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.
Day three at the COP meeting in Azerbaijan saw a pair of Latin American nations take center stage.
First it was Brazil, which put forward a climate action plan that outlines how it intends to cut its carbon emissions by 2035. Under the Paris Agreement, each nation is supposed to update their climate commitments, dubbed Nationally-Determined Contributions (NDCs), every five years. Call it a homework assignment by the UN school masters. Up to this point, however, few have done so and have only submitted plans to 2030. Technically speaking, they have until next year to turn them in, but it is not entirely sure what will be the consequences if they don’t. Our guess … detention?
CFACT staff took a brief look at the plan from Brazil’s leftist government, and let’s just say we were “underwhelmed”. In its first two guiding principles, the document only offers vague generalities, such as:
1. promoting sustainable development in its many dimensions, considering strategic sectors and themes for the country, with a view to reducing inequalities and to a just transition;
2. promoting climate justice based on the dimensions of gender, race, ethnicity, age, social class and other factors that influence vulnerability;
Guided by principles like these, Brazil claims it is setting up for itself new targets to slash emissions 67% by 2035 (As a sidenote, Brazil had previously set a target of a 53% reduction by 2030). More specifically, the country’s leaders claim Brazil will reach these lofty goals by pimping more biofuel use, pledging to provide more government funding for rainforest protection, “reducing dependence on individual transportation”, and working harder to fight racism and sexism.
Ummm, Right. All this seems unlikely to us as there’s not much in it about reining in Brazil’s lucrative offshore drilling activity. Indeed, the country owns the largest recoverable ultra-deep oil reserves in the world, with 97.6% of Brazil’s oil production produced offshore. Bottom line: without hacking and killing their energy sector like Britain’s Starmer pledged to do to his country yesterday, this document is all gobbly-gook.
Apparently, we’re alone in our assessment.
“COP 30 host Brazil has delivered an NDC that falls short of the Paris Agreement’s Article 4 on mitigation, which states that ‘each successive NDC will represent a progression beyond the previous one and reflect the highest possible ambition’, and instead reflects a more moderate pace. More is needed from a country that must show leadership as the COP30 President in 2025”, said Jess Beagley, Policy Lead at the Global Climate and Health Alliance.
Regarding the other big news here at COP 29, Argentina has reportedly withdrawn its delegation from COP 29. The Spanish media Climatica was first to grab hold of the story. It reported that the withdrawal was ordered by Argentinian President Javier Milei, who took charge of the country in November last year. It is also likely tied to Milei’s discussion with Trump he had just the day before he made this unprecedented decision, as well as his intention to draw closer to the incoming Administration.
Another media outlet, The Indian Express, mentioned this added thing as well:
“The Argentinians pulling out, just three days after the two-week conference began, coupled with Milei’s known admiration for Trump, triggered rumours that the country was considering withdrawing itself from the Paris Agreement. However, there was no immediate indication of any such move.”
Is this cause for celebration? Time will tell. But between the statement by the Azerbaijani President calling fossil fuels a “Gift from God” yesterday, and the Argentinian President ordering the withdrawal his delegation today, it seems that time may be coming to put a few bottles of bubbly on ice.
On Monday, November 4 — the day before Election Day – many nuclear power stocks were in the dumps. The sharp declines in their stock value had almost nothing to do with the federal election — but everything to do with federal bureaucrats and, quite possibly, the influence of utilities Exelon and American Electric Power.
On Monday, November 4 — the day before Election Day – many nuclear power stocks were in the dumps. The sharp declines in their stock value had almost nothing to do with the federal election — but everything to do with federal bureaucrats and, quite possibly, the influence of utilities Exelon and American Electric Power.
CNBC reported that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) denied a request by electric power utility Talen Energy to increase the amount of power one of its nuclear plants in Pennsylvania supplies to a nearby data center operated by Amazon. Exelon and AEP had lobbied against the Amazon-Talen deal.
The grid operator PJM Interconnection and the Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, plant which Talen owns had asked to increase the amount of power going to the Amazon data center from the current 300 megawatts (MW) to 480 MW.
Amazon share prices fell 1.6% and Talen stock fell 4.5% within hours. The stocks of other, more speculative, nuclear energy companies that had been riding a wave of enthusiasm for nuclear power took even bigger hits.
Stock for small modular reactor inventor NuScale Power, for example, fell by 4.6%. Nuclear fuel recycler and would-be nuclear power plant operator Oklo lost 6%. Nano Nuclear Energy, which is developing yet another type of nuclear microreactor, was hit with a 10.1% drop.
The FERC decision, many fear, could cripple data centers’ ability to access sufficient electric power to operate the energy-sucking artificial intelligence platforms that have grown exponentially since the introduction of ChatGPT last year. On average, each ChatGPT query requires nearly 10 times as much electricity to process as a traditional Google search. Goldman Sachs Research has estimated that data center power demand will grow 160% by 2030.
Despite the outgoing Biden Administration’s promises, intermittent wind and solar cannot come close to meeting this fast-growing energy demand. This realization has become a major driver of a renewed interest in small modular reactors and microreactors to serve these giant data centers.
One of the first out of the gate was Microsoft, which last month announced a 20-year deal with Constellation Energy that will require restarting the long-shuttered Unit 1 at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Yet the FERC decision, which came just after three new Biden appointees took office at the regulatory agency. And it will be three years before President-Elect Trump could materially change the composition of the Commission.
David Rosner, a former Democratic staffer for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, became a FERC Commissioner in June for a term ending in June 2027. Lindsay S. See, the former Solicitor General of West Virginia, also joined in June for a term ending in June 2028. Judy Chang, the former Undersecretary of Energy and Climate Solutions for Massachusetts, came on board in July, for a term ending in June 2029.
The FERC decision, based on their view that Talen’s allocation of additional power to Amazon “could have huge ramifications for both grid reliability and consumer costs,” focused on Talen’s desire to co-locate a data center next to an existing nuclear power plant. NuScale, Oklo, and Nano Nuclear are developing small or micro nuclear reactors that can be co-located next to existing data centers – where the need for additional electric energy is urgent.
