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 Energy Networks Association (ENA) has launched a winter campaign to help UK households prepare for possible power cuts.
The campaign focuses on three steps: “prepare, care, share.”
Lack of time, difficulties with scientific rigour, an uninterested public … television meteorologists open up about why they’re so quiet about the reasons for extreme conditions
…
Met Office forecaster and presenter Alex Burkill does not agree that climate denialism is rife among meteorologists. “I think the reason we don’t do it very often is twofold. One is timings. We don’t always have a huge amount of time to talk, particularly on TV. If there’s important weather to be discussing, you don’t really want to waste time talking about climate change. You’d much rather get the information the public need to make sure they stay safe.”
…
Andrew Charlton-Perez, professor of meteorology at Reading University, several of whose students have gone on to be weather forecasters, says it’s hard to strike the right balance. “It’s a bit of a Trojan horse. If you possibly can, you squeeze in some meteorology to explain something, but actually what most people want to know is, is it going to be hot?”
The second reason Burkill cites is more surprising. It is hard, he says, to demonstrate with scientific rigour that looming extreme weather definitely is caused by the climate crisis. “We’ve always had high temperatures, we’ve always had low temperatures, we’ve always had heavy rain, we’ve always had strong winds,” he says. “Obviously, a changing climate is making extreme high temperatures and rain more common and they’re likely to be down to climate change, but it’s hard to show that.”
Of course, these responses refer to weather forecasters polluting their TV news weather segment with climate rhetoric. Anthony is a meteorologist, and his WUWT website is pretty popular.
Why is it OK to discuss climate change on a website like WUWT, but not OK to discuss climate change in the weather segment?
I believe the answer is, when people watch the weather forecast, they just want to know the weather.
People choose to visit websites like WUWT when they have the time and inclination to do so.
Visiting a website is voluntary.
Being force fed loads of climate propaganda while you are rushing to get the kids to school and trying to figure out if they need warm clothes is an abuse of people’s precious time.
In my opinion, greens pushing weather people to abuse their audience’s patience by cluttering weather forecasts with climate propaganda is a sign of desperation, a sign they are losing their audience.
Have not the CCC done enough damage to this country already?
LONDON, Oct 26 (Reuters) – Britain’s climate advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), has recommended in a letter to government that it should commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 81% by 2035 in its upcoming budget next month.
The new Labour government is expected to announce increases in public spending and taxes in its first budget in 14 years next week.
The emissions cut target recommended by the advisers is higher than the current target of a 78% reduction by 2035 compared with 1990 levels and excludes international aviation and shipping emissions.
However, it would make a credible contribution towards limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the committee said.
“With climate damages already felt around the world, targeting an 81% emissions reduction by 2035 sets the right level of ambition,” said Piers Forster, interim chair of the committee. “Our analysis shows this can be achieved in a way that benefits jobs and the economy, provided we hit the country’s 2030 target – set in line with the CCC’s advice in 2020,” he said.
The government needs to set out an updated climate plan and targets for 2035 before a U.N. deadline of February 2025.
In July this year, the CCC said Britain might miss its 2030 emissions reduction target and was off track to meet a longer-term target of net zero emissions by mid-century.
The advice will also form part of the committee’s seventh carbon budget plan covering the years 2038-2042 which is due to be published in February next year.
Emissions of CO2 in 1990 were 604 Mt, dropping to 310 Mt last year. A target reduction of 81% by 2035 would mean a cut to 115 Mt, or 63% from now.
The actual outlook is probably even worse, because the 81% refers to all GHGs, in particular methane and N2O. Non CO2 GHGs have already been cut by59% since 1990, and further reductions will be much more difficult to achieve. If no further cuts are made in them, all of the burden will fall on CO2, implying a cut of 78% from now.
Even if power is fully decarbonised, this would only save 10% of emissions. Electric cars will no doubt help to reduce the 32% which Road Transport contributes. But maybe half the cars on the road will still be petrol/diesel, as heavy transport will be too. So there is limited room for reductions there, maybe another 10% or so.
And that’s about it!
There appears to be no hope of any mass rollout of heat pumps, and even if industry can be converted to hydrogen, the infrastructure for producing and supplying it simply won’t exist on these time scales.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the CCC’s Chair, Piers Forster, who has called for this has no knowledge of how the energy system or the economy. He is an academic whose background is climate modelling. Only somebody like him could come with inane comments like:
“it would make a credible contribution towards limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels”.
