The Week That Was: 2025 02-08 (February 8, 2025)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literary or armistice expressions.” — Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It all: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist (1998)
Number of the Week: 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) per year
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Scope: TWTW will continue with questioning whether climate science is a physical science, then present an essay from Howard Hayden on Radiative Forcing. To better understand the Greenhouse Effect, TWTW presents an essay by Hayden on Atoms and Molecules. Then it uses an essay by Weather/Climate Modelers and excerpts of a book by a pioneer of such modeling to assert they do not understand how CO2 affects the atmosphere. TWTW briefly summarizes sections of a report from an energy analyst on Net Zero in the UK.
*********************
Is Climate Science a Physical Science? Last week TWTW began a series on whether Climate Science Is a Physical Science. It featured an essay by AMO Physicist Howard “Cork” Hayden on “What ‘Climate Science’ Is Not About.”
The measurement of the Greenhouse Effect is largely omitted in the calculations of the UN IPCC and its collaborators. It involves the processes that change the nature of the spectrum emitted by Earth and that actually is observed to escape to space. The Greenhouse Effect reduces the intensity of the IR spectrum.
Satellite observations using spectroscopy instruments have verify ideas suggested by Karl Schwarzschild during WW I: different atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases, interfere with (block) the emission of infrared radiation (IR) from the surface of Earth to space. This was first revealed by the Nimbus satellite flying near Guam in 1970. When intensity is plotted against frequency (wave numbers, the number or wavelengths per centimeter), the Schwarzschild calculations produce a jagged curve which was observed. The Planck curve on the emission of IR from the surface produces a smooth curve. The difference between the two is the Greenhouse Effect.
The measurement of the Greenhouse Effect is largely omitted in the calculations of the UN IPCC and its collaborators. It involves the processes that change the nature of the spectrum emitted by Earth and that actually is observed to escape to space. The Greenhouse Effect reduces the intensity of the IR spectrum.
The calculation of the spectrum of IR emitted to space is quite involved; how could it be otherwise, since it creates a jagged line? It involves quantum mechanics (the quantitative nature of vibrational and rotational states of molecules), molecular spectroscopy (how various wavelengths of IR interact with molecules and at what temperatures and atmospheric pressures), and statistical mechanics (the temperature-dependent populations of excited states). Except for one incorrect example, none of this is discussed by the UN IPCC and its collaborators.
It is a real lapse of judgement by the IPCC and its collaborators to never consider such topics and calculations. The IPCC (and its predecessors like atmospheric modelers Manabe & Wetherald) erred by assuming the US Standard atmosphere with zero water vapor and then trying to patch in water vapor later on via some mysterious “feedback” mechanism. It’s foolish to ignore that the primary Greenhouse Gas is Water Vapor and treat a secondary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, as primary. They were wrong in 1967 and continuing it has been wrong ever since.
This week will continue with two additional essays by Hayden. One will briefly discuss Radiative Forcing, and the second will discuss Atoms and Molecules and how they show up in the infrared spectrum (IR). The full essays of both with graphs and tables are found on the SEPP website.
********************
Radiative Forcing: In his essay, Hayden begins;
“The heat balance of the earth—like that of every planet and moon—is determined by precisely three variables: sunlight at orbit, albedo (reflectivity), and the amount of IR going to space. All of them involve radiation, either visible light from the sun or invisible IR. The IPCC defines radiative forcing not as the quantities of these radiative contributions, but as changes in them from some reference point (typically the 1850-1900 period, but sometimes the present).
In the IPCC’s musings, the sun remains constant, so there are only two classifications of forcing. For example, the melting of snow (exposing darker earth beneath) and changes in land use can change the planetary albedo. Changes in greenhouse gases can temporarily alter the amount of IR going to space, but in due time that quantity must equal the net absorbed sunlight.
Hayden then gives details of a table on the subject found in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001). Then he asks:
“Did you notice anything missing? …Even the IPCC contributors know that H2O is the most important greenhouse gas, yet there is no reference to it whatsoever.”
To TWTW, this omission is a severe deficiency in IPCC reports and in EPA’s Endangerment Finding. We calculate that water vapor accounts for over 75% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor greatly reduces the effectiveness of methane and nitrous oxide. Yet, both these gases are being targeted by government policies as having a significant greenhouse effect, without physical evidence. The claims are false, and result from willful omission of critical physical evidence. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
********************
Atoms and Molecules: In his essay on the roles of Atoms and Molecules in the Infrared Spectrum, the range of wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum associated with vibration and radiative transfer among molecules, Hayden begins:
To understand both the bites taken out of the IR spectrum by atmospheric gases and the radiative forcing due to changes in concentrations of those gases, it is necessary to understand a little bit about spectra. Figure 3 [not shown here but in the full essay] shows the spectra of visible light for hydrogen and helium atoms in the usual way: vertical lines as they are seen in a spectroscope. At the left of Figure 3 is a schematic energy level diagram for hydrogen showing the transitions between levels as colored arrows representing the colors of light emitted. The intensity of the lines in the spectroscope manifests itself in the brightness of the lines.
After discussing the Figure, Hayden states:
“During the 1800s, scientists used Bunsen burners—and later, electric arcs—to heat materials and then used spectroscopes to look at the light emitted. They learned that chemicals could be identified by their spectra. In 1885, Johann Balmer found a formula that fits the very simple hydrogen spectrum. In 1913 Niels Bohr found a theoretical way to fit Balmer’s formula and extended it to fit lines in both the infrared and ultraviolet that had yet to be observed. His simple orbital model had been supplanted by a quantum-mechanical formulation, but two insights remain to this day.
Bohr had found that electrons in atoms have certain energy levels that they can occupy—steps upon which they can reside—and that electrons cannot have energies between those steps.
The other insight is that when an electron transits between a higher energy level to a lower one, it emits a photon which carries away the energy that is lost as the electron goes to the lower state. The higher the energy, the shorter the wavelength of the photon. It is common to refer to wavenumbers—the number of wavelengths per centimeter) rather than to wavelengths, because photon energy is proportional to the wavenumber.
Molecules have far more energy states than atoms because their vibrational and rotational modes are also quantized—in discreet steps. Also, the energies and step sizes are much smaller than those of atoms. Whereas hydrogen has only four (or possibly five) visible spectral lines, CO2 has tens of thousands of lines … in a broad band between 500 and 850 wavenumbers.”
Hayden presents figures illustrating the IR absorption spectrum for CO2. Then states;
“All of this can become a little confusing: energy levels expressed in electron-volts (eV); “colors” expressed in nanometers or microns, or in inverse centimeters; temperatures expressed in ºC, ºF, or kelvins (K). What can we make of it all?
What matters for climate and/or the greenhouse effect is that for earthly temperatures, the kinetic energies of atmospheric molecules, the energies associated with vibrational and rotational modes, and the energies of IR photons are all in the same range, so they can all interact.
Molecules in the atmosphere are a tiny fraction of a millimeter apart, and they travel at about the speed of sound (ca. 1,000 feet per second; 330 meters per second). Not surprisingly, they undergo collisions extremely frequently. While climate alarmists like to focus attention on CO2, it is unwise to forget the other 99.96% of the atmosphere.
Now, picture a CO2 molecule colliding with (say) a nitrogen (N2) molecule. The collision can impart energy to the CO2 molecule such that it becomes excited to a state that can radiate IR. Maybe the CO2 emits an IR photon, or maybe another collision removes that energy. With the enormous number of collisions that are occurring, there are always a small percentage of CO2 molecules in excited states. The percentage is temperature-dependent, increasing with higher temperature. At any temperature, all the way from the surface to the stratosphere, there is constant interplay between excitation and de-excitation, including IR absorption and IR emission.
