The last decade was the HOTTEST on record with greenhouse gasses reaching ultimate highs in 2019 and sea levels now 3.4 inches above what they were in the 1990s

This is an amusing article.  They pull out all stops to show that we are warming up. The data are "massaged" however. They actually have very few readings from places like Siberia and the Arctic so they just make up the temperatures that they record from there.  Averaging based on nearby temperature stations is fair enough but often there is nothing nearby so they do "estimates" out of thin air

The other phenomena they refer to are equally dubious.  Sea level is intrinsically difficult to measure and sea level expert Nils-Axel Mörner is noted for his rejection of there being anything significant going on. See also here for great doubt that there has been ANY recent accelerated rise.

One of the more amusing features of sea level measurements is the way Warmists turn actual sea level falls into rises.  Where sea levels have been falling -- e.g. Stockholm -- they turn that fall into a rise by invoking the doctrine of "isostatic rebound".  That any part of the earth's crust is still "rebounding" from an ice age of long ago seems highly implausible.  When will it stop?

It is however true that atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising steadily -- which makes it all the more amusing that there is no good evidence of it affecting anything


The past decade was the hottest ever, according to a new report on climate change, with 2019 the second warmest year since record-keeping began in the mid-1800s.

Last year's average global temperature was only surpassed by a freakishly warm year in 2016, when an enormous El Nino event caused the thermometer to spike.

There was also a record number of 'extreme warm days' in 2019, when high temperatures exceeded the 98th percentile for the past 60 years.

The warming trend caused alpine glaciers to lose mass, scientists said, continuing a trend dating back over 30 years.

Loss of ice in the polar regions has raised global sea levels 3.4 inches above what was recorded in the 1990s. And ocean temperatures are also at near record highs, second only to 2016.

Published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the study found that concentrations of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide were at record levels in 2019.

That's compared to both modern instrumental recordings and ice core samples dating back 800,000 years.

The study, based on data from researchers in over 60 countries, confirms similar findings from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

And the heatwave shows no signs of ending: From Arizona to Siberia, regions around the globe have been charting record high temperatures in 2020.

In February, the thermometer in Antarctica topped 68F (20.7C) for the first time. 

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the rise in temperatures is 'persistent,' and not the result of fluke weather phenomena.

'We crossed over into more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming territory in 2015 and we are unlikely to go back,' Schmidt said.

'We know that the long-term trends are being driven by the increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.'

Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London, has called global warming one of humanity's greatest follies.

'This is not so much a record as a broken record,' Rapley said. 'The message repeats with grim regularity, yet the pace and scale of action to address climate change remain muted and far from the need.'

More than 190 nations signed the Paris climate accords in 2015, promising to combat global warming and stem the rise in global average temperatures.

Two years later, President Donald Trump announced the US would be withdrawing from the agreement

SOURCE





California orders rolling blackouts for up to two MILLION people as record-breaking heat wave grips the state

"Green" power at work

Hundreds of thousands of Californians were plunged into darkness on Friday evening as companies cut power to homes after the state's Independent System Operator declared a Stage 3 energy emergency.

With temperatures soaring above 100 degrees in many parts of the state, and millions of residents stuck at home amid the coronavirus pandemic, experts feared the high demand for power would overwhelm the grid.

'A Stage 3 Emergency is declared when demand outpaces available supply. Rotating power interruptions have been initiated to maintain stability of the electric grid,' the Independent System Operator announced shortly before 6pm.

After that announcement, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. confirmed it would be cutting power to as many as 250,000 customers, while Southern California Edison also said they would be conducting rolling blackouts.

Residents were unable to be notified due to the emergency announcement, leaving thousands of vulnerable people suddenly without air-conditioning in the midst of a severe heatwave.

Grid managers last implemented such a power cut in 2001, when the state was suffering from an electric crisis.

It comes amid a horror week for the state, which is still struggling to contain COVID-19 infections. On Friday, the state surpassed 600,000 confirmed cases of the contagious virus - more than New York state.

There are also currently 13 wildfires raging across the state, with the hot weather causing catastrophic conditions for firefighters.

California's nightmare looks likely to continue, and more enforced power shutoffs could be coming over the weekend as the state continues to sizzle.

The National Weather Service says that sweltering conditions are set to stay, with the heatwave set to rival the deadly seven-day heat event in 2006, during which L.A. saw its highest-ever temperature of 119 degrees.

