better to know...?, climate-debate

A fire deficit persists across diverse North American forests despite recent increases in area burned

by S.A. Parks et al., OPEN ACESS, Feb 10, 2025 in Nature

Abstract

Rapid increases in wildfire area burned across North American forests pose novel challenges for managers and society. Increasing area burned raises questions about whether, and to what degree, contemporary fire regimes (1984–2022) are still departed from historical fire regimes (pre-1880). We use the North American tree-ring fire-scar network (NAFSN), a multi-century record comprising >1800 fire-scar sites spanning diverse forest types, and contemporary fire perimeters to ask whether there is a contemporary fire surplus or fire deficit, and whether recent fire years are unprecedented relative to historical fire regimes. Our results indicate, despite increasing area burned in recent decades, that a widespread fire deficit persists across a range of forest types and recent years with exceptionally high area burned are not unprecedented when considering the multi-century perspective offered by fire-scarred trees. For example, ‘record’ contemporary fire years such as 2020 burned 6% of NAFSN sites—the historical average—well below the historical maximum of 29% sites that burned in 1748. Although contemporary fire extent is not unprecedented across many North American forests, there is abundant evidence that unprecedented contemporary fire severity is driving forest loss in many ecosystems and adversely impacting human lives, infrastructure, and water supplies.

…

energy and fields

China Still Building Coal Power Plants

by P. Homewood, Feb 14, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

China last year began construction on projects with the greatest combined coal power capacity since 2015, jeopardising the country’s goal to peak carbon emissions by 2030, according to a report published Thursday.

The world’s second-largest economy is the biggest emitter of the greenhouse gases that drive climate change, but also a renewable energy powerhouse. It plans to reach net zero by 2060.

While coal has been a pivotal energy source in China for decades, explosive growth in wind and solar installations in recent years has raised hopes that the country can wean itself off the dirty fossil fuel.

But according to a report from the Finland-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and Global Energy Monitor (GEM) in the United States, China began construction on 94.5 gigawatts of coal power projects in 2024 — 93 percent of the global total.

Although the country also added a record 356 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity — 4.5 times the European Union’s additions — the uptick in coal power risks solidifying its role in China’s energy mix, the report said.

“China’s rapid expansion of renewable energy has the potential to reshape its power system, but this opportunity is being undermined by the simultaneous large-scale expansion of coal power,” said Qi Qin, lead author of the report and China analyst at CREA.

The rise comes despite a pledge by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2021 to “strictly control” coal power projects and increases in coal consumption before “phasing it down” between 2026 and 2030.

Coal production has risen steadily in recent years, from 3.9 billion tons in 2020 to 4.8 billion tons in 2024.

“Without urgent policy shifts, China risks reinforcing a pattern of energy addition rather than transition, limiting the full potential of its clean energy boom,” the report said.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/chinas-2024-coal-projects-threaten-000005109.html

climate-debate

The LA fires were man-made, but not like they say

by C. Martz, Feb 13, 2025 in WUWT

The political fires that ignited with President Donald Trump’s second inauguration shifted national attention away from the devastating wildfires in California.

Now entirely contained, the Los Angeles County fires should not be allowed to fade into the history books, chalked up to yet another consequence of man-made global warming. Politicians trying to pin the blame for the disaster on climate change are not only attempting to avoid accountability but are just plain wrong.

Fires require three key ingredients: an ignition source, fuel, and oxygen. Wildfires do not spontaneously combust because the planet is 1.2°C warmer now than in 1850. There must first be an ignition source. These can be natural, such as lightning, or man-made, such as fireworks, sparks, or arson. Ninety-seven percent of fires between 1992 and 2012 had a human ignition source, according to a study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Mediterranean California is no exception. While the exact cause of the Los Angeles fires has yet to be determined, lightning has already been ruled out. Whether it was an accident, arson, or broken utility lines remains unknown. If it was a broken power line, Southern California Edison must explain why it didn’t deenergize its transmission lines in the foothills. What is known is that the weather conditions have been ripe for fires to escape containment and spread.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Jan. 2025 Climate Fact Check: NASA Data Shreds ‘Hottest January Ever’ Claim

by S. Millay, Feb 13, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

This summary serves as a fact check on the most egregious false claim about climate change made in the media in January 2025. [emphasis, links added]

Counter-Narrative Reality vs. Counter-Reality Narrative

It was a busy January keeping track of President Trump’s first steps toward dismantling the federal government’s Climate Leviathan. It was also a very cold January and that’s what this edition of Climate Fact Check will cover.

Per the relatively unmanipulated NASA satellite data, January 2025 is estimated to have witnessed a substantial drop of 0.34°C from last January concerning the made-up metric of “average global temperature.”

This is despite that atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from about 422 parts per million (ppm) in January 2024 to 426 parts per million in January 2025.

That 4 ppm increase in carbon dioxide is worth about 78 billion tons of emissions. Therefore, 78 billion more tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted in a January that was 0.34°C cooler than the previous January.

February is typically the coldest average month in the Northern Hemisphere. January 2025 was cooler than February 2016 and about the same as January 2016 and February 1998, hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 and a decade of “warming,” ago.