Start with the blackbody spectrum emitted by the surface, consider all the molecular dynamics involving energy exchange by collisions and IR emission and absorption, and you can account for the loss of IR and the jagged spectrum of IR that goes to space.
We mentioned the one and only reference in IPCC’s “Assessment Reports” to IR spectra, saying that it was laughably incorrect. That graph, [in the post, not here], was published in 1990 in the First Assessment Report, fully 20 years after the Guam data were published. Notice that the intensity goes to zero at about 650 wavenumbers, whereas the Guam spectrum of actual data does not.”
The posted essay shows the graphs of what was observed and what the IPCC claimed. The differences are remarkable.
What was IPCC’s error? They thought of IR absorption as a one-and-done process. That huge peak in the spectrum should be adequate to block all IR of that wavelength from going to space. No account was taken of collisional excitation and the presence at all altitudes of molecules in excited states that can radiate. Look again at the Guam data and you’ll see just the opposite of total absorption. In that bite of IR absorption, there is a sharp peak right where the absorption has its peak near 650 wavenumbers. On a wavelength-by-wavelength basis, a good absorber is a good radiator. That peak in the Guam spectrum shows that many molecules at high altitude are in excited states that can—and do—radiate. The point was entirely missed by IPCC in its “First Assessment Report,” the only spectrum they ever published.
Now we return to the absence [see Radiative Forcing (Fig. 2)] of any reference to the most important GHG: H2O. Much is said about increasing CO2 (much reference to doubling) and the radiative forcing therefrom. How do we assess increases in H2O, and what is the forcing? Figure 5 shows the radiative forcing from CO2 and H2O plotted against the fraction f of atmospheric concentration compared to reference concentration, adapted from van Wijngaarden and Happer [1]. Note that [according to the IPCC] H2O, which is responsible for about 75% of the greenhouse effect, would have a radiative forcing of 7.9 W/m2 if its quantity were doubled.
We understand variations in CO2 because we have graphs showing concentration from 200 ppmv to 7,000 ppmv, and we are putting CO2 into the air by burning fossil fuels. But what variations do we expect for atmospheric H2O? We know that hot jungles are very humid, and that frigid air is pretty dry, so it is reasonable to ask how much the H2O concentration would increase if the temperature went up by 1ºC.”
The graph shows Radiative forcing for CO2 and H2O versus the ratio f of atmospheric concentration to present concentration.
“Fortunately, NASA has an answer for us [2]:
‘For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics.’”
The NASA quotation can be found by Googling “Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth’s Greenhouse Effect” – NASA Science. Hayden further states:
“A 7-percent increase is quite a bit short of a doubling. To get the corresponding forcing, we would find where the blue H2O line crosses 1.07. The H2O forcing closely follows 11.4*ln(C/C0), so the forcing would be 0.77 W/m2.
NASA has a dramatic picture [omitted here] to emphasize the positive feedback presumption: Step 1: CO2 increase causes warming. Step 2: That warming causes increased water vapor. Step 3: Increased water vapor causes greenhouse warming. Step 4: That warming causes increased water vapor. Step 5: That increased water vapor causes greenhouse warming. On and on it goes.
Let us have a look at that H2O feedback cycle. We will discuss the CO2 contribution and some subtleties later, but for now we’ll simply assume (for simplicity) a 1ºC rise in worldwide temperature. And, according to NASA, this would cause a 7% increase in H2O concentration. Figure 5 tells us that the radiative forcing would be 0.77 W/m2. The surface would then warm up until the additional IR from the surface matched the radiative forcing, specifically by 0.14ºC. That is, the water feedback adds 0.14ºC (14%) to the original 1ºC rise.
Ah, but that 0.14ºC rise causes more evaporation, the result of which is an additional rise of 14% of 0.14ºC, and there will be an additional 14% of that tiny rise, namely 14% of 14% of 0.14ºC. So, the temperature rise after many iterations and increases in atmospheric H2O content is:
1°C*(1+0.14+0.142+0.143+…) = 1.163°C
[Note: Multiplying a fraction or a decimal by itself (raising it to a higher power) reduces its value: 0.14 times 0.14 equals 0.0196]
A similar calculation will be used later when we consider the fact that presently only 60% of the IR that is emitted from the surface goes into space.
Water molecules are responsible for about 75% of the entire greenhouse effect, but this calculation shows that the additional effect of H2O on small changes in temperature is nothing to get excited about.”
[Citations omitted here]
To TWTW, based on physical evidence, the fear that water vapor will double the warming by CO2 is false; any amplification by water vapor is only a small fraction of what is claimed. Hayden’s calculations are consistent with 67 million years of high-quality sea sediment data and other geological evidence. CO2 emissions will not cause “runaway global warming.” In addition, as seen by the equation above, such calculations converge on a specific number. Contrary to what alarmists claim. They do not go on-and-on as warming alarmists would have the public believe. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
********************
Weather and Climate Models: Three scientists ACCESS-NRI wrote an article “What’s the difference between climate and weather models? It all comes down to chaos” published in The Conversation. According to its website,
“ACCESS-NRI, Australia’s climate simulator, is a national research infrastructure created to support development and research with the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) modeling framework. ACCESS simulates past, present, and future climate, weather, and Earth-Systems.”
TWTW is impressed by the advances being made in short-term weather modeling, up to 5 to 7 days. As Cliff Mass pointed out, the models got the Santa Ana winds (which fanned the fires of Los Angeles) right, the officials ignored the warning or were incompetent. The ACCESS-NRI modelers wrote:
“Weather forecasts help you decide whether to go for a picnic, hang out your washing or ride your bike to work. They also provide warnings for extreme events, and predictions to optimize our power grid.
To achieve this, services such as the Australian Bureau of Meteorology use complex mathematical representations of Earth and its atmosphere – weather and climate models.
The same software is also used by scientists to predict our future climate in the coming decades or even centuries. These predictions allow us to plan for, or avoid, the impacts of future climate change.
Weather and climate models are highly complex. The Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator, for example, is comprised of millions of lines of computer code.
Without climate and weather models we would be flying blind, both for short-term weather events and for our long-term future. But how do they work – and how are they different?
The same physical principles
Weather is the short-term behavior of the atmosphere – the temperature on a given day, the wind, whether it’s raining and how much. Climate is about long-term statistics of weather events – the typical temperature in summer, or how often thunderstorms or floods happen each decade.
The reason we can use the same modelling tools for both weather and climate are because they are both based on the same physical principles.” Boldface added.
There is the problem, the physical principles are not the same. The climate models fail to predict clouds, which affect weather and climate, and have a net cooling effect. They have false assumptions regarding the increase in water vapor (but no increase in clouds). Further, climate models are not properly tested against the actual atmosphere. Weather models are constantly tested and updated.
Under Atmospheric Model Component, the ACESS website also states;
“What is the Met Office UM?
The Unified Model (UM) is a numerical model of the atmosphere used for both weather and climate applications, developed by the Met Office in the United Kingdom (UK). It includes solutions of the equations of atmospheric fluid dynamics with advanced parameterizations of sub grid-scale physical processes like convection, cloud formation and atmospheric radiation.
The above statement is false because cloud formation is not known, and no one has developed a valid theory for it. Further, as shown by Hayden above, the atmospheric radiation used by the UN IPCC and its collaborators including the MET Office is wrong.
Tim Palmer is a pioneer in the development of operational ensemble weather and climate forecasting. In his book, The Primacy of Doubt: From Quantum Physics to Climate Change, How the Science of Uncertainty Can Help Us Understand Our Chaotic World (2022), Palmer wrote (p.114):
“The direct warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide is a little over 1°C. However, if we add this water vapor feedback, the warming doubles to just over 2°C (3.6°F). If we also take into account the fact that reflective ice and snow cover on the Earth’s surface start to disappear as the Earth gets warmer, so that more of the sun’s energy is absorbed at the surface, the warming increases to about 2.5°C (4.5°F). Now climate change starts to become something to worry about.
