Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
From the US Department of Silly Statistics (ncdc.noaa.gov) comes this news flash: Since 1980, Texas has had more billion-dollar weather events than any other US state. For example, Texas had over four times as many billion-dollar weather events as neighboring New Mexico.
Reminds me of the farmer who complained that his brown horses were eating nearly twice as much as his black horses. It turned out he had twice as many brown horses!
Texas is the second largest US state (only Alaska is larger) and second most populous (only California has more people). So, despite the dark shading in the above graphic, Texas extreme weather events are not the worst in the nation. When corrected for size, population and infrastructure, other states face greater weather-risk.
So, what is the point of the above graphic? I have no idea. Ask NOAA!
THE SMART PHONE VIDEO EFFECT
I happened upon the ncdc.noaa.gov website while doing research for a presentation on what I call the “Smart Phone Video Effect” – the impact that now ubiquitous smart phone video cameras have had on news reporting.
My theory is that we are seeing more main-stream media reporting on extreme weather disasters because amateur videos are free, available in quantity, near real-time, and quite exciting given all the gore and destruction! Furthermore, weather disasters support the media agenda and focus on the effects of climate change, and the contention they are human-caused and rapidly increasing . (The smart phone video effect may also be distorting our perception of police-involved shootings, political protests, and many other things, not least being cute animal adventures.)
ARE EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS ACTUALLY INCREASING?
Well, the image below, from the NOAA website, seems to indicate a significant increase, but does it stand up to close analysis?
However, that is a distorted story. Note that the height of each bar is based on the NUMBER of billion-dollar disaster events of various types each year, NOT the cost of those events.
Some events, such as “Tropical Cyclone,” average $16B each, while others, such as “Severe Storm,” average only $2.2B each, a factor of seven. The image to the right, from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/summary-stats, shows the large variation in average costs per disaster type.
Combining them in a bar graph as if they are equal reminds me of the “50/50 Horse and Rabbit stew” – one horse and one rabbit!
Also, the yearly COST (indicated by the gray and black lines), while corrected for CPI (Consumer Price Index – basically inflation) does NOT take into account the increase in infrastructure since 1980 due to greater population and larger homes, businesses, and industrial facilities.
US population has increased by 42% since 1980 and infrastructure under risk from extreme weather events has increased even more than that. One indicator of this growth is that GDP per capita, corrected for inflation, has nearly doubled since 1980. Thus, infrastructure has increased far more than CPI.
Thus, if extreme weather events are indeed increasing, it is not by very much!
WHAT IS CLEAR REGARDING CLIMATE-RELATED CHANGES?
I’m reasonably certain of several significant climate-related changes over the past century:
- Global Temperatures have certainly gone up. Perhaps not the 0.8 ⁰C since 1880 claimed by the official Climate Team, but at least 0.6 ⁰C.
- Since 1979, when reliable satellite-based measurements of lower troposphere temperatures became available, temperatures have certainly climbed between 0.4 ⁰C to 0.6 ⁰C.
- Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels have certainly increased by at least a third (to about 400 ppmv from less than 300 ppmv). Perhaps half of that increase is due to human activity.
- All else being equal, increased atmospheric CO2 must increase surface temperatures, because the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is real.
- There may be counteracting effects, such as increased cloudiness due to increased evaporation from warmer ocean surfaces, and we know that daytime clouds have a net cooling effect.
- Furthermore, the statistical “pause” in warming has persisted through continued increases in CO2 levels.
- Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to accept that some percentage of the warming over the past century is due to human activity. What percentage? I’d say at least 10% and perhaps as much as 30%, which would be 0.1 ⁰C to 0.2 ⁰C.
CONCLUSIONS
So, accepting Global Warming, some of it due to human activities, what can we say about an increase in extreme weather events?
Of the eight types of extreme weather events identified by NOAA, I cannot imagine how Global Warming can be responsible for Freeze and Winter Storm!
