The Week That Was: 2025 05 24 (May 24, 2025)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: “It is a curious historical fact that modern quantum mechanics began with two quite different mathematical formulations: the differential equation of Schroedinger and the matrix algebra of Heisenberg. The two apparently dissimilar approaches were proved to be mathematically equivalent.”— Richard Feynman
Number of the Week: From 27% to 20%
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Scope: TWTW begins with another effort to smear SEPP founder S. Fred Singer with Inuendo and Insinuation rather than trying to find facts. TWTW discusses an effort by Ross McKitrick to correct past errors in the use of statistical methods and develop a statistical method for estimating a human cause to some of the temperature change over the past 120 years. TWTW discusses a paper by Kesten Green and Willie Soon that shows that global climate models are unsuitable for policy making. TWTW concludes with a brief comment by Ole Humlum that 30 years is too short a period for understanding causes of climate change.
*********************
Inuendo and Insinuation: Physical science is built on physical evidence gathered from observations and experiments. Controlled experiments are preferred, but the ultimate judge is observation. One may speculate on the meaning of the evidence and how it fits with other evidence, but one must always recognize the physical evidence in making judgements. Unfortunately, many people who engage in “science” politicize it by making claims against physical science that are not supported by physical evidence. Such was the case in Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in their book Merchants of Doubt (2010).
The authors of Merchants of Doubt strongly criticized physical scientists Frederick Seitz, S. Fred Singer, and Robert Jastrow who questioned claims about secondhand tobacco smoke, dangerous human-caused global warming, and other scientific fads of the day. For example, Fred Singer never smoked, but questioned studies such as those that claimed that secondhand smoke caused cavities in the teeth of infants. He did not doubt that frequently inhaling hot tobacco smoke could be unhealthful. Yet, he was accused of taking money from tobacco companies without any physical evidence. The book claimed that the physical evidence was in the footnoted references, but it did not exist.
Oreskes was rewarded for her claims with a professorship in the Department of History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Science at Harvard. Such is the power of Inuendo and Insinuation and the lack of scientific integrity in major academic institutions.
A publication called The Cool Down (TCD) demonstrated that the lack of scientific integrity continues and that in academic studies, physical evidence is not necessary. An article titled “PhD student debunks disturbing academic claim spreading through research databases: ‘It’s perfect as misinformation’” illustrates this fad well. The article begins with [Boldface added, underlines in original]:
“With so many different stances on climate change circulating, it can prove difficult to pick out accurate environmental truths from misinformation.
Doctoral candidate Sara (@francelot_) shared her experience with the pervasiveness of climate misinformation, even in her academic circles.
Studying science communication, Sara noted that even her college-level students found it difficult to identify misinformation in their readings, thrown off by scientific jargon and heavy citations.
‘It’s perfect as misinformation, because it looks legit,’ she explained in her voiceover, referring to an article by Fred Singer, a notorious climate change skeptic.
Funnily enough, she continued, despite the article’s seeming legitimacy, the author cited his own opinion pieces as factual references four different times.
Carbon pollution has been conclusively linked to rising planetary temperatures, but from his 1999 perspective, Singer claimed there was insufficient data to indicate that the climate was actually changing as a result of human contributions.
The factors he expected from human-induced climate change, such as rising sea levels and intensified weather events, weren’t as visible 25 years ago as they are now.
When misinformation is packaged so convincingly as scientific truth, both in the media and in the academic world, readers can rely on it to inform their beliefs.”
The lack of physical evidence is telling. In his publications, Singer used physical evidence not opinion. (Since the writings are not identified, TWTW cannot be more specific.) Calling carbon dioxide (CO2) a pollutant is a political absurdity. CO2 is essential for photosynthesis the food source of all life beyond bacteria. Cyanobacteria (blue-green bacteria) appeared about 3.5 billion years ago and used photosynthesis to change the world and its atmosphere with the Great Oxidation Event about 2.4 billion years ago causing the extinction of many anaerobic microorganisms. Is oxygen a pollutant?
Geologically stable tidal gages show sea level rise has not increased for the last century, and the geological record show the rate of sea level rise has not increased in 8000 years. An increase shown in various satellite instruments is the result of the failure to use control periods to calibrate the instruments with stable tidal gages, a political failure. (Whether weighted averages from geologically stable tidal gages or instruments on different satellites are right is not the main concern. Splicing two together and calling the result acceleration is wrong.)
The physical evidence does not support the claim of intensification of weather events. (See the section immediately below.) Such claims are false, and some are pure propaganda. When institutions reward those who lack scientific integrity, rumor and propaganda are the result. See link under Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.
******************
A Better Statistical Tool? The Gauss-Markov theorem is a powerful statistical tool. Under the stated conditions it yields the Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (BLUE). It implies, one, that the relationship between the dependent variable (the result) and independent variables (the cause or causes) is linear. Two, the independent variables are not perfectly correlated (dependent on one another). Three, the error term is not dependent on any of the independent variables. And four, the error term has a constant variance and has a zero mean.
The theorem yields statistically consistent results. This means that repeated estimates from various data converge on the actual value. It does not mean that an estimate is the actual value, but repeated estimates or larger sample sizes yield increasingly accurate and reliable results..
Unfortunately, a study in Climate Dynamics by Allen and Tett “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting” (1999) incorrectly claimed a particular technique “Optimal fingerprinting) was BLUE. This led many studies using the Allen and Tett technique to claim they can identify the probability that certain extreme weather events were related to increasing carbon dioxide. In 2022, Climate Dynamics published rebuttals by Ross McKitrick (a 2023 SEPP Fredrick Seitz Award co-recipient) showing Allen and Tett were wrong, and consequently the many studies using the optimal fingerprinting technique were wrong. Now, McKitrick, following suggestions by Chen et al., has proposed a technique for optimal fingerprinting which may be valid for climate studies. It is being published in Climate Dynamics. On his website McKitrick writes:
“I have a paper forthcoming at Climate Dynamics which discusses the contribution of Chen et al. (2023) and also sets forth a consistent method for signal detection in climate science.
When I say this method is consistent, I am using the statistical concept of consistency. It is my assertion, based on several previous publications, that the IPCC method (based on Allen and Tett 1999 and Allen and Stott 2003) yields biased and inconsistent signal detection coefficients and is uninformative for the purpose of GHG [Greenhouse Gas] attribution. The method I propose relies on Instrumental Variables estimation with Conley SAC-robust errors. There’s nothing new about it, only the application. I show in an empirical example that the IPCC method (which I call P-TLS) implies a much larger role for anthropogenic forcing than the consistent approach. I present standard model specification tests (for the first time ever in an optimal fingerprinting application as far as I know) to show why the consistent model is the preferred specification.”
The abstract of the paper to be published states:
“The optimal fingerprinting methodology of Allen and Tett (Clim Dyn 15: 419–434) was criticized by McKitrick (Clim Dyn 58:405-411 2022) who argued that it fails to yield unbiased and consistent coefficient estimates, and the associated residual consistency test (RCT) is uninformative regarding the regression model validity. Chen et al. (Clim Dyn 62:1439-1446 2023) concurred on key points but showed that consistency could be established under certain conditions. I argue herein that they are sufficiently restrictive as to reaffirm the practical invalidity of the Allen and Tett method. Chen et al. also derived an asymptotic distribution of the RCT. Their result implies the critical values used up to now may be incorrect. I propose an alternative fingerprinting method based on the Instrumental Variables procedure with consistent standard errors and I demonstrate its potential in an [ap]plication to 20th – 25[21st?] century temperature data. I find the modeled anthropogenic signal is detected but needs to be scaled down by 35 to 60%, whereas the modeled natural signal needs to be scaled up 2- to 4-fold, to reconcile optimally with observations.”
