Day: November 26, 2025

Stop Spreading False Alarms, Al Jazeera, Fijian Oyster Production Is Doing Well

An article in Al Jazeera by Frankie Adkins, who covers climate and social justice issues, claims that climate change is harming Fiji’s oyster (both pearl and meat) industry. This is flat-out false. As is true for oyster production globally, Fiji’s pearl oyster and its nascent meat oyster industry have both experienced substantial growth in recent years. Multiple factors have harmed oyster production on a localized basis on occasion, but they have nothing to do with climate change.

A close-up image of various oysters with their shells slightly open, revealing their inner surfaces.

From ClimateRealism

By H. Sterling Burnett

An article in Al Jazeera by Frankie Adkins, who covers climate and social justice issues, claims that climate change is harming Fiji’s oyster (both pearl and meat) industry. This is flat-out false. As is true for oyster production globally, Fiji’s pearl oyster and its nascent meat oyster industry have both experienced substantial growth in recent years. Multiple factors have harmed oyster production on a localized basis on occasion, but they have nothing to do with climate change.

In her Al Jazeera article, “Oyster farmers battle the climate crisis in Fiji’s troubled seas,” Adkins references the anecdotal experience of a couple traditional oyster harvesters who expressed their belief that the weather has gotten worse, damaging oyster beds and making fishing more difficult. Women paddling out on traditional bamboo rafts are the core of Fiji’s aquaculture industry, both for pearl producing oysters and black-lipped and rock oysters produced for meat. Adkins quotes one of those women, Jelly Ravea, who said:

“Every day, we should be able to eat something from the sea,” says Ravea, who wears a deep blue sulu, a traditional wrap, around her waist. “But times are hard, the shells are sometimes dead, and the oil from yachts spreads over the sea and kills the fish.”

Ravea, who has fished these waters for more than five decades, has long feared that the decline in fish goes beyond the ebb and flow of natural weather patterns. She blames climate change and poachers.

The climate connection is the impact of tropical cyclones, particularly a severe cyclone that struck in 2016, about which Adkins writes:

Warnings about extreme weather events are raising fears that fishing stocks will decline further. In March 2025, for example, a climate study predicted that tropical cyclones and extreme floods would increase in severity in Fiji, posing even more risks to coastal and marine livelihoods.

The country has only just recovered from 2016’s Cyclone Winston. The 26-day storm was the strongest on record in the Southern Hemisphere, costing an estimated 1.99 billion Fijian dollars ($875m) in damage. The cyclone affected more than half of Fiji’s population, killing 44 people and causing widespread damage and destruction to villages and farmland, particularly on the north coast of the main island, but also on the smaller islands.

“Cyclone Winston caused extensive damage to coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds — critical habitats that sustain subsistence and small-scale commercial fisheries,” says Rosi Batibasaga, a WCS fisheries officer.

Coastal villages such as Vatulele were hit hard, she said: “They faced reduced fish availability, destroyed boats and fishing gear, and sharp declines in household income and food security.”

Fijians’ dependence on the sea is clear, and it is true that with widespread poverty, a single event, whether pollution, cyclone, or an ongoing problem with illegal fishing by fleets from other nations, can threaten lives and livelihoods. However, general data show that in Fiji and globally, oyster production is increasing and not being hampered by climate change. A single cyclone, nine years ago, no matter how severe, is not an indication of long-term, sustained, climate change.

Concerning oyster production, with the growth of aquaculture, including in Fiji, oyster production and sales have seen fairly regular growth in recent years. The oyster market outlook predicts continued growth: reports from Data Intelo and Stellar Market Research project annual growth of 3.49 percent in the oyster market from 2025 through 2032. Oyster production was growing before the pandemic, and after pandemic fear waned it began growing again. Data Intelo notes “global oyster farming market size was USD 8 Billion in 2023 and is likely to reach USD 10.7 Billion by 2032.” So, no climate change induced decline in oyster production globally.

What’s true for oyster production in general is equally true of oyster production in Fiji, where, over the past couple of decades, commercial oyster farming took root and production has grown. Multiple reports show relatively steady growth in Fiji’s oyster harvests and, working with other governments/nations in the region, especially Australia, net income for coastal communities’ oyster harvesters and the wider sea food industry are expected to improve even more going forward. This is not to say every local producer will see increased harvests every year – that’s not true of any agricultural crop, livestock, or fishery species ever. But, contrary to the impression given by Adkins’ Al Jazeera article, recent years have seen growth amid climate change.

Also, data on tropical cyclones undermine Adkins’ suggestion that climate change is resulting in worsening tropical cyclones in and around Fiji. In fact, data consistently show that during the recent period of modest warming, the number and strength of tropical cyclones in general have not increased, and may even have declined slightly. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified no upward trend in cyclone frequency or severity.

The cyclone news is even better for Fiji and other nations in the South Pacific. Data presented in multiple studies, for example, one study published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) in 2022 and a second published in Nature in 2023, show substantial declines in tropical cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere after accounting for decades of records. The Nature study ran available data through climate models and found hurricanes have declined sharply since 1900. The GRL study took a finer grain approach, breaking down cyclone data by basin. That study showed that tropical cyclone numbers in the South Pacific basin have declined slightly since 1990, with no change in the average yearly number of major storms. (See Figure 1, below)

A series of bar graphs displaying various climate-related metrics across different regions. The graphs include variables such as 'Total Sources', 'Total Intensity', and 'Rainfall Functions', each represented by colored bars indicating variations over a specified time period.
A chart displaying per-decade linear trends in named storms, hurricanes, and damage costs, highlighting hurricane behavior across various oceanic regions.

To conclude, Adkins and Al Jazeera identify a number of threats to oyster production in Fiji, none of which have resulted in a decline in production so far. Rather than congratulating Fiji for its resilience and increasing success despite these threats, Adkins chose to lean into the “climate change causes everything bad” narrative and assert that climate change is causing worsening tropical storms, damaging Fiji’s oyster trade. This is false. Cyclones in the South Pacific basin have not become more frequent or powerful in recent decades and Fiji’s oyster production has increased. Shame on Al Jazeera for choosing to publish a scare-story based on falsehoods when the truth is easy to find. Perhaps Al Jazeera fact checkers took the day off or don’t know how to do their jobs well. Or perhaps the news outlet simply follows the old newsroom adage, “if it bleeds it leads,” and doesn’t find good news compelling.