We understand these feedback processes reasonably well.”
Palmer then discusses clouds, which are not the issue here. The issue is that based on the above analysis by Hayden, Palmer’s positive feedback from water vapor is wrong. See link under Defending the Orthodoxy and https://www.access-nri.org.au/models/model-components/atmospheric-model-components/.
********************
Incompetent Officials: TWTW has criticized politicians in California for subordinating public safter to “feel good” goals. In its push for Net Zero, the UK recently came close to a blackout and the situation is deteriorating. Energy analysist Kathryn Porter authored a report for Net Zero Watch. The Executive Summary states in part:
“The risk of blackouts in the Great British electricity market was brought home on 8 January 2025 during the tightest day since 2011. The spare margin – the surplus generation capacity available to meet demand – fell to worryingly low levels, with a real risk of demand control or even a blackout. Demand control is when the National Energy System Operator (NESO) decides to disconnect some regions of the country in order to prevent a nationwide blackout.
This is not the only incident this winter, but it is by far the most serious. On 14 October 2024, the grid saw the first ‘Capacity Market Notice’ in two years (there were further such notices on 3 December 2024 and 8 January 2025). This was despite NESO determining in its Winter Outlook1 that the spare capacity margin for this winter would be higher than in recent years.”
Porter also writes [citations omitted]:
“On 8 October, 28 October, and 20 November 2024 ‘frequency events’ were triggered, when large interconnectors (import/export cables) unexpectedly stopped flowing, leading to NESO’s operating frequency tolerance being breached. More worryingly, recent years have seen frequency drift outside these operational limits hundreds of times a year, even without the loss of a major source of supply like a generator or an interconnector.
In addition, there was an extended period of ‘dunkelflaute’ in early November where renewable generation was minimal, and the country relied on large amounts of gas-fired generation to meet demand. It lasted for five days, far longer than the capacity of any batteries available in Great Britain to operate. Cutting edge chemical batteries, which are not yet operational, may last for 100 hours – the average of the current fleet of GB batteries is around 1.5–2.0 hours. Other technologies, such as pumped hydro, have the capacity to run for longer, but GB lacks the geography to build enough of these facilities to cover a dunkelflaute. Dinorwig, Europe’s largest pumped hydro power station, located in Wales, has the ability to run for five hours.”
For this report, and concerns by others see links under Energy Issues – Non-US
********************
Number of the Week: 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) per year. A lot of fear has been expressed over rising sea levels. In geologically stable regions they are rising at about 7 to 8 inches per century, though they change with prevailing winds. John Robson writes of a change that is occurring at the rate of about 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) per year. Robson writes:
“A 56-kilometer (35-mile) fissure that appeared in Ethiopia in 2005 has been expanding at a rate of 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) per year. Which admittedly is a lot faster than sea-level rise that gets equally hair-raising coverage. But still, the story concedes, Researchers initially believed it would take tens of millions of years for the rift to fully open’ but now it’s ‘within 1 to 5 million years’, as precise as it is scary. Unfortunately, the traditional media penchant for hyping disaster to boost sales has now merged with climate zealotry to produce a lot of panic over much nothing.”
Imagine the changes that will occur when the East African Rift breaks away from the African Plate creating a new island and a new sea. See link “Tidbits” under Questioning the Orthodoxy.
Censorship
The eSafety Commissioner’s Latest Fail
By Roger Franklin, Quadrant, Feb 8, 2025
Indeed, if individual eSafety investigators can take it upon themselves to raise a freelance fuss over social media posts that may well be subjectively distasteful but are not in themselves illegal, what’s the point in having an eSafety Commissioner in the first place?
Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013
Summary: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels
By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus
By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008
http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf
Challenging the Orthodoxy – Radiation Transfer
The Role of Greenhouse Gases in Energy Transfer in the Earth’s Atmosphere
By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Preprint, Mar 3, 2023
Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases
By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Preprint, December 22, 2020
https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2020/12/WThermal-Radiationf.pdf?x45936
Challenging the Orthodoxy
Benny Peiser: How can eager governments get off the Net Zero hook?
In his farewell lecture delivered to the Irish Climate Science Forum and CLINTEL, the outgoing GWPF director Benny Peiser has warned that governments elected on the promise of reforming damaging climate and energy policies will be constrained by legal hurdles and party-political shenanigans.
By Bennie Peiser, GWPF, Jan 30, 2025
Video plus text introduction
Radiative Forcing
By Howard “Cork” Hayden, The Energy Advocate, January 2025
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Radiative Forcing.docx
Atoms and Molecules
By Howard “Cork” Hayden, The Energy Advocate, January 2025
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Atoms and Molecules.docx
Overt Scientific Bias and Clandestine Acts by Trusted Scientists: The Flawed Application of the Linear No-threshold Model
By John J Cardarelli 2nd, Health Phys, Sep 1, 2024 [H/t John Chenosky]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39052875
Australian Heatwave Stories Slammed Some More. Part 2.
By Geoff Sherrington, WUWT, Feb 6, 2025
Simple raw temperature data analysis does not support the widespread global or national claim that heatwaves are becoming hotter, longer and more frequent.
Changing data to agree with the narrative? The sad story of ACORN-SAT
By Bill Johnson, WUWT, Feb 4, 2025
As a retired scientist and former weather observer with a keen interest in data, I have been researching Australian weather station datasets for almost two decades.
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf And Thermodynamics
By Frank Bosse, Klimnachrichten, Translated, edited by P. Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Feb 5, 2025
Defending the Orthodoxy
Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?
By James E. Hansen, et al., Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Feb 3, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494
From the abstract: We find that most of the other half of the warming was caused by a restriction on aerosol emissions by ships, which was imposed in 2020 by the International Maritime Organization to combat the effect of aerosol pollutants on human health. Aerosols are small particles that serve as cloud formation nuclei. Their most important effect is to increase the extent and brightness of clouds, which reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect on Earth.
As a result, shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is likely within the next 20-30 years, unless actions are taken to reduce global warming – in contradiction to conclusions of IPCC. If AMOC is allowed to shut down, it will lock in major problems including sea level rise of several meters – thus, we describe AMOC shutdown as the “point of no return.” [Boldface added]
[SEPP Comment: According to Hansen, et al., an increase in aerosols increases cloudiness, yet an increase in water vapor does not? Part of the AMOC is the Gulf Stream. If that shuts down it will increase the temperatures of the Arctic leading to a melt of Greenland? In an October 2024 “Open Letter by Climate Scientists to the Nordic Council of Ministers” 40 plus climate scientists claimed the global warming will shut off the AMOC, freezing the north. So, the mysteries called climate science forecasts that the northern latitudes will freeze, and the northern icecap will melt.]
What’s the difference between climate and weather models? It all comes down to chaos
By Andy Hogg, et al., ACCESS-NRI, Australian National University, The Conversation, Feb 5, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-climate-and-weather-models-it-all-comes-down-to-chaos-244914
Aligning Net Zero Certifications With Regulatory Frameworks
By Mahesh Ramanujam, Spenser Robinson, Real Clear Energy, Feb 5, 2025
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2025/02/05/aligning_net_zero_certifications_with_regulatory_frameworks_1089541.html
Net zero regulatory frameworks refer to a set of rules and targets that require companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions, as well as back up any claims about being carbon neutral. Despite the headlines, these regulatory frameworks are alive and well.
Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science
Climate change-fueled extreme weather could cost real estate market $1T-plus: Study
By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Feb 4, 2025
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5125327-climate-change-real-estate-loss-study
Link to “study:” Property Prices in Peril
$1.4 trillion reduction in unadjusted real estate value over the next 30 years due to climate-related risks
By Staff, 1 First Street Feb 3, 2025
https://firststreet.org/research-library/property-prices-in-peril
From summary: “…coastal areas are increasingly threatened by sea level rise, while inland regions face intensifying heat waves, droughts, and floods. At the same time, the increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters has triggered unprecedented levels of property damage, prompting insurance providers to increase premiums or withdraw coverage from high-risk areas altogether. Chronic climate changes create additional financial burdens – from surging utility bills to increased maintenance costs.”
[SEPP Comment: Selling irrational fear.]
Lethal heat waves will triple in size even if climate agreements kept, study finds
By Saul Elbein, The Hill, Feb 4, 2025
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5125632-climate-change-heat-waves-study
Link to paper: Mortality impacts of the most extreme heat events
By Tom Matthews, et al., Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, Feb 4, 2025
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-024-00635-w
From the abstract: In this Review, we link physical climate science with heat mortality risk, including crossings of uncompensable thresholds (beyond which human core body temperature rises uncontrollably) and unsurvivable thresholds (lethal core temperature increase within 6 h). Uncompensable thresholds (wet-bulb temperatures ~19–32 °C) depend strongly on age and the combination of air temperature and relative humidity.
[SEPP Comment: How did humanity survive the tropics of Africa where it probably originated? Today wet bulb temperatures typically range between 26 to 30°C with some areas reaching up to 35°C.]
Questioning the Orthodoxy
#LookItUp: Burned area by continent
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Feb 5, 2025
You get the idea. Wildfires happen every year in lots of places, some years are worse than others, and next time someone tries to tell you climate change is making them worse and worse, tell them to #Lookitup.
Tidbits
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Feb 5, 2025
Florida flimflam
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Feb 5, 2025
…from the Climate Adaptation Center…
“These undulations can pull unusually cold air from the Arctic far south into regions like Florida, creating the rare conditions necessary for snow. In fact, most of the cold air is now in the USA and the North Pole is exceeding warm. The Polar Vortex essentially came loose!’”
As has been noted, including by us, the trouble with a theory that explains everything, post facto, is that it explains nothing and makes no testable predictions. And sometimes it doesn’t even know what to postdict. [The opposite of predict.]
Consensus Science From 1974
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Feb 6, 2025
In 1974, the consensus was near certain death, starvation and anarchy due to global cooling, while others argued that sea level would soon rise dangerously.
Energy & Environmental Review: February 3, 2025
By John Droz, Jr., Master Resource, Feb 3, 2025
After Paris!
EPA’s “Carbon Scare Framework” aka “Endangerment Finding” – A Classic Case of Government Overreach
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Feb 1, 2025
[SEPP Comment: EPA’s Endangerment Finding came in 2009, the Paris Agreement in 2016.]
Trump’s Withdrawal From the Paris Agreement Won’t Hurt the Climate
By Chris Johnson, WUWT, Feb 5, 2025
Of course, some are urging President Trump to go further and not just withdraw from the Paris Agreement but also back out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This may seem like an easy choice, seeing as the UNFCCC, like so many UN bodies, acts contrary to American interests. But that’s exactly why America must remain in the UNFCCC.
Climate treaties will be formed whether or not the U.S. is involved, and the UNFCCC will continue to operate as a forum for those negotiations. Staying in the UNFCCC costs America nothing while allowing Trump and his appointees to keep a seat at the table, hold the UN accountable, and counter any deal that would put America at a disadvantage. While the UNFCCC can be harmful, it’s only the Paris Agreement that’s impotent.
Trump’s Paris Pullout Saves U.S. Billions and Liberates Third World
By Vijay Jayaraj, CO2 Coalition, Feb 4, 2025
It’s Better to be Outside Paris Accord
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, Feb 4, 2025
Oh that Paris
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Feb 5, 2025
In the wake of the COP 29 debacle in Baku, Climate Home News complains, apparently surprised, that “Just 10 days to go until the UN deadline for countries to submit stronger climate action plans, in a last-ditch attempt to keep global warming somewhere close to 1.5C – and the signs don’t look good. Only seven such NDCs have been submitted so far. Will next week see a flurry?”
Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide
Dry weight biomass in willow with extra CO2 in the air
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Feb 5, 2025
From the CO2Science archive: In honor of the discovery that Salix jiangsuensis or willow somehow grew in Central Greenland over 250,000 years ago, when the island was completely ice free despite CO2 being 35% lower than today, …
Seeking a Common Ground
Bring realism, not idealism, to science
By Anthony Sadar, Washington Examiner, Feb 6, 2025
A key worry is whether in the long run, global climate change from human activity will be catastrophic. However, it is more likely that climate change will be adaptable with infrastructure enhancements, ecosystem management, and improvements in people-focused endeavors such as increasing accessibility to clean energy resources and adequate heating and cooling units.
Blankets, Bombs, or Bribes
Why Give Foreign Aid?
By Daniel Pipes and Michael Rubin, Middle East Forum, MEF Observer, Feb 6, 2025
https://www.danielpipes.org/22484/blankets-bombs-or-bribes?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=8f999adee0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_06_01_49&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-8f999adee0-33640349&goal=0_086cfd423c-8f999adee0-33640349&mc_cid=8f999adee0&mc_eid=806a258ebc
Turning to the present uproar: The Trump administration has not ended foreign aid but questions whether it serves the American taxpayer. Such an accounting will find that USAID fails in three main ways.
IPCC at the Crossroads
The IPCC needs to up its game to sustain its legitimacy
By Roger Pielke, Jr., His Blog, Feb 3, 2025
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/ipcc-at-the-crossroads?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=119454&post_id=156379575&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=f7h7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
On climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has performed scientific assessments of climate change (six so far) since 1988. I have been a strong supporter of the IPCC, testifying before the U.S. Congress that, “if it did not exist, would have to be invented.”
[SEPP Comment: Why? It is willingly ignorant of the physical evidence of the greenhouse effect.]
Defective Memories
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Feb 7, 2025
People’s belief that the climate is changing is usually due to “defective memory.” This video shows how to quickly get past that superstition using app.visitech.ai
Model Issues
There will be some lowland snow in Western Washington
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Feb 1, 2025
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2025/02/there-will-be-some-lowland-snow-in.html
It is amazing how good the high-resolution models have become. The same models nailed the Santa Ana winds during the recent wildfire event in LA, and the downslope winds that devastated Lahaina, Maui.
Measurement Issues — Surface
Warmest January continues global temperature puzzle
By David Whitehouse, Net Zero Watch, Feb 7, 2025
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/warmest-january-continues-global-temperature-puzzle
More sober climate scientists know there is a problem here. Climate models can’t explain what’s going on. Clearly the Earth is giving us new data, and whether it’s good or bad, we just don’t know.
[SEPP Comment: Whitehouse uses surface temperatures.]
Measurement Issues — Atmosphere
UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for January 2025: +0.46 deg. C
By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Feb 4, 2025
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged temperature trend (January 1979 through January 2025) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade [+0.27 F per decade] (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
Global Temperature Report
By Staff, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, February 2025
Lower Troposphere Map for January 2025: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2025/January2025/202501_Map.png
Monthly Global Lower Troposphere Anomaly Graph Dec 1978 to January 2025 https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2025/January2025/202501_Bar.png
Text by John Christy and Roy Spencer, Feb 4, 2025
ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions:
Update prepared by: Climate Prediction Center / NCEP [National Centers for Environmental Prediction] NOAA, Feb 3, 2025
Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR)
By Staff, National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA, El Niño / Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/enso/olr#:~:text=Outgoing%20Longwave%20Radiation%20(OLR)%20data,to%20160%C2%B0W%20longitude.