McKitrick’s findings are interesting. If these results are verified and validated, then using the limited dataset the estimates by the IPCC and its collaborators for human cause are far too high and the estimates for natural variability are far too low. It is important to recognize that the dataset used by the IPCC modelers does not include severe cooling periods such as those found with D-O Events, not to mention Ice Ages with major glaciation. For the introduction and the paper to be published see links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
******************
Provocative Question: Ron Clutz draws attention to a paper by Kesten Green and Willie Soon that asks the provocative question: Are Climate Model Forecasts Useful for Policy Making? When asked the same question Google AI responded:
“Yes, climate model forecasts are a vital tool for informing policy decisions related to climate change, particularly at national and regional scales. They provide valuable insights into the potential impacts of different scenarios, helping policymakers understand the risks and opportunities associated with various actions.”
In providing the answer to their rhetorical question, Green and Soon responded not with opinion but with fact. The abstract of their paper published by Science of Climate Change states:
“For a model to be useful for policy decisions, statistical fit is insufficient. Evidence that the model provides out-of-estimation-sample forecasts that are more accurate and reliable than those from plausible alternative models, including a simple benchmark, is necessary.
The UN’s IPCC advises governments with forecasts of global average temperature drawn from models based on hypotheses of causality. Specifically, manmade warming principally from carbon dioxide emissions (Anthro) tempered by the effects of volcanic eruptions (Volcanic) and by variations in the Sun’s energy (Solar). Out-of-sample forecasts from that model, with and without the IPCC’s favored measure of Solar, were compared with forecasts from models that excluded human influence and included Volcanic and one of two independent measures of Solar. The models were used to forecast Northern Hemisphere land temperatures and—to avoid urban heat island effects—rural only temperatures. Benchmark forecasts were obtained by extrapolating estimation sample median temperatures.
The independent solar models reduced forecast errors relative to those of the benchmark model for all eight combinations of four estimation periods and the two temperature variables tested. The models that included the IPCC’s Anthro variable reduced errors for only three of the eight combinations and produced extreme forecast errors from most model estimation periods. The correlation between estimation sample statistical fit and forecast accuracy was -0.26. Further tests might identify better models: Only one extrapolation model and only two of many possible independent solar models were tested, and combinations of forecasts from different methods were not examined.
The anthropogenic models’ unreliability would appear to void policy relevance. In practice, even the models validated in this study may fail to improve accuracy relative to naïve forecasts due to uncertainty over the future causal variable values. Our findings emphasize that out-of-sample forecast errors, not statistical fit, should be used to choose between models (hypotheses).”
The Introduction in the paper begins with (citations omitted here are in the paper):
What has caused changes in annual average temperatures on Earth over recent decades and what, therefore, can we expect in the way of temperature changes over coming decades?
Those are questions that were originally posed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the Second Assessment Report published in 1996. The first of the questions has been referred to as the ‘attribution problem’ among contributors to the IPCC project (see p. 413 Santer et al., 1996). Proposed answers can be expressed as hypotheses, or mathematical models, of the putative causal relationships.
The second question is a forecasting, or predictive validity, problem that can be answered using a key element of the scientific method. Namely, the testing of multiple reasonable hypotheses of causality (models) against data that were not used in the development of the hypotheses and estimation of the model parameters by forecasting the data that were unknown to the model. Doing so enables the researcher to identify the model with the greatest predictive validity and, potentially, to use that model for making useful forecasts.
One plausible causal variable is the energy flux and flow that the Earth receives from the Sun, which can in turn be thought of as being, broadly, a function of variations in (a) the quantum of solar energy that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, and the proportions of that energy that (b) reaches the Earth’s surface, and (c) escapes from the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. The energy that reaches and escapes from the Earth’s surface is affected by the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere—gases and aerosols—the composition of which may change.
The IPCC were tasked with identifying the effect of human activity on global and regional surface temperatures. Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report—titled, ‘Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes’—opens with the statement ‘Since the 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment considerable progress has been made in attempts to identify an anthropogenic effect on climate’ (p. 411, Santer et al., 1996). Other statements in the chapter summary indicate the authors’ reservations regarding the state of knowledge on human influences on climate: e.g., ‘…large uncertainties still apply to current estimates of the magnitude and patterns of natural climate variability…’ and ‘Our ability to quantify the magnitude of this effect is presently limited by uncertainties in key factors, such as the magnitude of longer-term natural variability and the time-evolving patterns of forcing and response to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and other human factors’ (p. 411, Santer et al., 1996).
In their attempts to achieve the IPCC objective of identifying a human cause for temperature changes—specifically ‘global warming’—the IPCC researchers have framed the problem as one of ‘attributing’ changes in the Earth’s temperature to the respective contributions of putative anthropogenic (‘Anthro’)—principally carbon dioxide emissions altering the composition of the atmosphere—and natural influences—principally aerosols from volcanic eruptions altering the composition of the atmosphere (‘Volcanic’), and total solar irradiance, or TSI, variations (‘Solar’). Given the task they were set, the IPCC researchers have devoted much of their efforts into developing estimates of the Anthro variable.
The IPCC’s most recent, AR6, report (IPCC, 2021) only considered one estimate of Solar for the purpose of attribution (Matthes et al., 2017) and made no allowance for the effect of urban heat islands on the temperature measures they used (Connolly et al., 2021, 2023; Soon et al., 2023). Moreover, a study of the statistical attribution or ‘fingerprinting’ approach used by IPCC researchers (e.g., Allen and Tett, 1999; Hasselmann, et al., 1995; Hegerl et al., 1997; Santer et al., 1995) concluded that the approach was invalid (McKitrick, 2022). The IPCC authors’ analyses failed to meet the assumptions of the method they used, and they failed to correctly implement the method. [Boldface added]
In sum, the objective given to the IPCC researchers and the approach that they have taken suggests that plausible alternative hypotheses on the causes of terrestrial temperature changes may not have been adequately tested, as is required by the scientific method (Armstrong and Green, 2022). That concern is consistent with Armstrong and Green’s (2022) observation that government sponsorship of research can create incentives that may influence researchers’ choices of hypotheses to test and how they test them.”
Green and Soon propose alternative hypotheses on Solar and Temperature Estimation, and provide criteria for validating hypotheses. Upon testing the IPCC models, they find the forecast errors of the IPCC models sometimes exceed the value of the parameter the model is attempting to forecast. They find other issues as well that make the global climate models used the IPCC and its collaborators unsuitable for forecasting and for policy making. In the conclusions Green and Soon state [Boldface added]:
“The IPCC’s models of anthropogenic climate change lack predictive validity. The IPCC models’ forecast errors were greater for most estimation samples —often many times greater—than those from a benchmark model that simply predicts that future years’ temperatures will be the same as the historical median. The size of the forecast errors and unreliability of the models’ forecasts in response to additional observations in the estimation sample implies that the anthropogenic models fail to realistically capture and represent the causes of Earth’s surface temperature changes. In practice, the IPCC models’ relative forecast errors would be still greater due to the uncertainty in forecasting the models’ causal variables, particularly Volcanic and IPCC Solar.
