Archives de catégorie : better to know…?

better to know...?, energy and fields

Tech Giants quietly drop renewables and sign pledge to triple Nuclear Power

by Jo Nova, Mar 14, 2025

Renewables are so over

Just like that — the renewables bubble went phht.

After twenty years of hailing wind and solar, suddenly the world’s tech giants are cheering for nuclear power. Worse —  they don’t even mention the words carbon, low emissions or CO2. The new buzzwords are “safe, clean and firm“. They talk about needing energy “round the clock”, and they talk about “energy resilience” — but they don’t saynuclear is “low emissions”. It’s like they want everyone to forget their activism. Did someone say something about climate change?

Meta, Amazon, and Google have flipped like a school of barracuda. Five minutes ago, life on Earth depended on achieving Net-Zero with fleets of wind farms in the sunset, now, they just want energy and lots of it. The big tech fish and their friends have signed a Large Energy Users Pledge admitting that the demand for energy is rising rapidly, that nuclear should triple by 2050 and that large energy users depend on the availability of abundant cheap energy (Small energy users too,  Mr Bezos-Zuckerburg-Pichai.) The closest they come to hinting at the ghost of renewables is when they say they want energy that’s not dependent on “the weather, the season, or the geographical location”.

There’s no “Sorry we got it wrong”. There’s no apology for hectoring us, censoring us, or wasting billions of dollars. It’s just Mr Don’t-Look-Over-Here telling us what most engineers knew for 30 years. This is the billionaire club asking the taxpayers to build them more nuclear plants.

Signatories include Siemens Energy, which suffered a 36% share price fall 18 months ago when it admitted it was losing billions trying to maintain wind turbines.

…

 

better to know...?, climate-debate

Open peer review: State of the Climate 2024

by O. Humlum, Mar 14, 2025 in GWPF

We are keen to receive review comments for our new draft paper which is now available for open peer review here.

Ole Humlum: State of the Climate 2024

This report on the state of the climate in 2024 has its focus on observations, and not on output from numerical models. The observed data series presented here reveals a vast number of natural variations. The existence of such natural climatic variations is not always fully acknowledged, and therefore often not considered in contemporary climate conversations.

Global average surface air temperature for 2024 was the highest on record for all databases considered in this report. The years 2023 and 2024 were both affected by a warm El Niño episode. Towards the end of 2024 the most recent El Niño episode declined. 

Submitted comments and contributions will be subject to a moderation process and will be published, provided they are substantive and not abusive.

Review comments should be emailed to: harry.wilkinson@thegwpf.org.

The deadline for review comments is 4 April 2025.

better to know...?, energy and fields

CERAWEEK IEA chief sees need for investments in existing oil, gas fields

by T. Gardner, Mar 10, 2025 in Reuters

HOUSTON, March 10 (Reuters) – Fatih Birol, the director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, said on Monday there is a need for investment in oil and gas fields to support global energy security.
The comment puts the energy watchdog for industrialized nations more in line with President Donald Trump’s pro-drilling agenda, after it came under pressure from fossil fuel advocates years ago for proposing an end to new oil and gas projects.
“I want to make it clear … there would be a need for investment, especially to address the decline in the existing fields,” he said at the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston. “There is a need for oil and gas upstream investments, full stop,” he said.
Birol has been under pressure from Trump’s administration and from the president’s fellow Republicans in Congress for the IEA’s shift in recent years toward a focus on clean energy policy.
In 2021, the IEA said companies should not invest, opens new tab in new coal, oil and gas projects if the international community wants to reach net zero emissions by mid-century to fight climate change. Countering global warming was a key priority for the administration of former President Joe Biden.
…
better to know...?, climate-debate

Climate Crusader SLAPPed: Michael Mann Sanctioned For ‘Extraordinary’ Misconduct

by R. Bryce, Mar 13,2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch 

My, oh my, how the worm has turned.

Thirteen months ago, in the op-ed pages of the New York Times, University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann and his lawyer, Peter J. Fontaine, were crowing about their victory in federal court a few days earlier. [emphasis, links added]

They were thrilled that a jury in Washington, DC, had decided that the defendants in the case, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, had defamed Mann.

The jury awarded the combative academic one dollar in compensatory damages from Simberg and Steyn. It also awarded Mann punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn.

Mann claimed the jury’s decision was “a victory for science and it’s a victory for scientists.”