Aussie Energy Regulator Demands 5 YEARS Coal Plant Closure Notice

The long notice period required to address a “fundamental mismatch” in pace of the energy transition.

A misty railway track flanked by coal-filled freight cars and piles of coal on the tracks.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Observa; The long notice period required to address a “fundamental mismatch” in pace of the energy transition.

AEMO wants 5 years’ warning on coal plant closures to fix “fundamental mismatch” in pace of energy transition

…

… AEMO wants the owners of Australia’s remaining coal-fired generation plants to give five years’ notice of their closure date, instead of the current requirement of 3.5 years, to ensure there are sufficient resources to replace them.

“The risks of under procurement for system strength and inertia within the context of the transition are substantial and can obstruct the transition from progressing,” the rule change proposal says.

“There is a fundamental mismatch between the relatively short timeframes within which system step changes can become known … and the longer lead times within which approval … procurement and commissioning activities …can respond.

“Coal plant exit notice requirements are 3.5 years, but the RIT-T [Regulatory Investment Test for Transmission] process for system strength has taken more than three years to complete and the delivery and commissioning of new resources can take several more years beyond that.”

To remedy this, AEMO proposes extending the notice of closure outlook obligations in the National Energy Rules (NER) for relevant exiting plant to
five years to align with Network Support and Control Ancillary Services (NSCAS) gap declaration timeframes.

…

You can read AEMO’s proposal here.

Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/aemo-wants-five-years-warning-on-coal-plant-closures-to-fix-fundamental-mismatch-in-pace-of-energy-transition/

What an embarrassment for the Net Zero movement.

One way to escape this ridiculous demand that power plant operators should operate under a punitive Net Zero regulatory environment for five years would be to separate the coal plants into a bad asset company and declare insolvency.

But no doubt if the AEMO proposal is adopted, there will also be laws passed which make directors of power plant companies personally liable for any failure of coal plants to complete the mandatory five year notice period.

Aussie Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen has just accepted a COP31 role, “President of Negotations”, which presumably means Bowen will get the blame when COP31 falls in a heap like COP30. So we can all look forward to some enthusiastic climate leadership in Australia, including more regulatory attacks on Aussie coal plants.

Not a good time to be a coal power plant operator in Australia.

Requiem for COP 30: Utter Failure (but success for consumers, taxpayers, freedom)

“Let me be clear … COP30 will close with a political text without mentioning fossil fuels phase-out. It does not mention fossil fuel phase-down. It does not provide a pathway to end deforestation. It does not mention the very causes of the crisis. Nothing. Zero. Silence.” (- Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, belo

A scenic landscape featuring lush green trees and a vibrant meadow, with a gentle pathway leading through the greenery, symbolizing 'global greening'.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Let me be clear … COP30 will close with a political text without mentioning fossil fuels phase-out. It does not mention fossil fuel phase-down. It does not provide a pathway to end deforestation. It does not mention the very causes of the crisis. Nothing. Zero. Silence.” (- Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, below)

Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, self-described “He/Him; TIME100 Climate 2025; Special Representative for Climate Change of Panamá; Inaugural Obama Scholar; Pritzker Environmental Genius Award Finalist 2023,” summarized COP30 as follows.

Dear friends, colleagues, and every person who cares about life on this planet,

I will be brutally honest: the COP and the UN system are not working for you. They have never really worked for you. And today, they are failing you at a historic scale.

Ten years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the negotiators that your governments sent to COP30 are not defending your future. They are defending the very industries that created this crisis: the fossil fuel industry and the forces driving global deforestation.

After three weeks of advocating for language that reflects the reality, you live (floods, droughts, heatwaves, hunger, displacement) the text countries are now poised to adopt does the opposite.

Let me be clear so there is no confusion: COP30 will close with a political text without mentioning fossil fuels phase-out. It does not mention fossil fuel phase-down. It does not provide a pathway to end deforestation. It does not mention the very causes of the crisis. Nothing. Zero. Silence.

A Forest COP with no commitment on forests is a very bad joke. A climate decision that cannot even say “fossil fuels” is not neutrality, it is complicity. And what is happening here transcends incompetence.

Science has been deleted from COP30 because it offends the polluters. Meanwhile, children in elementary school are learning more accurate climate science than the text chosen to guide global climate policy. This is a tragedy.

This message is not to governments. It is to you: communities, youth, farmers, pastors, teachers, CEOs, artists, Indigenous leaders, scientists, parents, organizers, workers.

Rise. Speak. Organize. Vote. Demand. Mobilize. If your representatives refuse to represent you, then replace them. If your leaders refuse to defend your right to a livable future, then become the leaders your country needs.

We must keep fossil fuels in the ground, the COP30 outcome will not do that. We must end deforestation everywhere; the current text does not take us there. We must triple adaptation finance: the current text encourages but does not commit to verifiable action.

Despite all of this, I still believe in hope. Not passive hope: active, defiant hope.
Hope as a decision. Hope as courage. Hope as action. Everyone outside the Blue Zones of the multilateral maze: we need you now more than ever.

If there is to be a turning point, it will not come from a COP. It will come from people. It will come from you refusing to accept mediocrity dressed as diplomacy.

Rise up. Speak up. Stand together. We still have time, but not if we stay silent. When leaders fail, people lead. And it is time to lead.

This verdict needs to be turned around. What is presented as bad news is really good news. His is a false hope that the world is not, in fact, demanding better energies in place of inferior ones; that dense stock energies replace dilute, intermittent, fragile, land-and-transmission-intensive ones.

This is social justice in place of the green greed of the Climate Industrial Complex. And global greening from CO2 fertilization as a byproduct of fossil-fuel usage to boot!

——————–

Pre-COP30 Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez:

Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez

A Few Markers on the Road to the Demise of the Climate Apocalypse

For a long time, it has been obvious to me, and to any thinking person, that the climate apocalypse scare would sooner or later collapse of its own absurdity. But how? And when?

