About 20 years ago, through the course of their research, Michael Mann — distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University — and his colleagues identified a novel phenomenon. //

About every half-century, wind and waves seemed to conspire to warm up or cool down part of the North Atlantic, with probable large-scale effects on weather.

Drawing on the same Earth simulations on which most climate research was then based, they concluded that the back-and-forth swing must be a feature intrinsic to the natural system itself. Mann dubbed it the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” (AMO). //

Only here’s the thing: The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation turns out not to actually exist. That’s the latest and definitive conclusion from Mann and three colleagues, who wrote recently in the journal Science that the newest climate models can no longer find any evidence of a natural temperature flip in the Atlantic every few decades.

Instead, the data has led them to another smoking gun: smoking volcanoes.

Research into ancient climates suggests that before industrialization took off in the 19th century, volcanoes periodically belched out enough sulfate aerosols to explain the “oscillation” going back a thousand years. These aerosols have a cooling effect, by reflecting about a quarter of sunlight back into space, until they wash out of the atmosphere within months or a few years.

In the 20th century, the steady concoction of man-made warming and cooling pollution likely influenced the temperature swings.

“This article is the final nail in the coffin,” said Mann, who last month chronicled his experiences bringing climate science into the public sphere in a book, The New Climate War.

In his January 27 “Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” US President Joseph Biden declares that his administration aims at “putting the climate crisis at the center of United States foreign policy and National Security.” //

implication, Biden’s executive orders make the release of CO2 in any corner of the world into a US national security issue. The forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate would provide the basis for using the resources of the US intelligence community and national security apparatus to enforce administration climate policies on a global scale. //

That has ominous implications. The construction of a new highway, pipeline, factory or power plant in a developing country, which might lead to increased CO2 emissions, could in principle be classified as a threat to US national security.

Depending on the case, the US administration would thereby feel justified or even compelled to stop such projects. Green imperialism thus becomes a duty of the US government. One should consider the magnitude of the interventions and conflicts which may result. //

Climate goals provide ample justification for strong interventions into the domestic politics of nations, including support for selected parties, social movements and NGOs.

Naturally, everything will be done with 100% political correctness. Moreover, Biden evidently regards it as his prerogative, in the name of saving the planet, to dictate to other nations which projects they may or may not finance and build. //

Biden has made it clear that China is the number one target of his climate-leveraged foreign policy. China has over 250 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power now in development, with 97 GW already under construction. The 250 GW total is roughly equivalent to the entire coal power capacity of the US, which Biden has pledged to shut down.

One should bear in mind that, from 1 kilogram of enriched uranium, present-day light water reactors (LWRs) can produce the energy equivalent of roughly 150,000 kilograms of coal. A uranium-breeder reactor can derive from 1 kg of natural uranium the equivalent of over 1 million kilograms of coal. A similar ratio applies to thorium in a thorium breeder reactor. //

Could nuclear power be expanded rapidly enough to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation in the foreseeable future? //

In a speech on national television in March 1974 French Prime Minister Pierre Messmer announced an ambitious plan to make nuclear-generated electricity the foundation of the nation’s energy system. He declared “France has not been favored by nature in energy resources…. There is almost no petroleum on our territory, we have less coal than England and Germany and much less gas than Holland…. Our great chance is electrical energy of nuclear origin…. We will give priority to electricity and in electricity to nuclear electricity.”

Following the Messmer Plan, France’s nuclear power expansion proceeded at a rapid pace. During the 1980s, 44 new nuclear power stations went on line – an average of 4 per year. Nearly all were standardized in design, with two basic types producing 900 and 1300 MW of electric power each. Standardization reduced costs greatly, and construction times for most of the plants were between 5 and 7 years.

In less than 15 years the percentage of electricity generated from nuclear plants rose from about 7% percent in 1975 to over 75% in 1990. //

The irony of the situation is that the environmentalist movement is to a significant extent responsible for the continued dependence on coal and gas power plants.

It is quite conceivable that we would have had practically CO2-free electricity today if it had not been for the intense campaigns against nuclear energy, mounted continuously for over half a century in the United States and Western Europe.

Although there are good reasons to be concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants – reasons we will discuss – the political opposition to nuclear energy has on the whole been characterized by ideology and hysteria rather than rationality.