If we have to have a CCC, which the law demands, we should fill it with people who understand how energy systems work, how industry operates and who are prepared to be honest about what is practical and what is not. Above all, people who will lay out the costs involved and the massive damage likely to be caused to the UK economy in order to hit the targets laid down.
For well over two decades, the linked causes of climate alarmism and energy transition have provided their adherents with a powerful upper hand in American politics. For that matter, supporters of those causes have had just as strong, if not a stronger upper hand in the politics of all the countries with advanced economies, whether in the EU, or Canada, Australia, and others. Here in the U.S., for all this time, almost no politician — even those claiming to advocate generally for smaller government or less regulation — has been willing to push back directly against assertions of “climate crisis,” or against demands for reducing “carbon emissions” or for achieving a “net zero” energy economy via government coercion and massive subsidies.
For well over two decades, the linked causes of climate alarmism and energy transition have provided their adherents with a powerful upper hand in American politics. For that matter, supporters of those causes have had just as strong, if not a stronger upper hand in the politics of all the countries with advanced economies, whether in the EU, or Canada, Australia, and others. Here in the U.S., for all this time, almost no politician — even those claiming to advocate generally for smaller government or less regulation — has been willing to push back directly against assertions of “climate crisis,” or against demands for reducing “carbon emissions” or for achieving a “net zero” energy economy via government coercion and massive subsidies. Most Republicans seeking office have been cowed into deflecting and deferring on these issues, if indeed they have not openly gone along with the left’s energy program.
I have long said that this situation can’t last. The reason is that the proposed energy transition is infeasible and can’t possibly work; and the effort to achieve the impossible via government mandates and subsidies would inevitably drive up costs and otherwise impact voters directly in ways they would see. At some point the voters would react. But when would that occur?
You may not have noticed, but in the current election, push-back against insane energy transition policies has suddenly become a winning political issue. For the first time, Republicans are explicitly using the now patent consequences of the energy transition as a key strategy to win close races, including the presidency.
Consider the issue of electric vehicle mandates. There is no question about where Kamala Harris stands on this issue right now as a matter of official government action in which she has been personally involved. The Biden-Harris administration worked on developing a form of mandates for EVs from the day those two took office, as part of the administration’s “all of government” approach to, supposedly, controlling climate change through regulations. Two major rules were initiated on the subject, and gradually crept their way through the regulatory labyrinth. After years of process, the two rules became final on, respectively, April 18 and June 7, 2024. This is not ancient history, but rather something that occurred just over four months ago, and was big news at the time. The two Rules are in effect right now. There is no pretending this does not exist, or that it is part of some long-ago talking points of prior Harris campaigns that she has since moved on from. I covered these two rules in a post on June 8 titled “The Latest On The Federal War Against Internal Combustion Vehicles.”
Although the Rules are couched in terms of emissions and fuel economy standards, it is obvious on their face that the standards are set in a way that most internal combustion engine cars cannot meet them, thus forcing a transition to mostly EVs by the early 2030s. My June 8 post cited a March 25 analysis from Atlas EV Hub, which concluded that the EPA Rule alone could force EVs to be as much as 69% of new vehicle sales by 2032:
The regulation is set to bring significant changes to the auto industry, potentially putting the United States on the glide path to full electrification. . . . Under this final rule, battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric light-duty vehicles could make up 32 percent of all new vehicle sales in model year 2027, increasing to 69 percent by model year 2032.
Some time in late September or early October, the Trump campaign, sensing political advantage, began running an ad in Michigan explicitly stating that Harris is seeking to ban gasoline-powered cars. Video of the ad can be seen at this link. Here are the first few sentences of text:
Auto workers. Kamala Harris wants to end all gas powered cars. Crazy but true. Harris’s push requiring electric only is failing big and Michigan auto workers are paying the price. Massive layoffs already started. You could be next. President Trump’s committed to protecting America’s auto workers.
On October 4, reported by the New York Post here, Harris responded at a campaign rally in Flint, Michigan, with a statement saying:
“Michigan, let us be clear: Contrary to what my opponent is suggesting, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive.”
Of course Harris did not give anyone a chance to press her on the issue, or to ask her to explain how the two new Rules do not constitute an attempt to tell people “what kind of car they can drive.”
“In March, the EPA announced new emissions standards that had been drafted in close consultation with Michigan’s auto industry and Michigan’s auto workers. After responding to legitimate concerns from our auto manufacturers, the administration developed standards that were tough and aggressive, but also achievable — and earned the support of the auto industry and the UAW.”
