I keep coming back here to see what’s new and, as an organic chemist, I feel obligated to figure out what that is. It’s:
5-BROMO-2,4-DIMETHOXYBENZALDEHYDE (2-NITRO-4-(TRIFLUOROMETHYL)PHENYL)HYDRAZONE CAS Number 310438-24-5
How on earth did you happen to land on that bad boy (to use the technical term)? I can’t figure out what it’s used for, but it’s made by Merck KgA, so probably a drug, a drug candidate or precursor molecule.
First Open Thread ever to kick off with a chemistry class !!!!
Were I decent artist I would have ginned up a phony but funny giant 3D biochemical model for BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) and Bovaer
As it is, most people should get the point that our pink haired & nose ringed friends on the left are hypocrites if nothing else. Yeah I woulda drawn one of those smug raving lunatics instead of stealing some emoticons if I had the talent.
I don’t need to tell you this, but they’re also completely stooopid. I could write a long post on, I hardly day say it – the processing of cheese since about 1985 and any connection it might have to GMO. It ain’t what they think it is but, out of respect for the people who funded the program, my lips are sealed (and my mouse’s too).
Science I, organic chemistry, 1970 era, required the ability to name chemicals correctly according the standards of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, IUPAC. Requires study before proficiency.
AFAIK, it is still in effect. Geoff S
Oh yes it still is. My best friend is still a biopharmaceutical guy. He told me that the compound in question, which I believe is named above by IUPAC nomenclature, is probably some compound that came out of a combinatorial chemistry library screen and had some biological effects that were worth either patenting or publishing, hence it being given a CAS Number.
On Monday, concrete will be poured into Britain’s last two shale gas wells in Lancashire. Cuadrilla Resources, which owns the license at the Preston New Road site, is being forced to destroy the wells by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), which has ordered that the wells be ‘plugged with cement and decommissioned’ by 30 June. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmer-must-fight-milibands-fracking-luddism/
i understand them pretty good but got criticized for using too many so now use very few which confuses some people apparently including you from the sound of it sorry for that.
Personally, I think that to err on the side of using more than necessary is preferable to not using enough. I have always operated by the principle that if a sentence is ambiguous, or I felt that some might find confusing, which adding a comma may correct, that I should add a comma, critics be damned. The point of writing is communication. If an extra comma or two improves readability (such as by introducing a pause that would happen in speech), then go for it.
It has been said that LinkedIn is hard on skeptics of climate alarm. So we’ll see what happens with this recent post I put up there. No warnings so far. The good thing about LinkedIn is that most folks are there mainly for business networking. Lots of technically trained industrial employees and business owners are active there.
*************
The claims of a climate crisis based on the radiative effects of rising concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O, and other non-condensing IR-active gases rely on a fundamental misconception. The core claim is that the surface temperature must rise to restore the previous IR emission to space. This framing fails to properly account for what is happening dynamically in the general circulation of the atmosphere. I have posted a very short time-lapse video of plots to Youtube to get this point across. Link below. The concept of energy conversion is well known in the meteorological discipline: [internal energy + potential energy] <–> [kinetic energy]. The ERA5 reanalysis model computes hourly values as the “vertical integral of energy conversion” parameter. The bottom line is that the potential influence of continuing emissions of CO2 and the other gases on any trend of any metric of climate interest is negligible. I realize this may not sit very well with many who have come to believe otherwise, but nevertheless this is important to understand. At the video, please be sure to read the full Readme text description. Thank you for your attention.
So far mr. Dibbell’s presentations are on the top of my list of thorough explanations of the energy system of Earth’s atmosphere. I keep coming back to his views and it gives perspective and context to the current debate about the role of GHE and radiation. I dont think there is a perfect answer. Let me rephrase that: the perfect answer is that there IS no perfect set of equations to ‘solve’ the many dynamic elements within the system. But mr Dibbell would be closest to my own views.
Thanks for this reply. It’s an important reminder to me to not get stuck on a narrow line of evidence or argument, as valid as it may be. There are multiple ways to describe and explain things for improved understanding.
DD,
FWIW, I have been writing similar material to your summary here for decades now, often phrased as a requirement to look beyond the “front end” radiative gas physics to determine what happens to that “delayed cooling” or “trapped heat” or whatever the current pop science names it. But the social system in many countries is structured to cancel science that is not the “settled” science.
p.s. David W, please use more commas as guided by text books. Geoff S.
The bottom line is that the potential influence of continuing emissions of CO2 and the other gases on any trend of any metric of climate interest is negligible
This conclusion is too strong. It’s more appropriate to conclude the influence could not be detected. The idea is simply that CO2 influences the radiative emission level, irrespective of the underlying energy conversions.
Saying that DO2’s “influence could not be detected” is another way of conceding that, compared to other forms of energy transport in the atmosphere, CO2’s contribution is negligible. A conclusion with which I agree!
I wonder about that. I would think that a solid block of CO2 would absorb and emit along the entire spectrum of thermal radiation, as opposed to the specific lines absorbed and emitted by gaseous CO2. Any opinions on this?
Planck radiation along a continuum of frequencies is a property of thermal radiation, which in turn is a property of condensed matter, e.g. dry ice. This differs from CO2 in its gaseous state, which emits only at specific frequencies. If you have evidence that the emission spectra for both are ‘predominantly’ the same, I’d be pleased if you could share it, otherwise I could do without the snark.
The base of the 15 μm peak as well as the adjacent “wings” are at the mesopause. This is indicative of CO2 absorption from the tropospheric emission of water vapor. The CO2 is only in emission at the mesopause, and that is the central Q-Band peak only. Emission occurs when the rate of spontaneous emission exceeds the rate of collisional de-excitation, aka thermalization.
The area under the “notch” in the spectrum is from water vapor emissions that were not absorbed by CO2.
This is apparent from the green “zero CO2” curve in figure 7 of van Wijngaarden and Happer (2023), also shown and explained in figures 17 and 18 of Harde (2013).
“The idea is simply that CO2 influences the radiative emission level . . . ” is correct, but in practice produces completely the opposite effect to what GHE believers imply.
Raymond Pierrehumbert correctly said “CO2 is just planetary insulation” – impeding the flow of energy both to and from the planetary surface.
The result is that daytime maxima are lower, and nighttime minima higher, than the atmosphere-free Moon.