A visual representation of Earth engulfed in flames, depicting the concept of climate change and environmental crisis, with cracked ground visible below.

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

For a long time, it has been obvious to me, and to any thinking person, that the climate apocalypse scare would sooner or later collapse of its own absurdity. But how? And when?

During the past couple of weeks, I have noted a few markers. Maybe you have noted others. Here are a few.

The latest of the big annual UN climate conferences, known as “COP” (Conference of Parties), this one number 30, took place this year in Belem, Brazil, from November 10 to 21. These COPs are the events where big international compacts have been agreed to that have supposedly committed the world to a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels, let alone to massive “climate” payments from the rich to the poor countries. It was at COP 21 in 2015 where the gigantic Paris Agreement was reached, supposedly committing all countries to big reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

Well, were you even aware that this year’s COP 30 happened? In a piece today for the Civitas Institute, Steven Hayward notes that not one of the American television networks sent reporters to this year’s event. Coverage in the American print and online media was also dramatically reduced. Hayward writes, “A few reporters at the conference filed stories wondering whether this would be the last COP meeting.” The U.S. federal government did not send any representatives at all. Heads of state from China and India also skipped this Conference. Those two countries, which are the largest in the world by population, are in the process of rapid economic development based on energy from fossil fuels. They are not about to make any commitments to slow down that development, let alone stop it.

Also noted by Hayward in the same piece: growing troubles for the environmental groups promoting the climate apocalypse scare. The Sierra Club is in the middle of what might well be called an implosion. The New York Times reported the story on November 7. Excerpt:

The Sierra Club calls itself the “largest and most influential grass roots environmental organization in the country.” But it is in the middle of an implosion — left weakened, distracted and divided just as environmental protections are under assault by the Trump administration. The group has lost 60 percent of the four million members and supporters it counted in 2019. It has held three rounds of employee layoffs since 2022, trying to climb out of a $40 million projected budget deficit. . . . [T]his year, as the Trump administration returned better organized and better prepared than in its first term, the Sierra Club was the opposite. While Mr. Trump boosted coal power, canceled wind farms and rolled back pollution limits, the club was consumed by internal chaos, culminating when the board fired its executive director, Ben Jealous, a former president of the N.A.A.C.P.

And then there is 350.org. This organization is the baby of uber-climate-activist Bill McKibben, with the “350” supposedly designating some limit of ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere that must never be exceeded, or else . . . something may happen that they think is really, really scary. (The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 424 ppm.). On November 13, even as COP 30 was going on, 350.org “suspended operations.” From Politico, November 13:

Environmental group 350.org, which spearheaded the movement to block the Keystone XL oil pipeline, will “temporarily suspend programming” in the U.S. and other countries amid funding woes, according to a letter obtained on Thursday by POLITICO. . . . The letter to outside organizations from Executive Director Anne Jellema said 350.org had suffered a 25 percent drop in income for its 2025 and 2026 fiscal years, compelling it to halt operations. The group will keep three U.S. staff members in hopes of reviving operations in the future.

How about the idea that use of fossil fuels was going to peak and then start going down as “renewable” wind and solar took over? That idea was always absurd. Big subsidies for wind and solar may enable those essentially useless energy sources to expand, but nothing about that prevents the continued parallel expansion of market-driven investments in hydrocarbons. Nevertheless the (largely clueless) International Energy Agency bought into the “peak oil” nonsense for years. A few days ago, the IEA reversed course and returned to reality. From Yahoo Finance, November 22:

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted in 2023 that the global peak in oil demand would likely take place by 2030, as governments worldwide introduced plans for a green transition and fossil fuel companies began to diversify their portfolios to include renewable alternatives. However, this month, the IEA has backtracked on this prediction, stating that oil demand could continue growing through to 2050. This reflects a U-turn by many countries on climate commitments and by oil and gas companies on energy diversification efforts.

Even at the Krazy Klimate Konference that I attended last week, the signs of a change of course were there to be observed, if not stated aloud. Sponsors of the Konference included National Grid and Williams Companies. National Grid is a UK-based entity that plays some role in running the UK grid; however, its name is misleading as to what it does in the U.S. The UK entity has purchased several utilities in the northeast U.S. One of those is the former Brooklyn Union Gas, a supplier of natural gas via pipelines in Brooklyn and Queens in New York City. Thus National Grid’s New York City business is threatened by the electrification mandates sought to be imposed by New York State and City. Meanwhile, Williams Companies is a pipeline developer that has been trying for many years to build a natural gas pipeline across New York Bay, over obstruction by the State government. The pipeline finally got approved a couple of weeks ago.

Anyway, the Krazy Klimate Konference had made slots for speakers from both National Grid and Williams Companies. The scheduled speaker from National Grid — its New York President, Sally Librera — did not show up, for unexplained reasons. The representative from Williams Companies, Liz Bowman, did show up and spoke. She talked proudly about the contribution of her company’s project to New York energy affordability and security, although never mentioning the contradiction between what Williams was doing versus the ambitions of all the crazy climate activists. While never stated explicitly, this was a big change from two years ago.

May the climate apocalypse continue to fade slowly into the rear-view mirror.

A World Without Air

Here’s a thought experiment. Consider the Earth with no atmosphere and with the same surface albedo of 12.5% that it has now. How warm would it be?

A digital illustration of Earth with a sunrise in the background, showing the planet partially illuminated, with the Moon visible in the foreground.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (@weschenbach on X, blog at Skating Under The Ice)

Like Don Quixote suffering a coffee overdose, once again I mount my steed, take up my lance, and go tilting at windmills.

Here’s a thought experiment. Consider the Earth with no atmosphere and with the same surface albedo of 12.5% that it has now. How warm would it be?

In this condition, because there is no atmosphere, there are no heat losses from the surface by sensible or latent heat. For the same reason, there’s no reduction in incoming solar power as a result of reflection from clouds or solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere. Solar radiation absorbed at the surface is radiated straight back to space. So, we can calculate the temperature directly from the absorbed radiation using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. This equation relates watts per square meter of surface radiation to the corresponding temperature of the radiating surface. I used the S/B equation with the average emissivity of the Earth, which is ~ 0.98, to calculate the surface temperature. All values are in watts per square meter (abbreviated variously as W/m2 or W/m2).

