Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking to restore coal plants across America “for up to $100 million in federal funding.”
The DOE announced Friday that it issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity to restore coal plants across the U.S. to “design, implement, test, and validate three strategic opportunities for refurbishment and retrofit of existing American coal power plants to make them operate more efficiently, reliably, and affordably.” President Donald Trump has sought to bolster the American coal industry through an April 8 executive order, though the Biden administration cracked down on coal through stringent regulations in a move that several energy policy experts and one grid official warned could weaken America’s power grid.
“For years, the Biden and Obama administrations relentlessly targeted America’s coal industry and workers, resulting in the closure of reliable power plants and higher electricity costs,” said DOE Secretary Chris Wright on Friday. “Thankfully, President Trump has ended the war on American coal and is restoring common sense energy policies that put Americans first. These projects will help keep America’s coal plants operating and ensure the United States has the reliable and affordable power it needs to keep the lights on and power our future.” (RELATED: Trump Admin Moves To Demolish Biden-Era Coal Crackdown)
The DOE has issued several emergency orders to keep coal plants humming as it has also sounded alarms over America’s grid. DOE’s July grid reliability report projected that blackouts could increase by a factor of 100 across America if the U.S. continues to phase out reliable power sources without adequate replacements.
While Trump has sought to boost coal and other reliable energy sources like nuclear, the Biden administration favored intermittent green energy sources like wind and solar in the name of combating climate change.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Nearly ten years after it was cast as the villain in one of America’s fiercest environmental battles, the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) has finally been vindicated. Once the target of celebrity activists and radical protest movements, DAPL now stands as a model of safety, reliability, and economic prosperity. Unsurprisingly, the national media has done little to bring this reality to light, but for the people directly affected by the pipeline, its advantages are no surprise.
Nearly ten years after it was cast as the villain in one of America’s fiercest environmental battles, the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) has finally been vindicated. Once the target of celebrity activists and radical protest movements, DAPL now stands as a model of safety, reliability, and economic prosperity. Unsurprisingly, the national media has done little to bring this reality to light, but for the people directly affected by the pipeline, its advantages are no surprise. Today, by delivering affordable, dependable energy to Midwestern markets, supporting job creation, and bolstering local public services, DAPL fuels North Dakota’s growth and strengthens America’s energy independence.
When construction began in 2016, environmental activists, led by organizations such as Greenpeace International, spread alarmist and deceptive narratives. Without evidence, they claimed the pipeline would poison water supplies and desecrate sacred Native American lands, sparking a national media spectacle that turned North Dakota into a national flashpoint.
But nearly a decade later, the record tells a different story. Since beginning operations in 2017, the Dakota Access Pipeline has safely transported over half a million barrels a day to markets in Illinois. In March of 2025, a North Dakota jury even found Greenpeace liable for defamation, property damage, and civil conspiracy for their actions during the protest. Ironically, the only real environmental harm from the saga came from the protesters themselves, who left behind more than 48 million pounds of trash and human waste, polluting the very lands and waterways they claimed to protect.
For communities across North Dakota, the impact of DAPL has been transformational. Before the pipeline, much of the state’s oil was effectively landlocked, forcing rail carriers, already busy transporting agricultural goods, farm equipment, and consumer goods, to take on the additional burden of transporting oil. But busy railroads don’t just slow commerce; they also increase the risk of catastrophic accidents like the 2015 Heimdal crash that forced evacuations and caused extreme environmental damage.
By safely moving more oil through pipelines, DAPL freed up rail capacity, reduced shipping costs, and provided North Dakota producers with access to new markets, while also significantly reducing environmental and safety risks that rail transportation entails. The result: safer, cheaper, and more reliable transportation of the state’s most valuable resource.
But the benefits of DAPL extend far beyond safety. Since pipelines move oil at a much lower cost than rail, the state earns more tax revenue on every barrel shipped. The savings, about $2.40 per barrel, add up quickly across North Dakota’s 1.1 million barrels of daily production. In total, that translates to roughly $84 million in additional annual tax revenue, or an estimated $750–800 million since the pipeline began operating. These funds bolster North Dakota’s Legacy Fund. Now valued at nearly $12 billion, the fund is invested directly back in local communities, supporting programs from property tax relief to infrastructure and education. The fund delivers real economic benefits to North Dakotans—whether through lower taxes, new computers in classrooms, or smoother roads across the state.