CO2 does not increase already warm days, but may make bitterly cold regions slightly more “equable”, to use Arrhenius’ word.
Anybody disagreeing just has to notice that the highest and lowest temperatures on Earth occur where GHGs are least.
No GHE induced “global warming.” Just more man-made waste heat.
“This conclusion is too strong. It’s more appropriate to conclude the influence could not be detected. The idea is simply that CO2 influences the radiative emission level, irrespective of the underlying energy conversions.”
After sleeping on it, I offer this response to affirm that “negligible” is a reasonable word to use along with “undetectable” in describing the influence on the end result. I would agree that the influence in the case of a static atmosphere is more than “negligible” – but that case does not exist.
Energy conversion is not only “underlying” in respect to the average emission level. It is active above and below, within the entire depth of the troposphere.
For the 2XCO2 static case, the change in the radiative emission level is about 200 meters. It is readily observed from the Band 16 visualizations that the implied radiating level varies actively from the top of the troposphere down to the surface. Considering the ~12km depth of the circulation, 200m is tiny. https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
To summarize: A negligible influence in the end result is reasonable to expect, after considering the dynamics and clouds, even as the computed influence on the static effect is a non-negligible value.
thanks, very interesting. If you’re suggesting the system has already spun up and so the dynamic effects become dominant I don’t think it’s in dispute. In such a case the direct effects of CO2 become encrypted in the dynamic response. Therefore, detection becomes a challenge, because any “potential” effects are manifest as dynamic response. Examples include cloud fraction, cloud height, the general circulation, and ultimately the path of OLR and solar radiation incoming and outgoing.
While I understand that NASA calls band 16 the “Carbon Dioxide” band (their quotation marks, not mine), the band from 13.0-13.6 μm is quite close to the peak of water vapor emissions. The emissions seen in these visualizations are not from CO2, they are from water vapor that emits fiercely in this range. CO2 absorbs a large fraction of the H2O emission in the 14-16 μm range, but not all of it. Outside that range, it absorbs less.
The emissions in Band 16 provide a dynamic perspective to show how water vapor emission that is not visible in the “clear sky atmospheric column” is released to space from tops of clouds, particularly storm cells, and other areas where water vapor emission can readily escape to space (at high altitudes, for example). This is how the “missing energy”, the so-called “GHE” which drives the atmospheric circulation is eventually radiated to space, via weather.
The 15 μm band of CO2 and its “wings” at the bottom of the spectrum divot are constantly thermalized up to the mesopause, and cannot emit to space until that altitude is reached, ~80km. This is why the impact of CO2 is negligible.
Thank you for your reply, Tom. From the gas phase in clear skies and above cloud tops, I know of no way to reliably apportion the Band 16 IR signal detected at the satellite to H2O or CO2 (or to aerosols, for that matter.) It makes good sense to me to suppose that whatever part of the signal originated in the gas phase is nearly all from H2O emission, perhaps “helped” at short range by CO2. But would you agree that energy conversion, as demonstrated in the time-lapse video of plots from ERA5, overwhelms whatever incremental radiative effect has been claimed for CO2 in any case?
Thanks for the reply David. I felt that I needed to know more about the ERA5 reanalysis in order to provide an informed response. It is most interesting and I now appreciate why you place so much emphasis on it.
I would agree with your last statement.
it is my position that the so-called “GHE”, which some would define as the difference between the surface Planck curve and the spectrum of modeled TOA radiation, is simply energy that drives the atmospheric circulation. The ERA5 analysis is a quite vivid representation of how this energy circulates through the atmospheric system globally. This energy doesn’t accumulate, it is bled off by weather systems that create high altitude concentrations of water vapor that radiate the excess energy to space on a continuing basis (as can been seen in band 16).
This is not something that can be seen by modeling a single, static atmospheric column.
Thanks for following up, Tom.
About the Band 16 visualizations, you say,
“This is not something that can be seen by modeling a single, static atmospheric column.” Exactly. And all those simplified explanations of the GHE fail to address the active suppression of outgoing LW radiation by the formation and dissipation of clouds. How much energy is being retained down here? Just enough. Dynamic self-regulation. I appreciate the dialogue.
David’s stuff is great for visualizing what goes on in the energy transfer regime from a satellite view….
Lets do some grade 11 physics calcs…
Doubling of CO2 causes a forcing of about 3 watts per sq.M by W&H, Harde, Modtran….
lets say the entire 3 watts goes into causing motion of the air above that one square meter.
Up to top of troposphere, that’s about 8000 kg of air.
By KE=1/2MV^2, that works out to a velocity of .0027 M/S. Compared to average wind velocity we already have, guess 5 M/sec, or thunderstorm updrafts of 50 M/S, that extra 3 watts is immeasurably insignificant and will do SFA as far as increased atmospheric turbulence.
If on the other hand, you let the entire 3 watts turn into thermal energy of molecular motion rather than kinetic energy of bulk air motion, it’s still less than a degree by Stephan Boltzmann, and 3 degrees if you assume that “heat” is magically held at ground level by lack of convection, lack of evaporation, reflected back by clouds, etc….
So basically the “increase in extreme weather” is just a Chicken Little “Sky is falling” fable of which some people believe that the odd hailstorm is proof that Chicken Little’s story has the proof of “science” behind it.
A politician can use the story to tax the henhouse…an engineer with a calculator just scoffs…
I like back-of-the-envelope “reality-check” exercises! But in this example, please review the units. The kinetic energy of an object can be expressed in joules, but a Watt, being a unit of power, is one joule per second.
Yes. For example, using your numbers, at a 5 m/sec velocity, 8,000 kg has a kinetic energy of 100,000 joules. Applying 3 W for an hour adds 3,600 joules. Not much, and plenty of time for circulation, dissipation, etc.
Also philbrokenrecordincalifornia reminds you that we horrid humans haven’t doubled CO2 above the recognized starting 280ppm. Logarithmically speaking we did half-double the effect at 396ppm, so we’re still at about 1.5 W. Also, that’s according to theory, and according to the assumption that all CO2 above 280ppm is anthropogenic, which can’t be totally true because warmer oceans outgas.
Great discussion guys. Kind of end-of-story really.
Repeat,
The 280 ppm pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 figure is unsafe for use. It involves discarding a large number of early chemical analysis results simply because they are higher than 280 ppm and so do not fit the narrative. There are valid reasons to reject some of these early analyses, but not the majority of them.