Faced with the counter-narrative reality of the NASA satellite data, the desperate climate hoax machine produced a counter-reality narrative, claiming that January was the hottest ever as in this Associated Press report.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

New Study: Today’s Climate Models ‘Do Not Agree With Reality’ And Thus Their Usefulness Is ‘Doubtful’

by K. Richard, Feb 11, 2025 in NoTricksZone

Because the current state-of-the-art general circulation models (GCMs) cannot simulate the trends and variances in global precipitation over the last 84 years (1940-2023), their usefulness should be reconsidered.

Hydrological processes – ocean circulation, water vapor, clouds – are key components of climate, easily overshadowing the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions by a factor of 2,100 (Koutsoyiannis, 2021).

The effect that cloud cover variability has on surface temperature is so uncertain, and our cloud-effect measurement capacities are so primitive, even NASA has had to admit that “today’s models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy” to even begin to attribute current or future temperature changes to increases in atmospheric CO2.

…

In that vein, a new paper published by Dr. Koutsoyiannis, a hydrologist, statistically assesses the utility of today’s climate models. He documents the general circulation models’ capacity to simulate trends and variability in global (hemispheric) precipitation since 1940.

The results are not encouraging. The best computer models we have cannot accurately simulate what occurs in the real world.

…

only geology

Earth’s inner core might harbor volcanoes and landslides

by H. Richter,  Feb 10, 2025 in Science

Seismic waves radiating through the planet’s interior point to dramatic activity

 

More than 5000 kilometers beneath our feet, Earth’s iron inner core seems to be spinning, growing, and occasionally speeding up or slowing down. It’s also likely changing shape, according to research published today in Nature Geoscience, with some areas rising and falling up to 1 kilometer within a few years. Although most changes are likely subtle bumps in the iron landscape, some could mirror rising mountains and tumbling landslides. Though these movements—picked up as seismic waves traveling through the planet—have scant effect on us surface dwellers, they help bring into focus a more dynamic picture of Earth’s insides.

Severine Rosat, a geophysicist at CNRS, the French national research agency, who was not involved in the work, says she’s “surprised” the team was able to detect such subtle and fleeting changes in Earth’s core. “That’s quite encouraging for other seismologists.”

The inner core is a roughly 5200ºC, 2500-kilometer-long ball of mostly solid iron that helps power Earth’s magnetic field. Because no instruments can penetrate even remotely close to the depths needed to study the core, scientists instead take advantage of natural events that rocket straight through it: seismic waves from earthquakes. When these waves travel through Earth, they can either pass through the inner core or get deflected at its surface, logging their paths as wavy lines that detectors record on the opposite side of the planet. When two earthquakes occur in the same location at different times in history, scientists can compare their paths to see what has changed at the center of Earth.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Most countries miss UN deadline for new climate targets

by P. Homewood, Feb 10, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

BRUSSELS, Feb 10 (Reuters) – Many of the world’s biggest polluter nations have missed a U.N. deadline to set new climate targets as efforts to curb global warming come under pressure following U.S. President Donald Trump’s election.

The nearly 200 countries signed up to the Paris Agreement faced a Monday deadline to submit new national climate plans to the U.N., setting out how they plan to cut emissions by 2035.

As of Monday morning, many of the world’s biggest polluters – including China, India and the European Union – had not done so.

“The public is entitled to expect a strong reaction from their governments to the fact that global warming has now reached 1.5 degrees Celsius for an entire year, but we have seen virtually nothing of real substance,” said Bill Hare, CEO of science and policy institute Climate Analytics.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/most-countries-miss-un-deadline-new-climate-targets-2025-02-10/

As we know, some countries who have submitted new plans, such as Brazil and Mexico have actually reduced their ambitions.

It is yet more evidence that most of the world does not see climate change as a threat.

climate-debate

EXCLUSIVE: Sensational Findings Point to Hunga Tonga Eruption as Prime Suspect Behind Recent Temperature Spike

by C. Morrison, Feb 8,2025 in TheDailySceptic

In January 2022, a massive underwater volcano called Hunga Tonga suddenly erupted and shot so much water into the upper atmosphere that levels in the stratosphere rose suddenly by at least 10%. It was a genuine one in 100, even 200 year event and was reasonably expected to produce temporary weather changes around the globe. Sure enough, subsequent temperatures showed a 0.3-0.4°C upward spike. Needless to say, the Net Zero fanatics claimed the rise as their own and blamed it on humans controlling the climate by increasing the trace gas carbon dioxide. Today the Daily Sceptic can give wider publicity to sensational recent findings that suggest Hunga Tonga was the main culprit in producing the recent spike. The scientists directly link a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere of between 0.5-2°C to Hunga Tonga. It is generally held that there is an anti-correlation between the lower and upper atmosphere and cooling at the top produces warming at the bottom due to a number of complex atmospheric processes.

Hunga Tonga was an unusual volcanic eruption since it produced few dust particulates that usually cool the surface. Two recent land-based eruptions, El Chichon and Pinatubo, caused a temporary downward spike of around 0.5°C. The team of Colorado-based scientists found that the Hunga Tonga cooling was “comparable in magnitude” to the stratospheric warming caused by the two surface volcanoes in 1982 and 1991. The scientists reported “good agreement of observations with chemistry-climate model simulations”. “Cooling is mainly due to Hunga Tonga H2O [water] impacts,” they state.