Data have been collected from June 1974 to January 2025
Large-Scale Interannual Variability of Monthly Outgoing Longwave Radiation Anomalies over the Global Tropics
By Muthuvel Chelliah and Phillip Arkin, Journal of Climate, Apr 1, 1992
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/5/4/1520-0442_1992_005_0371_lsivom_2_0_co_2.xml
Changing Weather
Wet Snow “Apocalypse”
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Feb 6, 2025
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2025/02/wet-snow-apocalypse.html
Many powerlines were downed by the wet snow, with poor vegetation management by local utilities an important contributor.
California is receiving massive amounts of precipitation, and their reservoirs are well above normal. Seattle’s reservoirs are near normal. Our snowpack is above normal over the southern Cascades and modestly below normal to the north.
At this point in time, there is no reason to be concerned about water resources over the West Coast during next summer.
1939 Warmth And Drought
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Feb 6, 2025
Changing Climate
Greenland used to be green land
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Feb 5, 2025
Link to paper: Plant, insect, and fungi fossils under the center of Greenland’s ice sheet are evidence of ice-free times
By Paul R. Bierman, et al., PNAS, Agu 5, 0224
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2407465121
[SEPP Comment: According to Google Earth, Summit, Greenland, has an elevation of 10,533 ft. (3210 meters). The ice core went 3,053 meters (10,016 feet), indicating the rock has an elevation of about 157 meters (515 feet).]
Changing Seas
Climate Alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf Struggles With The Reality Of Uncertainty
By Frank Bosse, Klimanachrichten, Translated, edited by P. Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Feb 2, 2025
[SEPP Comment: Measurements show that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is constantly erratic, with no trend; therefore, is it failing?]
Oceans Inhale and Exhale Carbon Dioxide, Since Forever
By Jennifer Marohasy, Her Blog, Feb 6, 2025
The amount of carbon sequestered in the oceans was meant to increase with the apparently significant increase in atmospheric levels because of industrialization, except that observations, actual measurements, suggest that there has been no long-term increase.
[SEPP Comment; No issue with ocean warming giving up CO2. However, ice cores including the Eemian, the last interglacial period, put CO2 levels between 270 and 280 parts per million (ppm). Now CO2 levels are about 420 ppm. This difference needs to be explained.]
New Study: Sea Levels Around Japan Are ‘Not Rising, Nor Accelerating’ Since The 1800s
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Feb 4, 2025
Link to paper: Sea level patterns around Korea and Japan
By Alberto Boretti, Regional Studies in Marine Science, Dec 15, 2024
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352485524003530
Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice
Arctic Ice Recovery Stalls January 2025
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, Feb 1, 2025
Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine
Paper Exposes Pseudoscience Behind Methane War on Farmers
By Vijay Jayaraj, CO2 Coalition, Feb 3, 2025
The public should demand more rigor, more honesty, and more humility in those undertaking the complex science of climate change. It is time to dispense with top-down regulations from political bodies like the United Nations that advance agendas through scaremongering rather than rigorous scientific methods.
[SEPP Comment: Address “Methane and Climate” by van Wijngaarden and Happer, discussed in previous TWTW. The UN does not regulate, but it is heavily engaged in scaremongering.]
Lowering Standards
Open Letter To The Telegraph
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 2, 2025
It’s now three years since I published this Open Letter to The Telegraph, following a lengthy email correspondence with Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.
So once again, I appeal to the Telegraph to organize a proper debate.
The need for one has never been greater.
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?
BBC Rides to the Rescue as Scientists Inconveniently Find the Gulf Stream Isn’t Getting Weaker
By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, Feb 6, 2025
Obviously, reinforcements to back up such an important weaponized scare needed to be rushed to the front and the BBC has risen to the challenge. The AMOC “appears to be getting weaker” state BBC activists Simon King and Mark Poynting. Their long article is a classic of its kind in trying to deflect scientific findings that blow holes in the ‘settled’ narrative.
AEP’s Latest Renewable Fantasy
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 1, 2025
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [World Economic Editor for UK’s The Telegraph] is off on one of his rants against fossil fuels yet again.
He uses the example of Pakistan, which he pretends is moving fast to solar power. It is not – solar energy only made up 0.3% of the mix in 2023, while fossil fuels contributed 81.9%:
What AEP [World Economic Editor for UK’s The Telegraph] Forgot To Tell You About China
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 2, 2025
“In a bid to meet soaring electricity demand, the Chinese premier is overseeing plans to burn more coal than ever before – increasing the country’s annual usage by an extra 75m tonnes.
EPA puts employees who tackle pollution in overburdened communities on leave
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Feb 7, 2025
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5132510-epa-pollution-employees-on-leave
[SEPP Comment: What pollution problems do environmental justice programs tackle?]
No, Grist, MSN, et al: CO2 Is Not Making Oceans Boil
By Ron Clutz, Science Matters, Feb 3, 2025
Study: Climate Change Causes Plagues of Rats
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Feb 1, 2025
False, Washington Post, Climate Change Isn’t Causing a Rat Crisis
By Anthony Watts, Climate Realism, Feb 6, 2025
Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?
Scientists sound alarm over disturbing discovery about Earth’s major ocean currents: ‘The urgency for … action has never been clearer’
“We gain a clearer understanding of how these dynamics have varied over millennia and what this means for our current climate trajectory.”
By Timothy McGill, The Cool Down, Feb 7, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Link to paper: Shifting Antarctic Circumpolar Current south of Africa over the past 1.9 million years
By Aidan Starr, et al., AAAS Science Advances, Jan 1, 2025
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adp1692
From abstract: Here, we reconstruct near-bottom flow speed variability in the SO south of Africa, revealing systematic glacial-interglacial variations in the strength and/or proximity of ACC jets. These are superimposed by warmer-than-present “super-interglacials,” whereby extreme slowdown in the midlatitude ACC (41°S) is opposed by faster flow at higher latitudes (>54°S), implying poleward strengthening of the ACC. Coupled with reconstructions of the subsurface-deep stable carbon isotope gradient, we show that the reorganization of ACC coincides with the upwelling of isotopically light deep waters around Antarctica, likely contributing to the interglacial rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels.
From article: Dr. Starr warns that if the ice sheets continue to recede, there may be further disruptions in ocean circulation that could bring cascading effects, impacting global climate patterns.
[SEPP Comment: CO2 levels are already far above interglacial levels and the effect of CO2 effect on temperatures is saturated. Increasing CO2 does not have a significant impact on temperatures.]
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda
NGO’s emerge as The Shadow Government
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Feb 6, 2025
Link to: Politico Pleads Innocent, Claims Tens Of Millions In Govt. Subscriptions Totally Normal
By Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Feb 6, 2025
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/politico-ny-times-propped-millions-dollars-us-government
From Durden: Politico has responded to the controversy, writing in a Thursday memo that they have “never received any government funding — no subsidies, no grants, no handouts. Not one dime, ever, in 18 years,” but that $27 million in government subscriptions to “Politico Pro” is simply “a transaction,” akin to the government buying “research, equipment, software and industry reports.”
From Nova: It turns out the Non-Government Organizations were really The Government
The word for that is GONGO — a government organized non-government organization — at once, an impossible thing and also a tautology.
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda on Children
Majority of under-12s worried about climate change, survey shows
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 7, 2025
Thanks to the likes of Greenpeace, we are bringing up a generation of neurotic children:
[SEPP Comment: The poll is by Greenpeace.]
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Children for Propaganda
Global Warming Threatens The Children
By Tony Heller, His Blog, Feb 7, 2025
In 1997, [President] Bill Clinton said global warming threatened the lives of our children.
Communicating Better to the Public – Protest
We want the world and we want it now
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Feb 5, 2025
Questioning European Green
Equinor Cut Green Investment In Half
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 6, 2025
“Norwegian energy giant Equinor is halving investment in renewable energy over the next two years while increasing oil and gas production.”
