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.
A recent article at the website CounterPunch titled, “Al Gore Puts Down ‘Climate Realism,’” responding to a TED talk given by Al Gore, says that carbon capture and storage and direct air carbon capture are “like fool’s gold,” which neither reduces the carbon content of the air to a meaningful degree nor does so in a cost-effective way. This is true, though not in the way or for the reasons CounterPunch writers articulated.
Screenshot from Ted talk “What the fossil fuel industry doesn’t want you to know.”
A recent article at the website CounterPunch titled, “Al Gore Puts Down ‘Climate Realism,’” responding to a TED talk given by Al Gore, says that carbon capture and storage and direct air carbon capture are “like fool’s gold,” which neither reduces the carbon content of the air to a meaningful degree nor does so in a cost-effective way. This is true, though not in the way or for the reasons CounterPunch writers articulated.
There are many nonsensical and false claims in the CounterPunch post; to address them all, but we will focus on the post’s very interesting claims about carbon capture and storage, and direct air capture.
CounterPunch writer Robert Hunziker says that one of the ways the fossil fuel industry tries to convince people that the fuels that built and maintain modern civilization are useful and good, is by claiming that “carbon capture and storage and direct air capture and recycling of plastics will handle everything.”
Hunziker quotes Al Gore as saying “These things are much better at capturing politicians than they are at capturing emissions!” He then goes on to claim that if carbon capture is “inefficient, the ‘climate realism’ argument is destroyed.”
This is true insofar as it addresses the climate “realists” who still think that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and worth removing from the air, which this website (Climate Realism) in particular does not agree with. Indeed, if climate apologists in the oil industry and other industries that invest in credits generated by direct air capture are right and carbon dioxide is a problem that needs addressing, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the way to go, then their argument is ruined if carbon capture is a farce.
There are 3 basic steps to DAC that produce 2 outputs: concentrated CO2 and filtered air.
If CCS does not actually accomplish what proponents claim at realistic costs, then their argument is destroyed. CounterPunch and Hunziker are right.
This is not the argument that most “climate realists” make, however. CCS is a scam, for the reasons Hunziker addresses, but also because it is unnecessary. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and there is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels.
“Carbon capture cannot physically costs-effectively reduce emissions,” Hunziker writes, then cites an article posted by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, among others, to show that carbon capture is inefficient and costly.
This is true.
A Heartland Institute study from January of this year (2025) demonstrated how nothing about CCS is worth the current trend of government-funded CCS companies being able to use eminent domain to take private land in order to install CCS pipelines. CCS projects are not profitable on their own. According to the study, “the overall CCS process can cost up to $144 per metric ton,” not including the initial capital investment of a commercial scale project, which can cost billions. The Heartland study estimates that global expenses on CCS projects as of 2023 were around $20 billion, with up to $200 billion worth of projects approved.
Unfortunately, members of both the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States advocate for subsidizing CCS projects heavily to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars. As explained in thisClimate Realism post, the majority of government Research & Development dollars given to coal companies by the government is earmarked for CCS and other net-zero aims. While both trees and carbon capture technologies play a role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, trees are generally considered more efficient at carbon sequestration due to their lower cost, self-powered nature, and established presence as a natural carbon sink. Simply plant more trees if you want to capture carbon dioxide directly out of the air.
CCS at the power plant level makes electricity more expensive by necessity due to the amazingly high cost of installing and using the energy-intensive equipment, and retrofits on plants can reduce the output of a coal power plant by up to 28 percent.
There is one situation in which carbon capture is not a scam, and that is Carbon Capture Utilization – in which captured gas is injected to help stimulate oil production in Enhanced Oil Recovery operations. Climate activists and sympathetic media are unsurprisingly not appreciative of this use.
Where CounterPunch and climate realists really differ on this point is this: CCS isn’t only expensive and inefficient, it is unnecessary. Carbon dioxide emissions are not causing a climate emergency; weather is not getting more extreme, and none of the alleged “tipping points” we’ve been warned about for decades are any closer to being crossed, despite media claims.