Beyond North Dakota, the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) plays a vital role in advancing America’s broader energy and national security interests. Every barrel of oil safely transported through domestic infrastructure is one less barrel we rely on from unstable or adversarial regions. As global energy demand accelerates, driven in part by the rapid expansion of innovative tech, strengthening U.S. energy independence has never been more critical. Dependence on foreign oil undermines America’s technological leadership and leaves the nation vulnerable to disruptions that could impact everything from home electricity to financial systems. By reducing exposure to volatile supply chains and enhancing resilience to global crises, pipelines like DAPL form a cornerstone of America’s energy security and long-term economic prosperity.
Nearly a decade after the protests that captured the world’s attention, the Dakota Access Pipeline has done what it was designed to do and more. It fuels our economy, strengthens our communities, and makes America more secure. In the end, its legacy is not one of controversy, but of quiet, steady progress, the kind that keeps lights on, taxes low, and our nation secure.
Europe and Britain are going to make a cyclical recovery, while Trump’s America is going to lose
Energy is suddenly becoming much cheaper in the UK and Europe, rapidly narrowing the gap in industrial competitiveness with America and rescuing households with a windfall stimulus as we go into 2026.
The January futures contract for wholesale gas has almost halved since last winter to €27.39 (£24.06) a megawatt hour. The contract is even lower for January 2027, and lower yet for early 2028 and 2029, as traders anticipate the gathering global glut of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Brent crude oil has fallen to the lower end of its historic trading range in real terms. This is unlikely to change as Saudi Arabia floods the market to regain lost global share, and as the US over-drills in a fast-changing world that no longer wants as much crude as big oil likes to tell itself.
The International Energy Agency estimates that global oil supply will rise by 5.7 million barrels a day over this year and next, while demand will rise by 1.6 million. The structural overhang is colossal. It will be even larger if Vladimir Putin is let back into polite society.
The net effect of the twin gluts in gas and oil is a relief package worth some $1.2tn a year for countries that import energy, and a commensurate loss in rents for Opec, Qatar, America, Canada or Norway.
Most of America’s shale gas output has been trapped inside the country – and even within regions of the US – since the fracking revolution reached scale in the early 2010s.
The wholesale cost of gas in Europe in mid-2022 was seven times higher than the Henry Hub price enjoyed by the booming petrochemical belt from Texas to Louisiana, or the Chicago region drawing on the Appalachian Marcellus and Utica basins.
Today it is two and a quarter times higher. The gap will narrow further as the US opens new export terminals for LNG, doubling total capacity by 2029. By then terminal capacity will have risen tenfold in a decade.
Donald Trump has made much of America’s new role as the world’s biggest exporter of LNG, and has been actively forcing the pace. He should be careful what he wishes for. The Henry Hub price of gas in the US has risen by 50pc to $4.11 (£3.08) since August, enough to cause the first stirrings of a cost-of-living revolt.
AEP has spent years defending Net Zero and in particular claiming that renewable energy is cheaper. He has long maintained that fossil fuels will soon be in rapid decline.
Not only that- he has regularly criticised Trump’s “Drill, Baby Drill policies”. Even now, he makes a fool of himself, stating that the US will lose out! It is only because of Trump, who in particular has lifted Biden’s freeze on new LNG export facilities, that we will able to benefit.
As real energy experts have been predicting for years, gas and oil prices are already returning historical lows, following the Ukraine war price spikes. It is an economic process that has always taken place in energy and raw material markets – demand exceeds supply, and prices rise – this incentivises new investment, increasing supply and lowering prices – this leads to a glut, pushing producers out of the market and starting the cycle over again.
Lower gas prices mean, of course, that renewable energy becomes relatively dearer and Net Zero more expensive.
At this stage, you would expect AEP to admit his mistakes and call for Net Zero to be dropped. Incredibly, he doubles down:
“Falling gas prices give Britain a window to sort out its chronic energy problems. If Labour had sense, it would switch the load of levies on electricity bills to gas bills, raising the percentage gradually each year to give people time to adapt.
It is a policy absurdity that a Government committed to slashing CO2 emissions and electrifying everything should preside over a warped incentive structure that favours fossil fuels, and actively deters people from switching to heat pumps, electric vehicles, or induction cookers powered from what will soon be 80pc home-made clean energy.”
He calls himself an economist!