A couple of papers by Beck describe this cancel, but for now society has passively accepted cancel culture techniques in climate research. President Trump might be reducing cancel culture use right now with moves that, irrespective of political complications, must be good for the better quality of science. Geoff S.
Yeah Geoff, I read all those papers once upon a time, but most people use that number, so I did. There was an article on here, last month I think, showing lower levels over active vegetation (below 10 meters). Very complex, despite being …….
A cooling fan in a laptop is about 3 watts, like the CO2 forcing per sq.M. One can visualize what a small fraction of turbulence that 3 W fan can induce in a column of air 1 M X 1 M and 10 Km tall (the height of the troposphere), or an air parcel 20.5 M X 20.5 M X 20.5 M, (same number of Cu.M) compared to what we already have moving around.
My cocktail party trope with which I bore everybody is “It’s undeniable that the most destructive, conspicuous measurable weather phenomenon hasn’t become more frequent or intense for a century. So you’re telling me that climate change sort of excludes cyclones? Where’s your stats for flood, drought, fire?. And why all these scares? Still got a polar bearskin for demos?”
I hear you. I am retired. Something Roy Spencer said recently comes to mind:
“Even my career has depended upon Congress being convinced the issue is worthy of big budgets.”
But from another angle, nothing about what I posted is inherently political. It is technical. But it’s a shame it has become so politically charged.
Why do people say Sir Stalin? The only problem in the UK is the appalling islamophobia. Why can’t you gents just keep a stiff upper lip whilst being stabbed and run down?
Islamophobia? From here, people appear reluctant to speak out.The UK elites hate their Western heritage, hate Christianity and hate themselves. The people seem resigned to spend their lives as powerless, voiceless, forgotten proles.
CD,
The seated guy to the right of Vice President Gore at this WEF talk appears to be alleged billionaire Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, rich from mining Australian iron ore. Geoff S
Rich Davis
March 15, 2025 8:41 am
Meanwhile up in the GWN (Great White North aka 51st State), the WEF has installed their puppet Mark Carney to replace Justin Castro-Truedope. A three-nationality Goldman-Sachs man who has never received a single vote for any elective office.
They’re defending Democracy by abolishing it.
The latest scam is to temporarily set the consumer carbon tax to zero while touting it as abolishing it. Hopefully even the dimmest Canuck will grasp that this is a lie and a cynical election ploy.
People really do NOT understand what DJT is doing by using the “51st state” and “Governor” Trudeau lines. I think it’s hilarious, and very effective to plant ideas as seeds out there, even in the minds of his detractors.
I’m not sure myself what the Prez is doing on this point. I don’t blame any Canadian such as the estimable Pierre Poilievre taking exception to the perceived disrespect. Not doing so is weak.
Canada depends on US markets but has forever had protectionist tariffs against US products. I think that Canada and the US would be better off in a fully-free trade economic union, but I would not like to see a second California added to our federal union. What would be maybe better would be to trade California to Canada in exchange for Alberta.
Ha, Ha
”Has Forever had protectionist tariffs”.
US dairy industry is 10 X the size of Canadian dairy. US production has volume swings that could easily put Canadian dairy farmers out of business, then have retailers at the mercy of US wholesalers who are a different breed than US farmers. US government has major farm support programs while Canada allows producer associations some control over maintaining prices at economically survivable production levels. Most US producers would probably prefer the Canadian system rather than be at the mercy of government programs. All countries protect their farm production knowing that in extreme times they would rather have something to eat than nothing….
The 230% tariff Trump talks about is after a preset quota which has 0% tariff. Nobody has ever paid it, US exports to Canada about 1/2 of a level that would cause the tariffs to take effect, and Canada is US agriculture’s largest export market. So it’s a political posturing issue which will likely result in Canada dropping the 230% that has never been collected and Trump can declare a “big win” for US farmers.
That’s interesting, I was not aware of a tariff-free quota.
I still would prefer a lighter hand by governments on both sides, though. Why not eliminate the quotas if they aren’t even doing anything? I suspect that there are some quotas that are being reached for other products?
DMac
I want to just say that I don’t like to see disrespect aimed at Canada and I hope that Trump’s bullying of Trudeau, which he arguably deserved, can be separated from any humiliation of Canada as a neighbor and ally of the United States. (But I am sensitive to the fact that Trump’s remarks were humiliating and I wish that he would have aimed more squarely at the Liberal government and had expressed more respect for the Canadian people).
As is so often the case, I find myself nodding along with Jordan Peterson in this interview with Pierre Poilievre. I hope that Canada will be wise enough to turn to this common sense leader and we can return to the good old days of Reagan & Mulroney.
Every day i am hoping for a correction, some sense of balance. Common sense. Even: one one hand, on the other hand type of thinking.
But, and it really doesnt matter which subject it seems there is only 1 accepted narrative and it needs to be hammered down forcefully. Reality does not have a place or only to reinforce the narrative.
It’s a mad world..
Im afraid it is something more than money. The constantly shifting aspect of weaponising fear, moving now from climate to Russia and Covid prior to that is indication of shifting political tectonic plates and Empire fear. Ie: powerplays where money is used to retain it. This looks like conspiratorial efforts by the elites to me. I used to object to people calling me a conspiratorial theorists but i now say: thank you! At least im not stuck in a maze of unproven hypotheses like the alarmistas. A badge of honour..🙂
The upside of this story, we have Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) showing us, that the all the nonsense about Climate Change dictating what automobiles we are allowed to buy and operate, is over.
story tip
Rich Davis
March 16, 2025 5:40 am
The loony left media are just so transparently biased it is almost funny to me.
SpaceX brings the Boeing astronauts back from the ISS safely after they were stranded there for 9 months by NASA and Boeing. (Hopefully that’s coming later today).
So you might have thought that the story would be that Trump asked Elon Musk to rescue the pair and now they are being returned safely home thanks to SpaceX and President Trump’s initiative.
Not only did they not credit SpaceX at all (and naturally gave no credit to Trump), but initially Salon tried to refer to the ‘SpaceX Starliner’ that had stranded the (Boeing/NASA) astronauts there.
That had been the only reference to SpaceX in the long article focused on all the ill effects expected from long duration space flight. Now the only reference to SpaceX is this:
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Starliner is a SpaceX spacecraft. Starliner was developed by Boeing.
