Day: November 4, 2024

Lithium-Ion Battery Recycle Plant Explodes in Missouri

Americans are beginning to awaken realities of the “new green energy utopia”…which apparently entails a lot more chemistry and fire response than originally promised.

From Watts Up With That?

Legal Insurrection

Americans are beginning to awaken realities of the “new green energy utopia”…which apparently entails a lot more chemistry and fire response than originally promised.

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

Another dramatic example of the hazards associated with lithium-ion batteries occurred in one exploded battery processing plant near Fredericktown, Missouri. The incident prompted local evacuation.

Residents of a southeast Missouri town were forced to evacuate their homes Wednesday when a fire erupted at a nearby battery recycler.

Madison County 911 posted on Facebook around 2 p.m. on behalf of the county sheriff’s office telling residents north and west of Fredericktown to leave the area.

“If you can see or smell smoke in this area, you need to evacuate!” the post says.

In a separate post later in the afternoon, Madison County 911 and the Fredericktown Fire Department said only residents on Madison County Road 277 needed to evacuate. The county urged other residents to shelter in place. The post said the city of Fredericktown was not affected by the order.

“Close windows, doors and turn off window AC systems,” the post says. “…Again, if you see smoke, stay indoors.”

Fortunately, there were no casualties that were reported. The company, Critical Mineral Recovery, a massive lithium-ion battery recycling facility.

On its website, the company says the 225,000-square-foot plant is used to “recycle lithium-ion-battery-related materials from battery manufacturers, automotive OEMs, battery dealers, recyclers, and processors worldwide,” and describes it as “one of the largest lithium-ion battery processing facilities in the world.”

I suspect the cause of the explosion was thermal runaway, which is a a major concern with lithium-ion batteries. It occurs when a battery cell overheats, causing a chain reaction that spreads to other cells. The reaction also yields oxygen gas, which adds to the intensity of the fire.

The battery’s temperature rises slowly at first and then all at once, spiking to its peak temperature in about one second.

Another factor that makes lithium-ion battery fires challenging to handle is oxygen generation. When the metal oxides in a battery’s cathode, or positively charged electrode, are heated, they decompose and release oxygen gas. Fires need oxygen to burn, so a battery that can create oxygen can sustain a fire.

Because of the electrolyte’s nature, a 20% increase in a lithium-ion battery’s temperature causes some unwanted chemical reactions to occur much faster, which releases excessive heat. This excess heat increases the battery temperature, which in turn speeds up the reactions. The increased battery temperature increases the reaction rate, creating a process called thermal runaway. When this happens, the temperature in a battery can rise from 212 F (100 C) to 1,800 F (1000 C) in a second.

Now the state and environmental authorities are investigating the impacts of the explosion on the region.

Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources sent two people to the scene Wednesday evening to assess air quality, water runoff and other potential environmental impacts.

“Our responders will help consult on fire-response actions, take environmental samples during the event as needed and oversee cleanup measures afterward,” information officer Brian M. Quinn wrote in an email. “Environmental contractors will do the actual cleanup, and our job is to make sure it is conducted correctly.”

The federal Environmental Protection Agency will also be involved in air monitoring. Until the agencies have a better idea of the impacts, Quinn said people should avoid direct contact with the smoke and follow safety instructions from local authorities.

Legal Insurrection readers may recall that the lithium-ion battery fire at a San Diego facility took weeks to suppress. Interestingly, the nearby school remained evacuated…because further fire-suppression activities were anticipated.

Fredericktown R-1 Schools kept students indoors Thursday, according to the district’s Facebook page, but canceled classes Friday. The district said in a post Friday morning that it did not close because of air quality concerns, but rather “out of an abundance of caution” because further fire suppression efforts were expected.

Clearly, Americans are beginning to awaken realities of the “new green energy utopia”…which apparently entails a lot more chemistry and fire response than originally promised.

And the emissions from these fires is a bit more than zero as well.

Earth’s Surface Temperatures: Made in the Shade

Everyone knows when out in the sun and you start to overheat, just find some shade. In contrast to common sense, climate alarmists ignore the effects of shade from trees and clouds to create a narrative of a CO2 induced global warming climate crisis. Its a scam the globalists push claiming they can “save” you if, you let them enslave you!