However, perhaps an argument can be made for Global Warming exacerbating some of the remaining six types:
- Flooding– Well, according to our Watts Up With That “Extreme Weather” Page, precipitation in the contiguous US has increased by 6-7% per century (but year-to-year variation is +/-15%). The worldwide increase in precipitation is about 2% per century (with year-to-year variation of +/- 5%). Thus, it is reasonable to ACCEPT that precipitation is trending up and, therefore, some flooding events are possibly due to Global Warming and thus partially attributable to human activities.
- Drought– At first glance, it seems contradictory that Global Warming could be responsible for both Flooding and Drought. However, the slightly higher surface temperatures that increase evaporation and thus provide the water necessary for increased precipitation could dry out some areas and thus increase Drought. Rain does not always fall in exactly the same area where the water evaporated!
- Wildfire – Given a slight increase in Drought, there could be a bit of increased likelihood of “Wildfire.”
- Severe Storm and Tropical Cyclone. Again, according to our Watts Up With That “Extreme Weather” Page, there are about 500 EF1+ tornadoes in the US per year. However, there does not appear to be any clear trend over the past 50 years. On the other hand, strong to violent tornadoes (EF3+) appear to be DECREASING over the past 50 years. US hurricanes have no clear trend, but global hurricanes since 1978 appear to have a slight DOWNWARD trend. Global tropical cyclones since 1971 appear to have no trend. Thus, it is reasonable to REJECT the assumption that severe storm and cyclone events are due to global warming, and to reject any human responsibility for them.
So, are extreme weather events actually increasing?
Perhaps Flooding events have slightly increased due to greater precipitation. Possibly Drought and Wildfire events are increasing a bit as well. The other event types are most likely not increasing, or, if they are, it is not due to Global Warming.
If so, how much of that increase is due to human activities versus natural variability not under our control?
Perhaps 10% to 30% of the Global Warming since 1880 is due to human activities. Thus, some small percentage of Flooding, Drought and Wildfire events have been increased a bit due to human activities.
If we are responsible for some of that increase, what can and should we do about it?
I do not think we should risk wrecking our economy with drastic, costly energy “solutions”that might cause more damage than a slight increase in extreme weather effects. Obviously, we should not build homes, businesses, or industrial facilities in flood plains. We should reduce the danger of wildfires by prescribed burning of underbrush to deprive future fires of the fuel they need to become wild. It makes sense to conserve energy and encourage development of renewable sources such an solar, wind, water and bio-waste. It also makes sense to encourage development of cleaner domestic energy sources including gas, oil, coal, and nuclear.
The CO2 GHE fails a significant test: a truly IR transparent container like a mylar balloon full of CO2 does not cast a heat shadow.
Propaganda.
And not very good propaganda at that.
It is almost as if they know the games up, and are just going though the motions.
@ Brian H
I liked your comment.
A non-believer could always prove it “wrong” by obtaining two (2) of those truly IR transparent mylar balloons and fill one (1) them full of pure CO2 and fill the other with normal atmospheric air ……. and then place both balloons side-by-side in bright Sunshine and see which one gets the hottest, …… aka, ….. “cast the greatest heat shadow”.
Large Populous States have more Billions of Dollars to lose.
Has nothing to do with either the climate or the weather.
The expensive homes currently being burned to the ground, in the Los Padres Fire, were not caused by either the climate or the weather.
Might have been some illegal pot growers that caused it.
g
Your country and mine have history’s of drought going back Millenia so I dispute the droughts getting worse .
This information is meaningless when presented in a vacuum. It is not that hard to corroborate the purported trend against private market disaster insurance rates and to compare the data. If I was a betting man, I’d put my money on the insurance actuaries well before putting it on NOAA.
Clarification – It is not that hard [ FOR NOAA ] to corroborate
“…It makes sense to conserve energy…”
Yes.
“…and encourage development of renewable sources such an solar, wind, water and bio-waste….”