Well done, Elizabeth Hlavinka! Your assignment was to report that the stranded astronauts are headed back to earth, but make sure Elon Musk doesn’t get any credit. You overachieved by not only memory-holing any reference to SpaceX rescuing them, but your chosen artifice for obfuscation was to hype the dangers of extended space flight that ‘billionaire’ Musk touts for going to Mars.
And I would argue more out of malice than ignorance, you tried to make it look like it was actually SpaceX that stranded the astronauts in the first place! Classic disinformation!
Elon Musk thinks we should deorbit the International Space Station earlier than the scheduled deorbit in 2030.
I would argue against bringing down the space station modules. We spent a lot of money putting them up there, and they are in good condition and are still useful.
We need an artificial gravity test/proof-of-concept platform in space and reusing the space station modules would fit the purpose.
What we should do is get ourselves a strong, cable, one mile long and put it in orbit. We should attach a space station module or two to one end of the cable, and the equivalent mass to the other end of the cable.
We then rotate these space station modules around the center of the cable at a speed of one revolution per minute. This will produce artificial gravity inside the modules that will feel like the equivalent of the gravity on the surface of the Earth.
From all I’ve seen, Earth-like gravity is going to be an essential part of humans moving into space. The human body does not like low-gravity environments.
So, on the ends of our cable we are producing artificial gravity equivalent to Earth’s surface gravity.
If we put a module at the center of the cable, we would experience close to zero gravity, with the gravity increasing the farther up/down the cable you go, so we could see how humans do in a Mars gravity situation by placing a couple of modules at a certain distance from the center of the cable. We could simulate gravity from zero to full Earth gravity using our rotating space station.
So let’s not throw these valuable space station habitats away, let’s use them to advance humanity’s movement into the Solar System.
Musk can incorporate artificial gravity into his Mars missions and keep his people healthy on the long trip there.
Let’s DOGE the space station. Use our resources efficiently! 🙂
Renewables are cheaper than ever – except in British Columbia:
BC Hydro Customers to See Annual 3.75% Rate Increase Over Next 2 Years
BC Hydro customers will face a rate hike this year and in 2026, leadingto an increase of $3.75 per month for an average household, the province says.
B.C. Energy Minister Adrian Dix announced March 17 that he had directed the B.C. Utilities Commission to apply a 3.75 percent increase in hydro rates each year for the next two years, for a total increase of 7.5 percent by 2026.
A typical household in the province pays roughly $100 a month for heat and electricity, the province said in a press release. With this year’s rate increase, the average homeowner will pay $103.75 per month. The rate change takes effect April 1 and the second 3.75 percent increase will be implemented next April.
The utility claims increased costs, inflation, infrastructure changes, and tariffs as the reason for the change – although it should be noted that the tariffs threatened by the U.S. have not yet been engaged. There does seem to be a lack of transparancy on the rest:
Conservative MLA David L. Williams, his party’s critic for BC Hydro, called for more transparency in the rate decision.
“I have little faith in the current BC Hydro increase,” Williams said in a social media post. “Let’s see the books..with all costs accounted for. Residents need affordable, reliable energy and [do] not want anyfuture shock.”
New wind projects will boost B.C.’s affordable clean-energy supply
BC Hydro has selected nine energy projects through its 2024 call for power that will supply clean, affordable electricity to serve B.C.’s growing communities and housing needs, as people and businesses choose clean energy in their lives, homes, vehicles and businesses.
BC Hydro selects three wind projects for 30-year electricity agreements
anuary 23, 2025
VANCOUVER — Capstone Infrastructure Corporation has announced the execution of three 30-year Electricity Purchase Agreements with BC Hydro alongside Indigenous partners.
The three wind projects – Brewster, Highland Valley, and Mount Mabel – were selected by the Crown corporation in its recent Call for Power and will have a total combined capacity of 537 MW.
Despite having developed access to some of the world’s cheapest and most reliable, dispatchable hydroelectric power, having access to some of the cheapest oil and gas in the world, and despite having a guaranteed price agreement, BC Hydro’s “investment” in wind power raises costs for all its customers.
Thrown together yesterday
I get your point, but that ain’t 3-nitrooxypropanol. Try this:
Thanks, my search was probably wrong too.
I keep coming back here to see what’s new and, as an organic chemist, I feel obligated to figure out what that is. It’s:
5-BROMO-2,4-DIMETHOXYBENZALDEHYDE (2-NITRO-4-(TRIFLUOROMETHYL)PHENYL)HYDRAZONE CAS Number 310438-24-5
How on earth did you happen to land on that bad boy (to use the technical term)? I can’t figure out what it’s used for, but it’s made by Merck KgA, so probably a drug, a drug candidate or precursor molecule.
First Open Thread ever to kick off with a chemistry class !!!!
Were I decent artist I would have ginned up a phony but funny giant 3D biochemical model for BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) and Bovaer
As it is, most people should get the point that our pink haired & nose ringed friends on the left are hypocrites if nothing else. Yeah I woulda drawn one of those smug raving lunatics instead of stealing some emoticons if I had the talent.
I don’t need to tell you this, but they’re also completely stooopid. I could write a long post on, I hardly day say it – the processing of cheese since about 1985 and any connection it might have to GMO. It ain’t what they think it is but, out of respect for the people who funded the program, my lips are sealed (and my mouse’s too).
Science I, organic chemistry, 1970 era, required the ability to name chemicals correctly according the standards of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, IUPAC. Requires study before proficiency.
AFAIK, it is still in effect. Geoff S
Oh yes it still is. My best friend is still a biopharmaceutical guy. He told me that the compound in question, which I believe is named above by IUPAC nomenclature, is probably some compound that came out of a combinatorial chemistry library screen and had some biological effects that were worth either patenting or publishing, hence it being given a CAS Number.
UK hoping to work with China to counteract Trump’s climate-hostile policies
Ed Miliband, the UK’s energy and net zero secretary, arrived in Beijing on Friday for three days of talks with top Chinese officials, including discussions on green technology supply chains, coal and the critical minerals needed for clean energy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/14/uk-hoping-to-work-with-china-to-counteract-trumps-climate-hostile-policies
Net Zero sense.
On Monday, concrete will be poured into Britain’s last two shale gas wells in Lancashire. Cuadrilla Resources, which owns the license at the Preston New Road site, is being forced to destroy the wells by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), which has ordered that the wells be ‘plugged with cement and decommissioned’ by 30 June.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmer-must-fight-milibands-fracking-luddism/
It’s a relentlessly depressing tale of self-harm in my ancestral homeland. Nothing will be left by 2029.