In my view the rational response to the accidents in Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) would have been to demand fundamental innovations in the design and operation of nuclear power plants – such as those I shall describe later – rather than attempting to block the development of nuclear energy altogether. //

Unfortunately, in the transition to commercial electricity production by nuclear reactors, most of the innovative reactor designs developed in the early period, were dropped in favor of a single basic type: the light water reactor (LWR). Here the starting point in the West was the successful US Navy program to develop reactors to power submarines. Other reactor types, such as so-called fast breeder reactors, have so far played only a marginal role.

In retrospect the fixation on LWRs as the mainstay of civilian nuclear energy, to the virtual exclusion of other types, was a mistake. The main reason was cost-cutting in the field of R&D, more than intrinsic advantages of LWR reactors. Through lack of developed alternatives, nuclear energy became stuck with the limitations of LWRs. We need to correct this.

Nuclear energy, to start with, is ultimately not safe, and the Germans have always been particularly uneasy with it. After the nuclear accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan in 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel ordered the “Atomausstieg,” the exit from nuclear energy once and for all. Why? Because, as Ms. Merkel put it back then: “The residual risk of nuclear energy can be accepted only if one is convinced that — as far as it is humanly possible to judge — it won’t come to pass.” After Fukushima, Ms. Merkel, a trained physicist, was no longer able to believe that a nuclear disaster would not occur. That there was a catastrophe even in a high-tech country like Japan made her change her mind.

But what about the near-certain catastrophic consequences of the second evil, climate change enhanced by coal-fired plants? Ms. Merkel recognized recently that “climate change is happening faster than we had thought a couple of years ago.” At the same time, she had to admit that Germany was struggling to fulfill the promises of the Paris climate accord: Despite new hopeful figures, the targeted 40 percent reduction of carbon emissions by the end of 2020 may not be met. One could argue that knowledge about the severity of climate change has deepened since 2011 and that countries should do everything they can to shift away from fossil fuels — yet there’s no sign that Ms. Merkel might change her mind about scrapping nuclear. //

The tragedy about Germany’s energy experiment is that the country’s almost religious antinuclear attitude doesn’t leave room for advances in technology. Scientists in America, Russia and China believe that it is possible to run nuclear power plants on radioactive waste — which might solve the problem of how to store used fuel elements, one of the core arguments against nuclear. Certainly, these so-called fast breeder reactors have their dangers too. But as we transition to a completely renewable energy supply, wouldn’t they be a better alternative to coal and gas plants? //

By shutting down its entire nuclear sector in a rush, Germany loses more opportunities than dangers. It forfeits the capacity to connect to a technology that might prove the safest and most climate-friendly mankind has yet seen. At the very least, using Germany’s existing nuclear plants would make an expeditious move away from fossil fuels possible.

Is it irrational not to do so? Maybe, maybe not. But letting this chance slip away could turn out to be one of the gravest mistakes of the Merkel era.

A belching coal plant is easy to identify as a probable greenhouse gas polluter. Coal emissions are point source pollution—like a chemical spill in a stream, the pollution can be traced back to a specific activity at a precise place.

But is measuring the carbon produced at a power plant the best way to monitor emissions? A team of scientists recently took a different approach to estimating carbon dioxide: the bottleneck method. Instead of considering the pollution emitted only at the end use, burning phase of fossil fuel use, the researchers considered all phases: mining, transport, refining, and burning.

Their study identified the worst emissions offenders, and the results were surprising: oil and gas pipelines. The researchers noted that the companies enabling greenhouse gases emissions are most at risk of climate mitigation lawsuits. //

The bottleneck analysis showed that 9 of the top 10 carbon polluters were oil and gas pipelines (47% and 44%, respectively), while a coal mine took the remaining spot in the top rankings. In comparison, point source methods revealed that the top 10 polluters were oil pipelines (eight spots) and coal mines. //

For natural gas, the biggest emissions came from pipeline transport. The sheer length of pipelines—the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline (Transco) alone branches into more than 16,900 kilometers (10,500 miles) of pipeline from Texas to New York—means there are lots of places to emit gas.

“Especially for older pipelines and pipeline networks, you get leaking. And methane is a pretty severe greenhouse gas,” said Pearce. He noted that fixing or not fixing leaks can be an economic decision for pipeline owners—minor leaks might cost more to repair than the loss of gas into the air.

The bottom line is that Texas has experienced this type of problem multiple times in the past. Unfortunately, the government never took action to ensure that this would not happen again, and more people have died as a result.