From JimSteele

Everyone knows when out in the sun and you start to overheat, just find some shade. In contrast to common sense, climate alarmists ignore the effects of shade from trees and clouds to create a narrative of a CO2 induced global warming climate crisis. Its a scam the globalists push claiming they can “save” you if, you let them enslave you!

Fear not! Scientific field measurements validate your common sense. Surface temperatures can be 30F cooler in the shade. Urban heat islands, as measured in Atlanta GA, accordingly show much higher local temperatures where trees have been replaced and shading is lost. But to dishonestly create a global warming crisis they average hot urbanized temperatures with naturally cooler temperatures in naturally shaded vegetated areas.

Furthermore, scientific cloud research continues to show how changes in the shade from clouds affects our climate. The recent research from the Mediterranean region show high percentage of cloud cover coincided with cooler temperatures of the Little Ice Age, and declining cloud cover coincides with a century of warming. Don’t let globalist climate fear mongers cloud your common sense.

Fracking and Pennsylvania: Why it Matters

To frack or not to frack has been a hot topic in the United States for several years. That discussion has been most intense in the state of Pennsylvania.

From The CO2 Coalition

To frack or not to frack has been a hot topic in the United States for several years. That discussion has been most intense in the state of Pennsylvania.

That is because the Keystone State is home to the Marcellus Shale, the largest natural gas accumulation in the world. According to Bill Zagorski, who was given the honorary moniker of “Father of the Marcellus,” the Marcellus contains 3,698 trillion cubic feet of gas (TCF). That size qualifies it as a mega-giant field.

To put that in perspective, the bubble map included here shows the top fifteen conventional natural gas fields in the world. The combined Gas-in-Place for all 15 is only slightly more than that for the Marcellus by itself.

In addition to this incredibly huge reservoir, two more reservoirs are being exploited in Pennsylvania. The Burket Shale is above the Marcellus and is a super-giant field, while the deeper Utica Shale may have reserves approaching that of the Marcellus.

Only by using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are these reserves made viable.

Pennsylvania and America can fuel the world’s needs for clean-burning natural gas for many generations and have plenty left over for our own domestic requirements. That is, if politicians and government would just get out of the way.

Learn more about America’s Natural Gas Juggernaut

Climate Change Brings Record Breaking Threat To Health–Lancet

Yes, it’s the same old pack of lies they roll out every year, trying to convince that global health is suffering because of climate change.

You only have to read the first paragraph to understand that this is a political document, not a serious scientific one.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01822-1/abstract

Yes, it’s the same old pack of lies they roll out every year, trying to convince that global health is suffering because of climate change.

You only have to read the first paragraph to understand that this is a political document, not a serious scientific one.

And sure enough, they claim to have found “record-breaking threats” to health and even survival:

Each year is the same – they ignore real world data, which positively shows the opposite to be true, and instead concoct increasingly obscure and dubious ways to satisfy their agenda.

The idea, of course, that the world’s climate has changed so much since 2015 is itself absurd – but that does not stop the Lancet from saying it has!

They start by claiming that heat-related deaths have increased since the 1990s, but there is no mention of the fact that cold-related deaths have decreased by many more. They claim that heat exposure has reduced labour productivity, forgetting that, thanks to mechanisation, productivity has rocketed and workers are therefore less exposed to heat stress.

They claim that extreme precipitation has increased since 1960, but this is not derived from real world data, which is far too sparse to make such bold claims. Instead it is all based on computer modelling.

To be fair, the IPCC also claim that the number of heavy rainfall events has been increasing, but significantly also tell us that they can find no global trends in floods. In many places heavy rainfall is welcomed because it alleviates drought. Try telling the Indians that they had too much rainfall during this summer’s monsoon. As for those who suffered during the Dust Bowl years in the US, they would have given their right arm for a few storms.

IPCC AR6

It is the same with drought. Apparently 48% of the world’s landmass was affected by at least 1 month of extreme drought last year, up from 15% in the 1950s. But droughts build up over a period of months and even years, not one single month. It is plainly ridiculous to use such a metric – I wonder why they did?

And as with extreme precipitation, the Lancet study does not use actual rainfall data, but computer models which can be programmed to come up with any results you want, because the real world data they would need simply does not exist for most of the world.

But where we do have actual precipitation data, the IPCC only find that although some regions have seen an increase in droughts, while others have seen fewer:

And so it goes on. Apparently there are more sand storms, but again this is gleaned from computer models, a “state-of-the-art multimodel reanalysis ensemble”.