The statement goes on and on from there in carefully calculated dissembling. It’s fun to watch her squirm.
A very similar dynamic has been unfolding in Pennsylvania, where Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey is now pretending that he has been a big supporter of fracking all along.
We are in the early days of this. Harris, Slotkin, Casey, et al., may still very well win their races. But however things come out this year, I predict that two and four years from now the needle will have swung further in the direction of energy sanity. Sooner or later, support for expensive and unworkable energy will become politically toxic. It can’t happen soon enough.
Alternative energy is exploding─literally. Lithium battery fires are breaking out on highways and in factories, home garages, and storage rooms. The rise in battery fires is amplified by government efforts to force adoption of electric vehicles and grid-scale batteries for electric power.
Alternative energy is exploding─literally. Lithium battery fires are breaking out on highways and in factories, home garages, and storage rooms. The rise in battery fires is amplified by government efforts to force adoption of electric vehicles and grid-scale batteries for electric power.
Lithium batteries have high energy density, making them valuable for phones and portable appliances. But when they catch fire, these batteries burn with high heat and can even explode. That’s why airlines prohibit lithium batteries in checked baggage.
On June 24, a battery factory in South Korea caught fire, triggering explosions and killing 22 workers. The fire broke out in Hwaseong at the Aricell plant, a maker of small lithium batteries for sensors and communications devices. Experts estimate that most workers were killed by toxic gases emitted by the burning batteries.
Scotland has suffered two major fires in battery recycling centers this year. On April 8, a large fire broke out at Fenix Battery Recycling in Kilwinning, North Ayrshire. More than 40 firefighters and personnel from six different agencies responded to the blaze, which burned for several days. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service urged nearby residents to remain indoors with windows closed as long as two days after the fire started.
On June 23, a large fire broke out at the battery recycling treatment facility of WEEE Solutions in Glasgow. Eyewitnesses reported explosions, noises like gunshots, “steel flying everywhere,” and a huge plume of black smoke. Ten fire trucks were needed, and the blaze lasted four days.
E-bike battery fires are now the leading cause of fires in New York City, with 216 fires last year. E-bike fires have become a serious problem in Australia, Canada, and other nations as well. Low-quality bike batteries self-ignite in first-floor storerooms, destroying the buildings above. Even high-quality batteries are prone to self-ignition after damage or when connected to a faulty charging system.
Lithium batteries have been used for the last 30 years in phones and small appliances. But the introduction of electric cars (EVs) after the year 2000 provided a massive increase in battery size. Lithium batteries for cars and trucks are 10,000 times as large as phone batteries.
On August 19, a Tesla semi-truck crashed into trees along Interstate-80 in California. The crash ignited the truck’s large lithium battery. Firefighters tried to extinguish the fire with thousands of gallons of water but were forced to let the fire burn itself out. The interstate was shut down for 15 hours. The California Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation passed last year requires all new heavy trucks to be zero emissions vehicles, which practically means electric trucks with batteries prone to fire.
Automakers have been wrestling with lithium battery fires for more than a decade. Alfa Romeo, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Porche, Tesla, and other manufacturers have recalled millions of EVs because of battery fire problems. Batteries can self-ignite while the vehicle is in motion, when connected to a charger, or even when sitting idly in a parking lot. EVs prone to self-ignition have been prohibited from parking at West Coast parking lots.
In August, a Mercedes-Benz EQE that had been manufactured in China burst into flames in a parking garage in Inchon, Korea. The EV had been parked in the garage for several days and was not charging at the time. The resulting inferno destroyed or damaged 140 vehicles.
On August 24, a fire broke out in the outside parking lot of electric truck manufacturer Rivian in Normal, Illinois. More than 50 trucks were destroyed. The same plant also reportedly suffered three other battery fires in the last year and three more fires in 2021-2022.
How are governments responding to the rash of lithium battery fires? They are doubling down, promoting the use of even larger, grid-scale lithium batteries as part of efforts to transition from coal, oil, and natural gas to wind and solar energy.
Grid-scale batteries are viewed as the solution to wind and solar intermittency, meant to store excess electricity when wind and solar output is high, and then release electricity when wind and solar output is low. But the number of grid battery fires is growing, and grid batteries are hundreds of times larger than EV batteries.
On July 26, a grid battery carried on a truck ignited after a crash on Interstate 15 near Baker, California. The battery was 20 feet long and weighed 75,000 pounds. I-15 was shut down for 44 hours as firefighters worked to put out the blaze. Hundreds of motorists were stranded in the desert in 100-degree heat. Ambulances, medical teams, and fuel and water were dispatched to the site to help stranded motorists.