The Left wants to use the threat of climate change as a license to remake the entire economy and government along its preferred lines — energy policy, yes, but also everything from transportation to architecture, and from labor law to foreign relations and trade. The argument for replacing natural-gas electricity with wind and solar is that reducing our use of fossil fuels could, if the practice were widespread enough, help to mitigate the effects of climate change already underway.

But there is another way to look at the question. If the predictions are correct and we are set to experience more extreme weather events, including unusually powerful winter storms, then it may be more advisable to invest in adaptation than in the much more uncertain project of severely limiting greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide, a global effort that would require the willing and honest cooperation of countries such as India and China, which are unlikely to comply. //

Of course, we could add a great deal of electricity capacity at a very low carbon cost, if we were so inclined: That means more nuclear power — which, unlike wind and solar, provides a reliable baseline of generation. The new flexible reactors being developed by Bill Gates’ TerraPower could be a game-changer — and the challenges to nuclear power are more a matter of finance and regulation than of science and engineering. Making it easier to bring nuclear power online is something that can be fixed by policy.

Climate change is not, in spite of the insistence of some of my conservative friends, a hoax. But conceding the reality of it is not the same as conceding the Left’s far-reaching schemes, up to and including the so-called Green New Deal. Instead, we should be looking at making intelligent, economical decisions that maximize the use of the desirable resources we already have at our command, balancing environmental concerns with other pressing questions, such as being able to keep Americans’ houses heated and their lights on when a little snow falls in San Antonio.

Cleaner air and a less polluted environment are what those on the left are trying to sell with green energy, but the reality is rolling blackouts, stressed power grids and pollution created by disposing of equipment like wind turbines.

Sustainability is a buzzword politicians use to describe these faulty forms of energy creation because the wind and the sun are thought of as infinite sources of energy.

However, the reality is that the technology used to harness that energy is anything but sustainable — and that matters to the people relying on them hoping not to freeze to death.

The blackouts, which have left as many as 4 million Texans trapped in the cold, show the numerous chilling consequences of putting too many eggs in the renewable basket.Yet these operational errors overshadow the decades of policy blunders that made these blackouts inevitable. Thanks to market-distorting policies that favor and subsidize wind and solar energy, Texas has added more than 20,000 megawatts (MW) of those intermittent resources since 2015 while barely adding any natural gas and retiring significant coal generation.

On the whole, Texas is losing reliable generation and counting solely on wind and solar to keep up with its growing electricity demand. I wrote last summer about how ERCOT was failing to account for the increasing likelihood that an event combining record demand with low wind and solar generation would lead to blackouts. The only surprise was that such a situation occurred during a rare winter freeze and not during the predictable Texas summer heat waves.

Yet ERCOT still should not have been surprised by this event, as its own long-term forecasts indicated it was possible, even in the winter. Although many wind turbines did freeze and total wind generation was at 2 percent of installed capacity Monday night, overall wind production at the time the blackouts began was roughly in line with ERCOT forecasts from the previous week.

We knew solar would not produce anything during the night, when demand was peaking. Intermittency is not a technical problem but a fundamental reality when trying to generate electricity from wind and solar. This is a known and predictable problem, but Texas regulators fooled themselves into thinking that the risk of such low wind and solar production at the time it was needed most was not significant.

Yes, some coal plants closed because of freezing temperatures and some natural gas pipelines froze. But as Jason Isaac of the Texas Public Policy Foundation explains in our pages today, the main problem with the Texas power grid isn’t that renewables failed or that fossil fuels failed. It’s that the grid itself has been made unstable by state and federal subsidies that distort the energy market and prevent the buildup of reliable power generation.

Subsidies for renewables and fossil fuels have been around for a long time in Texas, supported by both Democrats and Republicans. For as much as Texas has a reputation as a deep-red oil and gas state, it was under Republican Gov. Rick Perry that billions were spent on wind turbines and transmission lines in West Texas, spurred on by massive tax credits for wind producers. The same thing happened at the federal level when George W. Bush was governor of the state.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/18/texass-blackouts-are-the-result-of-unreliable-green-energy/

Even with limited water and power, many Texans looked for ways to serve their neighbors and entertain their kids. //

Dallas reached its lowest recorded temperature in history Tuesday night: negative 2 degrees.

Texas produces more electricity than it consumes and maintains a buffer referred to as the “state’s reserve margin.” This margin ensures that we should never have to suffer from rolling blackouts like California.

Then why are so millions of Texans without power right now? Why are we dealing with rolling blackouts?