The independent solar models of climate change—which did not include a variable representing the IPCC postulated anthropogenic influence—do have predictive validity. The models reduced errors of forecasts for the years 2000 to 2018 relative to the benchmark errors for all, and all-but one, of 101 estimation samples tested for each of the two models. One of the models (B2000 Solar) reduced errors by more than 75 percent for forecasts from models estimated from 35 of the samples—a particularly impressive improvement given that the benchmark errors were no greater than 1 °C for all but one of the estimation samples. The independent solar models provide realistic representations of the causal relationships with surface temperatures. The question of whether the independent solar variables can be forecast with sufficient accuracy to improve on the benchmark model forecasts in practice, however, remains relevant. All in all, and contra to the IPCC reports, there is insufficient evidential basis for the use of carbon dioxide, et cetera, emissions—taken together, the IPCC’s Anthro—as climate policy variables.
Finally, this study provides further evidence that measures of statistical fit provide misinformation about predictive validity. Predictive validity can only be properly estimated when the proposed model or hypothesis is used for forecasting new-to-the-model data, and the forecasts are then compared for accuracy against forecasts from a plausible benchmark model. This important conclusion needs bearing-in-mind when evaluating policy models.”
The January 29, 2022, TWTW stated: “In July 2018, established climate modeler Mototaka Nakamura had published the Japanese Version of Confessions of a climate scientist: The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis.” After giving seven specific examples why, TWTW stated:
“Simply put, global climate modelers have failed to capture the enormous complexity of the climate system. Further, what the climate modelers produce has major deficiencies. Among other important changing phenomena, the climate system is largely made up of two fluids in dynamic motion, the ocean, and the atmosphere, and we simply do not know enough about fluid dynamics to make long-term predictions about the interactions of these fluids. According to Nakamura the climate models are useful tools for academic purposes, but useless for prediction.”
Green and Soon have given another example why global climate models are useless for prediction. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and for the Jan 29, 2022 TWTW https://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2022/TWTW%201-29-2022.pdf.
******************
Thirty Years Too Short? In his general comments in “Climate4you Update April 2025” Ole Humlum asserts that the 30-year time period for the IPCC and its collaborators is too short to properly understand climate change. Humlum writes:
“In fact, using a 30-yr ‘normal’ period is rather unfortunate, as observations clearly demonstrate that various global climate parameters [i.e. Pacific Decadal Oscillation] are influenced by periodic changes of 50-70 years duration. The frequently used 30-yr reference period is roughly half this time interval and is therefore highly unsuited as reference period. In the maps on page 4, showing the geographical pattern of surface air temperature anomalies, the last previous 10 years are therefore used as reference period. This decadal approach corresponds well to the typical memory horizon for many people and is also adopted as reference period by other institutions, e.g., the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI).”
Even worse, we see all too many claims that this year’s storm somewhere is due to a change in climate because there was no such storm in the past few years.
See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
*********************
SEPP’S APRIL FOOLS AWARD – THE JACKSON
It is time for voting on the Annual SEPP’s April Fools Award – the Jackson. The grand prize is a large lump of coal. Last year, the deserving winner of the lump of coal was the US National Science Teaching Association. In 2023, the Association banned the CO2 Coalition from its meeting which the Coalition members paid for and were approved because the CO2 Coalition exhibit pointed out that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis which is the food source of all complex life on Earth.
There are many strong candidates for this dubious honor including leaders of US scientific agencies who signed off on questionable reports on climate change. Get your votes in by June 29 with the reason why you recommend that person for the award. Send your vote to Ken@Sepp.org. If you wish, you will be anonymous. The award will be announced at the 43rd annual meeting of the Doctors for Defensive Preparedness on July 5-6. The decision of the judges is final.
***************
Number of the Week: From 27% to 20% No one really knows what caused the Iberian blackout on April 27. Jo Nova writes that Portugal is blaming France because France is not building interconnections to accept solar power Iberia needs to dump when it has too much. [Does Franch wish to avoid instability from variable solar power?] According to climate sceptic Frank Bosse, Spain may have learned a lesson. “For PV (solar), the average share was 27% until April 27, and only 20% thereafter.” See links under Energy Issues – Iberian Blackout.
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
Science: Is the Sun Rising?
ICE AGE SOLAR STORM SHOCK: Trees Hold 14K-Year-Old Secret That Could CRASH Tech Today!
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, May 23, 2025
Link to paper: New SOCOL:14C-Ex model reveals that the Late-Glacial radiocarbon spike in 12350 BC was caused by the record-strong extreme solar storm
By Kseniia Golubenko, et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters, July 1, 2025
[SEPP Comment: The abrupt cooling of the Younger Dryas occurred about 10,900 BC.]
Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013
Summary: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-biological-impacts/
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels
By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-fossil-fuels/
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus
By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008
http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf
Challenging the Orthodoxy – Radiation Transfer
The Role of Greenhouse Gases in Energy Transfer in the Earth’s Atmosphere
By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Preprint, Mar 3, 2023
Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases
By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Preprint, December 22, 2020
Radiation Transport in Clouds
By W.A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, Klimarealistene, Science of Climate Change, January 2025
Challenging the Orthodoxy
A consistent Metod for Climate Fingerprinting
By Ross McKitrick, His Blog, May 19, 2025
Link to paper: Consistent Climate Fingerprinting
By Ross McKitrick, To be published in Climate Dynamics, Manuscript date March 27, 2025
IPCC Climate Models Proven to Lack Predictive Ability
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, May 22, 2025
Link to paper: Are Climate Model Forecasts Useful for Policy Making?
Effect of Variable Choice on Reliability and Predictive Validity
By Kesten C. Green and Willie Soon, Science of Climate Change, Accepted May 17, 2025
Climate4you Update April 2025
By Ole Humlum, Climate4you, Accessed May 24, 2025
Why “cheaper” solar raises costs. Part II: The hidden costs of residential solar
By Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler), Climate Etc., May 22, 2025
The BBC’s climate science problem
By Andrew Montford, Net Zero Watch, May 20, 2025
One notable example was the sudden temperature rise at the end of the period, over 10,000 years ago, known as the Younger Dryas. Temperatures around the world are thought to have increased by 3–10 degrees [C] in just a few decades.
[SEPP Comment: The Younger Dryas was about 1300 years long. It began about 12,900 years ago with a sudden dropping of temperatures in less than 100 years and ending about 11,600 years ago.]
Defending the Orthodoxy
Godfather of climate science decries Trump plan to shut Nasa lab above Seinfeld diner: ‘It’s crazy’
Over breakfast at Tom’s Restaurant, right below the historic Giss lab, James Hansen calls Doge’s decision a ‘big mistake’
By Oliver Milman, the Guardian, May 21, 2025
“I see this as an attack by this administration on climate science,” said Bastiaan van Diedenhoven, a researcher who worked at GISS for 13 years. “We were afraid of something like this because we saw what was happening at other agencies, so obviously Giss is on their list because of the good climate science done there. I don’t see how it can survive without a building. It’s really quite devastating.”
The Great Unraveling: Trump Administration’s Budget Proposal is an Assault on American Science
By Henry Miller, ACSH, May 20, 2025
For the next generation of researchers, many of whom have spent years training for university appointments, the message is stark. “If I were starting my career, I would be out of here in a heartbeat,” said Michael Lubell, a physicist and science-policy expert at City University of New York. The American Association for the Advancement of Science called the budget “catastrophic,” warning that it could push early-career scientists to seek opportunities overseas.
As lawmakers begin negotiations in earnest, the stakes are clear: The very foundation of American scientific leadership is on the line. Whether they protect that foundation — or allow it to crumble — may define not only the fate of this generation of researchers, but the nation’s medium-term and long-term ability to innovate and compete. Let us hope that in the end Congress will heed the admonition of Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, who ran the CDC from 2009-2017, “You don’t improve things by destroying them. You improve them by improving them.”