This is dramatic stuff. It appears to promote Hunga Tonga as the prime cause in explaining the recent spike in temperatures. Indeed it could be concluded that the temperature rise should have been a little higher – and higher even still if the effects of a recent strong El Niño natural oscillation are included. Satellite observations, confirmed by computer analysis, shows stratospheric cooling of 0.5°C to 1°C in the middle and upper stratosphere during 2022 through middle 2023, followed by stronger reductions of 1°C to 2°C in the mesosphere after the middle of 2023, note the scientists. Last year, two distinguished atmospheric scientists observed the anti-correlation between the higher and lower atmosphere and suggested the lower stratosphere cooled by approximately two degrees per degree of warming nearer the surface. Where the troposphere has been anomalously warming, the lower stratosphere has been anomalously cooling “and vice versa”, note the scientists.

In January 2022, a massive underwater volcano called Hunga Tonga suddenly erupted and shot so much water into the upper atmosphere that levels in the stratosphere rose suddenly by at least 10%. It was a genuine one in 100, even 200 year event and was reasonably expected to produce temporary weather changes around the globe. Sure enough, subsequent temperatures showed a 0.3-0.4°C upward spike. Needless to say, the Net Zero fanatics claimed the rise as their own and blamed it on humans controlling the climate by increasing the trace gas carbon dioxide. Today the Daily Sceptic can give wider publicity to sensational recent findings that suggest Hunga Tonga was the main culprit in producing the recent spike. The scientists directly link a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere of between 0.5-2°C to Hunga Tonga. It is generally held that there is an anti-correlation between the lower and upper atmosphere and cooling at the top produces warming at the bottom due to a number of complex atmospheric processes.

Hunga Tonga was an unusual volcanic eruption since it produced few dust particulates that usually cool the surface. Two recent land-based eruptions, El Chichon and Pinatubo, caused a temporary downward spike of around 0.5°C. The team of Colorado-based scientists found that the Hunga Tonga cooling was “comparable in magnitude” to the stratospheric warming caused by the two surface volcanoes in 1982 and 1991. The scientists reported “good agreement of observations with chemistry-climate model simulations”. “Cooling is mainly due to Hunga Tonga H2O [water] impacts,” they state.

This is dramatic stuff. It appears to promote Hunga Tonga as the prime cause in explaining the recent spike in temperatures. Indeed it could be concluded that the temperature rise should have been a little higher – and higher even still if the effects of a recent strong El Niño natural oscillation are included. Satellite observations, confirmed by computer analysis, shows stratospheric cooling of 0.5°C to 1°C in the middle and upper stratosphere during 2022 through middle 2023, followed by stronger reductions of 1°C to 2°C in the mesosphere after the middle of 2023, note the scientists. Last year, two distinguished atmospheric scientists observed the anti-correlation between the higher and lower atmosphere and suggested the lower stratosphere cooled by approximately two degrees per degree of warming nearer the surface. Where the troposphere has been anomalously warming, the lower stratosphere has been anomalously cooling “and vice versa”, note the scientists.

…

climate-debate

The “Collapsing Gulf Stream” Scare is Back—Again

by C. Rotter, Feb 5, 2025 in WUWT

Ah, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) collapse—our old friend. Like a horror movie franchise that refuses to die, the idea that the Gulf Stream is about to shut down and plunge Europe into an icy apocalypse has returned. This time, the BBC is breathlessly warning that “the chance of it happening is growing”​. But before you start knitting survivalist-grade wool socks, let’s take a moment to review how many times we’ve heard this story before—and why it never seems to pan out.

…

A Climate Catastrophe… Someday, Maybe, Possibly

According to the BBC, AMOC is supposedly “getting weaker,” but they immediately admit that direct measurements have only been taken since 2004—meaning we have barely two decades of actual data​. Now, call me old-fashioned, but when you’re talking about an ocean system that has been operating for millions of years, 20 years of data is like trying to predict a person’s entire life based on a single Tuesday morning.

And what’s their big evidence? Ocean floor sediments and a “cold blob” in the Atlantic. That’s right, they’re looking at dirt samples and a patch of water that isn’t warming like the rest of the ocean, and somehow, this is supposed to spell doom for civilization​.

This wouldn’t be so bad if they admitted the uncertainty. Instead, the article plays a game of “it’s probably not happening, but it totally could!” For instance, the IPCC says they have “medium confidence” that AMOC will notcollapse this century. But some other scientists say, well, maybe it could! As one of them warns, we “maybe need to be worried”​.

What kind of science is this? It sounds more like a horoscope than a serious climate analysis.

Fear-Mongering 101: Every Climate Scare is the Last One

…

climate-debate

Australian Heatwave Stories Slammed Some More. Part 2.

by G. Sherrington, Feb 6, 2025 in WUWT

There were 10 significant weather station/city sites explored for their heatwave properties in the first article of this series, 5 days ago.

Australian Heatwave Stories Cop Severe Criticism – Watts Up With That?

That first article shows 160 graphs of hottest heatwave temperatures over the years when records have been kept, for Adelaide, Alice Springs,  Brisbane, Cape Leeuwin, Darwin, Hobart, Longreach, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. This second article deals with some patterns of interest.

I wrote the articles because many Establishment sources make claims like this one from the Climate Council of Australia, 2014:

“Climate change is already increasing the intensity and frequency of heatwaves in Australia. Heatwaves are becoming hotter, lasting longer and occurring more often.”

HEATWAVES: HOTTER, LONGER, MORE OFTEN

An Internet search using “heatwaves longer hotter more often” returns these 6 hits and more.

