The World Economic Forum says everyone has to use electric vehicles, but there aren’t enough raw materials to make electrical vehicles for everyone – so you will have to rent someone else’s vehicle if you want to leave home. 3 … Continue reading →
via Real Climate Science
January 4, 2023 at 04:40PM
Earth and climate – an ongoing controversy
Introducing the term: Astronomical Harmonic Resonances (AHR). To see the figures cited below, go to the original article (here). A familiar topic to long-time Talkshop visitors, e.g. here.
– – –
The mechanism and even the existence of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) have remained under debate among climate researchers, and the same applies to general temperature oscillations of a 60- to 90-year period, writes Antero Oilia, Ph.D. @ Climate Change Dispatch.
The recently published study of Ollila and Timonen has found that these oscillations are real and they are related to 60- and 88-year periodicities originating from the planetary and solar activity oscillations.
These oscillations can be observed in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation (PMO), and actually in the global surface temperature (GST). The similarities between the GST, AMO, PMO, and AHR (Astronomical Harmonic Resonances) are obvious in Fig. 1.
The oscillations are not limited only to temperatures.
Researchers have studied oscillations of day lengths, magnetic field magnitudes, sunspot lengths, auroral records, cosmogenic isotopes like 14C and 10Be, Indian moons intensities, sediments of NE Pacific, 14C of tree-rings, and sea carbonates.
The oscillations periods of these studies vary from 60 to 90 years. The most common and prominent periodicity is 88 years and is called the Gleissberg cycle. Named after Wolfgang Gleissberg, who discovered in 1958 that solar cycles weaken and strengthen over about 80 years.
The sun has been suggested to be the origin of an 88-year oscillation since this period can be connected to the repetitive occurrence of the basic Schwabe cycle of 11 years. This solar cycle length varies typically from 10 to 14 years, which explains why the Gleissberg cycle length varies around 88 years.
The other main periodicity of the research studies is around 60 years. The researchers normally suggest no origin for this periodicity.
Ermakov, Scafetta, and Ollila have analyzed that the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn can create temperature variations of 60 years by moving the solar system barycenter, which causes variations in the cosmic dust amount entering the atmosphere. The temperature effect happens through cloudiness variations.
The authors have studied how well the variations of astronomical harmonic resonances (AHR) could explain the 60-year temperature variations, which are based on instrumental records and on the tree-ring data of the supra-long Scots pine tree-ring record for northern Finnish Lapland (subsequently called the Finnish timberline pine chronology (FTPC)), stretching to the year 5634 BC.
The strong feature of the FTPC tree-sing signal is the one-year accuracy of the tree-ring method and therefore it is the most effective form of proxy information on the past climate.
The radial growth of (tree-ring width) is regulated by the average summer temperature in cool areas and precipitation in arid areas. The minimum factor for pine growth in Lapland (the northern part of Finland) is temperature.
The FTPC tree-ring series is the longest tree-type series in the world. The explanation is that so-called pine subfossils once sank into the oxygen-free swamps and the bottom mud of lakes for millennia.
The FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) analysis was carried for finding out the main periods for the FTPC signal, the AHR signal, and the Ljungqvist temperature proxy data, Fig. 2.
These analyses show that the well-known Gleissberg cycle of 80 to 90 years is the dominating cycle caused by the sun’s activity changes but the observed 60-year cycle can be connected to the dominant frequency of the AHR signal.
The authors have combined the AHR signal and the Gleissberg signal. These signals had a common maximum in 1941 which explains the warm period of the 1930s.
These two oscillations may also be in opposite phases or close maximum or minimum phases. In Fig. 3 the combined signal of 60- and the 88-year signal is the blue break line curve and the red curve is the FTPC signal.
The maximum combined temperature effect of AMO and Gleissberg oscillations was in 2020, and now their impact is slowly descending. In addition to these oscillations’ impacts, the Sun’s activity seems to also decrease.
Full article here.
– – –
Study: Two main temperature periodicities related to planetary and solar activity oscillations (2022)
Abstract
The mechanism and even the existence of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) have remained under debate among climate researchers, and the same applies to general temperature oscillations of a 60–90-year period. The objective of this study is to show that these temperature oscillations are real and not artifacts and that these oscillations have different external cosmic origins. The authors have studied how well the variations of astronomical harmonic resonances (AHR) could explain the 60-year temperature variations, which are based on instrumental records and on the tree-ring data of the supra-long Scots pine tree-ring record for northern Finnish Lapland (subsequently called the Finnish timberline pine chronology [FTPC]), stretching to the year 5634 BC. Powerful volcanic eruptions have significant temperature-decreasing impacts, and they are the major disturbances to eliminate in analysis. The similarities between the temperatures of the tree-ring trend and the AHR trend are easy to observe even by the naked eye. The statistical analysis shows that these two signals are statistically related. The analyses also show that the well-known Gleissberg cycle of 88 years is the dominating cycle caused by the Suns’ activity changes but the observed 60-year cycle can be connected to the AHR cyclicity.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
January 4, 2023 at 04:07PM
A major winter storm, with winds gusting up to near hurricane strength is moving towards northern California. Dubbed a “bomb cyclone” due to central pressure drop, and it more than qualify for the 24 millibars (mb) in 24 hour “bomb” cyclone designation.