The decision took place three days after a FERC technical conference addressing costs and reliability concerns related to the unprecedented growth of energy-intensive data centers adjacent to U.S. powerplants. FERC Chairman Willie Phillips, a Biden appointee, had stated that “the federal government, including this agency, should be doing the very best it can to nurture and foster their development.” And then FERC lowered the boom on Talen and Amazon.
The FERC commissioners worried what might happen if a powerplant serving a data center suddenly went offline. “Does the customer get to still draw power from the grid? Because if it does,” said Commissioner Mark Christie, the lone Trump appointee, “that’s going to have a huge impact.”
The FERC commissioners are considering establishing guidelines for co-located data centers, including ones that would determine who is responsible for transmission and distribution upgrade costs and how agreements for data centers are to be governed. That two energy giants (and possibly others) could thwart these nuclear startups could set a sad precedent that even a nuclear-friendly Trump Administration might not be able to undo.
On the other hand, Constellation and Vistra, which has also been working on an agreement to provide nuclear power to data centers, are large, fully functional electric utility operations drawing power from nuclear, solar, natural gas, and other sources. Moreover, Talen may win a potential court case to overturn the FERC decision.
On the other hand, NuScale, Oklo, and Nano Nuclear are startups still working on reactor development and eventual placement, and the threat that their vision for co-located power plants may be thwarted by a hostile federal agency has had an impact on the investment community, which up to now had been very bullish on these companies.
Nano Nuclear CEO James Walker was not surprised at the hesitancy of federal regulators to question the impact of tech industry energy needs on ordinary consumers’ reliance on the grid. But that is a major reason why his company and others are working on developing SMRs and microreactors. Their reactors will provide dedicated, off-grid electric power to supply the needs of these behemoths.
In the short run, said Walker, until these next-generation small and micro reactors are brought online, data centers and other energy users will be using natural gas, hydroelectric power, maybe even coal, and also attempting to buy more electricity from a national power grid already taxed to the max and facing increased demand from battery-electric vehicles and a phase-out of natural gas energy in many states.
Thus, any FERC guidelines that address data centers’ usage of grid-supplied electricity should have zero direct impact on the dedicated small and micro nuclear powerplants that Nano Nuclear and other SMR and micro reactor companies intend to provide. Indeed, the concerns raised by the FERC commissioners ought to provide additional impetus for clearing the regulatory hurdles that these startup companies now face.
Best of all, if the big data centers win their battle to utilize nuclear energy, it could spark rapid growth in the SMR and micro nuclear industry, which provides carbon-free electric power 365/24 without the need for as-yet underdeveloped and inefficient battery storage.
These smaller nuclear facilities could dramatically lower costs for mining and other operations in remote areas, provide reliable electric power to communities in developing nations that today lack reliable, affordable electricity (or any electricity at all), and replace still-needed polluting powerplants that serve numerous communities in the U.S. and abroad.
Oklo’s Aurora microreactor, for example, is housed in an A-frame building with a roof equipped with solar panels that power the facility’s control panels and monitoring system. It also features waste heat utilization components that enable 90% efficiency as the heat is transferred to secondary systems through heat exchangers. Oklo’s vision is to deploy microreactors in remote areas, military installations, isolated and remote countries, and research outposts.
Hopefully, any forthcoming FERC guidelines would pertain only to data centers that buy electricity from the grid and not to dedicated SMR and micro nuclear facilities.
I see that Mad Keir Starmer, the frontman for the grunge rock band performing at the current UN Climate Conference Of The Parties under the name of “The UK”, has unilaterally declared that the UK will cut its CO2 emissions by 81% from 1990 levels by 2035. I do love that it’s 81% and not 80% … but I digress.
I see that Mad Keir Starmer, the frontman for the grunge rock band performing at the current UN Climate Conference Of The Parties under the name of “The UK”, has unilaterally declared that the UK will cut its CO2 emissions by 81% from 1990 levels by 2035. I do love that it’s 81% and not 80% … but I digress.
I also note that the UK Office of Budget Responsibility estimates that the UK getting to net zero by 2050 will cost £321 billion UK pounds (~ $410 billion US dollars) … and again, I gotta laugh that it’s not £320 billion, it’s £321 billion …
Now, I’ve said at various times that folks who propose big-dollar plans to attempt to reduce future temperatures should be legally required to calculate how much cooler the world will be in 2050 IF (and it’s a big if) the IPCC estimates of the effects of CO2 on temperature are accurate.
So lets take Mad Keir’s UK plan as a test case. Here’s a look at the UK CO2 emissions record.
Figure 1. UK emissions since 1850
Looks pretty impressive, all right. They’ve cut their emissions by half since 1975. Of course, in reality the reduction is much smaller. A lot of the emissions reductions resulted from the offshoring of UK manufacturing that’s hollowed out the UK economy, so the CO2 is produced in another country and UK folks get to feel all noble.
But Mad Keir’s not talking about that, so I won’t either.
However, here’s a bit of a different look at the exact same data. This shows the UK emissions as a yellow line as in Figure 1, and the rest of the world’s emissions (less the UK) as a red line.
Figure 2. CO2 emissions, UK and rest of the world.
Now, the IPCC says that the change shown by the red line of CO2 emissions has warmed the earth by about 1.4°C … so this gives us the first intimation that the temperature change from the UK emissions will be minuscule, trivially small.
In fact, that graph makes it clear that nothing the UK does will make a measurable difference in global temperatures.
But how small exactly? To estimate how much difference the UK sacrifices will make, here is a graph of a couple of simplified possible future UK scenarios.
Figure 3. Future possible scenarios for UK emissions.
The scenario shown in blue freezes the UK emissions at the current (2022) level. The red line drops emissions to 19% of the 1990 levels by 2035 and then to net zero by 2050.
Since some folks are allergic to math, I’ve put the actual calculations as an appendix. But the results are as follows:
The difference in CO2 emissions between the blue scenario and the red scenario is about 5.5 fewer gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 emitted by 2050.