The answer is all-too-familiar: our relationship with the federal government.

In anticipation of this unprecedented power demand, Texas could have maxed out power generation. However, we couldn’t. Like a lowly beggar, Texas had to first ask for permission from the federal government to generate enough power to keep our people warm. Why? Because cranking up our power plants to full production might violate federal pollution limits.

There is a clear metaphor here. Texans were powerless because our elected officials ceded authority to a slow-moving, uncaring gaggle of federal bureaucrats. //

UPDATE Click here to download the actual order from the federal Department of Energy which specifies ERCOT’s reasons for asking permission including that “…ERCOT has been alerted that numerous generation units will be unable to operate at full capacity without violating federal air quality or other permit limitations.”

The Department of Energy issued an emergency order allowing several Texas power plants to produce as much electricity as possible, a move expected to violate anti-pollution rules that comes amid a deepening electricity crisis in the state that has cut power to millions of homes.

The Energy Department order, requested by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, authorizes power plants throughout the state to run a maximum output levels, even as such a move is anticipated to result in a violation of limits of pollution.

Elon Musk may be trading places with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos these days for the title of the world’s richest person by net worth, but the Tesla and SpaceX CEO also holds a unique place among his fellow billionaires. Based on estimates from anthropologists from Indiana University, Elon Musk may very well be one of the billionaires with the smallest carbon footprint.

People are dying in a state where oil and gas are in abundance. Texas shouldn’t be having a power problem, but it is, and that’s mostly due to the fact that around a quarter of the state’s power comes from green energy.

Carlson pointed this out on his show on Monday night and made it clear that when it comes to green energy, it’s far from reliable, and moreover, the people who push for it don’t even seem to want it themselves.

To qualify for victory, solutions must be able to extract one ton of CO2 per day, and be viable in a scaled, validated model at time of presentation, with the ability to scale it to “gigaton levels” in commercially viable ways in the future

Investigation of coral reefs in the Paracel Islands suggest the South China Sea began warming up in 1825, researchers say
Uranium dating shows samples have a continuous climate record going back to 1520

a New England government official revealed the left’s endgame in fighting the climate in an online meeting he assumed would remain private. Massachusetts Undersecretary for Climate Change David Ismay participated in a meeting with the Vermont Climate Council back in January, where he admitted that when it comes to the big climate “offenders” in their region, there are no bad guys left to break. Ismay went on to say that now the only ones left to “break” are the people.

I know one thing that we found in our analysis is that 60% of our emissions come from – as I have it started to say you and me, except you guys are in Vermont – 60% of our emissions come from residential heating and passenger vehicles. Let me say that again …60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person on your street, the senior on fixed-income. Right now there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at and turn the screws on and no break their will so they stop emitting. That’s you . We have to break your will. //

Herein lies the problem with climate policy specifically, and progressivism in general. Everyone is on board as long as the “big guys” are getting screwed. What the public at large does not know is that progressive government has no intention of stopping at the big guy. They know that small business and the middle class make up the majority of American life, currently. They know that any significant change to American life must be done on the backs of those people. This is the terrifying truth that they dare not utter out loud, because even they know they are advocating for more poverty, more struggle, and less prosperity for the people who pay their salaries. //

Poor people don’t matter. Small business doesn’t matter. Even as all these people are surely using walls, and insulation, and heat, and electricity, they simultaneously are plotting to make sure no one else has those privileges. //

The issue isn’t climate change. The issue is changing human nature and under our Constitution, no man has the right to force changes upon our free will. If people vote for heat it’s because they like being warm in the winter. The will of the voter is intended to be the most powerful voice in the nation. As with the Time article, here we see unabashed, admitted proof that there is a concerted effort to circumvent the will of voters.

These people despise the existence of anyone outside their elitist bubbles. That’s all you need to know.

The Paris Climate Agreement Won't Change the Climate
Bjorn Lomborg
Jan 16, 2017

The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won't do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer--except politicians and environmentalists. Bjorn Lomborg explains.

As a whole, the US's utility-scale battery power is set to grow from 1.2 gigawatts in 2020 to nearly 7.5 gigawatts in 2025, according to Wood MacKenzie, a natural resources research and consulting firm. //

Globally, Gatti projects rapid growth in energy storage, reaching 1.2 terawatts (1,200 gigawatts) in the next decade. ///

We need ~ 100GW per year to combat climate change -- but this is only energy storage. Where does the energy come from?