Questioning Green Elsewhere
There Is Nothing Green About the ‘Green’ Agenda
By Steve Milloy, Real Clear Energy, Feb 6, 2025
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2025/02/06/there_is_nothing_green_about_the_green_agenda_1089809.html
The truth is there is no green energy. No energy is clean. No energy is dirty. There are only challenges, solutions and tradeoffs. At the time of already high energy costs, choosing reliable, fossil fuel-backed energy is of paramount importance.
Green Jobs
GB Energy Jobs Mirage
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 4, 2025
Funding Issues
USAID gave $68 million to the WEF billionaires ski club at Davos
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Feb 7, 2025
[SEPP Comment: If the cited Project Grant from USASpending.gov is authenticated, USAID has a lot of explaining to do to the American taxpayer.]
USAID helped fund the ‘Soros prosecutors’
By Andrea Widburg, American Thinker, Feb 6, 2025
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/02/usaid_helped_fund_the_soros_prosecutors.html
Was USAID the core arm of the global Blob?
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Feb 5, 2025
Foundations Gone Rogue: Ford Foundation and Beyond
By Jane Shaw Stroup, Master Resource, Feb 7, 2025
The Net-Zero Gap: Global Green Spending Is Falling Short of Targets
By Charles Kennedy, Oil Price.com, Jan 30, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Net-Zero-Gap-Global-Green-Spending-Is-Falling-Short-of-Targets.html
[SEPP Comment: Shallow article. Green spending increased because returns after subsidies were attractive; returns without subsidies are not. Who sets these foolish targets?]
The Political Games Continue
Democrats accuse DOGE of going after NOAA
By Zack Budryk and Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Feb 5, 2025
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5128418-democrats-accuse-musk-doge-noaa
[SEPP Comment: NOAA can do a better job forecasting weather. It should not be in the business of forecasting climate. Further, it needs to dump inane theories such as ocean acidification.]
Labour’s GB Energy “A Gimmick”
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 4, 2025
Video
Excellent stuff from Kathryn Porter as usual!
[SEPP Comment: A subsidized green energy promoter claiming to produce energy?]
Meanwhile at the carny
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Feb 5, 2025
Thus, it’s sad to think that if you’re not sufficiently economically literate to move to a carbon-tax-only model, it might actually still be progress to get rid of the carbon tax and keep the mess of inefficient regulations. But it’s not progress in the sense that, and here comes the second slap to our intelligence, Carney doesn’t talk about this whole question because, well, he’s too smart and we’re too dumb, or he’s too slick and we’re the rubes at this particular carnival.
[SEPP Comment: Mark Carney the former governor of the Bank of Canada, then the Bank of England, is now running for Prime Minister of Canada.]
Litigation Issues
Court restores protections for critically endangered whales off New England
By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Feb 3, 2025
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5123780-endangered-whales-protections-court-ruling
[SEPP Comment: From lobstermen, not from wind power.]
N.J. Judge Tosses Climate Suit Against Oil Companies
By Solange Reyner, Newsmax, Feb 5, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/judge-new-jersey-climate-change/2025/02/05/id/1197979/?ns_mail_uid=9af78cd4-7188-4875-ba2c-e930f35496ab&ns_mail_job=DM748907_02062025&s=acs&dkt_nbr=0105025r7p5e
A New Jersey judge on Wednesday tossed out the state’s lawsuit over climate misinformation against ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and the American Petroleum Institute, ruling only federal law can be used to regulate nationwide emissions.
[SEPP Comment: This is only a procedural issue (the case belongs in federal not state court) and doesn’t touch on the substantive claims that climate change caused recent damaging storms. But the claims are a catalogue of bad science and the people of New Jersey, and the shareholders and customers of the oil companies had to pay for this frivolous suit.]
EPA and other Regulators on the March
[New US Attorney General] Bondi scraps Biden-era environmental justice enforcement policy
By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Feb 6, 2025
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5130416-bondi-biden-environmental-justice-enforcement
EPA Priorities Announced
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, Feb 6, 2025
Link to: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin Announces EPA’s “Powering the Great American Comeback” Initiative
Press Release, EPA, Feb 4, 2025 [H/t Ron Clutz]
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-lee-zeldin-announces-epas-powering-great-american-comeback
From Clutz: The Trump Administration not only cut “environmental justice” programs at the Environmental Protection Agency they put nearly 200 staffers on leave.
[SEPP Comment: The EPA press release lists five pillars which are: 1) Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American; 2) Restore American Energy Dominance; 3) Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership; 4) Make the United States the Artificial Intelligence Capital of the World; and 5) Protecting and Bringing Back American Auto Jobs.]
Trump’s Energy Secretary Comes Out Swinging With Plan That Takes Sledgehammer To Several Biden-Era Policies
By Ireland Owens, Daily Caller, Feb 6, 2025
https://dailycaller.com/2025/02/06/chris-wright-plan-biden-era-policies
PFAS in Cosmetics: The Latest Battle
By Susan Goldhaber, ACSH, Feb 3, 2025
https://www.acsh.org/news/2025/02/03/pfas-cosmetics-latest-battle-49284
By doing this, the EPA significantly expanded the interpretation of “may present harm” beyond what would appear to be Congress’ initial intent, enabling the EPA to broadly regulate PFAS with no basis in science. [Boldface added]
The uproar over PFAS in cosmetics reveals a troubling pattern: organizations target chemicals before science can weigh in, compelling regulators—and, increasingly, states—to act on emotion rather than evidence. As history has taught us, abrupt bans and rushed reformulations rarely result in better safety outcomes. True public health policy demands a rigorous, unbiased look at the science—not the loudest voices in the room.
Seasoned firefighters had higher levels of ‘forever chemicals’ following 2023 Maui blazes: Report
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, Feb 6, 2025
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5131136-veteran-firefighters-maui-wildfires-pfas-exposure
Link to article: Notes from the Field: Serum Concentrations of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Among First Responders to the Maui Wildfires — Hawaii, September 2023
By Catherine C. Beaucham, et al., CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Feb 6, 2025
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/mm7403a1.htm?s_cid=mm7403a1_w
[SEPP Comment: The summary of the CDC article states that some firefighting foams contain “forever chemicals.” More research is needed.]
Energy Issues – Non-US
Opinion: Face reality. Net zero is neither affordable nor attainable
A carbon tax of $2.70 per litre of gas only gets you 75 per cent of the way to net zero but reduces GDP 18 per cent, which won’t fly
By Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Jan 30, 2025 [H/t Climate Discussion Nexus]
https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-net-zero-neither-affordable-nor-attainable
Link to latest study: Ottawa’s “Net Zero” emission-reduction plan will cost Canadian workers $8,000 annually by 2050
By Ross McKitrick, Fraser Institute, Jan 30, 2025
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/canadas-path-net-zero-2050-darkness-end-tunnel
UK gas policies could lead to increased emissions from imports
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 7, 2025
Link to report: North Sea gas is almost four times cleaner than LNG imports
By Staff, North Sea Transition Authority, July 31, 2023
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/news-publications/north-sea-gas-is-almost-four-times-cleaner-than-lng-imports
[SEPP Comment: According to the North Sea Transition Authority website, About us:
We license, regulate and influence the UK oil and gas, offshore hydrogen, and carbon storage industries. We support UK energy security, drive emissions reduction from UK supplies, and help accelerate the transition to net zero to realize the potential of the North Sea as an integrated energy basin.]