In the end, CounterPunch is correct to point out that CCS is a scam, it absolutely is, and is a massive waste of billions of dollars. They missed the main reason, though, and that is that it is totally unnecessary. In no way does rejecting carbon capture and storage “put down” Climate Realism; Al Gore and CounterPunch will need to find another strategy.
How quickly things change. It was only two years ago, in 2023, that I was writing posts compiling long lists of quotes from climate activists warning that all assets used for production of coal, oil and gas were about to become obsolete and “stranded.” After all, wind and solar were (supposedly) cheaper and cleaner for generating electricity, which could then power anything and everything. Therefore, anyone stupid enough to make further investments in producing fossil fuels would lose everything. Here is one such post from June 2023, and another from February 2023.
How quickly things change. It was only two years ago, in 2023, that I was writing posts compiling long lists of quotes from climate activists warning that all assets used for production of coal, oil and gas were about to become obsolete and “stranded.” After all, wind and solar were (supposedly) cheaper and cleaner for generating electricity, which could then power anything and everything. Therefore, anyone stupid enough to make further investments in producing fossil fuels would lose everything. Here is one such post from June 2023, and another from February 2023.
If you look today, you can still find predictions in 2025 that fossil fuel assets will shortly become “stranded.” (Here is one from Bloomberg from March 6: “Investors Risk $2.3 Trillion of Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets.”). But such predictions are becoming fewer and fewer. Instead, what looks far more likely is that large portions, if not the entire business, of “renewable” electricity generation from wind and sun is likely to get “stranded.”
Consider the latest from the UK. The current Labour government of Keir Starmer, elected just a year ago, is languishing with record-low approval ratings. A YouGov poll in May found Labour with just a 23% “favorability” among the populace, compared to 32% favorability for the Reform Party of Nigel Farage (and 16% favorability for the Conservatives). In other words, if and when the next election is held, Reform could well prevail. Meanwhile, the Reform Party has broken with the former all-party consensus in favor of “net zero,” otherwise known as endless subsidies for wind and solar power.
Two days ago, on July 16, the Deputy Leader of the Reform Party, Richard Tice, wrote to heads of UK renewable energy companies to advise them that a Reform government headed by Nigel Farage would terminate the subsidies for wind and solar energy. Here is a copy of one such letter sent by Tice to Greg Jackson, CEO of Octopus Energy; and here is a July 17 press release from Net Zero Watch publicizing Tice’s initiative. Tice’s letter specifically warns wind developers that if they are granted subsidies in an upcoming round of handouts from the Labour government dubbed “AR7,” a future Reform government will not continue those subsidies:
Let me be clear: if you enter bids in AR7, you do so at your own risk. The political consensus that has sheltered your industry for nearly two decades is fracturing. Reform UK will not be bound by the assumptions or commitments of this failing Labour government.
And from Net Zero Watch’s press release:
Richard Tice is absolutely right to put developers on notice that any new investments will become stranded assets under a Reform government. . . . [T]he real problem with renewables is not political risk but nature itself: the fundamentals of physics and economics, which make wind and solar inherently uneconomic. The industry has been constructed on subsidy, not on market fundamentals. After decades of windfarm handouts, consumers can no longer afford to foot the bill. Politicians can’t override physics or economics – no matter how much they subsidise failure.
The prediction that wind and solar assets will become “stranded” is fundamentally different, and fundamentally sounder, than the comparable prediction for fossil fuel assets. That is because wind and solar generators are entirely a creation of taxpayer subsidies. Without the subsidies they are uneconomic, and they will be worthless the minute the subsidies are withdrawn. In contrast, the fossil fuel assets are economic without government support. The prediction that fossil fuel assets will become “stranded” is based instead on a belief that governments will intentionally destroy these assets in their zeal to stop CO2 emissions. But that means that governments will continue a war on fossil fuels even as it becomes obvious that the alternatives are hugely more expensive, and as consumers are forced to bear the costs of soaring energy prices. My own prognostication is that even the craziest governments will relent in their efforts to destroy the fossil fuel businesses as the costs of doing some become ever more evident.