Pure Stupidity.
Pure delusion.
Translation: Ed Miliband gets expenses-paid boondoggle in a quick vacation in China.
China approved 66.7GW of new coal fired capacity in 2024 and started construction of 94.5 GW as well as 3.3GW of suspended projects.
The 94.5GW construction starts were equal to 93% of all global coal construction starts.
Perhaps Ed wants some advice on how to restart blown up UK coal fired power stations 🙂
Like Bastiat’s windows, blowing up and rebuilding power plants creates economic activity.
Miliband is a real idiot.
Here is a bit of AI fun:
https://www.cfact.org/2025/03/04/ai-emulates-abstract-thinking-about-kipling-lady-gaga-and-the-rolling-stones/
David Wojick doesn’t do English very well. Like Larry Hamlin, he can’t figure out commas.
Huh?
Did you read the linked article?
i understand them pretty good but got criticized for using too many so now use very few which confuses some people apparently including you from the sound of it sorry for that.
Too busy comma gazing to read the article?
Lucky you for being hit on just that small faux pa — I get criticized for phrasing things lousily by folks who overlook the facts I present … which could be used to get the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits dismissed.
I’ve heard tell about them fake fathers of which you speak.
Oh dear, Jeff is rubbing off on me, excuse the faux pas!
Personally, I think that to err on the side of using more than necessary is preferable to not using enough. I have always operated by the principle that if a sentence is ambiguous, or I felt that some might find confusing, which adding a comma may correct, that I should add a comma, critics be damned. The point of writing is communication. If an extra comma or two improves readability (such as by introducing a pause that would happen in speech), then go for it.
“…such as by introducing a pause that would happen in speech…”
Might it help if a commenter read the text aloud before posting?
My gripe – folks who use speech to text and post without reading. It’s amazing just how many homophones there are in the english language.
“Chatbots do not think rather they computationally emulate thought. But it is easier to talk as though they actually think so I will do that here.”
Do you not think there should be a comma in each of these sentences? Like this:
“Chatbots do not think, rather they computationally emulate thought. But it is easier to talk as though they actually think, so I will do that here.”
I wasn’t confused, but you certainly seemed to be.
You gotta do you, David.
I mean you gotta do you David!
Jeff, buddy, haven’t we, er, discussed, the excessive pedantry? The article, of which we speak, was fascinating, albeit comma-deficient.
That Kiplingesque poem is nothing short of remarkable. Thanks for sharing.
It has been said that LinkedIn is hard on skeptics of climate alarm. So we’ll see what happens with this recent post I put up there. No warnings so far. The good thing about LinkedIn is that most folks are there mainly for business networking. Lots of technically trained industrial employees and business owners are active there.
*************
The claims of a climate crisis based on the radiative effects of rising concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O, and other non-condensing IR-active gases rely on a fundamental misconception. The core claim is that the surface temperature must rise to restore the previous IR emission to space. This framing fails to properly account for what is happening dynamically in the general circulation of the atmosphere. I have posted a very short time-lapse video of plots to Youtube to get this point across. Link below. The concept of energy conversion is well known in the meteorological discipline: [internal energy + potential energy] <–> [kinetic energy]. The ERA5 reanalysis model computes hourly values as the “vertical integral of energy conversion” parameter. The bottom line is that the potential influence of continuing emissions of CO2 and the other gases on any trend of any metric of climate interest is negligible. I realize this may not sit very well with many who have come to believe otherwise, but nevertheless this is important to understand. At the video, please be sure to read the full Readme text description. Thank you for your attention.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
***************
So far mr. Dibbell’s presentations are on the top of my list of thorough explanations of the energy system of Earth’s atmosphere. I keep coming back to his views and it gives perspective and context to the current debate about the role of GHE and radiation. I dont think there is a perfect answer. Let me rephrase that: the perfect answer is that there IS no perfect set of equations to ‘solve’ the many dynamic elements within the system. But mr Dibbell would be closest to my own views.
Thanks for this reply. It’s an important reminder to me to not get stuck on a narrow line of evidence or argument, as valid as it may be. There are multiple ways to describe and explain things for improved understanding.
DD,
FWIW, I have been writing similar material to your summary here for decades now, often phrased as a requirement to look beyond the “front end” radiative gas physics to determine what happens to that “delayed cooling” or “trapped heat” or whatever the current pop science names it. But the social system in many countries is structured to cancel science that is not the “settled” science.
p.s. David W, please use more commas as guided by text books. Geoff S.
This conclusion is too strong. It’s more appropriate to conclude the influence could not be detected. The idea is simply that CO2 influences the radiative emission level, irrespective of the underlying energy conversions.
Thanks for your reply. I understand your point, which I will think about.
Saying that DO2’s “influence could not be detected” is another way of conceding that, compared to other forms of energy transport in the atmosphere, CO2’s contribution is negligible. A conclusion with which I agree!
what matters for the CO2 hypothesis is the average altitude at which optical thickness becomes ~ 1. This defines the effective emission level.
At the center of the 15µm emission band this altitude is already in stratosphere. But, in the wings, ~13-17 µm, it is in troposphere.
Whenever the 15 micron band comes up in the conversation, I’m reminded that a block of dry ice is a body that emits predominately at about 15 microns.
I wonder about that. I would think that a solid block of CO2 would absorb and emit along the entire spectrum of thermal radiation, as opposed to the specific lines absorbed and emitted by gaseous CO2. Any opinions on this?
See my post above, you will find the word, “predominately” then do a search on The Planck Curve.
Planck radiation along a continuum of frequencies is a property of thermal radiation, which in turn is a property of condensed matter, e.g. dry ice. This differs from CO2 in its gaseous state, which emits only at specific frequencies. If you have evidence that the emission spectra for both are ‘predominantly’ the same, I’d be pleased if you could share it, otherwise I could do without the snark.
The base of the 15 μm peak as well as the adjacent “wings” are at the mesopause. This is indicative of CO2 absorption from the tropospheric emission of water vapor. The CO2 is only in emission at the mesopause, and that is the central Q-Band peak only. Emission occurs when the rate of spontaneous emission exceeds the rate of collisional de-excitation, aka thermalization.