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/about-us
Miliband plan is leading us to disaster
Press Release, Net Zero Watch, Feb 2, 2025
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/porter-blackout-risk
Link to: Blackout Risk in the GB Grid
By Kathryn Porter, Net Zero Watch, February 2025
Orsted Likely To Cancel Hornsea Four
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 6, 2025
From Homewood: The days of easy money for offshore wind developers, made possible by obscene subsidies are long gone. It already appears that AR7 [the current CfD auction] is running well behind schedule, which suggests that there is a lack of interest amongst developers for the prices on offer.
[SEPP Comment: A “CfD auction” is the process where the UK uses a “Contracts for Difference” scheme to allocate funding to wind power projects, essentially guaranteeing a fixed price (strike price) for the electricity produced by successful bidders. Supposedly it will lower the costs to the consumer. But the costs of reliable electricity to consumers remain above the costs of fossil fuel generation.]
Blackout Britain threat rises on collapse of Norwegian government
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 1, 2025
The Norwegian government collapsed this week following a row over EU green energy laws.
The 1400 MW North Sea Link is currently running flat out.
The issue is a very simple one, as far as Norway’s voters are concerned.
When electricity is in short supply in Germany, Denmark or Britain, demand for Norway’s power rises, pushing up prices for Norway’s consumers as a result.
It is unlikely that Norway would simply switch the interconnector off, but we may have to pay a lot more for it.
Where Will Miliband Get His Offshore Wind Farms From?
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 7, 2025
Europe doesn’t need US gas, but might buy it anyway
EU leaders may derive that a few more LNG contracts is a reasonable price to pay for smoother relations with the MAGA president
By Jasper Steinlein, Euractiv, Jan 27, 2025
EU demand for LNG may have peaked
[SEPP Comment: UK and EU companies being driven into bankruptcy due to high cost of energy may disagree.]
Heat Pump Installations Less Than 60,000 Last Year
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 1, 2025
The heat pump rollout lurches from one disaster to another.
Last year, according to the Microgeneration Certification Scheme, installations were less than 60,000, despite increased government subsidies of £7500.
The total number of installations in the UK is now 275,000, just one percent of UK households.
Energy Issues – Australia
Bang! Food industry says there’s a national energy emergency and calls for Labor to drop the ideology, and fast-track coal
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Feb 3, 2025
Energy Issues — US
Why the Fight for Affordable, Reliable Energy Isn’t Over Yet
By David Holt, Real Clear Energy, Feb 4, 2025
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2025/02/04/why_the_fight_for_affordable_reliable_energy_isnt_over_yet_1089243.html
As we have seen in the past, the anti-energy organizations that work to handicap domestic energy production by way of red tape, litigation and all-out bans, will take their battle to states, cities and towns near you.
AI’s Growing Energy Demands: How States Can Keep the Lights On
By Donald Bryson, Real Clear Energy, Feb 3, 2025
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2025/02/03/ais_growing_energy_demands_how_states_can_keep_the_lights_on_1088992.html
The convergence of AI-driven technological transformation and evolving energy demands presents both challenges and opportunities. States nationwide can lead the way by embracing an energy portfolio that includes nuclear power as a long-term solution, natural gas as a transitional fuel, and AI for smart grid management.
[SEPP Comment: Does “smart” grid management involve cutting consumers off from power when they need it the most?]
America’s Electric Grid Is at Risk — And We Need Coal to Save It
By Emily Arthun, Real Clear Energy, Feb 5, 2025
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2025/02/05/americas_electric_grid_is_at_risk__and_we_need_coal_to_save_it_1089469.html
The U.S. Should Not Abandon Clean Energy
By Gary Sumihiro, Real Clear Energy, Feb 4, 2025
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2025/02/04/the_us_should_not_abandon_clean_energy_1089289.html
[SEPP Comment: Is making it pay for itself abandoning it?]
Washington’s Control of Energy
Deficiencies in Dominion’s offshore wind permits
By David Wojick, CFACT, Feb 3, 2025
https://www.cfact.org/2025/02/03/deficiencies-in-dominions-offshore-wind-permits
The following are some of the worst permitting flaws that CFACT has found so far: [listed]
Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
Ebb Tide in Texan Oilfields
By David Archibald, WUWT, Feb 5, 2025
[SEPP Comment: The essay draws broad conclusions from oil production of only three Texas counties, particularly Howard County, in the Permian Basin. The analysis focuses on the past two years, when the Biden administration did everything it could to restrict oil and gas production. No general conclusions should be drawn from these years of Washington’s control of energy.]
Nuclear Energy and Fears
Existing stockpiles of SUNF contain 270 years of electricity demand in the US
By Ronald Stein, Oliver Hemmers, and Steve Curtis, America Outloud News, Feb 3, 2025
Link to report: Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and the Problems of Safeguarding Against the Spread of Nuclear Weapons
Press Release: GAO, Mar 18, 1980
https://www.gao.gov/products/emd-80-38
Early reactor nuclear engineers knew that reclaiming the useful parts of SUNF [slightly used nuclear fuel] was desirable. In fact, it was the least imposing engineering problem of the entire fuel cycle. Both recycling and reprocessing were considered, but reprocessing became the method of choice.
[SEPP Comment: President Carter foolishly stopped the program claiming it would lead to nuclear proliferation. Flawed leadership by example. Both India and China had nuclear weapons.]
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
2024 power generation in the UK
By Ed Hoskins, WUWT, Feb 7, 2025
[SEPP Comment: Low productivity from wind and solar drives up costs to consumers.]
The Shocking Solar Farm Bird Deaths the Mainstream Media Aren’t Telling You About
By Chirs Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, Feb 4, 2025
Out of sight, out of mind, might be the conclusion to be drawn from the attitude of the Net Zero campaigner, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). Consider the two quotes below and try to spot the difference between the first from a solar farm trade association and the second published by the RSPB.
“Solar farms can become havens for biodiversity, playing an important role in nature restoration across the country.”
“Solar farms provide an opportunity for the long-term existence of land in which wildlife can thrive, which could go a long way to help slow down the rate of decline of farmland birds.”
EDITORIAL: Taxpayers may lose green at ballyhooed solar plant
Las Vegas Review-Journal, Jan 28, 2025
Last week, 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.
This is in stark contrast to the fanfare that characterized Ivanpah’s opening in 2014, made possible thanks to a $1.6 billion U.S. taxpayer contribution courtesy of the Obama administration. One solar official heralded the moment as a “dawn of a new era in power generation in the United States.”
World’s largest concentrated solar boondoggle is going out of business after just 11 years
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Feb 2, 2025
[SEPP Comment: Great photo from DOE via Wikimedia, which Nova gives the subtitle of “Post-modern temples to the Sun God.”]
Ivanpah Solar Plant: The Flaming Failure That’s Finally Being Put Out of Our Misery
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Feb 1, 2025
Keeping Up
THB Insider #14
By Roger Pielke, Jr., His Blog, Feb 5, 2025
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/keeping-up?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=119454&post_id=156538961&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=f7h7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
[SEPP Comment: Disagree with sections of Pielke’s recommendations including Theilen’s assessment of solar. “Solar is reliably intermittent.” It is not reliable at all. But Theilen points out that the amount and cost of battery storage required is “insane.”]
Introducing The Global Renewable Rejection Database: At Least 72 Rejections Of Wind/Solar Since 2023
The resistance to the landscape-destroying sprawl of Big Wind and Big Solar is real, it’s growing, and it’s global. This new database provides proof.
By Robert Bryce, His Blog, Feb 5, 2025
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/introducing-the-global-renewable?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=630873&post_id=156545689&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=f7h7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Ill Wind
Big Wind faces “existential threat,” Ørsted and Shell book massive offshore losses, Enel files appeal on Osage County verdict.