Malaria, we are told, is being spread by global warming, despite the fact that the number of new cases has been steadily dropping, with the exception of COVID affected 2020:

But the biggest joke of all must be this:

The mind boggles!

If they really were concerned about global health, there is plenty or incontrovertible, real world data which they could use, instead of their phoney models.

Around the world people live longer, child mortality is much lower, fewer live in extreme poverty or are undernourished. They live healthier lives, thanks to better access to clean water, medicines and healthcare. The children are better education, and technology is transforming people’s lives.

Thanks mainly to fossil fuels food output hits new records year after year. Meanwhile in contrast to the Lancet’s claims of desertification, the planet is greening because of increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare

But the Lancet are not interested in the truth, nor for that matter do they appear to care about global health.

They only want to generate alarmist headlines, to push forward their Net Zero agenda.

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for October, 2024: +0.73 deg. C After Truncation of the NOAA-19 Satellite Record

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2024 was +0.73 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the September, 2024 anomaly of +0.80 deg. C.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

November 2nd, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2024 was +0.73 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the September, 2024 anomaly of +0.80 deg. C.

The new (Version 6.1) global area-averaged temperature trend (January 1979 through October 2024) is now +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.21 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).

The previous (version 6.0) trends through September 2024 were +0.16 C/decade (global), +0.21 C/decade (land) and +0.14 C/decade (ocean).

The following provides background for the change leading to the new version (v6.1) of the UAH dataset.

Key Points

  • The older NOAA-19 satellite has now drifted too far through the diurnal cycle for our drift correction methodology to provide useful adjustments. Therefore, we have decided to truncate the NOAA-19 data processing starting in 2021. This leaves Metop-B as the only satellite in the UAH dataset since that date. This truncation is consistent with those made to previous satellites after orbital drift began to impact temperature measurements.
  • This change reduces recent record global warmth only a little, bringing our calculated global temperatures more in line with the RSS and NOAA satellite datasets over the last 2-3 years.
  • Despite the reduction in recent temperatures, the 1979-2024 trend is reduced by only 0.01 deg/ C/decade, from +0.16 C/decade to +0.15 C per decade. Recent warmth during 2023-2024 remains record-setting for the satellite era, with each month since October 2023 setting a record for that calendar month.

Background

Monitoring of global atmospheric deep-layer temperatures with satellite microwave radiometers (systems originally designed for daily global weather monitoring) has always required corrections and adjustments to the calibrated data to enable long-term trend detection. The most important of these corrections/adjustments are:

  1. Satellite calibration biases, requiring intercalibration between successively launched satellites during overlaps in operational coverage. These adjustments are typically tenths of a degree C.
  2. Drift of the orbits from their nominal sun-synchronous observation times, requiring empirical corrections from comparison of a drifting satellite to a non-drifting satellite (the UAH method), or from climate models (the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] method, which I believe the NOAA dataset also uses). These corrections can reach 1 deg. C or more for the lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product, especially over land and during the summer.
  3. Correction for instrument body temperature effects on the calibrated temperature (an issue with only the older MSU instruments, which produced spurious warming).
  4. Orbital altitude decay adjustment for the multi-view angle version of the lower tropospheric (LT) product (no longer needed for the UAH dataset as of V6.0, which uses multiple channels instead of multiple angles from a single channel.)

The second of these adjustments (diurnal drift) is the subject of the change made going from from UAH v6.0 to v6.1. The following chart shows the equator crossing times (local solar time) for the various satellites making up the satellite temperature record. The drift of the satellites (except the non-drifting Aqua and MetOp satellites, which have fuel onboard to allow orbit maintenance) produces cooling for the afternoon satellites’ LT measurements as the afternoon observation transitions from early afternoon to evening. Drift of the morning satellites makes their LT temperatures warm as their evening observations transition to the late afternoon.

The red vertical lines indicate the dates after which a satellite’s data are no longer included in the v6.0 (UAH) processing, with the NOAA-19 truncation added for v6.1. Note that the NOAA-19 satellite has drifted further in local observation time than any of the previous afternoon satellites. The NOAA-19 local observation times have been running outside our training dataset which includes the assumption of a linear diurnal temperature drift with time. So we have decided it is now necessary to truncate the data from NOAA-19 starting in 2021, which we are now doing as of the October, 2024 update.