On May 15, the Gateway Energy Storage facility using lithium-ion batteries caught fire near San Diego, California. Firefighters managed to get the blaze under control in 24 hours, but it then re-ignited twice more and burned for a total of 11 days. Evacuation orders to residents were issued and cancelled periodically, depending on the fire status. The Gateway facility was the largest of its kind when constructed in 2020.
Vice President Kamala Harris recently announced $1 billion in grants for electric school buses. If a diesel bus engine catches fire, the driver can usually put it out with a fire extinguisher. But this is not possible with electric buses, which explode when they catch fire. Let’s hope we’re not headed for fire explosions in electric buses full of children.
The world faces an epidemic of lithium battery fires. If government leaders continue to push lithium batteries and the green energy transition, battery fires will soon be coming to a location near you.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of the bestselling bookGreen Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
John Christy will be retiring from UAH July 2026. Because my funding has been tied to his projects (including the Alabama Office of the State Climatologist, which he heads), there is a good chance I will also be retiring on or before that date.
Since I’ve been getting questions about my retirement plans, I decided it’s time to address what I know so far.
John Christy will be retiring from UAH July 2026. Because my funding has been tied to his projects (including the Alabama Office of the State Climatologist, which he heads), there is a good chance I will also be retiring on or before that date.
The main issue with me continuing employment past his retirement date is the lack of funding from the federal government. We had a Department of Energy contract, but it is ending and we have very few friends in Washington since we remain on the “wrong side” of the science. The peer review process (which determines what proposals the government will fund) has been stacked against us for many years making it almost impossible to get funded to investigate the issues we believe are important to the climate debate.
It’s a little ironic that even though both John and I are “lukewarmers” that’s just not alarmist enough for us to be allowed to play in the climate sandbox with the big dogs (sorry for the mixed metaphor).
John and I still need to discuss how to keep the monthly satellite temperature updates going (if possible). There are three of us contributing to this effort. Danny Braswell (retired from UAH, but working part time) has been trying to get the newer ATMS instruments folded into our processing, but downloading the historical data is taking forever due to NOAA limitations on the number of files that can be requested on a daily basis. Also, much of the software had to be re-written to handle the differences between the AMSU and ATMS instruments scan geometries. John Christy is a good planner, and I’m hopeful we can work out something to keep the global temperature updates going, keeping in mind none of us is getting any younger.
On that subject, I am often asked if there are new, young researchers who can take our place. The problem is that their careers depend upon getting those same federal contracts we depended upon. Unfortunately, any projects that smell like climate skepticism are generally not funded, and young researchers will likely hurt their careers if they are considered to be replacements for John or me.
It has been many years since we received funding specifically to support the global temperature monitoring effort. The Remote Sensing Systems satellite temperature monitoring effort has much more funding success due to (in my opinion) Frank Wentz’s long-term, close friendship with one of NASA’s top managers. It helps to have friends in high places.
I will keep everyone updated as I learn more. Personally, I would like to continue the work I have started (especially the urban heat island work) if possible. Staying working, even part-time, helps keep me sane… I need to keep my mind active.
But advancing any science that doesn’t support global warming being a “crisis” remains an uphill battle. Several months before his death, Rush Limbaugh told me he thought we were losing that battle. But I’m willing to continue to fight it, anyway. I’m old enough to remember when the Soviet Union was believed to be an ever-present danger to the world that would never end, and yet it imploded. Maybe one day climate alarmism will suffer the same fate.
In a surprising yet overdue move, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has released its Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the New York Bight. This document, despite its extensive layers of technical jargon and cautious language, marks a pivotal shift. It appears to be a rare admission from BOEM that offshore wind farms are indeed capable of causing harm—biologically, socioeconomically, physically, and culturally.
In a surprising yet overdue move, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has released its Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the New York Bight. This document, despite its extensive layers of technical jargon and cautious language, marks a pivotal shift. It appears to be a rare admission from BOEM that offshore wind farms are indeed capable of causing harm—biologically, socioeconomically, physically, and culturally.
The PEIS covers six commercial wind energy leases off the shores of New Jersey and New York, totaling over 488,000 acres. While its primary focus is to outline measures to “avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor” impacts, the fact that BOEM is even considering these measures implies a long-overdue acknowledgment of offshore wind’s potential to harm marine ecosystems and coastal communities. The language in the document hints that these developments are not entirely benign, despite being repeatedly framed as environmentally friendly solutions to the climate crisis.