That very much depends on the cost of those sources relative to other sources.
“…It also makes sense to encourage development of cleaner domestic energy sources including gas, oil, coal…
Again, depending on their relative costs.
“…and nuclear.”
Fer sure, if you can keep the meddling hands of Greens off the construction regulations and get rid of a lot of the accumulated permitting red tape.
Too true!
Agreed! There is no reason, whatsoever, why the drivers of our power generation and other energy markets should not be the same as that that drove the Industrial Revolution: namely open and competitive free markets without any of the present subsidies, tax breaks or guaranteed minimum prices which distort and even destroy such free markets. Power and energy are commodities and, as such, need to be traded in a cost-leadership market; no matter how you dress up and present such “products” they are effectively all the same facility/service needed by customers and clients. The differential is based simply on how you provide such service/facility as available from differing resources in the ground and/or more efficient processes and new means of using and processing such products based on state of the art science and technology, R&D and innovative engineering – all of which increase capacities and/or drive down unit costs!
Even such contentious subjects as man-made CO2 emissions can be accommodated into any honest and meaningful comparisons of the total life cycle unit cost of various power generation systems. Stern and others have investigated and published estimates of the NPV costs per tonne of CO2 of rectifying even the most alarmist consequences of man-made CO2 emissions which can be added to each type of power generation’s total life cycle unit power costs. Other features’ costs such as nuclear waste management and nuclear de-commissioning and full Plant O&M and replacement can also be added in! Such price comparisons between systems should also only between base load systems to provide the honest and meaningful total cost comparisons needed. That means that, for example , any such Power Generation System using Wind Turbines must include the necessary and essential ancillary equipment needed to provide a base load system, i.e. power always being available when needed, such as standby power gas turbines to accommodate no/low wind conditions and additional/enhanced power transmission works to connect power from remote WT’s to areas of actual Power Demand.
The problem with the Renewable Energy supporters and Suppliers is that they still continue to avoid this necessary, honest and meaningful total life cycle base load “apples for apples” cost comparison. They know full well that no matter how much R&D money they throw at present day remedial power systems, and even allowing for Stern’s CO2 savings benefits, they can never even get anywhere near unit costs of alternative power generation systems, particularly Gas Turbines.
Historically, such open free competitive markets have demonstrated that they can provide the needed increased power generation capacities and also drive down prices – through innovative science and engineering. Suppliers who cannot compete on total unit cost prices will simply disappear from the market. Fracking demonstrated this for for Coal Fired Plants in the USA! The world desperately needs a return of this simple market mechanism and strategy. All subsidies, tax breaks and guaranteed prices need to be abolished. At present, available Renewable Energy Power Generation systems should not form any part of present day Power “mixes” – we cannot afford them!
There is no reason, whatsoever, why the drivers of our power generation and other energy markets should not be the same as that that drove the Industrial Revolution: namely open and competitive free markets without any of the present subsidies, tax breaks or guaranteed minimum prices which distort and even destroy such free markets. Power and energy are commodities and, as such, need to be traded in a cost-leadership market; no matter how you dress up and present such “products” they are effectively all the same facility/service needed by customers and clients. The differential is based simply on how you provide such service/facility as available from differing resources in the ground and/or more efficient processes and new means of using and processing such products based on state of the art science and technology, R&D and innovative engineering – all of which increase capacities and/or drive down unit costs!
Even such contentious subjects as man-made CO2 emissions can be accommodated into any honest and meaningful comparisons of the total life cycle unit cost of various power generation systems. Stern and others have investigated and published estimates of the NPV costs per tonne of CO2 of rectifying even the most alarmist consequences of man-made CO2 emissions which can be added to each type of power generation’s total life cycle unit power costs. Other features’ costs such as nuclear waste management and nuclear de-commissioning and full Plant O&M and replacement can also be added in! Such price comparisons between systems should also only between base load systems to provide the honest and meaningful total cost comparisons needed. That means that, for example , any such Power Generation System using Wind Turbines must include the necessary and essential ancillary equipment needed to provide a base load system, i.e. power always being available when needed, such as standby power gas turbines to accommodate no/low wind conditions and additional/enhanced power transmission works to connect power from remote WT’s to areas of actual Power Demand.