In their February 15, 2024, op-ed, Mann and Fontaine said, “We hope this sends a broader message that defamatory attacks on scientists go beyond the bounds of protected speech and have consequences… However, we lament the time lost to this battle. This case is part of a larger culture war in which research is distorted and the truth about the climate threat is dissembled.”

Yes, well.

…

As reported here on Substack by Roger Pielke Jr., a federal court in Washington, DC, ruled yesterday that Mann and his lawyers acted in “bad faith” and “made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding.”

…

better to know...?, energy and fields

Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Wind And Solar Are Far Costlier Than Coal, Natural Gas

by J. Taylor, Mar 4, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Renewable power advocates often claim wind and solar are less expensive energy sources than coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. [emphasis, links added]

Such a claim begs the question of why the heavily subsidized Ivanpah solar power facility is going out of business, following a long line of other renewable energy project bankruptcies.

Also, why would most of the world continue to build coal power plants if it is more expensive than wind and solar? The answer is wind and solar are expensive, financial losers. A recent peer-reviewed analysis proves that point.

A recent study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy, reports on the full-system levelized cost of electricity generation. The term “full system” is key.

Many entities have assessed what it costs utilities to purchase or produce electricity from existing sources and deliver it to customers.

These cost assessments, however, ignore the intermittency of wind and solar and how intermittency adds substantial costs to the entire electric grid.

The cost assessments also fail to account for how wind and solar projects cannot be built just anywhere and often require new, long, expensive, and inefficient transformation lines to deliver power from the generation locations to consumers. This also adds substantial costs to the overall electric grid.

The peer-reviewed Energy study analyzes these factors and presents an apples-to-apples cost comparison of the full-system cost of wind, solar, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.

The verdict is devastating to wind and solar power and explains why most of the world prefers to build coal and natural gas power plants.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

How the “scientific consensus” on climate change was invented

by C. Rotter, Feb 27, 2025 in WUWT

How a “scientific consensus” that “climate change is mostly human-caused” was forced by:
1) Shutting down funding for scientific research into natural causes.
2) Punishing scientists who continued this research anyway.

This is an excerpt from “Climate The Movie” (2024). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU

better to know...?, energy and fields, minerals and ores

The rising tide of sand mining: A growing threat to marine life

by Michigan State University, Feb 21, 2025 in ScienceDaily

In the delicate balancing act between human development and protecting the fragile natural world, sand is weighing down the scales on the human side.

A group of international scientists in this week’s journal One Earth are calling for balancing those scales to better identify the significant damage sand extraction across the world heaps upon marine biodiversity. The first step: acknowledging sand and gravel (discussed as sand in this publication) — the world’s most extracted solid materials by mass — are a threat hiding in plain sight.

“Sand is a critical resource that shapes the built and natural worlds,” said senior author Jianguo “Jack” Liu, Michigan State University Rachel Carson Chair in Sustainability. “Extracting sand is a complex global challenge. Systems approaches such as the metacoupling framework are essential to untangle the complexity. They can help reveal the hidden cascading impacts not only on the sand extraction sites but also other places such as sand transport routes and sites using sand for construction.”

Sand is the literal foundation of human development across the globe, a key ingredient of concrete, asphalt, glass, and electronics. It is relatively cheap and easily extracted.

…

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Pay Up, Mr. Mann

by The Editors, Jan 10, 2005 in NationalReview

For more than eight years, the climate scientist Michael Mann harassed National Review through litigation over a blog post — until, eventually, the First Amendment brought an end to his attack. This week, a court in our nation’s capital ordered Mann to pay us $530,820.21 worth of attorney’s fees and costs, and to do so within 30 days. It is time for him to get out his checkbook, and sign on the dotted line.

This restitution is welcome, if incomplete. As was made clear during the discovery process, Mann’s explicitly stated intention was to use a “major lawsuit” as a vehicle with which to “ruin National Review.” Happily, Mann failed in this endeavor. But, while all’s well that ends well, his failure exacted costs nevertheless. Between 2012 and 2019 — with the courts inexplicably refusing to apply legal provisions ostensibly designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits such as Mann’s — we were forced to spend a considerable amount of time and money defending ourselves against his malicious, meritless suit. Between 2019 and now, we have been obliged to expend yet more effort trying to recoup at least some of our costs. This week’s award will not undo all of the damage that Mann has inflicted upon us, and upon journalism more broadly — we had asked for $1 million in fees and costs, and even that was a fraction of what we have spent — but it will, at least, go some way toward making us whole.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Conflicts of Interest in Climate Science: A Systemic Blind Spot

by C. Rotter, Feb 18, 2025 in WUWT

Introduction

The field of climate science has long been presented as an objective, data-driven discipline, immune to the biases and financial conflicts that plague other scientific domains. However, a recent preprint study by Jessica Weinkle et al, Conflicts of Interest, Funding Support, and Author Affiliation in Peer-Reviewed Research on the Relationship between Climate Change and Geophysical Characteristics of Hurricanes, challenges this assumption, shedding light on an alarming lack of conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in climate research, particularly in studies linking hurricanes to climate change​. She also has an excellent write up of the study on her Substack, Conflicted.