At 17.3 Gt of CO2 emissions per ppmv of atmospheric CO2 change, that’s a change of 0.32 ppmv of CO2.
So IF (and it’s a big if) the IPCC estimates of the effects of CO2 on temperature are accurate, then all of the time and effort and stacks of money expended by UK taxpayers will result in the earth being cooler in 2050 by …
…
… wait for it …
…
… a whopping 0.0007°C.
Seriously. All that wealth and human effort, all the government regulations and interference, all the suffering of the poor from skyrocketing energy costs, to MAYBE cool the world by seven ten-thousandths of a degree in 2050.
Call me crazy, but I think if everyone in the UK knew that all that Net-Zero 2050 would achieve is a POSSIBLE cooling of 0.0007°C by 2050, that idea would die instantly.
Now, Keir has said he hopes other countries will follow the UK’s lead and we can cool the world by a degree or so. To see if they’ll do that, let’s see how much it would cost to MAYBE cool the world by 1°C by 2050.
At a UK cost of $408 billion to make our lovely planet cooler in 2050 by 0.0007°C, making it 1°C cooler would cost $580 TRILLION dollars.
By comparison, the total of all the revenue collected (and often wasted or trousered) by all of the governments on this marvelous earth is about $15 trillion dollars per year … so evenif every government everywhere spent every dime of their taxpayer’s money on the insane war against CO2 from today until 2050, we still wouldn’t cool it by 1° C.
And if Mad Keir thinks China, India, Russia, Brazil, or their like will sign on to that insanity, well, that’s why he’s Mad Keir. He likely thinks of it as insurance against disaster, but that’s like paying $2000 per year for years on an insurance policy that in case of catastrophe pays you $750 … just to pick a random payout number …
My warmest regards to all,
w.
THE USUAL: Please quote the exact words that you are discussing. I’m happy to defend my words. I can’t defend your re-statement of my words in a different form.
APPENDIX: First, here’s my usual trigger warning, Calvin regarding the mathiness.
With that settled, the total mass of the atmosphere is approximately 5.1 x 10^18 kg. 1 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to:
2.13 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon
7.8 Gt of CO2 (as CO2 has a molecular weight 44/12 times that of carbon)
Approximately 45% of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed by oceans and land
So a 1 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 ≈ 17.3 Gt of CO2 emissions. And the UK change of 5.5 Gt of CO2 converts to a 0.32 ppmv decrease in atmospheric CO2
Next, under a “business as usual” scenario, by the time we get halfway to 2050 the CO2 level will be ~ 450 ppmv. The 2022 level was 425.6. Per IPCC assumptions, the average change in forcing over the period is ~ log2(450/425.6)*3.7 W/m2. The change including the UK reduction is log2( (450-.32) /425.6)*3.7 W/m2. The difference between these is the change due to the UK reduction, which is 0.0009 W/m2
Finally, the IPCC assumes a climate sensitivity of 3°C per doubling of CO2, which is 0.8°C per additional W/m2. This gives us our final figure of a POSSIBLE change of 0.0007°C from the UK foolishness.
Although this new tax could potentially impact all goods from countries such as China, which are not cutting emissions, it is clear that fertilisers are also targeted under Net Zero plans for the nitrous oxide ( N2O) they emit.
As I reported the other day, farmers are up in arms about the new tax on imported fertilisers, which will result from the carbon border adjustment mechanism, an import tax on carbon-intensive products:
Although this new tax could potentially impact all goods from countries such as China, which are not cutting emissions, it is clear that fertilisers are also targeted under Net Zero plans for the nitrous oxide ( N2O) they emit. This is a potent GHG.
However such small amounts are emitted and in the atmosphere that they will make virtually no difference to global warming, as Happer et al explained a couple of years ago:
While its impact of N2O as a GHG is miniscule, the ban on imported fertilisers in 2021 in Sri Lanka had a devastating impact, cutting cereal output by 35%:
In a recent article, titled “How the Existential Terror of Hurricanes Can Fuel Climate Change Denial,” Discover Magazine (DM) posits that the fear induced by hurricanes like Helene and Milton leads individuals to deny climate change. The authors suggest that existential dread drives people to reject the reality of climate change as a psychological defense mechanism. This is false.
In a recent article, titled “How the Existential Terror of Hurricanes Can Fuel Climate Change Denial,” Discover Magazine (DM) posits that the fear induced by hurricanes like Helene and Milton leads individuals to deny climate change. The authors suggest that existential dread drives people to reject the reality of climate change as a psychological defense mechanism. This is false. This climate narrative lacks empirical support and appears to serve more as a scare tactic to motivate action and to explain away why the public increasingly rejects climate alarmist arguments than a substantive argument.
The DM article leans heavily on something called “terror management theory,” a psychological theory that explains how people cope with the fear of death, proposing that the fear of mortality compels individuals to deny climate change. This theory, being relatively new from a book in 2015, remains contentious within the psychological community. The DM authors fail to provide concrete evidence linking this theory to climate change denial, relying instead on weak and speculative connections.
A critical examination of the article reveals a glaring absence of empirical data supporting the claim that severe weather events increase climate change denial. The authors do not present studies or statistical analyses demonstrating a correlation between experiencing hurricanes and rejecting so called climate science. Without such evidence, the argument remains unsubstantiated and speculative.
The DM article neglects to consider alternative reasons for skepticism toward climate change narratives. Many individuals question the accuracy of climate models, the reliability of data, and the politicization of climate science. Attributing skepticism solely to psychological fear oversimplifies a complex issue and dismisses legitimate concerns about the methodologies and motivations underlying climate research.
For example, some recent data released by Our World in Data finds that deaths from all kinds of natural disasters (including hurricanes) have sharply decreased while we experienced a mild warming over the last century. See the figure below.
If anything, since deaths due to extreme weather and other phenomenon often erroneously attributed to long-term climate change are declining sharply, it is perfectly reasonable for people to deny a connection. They are following the science reflected in the mortality data, not the false claims that climate change is threatening more people than ever with death.