Thus begins Version 6.1 of our dataset, a name change meant to reduce confusion and indicate a significant change in our processing. As seen in the above figure, 2020 as the last year of NOAA-19 data inclusion is roughly consistent with the v6.0 cutoff times from the NOAA-18 and NOAA-14 (afternoon) satellites.

This type of change in our processing is analogous to changes we have made in previous years, after a few years of data being collected to firmly establish a problem exists. The time lag is necessary because we have previously found that two operating satellites in different orbits can diverge in their processed temperatures, only to converge again later. As will be shown below, we now have sufficient reason to truncate the NOAA-19 data record starting in 2021.

Why Do We Even Include a Satellite if it is Drifting in Local Observation Time?

The reasons why a diurnally drifting satellite is included in processing (with imperfect adjustments) are three-fold: (1) most satellites in the 1979-2024 period of record drifted, and so their inclusion was necessary to make a complete, intercalibrated satellite record of temperatures; (2) two operational satellites (usually one drifting much more than the other) provide more complete sampling during the month for our gridded dataset, which has 2.5 deg. lat/lon resolution; (3) having two (or sometimes 3) satellites allows monitoring of potential drifts, i.e., the time series of the difference between 2 satellite measurements should remain relatively stable over time.

Version 6.1 Brings the UAH Data closer to RSS and NOAA in the Last Few Years

Several people have noted that our temperature anomalies have been running warmer than those from the RSS or NOAA satellite products. It now appears this was due to the orbital drift of NOAA-19 beyond the useful range of our drift correction. The following plot (preliminary, provided to me by John Christy) shows that truncation of the NOAA-19 record now brings the UAH anomalies more in line with the RSS and NOAA products.

As can be seen, this change has lowered recent global-average temperatures considerably. For example, without truncation of NOAA-19, the October anomaly would have been +0.94 deg. C, but with only MetOp-B after 2020 it is now +0.73 deg. C.

The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 22 months (record highs are in red):

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2023Jan-0.07+0.06-0.21-0.42+0.14-0.11-0.45
2023Feb+0.06+0.12+0.01-0.15+0.64-0.28+0.11
2023Mar+0.17+0.21+0.14-0.18-1.35+0.15+0.57
2023Apr+0.12+0.04+0.20-0.10-0.43+0.46+0.38
2023May+0.29+0.16+0.42+0.33+0.38+0.54+0.13
2023June+0.31+0.34+0.28+0.51-0.54+0.32+0.24
2023July+0.57+0.60+0.55+0.83+0.28+0.81+1.49
2023Aug+0.61+0.77+0.44+0.77+0.69+1.49+1.29
2023Sep+0.80+0.83+0.77+0.82+0.28+1.12+1.15
2023Oct+0.78+0.84+0.72+0.84+0.81+0.81+0.56
2023Nov+0.77+0.87+0.67+0.87+0.52+1.07+0.28
2023Dec+0.74+0.91+0.57+1.00+1.23+0.31+0.64
2024Jan+0.79+1.01+0.57+1.18-0.19+0.39+1.10
2024Feb+0.86+0.93+0.79+1.14+1.30+0.84+1.14
2024Mar+0.87+0.95+0.80+1.24+0.23+1.05+1.27
2024Apr+0.94+1.12+0.76+1.14+0.87+0.89+0.51
2024May+0.78+0.78+0.79+1.20+0.06+0.23+0.53
2024June+0.70+0.78+0.61+0.85+1.38+0.65+0.92
2024July+0.74+0.86+0.62+0.97+0.42+0.58-0.13
2024Aug+0.75+0.81+0.69+0.73+0.38+0.90+1.73
2024Sep+0.80+1.03+0.56+0.80+1.28+1.49+0.96
2024Oct+0.73+0.87+0.59+0.61+1.84+0.81+1.07

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for October, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here. This could take a little longer this time due to the changes resulting from going from v6.0 to v6.1 of the dataset.

The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days (also possibly delayed):

Lower Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt

Mid-Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.1.txt

Tropopause:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.1.txt

Lower Stratosphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.1.txt

Britain importing record amounts of electricity from Europe

Britain is importing record amounts of electricity from Europe to keep the lights on, as the shutdown of coal and nuclear power plants puts more pressure on the grid.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Kolk

Meanwhile we are becoming ever more reliant on imported power:

Britain is importing record amounts of electricity from Europe to keep the lights on, as the shutdown of coal and nuclear power plants puts more pressure on the grid.