[SEPP Comment: In the field of climate studies, The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ignores physical evidence and favors government sponsored speculation.]
Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science
Abrupt Soil Moisture Loss Drives Global Water Flow into Oceans, Raising Sea Levels
By Simon Mansfield, Sydney, Australia (SPX) May 15, 2025
Link to paper: Abrupt sea level rise and Earth’s gradual pole shift reveal permanent hydrological regime changes in the 21st century
By Ki-Weon Seo, et al., AAAS Science, Mar 27, 2025
From abstract: During the period 2000 to 2002, soil moisture declined by approximately 1614 gigatonnes, much larger than Greenland’s ice loss of about 900 gigatonnes (2002–2006). From 2003 to 2016, SM depletion continued, with an additional 1009-gigatonne loss. This depletion is supported by two independent observations of global mean sea level rise (~4.4 millimeters) and Earth’s pole shift (~45 centimeters).
[SEPP Comment: The study timeframe is far too short to draw conclusions of change. If over 13 years the sea level rose by only 4.4 mm, it is below the average rate of rise for the past 8,000 years. For the past 100 years it rose 170mm, (17 mm/decade) or about 7 inches.]
Climate change is threatening more than 3,500 animal species: Study
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, May 20, 2025
Link to paper: Climate change threats to Earth’s wild animals
By William J Ripple, et al., Bioscience, May 20, 2025
Opening sentences are: “We are entering an existential crisis for the world’s wild animals. To date, the primary cause of biodiversity loss has not been climate change but, rather, the combined twin threats of overexploitation and habitat alteration (Maxwell et al. 2016); as climate change intensifies, we expect it to become a third major threat to Earth’s animals. Shifts in temperature and weather patterns are starting to threaten ecosystems worldwide, which, in turn, endangers countless animal species, affecting their reproduction, migration, and survival and ultimately accelerating the alarming decline in global biodiversity (IUCN 2023).”
[SEPP Comment: Climate has never changed before?]
Questioning the Orthodoxy
Antidote to Climate Doomsters
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, May 21, 2025
At Quora someone posed this question: “Will we avoid a climate catastrophe just in time (please be positive I need some hope)?”
Paul Noel, Former Research Scientist 6 Level 2 UAH (2008–2014) wrote this response. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
Warming, But Far From Global
By Willis Eschenbach, WUWT, May 23, 2025
New Study Documents Significant Cooling Across Eurasia Since 2004
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, May 21, 2025
Link to letter: Recent increase in snow cover as a contributing driver to autumn cooling in central Eurasia
By Baofu Li, et al., Environmental Research Letters, May 7, 2025
New AI data centers will use the same electricity as 2 million homes
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 21, 2025
Link to report: Understanding the energy-AI nexus.
By Staff, International Energy Agency, Accessed May 23, 2025
From the report: As a result, in regions where data centers are concentrated, the share of electricity demand going to data centers is disproportionately high. In Ireland, for example, data centers consume around 20% of the metered electricity supply. There are six states in the United States where data centers already consume over 10% of the electricity supply, with Virginia leading at 25%.
From Nova: Australia is being left behind because we won’t build coal plants in case we offend the UN, and we banned nuclear power as a fashion statement in 1998. The AI global race is on, but digital machines need reliable cheap electricity and lots of it.
Large Areas of Human-Caused Cooling
By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, May 21, 2025
The media is full of stories about human-caused global warming.
But did you know there are large areas of the planet where humans are causing cooling?
Importantly, Washington is a prime example of our ability to massively cool the surface.
We do this by irrigating vast areas of eastern Washington and northern Oregon.
[SEPP Comment: Spray irrigation causes daytime cooling and nighttime warming. In moist areas nighttime temperatures do not drop as significantly as in arid areas.]
Tidbits
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 21, 2025
Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide
The effect of increased CO2 on Digitalis purpurea
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 21, 2025
From the CO2Science.org Archive:
Problems in the Orthodoxy
Argentina: New Climate Leader!
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, May 21, 2025
Argentina can follow the U.S. lead and skip COP 30 and further demote the international effort to help defeat it. But Climate Action Tracker dreams otherwise:
Seeking a Common Ground
Why We Politicize Science
By James Alexander, The Daily Sceptic, May 17, 2025
Energy Should Never Be In Question
By Gary Abernathy, WUWT, May 21, 2025
Model Issues
A foundation model for the Earth system
By Cristian Bodnar, et al., Nature, May 21, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
From Edwin Berry: Indeed, using data as described in this article with a good AI model should be able to make good predictions.
The only potential problem I noticed is that they may be training their AI model on more than data. The way I read the paragraph below indicates they are also training their AI model on the output of CMIP6 models.
If so, that would be a mistake because that would incorporate the errors of the CMIP6 models into the AI.
[SEPP Comment: It is unlikely that they could forecast a D-O Event much less a glaciation (Ice Age) that is sure to come. We lack the data, and the IPCC ignores cooling periods.]
Measurement Issues — Surface
More Truth About Global Warming
I & I Editorial Board, May 20, 2025
Roy Spencer, a University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientist, has determined that “65% of the U.S. linear warming trend between 1895 and 2023 was due to increasing population density at the suburban and urban stations; 8% of the warming was due to urbanization at rural stations. Most of that (urban heat island) effect warming occurred before 1970.”
The downside to the facts found by [Spencer,] Christy and his colleagues is the frightening possibility that eco-radicals will use it to agitate for forcibly relocating urban residents into rural areas to, as Al Gore would say, “fight global warming.” This isn’t as unthinkable as it might seem, because climatistas have already suggested that skeptics should be prosecuted for the crime of questioning the narrative. Yes, they are that deranged.
Changing Weather
Above-normal Atlantic hurricane season expected, warn NOAA, NWS
By Saul Elbein, The Hill, May 22, 2025
If only we’d built those offshore wind turbines, eaten more cricket-burgers, we could have stopped the floods, right?
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 23, 2025
[SEPP Comment: The Australian Climate Council claims human caused climate change, Nova cites newspaper accounts of past floods in 1949, 1857, and the great flood of 1820.]
Changing Climate
Ancient Climate Shifts and Their Impact on North American Landscapes
By Robert Schreiber. Berlin, Germany (SPX) May 12, 2025
Link to paper: Patterns and drivers of Holocene moisture variability in mid-latitude eastern North America
By J. Sakari Salonen, et al., Nature Communications, April 15, 2025
From the abstract:
Proxy data for eastern North American hydroclimate indicate strong and persistent multi-millennial droughts during the Holocene, but climate model simulations often fail to reproduce the proxy-inferred droughts. Diagnosing the data–model mismatch can offer valuable insights about the drivers of hydrological variability and different regional sensitivities to hydroclimate forcing. Here we present a proxy–modeling synthesis for Holocene climates in the eastern North American mid-latitudes, including machine-learning-based water balance reconstructions and high-resolution climate simulations. These data-model results resolve prior-generation inconsistencies, show consistent spatiotemporal patterns of Holocene hydroclimate change, and enable assessment of the driving mechanisms. [Boldface added]
Changing Seas
April 2025 Two Years Ocean Warming Gone
By Ron Clutz, His Blog, May 23, 2025
Summary: The oceans are driving the warming this century. SSTs took a step up with the 1998 El Nino and have stayed there with help from the North Atlantic, and more recently the Pacific northern “Blob.” The ocean surfaces are releasing a lot of energy, warming the air, but eventually will have a cooling effect. The decline after 1937 was rapid by comparison, so one wonders: How long can the oceans keep this up? And is the sun adding forcing to this process?
Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice
Greenland Temperature Updates
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 19, 2025
The cyclical pattern of temperatures is intimately connected to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation:
Changing Earth
Volcanoes Spew 3X More CO2 Than Thought & 19,000 New Undersea Volcanoes Found: Is Human-Driven Climate Narrative Crumbling?
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, May 19, 2025
Link to editorial: “It’s just mind boggling.” More than 19,000 undersea volcanoes discovered: New seamount maps could aid in studies of ecology, plate tectonics, and ocean mixing.
By Paul Voosen, AAAS Science, April 19, 2023.
Only a Tiny Fraction of Deep Seafloor Mapped Over Seven Decades
By Clarence Oxford, Los Angeles CA (SPX) May 12, 2025
Link to paper: How little we’ve seen: A visual coverage estimate of the deep seafloor.
By Katherine L. C. Bell, Science Advances, May 7, 2025.
From abstract: Sixty-five percent of all in situ visual seafloor observations in our dataset were within 200 nm of only three countries: the United States, Japan, and New Zealand. Ninety-seven percent of all dives we compiled have been conducted by just five countries: the United States, Japan, New Zealand, France, and Germany. This small and biased sample is problematic when attempting to characterize, understand, and manage a global ocean.
45 Years Ago Today
By Tony Heller, His Blog, May 19, 2025
Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine
The World’s Most Popular Fruit May Be Endangered
A major source of bananas may be unable to grow them well before the end of the century
By Tim Karan, Newser, May 17, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Link to report: Going Bananas: how climate change threatens the world’s favorite fruit
By Kat Kramer and Joe Ware, Christian Aid, May 2025
[SEPP Comment: The alarmist report comes from an organization that states: “Christian Aid exists to create a world where everyone can live a full life, free from Poverty.” It calls for support of the Paris Agreement which will entrench poverty.]
Lowering Standards
EXCLUSIVE: Almost All ‘Extreme’ Temperature Highs in UK Now Being Recorded at Junk Sites with Massive Possible Errors
By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, May 20, 2025
Why is all this relevant and important? As we have shown many times at the Daily Sceptic, this super-heated data is fed into the mainstream to promote the political needs of Net Zero. Just one example out of many saw Justin Rowlatt from the BBC reporting last July that climate change is dramatically increasing the frequency of “extreme” high temperatures in the UK, “new Met Office analysis has confirmed”.
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?
New York Times On Climate Change: Two Candidates For Quote Of The Day
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, May 21, 2025
CNN’s Climate Con Exposed: Real Estate, Not Storms, Fuels Skyrocketing Insurance Costs
By Anthony Watts, Climate Realism, May 21, 2025
UK Sea Temperatures Soar
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 23, 2025
Today’s misinformation from the BBC:
Wrong, AfricaNews, Poor Resource Management, Not Climate, is Causing Water Shortages in Nigeria
By Linnea Lueken, Climate Realism, May 13, 2025
Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
Scientists issue dire warning as conditions shift at remote ‘blue ice’ glacier: ‘It’s the last chance for humanity.’
“Our human activities are accelerating the changes here because we are demanding more and more resources.”
By Timothy McGill, The Cool Down (TCD), May 20, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Communicating Better to the Public – Do a Poll?
Half of Australia doesn’t want to pay a single cent on Net Zero targets
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 17, 2025
Nobody believes the Experts.
Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.
PhD student debunks disturbing academic claim spreading through research databases: ‘It’s perfect as misinformation.’
“Check the references!”
By Ren Venkatesh, The Cool Down (TCD), May 22, 2025
Are Scientists who Contest the Climate Emergency “Publicity-seeking Contrarians?”
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, May 20, 2025
Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda
Human extinction is a baseless climate scare, Slate
By Anthony Watts, Climate Realism, May 19, 2025
In a recent Slate article, titled “I Used to Hope Humans Were Headed for Extinction. Now I Know That Fantasy Allows Us the Easy Way Out” author Lizzie Wade argues that humanity is on the path to extinction due to climate change, suggesting that a 4°C rise in global temperatures could spell the end for modern civilization.
Seeking momentum from facts
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 21, 2025
The BBC’s Mark Poynting Shows How to Spread Climate Alarm
By Chris Morrison, The Daily Sceptic, May 22, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]
Who can forget his recent sterling ‘scientists say’ effort that the Gulf Stream “appears to be getting weaker” under the headline, ‘Could the UK actually get colder with global warming?’ This effort drew much critical appreciation, not least because it headed off the awkward findings published the month before in a Nature paper that observed the Gulf Stream had not declined in strength since the 1960s.
The hottest nonsense ever
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 21, 2025
Questioning European Green
Raise Taxes To Save Net Zero – CCC
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 23, 2025
The Climate Change Committee has finally admitted that their Net Zero policies have made electricity unaffordable.
SSE Cut Net Zero Investment Plans
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 21, 2025
“SSE, one of the UK’s biggest energy companies has said it is unlikely to meet its 2030 renewable goal in the latest blow to the government’s net zero plans.”
If UK had never tried renewables, each person would be £3,000 richer
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 22, 2025
And if those levies had honest names they’d be called “Climate Changing Slush Fund”, or “Forced Renewable Support Fee”. The Contracts for Difference would be the “Guaranteed Profits for Windpower Levy”.
The Renewables Obligation levy could be the Banker Support Fund, or perhaps “Foreign Aid for China”.
Scottish Meat Industry Fights Back Against CCC Proposals
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 23, 2025
For once somebody is standing up to the bullies in the Climate Change Committee, who seem to think they now run the UK.
Questioning Green Elsewhere
The Case for Repealing IRA Clean Energy Subsidies
By Philip Rossetti , David Kemp, Real Clear Energy, May 19, 2025
When Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) along party lines in 2022, they pledged that the law would cut energy costs and achieve steep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These promises have fallen flat.
Funding Issues
Crony Alert: Jigar Shah at ‘Climate Solutions’ Dinner in Seattle
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, May 19, 2025
With billions of DOE dollars held in escrow, Jigar Shah will provide the latest coordinates of where the gold bricks landed that were thrown off the Titanic. No talk title was given, so I’ll suggest one: “Monetizing the Unearned: Podesta/Biden Energy Policy by the Billions.” This refers to the Inflation Reduction Act’s $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, $20 billion of which was rushed out the door with Trump’s electoral victory. Shah was at the controls of the legal looting.
[SEPP Comment: Jigar Shah is the former director of the Loan Programs Office of the DOE and was featured on the Time’s list of the “100 Most Influential People” in 2024.]
Litigation Issues
Claim: Proving Climate Change is Damaging the Economy is a Challenge
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, May 18, 2025
Perhaps because there is no damage?
[SEPP Comment: Who will the lawyers blame when global cooling starts?]
Empire Wind Construction Resumes After ‘Stop Work’ Order Lifted
By Derrell Proctor, Power Mag, May 10, 2025
[SEPP Comment: The article misses the key point that the project was fully permitted, and construction had already started. Compare this with the constant efforts of the environmental industry and their political supporters, with the support of the mainstream press, stopping ongoing construction of fully permitted oil and gas pipelines.]
‘Not Judiciable By Any Court’: Pennsylvania Court Tosses County’s Climate Lawsuit
By Audrey Streb, Daily Caller, May 19, 2025
“It’s not about solving climate change. It’s about Bucks County surviving it,” an attorney for the county Dan Flynn argued, comparing the case to major tobacco company cases in the hearing.
Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes
UN’s New Global Carbon Tax: Will the USA Get Stuck with the Bill?