The problem with the Renewable Energy supporters and Suppliers is that they still continue to avoid this necessary, honest and meaningful total life cycle base load “apples for apples” cost comparison. They know full well that no matter how much R&D money they throw at present day remedial power systems, and even allowing for Stern’s CO2 savings benefits, they can never even get anywhere near unit costs of alternative power generation systems, particularly Gas Turbines.
Historically, such open free competitive markets have demonstrated that they can provide the needed increased power generation capacities and also drive down prices – through innovative science and engineering. Suppliers who cannot compete on total unit cost prices will simply disappear from the market. Fracking demonstrated this for for Coal Fired Plants in the USA! The world desperately needs a return of this simple market mechanism and strategy. All subsidies, tax breaks and guaranteed prices need to be abolished. At present, available Renewable Energy Power Generation systems should not form any part of present day Power “mixes” – we cannot afford them!
Unfortunately the political power brokers will never let that happen.
Thanks, jorgekafkazar, always great to hear from you. Ira
“Encourage?” Not with my tax dollars!
Allow? By all means. If you want to spend your time and your own money on what you “believe in,” great. Knock yourself out.
“6.Furthermore, the statistical “pause” in warming has persisted through continued increases in CO2 levels.”
What statistical pause is this? The one defined by Monckton is at about 4 months at the moment. I do not know which one you are talking about that has persisted.
Yes, seaice, your freedom of mind is not to know about a persisting statistical pause in warming of 18+ ys while atmospheric CO2 rose from 280 to a ‘tipping point’ 400 ppm.
And your free mind is best stowed at -> /tty/dev/null
seaice1: You are correct that the 18+ year Pause as defied by Monkton was technically ended earlier this year by a sharp spike in short-term global temperature measures. Of course, it is remarkable that the Monkton Pause persisted for nearly two decades despite continued rapid increases in Atmospheric CO2.
When IPCC Model predictions (“projections” as they call them) are compared to actual measured temperature data, with 5% to 95% statistical error margins, the Pause extends back two decades. Indeed, there are a few year-long periods where the lower border of IPCC Model margins (YELLOW) do not even overlap the higher border of actual measurement margins (BLUE). As I pointed out, the chance of that happening at random is less than 1 in 400! Pretty convincing to me.
What I had in mind was what I pointed out here at WUWT a couple months ago, see the second figure in https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/18/ingenious-or-misleading-rational-for-the-pause/.
Ira
Flooding is a function of the rate of water rising in rivers.
The factors impinging on that are:
1. Overall precipitation within a drainage system – the higher it is, the more likely flooding is to occur.
2. Levels of precipitation in extreme events – overall precipitation may not increase, but if the number of storms with 2 inches or more within 12 hrs or less increases, then maybe flooding will increase too.
3. The levels of extreme event precipitation absorbed by the leaves of trees – obviously, the greater the number of trees, the larger those trees are in the areas of heavy rainfall, the more of that rainfall that will be absorbed directly by trees.
4. The ability of the ground onto which rainfall falls to absorb the new moisture – the greater the sponge-like effect of the soil in the areas of heavy rainfall, the longer the time period over which drainage will occur, hence reducing the likelihoods of floods.
5. The depths and widths of canyons available for rainwater to be dissipated through: if the rainfall events of the previous millions of years has created channels more than capable of dispersing the rains, then flooding events are unlikely. If the rainfalls are in historical terms far greater than previously, then obviously the chances of flooding are greater.
6. The presence of overspill channels, ditches etc also provides mechanisms to disperse rainwater without uncontrolled flooding.