Climate change study: Australia is in the crucible of slower, longer heatwaves | SBS News

Heatwaves: hotter, longer, more often – Macquarie University

Heatwaves: hotter, longer, more often – Environmental Health Australia (Western Australia) Inc

Australian heatwaves more frequent, hotter and longer: Climate Council report – ABC News

nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/global-warming-makes-heat-waves-hotter-longer-and-more-common

Heatwaves to be hotter, longer and more frequent, climate change report says – ABC News

HOTTER?

Using practically all years of data recorded, I examined each of 4 heatwave durations of 1, 3, 5 and 10 days. The raw data are from the Climate Data Online CDO source by the Bureau of Meteorology.

The first half of the heatwave numbers is compared to the last half. The first half numbers are subtracted from the second half numbers. If there is warming, the difference is positive. If there is cooling, the difference is negative.

This example summarises the method by a graph.

…

energy and fields

Equinor Cut Green Investment In Half

by P. Homewood, Feb 6, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

Norwegian energy giant Equinor is halving investment in renewable energy over the next two years while increasing oil and gas production.

Chief executive Anders Opedal said that the transition to lower carbon energy was moving slower than expected, costs had increased, and customers were reluctant to commit to long term contracts.

Mr Opedal told the BBC he was confident that Rosebank – a giant new oil field in the North Sea – would go ahead, despite a recent court ruling that consent had been awarded unlawfully.

He also warned that gas prices could rise next winter as European gas storage levels were lower now than this time last year.

“We are scaling down our investments in renewables and low carbon solutions because we don’t see the necessary profitability in the future,” Mr Opedal said.

It will cut investments in renewables to $5bn over the next two years, down from about $10bn.

It will also drop a target to spend half of its fixed assets budget on renewables and low carbon products by 2030.

By contrast, Equinor will be increasing oil and gas production by 10% over the next two years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jg7k1kjwyo

This is of course part of a much wider trend, as we saw today with Orsted’s decision to call a halt to offshore wind development. Renewable energy is wholly dependent on govt subsidy, which as President has shown is illusionary.

Incredibly the far-left BBC still believe that “Rosebank is not straightforward”

What could not be more straightforward than a British oil field which could supply ultra cheap oil and gas to the country, sustain thousands of well paid jobs, send millions in tax revenues to the govt, provide an element of energy security and actually reduce emissions in comparison with importing the stuff.

Only the British hating BBC could object to that!

BTW

I cannot help but be reminded what the Xi’s useful idiot, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard said last week, when he said that the world’s investors were chasing green energy because that was where the money was!

Dream on, Ambrose!!!!!!!!!!!!!

climate-debate

Hottest January? Latest BBC Lies!

by P. Homewood, Feb 6, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

Last month was the world’s warmest January on record raising further questions about the pace of climate change, scientists say.

January 2025 had been expected to be slightly cooler than January 2024 because of a shift away from a natural weather pattern in the Pacific known as El Niño.

But instead, last month broke the January 2024 record by nearly 0.1C, according to the European Copernicus climate service.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyjk92w9k1o

The reality is somewhat different, as satellites show that global temperatures have been in freefall in recent months. Since September 2024, they have fallen by a full half a degree celsius.

Last month was not even the hottest January, as January 2024 was 0.4C hotter

 

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Scientists have now said that much of the recent spike in temperatures has been caused by reduced sulfate emissions from shipping, thanks to new clean air regulations.

Wildfires

The BBC lead their article with a photo of the LA wildfires. The impression, which they clearly want to create, is that these fires are connected to global temperatures.

It proves that their whole article cannot be taken seriously.

climate-debate

Drying and rewetting cycles substantially increased soil CO2 release

by Niigata University, Feb 5, 2025 in ScienceDaily

Soil incubation experiments revealed a comprehensive increase in CO2 release by drying-rewetting cycles (DWCs) among Japanese forests and pastureland soils, suggesting a significant contribution of the DWCs-induced destruction of microbial cells and reactive metal-organic matter complex to the CO2 release increase.
…
…
The research group revealed that the amount of CO2 released from soil increases significantly due to repeated drying and rewetting cycles (DWCs) expected to be caused by changes in precipitation patterns due to global warming.
better to know...?

New Study: Sea Levels Around Japan Are ‘Not Rising, Nor Accelerating’ Since The 1800s

by K. Richard, Feb 4, 2025 in NoTricksZone

In a region of the world where tide gauges are not compromised by land subsidence or uplift, sea levels have not been observed to be rising since measurements began in 1894.

According to a new study, when sea levels rise it usually has more to do with declining land movement (subsidence) or 20- to 60-year oscillations than it has to do with thermostatic sea level change.

“In Japan, there are many long-term trend tide gauges recording the sea levels since 1894. The tide gauges of Hosojima, Wajima, Tonoura, and Oshoro, not suffering from subsidence or isostasy, show multi-decadal fluctuations of periodicity quasi-20 and quasi-60 years, but not rising, nor accelerating, relative sea levels.”

…

Another study published earlier in the year by the same author (Boretti, 2024) indicates the sea level pattern around Japan is similarly occurring around the Polynesian island of Tuvalu.

Sea level changes are said to be influenced more by multi-decadal oscillations and land subsidence than by a global change in the amount of water stored in ocean basins.

