plans in a move that has thrown into doubt plans for a third new gigawatt-scale plant to be built at Wylfa, in Anglesey.
The review will also reconsider the official target, announced under Boris Johnson, to deploy at least 24 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050, The Telegraph understands.
On Friday, Whitehall sources stressed no final decisions had been made and that Mr Miliband remained strongly supportive of expanding British nuclear capacity.
However, the move will fuel concerns that Britain’s ambitions are being scaled back, with the Conservatives accusing him of turning his back on the industry.
Wylfa was only confirmed in May by the previous Conservative government to follow similar projects at Hinkley Point, in Somerset, and Sizewell, in Suffolk.
The Welsh site is capable of hosting up to four large reactors and has attracted keen interest from major international firms including US-based Westinghouse and South Korea’s Kepco.
It is understood that ministers remain committed to making a final investment decision on the £20bn Sizewell C power plant before the end of this year, as well as to the programme to develop the first mini nuclear power stations known as small modular reactors (SMRs).
But sources said that the Government’s future commitments were being reviewed in the round as part of wider plans to transition to a net zero energy system.
.jpg){kind=link}
You must be logged in to post a comment.