Solar generators for the state will also be impacted as cloud cover from tropical storm Elida is expected to crimp output.

After the Stage 3 Emergency was declared tens of thousands of homes and businesses in Northern California had their power supply shut off by PG&E.

Rolling blackouts occurred in Alameda, San Mateo, Marin and Sonoma counties.

The blackout was a blow for some restaurants already struggling financially amid the coronavirus crisis.

Restaurant owner Bill Higgins was affected, by the forced outages, telling KPIX: 'We just did the best we could.'

 'We cooked whatever we could for as long as we could without the electricity. It started to get dark and we had to shut it down … Restaurants are already under the gun and this was hurtful, to say the least.'

The outages also crippled Southern California.

According to various reports, around 13,000 homes in Bakersfield, north of L.A., had their power cut off after 6pm. 

Meanwhile, Southern California Edison also announced they had cut power to homes in Anaheim, close to Los Angeles, but promised the outages would be no longer than 15 minutes.

In the San Diego and southern Orange counties areas, Sempra Energy's San Diego Gas & Electric utility said one-hour rotating shutoffs will be 'widespread' across its territory.

By 9pm, the Stage 3 emergency was lifted, and power began to be restored to most homes.

Cutting off power to vulnerable residents in the midst of sizzling temperatures can be incredibly dangerous.

SOURCE





Wind Turbines Keep Spinning Out Tales of Future Viability/b>

Consumers pick the best alternatives in terms of price, quality, and convenience. The winners earn the appellation economic, the losers noneconomic.

But special political favor can reverse the verdict: the otherwise unprofitable can be made profitable and vice-versa. In the case of industrial wind turbines, government intervention—from tax credits to mandated purchases—has reversed free-market verdicts. Dilute, intermittent technology is propped up at the expense of concentrated, reliable alternatives.

Background

Why political favor for industrial wind turbines, a fringe, experimental loser in the pre-subsidized era? It’s a Bootleggers-and-Baptists story, with different interests, even strange bedfellows, aligning for a shared outcome.

The Baptists cry Global Warming as if countless wind turbines will save the world. (Fantasy, says the father of the climate alarm, James Hansen.) The Bootleggers, meanwhile, capitalize on the outside rationale and get special political favors. Bad profit replaces good profit across the energy industry.

Concentrated benefits for the rent-seekers, diffused costs for consumers and taxpayers. Politicians happily broker the deal. The result in our example is the 64-staff, 20-member board, $22 million budget American Wind Energy Association.

AWEA promotes and lobbies for wind power, and has received extension after extension of the 1992 federal Production Tax Credit (PTC): 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2019. Add to this dirty dozen a favorable IRS ruling this year on PTC eligibility for number thirteen.

Promises, Promises

If wind turbines were competitive against gas-fired power generation, AWEA could let the PTC expire and no longer support mandated purchases and transmission subsidies. But then wind’s many corporate buyers would receive a much higher invoice—and presumably back-off. Instead of embracing free markets and interfuel neutrality, AWEA and the broader wind lobby fill the air about their technology’s impending competitiveness.

It’s a tired refrain that is now in its fourth decade.

A review of these promises from the 1980s until today is humbling.

In 1983, s study by Booz, Allen & Hamilton for AWEA and other renewable groups concluded: “The private sector can be expected to develop improved solar and wind technologies which will begin to become competitive and self-supporting on a national level by the end of the decade if assisted by tax credits and augmented by federally sponsored R&D.”

In 1986, a representative of AWEA testified: “The U.S. wind industry has … demonstrated reliability and performance levels that make them very competitive. It has come to the point that the California Energy Commission has predicted wind power will be that State’s lowest-cost source of energy in the 1990s, beating out even large-scale hydro. We are not quite there. We have hopes.”

In 1986, Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute lamented the untimely scale back of tax breaks for renewable energy, stating that the competitive viability of wind and solar was “one to three years away.”

In 1986, Worldwatch Institute concluded: “Utility-sponsored studies show that the better wind farms can produce power at a cost of about 7¢ per kilowatt-hour, which is competitive with conventional power sources in the United States.

In 1990, the Worldwatch Institute predicted that “within a few decades” renewables could have 90 percent of the power market with wind at 20 percent. The actuals today are 20 percent and 7 percent.

In 2011, just to use one other example, Joe Romm of the Center for American Progress stated: “It is clear that solar and wind are competitive in many situations right now.”