Of course, there is a mantra that flooding is ‘bad’. I have to say that I disagree: it is Nature’s way of replenishing fertility into lands near river channels, fertility which has been lost over years of intensive agriculture or the like. A mass of new silt deposited is just what you need every 20 years or so.
It’s just not much good if you have built loads of homes on flood plains.
Go ask native American Indians about that. They would laugh you all out of court…..
But they are just primitive folks who needed to be ‘educated’ by the White Man, aren’t they??
Mmm……..
rtj
You mentioned flood plains.
Certain ‘Permitting Authorities’, if I may call our Councils that, here in the UK seem to have great difficulty with those two modest words – ‘flood’ and ‘plain’.
Flood plains do what it says on the can.
They’re pretty level – and they flood.
So why are new buildings allowed on flood plains?
Obviously, it cannot be corruption [not even noble-cause corruption], as everyone in Local Government is a saint.
So – why?
Auto – confused.
Property taxes.
One also may suspect the fact that texas has a substantial coastline, as opposed to new mexico, to play a part. Floods and high winds tend to favor low country and seascapes.
Texas gets a lot more moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, than New Mexico.
New Mexico has moisture? Who knew?
The Norvejun: What you say about coastline is true, but you miss my point about the inanity of how the NOAA website shades state areas. Texas has 83 billion-dollar extreme weather events. If it was divided into four regions with 20 or 21 events in each region, each of those regions would be the same shade as New Mexico, which has 20 billion-dollar events. My point is that the NOAA method of shading state areas according to the total number of events in that state will automatically, and unjustly, make larger, more populous states a darker shade! Ira
I am not disagreeing, just pointing out that it will further exaggerate the problem. Most structures will probably stand up to a new mexican drought better than a texan hurricane, and the drought would probably hit texas as well. The map may have some value for economists but no have no value in natural science.
When we see massive numbers of Texans fleeing from “climate change”, we’ll know there’s a problem.
Yes! I rather think that people are moving here to enjoy It!
Paying lower taxes trump paying the cost of weather events in most people’s minds.
1 thing that’s bugged me a little is how Floods can change due to land usage, and not just a change in Climate. Big example is when i was visiting my sister in Fort Walton Beach Florida. I was there 3 weeks, had tons of pop up storms (as is frequent there) and most times it would flood because there isn’t any sewer system to take the water away. would just back up down the road till wherever it was backed up further down the way, had cleared. Pretty crappy system. Same thing happened in Paris with the flooding if I’m not mistaken.
The same thing happened in England, on the western coast, I think, where they stopped dredging the rivers to make them more “natural.” Flooding ensued. Imagine that.
If the people who decided to stop dredging the rivers lived in an area that got flooded due to that change, you can bet the dredging would start again in a heartbeat. >:-(
oeman
Those were – are – the Somerset Levels.
Is there a clue there wh floods could be extensive?
On a Flood Plain?
Auto
‘wh’ = why
Sorry
I sometimes wonder if the theory had not been espoused about dangerous AGW whether we would consider that there was anything unusual about the climate. The same with frequency of weather events. I think skeptics give to many concessions to assume that man is responsible for some of the global warming and there is a correlation of CO 2 ang global warming. I think that some skeptics make concessions so as not to sound like loonies. The truth is that the only loonies are the warmists.
David S: I don’t think it is “too many concessions” to state my firmly-held, scientific, fact-based belief that the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is real, and that the major “greenhouse” gases, Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) are responsible for the Earth surface being some 30 C warmer than they would be if the Atmosphere was pure nitrogen. It is established beyond serious doubt that additional “greenhouse” gases in the Atmosphere will raise surface temperatures. The only serious scientific issue is the “climate sensitivity” of surface temperatures to increases in CO2. The IPCC says the surface will warm 1.5 to 4 C if CO2 doubles. I estimate the sensitivity at 0.5 to 1 C. Ira
Humans definitely are responsible for a large part in the increase in damaging floods. Over 50 years ago, I could not understand why people would buy a home in a brand new housing addition with concrete slab floors mere inches above ground level when across the highway, built on the same wide expanse of fertile land (which had not been cultivated but used only for pecan trees and minor grazing) were houses fifty and seventy five years old which had concrete foundations which raised the main floor six to eight feet above ground level.