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, May 17, 2025
“For years, ship emissions were a complex and often postponed topic in international climate discussions. But that changed in April 2025 when the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN body overseeing global shipping regulations, approved a historic plan to make the industry net-zero by around mid-century.”
[SEPP Comment: Will the new administration tell the IMO where to go?]
Subsidies and Mandates Forever
Killing Tax Credit Transferability Harms U.S. Strategic Interests
By Leslie Abrahams , Ray Cai , Joseph Majkut, Real Clear Energy, May 21, 2025
[SEPP Comment: What is the strategic interest in an electricity source that goes out at night or is as reliable as the wind?]
Ohio’s Manufacturing Renaissance: A Blueprint for American Prosperity
By Steve Stivers, Real Clear Energy, May 21, 2025
[SEPP Comment: Advocates the 45X tax credit “The 45X credit subsidizes the production of five types of goods: solar energy components, wind energy components, battery components, inverters, and critical minerals. Businesses may only claim the credit for goods produced in the United States or its territories. Goods produced from recycled materials qualify for the credit.”]
EPA and other Regulators on the March (or Retrograde?)
Energy Department now says gas export environmental impacts ‘outside’ its authority
By Rachen Frazin, The Hill, May 19, 2025
Speaking of fools
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 21, 2025
We say let Dr. Stillwell choose her shower head, Donald Trump choose his, and we’ll choose ours. And if you say we’re too dumb, why would you let us vote?
Energy Issues – Non-US
A New IEA Report and the Iberian Blackout End Dreams of an ‘Energy Transition’
By Mark Mills, WUWT, May 18, 2025
This doesn’t mean Big Tech or the IEA are backing off climate pledges. Nor does it mean the climate debate is settled. Nor will we see any diminution in transition fervor from the climate-industrial complex. Likely that fervor heats up as the Trump Administration attempts to deliver on its promise to defund the panoply of climate-energy programs marbled throughout federal agencies.
What it does mean is that whatever one believes about the science of the climate, the fact is that mandates and subsidies can’t change the physics of energy systems. Systems that can deliver reliable power at the scales necessary for robust growth remain anchored in precisely the fuels the transitionists want to abandon.
#LookItUp: Global electricity generation
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 21, 2025
Link to Electricity Mix: Explore data on where our electricity comes from and how this is changing.
By Hannah Ritchie and Pablo Rosado, Our World In Data, January 2024
Thus renewables didn’t displace fossil fuels alone, they displaced both fossil and nuclear. And twice as much nuclear as fossil, which is counterproductive if the point is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, though very much in keeping with progressives’ weirdly irrational fear of atomic energy.
Kathryn Porter: The true affordability of net zero
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 20, 2025
Link to: New report: The true affordability of net zero
By Kathryn Porter, Watt-Logic, May 19, 2025
From report: Will renewables get cheaper?
In a nutshell, no. All the signs indicate that not only are the costs of renewables and their subsidies rising, they are likely to rise still further.
Energy Issues – Iberian Blackout
No one knows what caused the Blackout but Spain is using more gas and nukes and less solar…
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 20, 2025
What Spain Has Learned Since The April 28 Blackout
By Frank Bosse (Klimanachrichten), Via P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 28, 2025
Speaks For Itself: PV Power Reduced 30% After Spain Blackout, Via P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 18, 2025
Energy Issues – Australia
Doubling Down on Dumb
By Peter Smith, Quadrant Online, May 19, 2025
People say that the whole house of cards will come tumbling down as power prices go on rising, as brownouts and blackouts ensue, and as manufacturing continues to flee the country. Maybe. I think not. Zealots are at the helm. And, in any event, at some point not too far distant, it will become too late.
Energy Issues — US
Puerto Rico’s Power Pivot: Trump Admin Ditches Solar Subsidies for Reliable Fossil Fuel Fix
By Charles Rotter, WUWT, May 22, 2025
The change in course indicates a pivot away from speculative energy planning toward established and operational power sources that can address deficiencies immediately.
DOE Orders Fossil Units Online After Puerto Rico Blackouts, Citing Dispatchable Capacity Need
By Sonal Patel, Power Mag, May 19, 2025
Near the end of the article: Renewables Mandate in Jeopardy
For now, the DOE’s emergency orders arrive amid a contentious policy debate over Puerto Rico’s renewable energy goals. The 2019 Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act set milestones of 40% renewables by 2025, 60% by 2040, and 100% by 2050, alongside a coal phase-out by 2028. Progress has clearly stalled, and only a fraction of federal funds for solar and storage projects have been disbursed. Large-scale renewables still account for little of the island’s supply.
FERC Anticipates Higher Energy Prices This Summer
By Nick Guay, Power Mag, May 21, 2025
Link to: FERC Releases 2025 Summer Assessment
Press Release, FERC, May 15, 2025
From the Assessment: The assessment details that if normal operating conditions prevail, all regions of the country will have adequate generating resources to meet expected summer demand and operating reserve requirements; however, margins are getting tighter as generation resources retire and load increases largely due to hyperscale users, such as data centers.
“We are losing dispatchable generation at a pace that is not sustainable and we are not adding sufficient equivalent generation capacity,” FERC Chairman Mark Christie said. “Today’s assessment brings that point home, and I’m looking forward to discussing resource adequacy issues in great depth at the technical conference we are having on June 4 and 5 here at FERC.”
NERC’s latest reliability assessment is unreliable.
By David Wojick, CFACT, May 22, 2025
NERC’s mission is to keep America’s grid reliable, which it has clearly failed to do. The nonsensical language in the SRA helps explain this failure. There is a deep fallacy that lets NERC systematically avoid saying how bad things really are.
This fallacy is the dangerously misleading use of the word “normal.” Here is a good example (out of many). Their basic finding is that “all areas are assessed as having adequate anticipated resources for normal summer peak load conditions.”
This sounds very reassuring, as does the whole report. The fallacy is that there is no such thing as “normal” summer conditions for a given day, week, month, or season. They really mean average conditions, and these are rare, not normal.
Reliance on ‘renewables’ makes widespread blackout nightmare more likely
By Gary Abernathy, Empower America, May 21, 2025
The insistence on replacing affordable, dependable energy with more expensive and unreliable alternatives is both illogical and impractical. Natural gas remains the most cost-effective, reliable and increasingly clean fuel choice in the world.
Virginia: The Front Line between AI and Climate Action
By Eric Worrall, WUWT, May 22, 2025
Virginia has a rich endowment of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, which is probably what initially drew the data centers, but the data center industry has outstripped local capacity. Virginia now imports around 37% of its electricity.
Washington’s Control of Energy
Trump administration approves first expedited uranium mining project
By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, May 23, 2025
Return of King Coal?
Trump Admin Backs Red States’ Antitrust Suit Against Financial Titans To ‘Protect Coal’
By Audrey Streb, Daily Caller, May 22, 2025
Nuclear Energy and Fears
Actuarial Examinations
Pete Hegseth to unstick US nuclear energy.
By Doomberg, Blog, May 22, 2025
The main weapon of the NRC is the linear no-threshold (LNT) model—an unscientific ethos that treats all exposure to radiation, no matter how minute, as both dangerous and cumulative. In other words, there is no threshold below which otherwise insignificant exposures are considered harmless. Combined with the risk-averse bureaucrat mindset and you get this astonishing result: only two of the current fleet of US reactors were approved and built under the auspices of the NRC.