If one technology/product is better and cheaper than the alternative, you move to the former. What you don’t do is tax the cheaper product and use the revenue to subsidise the expensive one.
He continues with his regular nonsense about Chinese solar panels and wind farms, apparently blissfully unaware of what he has just written about gas prices! And still he lives in the La La land where you can run a modern economy on intermittent wind power and solar farms, which only supply useful amounts of electricity in summer.
He finishes:
“Trump’s America is going to lose in two ways. Its industrial energy advantage will largely disappear and its fossil export revenues will be worth far less than the White House seems to think.
For those of us in Europe, it is a blessed relief. We can lick our wounds after the violent gas shock of the last four years and reduce our dependency before the next fossil cycle does its worst.”
No, Trump’s America won’t lose out. It is in their interest to wean Europe off Russian oil and gas (which they still buy) and stabilise the European economy. America will benefit from exports of oil and gas, which AEP has been arguing for years are stranded assets.
But what the clown still has not worked out is that Europe and the UK are still determined to commit economic suicide, phasing out fossil fuels and pursuing Net Zero.
When we are baking in high, economy wrecking energy prices, we will lose out on all of this cheap fossil fuel energy.
And the rest of the world will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Europe stands as the self-proclaimed cathedral of the “green” transition. Bureaucrats in Brussels and politicians in Berlin have spent decades lecturing the world on the moral necessity to abandon hydrocarbons. They have constructed a narrative of the European Union as a shining city powered by the breeze and sun, modeling a net-zero utopia.
Europe stands as the self-proclaimed cathedral of the “green” transition. Bureaucrats in Brussels and politicians in Berlin have spent decades lecturing the world on the moral necessity to abandon hydrocarbons. They have constructed a narrative of the European Union as a shining city powered by the breeze and sun, modeling a net-zero utopia.
Yet, when the first real chill of winter settled over the continent this fall, that facade collapsed under the weight of physical reality.
Europe depends on fossil fuels for approximately 70% of its total energy consumption. This figure has remained stubbornly consistent over the years despite billions of euros spent on solar and wind infrastructure. The much-celebrated growth in those technologies masks a fundamental truth about energy systems that European policymakers refuse to acknowledge in public: Electricity accounts for only a fraction of total energy demand.
Transportation, heating, industrial processes and manufacturing continue to run overwhelmingly on oil, natural gas and coal. Highlighting additions in renewable power generation while ignoring the broader energy picture is like taking pride in a new front door while the rest of the house is in shambles.
In late November, the fragility of a weather-dependent energy system went on display as temperatures dropped and the demand for space heating surged. This is a predictable feature of life in the Northern Hemisphere, yet European energy policy seems perpetually surprised by it.
Right when families needed heat the most, the wind refused to blow. This is the “Dunkelflaute” – the dark doldrums – about which engineers have warned for years. Wind generation plummeted by 20%.
Operators of the power grid, needing a backup source to avoid blackouts, turned not to batteries, which remain woefully inadequate for the job. Instead, they harnessed a workhorse of today’s energy systems: natural gas. Gas-fired generation surged by more than 40% to fill the void left by stalled wind turbines.
In the Netherlands, heating-degree days – a measure of demand for warmth – were 35% above the five-year average. Data from mid-November paints a damning picture of the failure of so-called renewables. Between November 14 – 21, as the first cold spell gripped the region, European gas demand skyrocketed by 45%.
In absolute terms, daily gas demand leaped by 0.6 billion cubic meters per day. This was not a gradual uptick. It was the panic-induced spike of a 75% increase in residential and commercial heating needs.
Gas storage sites were the unsung heroes of this drama, meeting approximately 90% of the jump in daily demand during a critical week. Withdrawals from storage facilities surged by nearly 450%.
The magnitude of this intervention by natural gas is difficult to overstate. To put the 0.6 billion cubic meters of gas into perspective, consider that the energy equivalent of that amount of gas is the daily output of 220 nuclear power plants – a number nearly five times the size of France’s entire nuclear fleet.
Imagine the catastrophe if Europe had achieved its net-zero goals and eliminated its gas infrastructure. There is no battery system on Earth, existing or planned, that could deploy the equivalent of 220 nuclear reactors.
Despite this frantic consumption of gas, prices have remained relatively stable. This was not due to European foresight. It was due to the “peace dividend” of potentially resolving the Ukraine conflict and, more importantly, a flood of liquefied natural gas from the United States.