The surge in imports follows the opening of two new links between the UK and the Continent, increasing the amount of foreign power that is theoretically available for use in Britain by one-third.

According to data published by the National Energy System Operator (Neso), net imports totalled 26.3 terawatt hours from January to September – a new record for the UK.

That beat the previous high of 24.6 terawatt hours reached three years ago.

The biggest share of imports so far this year has come from France, where the bulk of the power is generated by the country’s large fleet of nuclear power stations.

Supporters argue that interconnectors – high voltage undersea cables which connect the electricity systems of different countries – allow Britain to take advantage of cheaper prices across the Channel, benefiting consumers.

But critics have warned that the growing dependence on imports also poses potential risks, amid concerns about interconnector outages and export restrictions that have been adopted by some countries such as Norway and Germany.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/02/britain-importing-record-amounts-of-electricity-from-europe

I have no objection at all to importing electricity. But to rely on it is foolhardy in the extreme.

Until all of our coal power stations were shut down, we had large surpluses of generating capacity. This not only gave us energy security, it also ensured a highly competitive market place, meaning low prices for consumers.

The Telegraph make this interesting observation;

Ofgem, the energy regulator, has recently indicated it is against further interconnectors being brought online.

The watchdog has suggested that it wanted to block the construction of new cables — which could take capacity to as much as 20 gigawatts in the next decade — because they risk benefiting power producers more than consumers.

Countries that have the ability to export their unused power tend to see prices rise due to demand from abroad, Ofgem found.

Under the Government’s plans to reach a “net zero” power system in the 2030s, ministers want Britain to become a net exporter of power.

“Not only might the imports we want not be available in the future, but Ofgem has also declined almost all future proposed interconnector projects,” Ms Porter said.

“So when Neso says it expects to have more capacity in future, where is that going to come from?

And the useless response from DESNZ?

On Friday, a spokesman for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We are committed to boosting Britain’s energy security.

“Our mission is for clean power by 2030 because this is the best way to achieve energy independence, protect bill payers and reduce imports.

Big Energy Policy Mistake: “All Of The Above”

I noted that, during this election cycle, “energy realism” has suddenly become a positive electoral issue for Republicans. The positive electoral effect comes from pointing out that a forced energy transition increases consumer costs, limits choice, and destroys jobs. Examples cited included President Trump’s use in his campaign in Michigan of the Biden-Harris regulations restricting combustion vehicles, and his use in Pennsylvania of Harris statements that she would ban fracking.

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

In a post on October 23, I noted that, during this election cycle, “energy realism” has suddenly become a positive electoral issue for Republicans. The positive electoral effect comes from pointing out that a forced energy transition increases consumer costs, limits choice, and destroys jobs. Examples cited included President Trump’s use in his campaign in Michigan of the Biden-Harris regulations restricting combustion vehicles, and his use in Pennsylvania of Harris statements that she would ban fracking.

But there is another approach out there to the subject of energy realism, which has been taken up by many Republican candidates and energy think tanks. That approach goes by the name “all of the above.” The idea is that the government’s policy should be to allow and/or support all forms of energy development. After all, won’t allowing or supporting all forms of energy maximize consumer choice? And, to the extent that some renewables get into the mix, we could also “reduce emissions,” at least by a little. It’s a win, win!

Actually, not. In practice, “all of the above” is code for continuing and growing government subsidies to energy schemes that don’t work and the drive up consumer costs and impoverish the people. Under that banner, we’re growing huge corrupt industries of uneconomic energy producers dependent on the endless continuation and increase of destructive subsidies. Ending the subsidies could put these industries out of business overnight, so you should not be surprised that they are prepared to spend billions to buy politicians to keep the gravy flowing.

A leading example of a think tank pushing the “all of the above” agenda is Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, or CRES. CRES characterizes itself as “a right-of center non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. that engages policymakers and the public about responsible, conservative solutions to address our nation’s energy, economic, and environmental security while increasing America’s competitive edge.” CRES’s own website doesn’t provide many details about who might be behind it. Wikipedia provides at least a little useful information, including that it was founded by “Republican grassroots organizer James Dozier” in 2013, and that it received a $1 million grant in 2018 from the MacArthur Foundation. The MacArthur Foundation doesn’t sound very “right-of-center.”