“The significant increase in sea level observed at Tuvalu’s current tide gauge is attributed more to multidecadal oscillations, significantly affecting short-term records, and the subsidence of the tide gauge, rather than the global thermosteric contribution.”

“The suggested analysis aligns with prior research, reinforcing the perspective that the sea levels are gently rising and the surfaced area of Pacific islands and atolls is not diminishing, contrary to inaccuracies found in selective studies that emphasize certain data while disregarding others.”

climate-debate

Climate Alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf Struggles With The Reality Of Uncertainty

by P. Gosselin, Feb 2, 2025 in NoTricksZone

By Frank Bosse

(Translated from the original at Klimanachrichten)

We have kept you, dear readers, very promptly informed about AMOC conjectures.

Recently, we also informed you about a new study that found a stable Atlantic overturning circulation since the 1960s. It is not the only one in the recent past.

However, Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is a great advocate of the “The Day after Tomorrow” scenario of a collapsing oceanic current. As recently as June, 2024, he noted on X (formerly Twitter) that the AMOC mitigation saga “is even more dramatic than it ever was”.

He himself had been responsible for a whole series of papers as author or co-author, which also contributed to the scenario, and he initiated an “open letter” in the fall of 2024 that dramatically addressed politicians. We also reported on this.

Of course, the new findings could not couldn’t pass him by without comment. Under the headline “The AMOC is slowing down, is stable, yes, no, no, yes…” he commented on it on the blog “Real Climate”, which is run by scientists, including himself, Gavin Schmidt from NASA, and others.

What he has to say there can be stated in a nutshell: He defends his approaches and lists the problems of the more recent studies. That was to be expected. For example, he emphasizes that the new climate models (CMIP 6) hardly show any connection between “his fingerprint”, the sea surface temperatures of the “warming hole” in the North Atlantic (see the article here from 17 January 2025) and the actual current, but that the approximately 4 years older ones called CMIP5 do. He also questions whether the new ones are really more reliable in this respect than the older ones. However, the effort for the former was considerable.

He summarized:

I don’t believe that the newer methods are more reliable than the old ones (his, the author). … However, since we don’t have measurements going back far enough, there is still some uncertainty in this respect…“

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

California Blows It Again

by W. Eschenbach, Fab 3, 2025 in WUWT

Encouraged by the reception of my previous post “Eight Ten-Thousandths Of A Degree Per Gigaton“, which ranged from warm acceptance through amused contempt to outright hostility, I’ve expanded my research to analyze the CO2 emissions of the late great State of California.

In my post linked above, I found that IF the IPCC is correct (which is a big “IF”), for each gigaton (Gt) of avoided CO2 emissions, there is an avoided global warming of 0.0008°C. Please read that post for the detailed calculations.

And utilizing that relationship, here are the past and projected future California CO2 emissions.

…

WOW! For all of our sacrifices here in California, for all the money we’ve spent and are projected to spend, we MIGHT cool the world twenty years from now by 0.006°C … be still, my beating heart …

Now, as to how much that has cost and will cost, the numbers are hard to come by. Here are some major costs:

• The California solar mandate is estimated to increase the cost of newly constructed single-family homes by approximately $8,400 each. There are ~ 60,000 new single-family homes built each year in California. That’s about half a billion dollars per year for the next 20 years until 2045, or $10 billion total.

• The “Renewable Mandates” and rooftop solar subsidies have made current California electricity about $0.15 per kWh more expensive than its neighbors. Average since 2004 is about $0.10 per kWh more expensive. California’s annual electricity consumption in 2023 was approximately 287,220,000,000 kWh. That’s a cost of $35 billion per year times 20 years (2025-2045) equals $700 billion, plus $29 billion times 20 years (2004-2024) gives a total of $1.3 TRILLION. And that’s with the totally unrealistic assumption of no increase in either consumption or electricity costs.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

The Green Deal in the light of geology

by A. Préat, Jan 31, 2025 in ScienceClimatEnergie

The Green Deal, an extension of the Paris Agreement (COP21, 2015), concerns three simultaneous transitions: ecological, energy and digital. Its aim is to develop a totally carbon-free economy in Europe by 2050, i.e. to achieve the Net Zero objective set by the European Commission.  How will this be achieved? By developing an electricity grid, a car fleet made up of 100% electric vehicles equipped with batteries (NMC) and an energy mix that is more than 80% (from 2030) supplied by wind turbines and photovoltaic panels. Intermittent renewable energies will be used for the most part. This also means replacing the fossil fuels used for transport and heat (‘flames’) with electricity from renewable sources.

To achieve this goal, which will require gigantic quantities of critical metals, the European Commission has no other solution than to revive mining activity by re-exploiting old mines, opening new ones and extending or deepening existing mines. The required quantities of critical metals are enormous and Europe, our continent, doesn’t have them. For lack of a favorable geological context, Europe is a ‘mining dwarf’ on a global scale. We account for 6% of the world’s population, we consume 25 to 30% of the worldwide production and produce only 5% to meet our needs. Since the 1990s, we have been at the bottom of the list in terms of exploration efforts, with just 3%. We are far behind the Anglo-Saxon and Asian companies, which dominate not only exploration but also the production of minerals. Our reserves are small in relation to what is at stake. Only 2% of the metals we need for the energy transition are available on the European continent (CDS, 2023).