Diagram illustrating Earth's radiation without atmosphere, showing downwelling solar radiation, total absorbed energy, and reflected solar radiation, with a temperature calculation.
Figure 1. Total surface radiation absorption, Earth with no atmosphere, with the same albedo as the current Earth. Total absorbed solar radiation is the incoming 340 W/m2 minus the 43 W/m2 reflected solar radiation. Integer errors are due to rounding. All values are in watts per square meter (abbreviated as W/m2 or W/m2)

Minus two degrees C. What you might call totally chill. Just below freezing, in fact.

Now, over millions of years, let’s slowly add in an atmosphere and when it matches the modern atmosphere in all respects, let it percolate for another few million years.

After adding the atmosphere, there are lots of changes. Atmospheric absorption cuts down on the amount of solar radiation hitting the surface, which cools the surface. Of course, reduced surface radiation also reduces the amount reflected. However, this reduction in solar radiation at the surface is more than compensated for by the atmosphere adding in 340 W/m2 of downwelling longwave (thermal) radiation from the atmosphere to the surface (yellow arrow in Figure 2 below), which provides significant warming.

And back to the chill side, having an atmosphere allows for sensible and latent heat loss to the atmosphere, which cools the surface. In addition, with an atmosphere we get atmospheric absorption of sunlight, emergent phenomena like thunderstorms, and cloud radiative effects, all of which cool the surface.

It’s a mixed atmospheric bag that ends up with about 20°C less temperature change from the no-atmosphere to the with-atmosphere condition than you’d expect based on the large increase of ~ 212 W/m2 in absorbed radiation at the surface.

With that as prologue, here’s the surface radiation absorption with our current atmosphere to the same scale as Figure 1.

Graph illustrating the Earth's radiation balance with an atmosphere, showing total absorbed radiation of 510 W/m2, downwelling solar radiation of 187 W/m2, downwelling longwave radiation of 346 W/m2, and reflected solar radiation of 23 W/m2.
Figure 2. Total surface radiation absorption, Earth with an atmosphere. This 510 W/m2 is all the power absorbed by the surface. (Yeah, yeah, I know there’s geothermal heat. It’s on the order of tenths of one W/m2, so it’s always ignored for this level of analysis.) The yellow/black arrow is the downwelling longwave (thermal) radiation from the atmosphere to the surface.

OK. Some simple math.

A comic strip featuring two characters, one a young boy and the other a tiger, discussing math. The boy appears puzzled while the tiger provides humorous answers to his questions about measurement and understanding math.

The amount of radiation absorbed by the surface increased from 298 W/m2 with no atmosphere, to 510 W/m2 with an atmosphere, an increase of 212 W/m2.

Due to surface cooling from reduced solar hitting the surface as well as sensible and latent heat loss to the atmosphere, when the atmosphere was added, the temperature only went from -2°C to 18°C, an increase of 20°C.

This means that for each additional W/m2 absorbed by the surface, including all possible influences and feedbacks from clouds, water vapor, sensible and latent heat loss, etc., in the long term the temperature increased by 20°C / 212 W/m2 = 0.09°C per W/m2

If we use the IPCC canonical value of 3.7 W/m2 per doubling of CO2, this would mean that the equilibrium climate sensitivity at the surface is 0.35°C per doubling of CO2.

“But wait”, I hear you thinking. “Climate sensitivity is how much the temperature changes, not with downwelling longwave radiation at the surface, but how much temperature changes with the “greenhouse effect” radiation (GHE) from the atmosphere and the clouds, as measured at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)”.

And you’d be right. That’s the definition.

However, we can allow for this by understanding the relationship of surface downwelling longwave and downwelling “greenhouse radiation” from the atmosphere and clouds.

When we look at the current global correlation between the poorly named atmospheric “greenhouse radiation” measured at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and the surface downwelling longwave radiation, when the TOA-measured greenhouse radiation changes by 1 W/m2, due to internal feedbacks, the surface downwelling longwave radiation changes by 1.26 W/m2. Or vice versa. In either case, they move in synchrony.

Scatterplot showing the relationship between monthly surface downwelling longwave radiation and greenhouse radiation from March 2000 to February 2024, indicating an increase of 1.26 W/m2 in surface downwelling longwave for each 1 W/m2 increase in greenhouse radiation.
Figure 3. Scatterplot, surface downwelling longwave radiation versus TOA-measured “greenhouse” radiation from the atmosphere and the clouds. At the monthly level, there is no temporal lag between the two. Current average GHE radiation is 158 W/m2.

Multiplying the surface sensitivity by 1.26 to convert to sensitivity to greenhouse gases increases the equilibrium climate sensitivity from the surface value of 0.35°C per doubling of CO2 calculated above, to a final figure of 0.44°C per CO2 doubling.

OK, that’s one way to get there. Interestingly, for verification of the sensitivity estimate, we can calculate the equilibrium climate sensitivity in a totally different manner. Consider the same thought experiment as above.

With no atmosphere, the GHE radiation is zero W/m2. Currently, the GHE radiation is 158 W/m2. That gives us 20°C / 158 W/m2 * 3.7 W/m2_per_CO2_doubling = 0.47°C per CO2 doubling … compared to the 0.44°C from the previous calculation using a different method, that’s excellent agreement. So to be conservative, let me call the warming on the order of half a degree C from a doubling of CO2.

This ~ half degree C of surface warming per doubling of CO2 represents a long-term equilibrium calculation, because it includes all known and unknown atmospheric factors and feedbacks involving water vapor, cloud radiative effects, latent and sensible heat losses, atmospheric absorption of solar radiation, all of that. The climate system during the Holocene is basically in a long-term (millennia) dynamic steady-state.

One advantage of using this method to calculate climate sensitivity is that the radiation numbers are large. As a result, small variations or uncertainties in them don’t change the answer much. For example, the current calculated ~ 2 W/m2 increase in “greenhouse radiation” since “pre-industrial” times is not significant because it is only ~ 1% of the change in downwelling longwave radiation from the no-atmosphere to the with-atmosphere condition. Basically, the answer is the same whether it’s included or not.