At the CRES Annual Report, we learn about their “Vision” and their “Mission.” Here’s the Vision:

Our goal is to lower global emissions through U.S. policymaking to maintain a clean environment and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

And the Mission:

CRES engages Republican policymakers and the public about responsible, conservative solutions to address our nation’s energy, economic, and environmental security while increasing America’s competitive edge.

Perhaps you are starting to see why these guys might be more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.

The President of CRES is Heather Reams. On October 30 Reams published a piece at RealClearEnergy with the headline “Keep Conservative Climate Champions in Congress 2024.” The gist of the piece is to advocate for the “all of the above” energy policy, and to support Republican Congresspeople who adopt that messaging. Excerpt:

Electing members of Congress who champion an all-of-the-above energy approach to reducing emission should be a no-brainer. That’s why CRES endorseda slate of 40 House and Senate Republican candidates ahead of the November election.  These proven leaders have consistently shown a commitment to addressing climate change through American innovation, clean energy advancement and thoughtful policy discussions.  

So what, in Reams’s conception, does “all of the above” encompass? In this piece, she first mentions some members who have advocated for “nuclear, geothermal, and hydropower.” So far so good. But it quickly goes downhill from there. Next up is advocacy for “green energy tax credits.”

And over at the CRES website, it goes from bad to worse:

  • “CRES Applauds Funding Awards for Carbon Capture”
  • “CRES supports efforts to reduce industrial emissions,” including by federal subsidies to “decarbonize chemicals,” “decarbonize steel,” “decarbonize food and beverage products,” “decarbonize paper and forest products,” and so on and on.
  • “CRES endorsed the [package of four bills to support the adoption of hydrogen technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions] because hydrogen technologies are critical to U.S. efforts to lower global emissions, promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and leverage domestic manufacturing to create American jobs.”
  • “CRES commends Congress for working together to pass record federal energy research and development funding.”

And those are just a sample. They completely buy into the idea that the source of the people’s wealth is the distribution of federal handouts and subsidies, and that with enough federal funding we can have an energy system consisting of whatever the powers in Washington want it to be.

It’s a little late for this election cycle, but I would highly suggest that it is time to ditch this nonsense. Renewables (and carbon capture, and hydrogen) either don’t work or are hugely too expensive or dangerous or all of those things. That’s the winning message.

What Ozone Crisis? NASA, NOAA Rank 2024 Ozone Hole as 7th-Smallest Since Recovery Began

Healing continues in the atmosphere over the Antarctic: a hole that opens annually in the ozone layer over Earth’s southern pole was relatively small in 2024 compared to other years. Scientists with NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) project the ozone layer could fully recover by 2066.

From Watts Up With That?

From Anthony Watts

Healing continues in the atmosphere over the Antarctic: a hole that opens annually in the ozone layer over Earth’s southern pole was relatively small in 2024 compared to other years. Scientists with NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) project the ozone layer could fully recover by 2066.

This map shows the size and shape of the ozone hole over the South Pole on Sept. 28, 2024, the day of its annual maximum extent, as calculated by the NASA Ozone Watch team. Scientists describe the ozone “hole” as the area in which ozone concentrations drop below the historical threshold of 220 Dobson units.
NASA Earth Observatory/Lauren Dauphin

During the peak of ozone depletion season from Sept. 7 through Oct. 13, the 2024 area of the ozone hole ranked the seventh smallest since recovery began in 1992, when the Montreal Protocol, a landmark international agreement to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals, began to take effect.

At almost 8 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), the monthly average ozone-depleted region in the Antarctic this year was nearly three times the size of the contiguous U.S. The hole reached its greatest one-day extent for the year on Sept. 28 at 8.5 million square miles (22.4 million square kilometers).

The improvement is due to a combination of continuing declines in harmful chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) chemicals, along with an unexpected infusion of ozone carried by air currents from north of the Antarctic, scientists said.

The ozone hole over Antarctica averaged nearly 8 million square miles (20 million square kilometers) between Sept. 7 and Oct. 13, 2024, the 20th smallest extent in 45 years.
Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/ Kathleen Gaeta

In previous years, NASA and NOAA have reported the ozone hole ranking using a time frame dating back to 1979, when scientists began tracking Antarctic ozone levels with satellite data. Using that longer record, this year’s hole ranked 20th smallest in area across the 45 years of observations.