The study’s findings reveal a disturbing trend: not a single one of the 331 authors analyzed disclosed any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest​. Moreover, the research found that funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was a significant predictor of studies reporting a positive association between climate change and hurricane behavior​.

…

…

Time to Clean House

The Weinkle et al. study is a wake-up call for anyone who still believes climate science is an objective, bias-free discipline. The overwhelming correlation between NGO funding and climate change-hurricane research outcomes, coupled with the complete absence of COI disclosures, exposes a deeply entrenched problem​.

The fact that not a single author among 331 disclosed a conflict of interest should be viewed as a scientific scandal. If such a pattern were observed in pharmaceutical or medical research, there would be widespread public outcry and immediate reforms. Yet, in climate science, this level of opacity is tolerated—perhaps because it serves the interests of powerful political and financial actors.

At the very least, this study proves that climate science is not above bias. The question is: Will the scientific community acknowledge and correct these issues, or will it continue to operate under a veil of selective transparency?

better to know...?, climate-debate

Earth.com’s Climate Alarmism Crumbles As Cocoa Production Rises

by H.S.  Burnett, Feb 17, 2025 in ClimateChangeDispatch

…

FAO data for those countries show that since 1990:

  • In Cameroon, cocoa bean production has grown by more than 157 percent;
  • In the Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire), cocoa bean production increased by more than 194 percent (nearly doubling, setting a new record in 2023);
  • In Ghana, cocoa bean production expanded by just over 122 percent;
  • And in Nigeria, cocoa bean production grew by almost 17 percent.

Each of these countries experienced multiple years of record-setting production over the past three and a half decades of climate change. (See the figure below).

With these facts in mind, there is no evidence whatsoever that climate change is putting cocoa production under extreme pressure, except perhaps in the imagination of Earth.com’s Ionescu.

Globally carbon dioxide has resulted in a general greening of the Earth with significantly improved crop production. There is good reason to believe that rising carbon dioxide concentrations have significantly contributed to West and Central Africa’s improved cocoa production, as well.

…

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.

…

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.

…

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.

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.”

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.

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.

 

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Met Office Try To Shut Down Debate On Junk Temperature Measurements

by P. Homewood, Jan 7, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

hris Morrison has the latest on how the Met Office, in league with the green blob, are trying to shut down debate on the junk weather station scandal:

image

After a year of damaging revelations about the state of the Met Office’s temperature measuring network, the Green Blob-funded ‘fact-checker’ Science Feedback has sprung to the defence of the state-funded U.K. weather service. It has published a long ‘fact check’ seeking to exonerate practices that have recently come to light including the locating of stations with huge heat corrupted ‘uncertainties’ and the publication of invented data from 103 non-existent sites. Inept is a word that springs to mind. At one point, Science Feedback justifies the estimation of data at the non-existent stations by referring to the hastily changed Met Office explanation for station/location long-term averages. The original and now deleted Met Office webpage referenced station names and provided single location coordinates including one improbable siting next to the sea on Dover beach. This would appear to be a new low in the world of so-called fact-checking – designating copy as ‘misleading’ based on an explanation changed after the article was published.

Full story here.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

England & Wales Rainfall Trends

by P. Homewood, Jan 8, 2025 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

image

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/monthly/HadEWP_monthly_totals.txt

It does not need me to tell you that it was quite wet last year. It was in fact ninth wettest in England & Wales since 1766, though nowhere near the two wettest years in 1872 and 1768.

For the last decade or so, we have been going through the same sort of weather as in the 1870s and 80s, as well as the 1920s.

But averages and trends are not particularly meaningful – nature does not do averages and straight lines! You could have ten years all with the same rainfall, or you could have five years with high rainfall and five years of drought, and you could get the same average.

If you just look at the distribution of wet years, there is no obvious pattern:

…