Herein lies the supreme irony of the story: An anti-fossil fuel, anti-drilling European Union is keeping its population alive only because of a pro-fossil fuel, pro-human administration across the Atlantic. The United States, by encouraging hydrocarbon production, has created the surplus that now warms European homes.
Fossil fuels are the lifeblood of daily life, especially in advanced societies, which cannot run on the wishful thinking of wind and sun worshipers. The stability of European society today rests on the shoulders of American drillers of gas wells.
The European Union serves as a warning of what happens when ideology trumps physics. Climate mandates cannot make the wind blow.
The “green” emperor has no clothes, and, baby, it’s cold outside.
This commentary was first published by Real Clear Marketson December 16, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
If you have been following this blog closely, you know that I have been participating, along with two excellent colleagues, in the rate proceeding of our local utility, Con Edison. A rate proceeding is the mechanism by which a utility goes before a regulatory body, in our case the New York Public Service Commission, seeking to increase the rates charged to consumers.
If you have been following this blog closely, you know that I have been participating, along with two excellent colleagues, in the rate proceeding of our local utility, Con Edison. A rate proceeding is the mechanism by which a utility goes before a regulatory body, in our case the New York Public Service Commission, seeking to increase the rates charged to consumers. Our purpose in the proceeding has been to object to and disrupt having the ratepayers charged for the building of infrastructure in pursuit of the futile and infeasible “climate” goals of our deluded politicians.
One of the rules of these things is that anybody with a genuine interest in the outcome can “intervene” if they want, and participate as a party in the proceedings. That’s how we got ourselves in on the action. And by the same mechanism, multiple parties advocating for the utopian future of “renewable” and “zero emissions” energy also joined up. Among the green energy advocates in the mix were the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Alliance for a Green Economy. And then there was the New York City government, which wants to present itself as an advocate for low consumer rates, but at the same time has enacted its own mandate for electric building heat that can only be implemented with the support of some expensive new infrastructure to be built by Con Edison.
When last we visited this subject on November 28, a lengthy settlement process of about 6 months had just concluded with a document of close to 300 pages called the “Joint Proposal” (JP) of the settling parties. Nearly all of the parties had signed on, with the main exception being my own little group. The JP was filed on November 5 as number 183 on the docket of the proceeding; and on November 6 a “Summary of Joint Proposal,” 6 pages long, was filed as number 185 on the docket. Among those signing on to the JP were all of the environmental groups, and also New York City, along with Con Edison itself, and the Staff of the Department of Public Service. On November 26, my two colleagues and myself filed an Objection, number 214 on the docket, which was discussed in the November 28 post.
Since that post, the Public Service Commission assigned three of its Aministrative Law Judges to conduct a public hearing for any objectors to cross-examine witnesses. In advance of the hearing, my colleagues and I asked for a breakout of which of Con Edison’s costs approved in the JP were in support of “climate” goals like building and vehicle electrification; but the Company responded only with an objection, and declined to break out Climate Act-related costs. The hearing was then held on December 3. And after the hearing, the parties were given until December 12 to file a post-hearing brief. Our brief is number 227 on the docket.
The problem for the supporters of the settlement, principally Con Edison and the Public Service Department Staff, was that they had admitted in the documentation that the JP contained “funding” for the “climate” goals. This is a quote from the Summary of Joint Proposal:
The Joint Proposal contains numerous provisions that are intended to further New York State’s ability to meet the goals of the CLCPA [Climate Act], including provisions or funding that will:
enhance the electric system in anticipation of transportation and building electrification; . . .
facilitate the clean energy transition
As also pointed out in our November 26 Objection, the State had admitted in a letter submitted in a court proceeding in August 2025 that the mandates of New York’s Climate Act had now become “infeasible,” and would impose “extraordinary and damaging costs” that would be “unaffordable” for consumers. These admissions gave us the opportunity in our final brief to point out the crazy box into which the parties had built themselves. Some excerpts:
The Summary of Joint Proposal would not have said that there was “funding” in the JP for these [“climate”-related] matters if there was no funding. And yet all of the witnesses for both Staff and the Company resolutely refused to provide any quantification or breakout of the amount of funding at issue. The Independent Intervenors made a clear record by asking for this breakout both in discovery, and also on cross-examination, and they had explicitly signaled in their pre-hearing Statement in Opposition that they intended to ask about this topic. And yet of 21 witnesses who appeared, none would address this topic on the merits.