Back here in the U.S., the Trump administration and Congress have now, via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, put apparent end dates on subsidies to new wind and solar projects not yet initiated; but they have not threatened to pull subsidies from wind and solar projects that have gotten built based on a commitment of subsidies (particularly tax credits) during the useful lives of the facilities. As such, there would appear to be reason for owners of existing wind and solar facilities to hope that their investments will not become stranded. But it is not a sure thing. There are several ways for the wind and solar investments to fail even if the existing subsidies continue at currently committed levels. For example, wind and solar facilities could turn out to need more maintenance than anticipated to keep going; and if governments will not agree to increase the subsidies at that point, the assets will become stranded. Also, if the end of subsidies for wind and solar developments puts an end to construction of those, then the investments in facilities like factories to make wind turbine blades will become stranded.
Another thing that can and should happen is that the grid operators around the country should restructure the markets by which they acquire electricity from power facility operators to make it such that the grid only buys power that is dispatchable. Such a reform — which is highly desirable — would leave all wind and solar generators stranded.
Back in the oil and gas business, things are booming. Oil and gas production are hitting annual records. The demand for reliable energy only goes up. Anyone who thinks those assets are going to get “stranded” is delusional.
In a move that will boost the spirits of trial lawyers and climate activists the world over, a branch of the United Nations-affiliated World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified “automotive gasoline and some oxygenated gasoline additives” as Group 1 “carcinogenic” compounds.
In a move that will boost the spirits of trial lawyers and climate activists the world over, a branch of the United Nations-affiliated World Health Organization’sInternational Agency for Research on Cancer has classified “automotive gasoline and some oxygenated gasoline additives” as Group 1 “carcinogenic” compounds.
The agency is taking action as the Trump administration reverses Biden-era plans to phase out the production of gas-powered cars and trucks in favor of electric vehicles amid slumping sales of EVs in the U.S. and Europe. With regulatory actions against fossil fuels in the name of combating climate change losing steam, the research agency’s designation promises to open a new line of attack for green energy advocates, this one in the courtroom.
Based in Lyon, France, the International Agency for Research on Cancer is tasked by the WHO to investigate the causes of cancer. It conducts hazard evaluations and publishes its findings in The Monographs. For decades, the agency’s evaluations, assembled by its monograph working groups, have served as the basis for litigation against whatever party or parties are deemed responsible for producing the substance designated as carcinogenic.
“Earlier IACR evaluations of the active ingredient in the pesticide Roundup (glyphosate), the active ingredient in the pharmaceutical drug Actos (pioglitazone), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and benzene either spurred or rekindled personal injury litigation surrounding those compounds,” notes a recent analysis by the Washington Legal Foundation.
Once a substance has been listed by the research agency as a carcinogen, it is fair game for personal injury litigants. The agency’s findings on gasoline, a fossil fuel long targeted for its alleged role in climate change, will be no exception.
One promising venue for launching lawsuits is California’s Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Chemical Enforcement Act of 1986. The law targets chemicals “known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm and requires businesses to inform Californians about exposures to such chemicals.”
“In addition to inciting personal injury litigation,” the Washington Legal Foundation analysis points out, “an IACR classification of ‘carcinogenic’ (Group 1) or ‘probably carcinogenic’ (Group 2A) results in automatic listing as carcinogenic under California’s Proposition 65 law. Under Proposition 65, bounties are available to private citizens or organizations who bring lawsuits claiming products containing levels of listed carcinogens that exceed the state’s safe harbor level. These Proposition 65 lawsuits have been brought alleging undisclosed carcinogens in coffee and French fries.”
How good is the science underpinning the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s carcinogenic findings? Historically, the Environmental Protection Agency was not shy about imposing regulations based on dubious science and refused to accept the agency’s evaluation of the pesticide Roundup, saying the data was substandard. Similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found the agency’s data supporting its classification of the food sweetener Aspartame as carcinogenic, lacking scientific rigor.
“Additionally,” the Washington Legal Foundation analysis points out, “interested parties should be aware that an IARC evaluation is a ‘closed’ analysis — no peer review or public comment is permitted, and no transcript is kept of the meeting or its deliberations. Because IARC is shrouded in secrecy, exposing flaws in its process can be difficult [after the fact].”
None of this will likely dissuade plaintiffs from using the International Agency for Research on Cancer to shake down gasoline producers for personal gain, in connection with climate litigation, or both. The agency’s shaky scientific credentials may ultimately doom such cases in court, but not before vast sums have been wasted clogging up the court system.
The research agency’s action underscores the importance of President Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from the WHO, a step he undertook on the first day of his second term. President Trump, disgusted with the WHO’s performance during the COVID-19 crisis, pulled the U.S. out of the organization at the end of his first term, only to have the U.S. rejoin it during the Biden administration.
In explaining his second withdrawal, President Trump cited the same reasons he gave for his first pullout, namely, “the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate influence of WHO member states.”
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a creature of the WHO, embodies its parent organization’s scientific pretensions and political arrogance. Its classification of gasoline as a carcinogen should be taken into account.
The Daily Mail has an interesting insight into the riches we to wind farms at the expense of billpayers:
The Cabrach and Glenfiddich Estates cover almost 50,000 scenic acres of Morayshire at the north-eastern end of the Grampian Mountains.
Owned by Christopher Moran, a colourful Tory donor who made his fortune in the City of London, they take in grouse moors, a salmon river, a pheasant shoot and some of the finest stalking ground in all of Scotland.
There are also some 18 tenanted farms, endless estate cottages, and a grand 17-bedroom lodge, which once belonged to the Dukes of Richmond and Gordon and boasts a ping-pong room decorated with oil paintings by Thomas Gainsborough.
Moran, who is 77, acquired this pile via two transactions, in 1979 and 1982.
A keen shot, he describes his hobbies in Who’s Who as ‘architecture, opera, art, politics and country pursuits’, and once told an interviewer that Cabrach and Glenfiddich gave him ‘sanity’, saying: ‘In London I can work 24 hours a day. But here, I unwind.’
Lately, the wealthy laird’s perks have been more than just sporting. For recent events have turned his picturesque Highland seat into one of rural Britain’s most prolific cash machines.
Historically, this was one of the finest unspoiled views in Scotland. But today, the skyline is broken by 59 gargantuan steel turbines of the Dorenell Wind Farm.
Each of them stands 126 metres tall and sits on land that has been leased by Moran to the French energy giant EDF.
Dorenell is being paid £116.79/MWh this year under its CfD, and this price will go up each year for inflation. Market prices since April have averaged £59/MWh.
It began operations in 2018, having won a heavily subsidised contract just before David Cameron pulled the plug on subsidies for onshore wind. This ban has, of course, since been lifted by Miliband.
To date, Dorenell has been paid a sum of £49.6 million in subsidies, over and above its income from sales of electricity. As the Mail reports, Dorenell has also received millions more in constraint payments.
So the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Meanwhile the countryside is ruined.
The Aussie Government is worried it might have to pay for Australia’s own commercially unviable renewable projects, after President Trump pulled US support.
The Aussie Government is worried it might have to pay for Australia’s own commercially unviable renewable projects, after President Trump pulled US support.
Blue Float Energy abandons $10 billion Gippsland Dawn offshore wind proposal
Mr Trump’s intervention has had a chilling effect on the industry.
“You have a bull market before Trump takes office that turns into a bear market when Trump gets in because he doesn’t like offshore wind,” Mr Evans said.
With every Australian offshore wind project backed by an international partner, the global shift has impacts at home.
…
The Victorian government has offered support for offshore wind projects, including direct funding for feasibility studies.
…
At a federal level, Australia has so far managed to avoid the significant public investment made by countries like the United Kingdom to set up the industry.
Australian mining and energy companies are set to access billions of dollars in funding as part of President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – this could significantly contribute to the clean energy transition.
This allowance follows deals to grant special status to the country’s defence manufacturing and critical minerals industries under the IRA.
The plans were announced at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, where Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met up with Biden. The summit welcomed members of leading industrial economies to discuss Chinese economic coercion and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Australia is set to become a domestic source for critical sectors
Biden explained that under the Inflation Reduction Act, Australia would become a domestic powerhouse for sectors deemed critical, such as defence, critical minerals, and clean energy.
I don’t know if the billion dollar gifts for foreigners component of IRA funding was actually accessed, but one thing is clear: Biden’s government borrowing didn’t only fund the fake US green economy, anticipation of direct US funding was propping up the entire world’s fake green economy.
It gets crazier. Given China is a major US government creditor, the money Biden was borrowing from China to fund the IRA was being returned to China in the form of orders for green energy components, leaving the USA to pay debt interest on money which had already been returned to the pockets of Chinese investors. No doubt some of that returned money would have been recycled back into lending more money to the US government. The US Government was effectively borrowing the same recycled money again and again, pushing up debt interest payments for US taxpayers to China with every cycle.
No wonder greens were upset when President Trump stopped the green funding carousel.
An analysis of summer sea ice areas in the West Arctic including the NW Passage by the Canadian government, shows that ice area levels remain above average.
An analysis of summer sea ice areas in the West Arctic including the NW Passage by the Canadian government, shows that ice area levels remain above average.
The Canadian Ice Service data show that the sea ice areas in the period from June 25 to July 16, 2025 continue to be above average (far right) and even larger than at the beginning of the measurements in 1981 (far left).
This year, for the period June 25 – July 16, the levels are the third highest in over 20 years. Data source: Canada Ice Service for sea ice areas in the Western Arctic.
In some ways I pity Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, who, on the latest edition of their The Rest is Politics podcast, have put themselves through an hour of Net Zero word soup from the new Climate Change Committee CEO Emma Pinchbeck.
In some ways I pity Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, who, on the latest edition of their The Rest is Politics podcast, have put themselves through an hour of Net Zero word soup from the new Climate Change Committee CEO Emma Pinchbeck. I have listened to it (or as much as I could endure) so you don’t have to!
But it is alarming that someone like this is anywhere near the levers of power. Take Ms Pinchbeck’s views on electricity costs, for example. In one place, she says:
Gas is more expensive than renewables. And it means that the electricity price that would be cheaper is driven up by the cost of gas. And so our electricity price tracks the gas price.”
To anyone who understands electricity markets, this remark is positioned somewhere between ‘misleading’ and ‘deceptive’: it is only wholesale markets that track gas prices, and since gas prices are now only a whisker above their long-term average, they can no longer be (correctly) blamed for pushing bills up.
Moreover, she repeatedly invites Campbell, Stewart and the listeners to believe that renewables are not the problem. She mentions ‘cheap renewables’ three times, as well as other terms insinuating the same idea.
But in another part of the interview, she seems to recognise that it’s policy costs pushing bills up:
Our policy costs sit on the electricity part of our bill… what we have accidentally done is make the fuel of the future…more expensive with a policy choice.
(The ellipses there cover a positive deluge of word soup, but I think I have captured her meaning correctly.)
What is more, she seems to understand that those policy charges to consumers are covering the costs of all the green nonsense:
…the decision to put those costs on electricity is in one way logical because some of that is financing new electricity infrastructure.”
She is not wrong. Analysis of Ofgem data (Figure 1), shows that policy costs are now 33% of the electricity bill, 20% of it being renewables subsidies and most of the rest being Net Zero related. Net Zero is also driving up grid costs (the red sections of the pie).
Figure 1: Breakdown of median electricity bill
Figure 2 shows the difference in bills today and bills ten years ago. It is almost solely about Net Zero.
Figure 2: How bills changed between 2015 and 2025.
Having somehow contrived to get two somewhat contradictory thoughts – ‘gas is driving up electric bills’ and ‘renewables subsidies are driving up electricity bills’ – in her head, Ms Pinchbeck seems mystified that people find her unconvincing.
So when they hear people like me telling them that renewables are cheap or these technologies are cheap and they see their bill, they think…we must be making it up.’
And they would be right to think so.
Ms Pinchbeck proceeds to her solution. Which is to move those policy costs off electricity bills and onto taxation. This in an odd remedy, given that she has told everyone that electricity bills track gas prices.
It is also remarkable given she clearly understands that the policy levies represent the costs of “new electricity infrastructure”. As most of my readers probably know, prices convey information about underlying costs, supply and demand to buyers. Removing levies from electricity bills would simply destroy that information flow. In other words, the Pinchbeck solution would have electricity buyers and sellers operate entirely in the dark.
This is, of course, where the Soviet Union went wrong. I suppose we should cut Ms Pinchbeck some slack, because she was only seven when the wall came down. And I might cut Messrs Campbell and Stewart some slack for failing to pick up the contradictions or idiocies – neither are experts, and Ms Pinchbeck’s word soup is nothing if not impenetrable. But it will still be be depressing if, having appointed someone so young to such an important position, the UK has to learn the lessons of history all over again.
The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is also called the Northern Annular Mode or NAM. It is analogous to the Southern Annular Mode or SAM discussed in Climate Oscillations 5. However, there is a large difference, whereas SAM is an oscillation over an ocean that surrounds land, NAM is an oscillation over land that surrounds a polar ocean. Thus, they act differently.
The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is closely related to the NAO (the North Atlantic Oscillation discussed below) but they are not the same. The NAO is usually measured using the SLP (sea level air pressure) difference between the Azores or the Iberian Peninsula and Iceland and is a North Atlantic regional phenomenon, whereas the Arctic Oscillation is the SLP difference between the northern mid-latitudes and the Arctic, and is evident in all longitudes (Thompson & Wallace, 2001). The AO accounts for more of the variance in Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature than the NAO and is tightly connected to the stratospheric polar vortex (Higgins, et al., 2000) and (Thompson & Wallace, 1998). We will discuss these oscillations together in this post.
The Arctic Oscillation
The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is also called the Northern Annular Mode or NAM. It is analogous to the Southern Annular Mode or SAM discussed in Climate Oscillations 5. However, there is a large difference, whereas SAM is an oscillation over an ocean that surrounds land, NAM is an oscillation over land that surrounds a polar ocean. Thus, they act differently.
When NAM or the AO Index is positive (lower than normal pressure in the Arctic, and/or higher pressure in the mid-latitudes), the high latitude westerly polar jet-stream winds move closer to the pole and storms (which transport heat) move northward. When it is negative (higher pressure in the Arctic), the jet stream weakens, becomes more loopy or wavier, and moves south allowing Arctic air to spill into the middle latitudes causing colder mid-latitude winters. The AO Index is only computed using data from December through February because it only has a significant impact in the winter months (Baldwin & Dunkerton, 1999).
The tropopause is quite low in the Arctic, only about 8 km above the surface, so it is not surprising that the AO is strongly connected to, and influenced by, the stratosphere (Baldwin, et al., 2019), especially in the winter months when the tropospheric and lower stratospheric circulations are coupled in the polar regions (Thompson & Wallace, 2001). A large positive AO Index represents a strong well-organized polar vortex in the stratosphere above the North Pole (Baldwin & Dunkerton, 2001) and (Thompson & Wallace, 1998), just as a positive SAM indicates a strong polar vortex above the South Pole.
The changes in the Sun over the course of the 11-year Schwabe solar cycle affect the stratosphere more than the surface because the shorter wavelength UV (solar ultraviolet radiation) content of sunlight changes more than the longer wavelength visible light that makes it to the surface. The amount of UV absorbed in the stratosphere can increase by 10% or more at the peak of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle. The UV absorbed in the stratosphere both warms it and contributes to stratospheric ozone which also absorbs UV and contributes to further warming. The UV warming affects stratospheric circulation and the strength of the polar vortex which transmits some of the stratospheric changes to the troposphere affecting global weather patterns (Haigh, 2011). We will discuss this later in the series, but in essence most of the ozone is produced in the tropics, which receives the most solar radiation. There is an upward transport of tropospheric air to the stratosphere in the tropics that sets up a transport of stratospheric air toward the poles (the Brewer-Dobson Circulation), where air is taken down from the stratosphere to the troposphere via the polar vortex (Baldwin, et al., 2019). The El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) process is involved in modulating the tropical transport of tropospheric air into the stratosphere. The AO has been called the “dominant mode of variability in the [northern] extratropics” (Higgins, et al., 2000).
Trends in the AO
As shown in figure 1, the AO is steadily increasing during the 20th century, but not as strongly as the SAM is ( see figure 3, here). This tells us, that on average, the northern polar vortex is strengthening, which leads to warming in the middle northern latitudes.
Figure 1. Full-year average NOAA Arctic Oscillation from 1900. (Thompson & Wallace, Annular Modes in the Extratropical Circulation. Part I: Month-to-Month Variability, 2000), data from KNMI.
Figure 1 shows a slight increase in the full-year average AO and suggests cooling (more negative) from the late 1940s to the 1970s. It also shows warming from the 1970s to the early 1990s. The trend toward a more positive AO has reduced the severity of winter weather in the middle- and high-latitude Northern Hemisphere continental regions (Thompson & Wallace, 2001). The polar vortex is much stronger in the winter storm season in the Arctic, so we show the winter average over the same period in figure 2.
Figure 2. The winter average NOAA Arctic Oscillation. The Arctic Oscillation has a maximal effect in winter. Data from KNMI.
As can be seen in figure 2, the severe winter weather observed in the northern mid-latitudes from the late 1950s to 1970 and from 1976-1985 appears in the AO record. Unusual winter weather in these periods is documented here, here, here, here, here, and here. Mild winter weather was observed in the early 1970s and late 1980s to the early 1990s as shown here. The 1960s were also very cold in Asia, but there has been a warming trend since then (Kim & Choi, 2021).
The North Atlantic Oscillation
The NAO or the North Atlantic Oscillation is a very important oscillation in both climate prediction and weather prediction. However, when researchers compute the NAO indices with CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate model results they look like white noise with almost no serial correlation (Eade, et al., 2022).
Long-term weather observations from across the globe reveal patterns and links between seemingly random events and disconnected places. These long-distance relationships reveal changes in the meridional transport of energy from the tropics to the poles. For example, when you stitch together daily observations of air pressure across the Northern Hemisphere, you see large areas of high and low sea level air pressure (SLP) that flow and shift from place to place. These shifts in surface air pressure represent shifts in atmospheric mass from place to place. There’s a pattern to the shifting that is sort of like water sloshing back and forth in a bowl. The atmosphere sloshes northward; air pressure strengthens over the Arctic and weakens over the midlatitudes (either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, or both). Then the atmosphere sloshes southward; air pressure strengthens over the midlatitudes and weakens over the Arctic.
North of the equator, the most significant “long-distance relationship” in the Atlantic is between an area of persistently low pressure in the vicinity of Iceland and an area of persistently high pressure over the Azores Islands or the Gibraltar area. When the pressure is lower than average over Iceland and higher than average over the Azores Islands and Gibraltar, the North Atlantic Oscillation is said to be in its positive mode. When the opposite occurs, the North Atlantic Oscillation is said to be negative.
The Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations are related to one another, and to the AMO (see here and here). Meteorologists often call these relationships and long-distance oscillations “teleconnections.” Teleconnection is as good a name as any, they are actually components of, and indicators of, changes in meridional transport.
Both the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation are defined with sea level air pressure or SLP, and the patterns are well illustrated by Rebecca Lindsey here (Lindsey, 2011). These patterns and the resulting NAO surface temperatures are shown in figure 3.
Past prolonged NAO (see figure 4) trends that last several decades cannot be explained by current climate models. The models clearly do not reflect multidecadal meridional transport regimes. Climate model simulations of NAO indices resemble white noise without serial correlation according to Rosie Eade and her colleagues at the MET office in the UK (Eade et al. 2021). There is a very small chance (1 in 20) that climate models emulate the observed NAO since 1860. Yet, figure 3 suggests that NAO trends are a key indicator of meridional transport (MT) strength. During the negative phase a lot of heat is transported poleward warming the polar region and during the positive phase of the NAO, little heat is transported to the polar region and it stays cold.
If the models cannot simulate meridional transport or the NAO, they cannot explain climate change. As discussed above, the polar vortex is strongest in the winter months and when the AO is positive. A strong winter polar vortex keeps the cold air in the Arctic and keeps warm air from being transported to the pole, thus delaying its expulsion to space and warming the middle latitudes, including the United States and Europe. In figure 4 we plot the AO in winter as a proxy for polar vortex strength and we see that the NAO is generally positive when the AO is positive (Wallace, 2006), we also see that cooler periods in the Northern Hemisphere and globally (1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s) show a declining NAO trend and a negative winter AO.