And while my estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity of ~ half-degree per CO2 doubling is well below the three degrees per doubling that the IPCC uses as the sensitivity, it’s not outside historical estimates.

A graph depicting 172 estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, showing a range of values plotted over the years, with different categories represented by various colored circles.
Figure 4. A large number of different estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity over the last half century, coded by color. Pale blue lines show the IPCC uncertainty values. My estimate of a half-degree per doubling is shown by the horizontal dotted black line.

Here are the authors, dates, and values of the best estimates shown in Figure 4 that are under 1 W/m2.

       Author             Year ECS      Class
1  Specht et al.        2016  0.37 Theory & Reviews
2 Idso                       1998  0.42 Theory & Reviews
3 Lindzen and Choi 2009  0.47   Observations
4 Harde                   2017  0.65 Theory & Reviews
5 Lindzen and Choi  2011  0.72   Observations
6 Bates                    2016  0.92   Observations

References are in the paper here.

In closing, in my post “Testing A Constructal Climate Model“, I described how the Constructal model estimates a climate sensitivity of 1.1°C per doubling of CO2. However, in that post I said:

Finally, this is a maximum sensitivity which does not include the various emergent thermoregulatory mechanisms that tend to oppose any heating or cooling. This means the actual sensitivity is lower than ~1.1°C per 2xCO2.

This latest result, of ~ half a degree warming per doubling of CO2, which includes not only emergent phenomena but all atmosphere-related phenomena, is in line with that assessment.

In related news, providing this method holds up, this means

“APOCALYPSE CANCELLED! SORRY, NO REFUNDS!”

It’s very unlikely that we will double the current CO2 level. Burning all total known reserves, not just the proven reserves, but all known reserves, will emit about 4,800 gigatonnes of CO2. This will raise the CO2 level in the atmosphere by ~ 280 ppmv. That’s far from doubling the current 420 ppmv atmospheric CO2 level.

This means that about a third of a degree of future warming lies in the ground in the form of fossil fuels.

Sadly, I fear the chance that this analysis will convince any true believers is small. They’re caught in the Upton Sinclair Trap. He famously said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

It does seem recently, however, that more and more people are seeing through the climate grift. At least the US Government seems to be getting off the climate merry-go-round of endless failed predictions.

And to return to my analysis, what am I missing here? Where are my math mistakes or the holes in my logic? Why isn’t this a solid estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity, giving the same answer when calculated in two different ways?

Regards to all on a cloudy fall day,

w.

[UPDATE] In response to comments, a clarification.

A general comment for all, to clarify my position.

I do think that radiatively active gases affect the temperature. But I don’t think that small variations of a few watts per square meter in the resulting downwelling radiation change the temperature anywhere near as much as the conventional wisdom would have you alarmed to believe.

In addition to theoretical arguments and other evidence, my own climate model is able to do a very good job of emulating the real-world temperature using only albedo and the Ramanathan “greenhouse factor”, the percentage of upwelling surface radiation that is absorbed in the atmosphere.

Here is a more recent graphic from my ever-evolving Constructal climate model, showing how those two measurable environmental variables, albedo and greenhouse factor, are all you need to emulate the absolute temperature.

Graph comparing hot zone and cold zone temperatures based on CERES data and a constructal model from 2020 to 2024, showing correlations between observed and modeled temperatures.

This also makes physical sense. Albedo controls how much energy is entering the system at any time. The greenhouse factor controls how much energy is leaving the system at any time. Any imbalance between those two will be reflected in a temperature change … just not as much as folks think.

This excellent goodness of fit of the Constructal climate model is further evidence that the greenhouse factor, the percentage of upwelling radiation absorbed by radiatively active gases in the atmosphere, does in fact affect the surface temperature.

Regards to everyone,

w.

As Is My Habit: I ask that when you comment, you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS you are discussing. This is essential to prevent misunderstandings.

The Problem with Wind Energy in the Northwest

There is a lot of interest in renewable energy in the Pacific Northwest that could supplement our hydropower. 

A landscape featuring numerous wind turbines arranged in rows, set against a clear blue sky. The foreground includes sparse vegetation and desert-like terrain.

From The Cliff Mass Weather Blog

By CliffMass

This was a bad week for wind energy in the Northwest, but before I discuss this, let’s step back for a few minutes.

There is a lot of interest in renewable energy in the Pacific Northwest that could supplement our hydropower.   

With our northern latitude and extensive clouds for much of the year, solar energy can only make a small contribution.   

To illustrate, here is the annual solar energy map for the U.S.  Western Oregon and Washington have poor solar resources.  Better in eastern Oregon and the Columbia Basin.  But even in these areas, there is very little resource from November through February.

Annual solar energy map of the U.S., highlighting varying solar resources across different regions, with Western Oregon and Washington showing lower solar potential.

The wind energy situation in the Northwest is better, but not particularly good.   Consider the map of annual wind energy resources in the U.S. (below).   The windy High Plains of the U.S. have terrific potential, but the western U.S., away from the coast, has very modest wind energy, at best.  Only the coastal waters from central Oregon to central CA have good wind potential.

Map illustrating the annual wind energy resources across the United States, showing varying wind speeds and potential from different regions.

Here in Washington State, the only decent non-coastal area for wind energy is the eastern slopes of the Cascades (see map below).   That is why nearly all of the wind turbines are there.  Constructing wind turbines offshore is very expensive and has significant environmental problems.

Map showing wind power resource estimates in Washington State, indicating various wind power classes and potential across regions.

But there is a problem.   For much of the year, these turbines generate little power.

Consider the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) statistics for the past week.   The total energy demand is the red line, and hydro generation is blue.

Wind energy (green) has been very small most of the week, except on one day (November 18) when a frontal system moved through.  The output from one nuclear plant (purple) has been constant and generally much higher.

A graph showing the BPA balancing authority load and generation statistics from November 16 to November 23, 2025, highlighting total energy load in red, variable energy resources in green, hydro generation in blue, fossil/biomass generation in brown, and nuclear generation in cobalt.

The truth is that wind generation in our region is only really significant from late spring to late summer, when strong westerly flow descends the eastern slopes of the Cascades.