So, how can we achieve the energy transition if we don’t have the materials to do it? The Commission has laid down 4 rules to remedy our shortcomings: (i) to product 10% of our annual consumption (in other words, we will always be 90% dependent on the outside world!); (ii) to process at least 40% of our annual consumption on site; (iii) to recycle at least 15% of metals for our annual consumption; and (iv) not to depend on any one country for more than 65% of our annual consumption in order to avoid excessive criticality. To date, none of these recommendations has been met. Europe also favors the development of a circular economy at a rate of 75%, which currently stands at just under 12% and has fallen in recent years.

EU is faced with a challenge. Has it considered the short-term agenda it has set itself for Net Zero? This agenda must include the long-term dimension of mining: exploration and prospecting are long phases. It takes an average of 17 years and very large budgets to open a new mine, in the hope that it will fully meet expectations. What’s more, because of the tense global economic and geopolitical situation, exploration efforts in non-ferrous metals have recently fallen by a few percent… According to the UN (2024), there is a shortfall of 225 billion dollars in investment in projects to extract essential minerals. What’s more, unlike in the past, to open a mine you will have to face determined opposition from environmental NGOs and citizens, who will lodge numerous legal appeals, which will delay the opening for a long time.

Ultimately, this transition will replace dependence on fossil fuels with dependence on metals. This was the case with forests: wood had been the exclusive fuel for metallurgy for several centuries and was replaced by coal in the 19th century to preserve the forests. Coal was then replaced by oil and gas (less polluting) and today fossil fuels will be replaced by metals to achieve decarbonation, as requested by the European Commission.

Programs to identify our mining potential have already been launched in 2018. They tell us, for example, that we have limited potential in rare earths, which are ultra-dominated by China and are a central pillar of so-called ‘high-tech’ technologies. We have no rare earth mines. However, a deposit of rare earths was discovered in January 2023 in Lapland (Sweden). It is thought to contain 1% of the world’s reserves, and production is planned within 10 to 15 years. Yes, mine time is a long time…

Doesn’t this decarbonation seem like a forced march? Many think so… others go further and question it…

…

 

better to know...?, climate-debate

Climate Whiplash and California Wildfires

by R. Caiazza, Feb 2, 2025 in WUWT

The difference between weather and climate is constantly mistaken by climate change advocates Recently Southern California wildfires have been blamed on climate change.  Patrick Brown addressed the question how much did “Climate Whiplash” impact the Los Angeles fires.  His excellent analysis raises concerns that I want to highlight.

Weather vs. Climate

Every time there is an extreme weather event proponents for eliminating fossil fuels confuse weather and climatewhen they claim the effects of GHG emissions on global warming are obvious today. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service “Weather reflects short-term conditions of the atmosphere while climate is the average daily weather for an extended period of time at a certain location.”  It goes on to explain “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.”

Hydroclimate Volatility

Patrick Brown described the Swain et al. (2025): Hydroclimate Volatility on a Warming Earth Nature review paper. He quoted the first line of the UCLA Press Release for the paper: “Los Angeles is burning, and accelerating hydroclimate whiplash is the key climate connection”  and remarked: “Thanks in no small part to the huge journalistic audience that lead author Dr. Daniel Swain commands, the “climate whiplash” vernacular was immediately adopted in international headlines covering the recent Los Angeles fires.”  This is a classic example of an extreme weather event that is linked to climate change by organizations and individuals that have a vested interest in advancing the threat of climate change.

Climate Whiplash

I have never heard of the concept of climate whiplash before this story broke.  Brown explains:

Dangerous, intense wildfires require dry vegetation. The idea behind the climate whiplash connection to the Los Angeles fires is that very wet winters in Southern California in 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 enabled a great deal of vegetation growth but that the very dry beginning of the 2024-2025 winter allowed that vegetation to dry out, resulting in a landscape primed for uncontrollable wildfires. Swain explains the mechanism in interviews with Adam Conover and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

In order for this to be a climate change problem, we need to know whether these events are increasing.  Brown noted that:

The idea being conveyed is that these climate whiplash events are dramatically increasing not just in Southern California, but globally.  “Every fraction of a degree of warming speeds the growing destructive power of the transitions” Swain said.

Brown described background for this concept:

…

…

Conclusion

Patrick Brown does an excellent job eviscerating the climate whiplash headlined stories based on Swain et al. (2025)’s recent paper.  It is frustrating that biased analyses that confirm pre-conceived get so much attention.  It will require many evaluations like Brown’s to address the misinformation.

better to know...?

How the Green Energy Narrative confuses things

by R. Schussler, Feb 2, 2025 in WUWT

Prequel to “Unravelling the narrative supporting a green energy transition.”

There is a powerful but misleading narrative supporting a green energy transition. A follow up piece will look more broadly at the general narrative supporting a transition to net zero.  This prequel will provide some detail on a few  components of the energy narrative and how this misleading narrative was established. The green energy narrative works somewhat like a magician’s patter, overemphasizing many things of irrelevance and distracting the audience from the important things going on. Misdirection ensures small truths are misinterpreted and magnified, leading to completely unrealistic hopes and expectations.