“The 2024 Antarctic hole is smaller than ozone holes seen in the early 2000s,” said Paul Newman, leader of NASA’s ozone research team and chief scientist for Earth sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “The gradual improvement we’ve seen in the past two decades shows that international efforts that curbed ozone-destroying chemicals are working.”

The ozone-rich layer high in the atmosphere acts as a planetary sunscreen that helps shield us from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun. Areas with depleted ozone allow more UV radiation, resulting in increased cases of skin cancer and cataracts. Excessive exposure to UV light can also reduce agricultural yields as well as damage aquatic plants and animals in vital ecosystems.

Scientists were alarmed in the 1970s at the prospect that CFCs could eat away at atmospheric ozone. By the mid-1980s, the ozone layer had been depleted so much that a broad swath of the Antarctic stratosphere was essentially devoid of ozone by early October each year. Sources of damaging CFCs included coolants in refrigerators and air conditioners, as well as aerosols in hairspray, antiperspirant, and spray paint. Harmful chemicals were also released in the manufacture of insulating foams and as components of industrial fire suppression systems.

The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 to phase out CFC-based products and processes. Countries worldwide agreed to replace the chemicals with more environmentally friendly alternatives by 2010. The release of CFC compounds has dramatically decreased following the Montreal Protocol. But CFCs already in the air will take many decades to break down. As existing CFC levels gradually decline, ozone in the upper atmosphere will rebound globally, and ozone holes will shrink.

Ozone 101 is the first in a series of explainer videos outlining the fundamentals of popular Earth science topics. Let’s back up to the basics and understand what caused the Ozone Hole, its effects on the planet, and what scientists predict will happen in future decades.
Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/ Kathleen Gaeta

“For 2024, we can see that the ozone hole’s severity is below average compared to other years in the past three decades, but the ozone layer is still far from being fully healed,” said Stephen Montzka, senior scientist of the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory.

Researchers rely on a combination of systems to monitor the ozone layer. They include instruments on NASA’s Aura satellite, the NOAA-20 and NOAA-21 satellites, and the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite, jointly operated by NASA and NOAA. 

NOAA scientists also release instrumented weather balloons from the South Pole Baseline Atmospheric Observatory to observe ozone concentrations directly overhead in a measurement called Dobson Units. The 2024 concentration reached its lowest value of 109 Dobson Units on October 5. The lowest value ever recorded over the South Pole was 92 Dobson Units in October 2006.

NASA and NOAA satellite observations of ozone concentrations cover the entire ozone hole, which can produce a slightly smaller value for the lowest Dobson Unit measurement.

“That is well below the 225 Dobson Units that was typical of the ozone cover above the Antarctic in 1979,” said NOAA research chemist Bryan Johnson. “So, there’s still a long way to go before atmospheric ozone is back to the levels before the advent of widespread CFC pollution.”

View the latest status of the ozone layer over the Antarctic with NASA’s ozone watch.

1,000 km of Pylons Needed to Hit Net Zero Targets

To meet its legally binding Net Zero target by 2030, Britain needs to construct a staggering thousand kilometres of new power lines and pylons.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Richard Eldred

To meet its legally binding Net Zero target by 2030, Britain needs to construct a staggering thousand kilometres of new power lines and pylons. The Telegraph has the details.

A further 4,500 km (2,800 miles) of undersea cables will be needed so ministers can hit their clean energy targets, analysis from the National Energy System Operator (Neso) reportedly says.

It comes after years of warnings that Britain’s legally binding Net Zero targets, which aim to “decarbonise” the electricity generation system, risk triggering blackouts and forcing people to switch off electrical appliances at times when the grid can no longer meet demand.

Commissioned by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, a new Neso report suggests the electricity grid needs £40 billion of investment per year in new cables and renewable energy sources to deliver Mr. Miliband’s Net Zero demands, according to the Sunday Times. …

The U.K. is importing record amounts of electricity from Europe just to keep the lights on, the Telegraph revealed this week, with net imports of 26.3 terawatt-hours between January and September setting a new record. …

Increasing reliance on interconnectors – giant undersea power cables such as the 1,000-megawatt BritNed link between the U.K. and the Netherlands – also exposes Britain to geopolitical risks, critics say.