By Robert Bryce, His Blog, Feb 2, 2025
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/ill-wind?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=630873&post_id=156256391&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=f7h7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Trump’s Energy Playbook Is Strong, But Wrong on Wind
By Charlie Sauer, Real Clear Energy, Feb 6, 2025
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2025/02/06/trumps_energy_playbook_is_strong_but_wrong_on_wind_1089785.html
Instead of curtailing potential growth areas like offshore wind, policymakers should focus efforts on creating more innovation. In the meantime, if we truly want to reduce electricity costs we need everything, we need “All of the Above.”
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other
First Hydrogen CfDs Awarded
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 5, 2025
But on top of that is the cost of transporting the hydrogen to where it can be used or stored. The LCCC give an estimated cost for this – at Cromarty, for instance, it is £24.37/MWh.
So in total, the total cost of hydrogen will be up to £266/MWh. In comparison the wholesale price of natural gas is around £34/MWh.
How Much Green Hydrogen Could We Make?
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 4, 2025
Using surplus wind power to make hydrogen would barely put a dent in that.
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Storage
On grid scale battery safety
By John Fannon, Net Zero Watch, Feb 4, 2025
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/on-battery-safety-regulation
Link to previous report: Gridscale Batteries and Fire Risk
By John Fannon, Net Zero Watch, October 2024
The Fordham et al. paper deplores the continuing reliance on lithium-ion BESS facilities and warns that this is not a safe or fruitful policy for this country
[SEPP Comment: The report discusses the Sep 4, 2021, fire at Moss Landing.]
Blue States Discover That “Green” Energy Storage is Playing with Fire—Literally
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Feb 4, 2025
Gov. Kathy Hochul’s ambitious plan to turn New York into a renewable energy powerhouse is colliding with reality as towns and cities push back against massive Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facilities.
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles
Transportation Department suspends $5 billion EV charger program
By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Feb 7, 2025
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5132717-trump-administration-suspends-electric-vehicle-charging-network
[SEPP Comment: When gas automobiles were a new technology, the Federal government did not subsidize gas stations. Why should it subsidize EV chargers?]
Carbon Schemes
The Threat of Carbon Capture
By H. Sterling Burnett, American Thinker, Feb 4, 2025
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/02/the_threat_of_carbon_capture.html
Carbon capture has long been used in the oil and gas industry, but the CO2 is not stored. Rather, it is pumped into marginal or flagging wells where it enhances oil recovery. This is not permanent storage.
California Dreaming
Conditions to Put on Federal Relief Funds
By Edward Ring, What’s Current, Accessed Feb 5, 2025
https://mailchi.mp/calpolicycenter/whats-current-issue-7859814?e=cd9fa89d1e
SoCal wildfires caused as much as $164B in damage: UCLA research
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, Feb 5, 2025
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5128339-los-angeles-wildfires-economic-losses-research
Link to report: Economic Impact of the Los Angeles Wildfires
By Zhiyun Li and William Yu, UCLA, Anderson School of Management,
https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/about/centers/ucla-anderson-forecast/economic-impact-los-angeles-wildfires
From the conclusions of the report: We suggest that all adaptation and mitigation investments will be justified, considering the astronomical costs associated with wildfires.
[SEPP Comment: Obviously a different UCLA group than the one that came up with the absurd idea of Climate Whiplash. But it still has non-science such as from the article: “In addition, they noted that exposure to fire-borne particulate matter caused up to 55,710 premature deaths in California between 2008 and 2018 — resulting in costs of up to $456 billion.” Boldface added. How do they know the number of premature deaths with such precision?]
California Blows It Again
By Willis Eschenbach, WUWT, Feb 3, 2025
A trillion and a half hard-earned taxpayer dollars … and all of that to MAYBE reduce the temperature in 2045 by six-thousandths of one degree C.
Did Climate Change Burn Los Angeles?
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Jan 30, 2025
Video
Climate Whiplash and California Wildfires
By Roger Caiazza, WUWT, Feb 2, 2025
The difference between weather and climate is constantly mistaken by climate change advocates.
California fireflam
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Feb 5, 2025
So we say on finger-pointing oh yes we can. As we note in our latest “Fact Check” video on the fires, one of the strangest things about the feeble response of California fire authorities, especially the glaring lack of preparation, is that they were almost entirely people who kept insisting that climate change makes wildfires more likely including in California. Surely a lesson there somewhere?
State Farm requests 22 percent emergency rate hike after LA fires
By Anna Kutz, The Hill, Feb 4, 2025
https://thehill.com/homenews/5124394-state-farm-emergency-rate-los-angeles-wildfires
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE
No Laughing Matter as Net Zero Nutters Target Your Anaesthetics and Painkillers
By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, Feb 2, 2025
Nitrous oxide, sometimes known as laughing gas, is used in dentistry and maternity wards. It is carried on ambulances and is considered a very safe and effective analgesic medicine. But the UK National Health Service (NHS) has made a very silly pledge to be carbon Net Zero by 2040. According to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM), the use of anesthetics, which also include isoflurane, desflurane and sevoflurane, has been identified as a “carbon hotspot.” The NHS Long Term Plan is said to highlight these gases “as an area for action” and the RCEM says consideration should be given to the use of alternatives “where feasible and safe to do so.
[SEPP Comment: Nasty nitrous oxide, which also comes from the use of artificial fertilizer.]
Climate Change Is Ruining Football, and Other Fairy Tales from TIME Magazine
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, Feb 7, 2025
Is a Small Marker Board the Solution to EV Charger Queue Rage?
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Feb 3, 2025
Report: Climate Change is Causing Aussie Education Standards to Plummet
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Feb 3, 2025
ARTICLES
1. New York’s Giant Climate Tax
Electricity rates soar as Albany’s green policies bite consumers.
By The Editorial Board, WSJ, Feb. 6, 2025
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/con-edison-electric-bills-new-york-green-energy-kathy-hochul-california-a39918a1?mod=hp_opin_pos_5#cxrecs_s
TWTW Summary: The editorial begins:
“New York and California compete for the dishonor of having the nation’s highest tax burdens. Now Empire State Gov. Kathy Hochul is vying with Gov. Gavin Newsom for the nation’s most expensive electric bills by emulating the Golden State’s climate obsessions.
Investor-owned Con Edison, which serves New York City and its suburbs, is proposing rate hikes that would increase electric bills by 11.4% on average and 13.3% for gas service. Utility bills would average about $500 a month, $154 more than five years ago. This is a back-door climate tax.
Con Edison says it needs more money for infrastructure upgrades to meet growing demand from electric-powered buildings and vehicles. New York’s ban on gas hookups in new buildings will require a larger electric power supply, as well as equipment upgrades to strengthen the power grid, especially as more intermittent renewables come online.
Renewables including hydropower make up about a third of New York’s power generation. The state is scrambling to achieve its 70% renewables mandate by 2030 as project costs soar. State regulators last spring canceled three offshore wind contracts owing to rising interest rates and inflation.”
The editorial discusses that a project bringing hydropower from Quebec is costing four times that expected and may be far later the expected. The editorial concludes with:
“So New Yorkers can expect rates to continue climbing to pay for green-energy projects. Meantime, the New York Independent System Operator in November warned of potential power shortages next year if the Quebec transmission line isn’t online by May. Power in New York, as in California, is becoming less reliable and more expensive thanks to climate mandates. Pay more, get less.
New Yorkers can also blame former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who mandated the premature shutdown of the Indian Point nuclear plant, which generated about a quarter of New York City’s power. His ban on shale fracking and veto of gas pipelines have also pushed up utility bills. During frigid weather, power plants sometimes burn oil because the state can’t import enough natural gas from Pennsylvania.
All of this may explain why Ms. Hochul has delayed the state’s cap-and-trade program until at least 2027. Cap-and-trade punishes fossil-fuel companies for their CO2 emissions and will raise energy costs even more — the last thing she wants heading into an election in 2026. Maybe Democrats in Albany could learn from California’s follies rather than copy them.”
Related
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.