The area under the “notch” in the spectrum is from water vapor emissions that were not absorbed by CO2.
This is apparent from the green “zero CO2” curve in figure 7 of van Wijngaarden and Happer (2023), also shown and explained in figures 17 and 18 of Harde (2013).
DO2?
Thus spake Homer Simpson (twice)?
D’oh
After ~2 seconds delay ===> First chuckle of my day !
JCM.
“The idea is simply that CO2 influences the radiative emission level . . . ” is correct, but in practice produces completely the opposite effect to what GHE believers imply.
Raymond Pierrehumbert correctly said “CO2 is just planetary insulation” – impeding the flow of energy both to and from the planetary surface.
The result is that daytime maxima are lower, and nighttime minima higher, than the atmosphere-free Moon.
CO2 does not increase already warm days, but may make bitterly cold regions slightly more “equable”, to use Arrhenius’ word.
Anybody disagreeing just has to notice that the highest and lowest temperatures on Earth occur where GHGs are least.
No GHE induced “global warming.” Just more man-made waste heat.
“This conclusion is too strong. It’s more appropriate to conclude the influence could not be detected. The idea is simply that CO2 influences the radiative emission level, irrespective of the underlying energy conversions.”
After sleeping on it, I offer this response to affirm that “negligible” is a reasonable word to use along with “undetectable” in describing the influence on the end result. I would agree that the influence in the case of a static atmosphere is more than “negligible” – but that case does not exist.
Energy conversion is not only “underlying” in respect to the average emission level. It is active above and below, within the entire depth of the troposphere.
For the 2XCO2 static case, the change in the radiative emission level is about 200 meters. It is readily observed from the Band 16 visualizations that the implied radiating level varies actively from the top of the troposphere down to the surface. Considering the ~12km depth of the circulation, 200m is tiny.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
To summarize: A negligible influence in the end result is reasonable to expect, after considering the dynamics and clouds, even as the computed influence on the static effect is a non-negligible value.
Thank you again for your input.
thanks, very interesting. If you’re suggesting the system has already spun up and so the dynamic effects become dominant I don’t think it’s in dispute. In such a case the direct effects of CO2 become encrypted in the dynamic response. Therefore, detection becomes a challenge, because any “potential” effects are manifest as dynamic response. Examples include cloud fraction, cloud height, the general circulation, and ultimately the path of OLR and solar radiation incoming and outgoing.
While I understand that NASA calls band 16 the “Carbon Dioxide” band (their quotation marks, not mine), the band from 13.0-13.6 μm is quite close to the peak of water vapor emissions. The emissions seen in these visualizations are not from CO2, they are from water vapor that emits fiercely in this range. CO2 absorbs a large fraction of the H2O emission in the 14-16 μm range, but not all of it. Outside that range, it absorbs less.
The emissions in Band 16 provide a dynamic perspective to show how water vapor emission that is not visible in the “clear sky atmospheric column” is released to space from tops of clouds, particularly storm cells, and other areas where water vapor emission can readily escape to space (at high altitudes, for example). This is how the “missing energy”, the so-called “GHE” which drives the atmospheric circulation is eventually radiated to space, via weather.
The 15 μm band of CO2 and its “wings” at the bottom of the spectrum divot are constantly thermalized up to the mesopause, and cannot emit to space until that altitude is reached, ~80km. This is why the impact of CO2 is negligible.
Thank you for your reply, Tom. From the gas phase in clear skies and above cloud tops, I know of no way to reliably apportion the Band 16 IR signal detected at the satellite to H2O or CO2 (or to aerosols, for that matter.) It makes good sense to me to suppose that whatever part of the signal originated in the gas phase is nearly all from H2O emission, perhaps “helped” at short range by CO2. But would you agree that energy conversion, as demonstrated in the time-lapse video of plots from ERA5, overwhelms whatever incremental radiative effect has been claimed for CO2 in any case?
Thanks for the reply David. I felt that I needed to know more about the ERA5 reanalysis in order to provide an informed response. It is most interesting and I now appreciate why you place so much emphasis on it.
I would agree with your last statement.
it is my position that the so-called “GHE”, which some would define as the difference between the surface Planck curve and the spectrum of modeled TOA radiation, is simply energy that drives the atmospheric circulation. The ERA5 analysis is a quite vivid representation of how this energy circulates through the atmospheric system globally. This energy doesn’t accumulate, it is bled off by weather systems that create high altitude concentrations of water vapor that radiate the excess energy to space on a continuing basis (as can been seen in band 16).
This is not something that can be seen by modeling a single, static atmospheric column.
Thanks for following up, Tom.
About the Band 16 visualizations, you say,
“This is not something that can be seen by modeling a single, static atmospheric column.”
Exactly.
And all those simplified explanations of the GHE fail to address the active suppression of outgoing LW radiation by the formation and dissipation of clouds. How much energy is being retained down here? Just enough. Dynamic self-regulation.
I appreciate the dialogue.
David’s stuff is great for visualizing what goes on in the energy transfer regime from a satellite view….
Lets do some grade 11 physics calcs…
Doubling of CO2 causes a forcing of about 3 watts per sq.M by W&H, Harde, Modtran….
lets say the entire 3 watts goes into causing motion of the air above that one square meter.
Up to top of troposphere, that’s about 8000 kg of air.
By KE=1/2MV^2, that works out to a velocity of .0027 M/S. Compared to average wind velocity we already have, guess 5 M/sec, or thunderstorm updrafts of 50 M/S, that extra 3 watts is immeasurably insignificant and will do SFA as far as increased atmospheric turbulence.
If on the other hand, you let the entire 3 watts turn into thermal energy of molecular motion rather than kinetic energy of bulk air motion, it’s still less than a degree by Stephan Boltzmann, and 3 degrees if you assume that “heat” is magically held at ground level by lack of convection, lack of evaporation, reflected back by clouds, etc….
So basically the “increase in extreme weather” is just a Chicken Little “Sky is falling” fable of which some people believe that the odd hailstorm is proof that Chicken Little’s story has the proof of “science” behind it.
A politician can use the story to tax the henhouse…an engineer with a calculator just scoffs…
An engineer with a calculator just scoffs….
….unless he owns a heat pump factory of course….
I like back-of-the-envelope “reality-check” exercises! But in this example, please review the units. The kinetic energy of an object can be expressed in joules, but a Watt, being a unit of power, is one joule per second.