The beat goes on. AWEA in 2017: “Wind power is competitive on reliability and resilience.” Bloomberg in 2019: “Now all signs show renewable energy has come of age and can go head-to-head with fossil fuels.” And this summer from the International Renewable Energy Agency: “Newly installed renewable power capacity increasingly costs less than the cheapest power generation options based on fossil fuels.”

The disappearing need for wind’s lucrative tax credit has also long been predicted. In 1984, Christopher Flavin of the Worldwatch Institute stated: “Tax credits have been essential to the economic viability of wind farms so far, but will not be needed within a few years.” And Flavin again in 1985: “Although wind farms still depend on tax credits, they are likely to be economical without this support within a few years.”

And on the political side. “I’d say we’re going to have to [extend the wind PTC] for at least another five years, maybe for 10 years,” said Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in 2003. Sometime we’re going to reach that point where it’s competitive (with other forms of energy).”

We are still waiting ….

Conclusion

The quandary of wind power reflects the embedded inferiority of dilute, intermittent energies versus mineral energies. The problem is certainly not a lack of political will; the growth of AWEA reflects the economic and environmental problems of inferior technology that only the brute force of government can neutralize for business opportunity.

“The infant industry argument is a smokescreen,” noted Milton and Rose Friedman many decades ago. “The so-called infants never grow up.” And so it is with wind power, not to mention its political sister, on-grid solar power.

SOURCE





Media Falsely Claim Ethiopian Climate Crisis as Crop Yields Set Records

Among the top Google News search results today for “climate change,” an article at Insider.com claims “food insecurity from climate change” is “pushing millions of people into cities.” In reality, Ethiopian crop yields are enjoying consistent, impressive gains, and are setting new records virtually every year. Also, Ethiopia’s rural population is growing, not shrinking, as higher crop yields support more farmers and more food production. The Insider.com article being promoted by Google is a perfect example of the dishonest claims made by proponents of the Climate Delusion.

The Insider.com article, titled “Climate change is pushing millions of people into cities like Addis Ababa. Here’s what rapid urbanization looks like in the Ethiopian capital,” asserts that World Health Organization predictions of a growing Ethiopian urban population prove that climate change is devastating crop production and driving people into cities. But that is faulty logic that defies objective reality. In reality, Ethiopia is benefiting from increasing food production and rapid economic growth in its cities. This economic growth is not forcing people away from the farms, but rather enticing many Ethiopians into cities with better paying jobs and the cultural and social attractions of urban life.

Data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), charted below, show remarkable growth in Ethiopian crop yields as the Earth continues its modest warming. Crop yields per acre are currently 80 percent higher than just a decade ago, and double what they were in the year 2000.

Moreover, the FAO reports that fully half the Ethiopian population was undernourished in the year 2000, while less than 20 percent of the population is undernourished today.

It is amazing that a “news” article at Insider.com can paint this spectacular crop growth and beneficial improvement in nutrition as “food insecurity from climate change.”

About the only thing that is true in the Insider.com article is that Ethiopia is experiencing dramatic urban population growth. However, it is a lie that the urban growth is being caused by climate change destabilizing food production and forcing people into cities. According to the FAO, Ethiopia’s urban areas have added 13 million people since the year 2000. However, Ethiopia’s rural areas have added 28 million people since the year 2000. Ethiopia’s urban and rural areas are gaining population – with rural areas experiencing the largest growth – as increasing crop yields sustain more population and bring more wealth to the nation’s people.

World Bank economic data illustrate this. Per the World Bank:

“Ethiopia’s economy experienced strong, broad-based growth averaging 9.9 percent a year from 2007/08 to 2017/18, compared to a regional average of 5.4%. … Industry, mainly construction, and services accounted for most of the growth. … Higher economic growth brought with it positive trends in poverty reduction in both urban and rural areas. The share of the population living below the national poverty line decreased from 30% in 2011 to 24% in 2016.”

In summary, Ethiopia is enjoying spectacular gains in crop yields that are supporting a rapidly growing population and dramatic growth in both urban and rural populations. The growth in Ethiopia’s urban population is clearly and inarguably a result of spectacular increases in food production and a wealthier population rather than mythical food insecurity. But the easily discernible and reassuring truth doesn’t promote climate alarmism. Therefore, the media lie and invent a false narrative.

SOURCE

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************