To see this, consider the winds at Ellensburg, surrounded by wind turbines on several sides.  Good winds from April into the middle of August.  But consistently slower (and often very weak) the remainder of the year.

A line graph displaying wind speed in knots over time for Ellensburg, with data points ranging from December 2024 to October 2025. The graph shows peaks and troughs in wind speed, indicating seasonal variations.

In short, our region needs to maximize our hydro resources and invest in next-generation nuclear (fission) plants, which are inherently safe.

With rapidly increasing demand for electricity, expected to roughly double by mid-century (see NW Power Council estimate below), without new generation capacity, there is a near certainty of blackouts, particularly during cold periods. 

Line graph showing the projected peak demand range (MW) for Climate A from 2025 to 2046, with values increasing over time.

How Wasteful is Green Energy? Count the Ways

“Oxfam finds that for World Bank projects; many things can change during implementation. On average, actual expenditures on the Bank’s projects differ from budgeted amounts by 26–43% above or below the claimed climate finance. Across the entire climate finance portfolio, between 2017 and 2023, this difference amounts to US$24.28–US$41.32 billion,” the report states.

A bleak landscape featuring scattered debris and abandoned structures under a cloudy sky, with dark smoke rising in the distance.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Waste #1:  Money Spent, Projects Unknown

Image featuring the logos of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, with a headline highlighting Oxfam's report on $41 billion in unaccounted climate funds.

“Oxfam finds that for World Bank projects; many things can change during implementation. On average, actual expenditures on the Bank’s projects differ from budgeted amounts by 26–43% above or below the claimed climate finance. Across the entire climate finance portfolio, between 2017 and 2023, this difference amounts to US$24.28–US$41.32 billion,” the report states.

“No information is available about what new climate actions were supported and which planned actions were cut. Now that the Bank has touted its focus on understanding and reporting on the impacts of its climate finance, it is critical to stress that without a full understanding of how much of what the Bank claims as climate finance at the project approval stage becomes actual expenditure, it is impossible to track and measure the impacts of the Bank’s climate co-benefits in practice.”

“Oxfam’s report doesn’t suggest funds are missing but points to a transparency issue that makes it difficult to know precisely what the Bank is delivering in terms of climate finance: where it’s going and what it’s supporting.”

Thus, “contrary to claims online,” it’s not missing. It’s just not accounted for! At this point, I’m not sure which is the bigger racket: dubious national or supranational funding of projects that fall loosely under the aegis of purported climate change mitigation, or fact-checking. At least this can be said about fact-checking: It costs a hell of a lot less.

Waste #2:  Money Spent, Projects Dicey

For an idea of how much money is being gambled on Green Energy or “CleanTech” projects here is a chart for North America from The Big Green Machine:

A map of North America displaying 609 green energy projects, with a total investment of $287 billion and an estimated creation of 387,791 jobs. The map includes circles indicating project locations, along with a bar graph showing announced capital investments by quarter and a chart detailing capital investments and state/provincial subsidies.

How Risky are these projects? An article at Mish Talk explores the question: How Many More Ridiculous Green Energy Projects Will Fail? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The answer is all of them, in due time. Here are the latest spectacular failures.

Aerial view of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert, showcasing fields of heliostat mirrors reflecting sunlight onto a boiler mounted on a tower.

Birds Fry Every Two Minutes

It took 10 years, and hundreds-of-thousands of dead birds, before
the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California would meet its fate.

Now finally here in 2025 it seems the reckoning has begun. The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes in an editorial that “a major California utility — Pacific Gas & Electric — announced that it will no longer buy power from the Ivanpah solar plant off Interstate 15 near the Nevada-California border. As a result, two of the plant’s three towers will shut down next year — and the third will probably follow.”

Performance has proven so poor that PG&E has exercised its right to terminate the contract, about which negotiations have been completed; there is no doubt that towers 1 and 3 will cease operations within roughly a year. And it appears to be the case that Edison too wants out: “the utility is in ‘ongoing discussions’ with the project’s owners and the federal government over ending the utility’s contract.”

Map showing the Atlantic Shores offshore project areas in New Jersey, including Atlantic Shores North, Atlantic Shores South, and Atlantic Shores Bight.

New Jersey Reaps the Wind, Again

It’s not just solar. Also note that Shell just backed out of a wind-energy project despite huge subsidies.

Another offshore wind development stalled this week off the Jersey shore, making it the latest of three such projects to fail despite generous terms from the state. Energy giant Shell wrote off its 50% stake in Atlantic Shores, choosing to take a $1 billion impairment instead of completing the 2,800-megawatt wind farm. New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities canceled its request for a wind-energy provider, leaving the unfinished project with no prospective customer.

Ratepayers can rejoice. Atlantic Shores would have charged about three times the market price for the power it generated, according to a review by Whitestrand Consulting. That would have raised electricity rates by 11% for residents and 13% to 15% for businesses, forcing them to overpay by $48 billion over the wind farm’s lifetime.

Waste # 3 A Mountain of Unrecyclable Waste

The Institute for Energy Research notes Broken Windmill Blade Closes Nantucket Beaches

A massive wind turbine blade shattered offshore Massachusetts causing extensive debris, which shut down beaches on Nantucket Island and caused serious concern to fishermen, who worried that the debris could damage their boats. The failure of the massive blade and the resulting debris caused the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to suspend operations at Vineyard Wind until it could be determined whether the “blade failure” impacts other turbine blades on the development of the offshore wind farm. Power production has been suspended, and installation of new wind turbine construction is on hold. And as more green energy trash washes ashore the local town is considering litigation. The facility’s massive wind turbines began sending electricity to the grid this past winter.

An aerial view of a large area filled with discarded wind turbine blades, stacked in rows, highlighting the issue of waste in renewable energy production.
Thousands of Old Wind Turbine Blades Pile Up in West Texas Officials in Sweetwater say an out-of-state company has made their town a dump for the seldom-seen trash created by renewable energy.