As of 11AM Wednesday Jan 4th, the central pressure of the storm as it was just off the California coast was 28.33 inches (959.36 millibars) as seen in the graphic below. That pressure is lower than the centrral pressure of many hurricanes.
The National Weather Service (NWS) has produced forecasts for areas of likely flooding that covers much of the Sacramento Valley and the north coast.
Because this winter storm is relatively warm, snow levels are averaging higher, causing rain to fall on snow-laden areas, creating snow-melt which will overwhelm already waterlogged soil, making for fast runoff into creeks and rivers.
The NWS has issued a Winter Storm Warning for the Northern Sierra Nevada.
Heavy snow expected. Total snow accumulations of 4 to 10 inches, except 6 to 18 inches west of Highway 395. Lowest valleys below 4000-4500 feet elevation are only expected to see up to 3 inches of snow.
…
Snow levels will start off below 4000 feet before briefly increasing to 5000-6000 feet Wednesday afternoon. Snow levels will then fall again to 4500-5000 feet Thursday. This storm will come in 2 parts, and areas east of Highway 395 may see a brief break Wednesday evening.
For the areas Near lake Tahoe, the NWS advises the situation is even worse:
Heavy snow expected. Total snow accumulations of 8 to 14 inches, except 1 to 2 feet above 7000 feet. Localized amounts up to 3 feet are expected for the Sierra crest. Winds gusting as high as 100 mph over Sierra ridgelines with gusts up to 40 mph in the Tahoe Basin.
In addition, widespread damaging winds are forecast from this winter storm.
Winds on the valley floor are expected to gust as high as 60 mph, with higher elevations seeing stronger wind gusts.
Dr. Ryan Maue had this to say on Twitter:
via Watts Up With That?
January 4, 2023 at 02:37PM
By Jo Nova
The amount of storage America needs for a grid run on erratic wind and solar power is so galactically vast the numbers don’t matter. Because every which way they are calculated, every estimate, the highest one, the lowest one, it doesn’t make any difference. They are all unaffordable.
And they’re not just unaffordable in the sense that it hurts. They’re unaffordable in the sense that there is no economy left.
Basically America would need 12,500 times as many batteries as it has now. At current prices this would cost about $175 trillion dollars, which is eight times the entire GDP of the United States.
Some researchers predict costs will fall, but even at fantasy low ball estimates that are one tenth of current prices, the cost of those batteries is still nearly $20 trillion.
David Wojick, CFACT
We now know that the battery storage for the entire American grid is impossibly expensive, thanks to a breakthru study by engineer Ken Gregory. Looking at several recent years he analyzed, on an hour by hour basis, the electricity produced with fossil fuels. He then calculated what it would have taken in the way of storage to produce the same energy using wind and solar power. He did this by scaling up those year’s actual wind and solar production.
Based on his work, which only covered 48 states, our round working estimate of the required storage for the whole country is an amazing 250 million MWh. America today has less than 20 thousand MWh of grid scale battery storage, which is next to nothing.
Grid scale batteries today cost around $700,000 a MWh. For 250 million MWh we get an astronomical total cost of $175 trillion dollars just to replace today’s fossil fuel generated electricity needs with wind and solar.
Let’s start with the reality. The EIA has collected annual utility data on the cost of grid scale battery arrays. A recent report is “Battery Storage in the United States: An Update on Market Trends — August 2021”.
From 2013 to 2018 the average reported cost was around $1,500,000 per MWh. The range was pretty large, from under $500,000 to around $3,000,000 per MWh.
Wojick compares a whole range of estimates on the past and likely future cost of batteries which vary from $70,000 per megawatt hour up to $1.5 million. As he says:
If wind and solar developers were required to include the batteries needed to make their projects reliable, none would ever be built.
It’s the cost of the system that matters, not the cost of a half hour of electrons at midday.
There is a reason fans of solar and wind power never quote the cost of a 24 hour reliable supply.
h/t To Alan Moran, more coming soon.
Photo: Karolina Grabowska
0 out of 10 based on 0 rating
via JoNova
January 4, 2023 at 01:55PM