A fair inference is that DPS finds itself caught in a whipsaw between on the one hand activists who insist on approving spending to pursue the CLCPA goals no matter how expensive or infeasible, and on the other hand Con Edison ratepayers (among them two of the Independent Intervenors) who are squeezed by rising costs and think that rate increases should be minimized. So Staff has adopted the strategy of approving excess costs to appease the activists and then agreeing with the Company to hide and conceal those costs from the broader public to minimize the blowback. This strategy is not legitimate and should not be countenanced by either the ALJs or the Commission.
At this point the matter goes to the ALJ’s to make a decision. And then it goes on to the full Public Service Commission for final approval and implementation. After that, we will have the opportunity in a court proceeding to make a public splash about the efforts of Con Edison and the Department of Public Service to engage in futile “climate” spending and hide the amounts from the public.
The European Union will not exempt Britain from its CO2 emissions fee on imported goods, including steel and cement, until the two sides link their carbon markets, the bloc’s climate chief said.
The European Union will not exempt Britain from its CO2 emissions fee on imported goods, including steel and cement, until the two sides link their carbon markets, the bloc’s climate chief said. Yahoo Finance has the story.
British industries had hoped to get a temporary exemption from the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) while the carbon market linkage negotiations were underway.
The UK government has said the EU levy would cost its industry 800 million pounds a year.
EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said on Wednesday that Britain would not be exempted from the carbon border levy until its carbon market was linked to the EU’s.
“We’re not exempting anyone, but the moment we will be fully linking those two, it is likely that there will be an exemption at that point in time,” he said.
Hoekstra said Brussels was aware the British government “would have … liked a different order to this whole set of events”.
“But that is something unfortunately we cannot change,” Hoekstra said, adding that the EU would work constructively with Britain to link the carbon markets.
There looked, however, to be some respite for British electricity exports to Europe – which, alongside steel, cement, fertilisers, aluminium and hydrogen, will be covered by the EU carbon border levy.
After carmakers invested billions into EV designs, and the EU and UK vowed to ban internal combustion engines, it’s all come undone. Donald Trump pulled the pin on subsidies for EVs and eased the strict emissions rules that punished petrol and diesel cars. US sales of electric cars promptly fell 40% in November. Ford’s fell by nearly 60%.
After carmakers invested billions into EV designs, and the EU and UK vowed to ban internal combustion engines, it’s all come undone. Donald Trump pulled the pin on subsidies for EVs and eased the strict emissions rules that punished petrol and diesel cars. US sales of electric cars promptly fell 40% in November. Ford’s fell by nearly 60%.
In response, Ford has killed off several electric cars and will swallow a bitter pill of a $19.5 billion US dollar write down. That’s a lot of cars it will have to sell to make that money back. Gone is the fully electric F-150, the next generation electric truck, and any plan to make electric commercial vans. Instead, Ford says it will shift into gas and hybrid models.
The day after the Ford announcement the European Commission let the world know it would wind back the total ban on internal combustion engines which was supposed to come into effect in 2035. Theoretically they’re only dropping the 100% ban to a 90% one. But the ideology has cracked, largely due to the uproar from European car makers who were not selling enough EV’s to make it work.
There are already calls to drop the 90% rule. It will mean that only the rich will be able to afford the few new petrol and diesel cars available for sale. Presumably the unwashed masses will just keep driving their old cars,.
The car maker takes a $19.5 billion write-down on its electric-vehicle business.
The Wall Street Journal
Not long ago, auto makers were touting electric cars as the future. Well, now they are slamming the brakes hard on that future as market reality has hit them like a 16-wheeler. See Ford Motor’s stunning announcement Monday that it will take a $19.5 billion charge on its electric-vehicle business.
“Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said as he explained the company’s plan to boost its lineup of gas-powered cars and hybrids. Ford will also scrap its all-electric F-150 Lightning pickup, which has been a favorite of the EV-loving press.
Ford has lost $13 billion on its EV business since 2023, with bigger losses expected in years to come. Last year Ford lost about $50,000 for each EV sold. The truth is that the business case for EVs has always rested largely on government subsidies and mandates. Now that this combination of government favoritism and coercion is mostly going away, most car makers have much less reason to make EVs.