Wind turbine blades are made from fiberglass, or fiber reinforced plastic, and cannot be recycled. The Biden-Harris administration has not indicated what or who it expects to deal with the mountain of waste that will result when thousands of turbine blades reach the end of their useful lives in 20 to 25 years, or in many cases less. In fact, wind blades are piling up in Texas and Iowa without proper disposal. Massive wind graveyards, for example, have popped up on the outskirts of Sweetwater, Texas. The pile of wind blades covers more than thirty acres, in stacks rising as high as basketball backboards.

A landscape of wind turbines in a mountainous area with a text overlay warning that they will not produce enough energy to match the energy used in their manufacturing and installation.

Waste #4 Money Spent, Operational Failures

Economic Reality

Let’s return to economic reality.  None of these projects are profitable, even with subsidies. That’s why they fail.  Meanwhile, consumers face monstrous hikes in energy bills to pay for these boondoggles as mounds of unrecyclable garbage piles up in massive wind graveyards.

The Green Machine provides the project categories in colors denoting Batteries, EVs, Solar and Wind.

The BESS Failure Incident Database provides a record of costly problems with Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)

World map displaying locations of energy storage systems, color-coded by system size, alongside charts showing the number of events per year and events in relation to system age.
Figure 1. A breakdown of the stationary energy storage failure events from the above table.

EV Boosters reports EV Business Failures Abound

Infographic showing the decline in the number of electric vehicle (EV) companies in China from 2018 to 2025, indicating that around 400 EV brands went bankrupt or ceased operations, with a prediction of 50 to 100 surviving brands by 2030.

The Chinese electric vehicle (EV) boom has turned into a dramatic shakeout. Around 2018, China had more than 500 EV startups registered. These included everything from serious automotive disruptors to local government-backed ventures that never made it past the prototype phase. What do we mean by “EV startup”? In this context, it includes any newly registered Chinese company involved in the design, development, or production of new energy vehicles (NEVs) — including electric, plug-in hybrid and hydrogen cars. Many were speculative projects, created quickly to benefit from generous state subsidies, often with minimal automotive expertise. While a few had serious ambitions and advanced prototypes, the vast majority never got a vehicle on the road. By 2025, only around 100 of these brands remain active. Analysts from McKinsey predict that by 2030, fewer than 50 Chinese EV companies will survive. This is not just a story of collapse, but also of market maturation, consolidation, and strategic realignment.

SolarInsure Lists the Many Solar Business Failures

Bar graph showing the number of solar bankruptcies from January 2021 to December 2024, with a consistent upward trend over time.

Major Solar Bankruptcies as of September 2025 Include:

Waste #5 Green Hydrogen Projects–Absurd, Exorbitant and Pointless

A world map displaying various hydrogen production projects with different statuses indicated by colored markers, showcasing data on installed electrolysis capacity and low-emissions hydrogen production by 2030.

The map above from IEA shows more than 2200 hydrogen fuel projects around the world, intending to replace hydrocarbon fuels to save the planet.  They dream of being operational by 2030 claiming that real world obstacles will be overcome if enough taxpayer dollars are thrown at the problems.  The whole notion is fantastic (in the literal sense) for reasons detailed in a previous post.

Inside the Hydrogen Fuel Project Bubbles

An update on project cancellations comes from Hydrogen Newsletter The Green Hydrogen Reckoning: An Analysis of Project Cancellations

Project Name / IdentifierLead Company / Developer(s)Location Announced Capacity / ScaleProject StatusDate of Announcement / Status Change
Arizona Hydrogen ProjectFortescueArizona, USA80 MW electrolyzer, 11,000 t/yr H2Cancelled (Post-FID)Jul-25
PEM50 ProjectFortescueGladstone, Australia50 MW PEM electrolyzerCancelled (Post-FID)Jul-25
H2OK ProjectWoodside EnergyOklahoma, USA60 t/d liquid H2CancelledJul-25
Massena Green Hydrogen PlantAir ProductsMassena, New York, USA$500M, 35 t/d liquid H2CancelledFeb-25
Mississippi Clean Hydrogen HubHy Stor EnergyMississippi, USA>1 GW electrolyzer capacity reservationCancelledSep/Oct 2024
HyGreen Teesside ProjectBPTeesside, UK500 MW green hydrogenCancelledMar-25
Australian Renewable Energy HubBPAustralia$36 billion green hydrogen facilityExitedJul-25
Low-Carbon Hydrogen PlantShellWest Coast, NorwayNot specifiedCancelledSep-24
Clean Hydrogen to EuropeEquinor / ShellNorway to Germany10 GW blue hydrogen exportScrappedSep-24
German Steel Plant ConversionArcelorMittalGermanyTwo plants, €2.5 billion planShelvedJun-25
Global Green Hydrogen TargetIberdrolaGlobal350,000 tons/yr targetScaled BackMar-24
Green Hydrogen Production TargetRepsolSpain2.5 GW targetScaled BackFeb-25
Green Energy HubLEAGEastern Germany“One of Europe’s largest”Postponed IndefinitelyJun-25
Porvoo Renewable HydrogenNestePorvoo, FinlandNot specifiedWithdrew from investmentOct-24
Port Pirie Green Hydrogen PlantTrafiguraSouth Australia, AustraliaA$750 millionAbandonedMar-25
Queensland Liquefied H2 PlantQLD Gov’t, Kansai Electric, IwataniQueensland, AustraliaA$12.5 billion, 200 t/dFunding Pulled2025
Project CoyoteFortescueBritish Columbia, Canada$2 billion H2/ammonia facilityCancelledSep-24

The above table provides a non-exhaustive but representative catalogue of the major green hydrogen projects that have been cancelled, postponed, or significantly scaled back between 2023 and mid-2025, illustrating the global scale of this market recalibration.

A cartoon depicting a scene related to green hydrogen energy, featuring a blimp labeled 'GREEN HYDROGEN' above solar panels and wind turbines. Below, an electrolytic cell is connected to a water source in a sunken area, surrounded by the skeletons of animals, emphasizing environmental concerns.
A cartoon unicorn with a rainbow tail and the text '100% renewable?' displayed inside its body.

1880-2020 Trends in Ocean Heat Uptake, Thermal Expansion Challenge Human Forcing Claims

In a new study scientists have acknowledged the modeled assumptions forecasting nature’s response to the presumed human-driven radiative forcing of ocean heat uptake, thermal expansion, and sea level rise rates do not align well with observations from recent decades.