Figure 4. The Hadley Centre reconstruction of the Gibraltar/Iceland NAO to 1821. Source: (Jones, et al., 1997). The climate shifts from post #8 are shown for reference.
Figure 5 shows the same thing as figure 4, but only the winter NAO values are averaged. As David Parker and colleagues (Parker, et al., 2007) have noted the increase in the winter NAO from 1965 to 1995 is dramatic. It can be seen in the whole-year average shown in figure 4, but it is much more obvious in figure 5. It also shows a strong correlation to the winter AO and thus the strength of the winter polar vortex.
Figure 5. The winter NAO average compared to the winter Arctic Oscillation, a proxy for the winter polar vortex strength. The climate shifts from post #8 are shown for reference.
The NAM and the AO are two names for the same oscillation. The true measure of the strength of the polar vortex is the “PCH” or the composite geopotential height anomaly (“polar cap height”) averaged from 65°N to the pole and normalized by its standard deviation (Kim & Choi, 2021). Except for the PCH, the AO is the strongest proxy for the winter polar vortex strength, but the winter NAO can also be used as illustrated in figure 5. Data quality prior to 1950 is poor, but since then there is a good correspondence between the AO and the NAO in winter.
James Hurrell (Hurrell, 1995) points out the rapid rise in the winter NAO since 1965, and especially from the 1980s to the early 1990s. He adds that past decade-long changes in the NAO, and associated changes in atmospheric circulation, have contributed substantially to regional warming which complicates the interpretation of the effect of greenhouse gases on climate. He adds that the relationship of the NAO to greenhouse gas forcing should be examined. He asks that we investigate how well the climate models simulate the NAO, since it has a large effect on the climate over much of the world. Later Rosie Eade (Eade, Stephenson, & Scaife, 2022) did such a study and could not find the critical NAO in the models at all.
Conclusions
The Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations are the dominant modes of variability in Northern Hemisphere climate. The observed positive trend in the AO/NAO in recent decades (see figures 2 & 5) is not reproduced in the CMIP5 or CMIP6 climate models, in fact the multi-model multi-member ensemble mean of the trend is zero (IPCC, 2021, p. 490). AR6 adds, on the same page, that the observed NAO trend lies outside the 5th-95th percentile range of the CMIP6 climate model distribution and the AO trend lies above the 90th percentile. It seems very unlikely that the models are useful with results like this.
Lex Autolease, part of Lloyds Banking Group, has reported a £10.6 million loss in its annual accounts, just three years after pre-tax profits hit more than half a billion pounds.
Lex Autolease, part of Lloyds Banking Group, has reported a £10.6 million loss in its annual accounts, just three years after pre-tax profits hit more than half a billion pounds.
The vehicle leasing giant – ranked second in last year’s Fleet News FN50 – blamed the decrease in reported profit on a combination of factors.
They included an increase on underlying depreciation charges on the funded fleet, lower profits on the disposal of vehicles, particularly electric vehicles (EVs), and an increase borrowing costs from interest rate rises.
£10.6 million might not sound like a lot. But last year profits fell from £544 million to £124 million for the same reason, as Fleet News reported at the time:
Pre-tax profits for vehicle leasing company Lex Autolease have plummeted by more than £400 million, according to newly-filed accounts.
Blame, in part, has been levelled at lower profits on the disposal of vehicles “due to market conditions” and increased interest expense on its borrowings.
In 2023, almost half (46%) of new vehicle orders were for electric vehicles (EVs) – a similar proportion to the 47% reported in 2022.
The company says that one of the key drivers of performance are the fluctuations in residual values (RVs) of fleet vehicles.
However, it said: “Significant price reductions have been seen through 2023 as significant volumes of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have come into the market for the first time.”
These losses reflect the lack of demand for EVs. New cars are having to be heavily discounted to meet ZEV targets, meaning second hand prices drop. Even at lower prices, private buyers still show little interest.
You must be logged in to post a comment.