STRASBOURG, Dec 16 (Reuters) – The European Commission unveiled a plan on Tuesday to drop the EU’s effective ban on new combustion-engine cars from 2035 after pressure from the region’s auto sector, marking the bloc’s biggest retreat from its green policies in recent years.
Dominic Phinn, head of transport at non-profit group Climate Group, countered that the measures were a “tragic win” for the traditional industry over electric cars. “The watering down of the petrol and diesel-engine phase-out flies in the face of leading companies across Europe, who are investing billions in electric fleets and desperately need the stability it provides,” he said.
Under Tuesday’s proposal, EU targets would shift to a 90% cut in CO2 emissions from 2021 levels, instead of current rules that all new cars and vans from 2035 have zero emissions.
The lesson, yet again, is that in trying to artificially make EV’s cheaper, Big Government has made all cars more expensive. Ford and everyone else will have to make up those losses somehow. And in trying to reduce emissions, the bureaucrats have almost certainly increased them. By denying the poor a chance to own a new car, they’re undoubtedly kept older, higher emission cars on the road. Not that emissions matter — the point is that whatever it was that the geniuses with the magic wand wanted, the free market would have done it better.
NOAA has launched a groundbreaking new suite of operational, artificial intelligence (AI)-driven global weather prediction models, marking a significant advancement in forecast speed, efficiency, and accuracy. The models will provide forecasters with faster delivery of more accurate guidance, while using a fraction of computational resources.
NOAA has launched a groundbreaking new suite of operational, artificial intelligence (AI)-driven global weather prediction models, marking a significant advancement in forecast speed, efficiency, and accuracy. The models will provide forecasters with faster delivery of more accurate guidance, while using a fraction of computational resources.
“NOAA’s strategic application of AI is a significant leap forward in American weather model innovation,” said Neil Jacobs, Ph.D., NOAA administrator. “These AI models reflect a new paradigm for NOAA in providing improved accuracy for large-scale weather and tropical tracks, and faster delivery of forecast products to meteorologists and the public at a lower cost through drastically reduced computational expenses.”
The new suite of AI weather models includes three distinct applications:
AIGFS (Artificial Intelligence Global Forecast System): A weather forecast model that implements AI to deliver improved weather forecasts more quickly and efficiently (using up to 99.7% less computing resources) than its traditional counterpart.
AIGEFS (Artificial Intelligence Global Ensemble Forecast System): An AI-based ensemble system that provides a range of probable forecast outcomes to meteorologists and decision-makers. Early results show improved performance over the traditional GEFS, extending forecast skill by an additional 18 to 24 hours.
HGEFS (Hybrid-GEFS): A pioneering, hybrid “grand ensemble” that combines the new AI-based AIGEFS (above) with NOAA’s flagship ensemble model, the Global Ensemble Forecast System. Initial testing shows that this model, a first-of-its kind approach for an operational weather center, consistently outperforms both the AI-only and physics-only ensemble systems.
AIGFS Forecast map from Dec 10 showing the heavy precipitation from an Atmospheric River hitting the Pacific Northwest. AI Models will protect life and property by improving forecast accuracy and timeliness for events such as the catastrophic flooding that impacted the Northwest. (Credit: NOAA)
More about the new AI operational models
AIGFS — a new AI-based system that uses a variety of data sources to generate weather forecasts comparable to those produced by traditional weather prediction systems, such as GFS.
Performance: shows improved forecast skill over the traditional GFS for many large-scale features. Notably, it demonstrates a significant reduction in tropical cyclone track errors at longer lead times.
Efficiency: AIGFS’s most transformative feature. A single 16-day forecast uses only 0.3% of the computing resources of the operational GFS and finishes in approximately 40 minutes. This reduced latency means forecasters get critical data more quickly than they do from the traditional GFS.
Area for future improvement: Though track forecasts are better, v1.0 shows a degradation in tropical cyclone intensity forecasts, which future versions will address.
AIGEFS — an AI-based 31-member ensemble, similar to the GEFS, that provides a range of possibilities for weather forecasters and decision-makers rather than a single forecast model solution.
Performance: forecast skill is comparable to the operational GEFS.
Efficiency: requires only 9% of the computing resources of the operational GEFS.
Area for future improvement: developers continue to improve the ensemble’s ability to create a range of forecast outcomes.
HGEFS — the most innovative application in the new suite. The HGEFS is a 62-member “grand ensemble” created by combining the 31 members of the physical GEFS with the 31 members of the AI-based AIGEFS.