By suggesting that climate change denial stems from existential terror, DM undermines the credibility of those who question prevailing climate narratives. This portrayal ignores the fact that many skeptics base their views on scientific analysis and critical evaluation of data. Reducing their perspectives to mere psychological defense mechanisms is both dismissive and unproductive. Polls repeatedly show that the general public does not view climate change through the lens of existential terror, but rather as a problem that doesn’t rank high in the list of priorities and threats as other more immediate issues. That’s not denial, that rational ordering, especially in the light of the fact that the supposed causes of harm, worsening trends in droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and floods, for example, have not materialized. If things aren’t getting worse amid modest warming, there is little reason to experience increasing dread.
Using speculative psychological theories, lacking empirical support, as a reason people are rejecting climate alarm, as Discover Magazine does, does little to advance constructive discourse on climate science and may serve to alienate those who seek a more nuanced understanding of the issues at hand. Based on the available data, experiencing “existential terror” in the face of climate change is unjustified, which may be why people reject radical action to restrict freedom and end fossil fuel use. In essence, the DM article is a classic case of what president Franklin D. Roosevelt said at his first inaugural address, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
“The Deep State is cancer-like in nature. Like cancer, it must be rooted out before it metastasizes—as it would have if subject to another four years of a Harris (Obama 4.0?) Administration.”
“It’s time to go big. Scrap DOE and part-out whatever missions are worth saving. And whatever missions are deemed worth saving should be saved only with thorough scrutiny of zero-based budgeting.”
“The Deep State is cancer-like in nature. Like cancer, it must be rooted out before it metastasizes—as it would have if subject to another four years of a Harris (Obama 4.0?) Administration.”
“It’s time to go big. Scrap DOE and part-out whatever missions are worth saving. And whatever missions are deemed worth saving should be saved only with thorough scrutiny of zero-based budgeting.”
Our March 2017 post, DOE’s EERE: Reform Ideas for Secretary Perry, stated that while “a trace of consumer focus still exists,” the department’s heavy bias was towards society-wide electrification under the guise of “Net Zero”.
Whatever trace of consumer focus may be remaining within DOE is not worth salvaging. In fact, eliminating the pipe dream of an all-electric society would likely save US citizens $18 to 29 trillion in capital costs alone. Other analysts have estimated far higher cost inflation, while others conclude that total electrification cannot be accomplished at any cost.
While there was some initial lip service about DOE reform from a few politicians (which we documented in the above article), little actual reform took place. Congress slow-walked appointments, while DOE ‘s so-called “career professional” staff resorted to traditional tactics of placating eventual appointees. And what reforms did occur under then Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) Daniel Simmons (not sworn in until January 16, 2019) were quickly jettisoned by the Biden (mis)Administration.
Brouillette has also been mentioned as possibly resuming being at DOE as Secretary. If so, since EEI stands to gain immensely through vehicle and building electrification, Brouillette at least has some major explaining to “we the people” for differentiating himself from the swamp.
Real Reform Opportunity
The incoming Administration can and should do far more than just trim back the overgrown greenery; it should serve the legitimate interests of the American citizenry and American prosperity. However. details in our previous recommendations (cited above), are worth reviewing by the incoming Trump Administration if for no other reason than to document historical mistakes and avoid them going forward. Regardless, our old recommendations are no longer sufficiently ambitious in terms of best serving the American public and drastically reducing the National Debt’s deadly inflation.
But how should we move forward for “deep reform” versus the meager results from before? After all, the incoming Trump 2.0 Administration much better understands the depth and breadth of the Deep State and its joined-at-the-hip “Uniparty” cohorts. The options range from modest “reform” to scrapping DOE and parting out its truly vital missions to other Federal agencies or private sector competition.
In essence, it’s time to go big. Scrap DOE and part-out whatever missions are worth saving. And whatever missions are deemed worth saving should be saved only with thorough scrutiny of zero-based budgeting.
Given we the people hold the House, and lead the Senate, this is a unique opportunity that must be exploited to the full extent feasible. After all, the world has fundamentally changed since DOE was formed to address certain issues: low supplies and scarcity, coupled with cartel behavior by foreign actors. Today we have robust supplies that mainly just need regulatory relief.
“With money we will get men”
A little Thomas Jefferson and Karl von Clausewitz guidance may provide instruction to get us started. Thomas Jefferson cited those words “With money we will get men” in Volume 4 of Notes on Virginia. In full context:
Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.
Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.
Moving on to Clausewitz:
The statesman who, seeing war inevitable, hesitates to strike first is guilty of a crime against his country.
The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature.
Many assume that half efforts can be effective. A small jump is easier than a large one, but no one wishing to cross a large ditch would cross half of it first.
At least arguably, we are living Jefferson’s prophecy. We need to fully consider how the Deep State has been scheming to force its “Great Reset” upon our country. The “Deep State” is cancer-like in nature. And like cancer, it must be rooted out before it metastasizes—as it would have if subject to another four years of a Harris (Obama 4.0?) Administration.
Deep State Foe
Clausewitz was all about winning. If Trump is too (he is), rearranging DOE’s “deck chairs” is just a short step across a large chasm. The Deep State cancer would likely just go into a four-year remission only to return with a vengeance with a return of another Democrat Administration down the road someday.
Ultimately, the choice comes down to serving the Deep State/Uniparty or serving the legitimate best interests of “we the people.” There is no “live and let live” middle ground as the present Biden (mis)Administration has abundantly demonstrated in words and deeds. Nor is there sufficient funding for “all electric” or even “all the above” energy policies.
We can’t afford the self-indulgence of environmental virtue signaling. We need only to pursue energy policies that objectively and comprehensively focus on economic least-cost planning (and bidding) so we can avoid the looming reality of economic collapse. And yes, there is still room for objective energy efficiency; if it is market-based (as opposed to “big brother” dictates to throw money at an illusionary problem). There is even room for least-cost environmental progress. As RFK Jr. knows, soil regeneration is one of these.