…

…

Conclusion

It is becoming increasingly apparent that wind, solar and batteries when pursued at high penetration levels result in high costs, lower reliability and poorer operational outcomes. Expectations from the green energy narrative and real-world results are not consistent and this gulf will continue to widen as long as policy makers continue to reflexively buy into the green energy narrative. This  piece has attempted to illuminate some of the mechanisms that served to produce and sustain the exceedingly  and overly high expectations for a green transition.  The narrative was built upon these and other various deceptions to provide disinformation and hide the  real-world challenges. Such methods continue to be employed with increasing frequency. The follow to this piece up will more systemically examine the components of the green energy narrative and raise many items of critical importance considerations that the green energy narrative ignores.

climate-debate

Scientists don’t know why 2024 was so hot

by D. Whitehouse, Jan 29, 2025 in NetZeroWatch

2024 broke many records.

There’s no doubt that 2024 was the hottest year of the instrumental period. But why it was so warm is not exactly clear, even with the backdrop of increasing global temperatures.

Over the years we have heard a lot about consensus when it comes to climate science. Sometimes it has been manufactured, for example the suggestion that 97% of all scientists believe global warming is real, but in many cases it does represent what is at least a snapshot of what scientists think is happening.

So it was on December 10th at the American Geophysical Union meeting in Washington. A show of hands was requested in answer to the question as to whether we understand why 2023 and 2024 was so hot. Very few hands were raised. Asked a slightly different question, the majority of the audience raised their hands to the proposition that we can’t explain it.

The spike in, already elevated, global temperatures of 2023 and 2024 is beyond what can be explained by more CO2 in the atmosphere. It can’t be explained with El Niño, volcanic emissions or the decline in ship fuel pollution letting more sunlight reach the ocean. Something else is going on.

One team of researchers have suggested it’s due to a decrease in low cloud, which tends to cool our planet. If this is so, then it is important to see if it is a blip or a trend.

Reporting certainty

Such scientific niceties haven’t bothered most reporters dealing with the record-breaking warmth of 2024, which broke the 1.5°C Paris Agreement boundary.

Given that the increase is unexplained, is it wise to present it as evidence of a dangerous new phase in our broken clime, as New Scientist did? Despite the uncertainties, they say that Earth’s climate systems are no longer behaving as they should. It points to the wavering Jet Stream and the recent Californian wildfires as proof, even though it’s technically possible to explain these effects without climate change, catastrophic or not.

New Scientist says the one thing we can now expect ‘with certainty’ is that we ‘should’ expect extreme weather events to become more frequent. What is it? Is it certain, or just something that should happen?

The uncertainty extends into 2025. It was expected that El Niño, which boosted 2023 and 2024 temperatures, would have declined by mid-year, but it didn’t. It has hung on and is expected to linger for most of this year, to be followed by a weak and brief cooling La Niña.

I wonder if there will be another show of hands by puzzled scientists at the end of 2025.

Australia, climate-debate

Australian Heatwave Stories Cop Severe Criticism

by G. Sherrigton, Jan 29, 2025 in WUWT

The daily temperature observations from many Australian weather stations have now been routinely updated by the Bureau of Meteorology, BOM, to the end of year 2024.

Year 2024 has been publicized GLOBALLY as the “hottest year evah!” so it is time to examine how Australia fared. Here, heatwaves are the medium used.

The frequent, accepted chant is that globally, heatwaves are becoming “hotter, longer and more frequent”. This chant is not supported by the following heatwave analysis which examines 10 Australian weather stations with lengthy historic observations. This study has generated 160 graphs that are linked by weather station/city that is the main part of this article for readers to examine.

Here is a snapshot of Adelaide, using only 3-day heatwave examples, 4 graphs out of a possible 16 for Adelaide.

…

…

Some essential points:

  1. A day of missing data can lead to large damage to the calculations, because that 1 day affects 9 other days in the 10-DAY analysis. Therefore, all missing values were infilled, either by a subjective guess in the ballpark of surrounding values, or with the overall average Tmax value for the station. The shortest duration station, Brisbane, has some 50,400 days analyzed, with a few hundred missing values, so the odds of induced error are small. They can be traced.
  2. I have made the Excel commands as simple as possible. No knowledge of macros, programming or even Pivot tables is needed. The invitation is open for you to replicate the methodology for your own locations.
  3. I have not cherry picked the weather stations. Together, these 10 cities/locations house more than 70% of Australian population. This has meaning when planning for heatwaves, such as where to build hospitals and how large to make them.
  4. The chosen cities probably suffer from the temperature distortion of Urban Heat Island effect. There have been transect studies showing UHI in excess of a couple of degrees at times in both Sydney and Melbourne. I have now included two stations unlikely to have been affected by UHI, Cape Leeuwin and Longreach.

The Climate Sciences Use Of The Urban Heat Island Effect Is Pathetic And Misleading – Watts Up With That?

  1. Rebuttal of the misunderstanding that heatwaves are becoming “hotter, longer and more frequent” lacks credibility if actual data are used such s here, for 10 stations in far off Australia. It is hard to maintain that misunderstanding when simple graphs of real data are shown to those who make such claims. I am writing a more detailed analysis of these 160 graphs, should WUWT accept it.
  2. You are encouraged to make similar graphs for regions elsewhere. For heatwaves, they are hard to refute, in contrast with official/IPCC type studies, which usually commence after 1950 and which rely upon arcane definitions of heatwave to arrive at conclusions.
better to know...?, climate-debate

U.N. Confirms Notification Of America’s Exit From Paris Climate Deal

by S. Kent, Jan 29, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

paris eiffel tower
Washington notified the United Nations on Tuesday to confirm it is delivering on a key campaign pledge of President Donald Trump and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement to put U.S. energy and job growth first. [emphasis, links added]

On his first day back in the White House, Trump announced America would leave the accord, which is managed by the U.N. climate change body.