Impacts Revealed
While BOEM insists that the PEIS is “programmatic” and not the final say on the matter, the document does provide insight into some of the broader consequences of wind energy development. The PEIS details potential adverse impacts across various categories:
Biological Impacts: Marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, and fish could suffer due to noise, habitat displacement, and changes in migration patterns. Even bats, which are not typically associated with offshore environments, could be affected.
Physical and Socioeconomic Impacts: The potential effects on water and air quality, commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and scenic resources are all outlined. These sections make it clear that local economies and communities reliant on the ocean could experience significant disruptions.
Mitigation Measures are Not Enough: Although the report outlines numerous Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation, and Monitoring (AMMM) measures, it also acknowledges that some impacts are “unavoidable”.
A Major Shift in Tone
The PEIS goes further by recognizing the “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.” This bureaucratic phrase translates to the permanent alteration of ecosystems and loss of natural resources due to wind farm construction. It is a striking concession from an agency typically focused on facilitating development.
For years, opponents of offshore wind have argued that the push for rapid renewable energy development has overlooked the consequences for marine life and coastal communities. BOEM’s new PEIS seems to suggest that these concerns may have been valid all along.
Why This Matters
The document comes amid growing criticism of how offshore wind projects are assessed and approved. Many argue that the rapid pace of development is being prioritized over thorough environmental review. With this PEIS, BOEM may be signaling a more cautious approach, perhaps influenced by increasing legal challenges, public backlash, and even emerging scientific research indicating that wind turbines are not as harmless as once believed.
Moreover, the timing of this document is significant. The Biden Administration aims to install 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 as part of a broader strategy to combat climate change. However, this goal seems increasingly at odds with the realities outlined in the PEIS—realities that indicate a more nuanced balance must be struck between renewable energy expansion and marine conservation.
The BOEM’s PEIS could be seen as a long-awaited admission that the rush for offshore wind might be causing harm. While the document falls short of halting development, it sets the stage for more rigorous scrutiny of future projects. Environmentalists, coastal communities, and fishermen who have long voiced concerns can now point to the PEIS as evidence that their voices are finally being heard.
BOEM’s acknowledgment of offshore wind’s potential downsides is not just a bureaucratic shift—it’s a chance to reconsider how we approach renewable energy development. Balancing climate goals with the protection of marine environments will be crucial, and this PEIS could be the first step in that direction.
The summer shipping window on Russia’s Northern Sea Route is coming to a rapid close weeks ahead of schedule. A number of vessels and convoys are rushing to complete their transits before the route shuts down in the next three weeks.
The previous post below sounded the alarm about ice halting Arctic shipping early. October 14, the two Northern Sea Route choke points are in place: Chukchi (bottom left) blocking entrance to Bering sea, and Laptev (upper left) stopping traffic to European seas. By yesterday Laptev and East Siberian seas are completely covered, each over 95% of last March max extents. Chukchi is at 50% with its coastline covered. Kara (top left) is also adding ice rapidly. Less obviously Canadian Archipelago (lower center) doubled in 10 days up to 300k km2.
The graph below shows October ice extents on average and for some notable years.
The October gain in ice extents averages ~3.5M km2 up to 8.6M km2. It is the month adding the most ice each year. 2024 has recovered more slowly than usual or than 2023, tracking along with 2007. The re-freezing has accelerated in the last 10 days.
Ice-strengthened supramax Kumpula (Arc 4) on the NSR being escorted by nuclear icebreaker Vaygach. (Source: Courtesy of ESL Shipping)
The summer shipping window on Russia’s Northern Sea Route is coming to a rapid close weeks ahead of schedule. A number of vessels and convoys are rushing to complete their transits before the route shuts down in the next three weeks.
Source: Northern Sea Route Information Office
Unlike the last couple of summers when Russia’s Arctic coastal waterways were fully clear of sea ice, residual winter ice persisted in the eastern section this year. This has resulted in the early onset of ice formation especially in the Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas.
NSRIO: Ice is still present in the eastern sector of the NSR preventing free passage of ships without ice class. The nuclear icebreaker Sibir has been operating in the East Siberian and Chukchi Seas since the end of June together with the nuclear icebreaker Vaygach, which has been in the area since mid-July. In several areas of the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas heavy ice conditions are still observed, which directly affects the admission of low ice class vessels to these areas. The western part of the NSR is mostly ice-free. Above is a map of ice conditions as of August 7, 2024.
Russia’s Northern Sea Route Administration announced that vessels with no ice class will have to vacate the waterway by October 15, around 2-3 weeks ahead of schedule. For vessels with light and medium ice classifications the navigation season will end on October 20 and October 31 respectively.
The last permitted start of convoys heading east will be October 10, leaving just one more week for vessels to begin their Arctic transit.
This year’s early shutdown comes three years after narrowly avoiding a major incident three years ago. In October 2021 Russian authorities reacted too late to begin closing down the NSR as winter sea ice drifted into the main shipping channel and trapped two dozen vessels for more than a month. A 30 centimeter or one foot thick ice layer had formed by the end of October across hundreds of miles of Arctic Ocean. Several icebreakers, including the powerful nuclear vessel Yamal, rushed to the scene from Murmansk over 3,000 nautical miles away to help free the stranded vessels. Over the course of more than 6 weeks several icebreakers worked to break the vessels free and escort them to safety out of the eastern section of the Northern Sea Route. The situation did not fully resolve until the end of December when the last vessels were freed.
Vessels stuck in thick winter sea ice in November 2021 awaiting rescue. (Source: Rosatomflot)
Currently a number of container ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers and LNG tankers are passing through the route.
In the Far East two LNG carriers and two oil tankers, including the Suezmax tanker Sai Baba, are currently passing through the waters adjacent to the Bering Strait. They are staying clear of multi-year ice around Wrangel Island which has persisted and troubled shipping all summer. A nuclear icebreaker had remained on standby for much of the summer keeping the shipping lane open.
Select container ships, crude oil tankers, and bulk and LNG carriers currently on the NSR. (Source: Shipatlas)
Further west along the route, the first-ever conventional Panamax container ship in the Arctic is about halfway through its transit. The vessel had originally intended to also conduct its return voyage via the Arctic, but will now likely have to return to Asia via the Suez Canal or South Africa route.
A massive Capesize bulk carrier without any ice class, Dodo, is also rushing to complete its eastbound voyage to Caofeidian, China.
The World Series begins on Friday night, October 25th, in Los Angeles, California between the LA Dodgers and the New York Yankees. The weather will likely not be much of a factor for Games 1 and 2 with dry and warm conditions expected in southern California and daytime highs not far from 80 degrees. The World Series could end as late as November 2nd this year if all seven games are required to determine a champion.
The World Series begins on Friday night, October 25th, in Los Angeles, California between the LA Dodgers and the New York Yankees. The weather will likely not be much of a factor for Games 1 and 2 with dry and warm conditions expected in southern California and daytime highs not far from 80 degrees. The World Series could end as late as November 2nd this year if all seven games are required to determine a champion. With the extra playoff round added a few years ago, a November finish to the baseball season is going to be more common and the weather can certainly be impactful. In fact, the weather has had a big impact on several World Series games in recent history ranging from biting cold-to-extreme heat and with respect to snow and rain as well.
The hottest day of the month of October in Los Angeles during 2017 turned out to be Tuesday, the 24th which is when the 2017 World Series got underway. The high temperature on that afternoon was 105 degrees and the game time temperature of 103 degrees was the hottest of any World Series game in recent history.
Notable examples of World Series games in recent history in which weather played an important role
2017 Houston Astros vs Los Angeles Dodgers
The hottest World Series game of recent history took place in Los Angeles, California on October 24th in 2017. In that World Series, Game 1 between the Houston Astros and LA Dodgers featured a game-time temperature of 103 degrees. That first game was won by the Dodgers by the score of 3-1 with all runs knocked in by the three home runs that were hit by both teams. Houston went on to win the 2017 World Series in seven games, but no other game was as hot as Game 1 which featured triple-digit heat. In fact, by the time the Series returned to Los Angeles for games 6 and 7, game time temperatures were in the much more comfortable upper 60’s.
Weather maps are shown here from the night of October 28th in 2008 which was the day after the rained-shortened World Series game in Philly and the day before it resumed. On this “in-between” day, very cold air surged into the Philly metro region on the backside of a strong coastal storm and several inches of early season snow accumulated in some suburban locations. Maps courtesy Penn State eWall (surface – upper right, 500 mb – upper left, 700 mb – lower left, 850 mb – lower right).
2008 Philadelphia Phillies vs Tampa Bay Rays
Perhaps the most memorable World Series game in recent history with respect to overall weather conditions was Game 5 of the 2008 World Series between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Tampa Bay Rays. That game began on October 27th in 2008 with a starting time temperature of 47 degrees and rain was falling. The rain intensified as the game progressed and was ultimately suspended in the 6th inning – the only World Series game ever to be suspended. The game could not be resumed on the next day as a powerful early season nor’easter continued to pound away on the Philadelphia metro region with a cold, steady rain and even several inches of snow fell in nearby Bucks County. Finally, two days after the game began, Game 5 resumed on a cold night in Philly with first-pitch temperatures at 44 degrees along with a gusty northwest wind on the back side of a departing coastal storm and the Phillies went on to clinch their second World Series title ever.
Weather maps are shown here from the night of October 22nd in 1997 which featured Game 4 of the World Series played in Cleveland, Ohio. An unusually strong upper-level trough of low pressure was positioned just to the north of the Great Lakes (upper, left) and contributed to very cold conditions for Game 4 with snow flurries throughout the contest. Maps courtesy Penn State eWall (surface – upper right, 500 mb – upper left, 700 mb – lower left, 850 mb – lower right).
1997 Cleveland Indians vs Florida Marlins
In perhaps the coldest World Series games ever – and the records are sketchy pre-1970’s as Major League Baseball did not track weather records – one of the most memorable contests was Game 4 of the 1997 World Series in Cleveland, Ohio between the Indians (now Guardians) and the Florida (now Miami) Marlins. The first two games of that World Series were played in Miami, Florida where temperatures were in the high 80’s. The games then shifted to Cleveland for Games 3, 4 and 5 and the weather was dramatically different than in Florida. Indeed, the first-pitch temperature for Game 4 on October 22nd, 1997, which was won by Cleveland was 35 degrees and a wind chill in the teens. In fact, snow flurries were falling at the onset of Game 4 and continued throughout the contest and ice patches formed in some areas on the infield. The Florida Marlins eventually won the 1997 World Series with an extra-inning Game 7 victory played in balmy Miami, Florida (game time temperature of 80 degrees).
Weather maps are shown here from the evening of October 10th, 1979 which was the day the World Series began in Baltimore, Maryland between the Orioles and the Pittsburgh Pirates. Low pressure along the Mid-Atlantic coastline not only generated some rainfall for Game 1, but it funneled in very chilly air from the north as well and the combination of the cold and wet conditions played a role in the overall sloppy performance. Maps courtesy Penn State eWall (surface – upper right, 500 mb – upper left, 700 mb – lower left, 850 mb – lower right).
1979 Baltimore Orioles vs Pittsburgh Pirates
The second coldest game in recent history was the first game of the 1979 World Series in Baltimore, Maryland between the Orioles and Pittsburgh Pirates. This game took place on October 10th, 1979, with first-pitch temperatures right around the 40-degree mark along with a steady, chilly rainfall which no doubt factored into the six total errors, three committed by each team. In fact, Game 1 which was won by Baltimore was originally scheduled for Tuesday, October 9th, but was postponed due to a wintry mix of rain and snow. Back in those days, the World Series began earlier in the month of October compared to today, but that didn’t prevent very cold weather from impacting the beginning of this Fall Classic. The Pirates ended up winning the 1979 World Series in 7 games by winning three games in a row after trailing in the series three games to one.
One final note, the last time the Dodgers and Yankees faced off in the World Series was at the end of the “strike-interrupted” season of 1981. The Dodgers won the Fall Classic that year – 4 games to 2 – with Fernando Valenzuela, Ron Cey, Steve Yeager, and Pedro Guerrero leading the way and Tommy Lasorda at the helm.
Climatism in Germany is attended by all manner of naïve ideas and bright pink fairytale slogans. Among the latter is a dubious proverb proclaiming that “The sun doesn’t send any bills” (in German: “Die Sonne schickt keine Rechnung”). Such proverbs always seem initially plausible (is there anything freer and more democratic than sunshine?) while proving to be basically the opposite of the truth. In fact, the energy transition has landed German taxpayers in the position of paying billions of Euros for the sun to shine.
Climatism in Germany is attended by all manner of naïve ideas and bright pink fairytale slogans. Among the latter is a dubious proverb proclaiming that “The sun doesn’t send any bills” (in German: “Die Sonne schickt keine Rechnung”). Such proverbs always seem initially plausible (is there anything freer and more democratic than sunshine?) while proving to be basically the opposite of the truth. In fact, the energy transition has landed German taxpayers in the position of paying billions of Euros for the sun to shine. It is becoming an unmitigated disaster, and what is worse, the more we expand solar capacity, the more we will have to pay. For something that does not send any bills, sunshine has sure become very expensive here in the Federal Republic.