It is imperative that the Trump 2.0 Administration achieve and demonstrate tangible and substantial results for energy consumers as soon as possible. Immediate actions should include clawing back the tragic Inflation Reduction Act, an all-you-can eat funding buffet for a myriad of parasitic “clean energy” zealots. These zealots have already received enough (unwitting taxpayer) IRA funding to plague “we the people” for decades to come.
The most efficient tactic (but not necessarily easiest) would be to simply eliminate DOE departments that oversee such funding. And along with that, repeal equally corrupted legislation that authorized DOE’s regulatory mission creep, such as the obsolete Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) and self-serving, loophole riddled revisions thereof.
In short and in closing, DOE is not worth trying to salvage, because its cancer culture is immune to modest political reforms and intervention. Thus, like a junk car, part out what can be safely and economically salvaged and eliminate the rest. Assuming control of the House and Senate, this is, for the first time, entirely doable; given the will to persevere. So let’s declare victory over the gas lines of the 1970s and move on to overcoming House and Senate resistance for dramatically reducing the economic threatening cholesterol of excessive spending.
————————–
Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy consultant, has been involved with energy efficiency design and program evaluation for over thirty years. Mark has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, has been an advisor to DOE and has submitted scores of Federal energy-efficiency filings. His many MasterResource posts on natural gas vs. electricity and “Deep Decarbonization” federal policy can be found here. Mark’s first article was in Public Utilities Fortnightly, titled “It’s a War Out There: A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency” (December 1996). Recently retired from Spire Inc., Krebs has formed an energy policy consultancy (Gas Analytic & Advocacy Services) with other veteran energy analysts.
Tom Tanton (tantontwitter@gmail.com) is Director with Energy and Environmental Legal Institute. Mr. Tanton has 45 years in energy and environmental policy, focused on enabling technology choice and economic development. Mr. Tanton has testified to numerous state Legislatures and Congress as an expert on energy policy. He formerly served as Principal Policy Advisor at the California Energy Commission.
In the annual tournament for cash handouts, the UN now enables charity for space-faring nations with slaves. Somehow, the demands for climate reparations were led by the nation burning more coal than the rest of the world combined, and no one laughed, or wondered whether they should mention it.
In the annual tournament for cash handouts, the UN now enables charity for space-faring nations with slaves. Somehow, the demands for climate reparations were led by the nation burning more coal than the rest of the world combined, and no one laughed, or wondered whether they should mention it.
… a group of 77 developing countries, led by China, called for $US1.3 trillion a year in new, additional, adequate and affordable finance to address mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage.
Like most developing nations, two weeks ago China launched a manned spacecraft with propellants made from natural gas, and coal because it could not afford to use solar panels and windmills.
Oct 30: China puts astronauts in space aboard Shenzhou 19.
For the moment, the world’s poor have to settle for using unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) to get their citizens in orbit.
China’s space exploration plans include bringing back the first samples from Mars, and from the near-Earth asteroid Kamo’oalewa, and to look for ice in craters on the moon.
What’s the point when we call a nation “developed” — when it wrecks its own electricity grid?
I wish to offer suggestions to President-Elect Trump pertaining to NOAA and the National Weather Service (NWS) as vital changes are required in going forward. Some types of NWS forecasts are getting less accurate and we have fallen to 4th place in terms of the quality of our meteorological computer models.
NWS National Center for Weather and Climate Prediction, Maryland
I wish to offer suggestions to President-Elect Trump pertaining to NOAA and the National Weather Service (NWS) as vital changes are required in going forward. Some types of NWS forecasts are getting less accurate and we have fallen to 4th place in terms of the quality of our meteorological computer models.
While a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may have seemed like a good idea in 1970, in practice it has been a disaster for meteorology. There has not been a weather-oriented administrator in 50 years (!). The current administrator shows zero interest in the NWS’s problems and is starving it of resources. When President Trump, during his first term, attempted to appoint an administrator who was focused on weather, he was slimed by marine interests (plus some anti-Trump people in general) who didn’t want their fiefdom disrupted.
Worse, NOAA has succumbed to global warming advocacy and its products are polluted by that stance. For example, it’s “Billion Dollar Disasters” is nothing but propaganda (see here and here). When Congress was interested in funding badly needed gap-filler radars for the NWS, NOAA – astonishingly – said no.
It is past time to break up NOAA. I don’t have enough expertise to offer suggestions as to what to do with the marine part of the agency, except to say “good riddance.”
For weather and climate, the
National Weather Service,
NESDIS (National Environmental Data and Information Service; which runs the satellite and other data collection sources and then makes the data available to anyone who wants the data),
·NOAA Labs like the National Severe Storms Laboratory,
Perhaps the government’s drought program,
should be made into a new standalone agency (call it the, umm,“Weather Bureau”?) that is, by law, out of the global warming business.
Please do not misinterpret: the new agency’s data should be world-class. If that data supports rapidly rising temperatures, fine. But, today’s NOAA gives, for example, $10 million grants to unaccountable ‘nonprofits’ for ‘environment education’ and other ‘progressive’ nonsense that, not so coincidently, is always on the side of global warming advocacy. That needs to stop whether NOAA is broken up or not as it is a built-in conflict of interest with scientific ethics. Meanwhile, the NWS is so money-poor it can’t even launch routine weather balloons in all of the locations where needed. Ten million dollars would alleviate that problem.
The Weather Bureau (I’m partly joking with the name) should be an independent federal agency like NASA. It should support other federal agencies’ weather needs (i.e., National Forest Service fighting forest fires) and the public-at-large. It should be forbidden, by law, to serve special interests. Actual examples,
Set up websites, updated weekly, for college football teams.
Format data for specific users, for example, the wind energy industry.
Send meteorologists to NASCAR races (especially during tornado watches when that manpower is needed to serve the public).
The Weather Bureau should make 100% of its data available in the most timely way possible and it should be formatted in standard data formats.
The Bureau should be adequately funded to install new radars — including gap fillers — across the nation, purchase all (instead of partial) aircraft and private-sector satellite weather data, add additional weather balloon stations (including at least two automated stations on abandoned Gulf oil platforms) and operate the balloon stations currently on hiatus, et cetera. There should be adequate funding to conduct weather measuring flights (Pacific atmospheric rivers, hurricanes, winter storms) when needed. The ”not made here” NWS culture must be rooted out. As others have pointed out, the NWS isthirty years behind in some aspects of weather forecasting.
The future may require, proportionately, more technicians than meteorologists. And, the training for existing and future meteorologists must change, radically. There is an objective that meteorologists should be able to intervene and change a forecast when the computer forecasts are obviously wrong. But, as aviation safety has learned, there is no way for people to overrule defective automation output when they have little or no experience doing so.
The burned out passenger cabin of Asiana 214
An analogy: Why did Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash in 2013 in clear weather on approach to San Francisco International airport? Because the pilot had not ever attempted to hand fly (e.g. without automation) a 777 during landing! Three died, 180 were injured, and a jumbo jet costing $440 million was destroyed. That is a close analogy to a meteorologist making an accurate intervention when it looks like the models are badly off. How can we expect them to make independent (of models) forecasts when they have no experience doing so?
There hasn’t been enough human factors research in weather forecasting. What little that has been done (primarily by Dr. Tom Stewart) brings up a serious issue: More models make meteorologists feel more confident but they do not improve accuracy!Yet, in spite of that finding, the NWS keeps increasing the number of models available to its forecasters.
My suggestion is for the Weather Bureau to establish an advanced forecasting school that over about 4-6 weeks both teaches and gives experiences in extreme weather forecasting without models to its team. And, it should do this quickly before the generation of meteorologists who know how to make this type of forecast passes away.
The NWS employees’ union’s agreement that forecast and warning accuracy may not be used when considering meteorologists for promotion or as part of an annual forecast review needs to be ended immediately! Having run a commercial weather forecast and warning operation for 35 years, I would also:
Like FAA air traffic controllers, what the NWS does is life-saving. Their pay for those functions should reflect that responsibility and the civil service rules should be modified accordingly.
Stop rotating shifts. Ask for volunteers for off-hours shifts (pay a little more). Rotating shifts are hated by all and research demonstrates they shorten life spans. There are people who prefer to work at night. Let them. But, if there are not enough volunteers, assign meteorologists to work at night six months at a time. Research shows this is much healthier than rotating.
Teach the people who manage the NWS workforce genuine management skills, not DEI. DEI should be purged immediately.
The Weather Bureau should no longer do original meteorological modeling. The past 30 years have demonstrated it is terrible at it and the Bureau will get better models, faster, by relying on outside organizations like the National Center for Atmospheric Research. However, there should be a group of line forecasters who set the goals for new models. Right now, by the time meteorologists get used to a new set of models, another modification comes on the scene requiring the forecasters to go back to square one. Better forecasts for the public will result from better ways of exploiting existing models (AI, human techniques, etc.) more than by frequent tiny tweaks to the models themselves.
National Center for Atmospheric Research
There are those wanting to do a reorganization of the NWS which would result in many fewer forecasters and more specialized forecast centers. Because I do not know the details, I don’t feel comfortable commenting. However, my instinct tells me that this may not be a good idea. Let’s try optimizing what we have rather than tearing everything up again (as was done in the 1990’s).
Finally, the legislation needed to break up NOAA and set up the Weather Bureau should include my proposed National Disaster Review Board (NDRB). In addition to studying the forecasting and response to natural disasters and publishing reports as to best practices and what went wrong, the NDRB will independently keep the accuracy statistics for Weather Bureau storm forecasts and warnings. The NDRB and the Weather Bureau are both complementary and essential.
There’s a real opportunity here to improve weather forecasts and storm warnings. Not only do storm warnings save lives, studies have conclusively demonstrated that better forecasts have tremendous economic value. The money invested in the “new” Weather Bureau will pay off dozens of times over.
The climatists have seized on this unusual warming as proof their Zero Carbon agenda is needed, without addressing how impossible it would be for CO2 warming the air to raise ocean temperatures. It is the ocean that warms the air, not the other way around.
The best context for understanding decadal temperature changes comes from the world’s sea surface temperatures (SST), for several reasons:
The ocean covers 71% of the globe and drives average temperatures;
SSTs have a constant water content, (unlike air temperatures), so give a better reading of heat content variations;
Major El Ninos have been the dominant climate feature in recent years.
HadSST is generally regarded as the best of the global SST data sets, and so the temperature story here comes from that source. Previously I used HadSST3 for these reports, but Hadley Centre has made HadSST4 the priority, and v.3 will no longer be updated. HadSST4 is the same as v.3, except that the older data from ship water intake was re-estimated to be generally lower temperatures than shown in v.3. The effect is that v.4 has lower average anomalies for the baseline period 1961-1990, thereby showing higher current anomalies than v.3. This analysis concerns more recent time periods and depends on very similar differentials as those from v.3 despite higher absolute anomaly values in v.4. More on what distinguishes HadSST3 and 4 from other SST products at the end. The user guide for HadSST4 is here.
The Current Context
The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST4 starting in 2015 through October 2024. A global cooling pattern is seen clearly in the Tropics since its peak in 2016, joined by NH and SH cycling downward since 2016, followed by rising temperatures in 2023 and 2024.
Note that in 2015-2016 the Tropics and SH peaked in between two summer NH spikes. That pattern repeated in 2019-2020 with a lesser Tropics peak and SH bump, but with higher NH spikes. By end of 2020, cooler SSTs in all regions took the Global anomaly well below the mean for this period. A small warming was driven by NH summer peaks in 2021-22, but offset by cooling in SH and the tropics, By January 2023 the global anomaly was again below the mean.
Now in 2023-24 came an event resembling 2015-16 with a Tropical spike and two NH spikes alongside, all higher than 2015-16. There was also a coinciding rise in SH, and the Global anomaly was pulled up to 1.1°C last year, ~0.3° higher than the 2015 peak. Then NH started down autumn 2023, followed by Tropics and SH descending 2024 to the present. After 10 months of cooling in SH and the Tropics, the Global anomaly is back down, after a small bump from NH summer warming.
Comment:
The climatists have seized on this unusual warming as proof their Zero Carbon agenda is needed, without addressing how impossible it would be for CO2 warming the air to raise ocean temperatures. It is the ocean that warms the air, not the other way around. Recently Steven Koonin had this to say about the phonomenon confirmed in the graph above:
El Nino is a phenomenon in the climate system that happens once every four or five years. Heat builds up in the equatorial Pacific to the west of Indonesia and so on. Then when enough of it builds up it surges across the Pacific and changes the currents and the winds. As it surges toward South America it was discovered and named in the 19th century It iswell understood at this point that the phenomenon has nothing to do with CO2.
Now people talk about changes in that phenomena as a result of CO2 but it’s there in the climate system already and when it happens it influences weather all over the world. We feel it when it gets rainier in Southern California for example. So for the last 3 years we have been in the opposite of an El Nino, a La Nina, part of the reason people think the West Coast has been in drought.
It has now shifted in the last months to an El Nino condition that warms the globe and is thought to contribute to this Spike we have seen. But there are other contributions as well. One of the most surprising ones is that back in January of 2022 an enormous underwater volcano went off in Tonga and it put up a lot of water vapor into the upper atmosphere. It increased the upper atmosphere of water vapor by about 10 percent, and that’s a warming effect, and it may be that is contributing to why the spike is so high.
A longer view of SSTs
Open image in new tab to enlarge.
The graph above is noisy, but the density is needed to see the seasonal patterns in the oceanic fluctuations. Previous posts focused on the rise and fall of the last El Nino starting in 2015. This post adds a longer view, encompassing the significant 1998 El Nino and since. The color schemes are retained for Global, Tropics, NH and SH anomalies. Despite the longer time frame, I have kept the monthly data (rather than yearly averages) because of interesting shifts between January and July. 1995 is a reasonable (ENSO neutral) starting point prior to the first El Nino.
The sharp Tropical rise peaking in 1998 is dominant in the record, starting Jan. ’97 to pull up SSTs uniformly before returning to the same level Jan. ’99. There were strong cool periods before and after the 1998 El Nino event. Then SSTs in all regions returned to the mean in 2001-2.
SSTS fluctuate around the mean until 2007, when another, smaller ENSO event occurs. There is cooling 2007-8, a lower peak warming in 2009-10, following by cooling in 2011-12. Again SSTs are average 2013-14.
Now a different pattern appears. The Tropics cooled sharply to Jan 11, then rise steadily for 4 years to Jan 15, at which point the most recent major El Nino takes off. But this time in contrast to ’97-’99, the Northern Hemisphere produces peaks every summer pulling up the Global average. In fact, these NH peaks appear every July starting in 2003, growing stronger to produce 3 massive highs in 2014, 15 and 16. NH July 2017 was only slightly lower, and a fifth NH peak still lower in Sept. 2018.
The highest summer NH peaks came in 2019 and 2020, only this time the Tropics and SH were offsetting rather adding to the warming. (Note: these are high anomalies on top of the highest absolute temps in the NH.) Since 2014 SH has played a moderating role, offsetting the NH warming pulses. After September 2020 temps dropped off down until February 2021. In 2021-22 there were again summer NH spikes, but in 2022 moderated first by cooling Tropics and SH SSTs, then in October to January 2023 by deeper cooling in NH and Tropics.
Then in 2023 the Tropics flipped from below to well above average, while NH produced a summer peak extending into September higher than any previous year. Despite El Nino driving the Tropics January 2024 anomaly higher than 1998 and 2016 peaks, following months cooled in all regions, and the Tropics continued cooling in April, May and June along with SH dropping. After July and August NH warming again pulled the global anomaly higher, September resumed cooling in all regions.
What to make of all this? The patterns suggest that in addition to El Ninos in the Pacific driving the Tropic SSTs, something else is going on in the NH. The obvious culprit is the North Atlantic, since I have seen this sort of pulsing before. After reading some papers by David Dilley, I confirmed his observation of Atlantic pulses into the Arctic every 8 to 10 years.
Contemporary AMO Observations
Through January 2023 I depended on the Kaplan AMO Index (not smoothed, not detrended) for N. Atlantic observations. But it is no longer being updated, and NOAA says they don’t know its future. So I find that ERSSTv5 AMO dataset has current data. It differs from Kaplan, which reported average absolute temps measured in N. Atlantic. “ERSST5 AMO follows Trenberth and Shea (2006) proposal to use the NA region EQ-60°N, 0°-80°W and subtract the global rise of SST 60°S-60°N to obtain a measure of the internal variability, arguing that the effect of external forcing on the North Atlantic should be similar to the effect on the other oceans.” So the values represent sst anomaly differences between the N. Atlantic and the Global ocean.
The chart above confirms what Kaplan also showed. As August is the hottest month for the N. Atlantic, its variability, high and low, drives the annual results for this basin. Note also the peaks in 2010, lows after 2014, and a rise in 2021. Then in 2023 the peak was holding at 1.4C before declining. An annual chart below is informative:
Note the difference between blue/green years, beige/brown, and purple/red years. 2010, 2021, 2022 all peaked strongly in August or September. 1998 and 2007 were mildly warm. 2016 and 2018 were matching or cooler than the global average. 2023 started out slightly warm, then rose steadily to an extraordinary peak in July. August to October were only slightly lower, but by December cooled by ~0.4C.
Then in 2024 the AMO anomaly started higher than any previous year, then leveled off for two months declining slightly into April. Remarkably, May showed an upward leap putting this on a higher track than 2023, and rising slightly higher in June. In July, August and September 2024 the anomaly declined, and despite a small rise in October, is now lower than the peak reached in 2023.