A scenic view of the ocean with sunlight reflecting on the water's surface and dramatic clouds in the sky.

From No Trick Zone

By Kenneth Richard

Fundamental assumptions in projections of alarming, CO2-induced global warming in the coming decades are undermined by a new long-term energy budget analysis.

In a new study scientists have acknowledged the modeled assumptions forecasting nature’s response to the presumed human-driven radiative forcing of ocean heat uptake, thermal expansion, and sea level rise rates do not align well with observations from recent decades.

A diagram illustrating the global ocean heat uptake rate from 1880 to 2020, featuring multiple graphs representing various studies on effective radiative forcing and Earth's radiative response.
Image Source: Wu et al., 2025

The apparent misalignment is especially pronounced during 2000-2020 (Fig. 2 in the image), as the assumed uptick in radiative forcing (which is said to be a consequence of rising human CO2 emissions) was not accompanied by a sharp increase in Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). Instead, the assumed forcing values are 50% greater than EEI estimates during this period.

When the entire 1880-2020 period is considered, it is notable that the fraction of forcing that delivers heat energy to the Earth has been (much) smaller in recent decades than in the first half of the 20th century despite the assumed cause of the forcing (human CO2 emissions) being several times larger since about 1980.

Consider that from 1910 to 1945 human CO2 emissions remained relatively flat at ~1 GtC/year, but then emissions rose to ~6 GtC/year by 1990 and to nearly 10 GtC/year by the 2010s. Despite this dramatic increase in the assumed radiative forcing from CO2 emissions, the heat uptake (Fig. 1 and S6), thermal expansion (Fig. S17), and sea level rise rates (Fig. S17) were nearly as pronounced in 1910-1945 as they were from 1980-2010. In fact, there was a decline in the heat uptake, thermal expansion, and sea level rise rates from 1945 to 1975 despite the coincident sharp increase in CO2 emissions during this period.

“We find two distinct phases in the global energy budget. In 1880–1980, Earth’s energy imbalance closely followed the radiative forcing. After 1980, however, Earth’s energy imbalance increased at a slower rate than the forcing; in 2000–2020, the imbalance amounted to less than 50% of the forcing.”

Since nearly all projections of catastrophic global warming, ocean heat uptake, and thermal-expansion-driven sea level rise are rooted in the presupposition that dramatic increases in radiative forcing from rising CO2 emissions will lead to pronounced increases in the EEI, scientists are now indicating we may not sufficiently understand these processes and thus we need to consider further study.

“Because the global energy budget before and after 1980 implies very different global warming in the future, further studies are required to better understand the cause of this historical variation.”

Graph depicting the global energy budget and ocean heat uptake rates from 1880 to 2020, illustrating sea-level rise contributions from thermal expansion and ocean mass change.
Image Source: Wu et al., 2025

Gavin Newsom’s war on the poor goes global at COP30

California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently traveled to Brazil to speak at the latest United Nations climate change conference, where he urged other nations to copy his state’s environmental agenda. We can only hope nobody listens, as California’s green policies have been devastating for the state’s low-income and minority residents.

California Governor Gavin Newsom passionately speaking against gas and oil, with a city backdrop.

From CFACT

By Donna Jackson

California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently traveled to Brazil to speak at the latest United Nations climate change conference, where he urged other nations to copy his state’s environmental agenda. We can only hope nobody listens, as California’s green policies have been devastating for the state’s low-income and minority residents.

Newsom is right that California is a leader in climate policies — but it is also a leader in costly electric rates. Only Hawaii, a logistical special case, spends more per kilowatt-hour. Even with its milder weather compared to many other states and thus lower residential demand, typical California electric bills are well above the national average. A big part of the reason is state measures discouraging reliable and affordable natural gas and coal-fired electricity generation in favor of politically correct but economically impractical wind and solar.

The same is true for the state’s gasoline prices, which at around $4.60 per gallon are more than $1.50 higher than the national average. For a typical household that uses around 1,000 gallons per year, the added cost of driving in California is $1,500. The state’s convoluted Low Carbon Fuel Standard and other climate measures are major contributors, as are regulations that are chasing refiners out of the state.

The state-induced pain doesn’t just affect direct energy prices but reverberates throughout the economy, most notably with average housing prices at more than $900,000, well above the national average of $462,000. California’s housing market is targeted with many costly environmental measures, from severe restrictions on where new construction is allowed — which limit the supply of affordable housing well below what is needed — to green building codes that add unnecessarily to the price of what little does get built.

Of course, none of this matters to Newsom’s billionaire contributors in Silicon Valley or Hollywood, but it hurts average Californians. The state is steadily losing population, often to states like Texas and Florida that have not embraced California-style climate policies. But not everyone can pick up and leave, and hardest hit of all are California’s low-income and minority households.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, nearly one-third of American households have at least some difficulty paying their energy bills, including 22 percent who say they have had to reduce or forgo purchases of necessities like food and medicine to do so. Needless to say, the percentages are higher for low-income and minority households. And in recent years, California has emerged as a state with more severe energy poverty than many others.

But California’s inequitable energy bills pale in comparison to its home prices. According to the California Association of Realtors, only 18 percent of Californians can afford the median-priced home in the state. For Black residents, that number drops to 10 percent, and for Latinos, 9 percent. This is nothing less than an assault on the American dream, given how important homeownership is to lifting households into self-sufficiency and stability as well as creating intergenerational wealth. California’s non-homeowners are also stuck paying rent, which is sky-high thanks to many of the same green policies.

One consequence of all these green housing policies is that California, more so than most other states, has many wealthy and overwhelmingly white neighborhoods that are likely to remain that way. A point is reached where one wonders whether something more than mere indifference to integration is going on, and whether these policies may have at least some segregationist intent.

There’s a sharp contrast between Newsom’s constant progressive posturing and the disproportionate economic hardships facing the nonrich and nonwhite in his state. Overall, California’s climate policies have helped give the state one of the highest poverty rates in the nation once factors like housing costs are taken into account.

There is a lesson the world’s poor countries can learn from Newsom’s climate lecturing — think of California as a model of what not to do.

This article originally appeared at DC Journal