Welt calls it “the solar trap”, and it works like this: our Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) pledges to pay renewables producers fixed tariffs for every kilowatt hour of electricity their installations feed into the grid. Whether you are an ordinary climate-conscious person with solar panels on your house or you run massive solar farms, the EEG entitles you to receive these fixed “feed-in tariffs” for a period of 20 years. The EEG also requires grid operators to accept your electricity regardless of demand and to sell it on the electricity exchange.
Now the sun, although it may not charge for its services, turns out to have this naughty habit of shining in many places all at once. When this happens, electricity supply often exceeds electricity demand and exchange prices fall. They can fall all the way to zero, or in extreme situations of excessive sunshine they can even go negative. Negative prices mean that you have to actually pay “buyers” to take the excess power off your hands. Whether the prices are merely very low, or zero, or negative, the German taxpayer has obligated himself, via the EEG, to pay these producers of unwanted if extremely green and climate-friendly electricity their fixed feed-in tariffs anyway. That is, we are on the hook for the difference between the actual exchange value of excess electricity and the feed-in tariffs promised to producers. In this way we have ended up literally paying for the sun to shine.
In September alone, Germany paid €2.6 billion to renewables producers for electricity that had a market value of a mere €145 million. Our sunny autumn is destroying our already-fragile Government budget. Federal number-crunchers had originally allocated €10.6 billion for feed-in tariffs in 2024, but already the Government owes €15 billion and the year is not yet over. Scholz’s Cabinet is thus trying to allocate an additional €8.8 billion for the rest of the year. The Parliament has yet to approve the additional funds, though, and also the damned sun will just not stop bloody shining, and so probably even this supplementary allocation won’t be enough. We’re bleeding money, all for a sun that doesn’t send any bills.
This problem will get worse before it gets better. The more solar panels we install, the greater oversupply we’ll face when the sun shines, and the larger the spread between the fixed feed-in tariffs and the actual market value of this green electricity. In 2024, as I said, the Government projected that feed-in tariffs would cost €10.6 billion, but they’ll probably end up costing €20 billion at least. Next year, the costs are projected to be even higher, and the year after that, they will be higher still. As Welt reports, the German Government plans to triple our solar capacity to 215 gigawatts over the next six years – “the equivalent of 215 nuclear reactors” every time the sun emerges from behind a blessed cloud.
The energy transitioners know they messed up. The new plan is to change the rules for solar subsidies. When prices go negative, larger producers won’t receive their fixed tariffs, and they’ll also have to sell their electricity themselves. In this way, they will become newly sensitive to market demand and stop overproducing electricity when nobody wants it. It’s almost like creating a blind system totally oblivious to market incentives was a bad idea. Unfortunately, the new rules will apply only to new solar installations. The German Government will still have to honour its insane agreement to pay the operators of older solar plants for years to come. We will burn billions for nothing.
You’ll also note that these new rules only target larger operators. The millions of small operators out there – all the ordinary people who have bolted solar panels to their roofs – constitute a serious, ongoing problem for which nobody has any solution at all:
In the long term, [energy economist and Government adviser] Lion Hirth believes that “all electricity producers will have to operate directly on the electricity market”. Even the owners of small rooftop photovoltaic systems would theoretically have to become direct marketers, because only this would provide the economic incentive to take their system off the grid when there is an electricity surplus. “In principle, I consider the expansion of direct marketing to be the only sensible approach in the long term,” Hirth said. … Direct marketing, however, is also highly regulated at the bureaucratic level and also expensive, so it is hardly an option for small systems.
Hirth notes that rooftop installations also don’t make any economic sense. They are three times more expensive, per unit of capacity, than large solar fields. Yet we can’t get rid of these small operators, because climate change propaganda has generated a whole population of eager-beaver German greenists who want to make a personal contribution to stopping climate change by screwing renewable technology to their roofs. As always, climate politics prioritises individual consumer choices and experiences over pragmatic, system-wide outcomes, because at base the Green voter does not really want to stop CO2 emissions. He wants to have the experience of stopping CO2 emissions, and that is not even nearly the same thing.
In the meantime, all budget planners can do is “hope for bad weather” to “decrease solar power feed-in and cause electricity exchange prices to rise again”. Before our Renewable Energy Sources Act, the sun indeed did not send any bills, but in our desperation to change the weather we have created an artificial system in which it will not stop sending them. Ours is truly one of the dumbest eras in human history.
You must be logged in to post a comment.