Performance: by combining two different modeling systems (one physics-based, one AI-based), the HGEFS creates a larger, more robust ensemble that more effectively represents forecast uncertainty. As a result, the HGEFS consistently outperforms both the GEFS and the AIGEFS across most major verification metrics.
A NOAA first: to our knowledge, NOAA is the first organization in the world to implement such a hybrid physical-AI ensemble system.
Area for future improvement: NOAA continues its work to improve HGEFS’s hurricane intensity forecasts.
A NOAA and industry-wide effort
This initial model suite is an outgrowth of Project EAGLE, a joint initiative between NOAA’s National Weather Service, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research labs, the Environmental Modeling Center in NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Prediction, and the Earth Prediction Innovation Center.
“Using Project EAGLE and the Earth Prediction Innovation Center, NOAA scientists continue to work with members of academia and private industry on more advancements in forecasting technology,” added Jacobs.
The team leveraged Google DeepMind’s GraphCast model as an initial foundation and fine-tuned the model using NOAA’s own Global Data Assimilation System analyses. This additional training with NOAA data improved the Google model’s performance, particularly when using GFS-based initial conditions.
Climate, weather, and water affect all life on our ocean planet. NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict our changing environment, from the deep sea to outer space, and to manage and conserve America’s coastal and marine resources. See how NOAA science, services, and stewardship benefit your community: Visit noaa.gov for our latest news and features, and join us on social media.
A recent story published by The New Republic claims that various foods, popular especially during the Christmas holiday season, are declining due to climate change, perhaps soon to disappear from store shelves entirely. This is false. Despite the anecdotal tales told by The New Republic about specific farmers’ respective plights, U.N. data clearly demonstrate a substantial growth in the production of each of the crops discussed over the past 35 years of global warming.
A recent story published by The New Republic claims that various foods, popular especially during the Christmas holiday season, are declining due to climate change, perhaps soon to disappear from store shelves entirely. This is false. Despite the anecdotal tales told by The New Republic about specific farmers’ respective plights, U.N. data clearly demonstrate a substantial growth in the production of each of the crops discussed over the past 35 years of global warming.
In the story, “Climate Change Is Coming for Your Favorite Holiday Foods,” New Republic intern Rachel Kahn writes, “Chocolate, vanilla, coffee, cinnamon: The ingredients for your favorite holiday foods are becoming increasingly harder to grow because of climate change.” If true, that would be news to the world market for these foods, each of which have seen substantial production growth since 2000 and before.
Climate Realism has repeatedly refuted past media claims that climate change was causing a decline in coffee and cocoa production, here, here, here, and here, for a few examples, and so we won’t spend further time on these thoroughly debunked claims, other than to point out, FAO data show that since 1990:
Cocoa production has grown by more than 157 percent.
In the Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire) cocoa bean production increased by more than a 194 percent (nearly doubling, and setting a new record in 2023);
In Ghana cocoa bean production expanded by just over 122 percent;
And in Nigeria cocoa bean production grew by almost 17 percent.
As far as coffee goes, FAO data show that since 1990, global coffee production has increased by 82 percent, setting the new record for highest production in 2023, including substantial growth in major coffee producing countries like Brazil and Vietnam.
The New Republic piece throws the spices vanilla and cinnamon into the mix for the holiday tastes supposedly threatened by climate change. Yet, just like with coffee and cocoa, the asserted decline does not bear up under scrutiny. Vanilla production has more than doubled since 1990, according to FAO data – with production increasing by about 135 percent. Cinnamon production expanded even more dramatically, with a production increase exceeding 289 percent. (See the graph, below)
With the tinniest bit of effort, Kahn or The New Republic’s fact-checkers and editors could have discovered these facts themselves. They evidently couldn’t let facts get in the way of a scary holiday story.
It is true that the loss of coffee, chocolate (made from cocoa), cinnamon or vanilla, would make the holidays less festive and tasty. Yet thankfully, and directly refuting The New Republic’s assertion, it is impossible to tease out or discern a tangible threat to the continued availability of those treats in the readily available data or production trends. It is sad when, rather than an exploration of the facts, a false narrative drives the news cycle, but that’s just what seemingly happened in this New Republic story, a fairy-tale only the pre-conversion Grinch could love.
You must be logged in to post a comment.