Three years ago France threatened to cut off electricity supplies to Jersey after the Channel Island’s authorities declined to grant extra permits to French fishermen wanting to operate in its waters.

Worth reading in full.

For the second time in a week, climate scientists surprised with an increased CO2 absorption mechanism.

From the “But the science was settled!” department.
Now, hot on the heels of that one, another underestimated CO₂ absorption has been found: New Study Reveals Oceans Absorb More CO2 Than Previously Thought.

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

From the “But the science was settled!” department.

You may remember just four days ago, WUWT ran this story: Oops, Science Was “Settled”—Until It Wasn’t: Plants Absorb 31% More CO₂ Than We Thought

Now, hot on the heels of that one, another underestimated CO₂ absorption has been found: New Study Reveals Oceans Absorb More CO2 Than Previously Thought. The article states:

New research confirms that the cooler temperature of the ocean surface layer enhances CO₂ absorption, with the Atlantic absorbing 7% more CO₂ annually than previously estimated.

…

Scientists studied the “ocean skin” – a sliver less than 2 mm deep at the ocean surface that is fractionally cooler than the rest.

Theoretical and lab work have suggested this temperature difference should increase the amount of CO₂ absorbed by the ocean – but this had never been successfully observed at sea before.

The new study – led by researchers from the University of Exeter’s Penryn Campus in Cornwall – used precision measurements to confirm that the temperature of the ocean skin does indeed aid carbon absorption.

Carried out in the Atlantic, the findings suggest this ocean absorbs about 7% more CO₂ each year than previously thought. It might sound small, but when applied across all oceans this additional carbon absorption is equivalent to one and half times the carbon captured by annual forest growth in the Amazon rainforest.

Now, cumulatively, within a week, we now have a 38% difference in CO₂ absorption not previously known to climate science. That’s big.

The two recent studies on oceanic and terrestrial CO₂ absorption reveal significant, previously underestimated roles of natural carbon sinks, which have strong implications for climate models and predictions. Here’s an quick analysis of these findings and their combined impact on climate sensitivity and modeling.

  1. Increased CO₂ Absorption by Oceans: The study led by the University of Exeter shows that the oceans absorb 7% more CO₂ annually than previously estimated. This is due to the “ocean skin” – a cooler, thin layer on the ocean’s surface that enhances carbon uptake. These findings suggest that the global ocean absorbs an amount of CO₂ equivalent to 1.5 times the carbon captured by Amazon forest growth, highlighting oceans’ role in moderating atmospheric CO₂ levels​.
  2. Higher CO₂ Absorption by Terrestrial Plants: In parallel, research by Oak Ridge National Laboratory finds that plants absorb 31% more CO₂ than prior models indicated. By tracking carbonyl sulfide, scientists achieved a more accurate estimate of global photosynthesis, especially in tropical rainforests, which emerged as vital carbon sinks. The revised figure raises the annual global Gross Primary Production (GPP) from 120 to 157 petagrams of carbon, further underscoring the importance of natural carbon dioxide sequestration for climate balance​.

Cumulative Impact on Climate Models and Climate Sensitivity

The combined effect of these findings suggests that current climate models might be underestimating the natural carbon cycle’s role in moderating atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. With both oceans and land absorbing more CO₂ than previously thought, climate models need to incorporate these increased absorption rates to predict temperature and atmospheric CO₂ levels more accurately.

  1. Climate Sensitivity Adjustments: The increased CO₂ absorption could reduce climate sensitivity estimates in the short term, as more CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere than expected.
  2. Long-term Climate Projections: Enhanced natural absorption may temporarily ease the pace of CO₂ buildup, but as oceans approach saturation and deforestation pressures mount on terrestrial carbon sinks, this buffering effect may diminish over time. Including these findings could lead to more refined, temporally dynamic climate models that adjust carbon dioxide sink efficiency based on environmental changes.
  3. Policy and Mitigation: Acknowledging the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems as increased carbon dioxide sinks emphasizes the importance of reevaluating climate science used to drive policy.

We’ve known for some time that climate models have been running “hot” due to some of the emission scenarios like RCP 8.5 being unrealistic in CO₂ growth rates in the future. See: New Confirmation that Climate Models Overstate Atmospheric Warming. Perhaps these new findings will cool some of those models (assuming climate science has any integrity left) and we’ll hear less about a projected climate doomsday being just around the corner.