The pattern suggests the ocean may be demonstrating a stairstep pattern like that we have also seen in HadCRUT4.
The purple line is the average anomaly 1980-1996 inclusive, value 0.18. The orange line the average 1980-202404, value 0.39, also for the period 1997-2012. The red line is 2013-202409, value 0.69. As noted above, these rising stages are driven by the combined warming in the Tropics and NH, including both Pacific and Atlantic basins.
The oceans are driving the warming this century. SSTs took a step up with the 1998 El Nino and have stayed there with help from the North Atlantic, and more recently the Pacific northern “Blob.” The ocean surfaces are releasing a lot of energy, warming the air, but eventually will have a cooling effect. The decline after 1937 was rapid by comparison, so one wonders: How long can the oceans keep this up? And is the sun adding forcing to this process?
Space weather impacts the ionosphere in this animation. Credits: NASA/GSFC/CIL/Krystofer Kim
Footnote: Why Rely on HadSST4
HadSST is distinguished from other SST products because HadCRU (Hadley Climatic Research Unit) does not engage in SST interpolation, i.e. infilling estimated anomalies into grid cells lacking sufficient sampling in a given month. From reading the documentation and from queries to Met Office, this is their procedure.
HadSST4 imports data from gridcells containing ocean, excluding land cells. From past records, they have calculated daily and monthly average readings for each grid cell for the period 1961 to 1990. Those temperatures form the baseline from which anomalies are calculated.
In a given month, each gridcell with sufficient sampling is averaged for the month and then the baseline value for that cell and that month is subtracted, resulting in the monthly anomaly for that cell. All cells with monthly anomalies are averaged to produce global, hemispheric and tropical anomalies for the month, based on the cells in those locations. For example, Tropics averages include ocean grid cells lying between latitudes 20N and 20S.
Gridcells lacking sufficient sampling that month are left out of the averaging, and the uncertainty from such missing data is estimated. IMO that is more reasonable than inventing data to infill. And it seems that the Global Drifter Array displayed in the top image is providing more uniform coverage of the oceans than in the past.
USS Pearl Harbor deploys Global Drifter Buoys in Pacific Ocean
The COP 29 United Nations Climate Summit in Azerbaijan may as well be operating in another galaxy, and not because its physical location is nine time zones ahead of the east coast of the United States. Rather, completely divorced from reality and necessity are the climate “solutions” to somehow prevent the average global temperature from increasing by 1.5 degrees in 26 years, and the astronomical cost of their implementation.
Climate delegates and activists live in their own reality
Baku, Azerbaijan
The COP 29 United Nations Climate Summit in Azerbaijan may as well be operating in another galaxy, and not because its physical location is nine time zones ahead of the east coast of the United States. Rather, completely divorced from reality and necessity are the climate “solutions” to somehow prevent the average global temperature from increasing by 1.5 degrees in 26 years, and the astronomical cost of their implementation.
Especially pretentious at this summit, as in every previous gathering, is the slog of “negotiations” and their utter meaninglessness. Yet, thousands of delegates and staff from nearly 200 nations travel thousands of air miles to reside in nearby hotels for a week or more to pour over pages of documents “negotiating” toward an agreement that will have less effect than a roll of Charmin.
Negotiations and agreements that call for hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars from developed nations—meaning, the U.S. and European countries—have previously failed will never materialize. UN COP “negotiators” may think they are accomplishing something, but they have no say or ability to affect the implementation of any financial agreement. Regardless, the planet’s thermometer will continue to fluctuate all on its own. It’s called nature.
It’s not clear at all to me that the member nations of this summit even know how to proceed. For instance, during one working session I attended on “Adaptation” strategies under Article 9 of the Paris Accords (i.e., funding for developing nations to cope with extreme weather occurrences) there were long pauses of silence between speakers from the scores of participating nations sitting in an arena-size room.
Article 9 stipulates that developed countries “shall provide financial resources” to assist developing countries in climate mitigation (i.e., prevention of climate events) and adaption expenses. This requires “mobilizing climate finance” including the “significant role of public funds…[for] supporting country-driven strategies and taking into account the needs and priorities of the developing country.” In addition, Article 9 states that the provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation.
In other words, richer countries must send poor countries billions of dollars annually for those poor countries to do with how they please, so long as there is “balance” between preventing and responding to climate events. That is the rub of these COP discussions: how much, who pays, and who decides how it’s spent.
During another “adaption” session of the delegates in which I attended, two comments were illustrative of this fatuous exercise.
The delegate from China, full of platitudes, called for “shared commitment” and “meaningful climate finance from north to south” and that “climate fairness” in the Article 9 implementation document under discussion was “unaddressed.” The imperviousness of Communist China is telling. It is China that refuses to be bound by the Paris Accords, robustly funds its military that intimidates regional countries, and leases other nations’ territories to extract resources. At COP29, however, China audaciously suggests others (such as the U.S.) ante up for climate action. We “need a balanced framework,” China’s delegate asserted.
Then there was the small Central American nation of Honduras, whose delegate, no doubt speaking for many comparable developing nations, sought $1.3 trillion in adaption, “not just mitigation.” She further emphasized that adaption funding should be used for “just transitions;” meaning, climate redistribution should address the “need to eradicate poverty.” Good for her saying the quiet part out loud: “Climate change” is the artifice for third world countries to extract billions in cash for whatever they choose from nations whose citizens have attained a higher standard of living.
Ultimately, such illusory climate “negotiations” over the implementation of Article 9 finance will resolve themselves next week behind closed doors in a much smaller room with many fewer, higher-ranking representatives from the handful of larger developed nations and those speaking for blocs of developing countries. They likely will iron out language and hoped-for dollar amounts.
As with COP summits of the past, UN leaders and delegates will all congratulate themselves at the celebratory conclusion, stress the urgency for action, believe they accomplished something, and say bon voyage until next year. By then, they will complain about a lack of follow-through on funding and hyperventilate about the world on the brink climate catastrophe.
You must be logged in to post a comment.