“In recent years, the United States has purported to join international agreements and initiatives that do not reflect our country’s values or our contributions to the pursuit of economic and environmental objectives,” Trump’s executive order reads.

“Moreover, these agreements steer American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require, or merit, financial assistance in the interests of the American people.”

Now that moment has moved a step closer, AFP reports.

“I can confirm to you that the United States has notified the secretary-general, in his capacity as a depository, of its withdrawal on January 27 of this year from the Paris agreement,” said Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for U.N. chief Antonio Guterres.

“According to Article 28, paragraph two, of the Paris Agreement, the withdrawal of the United States will take effect on January 27, 2026.”

Trump previously withdrew the United States from the Paris Accord during his first term, as Breitbart News reported.

…

See also :  Time To Purge The Climate Scam From Federal Websites

better to know...?, climate-debate

Inconvenient Climate Study Censored

by P. Homewood, Jan 14, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

Another important paper taking issue with the ‘settled’ climate narrative has been cancelled following a report in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent reposts that went viral across social media. The paper discussed the atmospheric ‘saturation’ of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and argued that higher levels will not cause temperatures to rise. The work was led by the widely-published Polish scientist Dr. Jan Kubicki and appeared on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website in December 2023. The paper has been widely discussed on social media since April 2024 when the Daily Sceptic reported on the findings. Interest is growing in the saturation hypothesis not least because it provides a coherent explanation for why life and the biosphere grew and often thrived for 600 million years despite much higher atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Alas for control freaks, it also destroys the science backing for the Net Zero fantasy.

Read the full story here.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

3 More New Drought And Temperature Reconstructions Do Not Support The Climate Alarm Narrative

by K. Richard, Jan 13, 2025 in NoTricksZone

Studies from Central China, Russia, and Central Europe indicate there was just as much (0r more) warming and drought prior to 1900, or when CO2 concentrations were under 300 ppm.

A new 1606 to 2016 Central China winter (minimum) temperature reconstruction (Jiang et al., 2024) reveals cold periods only occurred in 9 years of the 1600s (1663-1672), but there were 71 years of cold periods during the 20th century (1900-1942, 1959-1979, 1985-1994).

Notably, CO2 hovered around 278 ppm during the 1600s and 1700s, but it rose from 290 ppm to 370 ppm during the 1900s.

From 1650-1750 the winter temperatures in Central China were 0.44°C warmer than they were during the 20th century. The authors were surprised by this temperature result, as 1650-1750 falls within the timing of the Little Ice Age.

“Surprisingly, during 1650–1750, the lowest winter temperature within the research area was about 0.44 °C higher than that in the 20th century, which differs significantly from the concept of the ‘cooler’ Little Ice Age during this period. This result is validated by the temperature results reconstructed from other tree-ring data from nearby areas, confirming the credibility of the reconstruction.”

Finally, it should be noted that the year 1719 was 1.4°C warmer (-3.17°C) than the 1961-2016 average (-4.57°C).

…

A new 1803-2020 Central Europe precipitation reconstruction (Nagavciuc et al., 2025) determines droughts were more prolonged and pronounced during the 1800s than in the 1900s, as the 1900s were relatively wet. Only one recent period (2007-2020) endured extreme drought, but it did not exceed the severity of the 1818–1835, 1845–1854, 1882–1890 drought years.

 

…

pollution-contamination

Ancient Romans likely breathed lead pollution

by T.M. Brown, Jan 6, 2025 in Science

From 27 B.C.E. to 180 C.E., Rome enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity, the Pax Romana. It witnessed the beginning of the Roman Empire, the building of the Colosseum, and the expansion of the empire to encompass the entire Mediterranean and much of the British Isles. However, the industrial-scale silver smelting that accompanied such prosperity came with a dark side: lead pollution.

In a study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists for the first time quantified atmospheric levels of this pollutant and found the toxic metal likely led to diminished IQs for many ancient Romans.

“This is certainly a very interesting paper,” says Christopher Loveluck, an archaeologist at the University of Nottingham who was not involved in the study. “Lead emissions in the vicinity of mines and smelting sites by themselves could certainly have had an impact on the cognition and health of surrounding populations, and potentially wider rural populations.”

Today, scientists know that even minor, short-term exposure to lead-contaminated pipes, paints, and toys can lead to heart and cognitive problems, especially in infants and young children. And lead was ubiquitous in ancient Rome, including in ceramics, cosmetics, painted glaze, water pipes, and as a sweetener in wine. Researchers have even argued lead poisoning hastened the downfall of the Roman Empire.

Some Romans recognized its dangers. Pliny the Elder called the white lead powder used in Roman cosmetics a “deadly poison,” says Caleb Finch, a scientist at the University of Southern California who was not involved in the study. But although tooth enamel and skeletal remains testify to lead poisoning among some Romans, scholars have debated how serious a problem it was.

Airborne pollution accounted for much of the exposure, says Joseph McConnell, a research scientist at the Desert Research Institute and lead author of the study. The mining and smelting of silver from a lead-rich mineral called galena releases the toxic metal as a vapor, he says. “For every gram of silver produced, something like 10,000 grams of lead were produced.”

…

La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse