A significant part of the change is due to the astonishing rise of solar power, and the extent to which it is squashing coal generation. The grid is now operating in a way that many people considered unimaginable, and maybe impossible, not that long ago.
The recent threat by US Energy Secretary Chris Wright to defund the International Energy Agency (IEA) has achieved its goal: the return of the pro fossil-fuel “Current Policies Scenario” (CPS) to the agency’s flagship reports. (WEO, Nov 12)
For critics of peak demand and the energy transition, this is seen as a victory for data over ideology. In reality, it is the reverse – it is a triumph of political gesture over foresight.
The more windmills will ve installed, the more the local climate will change to warm and dry.
And you have a general energy loss by air mouvement and respective weather changes over longer time.
Harvard’s Lee Miller and David Keith published their 2018 study in the academic journal Joule that created a high-resolution climate model of the continental United States, filled with sufficient wind turbines in the middle of the country to provide 100 percent of current U.S. demand. Their results showed that the continental U.S. got about 0.2°C warmer, on average, with the turbines in place, while within the wind-turbine-hosting region, the temperature increase was more like 0.5°C. That falls roughly in line with previous real-world measurements around wind farms.
If you narrow the calculation to consider just when the sun is out, the numbers are even more striking. Solar met 59% of electricity demand between 9am and 6pm. More than half of this – 37.6% of the total – was from small-scale systems spread across about 4m roofs. The rest was from large-scale solar farms.
Dylan McConnell, a senior research associate at the University of New South Wales, says between 12pm and 1pm solar output peaked at 67% of consumption. It was more than 70% in New South Wales and South Australia.
Coal-fired power, the historic backbone of the grid that once supplied nearly 90% of power, could not compete. Solar energy is incredibly cheap. It costs much more to burn coal. It meant the country’s ageing coal fleet was reduced to filling in gaps, kicking in barely a quarter of the electricity used over lunchtime.
That changed as the sun set, when the grid leant much more heavily on coal, with notable support from wind, hydro and batteries and gas.
And no useful numbers. No explanation of how much this all cost, why its better than just running on gas. Not in the post, not in the Guardian piece linked to. Pretending that intermittency doesn’t exist or doesn*t matter.
between 12pm and 1pm solar output peaked at 67% of consumption. It was more than 70% in New South Wales and South Australia.
This is the problem. And after 7pm? And its being treated as something to celebrate and an indication that the future is solar! No organized thinking about energy supply for a modern industrial economy whatever.
Much like a prisoner relies on the prison staff for food and shelter. Not having any choice, being forced to accept an inferior situation at the point of a gun, is not particularly laudable. Australia began as a prison colony and has returned to that state.
China builds big cities that no one lives in. The Soviet Union built big things as well. It did not mean that they were useful or particularly desirable. They were for show, grand propaganda, like big bird choppers.
I have a traditional open fire place which is used when temperatures drop. Having heard the alarmism around [closed] wood burners I checked the particulates in ppm with a roaring fire.
The range was 53 to 67 or 0.0053% to 0.0067%. That seems pretty good to me.
I’m posting today about an interesting finding in the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion” values I often write about. Here are the computed means of all the hourly values for 2022 at each of the following latitude rings for all longitudes:
-259.4 W/m^2 at 10N
-40.9 W/m^2 at 10S
159.6 W/m^2 at 23.5N
137.8 W/m^2 at 23.5S
35.0 W/m^2 at 45N
38.4 W/m^2 at 45S
-37.2 W/m^2 at 66.5N
-178.8 W/m^2 at 66.5S
Discussion:
Energy conversion is NOT a zero-sum variation at each latitude. The global patterns of the formation, lifetimes, and dissipation of high pressure (descending air) and low pressure (rising air) weather systems no doubt have a lot to do with this.
So what? Even the one-year mean values of energy conversion at different latitudes in both positive and negative directions are very large compared to the computed static incremental IR absorbing power of the atmosphere from rising concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O (e.g. ~4 W/m^2 for 2XCO2).
This is related to, but not the same thing, as advection of absorbed energy from the tropics toward the poles.
Thank you for reading. Your on-topic comments are welcome.
P.S. I know there must be substantial uncertainty in the stated values, and the precision to the nearest tenth is only numerical.
P.P.S. When dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation is properly considered, there is no good physical basis remaining to expect incremental CO2, CH4, N2O to drive ANY portion of ANY trend of climate variables. It cannot reasonably be supposed otherwise, and the modelers know this.
Truly disappointed by the reactions here.None.I also dont understand why so few people are willing to show their true colors in terms of their names. Especially so because the new government is on our side now? What am I missing here?
The lesson from the Sword of Damocles is that great privilege comes with great peril.
Our privileged position — life as we have known it — is that of the late Holocene, a brief period akin to the lifespan of the Syracuse monarch (Dionysius).
The Sword, hanging perilously by a single horse-hair ‘thread’ above the King’s head, is a metaphor for the life-ending glaciation certain to follow when the thread snaps (the present warm period abruptly ends).
Geologists (& others) today are in the position of the servant (Damocles) to whom the imperiled status is dramatically revealed, only when he is seated in the king’s place.
How does this revelation occur?
The Sword, hanging by a Thread, is obscured by a high Curtain, representing our fascination with the current warming and its correlation with the changes in atmospheric gases. Only when Damocles is seated in the king’s position, behind the Curtain, can he look directly at the mortal peril.
Burgois (2024) dramatizes our present predicament by means of this analogy, in order to show how we we can move ‘behind the Curtain’ of our ignorance.
As one means toward that end, Burgois focuses on the paleo-antarctic record of the most recent (Eemian) interglacial (warm period) and a curious feature of how it ended — profound & rapid cooling, starting millennia-long in advance of changes in gas composition, nothing like the present-day close correlation (~ 150 ppm per 1.0 C change in sea-surface temperature).
The message is clear, if not plainly stated: today’s mild climate and its correlated (non-causal) elevated GHG concentrations offer no sure protection against a sudden cold-dry-extinction.
In response to this, Henry Pool has offered his insights into how one may reinterpret the paleo-antarctic record of the (post-)Eemian glaciation. His cautions re certain ‘unquestioned answers’ are thought-provoking and worth considering carefully.
They do the same integrity thing with the Ukraine conflict.
People like Benoit Pare and Jaques Baud got in deep trouble (Baud was even debanked by EU) for telling the truth.
Contrary to journalists and politician those were observers working for NATO and OSCE.
What they saw and said has nothing to do with the official narrative
and Pare said that even the OSCE reports are fake as the top ignored all of his reports that did not went along with the official narrative.
You can literally dig everywhere on this planet.
If insect fossils can be found, then you’ll find some of insects that can only survive in warmer regions,
because it used to be warmer at one point.
( and it is likely that this is even true for the antarctic ).
During the 19th century Malaria was the main cause for unnatural deaths in Russia.
In North – Florida they used to grow cytrus fruits large scale until the 1960ies.
Then it got too cold.
Winter Olympics 1924 and 1932 got almost cancelled because it was too warm.
STORY TIP
An article in Vermont’s The Central Square, as reported by Andrew Stuttaford at National Review Online, describes cold weather failure of EV bus fleet. Must be 41 deg f. to charge bus battery, but cannot charge indoors due to fire risk!
Includes bonus, the article perfectly describes how local selection of new bus purchase determined solely by federal grant process. The locals can’t buy a bus without a fed grant.
Mr. Alberts: Thank you for the follow up and correction. Apologize in advance to those who expect links, it’s not too much to ask. I don’t do them, just too stubborn.
That doesn’t make sense to me. If you’re already looking at the article, just copy the address and paste it in your comment. It couldn’t be any easier.
Mr. Alberts: It wouldn’t make sense if I ever bothered to learn to do it. I haven’t, and don’t expect to learn. Maybe I just like to see who is curious and willing to learn, you did well!
Electric buses are supposed to drive the mobility revolution in public transport. But from cyber risks and software problems to massive limitations in range and performance, it’s clear: the electric revolution is not only unrealistic, but dangerous.
Not buses but European based carmaker Stellantis is to take a £19bn hit after it “overestimated” the pace of the shift to EVs and is now selling a stake in a battery joint venture according to UK i newspaper, 7th Feb.
RGHE theory requires the Earth’s surface to radiate +/- 400 W/m^2 of upwelling radiant energy, i.e. ocean ϵ assumed to be 0.9. (It’s more likely 0.15.) and USCRN & SURFRAD claim to measure that.
System temperature is a function of the kinetic processes: Conduction + Convection + Advection (wind) + Latent (evap/cond).
Radiation is a function of that temperature.
As the kinetic processes rise and fall radiation tags along, falling & rising.
Conduction + Convection + Advection + Latent + Radiation = 100% aka ALL
Emissivity = Radiation / All
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up search: “Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder” or request a copy.
Hmmm….HOGWASH
Sea water emissivity values show a decrease from 0.975 to a value 0.970, with increasing suspended sediment loading up to around 100 mg/L, where emissivity levels off until it falls again to a value of 0.962 at concentrations of 10,000 mg/L. Measured by many scientists over many years, commonly a known factor amongst heat transfer engineering types.
Caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, et al. Consensus science has been way wrong before & wrong now.
Upwelling 0.9 or 400 W/m^2 produces more than 342 ISR arriving ToA, more than the 240 net albedo, more than the 160 net to surface violating LoT 1.
To avoid OLR imbalance must “back” radiate 333 W/m^2 from cold to warm without work violating LoT 2.
Two balances, real one originating from Sun, imaginary second originating from 16 C BB calculation.
TFK_bams09 and clones violate GAAP with duplicate 63’s and LoT 1 with “extra” thin air energy and “back” radiation.
Tweaking IR instruments produces energy & flux that does not exist but conforms to RGHE theory.
IR instruments are designed and calibrated to report a referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body.
If not, the operator is advised to apply black tape or paint or insert a known emissivity.
Read the manual.
Emissivity is the ratio between the IR energy leaving a system and the IR energy were the system a black body at its temperature.
For TFK_bams09 this ratio is 63 W/m^2 (from solar kinetic balance) / 396 W/m^2, BB at 16 C or 289 K = 0.16.
The 396 is an imaginary calculation for the denominator of the emissivity ratio.
It is not real.
No need to bugger the ocean surface pretending that it is or create imaginary “back” or “net” radiation.
Nick, you have created a complete Gish Gallop of flat-earther amateur garbage. For a start 396 is the result of the SB equation emitting at average surface temp. Over a century of lab readings and experiments behind SB. Basically the same methodology that says the radiation from the sun is 1360 W/m^2 at our radius from the Sun…or 240 W/m^2 over the entire 4PixR^2 surface of the Earth…So a 396-240=156 W/m^2 GHE is what we have. Your reinvention of 63 W net IR emission divided by 396 surface emission is NOT the definition of emissivity.
Anthony, Charles, someone, PLEASE look into the email notifications problem. I followed comments on the “feminist climate activists” article when there were less than a dozen comments on it. As of now there are 88, and I have only gotten 6.
This makes it impossible for me to follow the discussions and renders the site essentially useless.
Joe has also complained about this. How many readers are just giving up without saying anything?
From Neutron Bytes: “US-DOE has issued a Request for Information (RFI) inviting states to express interest in hosting Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses. It is one of the most ambitious requests for information issued in recent memory. The agency says the new effort will “modernize the nation’s full nuclear fuel cycle and strengthen America’s leadership in advanced nuclear energy and support advanced nuclear energy projects.”
————————————————
Nuclear Topic #2: Nuclear Safety Requirements for US-DOE’s small reactor demonstration program
The US Department of Energy uses its own approach to nuclear safety for many of its own internal nuclear projects, independent of the the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The US-DOE has issued a greatly reduced set of nuclear safety requirements for its small reactor demonstration program, with the intention of streamlining the internal DOE approval process for construction of demonstration reactors.
The new requirements eliminate the ‘Linear No Threshold’ (LNT) and ‘As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)’ stipulations for the reactor demonstration program.
IMHO, the use of this reduced set of requirements is a trial test balloon for a decision to greatly reduce the LNT and ALARA requirements for new-build commercial reactors.
If this eventually happens, if the NRC’s LNT-based and ALARA-based regulations are largely eliminated, I predict that the NRC’s nuclear quality assurance requirements will remain in place pretty much as they are now, simply because a reactor which has not been constructed to its design specification is inherently unsafe.
————————————————
Nuclear Topic #3: The Economics of Large versus Small Nuclear Reactors
A new report from the Nuclear Innovation Alliance by Dr. Jessica Lovering examines the economics of the large 1100+ MW nuclear reactors versus the oncoming small modular reactors:
Today the UK took one step closer to having Ed Miliband, the Net Zero enthusiast currently in charge of ‘energy and climate change’, as Prime Minister.
Keir Starmer, the current Prime Minister, has just lost his Chief of Staff, in consequence of the latest Epstein revelations. This takes Starmer one step closer to a leadership contest, which he would almost certainly lose. Who would replace him is not clear, but Miliband is certainly on the short list. If not PM he will almost certainly be Chancellor in any new Government.
They are coming within sight of the cliff now, and their reaction is that it is time to pick up the pace and start the finishing sprint.
“They are coming within sight of the cliff now, and their reaction is that it is time to pick up the pace and start the finishing sprint.” I agree but see a bigger picture than just Labour. The faults apparent with Labour are inherent in all political parties they are just not seen until power is gained. All political parties are racing to the cliff.
Clicking on the “Full data tables 1–19” link gave me an Excel spreadsheet with lots of “interesting” information.
In the “4A. Capacity” tab it claims a “Total electric industry” capacity for Iowa of just over 23.2 GW, of which 12.865 GW is (onshore) “Wind” turbines in 2024 (just over 55%).
In the “5. Generation” tab the “Total electric industry” generated almost 70.45 TWh of electricity in 2024, with almost 44.3 TWh of that from “Wind”, or just under 63% (!) … i.e. “around two-thirds” …
In the “10. Source-Disposition” tab, however, note that of the ~70.45 TWh of “Total supply / Total disposition” almost 10.15 TWh (14.4%, to be precise) went to “Net interstate exports“, so the proportion of Iowa’s “local / in-state consumption” — 70.45 – 10.15 ~= 60.3 TWh — is unclear.
As the saying goes, “it’s complicated”, as the historical graph of “Wind / Total generated” numbers I produced below shows.
Can anyone help me with this little personal research project? I can’t seem to find anywhere information on how much ploughed land surface area affects earth’s albedo?
If one of the finger prints of global warming is said to be stratospheric cooling, due to more near and surface absorption of heat, intensive ploughing of the land surface must have an impact. My assumption is that ploughed land with exposed soil will almost always produce a darker surface than grassland – especially in Autumn/ Fall when grassland is a much lighter colour; and the time of year when huge tracts of land in Eurasia and North America have turned soil. What is more, particularly in Siberia I suspect ploughing often takes place after or during early snowfall, assuming the ground hasn’t been hardened by frost. This again may well turn the surface from white to dark, causing a complete reversal of the albedo affect in those areas.
Is this an area of enquiry that has been overlooked in the possible causes of the current phase of global warming? Can anyone point me in the right direction to study this further?
this is a test- having some trouble with the site- replies to my comments aren’t coming to my email box- I will reply to this to see if I can get that reply to my email
He owns much of the BNSF railway that can transport coal.
(BC and perhaps AB export high grade coal for steel plants, by railways including:
Canadian Pacific to a special port on the Strait of Georgia in SW BC
Canadian National (formerly BC Rail) line from Tumbler Ridge in the Peace River area of BC to Prince George where the CN mainline takes it to Prince Rupert on the north coast of BC.
Perhaps some still from an an area west of Edmonton, via CN mainline to Prince Rupert.
I was amazed years ago at indications of coal in soil west of Edmonton, I stopped at a park on a lake near Highway 16 and realized there was a coal-fired power plant on the other side of the lake, using its water for cooling.)
started closing nuclear power plants, to appease Green politicians so she could stay in powerdid open a new coal minedepended on Russian natural gas without a long-term contract, despite Angela Merkel identifying Putin’s nature years before he invaded Ukraine again
(The Fraser Institute is a conservative think-tank based in the Metro Vancouver area of SW BC where the Fraser River enters ocean water.)
China switches on world’s first 20MW wind turbine to feed power into the grid
For not using wind power according to some, they seem quite dedicated building it.
Australia’s grid now relies on renewable energy as much as coal. Those who doubted it look foolish
(Truly a SUNday :P)
Bonus oil:
The Quiet Retreat: Why the oil and gas industry is implementing its own decline, even as the IEA resurrects an old growth scenario
Why can’t you even link correctly? 🤣🫣
Sorry, first link again:
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/wind-turbine-powers-china-grid
A Danish energy giant has revived plans for a massive North Sea wind farm after Ed Miliband promised billions more in subsidies.
Ørsted, the world’s largest wind farm operator,said it would resubmit plans for the Hornsea 4 wind farm off the east of England next year after Mr Miliband offered a much higher subsidy for the power generated.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2026/02/06/here-have-another-1-9-billion-orsted/
Another £1.9 billion and that won’t be the end of it.
If you remove all the wind and solar…. the grid still functions…
…. so it does not “RELY ON” wind and solar at all.
If you remove coal and gas.. the grid COLLAPSES.
Wind and solar are totally unsustainable in the long run.
They need replacing every 15-20 years.. and that can only be done using COAL, OIL and GAS
…..don’t post. image didn’t attach
Last 48 hours of Australian NEM
Black and brown coal doing a large proportion of the work.
The more windmills will ve installed, the more the local climate will change to warm and dry.
And you have a general energy loss by air mouvement and respective weather changes over longer time.
Would it? I wonder if these mills could ever extract a significant proportion of wind energy.
Krishna was talking about local climate.
So yes
I think everybody sees the limitations of windmills and solar, even the Chinese.
The only reason they build more is to encourage idiots like Mad Ed to buy more from them and continue the bankrupting of the Uk and other dupes.
Yes, China uses their domestic wind & solar installations as a ‘showroom’ for selling their wares to the gullible Gweilo,
Meanwhile, their “own-use” coal and nuclear power plants construction continues on apace.
If you narrow the calculation to consider just when the sun is out, the numbers are even more striking. Solar met 59% of electricity demand between 9am and 6pm. More than half of this – 37.6% of the total – was from small-scale systems spread across about 4m roofs. The rest was from large-scale solar farms.
Dylan McConnell, a senior research associate at the University of New South Wales, says between 12pm and 1pm solar output peaked at 67% of consumption. It was more than 70% in New South Wales and South Australia.
Coal-fired power, the historic backbone of the grid that once supplied nearly 90% of power, could not compete. Solar energy is incredibly cheap. It costs much more to burn coal. It meant the country’s ageing coal fleet was reduced to filling in gaps, kicking in barely a quarter of the electricity used over lunchtime.
That changed as the sun set, when the grid leant much more heavily on coal, with notable support from wind, hydro and batteries and gas.
And no useful numbers. No explanation of how much this all cost, why its better than just running on gas. Not in the post, not in the Guardian piece linked to. Pretending that intermittency doesn’t exist or doesn*t matter.
between 12pm and 1pm solar output peaked at 67% of consumption. It was more than 70% in New South Wales and South Australia.
This is the problem. And after 7pm? And its being treated as something to celebrate and an indication that the future is solar! No organized thinking about energy supply for a modern industrial economy whatever.
Trolling.
Kind of the energy equivalent of “why irrigate when rain is cheaper?”
Much like a prisoner relies on the prison staff for food and shelter. Not having any choice, being forced to accept an inferior situation at the point of a gun, is not particularly laudable. Australia began as a prison colony and has returned to that state.
China builds big cities that no one lives in. The Soviet Union built big things as well. It did not mean that they were useful or particularly desirable. They were for show, grand propaganda, like big bird choppers.
‘The Soviet Union built big things as well.’
As a colleague of mine once joked during the Cold War era, “Russia builds the world’s largest micro-switches”.
6am Monday..
NSW 91% COAL.. 2% wind + some bits……
Qld…75% COAL.. 6% Gas + a bit of wind and hydro…..
Victoria 80% COAL, 14% Hydro + scraps….
SA 63% GAS
Good thing the grid doesn’t rely on wind and solar, isn’t it……
Wanker!
I have a traditional open fire place which is used when temperatures drop. Having heard the alarmism around [closed] wood burners I checked the particulates in ppm with a roaring fire.
The range was 53 to 67 or 0.0053% to 0.0067%. That seems pretty good to me.
Children living in homes with wood burners could be exposed to over three times more pollution than those in non-wood-burning homes.
…
Cooking added to the measured air pollution
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/06/children-living-homes-wood-burners-exposed-pollution
Wood burners are closed and must have a flue. But then the attack on cooking is a bit of a giveaway.
“Could” is, as usual, doing all the heavy lifting.
I burn coal, not just wood.
The methodology was a joke.
I’m posting today about an interesting finding in the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion” values I often write about. Here are the computed means of all the hourly values for 2022 at each of the following latitude rings for all longitudes:
-259.4 W/m^2 at 10N
-40.9 W/m^2 at 10S
159.6 W/m^2 at 23.5N
137.8 W/m^2 at 23.5S
35.0 W/m^2 at 45N
38.4 W/m^2 at 45S
-37.2 W/m^2 at 66.5N
-178.8 W/m^2 at 66.5S
These values are also given on each of the plots in the histogram folder within this Google Drive folder here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Negative values indicate [internal energy + potential energy] -> [kinetic energy]
Positive values indicate [kinetic energy] -> [internal energy + potential energy]
Discussion:
Energy conversion is NOT a zero-sum variation at each latitude. The global patterns of the formation, lifetimes, and dissipation of high pressure (descending air) and low pressure (rising air) weather systems no doubt have a lot to do with this.
So what? Even the one-year mean values of energy conversion at different latitudes in both positive and negative directions are very large compared to the computed static incremental IR absorbing power of the atmosphere from rising concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O (e.g. ~4 W/m^2 for 2XCO2).
This is related to, but not the same thing, as advection of absorbed energy from the tropics toward the poles.
Thank you for reading. Your on-topic comments are welcome.
P.S. I know there must be substantial uncertainty in the stated values, and the precision to the nearest tenth is only numerical.
P.P.S. When dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation is properly considered, there is no good physical basis remaining to expect incremental CO2, CH4, N2O to drive ANY portion of ANY trend of climate variables. It cannot reasonably be supposed otherwise, and the modelers know this.
I tackled a problem posed by J.Burgois. I would be very interested in hearing your comments on the solution that I offered for his dilemma.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2026/02/01/the-sword-of-damocles-behind-the-curtain-of-earths-global-warming-a-review/
Truly disappointed by the reactions here.None.I also dont understand why so few people are willing to show their true colors in terms of their names. Especially so because the new government is on our side now? What am I missing here?
Henry, we know…that your real name is John Doe, no?
Henry is always trying to drive WUWT traffic to his site. I tend to ignore him.
The lesson from the Sword of Damocles is that great privilege comes with great peril.
Our privileged position — life as we have known it — is that of the late Holocene, a brief period akin to the lifespan of the Syracuse monarch (Dionysius).
The Sword, hanging perilously by a single horse-hair ‘thread’ above the King’s head, is a metaphor for the life-ending glaciation certain to follow when the thread snaps (the present warm period abruptly ends).
Geologists (& others) today are in the position of the servant (Damocles) to whom the imperiled status is dramatically revealed, only when he is seated in the king’s place.
How does this revelation occur?
The Sword, hanging by a Thread, is obscured by a high Curtain, representing our fascination with the current warming and its correlation with the changes in atmospheric gases. Only when Damocles is seated in the king’s position, behind the Curtain, can he look directly at the mortal peril.
Burgois (2024) dramatizes our present predicament by means of this analogy, in order to show how we we can move ‘behind the Curtain’ of our ignorance.
As one means toward that end, Burgois focuses on the paleo-antarctic record of the most recent (Eemian) interglacial (warm period) and a curious feature of how it ended — profound & rapid cooling, starting millennia-long in advance of changes in gas composition, nothing like the present-day close correlation (~ 150 ppm per 1.0 C change in sea-surface temperature).
The message is clear, if not plainly stated: today’s mild climate and its correlated (non-causal) elevated GHG concentrations offer no sure protection against a sudden cold-dry-extinction.
In response to this, Henry Pool has offered his insights into how one may reinterpret the paleo-antarctic record of the (post-)Eemian glaciation. His cautions re certain ‘unquestioned answers’ are thought-provoking and worth considering carefully.
Many, many thanks for this comment. I appreciate this so much. I want to attach it to my post. Is OK?
Yes, good comments. Thank you.
Facts Flee as the EU Prepares to Clamp Down on Climate Dissent
Launched at the COP30 meeting in Brazil last year, the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change (DIICC) was, as reported here, a manifesto for censorship wrapped in venal doublespeak.
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/02/08/facts-flee-as-the-eu-prepares-to-clamp-down-on-climate-dissent/
Climate is the only ” scientific ” field that needs to be protected by information integrity.
I wonder why?
“Information integrity”
Sounds like classic “1984” doublespeak to me.
The Climate Alarmists can’t win the argument so they try to shutdown the argument.
Trump will probably get involved. 🙂
They do the same integrity thing with the Ukraine conflict.
People like Benoit Pare and Jaques Baud got in deep trouble (Baud was even debanked by EU) for telling the truth.
Contrary to journalists and politician those were observers working for NATO and OSCE.
What they saw and said has nothing to do with the official narrative
and Pare said that even the OSCE reports are fake as the top ignored all of his reports that did not went along with the official narrative.
Story tip
Plant, insect, and fungi fossils under the center of Greenland’s ice sheet are evidence of ice-free times | PNAS
You can literally dig everywhere on this planet.
If insect fossils can be found, then you’ll find some of insects that can only survive in warmer regions,
because it used to be warmer at one point.
( and it is likely that this is even true for the antarctic ).
During the 19th century Malaria was the main cause for unnatural deaths in Russia.
In North – Florida they used to grow cytrus fruits large scale until the 1960ies.
Then it got too cold.
Winter Olympics 1924 and 1932 got almost cancelled because it was too warm.
But wasn’t Russia emerging out of Little Ice Age in 19c? Aren’t mosquitoes happy in tundra summer?
Thanks for the reference.
For those willing to deal with the science, it is easy to see how it is wrong..
A Falsification – the incredibly stupid case of water vapor feedback
STORY TIP
An article in Vermont’s The Central Square, as reported by Andrew Stuttaford at National Review Online, describes cold weather failure of EV bus fleet. Must be 41 deg f. to charge bus battery, but cannot charge indoors due to fire risk!
Includes bonus, the article perfectly describes how local selection of new bus purchase determined solely by federal grant process. The locals can’t buy a bus without a fed grant.
Link?
Ok, it’s “The Center Square” not “Central”, and here’s the link.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/vermont/article_89adc3fd-7efd-403f-85d1-9b9b386705f0.html
Mr. Alberts: Thank you for the follow up and correction. Apologize in advance to those who expect links, it’s not too much to ask. I don’t do them, just too stubborn.
That doesn’t make sense to me. If you’re already looking at the article, just copy the address and paste it in your comment. It couldn’t be any easier.
Mr. Alberts: It wouldn’t make sense if I ever bothered to learn to do it. I haven’t, and don’t expect to learn. Maybe I just like to see who is curious and willing to learn, you did well!
https://www.powerthefuture.com/vermonts-green-buses-cant-survive-vermont/
Here we talk about German problems
Electric buses are supposed to drive the mobility revolution in public transport. But from cyber risks and software problems to massive limitations in range and performance, it’s clear: the electric revolution is not only unrealistic, but dangerous.
Not buses but European based carmaker Stellantis is to take a £19bn hit after it “overestimated” the pace of the shift to EVs and is now selling a stake in a battery joint venture according to UK i newspaper, 7th Feb.
Reality is starting to set in.
Government central planning and private industry don’t mix well most of the time. This is a good example.
I read where moss spores survived the environment of space for 180 days on the International Space Station.
Elon will probably take some moss with him when he goes to Mars.
a rolling stone (MUSK) gathers no moss
Maybe not, but Jagger gathers ex-wives
RGHE theory requires the Earth’s surface to radiate +/- 400 W/m^2 of upwelling radiant energy, i.e. ocean ϵ assumed to be 0.9. (It’s more likely 0.15.) and USCRN & SURFRAD claim to measure that.
System temperature is a function of the kinetic processes: Conduction + Convection + Advection (wind) + Latent (evap/cond).
Radiation is a function of that temperature.
As the kinetic processes rise and fall radiation tags along, falling & rising.
Conduction + Convection + Advection + Latent + Radiation = 100% aka ALL
Emissivity = Radiation / All
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up search: “Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder” or request a copy.
No BB = no RGHE.
Hmmm….HOGWASH
Sea water emissivity values show a decrease from 0.975 to a value 0.970, with increasing suspended sediment loading up to around 100 mg/L, where emissivity levels off until it falls again to a value of 0.962 at concentrations of 10,000 mg/L. Measured by many scientists over many years, commonly a known factor amongst heat transfer engineering types.
Caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, et al. Consensus science has been way wrong before & wrong now.
Upwelling 0.9 or 400 W/m^2 produces more than 342 ISR arriving ToA, more than the 240 net albedo, more than the 160 net to surface violating LoT 1.
To avoid OLR imbalance must “back” radiate 333 W/m^2 from cold to warm without work violating LoT 2.
Two balances, real one originating from Sun, imaginary second originating from 16 C BB calculation.
TFK_bams09 and clones violate GAAP with duplicate 63’s and LoT 1 with “extra” thin air energy and “back” radiation.
Tweaking IR instruments produces energy & flux that does not exist but conforms to RGHE theory.
IR instruments are designed and calibrated to report a referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body.
If not, the operator is advised to apply black tape or paint or insert a known emissivity.
Read the manual.
Emissivity is the ratio between the IR energy leaving a system and the IR energy were the system a black body at its temperature.
For TFK_bams09 this ratio is 63 W/m^2 (from solar kinetic balance) / 396 W/m^2, BB at 16 C or 289 K = 0.16.
The 396 is an imaginary calculation for the denominator of the emissivity ratio.
It is not real.
No need to bugger the ocean surface pretending that it is or create imaginary “back” or “net” radiation.
Nick, you have created a complete Gish Gallop of flat-earther amateur garbage. For a start 396 is the result of the SB equation emitting at average surface temp. Over a century of lab readings and experiments behind SB. Basically the same methodology that says the radiation from the sun is 1360 W/m^2 at our radius from the Sun…or 240 W/m^2 over the entire 4PixR^2 surface of the Earth…So a 396-240=156 W/m^2 GHE is what we have. Your reinvention of 63 W net IR emission divided by 396 surface emission is NOT the definition of emissivity.
Anthony, Charles, someone, PLEASE look into the email notifications problem. I followed comments on the “feminist climate activists” article when there were less than a dozen comments on it. As of now there are 88, and I have only gotten 6.
This makes it impossible for me to follow the discussions and renders the site essentially useless.
Joe has also complained about this. How many readers are just giving up without saying anything?
Same problem.
Me.
Nuclear Topic #1: Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses
DOE Seeks Homes for the Elements of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (Neutron Bytes, January 31st, 2026)
From Neutron Bytes: “US-DOE has issued a Request for Information (RFI) inviting states to express interest in hosting Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses. It is one of the most ambitious requests for information issued in recent memory. The agency says the new effort will “modernize the nation’s full nuclear fuel cycle and strengthen America’s leadership in advanced nuclear energy and support advanced nuclear energy projects.”
————————————————
Nuclear Topic #2: Nuclear Safety Requirements for US-DOE’s small reactor demonstration program
The US Department of Energy uses its own approach to nuclear safety for many of its own internal nuclear projects, independent of the the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The US-DOE has issued a greatly reduced set of nuclear safety requirements for its small reactor demonstration program, with the intention of streamlining the internal DOE approval process for construction of demonstration reactors.
NPR ~ DOE Secretly Changed Nuclear Safety Rules (Neutron Bytes, January 28th, 2026)
The new requirements eliminate the ‘Linear No Threshold’ (LNT) and ‘As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)’ stipulations for the reactor demonstration program.
IMHO, the use of this reduced set of requirements is a trial test balloon for a decision to greatly reduce the LNT and ALARA requirements for new-build commercial reactors.
If this eventually happens, if the NRC’s LNT-based and ALARA-based regulations are largely eliminated, I predict that the NRC’s nuclear quality assurance requirements will remain in place pretty much as they are now, simply because a reactor which has not been constructed to its design specification is inherently unsafe.
————————————————
Nuclear Topic #3: The Economics of Large versus Small Nuclear Reactors
A new report from the Nuclear Innovation Alliance by Dr. Jessica Lovering examines the economics of the large 1100+ MW nuclear reactors versus the oncoming small modular reactors:
“Right Sizing Reactors: Balancing trade-offs between Economies of Scale and Volume” (January 26th, 2026)
The NIA also hosted a publication webinar for the new report:
Recording of the 01/30/27 Webinar about this Report
See Dan Yurman’s summary of the new NIA report further down in the text of the same link referenced above.
Today the UK took one step closer to having Ed Miliband, the Net Zero enthusiast currently in charge of ‘energy and climate change’, as Prime Minister.
Keir Starmer, the current Prime Minister, has just lost his Chief of Staff, in consequence of the latest Epstein revelations. This takes Starmer one step closer to a leadership contest, which he would almost certainly lose. Who would replace him is not clear, but Miliband is certainly on the short list. If not PM he will almost certainly be Chancellor in any new Government.
They are coming within sight of the cliff now, and their reaction is that it is time to pick up the pace and start the finishing sprint.
Miliband won’t get the gig. And with luck the person who does will kick him out of his current post.
I hope. (I know; hope is not a plan.)
Make Miliband the King – or, at least, a Prince.
“They are coming within sight of the cliff now, and their reaction is that it is time to pick up the pace and start the finishing sprint.” I agree but see a bigger picture than just Labour. The faults apparent with Labour are inherent in all political parties they are just not seen until power is gained. All political parties are racing to the cliff.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Iowas-Wind-Boom-Stalls-as-Politics-Clashes-With-Power-Prices.html
I said to the web site:
“I don’t believe ‘wind energy provides around two-thirds of the state’s energy.’
While much of Iowa is relatively flat, it is not especially windy territory.
Do understand that anti-fossil-fuel advocates like to quote installed capacity not output actually realized.
And I’d make sure the statistic parses out solar generation (I don’t remember if Iowa is cloudy often or not, definitely is not Seattle in winter).”
I’ve lived in eastern Iowa.
“I don’t believe …”
I didn’t either, so I looked at the “official” EIA website page for the state of Iowa.
URL : https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/Iowa/
Clicking on the “Full data tables 1–19” link gave me an Excel spreadsheet with lots of “interesting” information.
In the “4A. Capacity” tab it claims a “Total electric industry” capacity for Iowa of just over 23.2 GW, of which 12.865 GW is (onshore) “Wind” turbines in 2024 (just over 55%).
In the “5. Generation” tab the “Total electric industry” generated almost 70.45 TWh of electricity in 2024, with almost 44.3 TWh of that from “Wind”, or just under 63% (!) … i.e. “around two-thirds” …
In the “10. Source-Disposition” tab, however, note that of the ~70.45 TWh of “Total supply / Total disposition” almost 10.15 TWh (14.4%, to be precise) went to “Net interstate exports“, so the proportion of Iowa’s “local / in-state consumption” — 70.45 – 10.15 ~= 60.3 TWh — is unclear.
As the saying goes, “it’s complicated”, as the historical graph of “Wind / Total generated” numbers I produced below shows.
Can anyone help me with this little personal research project? I can’t seem to find anywhere information on how much ploughed land surface area affects earth’s albedo?
If one of the finger prints of global warming is said to be stratospheric cooling, due to more near and surface absorption of heat, intensive ploughing of the land surface must have an impact. My assumption is that ploughed land with exposed soil will almost always produce a darker surface than grassland – especially in Autumn/ Fall when grassland is a much lighter colour; and the time of year when huge tracts of land in Eurasia and North America have turned soil. What is more, particularly in Siberia I suspect ploughing often takes place after or during early snowfall, assuming the ground hasn’t been hardened by frost. This again may well turn the surface from white to dark, causing a complete reversal of the albedo affect in those areas.
Is this an area of enquiry that has been overlooked in the possible causes of the current phase of global warming? Can anyone point me in the right direction to study this further?
this is a test- having some trouble with the site- replies to my comments aren’t coming to my email box- I will reply to this to see if I can get that reply to my email
test- test- oh, Joe, you’re so brilliant 🙂
‘I don’t think they have a case’: Why Danielle Smith is playing hardball with the U.S. on electricity trade | Edmonton Journal
Montana is complaining about Alberta’s new policy of export and import of electricity.
Alberta’s generation has become quite variable with greater dependence on solar and wind, and no coal plants.
(It does have natural gas generation, much NG produced in NW AB/NE BC.)
Warren Buffet? His company owns coal mines in the Powder River Basin of MT-WY. Powder River Basin – Wikipedia.
He owns much of the BNSF railway that can transport coal.
(BC and perhaps AB export high grade coal for steel plants, by railways including:
I was amazed years ago at indications of coal in soil west of Edmonton, I stopped at a park on a lake near Highway 16 and realized there was a coal-fired power plant on the other side of the lake, using its water for cooling.)
Canada should heed Germany’s destructive climate policies
Canada should heed Germany’s destructive climate policies | Fraser Institute
O course in the full picture Germany:
started closing nuclear power plants, to appease Green politicians so she could stay in powerdid open a new coal minedepended on Russian natural gas without a long-term contract, despite Angela Merkel identifying Putin’s nature years before he invaded Ukraine again
(The Fraser Institute is a conservative think-tank based in the Metro Vancouver area of SW BC where the Fraser River enters ocean water.)