Trump signs orders to boost nuclear power, including reduced environmental review
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, May 23, 2025
“Renewable” Electricity Champion Denmark Now Looking Into Nuclear
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, May 19, 2025
The real world cost calculations would be somewhat more complex than what I have outlined, but not much. The fact is that once you have nuclear plants to cover a given level of electricity demand, wind and solar generators serve no useful function.
[SEPP Comment: After offering huge subsidies to get bidders on its latest offshore wind scheme. See link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind.]
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
The green, red menace
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 21, 2025
As Shellenberger further observes:
“Last November, a Chinese solar company named Deye remotely shut down solar power systems in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan. ‘This inverter is not allowed use [sic] at Pakistan/USA/UK,’ read the message on the inverter screen. ‘Pls return to your supplier.’ What the Chinese did was simple, and straight out of a Bond movie: they effectively built remote-controlled cellular radios into the inverters.”
Maternity hospital evacuated after large solar panel fire
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 23, 2025
Whatever the exact cause, it is a reminder of the danger of putting large quantities of inflammable electrical equipment on the roof of a public building.
Dutch Cancel Offshore Wind Auction Due To Lack Of Interest
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 17, 2025
Denmark Goes Full Miliband
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 19, 2025
From Reuters: Denmark will launch offshore wind tenders with a capacity of three gigawatt (GW), enough to power three million homes, its energy ministry said on Monday, offering subsidies to developers of up to 55.2 billion Danish crowns ($8.32 billion).
[SEPP Comment: The sentence including “enough to power three million years” lacks the phrase “some of the time.”]
Why Undermining Offshore Wind Is a Threat to U.S. National Security
By Kirk S. Lippold, Real Clear Energy, May 19, 2025
[SEPP Comment: Can the retired naval officer explain why ships no longer rely on sails?]
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other
Powering AI in the Permian: Texas Critical Data Centers’ Sustainable Energy Play
New Era Helium and Sharon AI’s joint venture is pioneering a 250 MW net-zero energy data center in Ector County, Texas near Odessa in the Permian Basin. The project is leveraging natural gas and helium resources, with a focus on sustainable energy solutions and advanced computing infrastructure.
By David Chernicoff, Matt Vincent, and DCF Staff, Data Center Frontier, May 16, 2025
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles
Senate sends measure axing California EV mandate to Trump’s desk — sidestepping parliamentarian.
By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, May 22, 2025
However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) held a series of procedural votes Wednesday night that aimed to sidestep the parliamentarian’s ruling.
In particular, he raised “points of order” that allowed the Senate to vote for itself on whether EPA waivers are subject to be overturned by the CRA.
“When the Senate is facing a novel situation like this one … it is appropriate for the Senate to speak as a body to the question, something the Senate does when questions over applications of the rules arise,” Thune said during a floor speech.
Vermont Pulls the Plug on Its Electric Vehicle Mandate
Another state discovers California-style mandates are not workable given the current technologies and infrastructure.
By Leslie Eastman, Legal Insurrection, May 19, 2025
Carbon Schemes
DAC Dying? (“corporate theater wrapped in a green ribbon”)
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, May 22, 2025
“The economics are even more dismal…. Without the 45Q credit, few if any [Direct Air Capture projects] would be viable. As a reminder, the … Republican House bill working its way through Congress cuts IRA incentives for a raft of technologies, but leaves 45Q for carbon capture alone.” (- Michael Barnard, below)
California Dreaming
How to Save California’s Oil and Gas Industry
By Edward Ring, What’s Current, Accessed May 21, 2025
Link to study: Ensuring California’s Gasoline Security for the 21st Century.
By Michael Mische, USC Marshall School of Business, May 5, 2025
[SEPP Comment: A 67.8 percent decline in in-state oil field production from 1981 to 2023 and California has no inbound pipelines?]
The brass state.
By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, May 21, 2025
Like many others who blithely promised a green energy transition that would be painless, nay pleasurable, with everyone getting clean, green, fulfilling lucrative work in a pastoral setting, Newsom is discovering that his policies are creating a disaster. Now he wants to keep the policies but lose the disaster, and has no idea how to do it, and doesn’t even know he doesn’t.
Why Ohio Has a Say on California’s Gas Car Ban
By Josh Williams, Real Clear Energy, May 20, 2025
California’s ban isn’t just a threat to environmental policy—it’s a direct attack on American jobs, including thousands right here in Ohio.
Health, Energy, and Climate
West Nile Virus Lie Exposed
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 23, 2025
Despite its deceptive title, the West Nile Virus does not come from the Nile, although apparently the first recorded case was in Uganda in 1937.
The virus is already widely established across all of the 48 states in the contiguous United States and most of Europe – in other words in places with much colder climates than here.
And as with malaria and other mosquito borne diseases, the solution was worked out years ago by our forefathers – get rid of the mosquito breeding grounds.
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE
From Manure Mountains to Train Terrors: 4 Bizarre Fears Humans Left Behind
By Ross Pomeroy, WUWT, May 19, 2025
[SEPP Comment: Did the automobile save NYC from a mountain of manure?]
ARTICLES
1. The $10 Billion AI Startup That Thinks It Is an Energy Company
Octopus Energy’s artificial-intelligence platform is remaking the British renewables market—and the power supplier’s arms are now stretching to the U.S.
By Yusuf Khan, WSJ, May 21, 2025
TWTW Summary: The article begins with:
“In just ten years, Octopus Energy has gone from being a startup run by a handful of whiz kids, to a successful global business with several thousand employees and a valuation close to $10 billion. Visitors to its bright pink London office include Hollywood stars such as Idris Elba and top-tier politicians like U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.
And earlier this year, it became the largest household energy supplier in Britain, providing green power to more than 7 million consumers in the U.K. and close to 10 million globally.
The strange part in all of this, though, is that Octopus isn’t really an energy business at all. It’s a tech company that just happens to focus on renewables, and its most crucial component—an AI platform called Kraken—is largely unheard of.
Octopus co-founder and CEO Greg Jackson said the energy company was conceived in part simply as a means to test the capabilities of the Kraken platform. ‘We created Octopus as the ‘demo client’,’ he said.
Jackson said he wanted to prove a brand could be built that has positive customer relations, offers better service, can innovate and drive down costs.
He said Kraken ‘became the opportunity to prove this very disruptive approach and it’s worked so well and we’ve just been able to carry it out on a very large scale.’
The Kraken platform was built specifically with energy and utilities in mind. It can be used to manage energy consumption in customers’ homes, balance grids when more or less power is needed for a community and it can track consumer use of new technologies, such as solar power or electric-vehicle charging. The kind of data it harvests is being devoured by forward-thinking energy companies as homes and the power grids they are linked to are transformed by the addition of renewable power, Octopus said.
Kraken was carved out of Octopus into a separate company in 2024, and its former parent is now one of its main customers. Other customers include Origin Energy, EDF and now National Grid in the U.S. All of them use the data that Kraken collects to help them build products for an energy market that is fast becoming reliant on renewable power. Octopus also uses Kraken to communicate with its customers.
Kraken Chief Executive Amir Orad, who joined the company last year, said that much of the energy and utilities industry struggles to innovate and build new products because they use software that is out of date. ‘Every innovation coming from Octopus is a combination of the underlying technology, which is all Kraken,’ Orad said.
Take the ‘Zero Bills’ project launched by Octopus last year. Potential homeowners in the U.K. were offered the chance to pay nothing on their energy bills for at least ten years if they bought a property powered by green technology, including solar panels, heat pumps and chargers for EVs.