The city I live in has finally realized that it is necessary to build retention ponds to hold rainwater which runs off roofs, roads,and other improvements which prevent it from being held by vegetation and irregular surfaces and some of it allowed to soak into ground instead of dumping all of it into the nearby stream or river as quickly as possible. I suspect the the main reason for this was that as the city grew, it became increasingly expensive to dump it all into the streams and rivers quickly enough to avoid local damage.
This city does have a significant river along one edge (I suspect it is responsible for the city being here) which has been affected by the inconsiderate population upstream which dumps increasing amounts of rainwater into it. To prevent flooding (as we continued to encroach into its floodplain), a dam was constructed a short distance upstream. This was a major dam and the design and capacity was such that it had a filling schedule of six years to avoid damaging the downstream areas by depriving them of too much water. Six months to the day after closing the gates to begin filling, the water was running through out city at design flood level and all responsible parties were hoping that it would quit raining in the watershed before they had to allow the water to raise above that flood level through the city.
While my knowledge of agriculture practices is limited, I suspect that the conversion of natural landscape into well drained cropland has also affected the speed at which rainfall can be dumped into the streams and rivers.
The lower Mississippi River has become a textbook example of what happens when a growing population affects the water flow along a thousands miles of tributaries and government experts are allowed to decide that they can contain the resultant within the desired locations.
I would pose the following question: “Would damage from floods and storms be as severe as it currently is if there were no federal insurance targeted for specific locations that might not really be the best places for development?”
I think that there is a growing understanding that our forest management practices are not working out very well and have resulted in a tremendous inventory for excess fuel available to fuel forest fires.
I read about the disastrous fires in southern California and remember my years at college in Pasadena California. It was a not uncommon occurrence to be able (when the wind blew the smoke a direction to allow us to see that far) to watch fires in the mountains just beyond the built up areas. It was more or less a joke among the students that the natural course of progress was: 1) Terrace off the hillside to build expensive homes. 2) Put in much vegetation to provide as much privacy as possible. 3) Wait for an inevitable dry spell so a wildfire can burn off the vegetation. 4) Stand aside for a rain so the mudslides can prepare a new slope for further development.
The statistics about disaster damage would be a lot more informative to me if, instead of talking about dollar (even CPI adjusted dollars), they would divide the damage into three categories:
1) Damage to privately insured property as a percent of the insured value of property insured by private insurance in that area.
2) Damage to property insured through government backed insurance as a percent of the insured value of property insured through government backed insurance in that area.
3) Damage to uninsured property as a percent of uninsured property in that area. It might be of use to try to subdivide this category into property which was not insurable and that which was simply not insurable at a price that they owners would pay.
Keep in mind that the local governments, who collect property taxes, do not insure those properties. They could care less about the cost of insurance. The doctrine of “highest and best use” refers to developing the property to the best use to ensure the highest taxes.
No discussion of extreme weather or the costs of disasters is complete without at least a mention and hat tip to The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change
by Roger Pielke Jr. . eBook versions are available from Amazon free or almost free.
The problem with the precipitation studies is that they analyzed precipitation stations en mass, all those that existed since 1895 in an area such as the eastern two thirds of the US. They then find typically that there were 500 stations with no statistically significant increase, 75 stations with a significant increase, 25 stations with a significant decrease. On the basis of 1 station in 8 having a significant increase they conclude that we’re all going to drown!
Looking at the data from Iowa, the trends were from 1895 to 1930, no trend. From 1930 to 1970, a significantly increasing trend. From 1970 to now, no trend. Though there was a change, there is not a continuing increase.