The change in kinetic energy as a result the 3 watts energy input. Yes it changes depending on how much time you consider.
Yes. For example, using your numbers, at a 5 m/sec velocity, 8,000 kg has a kinetic energy of 100,000 joules. Applying 3 W for an hour adds 3,600 joules. Not much, and plenty of time for circulation, dissipation, etc.
Also philbrokenrecordincalifornia reminds you that we horrid humans haven’t doubled CO2 above the recognized starting 280ppm. Logarithmically speaking we did half-double the effect at 396ppm, so we’re still at about 1.5 W. Also, that’s according to theory, and according to the assumption that all CO2 above 280ppm is anthropogenic, which can’t be totally true because warmer oceans outgas.
Great discussion guys. Kind of end-of-story really.
Repeat,
The 280 ppm pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 figure is unsafe for use. It involves discarding a large number of early chemical analysis results simply because they are higher than 280 ppm and so do not fit the narrative. There are valid reasons to reject some of these early analyses, but not the majority of them.
A couple of papers by Beck describe this cancel, but for now society has passively accepted cancel culture techniques in climate research. President Trump might be reducing cancel culture use right now with moves that, irrespective of political complications, must be good for the better quality of science. Geoff S.
Yeah Geoff, I read all those papers once upon a time, but most people use that number, so I did. There was an article on here, last month I think, showing lower levels over active vegetation (below 10 meters). Very complex, despite being …….
….. waaaah, simpwe fiwwics waaaaah. Mommy, howwid deniawists.
A cooling fan in a laptop is about 3 watts, like the CO2 forcing per sq.M. One can visualize what a small fraction of turbulence that 3 W fan can induce in a column of air 1 M X 1 M and 10 Km tall (the height of the troposphere), or an air parcel 20.5 M X 20.5 M X 20.5 M, (same number of Cu.M) compared to what we already have moving around.
My cocktail party trope with which I bore everybody is “It’s undeniable that the most destructive, conspicuous measurable weather phenomenon hasn’t become more frequent or intense for a century. So you’re telling me that climate change sort of excludes cyclones? Where’s your stats for flood, drought, fire?. And why all these scares? Still got a polar bearskin for demos?”
I’ve been reluctant to share my political views publicly. I want to keep politics out of the workplace. I post here anonymously.
I hear you. I am retired. Something Roy Spencer said recently comes to mind:
“Even my career has depended upon Congress being convinced the issue is worthy of big budgets.”
But from another angle, nothing about what I posted is inherently political. It is technical. But it’s a shame it has become so politically charged.
I have the same issue. Working with a lot of libs and true believers in The Science ™ I have to release my pent up steam on WUWT.
I knew Dwayne Dibbley was a smart guy. 🙂
[story tip]
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/despite-9-trillion-spent-net-zero-goals-fossil-fuels-will-remain-dominant
Doesn’t mention how poorly this investment performs…
LTN Stealth – when the people are opposed.
Sneaky’ Green-led council installs LTNs at 3am under police protection
Cover of darkness used after Bristol residents opposed to the roadblocks had previously protested by lying in front of machinery
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/14/bristol-green-council-installs-ltns-3am-police-protection/
So much for local democracy.
Why do people say Sir Stalin? The only problem in the UK is the appalling islamophobia. Why can’t you gents just keep a stiff upper lip whilst being stabbed and run down?
Islamophobia? From here, people appear reluctant to speak out.The UK elites hate their Western heritage, hate Christianity and hate themselves. The people seem resigned to spend their lives as powerless, voiceless, forgotten proles.
MSG, I trust you detected my sarcasm? I couldn’t agree with you more.
My islamophobia reference is to a recent emission from Sir Stalin that I saw on X.
https://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1900495834224992330
Al Gore goes on an emotional rant at a recent WEF conference in Davos….
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8b2cEDhqzGI
Al, either stop exhaling or wear a carbon sequestration mask over your face. LOL.
CD,
The seated guy to the right of Vice President Gore at this WEF talk appears to be alleged billionaire Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, rich from mining Australian iron ore. Geoff S
Meanwhile up in the GWN (Great White North aka 51st State), the WEF has installed their puppet Mark Carney to replace Justin Castro-Truedope. A three-nationality Goldman-Sachs man who has never received a single vote for any elective office.
They’re defending Democracy by abolishing it.
The latest scam is to temporarily set the consumer carbon tax to zero while touting it as abolishing it. Hopefully even the dimmest Canuck will grasp that this is a lie and a cynical election ploy.
People really do NOT understand what DJT is doing by using the “51st state” and “Governor” Trudeau lines. I think it’s hilarious, and very effective to plant ideas as seeds out there, even in the minds of his detractors.
I’m not sure myself what the Prez is doing on this point. I don’t blame any Canadian such as the estimable Pierre Poilievre taking exception to the perceived disrespect. Not doing so is weak.
Canada depends on US markets but has forever had protectionist tariffs against US products. I think that Canada and the US would be better off in a fully-free trade economic union, but I would not like to see a second California added to our federal union. What would be maybe better would be to trade California to Canada in exchange for Alberta.
For those who don’t love Poilievre yet…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rnEj7WLsWbk
Ha, Ha
”Has Forever had protectionist tariffs”.
US dairy industry is 10 X the size of Canadian dairy. US production has volume swings that could easily put Canadian dairy farmers out of business, then have retailers at the mercy of US wholesalers who are a different breed than US farmers. US government has major farm support programs while Canada allows producer associations some control over maintaining prices at economically survivable production levels. Most US producers would probably prefer the Canadian system rather than be at the mercy of government programs. All countries protect their farm production knowing that in extreme times they would rather have something to eat than nothing….
The 230% tariff Trump talks about is after a preset quota which has 0% tariff. Nobody has ever paid it, US exports to Canada about 1/2 of a level that would cause the tariffs to take effect, and Canada is US agriculture’s largest export market. So it’s a political posturing issue which will likely result in Canada dropping the 230% that has never been collected and Trump can declare a “big win” for US farmers.
That’s interesting, I was not aware of a tariff-free quota.
I still would prefer a lighter hand by governments on both sides, though. Why not eliminate the quotas if they aren’t even doing anything? I suspect that there are some quotas that are being reached for other products?