But behind the clever marketing campaign was a much smarter play, built for Kraken. By monitoring the properties, Kraken was able to acquire vital data on how consumers use the technology, developing statistics on when excess energy was available for the grid, or the optimum time to charge a car, or even when it might be a good time to do laundry. In short, Kraken was building a picture of what an entirely renewable energy-efficient house should look like—one that could then be replicated across the U.K. or in markets overseas.
This week, Kraken announced that it was partnering with National Grid in New York and Massachusetts to act as the AI customer service and billing platform for 6 million U.S. customers.
‘The U.S. is probably the most conservative market in energy,’ Orad said. ‘But it’s also a very large market and it needs a lot of help because of more regulations, more distributed energy, more data centers. We believe this will be a wake-up moment for the industry, that the time has come to seriously look at modernizing.’”
[TWTW Comment: In their efforts to subordinate consumer desires for reliable and affordable electricity to net zero ideology, will the politicians in Massachusetts and New York insist that the public obey dictates from Kraken?]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Are Climate Model Forecasts Useful for Policy Making?
That depends upon your point of view and from the political they are more than useful, essential even, to maintaining a sense of anxiety or fear in the population at large. The springboard for the [imaginary] threat related ‘controls’ they wish to impose on daily life; heating, transport, food etc.
Has anyone here, I wonder, ever thought of IPCC and its predilection for modelling and averages thereof, as credible and authoritative?
“Climate computer models are irreplaceable scientific tools to study the climate system and to allow projections of future climate change. They play a major role in IPCC reports, underpinning paleoclimate reconstructions, attribution studies, scenarios of future climate change, and concepts such as climate sensitivity and carbon budgets. While models have greatly contributed to the construction of climate change as a global problem, they are also influenced by political expectations. Models have their limits, they never escape uncertainties, and they receive criticisms, in particular for their hegemonic role in climate science. And yet climate models and their simulations of past, present and future climates, coordinated via an efficient model intercomparison project, have greatly contributed to the IPCC’s epistemic credibility and authority.”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/critical-assessment-of-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/climate-models/4CC24FD628A9A888540E0B39ED0D19CC
Of course, the giveaway was “models have greatly contributed to the construction of climate change as a global problem”
Indeed they certainly have.
“Underpinning” implies rock solid science which it ain’t and therefore can’t contribute to “the IPCC’s epistemic credibility and authority”. Au contraire!
That is quite the giveaway. I wonder if it was intentional?
Complete nonsense. Even the IPCC stated “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Using weasel words like “projections” doesn’t help. Climate is the statistics of weather observations, has always changed in the past, and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.
Climate change? Tell me something I don’t know!
CO2 has been labeled a pollutant due to its role supposed role in human-driven climate impacts, but this framing ignores its vital place in nature’s symbiotic dance. Plants, algae, and some microbes consume CO2 during photosynthesis, releasing O2 as a byproduct—effectively their “waste.” Animals inhale O2 and exhale CO2, their own metabolic waste. Each group’s discard is the other’s lifeline, creating a balanced cycle where CO2 is both waste and fertilizer. Calling CO2 a pollutant risks ignoring this duality, as it’s essential for plant life and global ecosystems. The EPA’s focus is on excess emissions disrupting this balance, but the term “pollutant” can mislead when applied to a naturally occurring compound so integral to life. The issue lies in human activity significantly tipping the scales, not CO2’s existence.
Even if human activity were “tipping the scales”, it’s not even close to the way the scales were tipped in the distant past.
Picking a fight with Fred Singer, who died 5 years ago, seems like bullying to me.
I’d call it cowardice.
“In fact, using a 30-yr ‘normal’ period is …” something that TWTW & SEPP could do everyone a favor by reporting on the historical beginning of this 30 year average. How did a simple comparison of local weather get converted to a “global temperature” that contorts to “climate”?
re: Fingerprinting
With all respect to Ross McKitrick, I don’t see how it’s possible to attribute ANY weather event, or even series of them, to anthropogenic CO2. One would have to be able to predict the weather beyond just a couple days for that to have any validity. And that’s always been a dubious prospect.
From the above article, under the first subheading titled “Inuendo and Insinuation:”, second-to-last paragraph:
“Geologically stable tidal gages show sea level rise has not increased for the last century, and the geological record show the rate of sea level rise has not increased in 8000 years. An increase shown in various satellite instruments is the result of the failure to use control periods to calibrate the instruments with stable tidal gages, a political failure.“
(my bold emphasis added)
Unfortunately, this is not correct. See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/05/sea-level-nasa-versus-noaa/ for a detailed rebuttal.
Almost no geophysicist today asserts that the world’s true sea level has not risen over the last 8000 years. The rate of true sea-level rise (currently at about 3.5 mm/year) is calculated to comprise about 2 mm/yr runoff from melting ice on land (due to global warming experienced since the onset of the Holocene about 12,500 years ago) and about 1.5 mm/year due to thermally-induced volumetric expansion of the previously colder 500-1000m upper layer of global ocean waters, consistent with (a) UAH satellite data indicating a GLAT warming trend of 0.13 deg-C per decade over Earth’s oceans as linearly-regression fit of the last 47 years of satellite-obtained global data, and (b) worldwide Argo float measurements of an average of about 0.06 dec-C per decade for the upper 500 m of the world’s oceans as measured over the last 20 years.
I normally give give high credibility to SEPP’s TWTW’s posting on WUWT, but this is a case where I am really disappointed.
I think their over site was not referring to rate of sea level rise rather than absolute sea level.
Couple of minor problems – 0.1 mm is about 4/1000 of an inch – a thick human hair. Anybody who claims to be able to measure a constantly varying “global sea level” to this accuracy is quite simply either lying or insane.
“Thermally induced volumetric expansion” is just word salad, and totally meaningless in this context. If water is warmed at depth, it floats to the surface – and cools at night. You have no idea what nonsensical misinformation you are dispensing.
Adding CO2 or H2O to air does not make it hotter. After four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the Earth has cooled. There is no GHE.
Excellent. Your disappointment demonstrates that reality is having some effect, at least, on your fantastical thinking.
If I measure sea-level changes to 1 mm resolution at intervals of once every 10 years and get successive values of 5 mm, 6 mm, 7 mm and 8 mm, then after 30 years I can reasonably conclude that the rate of sea-level rise is 3 mm/30 years, or 0.1 mm per year. This derived rate is not in any way equivalent to saying that sea-level rise rate was measured at any instant in time to a resolution of 0.1 mm/year.
The only reason that warm water would “float to the surface” (if beneath colder waters) is because it is less dense that the colder water . . . and its density decrease is directly related to water’s positive volumetric expansion coefficient as a function of temperature. Really, this is basic physics . . . why am I not surprised that you don’t understand it?
Well, I’ll leave that for others to decide, but I hope they’ll view your postings, above and elsewhere, for comparison.
OK then – 10 times the thickness of a human hair. I envy your unquestioning belief in the magical menstruation abilities of “climate scientists”. I don’t share it – maybe I’m more realistic than you.
You don’t seem to be disagreeing with me that “thermally induced volumetric expansion” (related to supposed global sea level rise) is nonsense.
The deep oceans are warmed gently from beneath. Deep ocean currents are caused by convection – and chaotic, as Lorenz determined.
You say
Because you are ignorant and gullible, perhaps? You don’t seem to have demonstrated my lack of knowledge about anything, as far as I can see.
Loving that phrase for reasons that you could not possibly imagine!
Also,
Not necessary for me to demonstrate . . . it is self-evident.
Oh well, I suppose that the ability of “climate scientists” to swoon at the slightest imputation they are fragile little petals, rather than hard-nosed seekers of fact, brought out my inner sexism.
On the other hand, you got me!
Good one.