Wildfires
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/24/new-study-shows-no-wildfire-is-increases-due-to-global-warming-slight-decline-in-recent-decades-noted/
Charlie: Thanks for the link. I read it with interest. Their point appears to be that there has been a slight decline in recent decades but that there are regional variations. They also appear to say that climate change (i.e., warming) may increase wildfire risk. Perhaps the slight decline in recent decades has to do with better management of underbrush and fire prevention. Ira
Why am I waiting for the “Don’t Mess With Texas” to pop up somewhere?
Meanwhile Oklahoma is asking itself….”Hey how come we aren’t invited to the party?!”
NOAA compared Texas with New Mexico?? WHY?! Seriously….WHY??!!!
Jenn Runion: NOAA did not specifically compare Texas to New Mexico, that was an example I chose because they are neighboring states. Their methodology implicitly compares all states to all others and Texas gets an especially dark shading. My point was that simply counting the NUMBER of billion dollar extreme weather events and shading the whole state accordingly was flawed and had no meaning because it unfairly shades larger, more populous states. Ira
I just don’t see a human connection to the changing weather.
Agreed, CO2 will theoretically affect the heat in the atmosphere, but we can’t say for certain how much, and we can’t say that there are not feedbacks in the climate system that negate this CO2 warming, so I don’t see how anything happening with our weather can be pointed to with confidence as having been caused by humans.
It’s pure speculation, to claim humans are changing the climate. There is no evidence of such.
Amazing NOAA manages to be not accurate or precise, pure junk science/statistics.
Does that running 5 year mean make sense?
You guess that 10-30% of the recent warming is due to human activity. I guess more like 1-2%. They are both equally valid guesses, and we may never know who is right, so why bother playing that game?
Also wind and especially solar, have a negative EROI, so they make no sense in any scenario. They also destabilize the grid and require conventional standby generators, so why not just skip the “renewable” nonsense and just build the conventional plants.
By any metric the new “renewables” sources (which is now codename for unworkable, subsidized, unreliable sources) or Dems favorites are perform very badly compared to traditional, economic, sources, or Repubs favorites. Any metric, including minimisation of CO2 output.
The Sherman Act says you must identify the relevant market: what do customers really want? What choices can they make? The customers want energy at the right time at the right place, not green goodies. Nobody is buying “whatever comes out of your unreliable generator”. There is no market for such “random” energy.
Only by doing fake accounting where you clip the picture can you show that wind turbines have low CO2 output. The whole picture includes the whole real marketplace, not the fake “renewable tariffs” marketplace. Reals markets don’t want to buy random productions.
Also, these intermittent sources clearly breaks “antitrust” laws (anti predatory behavior actually). Wind energy producers in particular have patent predatory behavior. And “Europe” (*) is letting go, as EU is really Germany controlled.
(*) EU, which is usually quite severe with illegal state helps, going as far as telling French fruit producers to give back the money they received from the French government several years ago
Another reason Texas has more loss from extreme weather is due to its quite varied geography.
Not many states experience costal hurricanes, east & South-TX floods, west-TX droughts, tornadoes (TX has the most reported), etc.
I do not accept that the changes are in anyway abnormal as the pattern of climate long term was first accurately catalogued by a historian in a post grad study of flooding in the UK and verified by a team of engineers in the sixties. The UK may be small but it is surprisingly representative if you look reasonably long term. The pattern analysis projections have in hindsight been at least an order of magnitude better than those of the climate scientists. Climate has not varied outside the long term noise range even after considerable fudging by the climate fraternity when you compare it, not to the facile and archaic projection method used by climate scientists, but by best in class historical and engineering practice projections of climate.
Climate has a complex multi cyclic pattern and it may or may not be relevant that some are coincidentally the duration of things like the the interval when lunar and solar years peak.
Really?
“All else being equal” is a patent contradiction, an absurdity.
What is “else”?