DMac
I want to just say that I don’t like to see disrespect aimed at Canada and I hope that Trump’s bullying of Trudeau, which he arguably deserved, can be separated from any humiliation of Canada as a neighbor and ally of the United States. (But I am sensitive to the fact that Trump’s remarks were humiliating and I wish that he would have aimed more squarely at the Liberal government and had expressed more respect for the Canadian people).
As is so often the case, I find myself nodding along with Jordan Peterson in this interview with Pierre Poilievre. I hope that Canada will be wise enough to turn to this common sense leader and we can return to the good old days of Reagan & Mulroney.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5O7Y_dwA-Ns
‘…but I would not like to see a second California added to our federal union.’
Excellent people, but empire building is always counterproductive.
https://fee.org/articles/the-conquest-of-the-united-states-by-spain/
https://www.blitzortung.org/en/historical_maps.php
That is awesome, thank you. I’ve bookmarked it. Will check it out when there’s a thunderstorm going on here.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=44.7;-87.6;3&l=rain-3h
That’s awesome too. Thank you again.
You should have a 1000 likes.
Too cool. I worked on Lake Maracaibo many years ago – it’s considered the lightening capital of the world:
https://geology.com/records/lightning-hotspots/
I see where the Chinese communists have made it illegal for the Dalai Lama to reincarnate outside Chinese territory.
I think this is described as Hubris.
Every day i am hoping for a correction, some sense of balance. Common sense. Even: one one hand, on the other hand type of thinking.
But, and it really doesnt matter which subject it seems there is only 1 accepted narrative and it needs to be hammered down forcefully. Reality does not have a place or only to reinforce the narrative.
It’s a mad world..
It’s hammered down by the paycheck, or lack thereof, method. Amateur phony-Utopianism is allowed.
Im afraid it is something more than money. The constantly shifting aspect of weaponising fear, moving now from climate to Russia and Covid prior to that is indication of shifting political tectonic plates and Empire fear. Ie: powerplays where money is used to retain it. This looks like conspiratorial efforts by the elites to me. I used to object to people calling me a conspiratorial theorists but i now say: thank you! At least im not stuck in a maze of unproven hypotheses like the alarmistas. A badge of honour..🙂
Story tip
Cure for weather amnesia needed to avoid climate scientists meltdown.
https://news.exeter.ac.uk/global-systems-institute/risk-informed-policies-needed-to-avoid-climate-meltdown/
Mark Kelly has turned in his Tesla for a CHEVY SUV
https://x.com/igorbobic/status/1900620754644762791
The upside of this story, we have Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) showing us, that the all the nonsense about Climate Change dictating what automobiles we are allowed to buy and operate, is over.
story tip
The loony left media are just so transparently biased it is almost funny to me.
SpaceX brings the Boeing astronauts back from the ISS safely after they were stranded there for 9 months by NASA and Boeing. (Hopefully that’s coming later today).
So you might have thought that the story would be that Trump asked Elon Musk to rescue the pair and now they are being returned safely home thanks to SpaceX and President Trump’s initiative.
Well you would have thunk wrong, mister.
https://www.salon.com/2025/03/15/nasa-astronauts-to-return-home-after-major-delay-heres-what-that-time-in-space-does-to-the-body/
Not only did they not credit SpaceX at all (and naturally gave no credit to Trump), but initially Salon tried to refer to the ‘SpaceX Starliner’ that had stranded the (Boeing/NASA) astronauts there.
That had been the only reference to SpaceX in the long article focused on all the ill effects expected from long duration space flight. Now the only reference to SpaceX is this:
Well done, Elizabeth Hlavinka! Your assignment was to report that the stranded astronauts are headed back to earth, but make sure Elon Musk doesn’t get any credit. You overachieved by not only memory-holing any reference to SpaceX rescuing them, but your chosen artifice for obfuscation was to hype the dangers of extended space flight that ‘billionaire’ Musk touts for going to Mars.
And I would argue more out of malice than ignorance, you tried to make it look like it was actually SpaceX that stranded the astronauts in the first place! Classic disinformation!
You have to admire skill, even among the evil.
P.S. I messed that up, the return is scheduled for splashdown early Thursday, not today.
Elon Musk thinks we should deorbit the International Space Station earlier than the scheduled deorbit in 2030.
I would argue against bringing down the space station modules. We spent a lot of money putting them up there, and they are in good condition and are still useful.
We need an artificial gravity test/proof-of-concept platform in space and reusing the space station modules would fit the purpose.
What we should do is get ourselves a strong, cable, one mile long and put it in orbit. We should attach a space station module or two to one end of the cable, and the equivalent mass to the other end of the cable.
We then rotate these space station modules around the center of the cable at a speed of one revolution per minute. This will produce artificial gravity inside the modules that will feel like the equivalent of the gravity on the surface of the Earth.
From all I’ve seen, Earth-like gravity is going to be an essential part of humans moving into space. The human body does not like low-gravity environments.
So, on the ends of our cable we are producing artificial gravity equivalent to Earth’s surface gravity.
If we put a module at the center of the cable, we would experience close to zero gravity, with the gravity increasing the farther up/down the cable you go, so we could see how humans do in a Mars gravity situation by placing a couple of modules at a certain distance from the center of the cable. We could simulate gravity from zero to full Earth gravity using our rotating space station.
So let’s not throw these valuable space station habitats away, let’s use them to advance humanity’s movement into the Solar System.
Musk can incorporate artificial gravity into his Mars missions and keep his people healthy on the long trip there.
Let’s DOGE the space station. Use our resources efficiently! 🙂
And this artificial gravity demonstration project would solve the problem of women’s hair looking like an explosion in a silo in low gravity. 🙂
Renewables are cheaper than ever – except in British Columbia:
The utility claims increased costs, inflation, infrastructure changes, and tariffs as the reason for the change – although it should be noted that the tariffs threatened by the U.S. have not yet been engaged. There does seem to be a lack of transparancy on the rest:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/bc-hydro-customers-to-see-annual-3-75-rate-increase-over-next-2-years-5827441
What might those increased costs be?
https://www.bchydro.com/news/press_centre/news_releases/2024/new-wind-projects-will-boost-bc-clean-energy-supply.html
Despite having developed access to some of the world’s cheapest and most reliable, dispatchable hydroelectric power, having access to some of the cheapest oil and gas in the world, and despite having a guaranteed price agreement, BC Hydro’s “investment” in wind power raises costs for all its customers.
Better than ever.