Month: May 2024

Lunar-driven Barents Sea climate — The Climate Clock


Professor Harald Yndestad writes (here): ‘The Kola-section data analysis revealed, for the first time, that Arctic climate variations are controlled by the earth’s rotation and the moon’. He refers to ‘the riddle of a 6-year cycle in the cod population’ and comments: ‘My estimates reveal we are at a turning point and moving into a colder period and more ice extent.’ The 6-year cycle reminded me of a Talkshop post featuring a paper by astronomer Willy de Rop, in which he wrote, with illustrations: ‘We will now consider how often such a situation of maximum tides will occur. The perigee moves 0.164 358 002 0 a day relative to the node, corresponding to 360° in a period p 2 190.340565 days. If at the same time this moment of maximum influence coincides with the moment at which the Earth is in the perihelion of its orbit, the tides will reach an absolute maximum. So, when the perigee of the Moon’s orbit coincides with the ascending node, then this situation repeats after 2190.340565 days. This period p corresponds to 5.996 667 350 anomalistic years, thus nearly an entire number of anomalistic years.’ In other words, almost six years. It’s the beat period of the (lunar) anomalistic and tropical months, also of the full moon cycle and draconic year. Whether this plays a part in the cod discussion is an open question.
– – –
In nature, nothing acts alone, writes Prof. Harald Yndestad. Therefore, something outside the cod stock, causes recruitment in periods of 6 years.

The source may be a 6-year temperature cycle in the Barents Sea. If the temperature in the Barents Sea has a period of 6 years, it must also have a source outside the Barents Sea. This means that there must be a first cause. A cause of causes, for temperature variations in the Barents Sea.

So, what is periodic in nature? Could the source be the tides or in the earth’s rotation? I contacted an astrophysicist.

He was not familiar with a 6-year cycle. But says that there is a period of 18.6 years in the earth’s rotation . At the same moment, I imagined a possible explanation. The 6-year period can be a 3rd harmonic period. If the temperature in the Barents Sea has a period of 18.6 years, the biomass will be able to adapt to a temperature variation of 18.6 years, by recruiting in periods of 18.6/3 = 6.2 years.

The sea temperature at the Kola-section
I e-mailed PINRO institute in Murmansk. The question was whether they have temperature records from the Barents Sea. To my surprise, I immediately got back a temperature data series monitored in the Kola-section.

Russian scientists has been measuring the temperature at the Kola-section, every month, for 100 years. Except during the Russian Revolution and during World War II. Now, this was the world’s longest oceanographic data series. Thanks to their work, I could get an answer to the riddle of a 6-year cycle in the cod population.

The problem was that, until now, no one had found anything but random variations, in this temperature data series.
. . .
If it turns out that the temperature in the Barents Sea is driven by predictable tides, it may form a basis for better predictability of future sea temperatures, and better sustainable ecosystem management.

Full article here.
– – –
Image: Barents Sea [credit: Norman Einstein @ Wikipedia]

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/GjWP8IL

May 23, 2024 at 08:18AM

Unattainable Sustainability

From Heart of Liberty Portfolios

Don Harrison

I keep a spreadsheet with links to informative articles I have read on ESG and climate change.  I typically attach key words to each link so I can easily search out a topic when needed for reference.  When it comes to the climate change debate, “absurdity,” “mendacity,” “grift” and “tyranny” make frequent appearances.  But the star of the show seems to be “fantasy.” 

Last month, the always perspicacious Mark Mills penned an excellent piece in City Journal titled When Politics and Physics Collide.” (1) It is a comprehensive indictment of the magical thinking that permeates the lemming-like rush to EVs, Net Zero and the bulk of “green” technologies.

Here is a sprinkling of the points he makes in his damning analysis:

100 percent of everything in civilized society, including the favored “green energy” machines themselves, depends on using hydrocarbons somewhere in the supply chains and systems.

Through regulatory fiat, the Environmental Protection Agency’s newly announced rules effectively mandate that more than half of all cars and trucks sold must be electric vehicles (EVs) by 2032.  That will demand, and soon, the complete restructuring of the $100 billion U.S. automobile industry.

A seminal paper from the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated a fourfold to 40-fold increase in global mining would be needed for a variety of common energy minerals. A more recent paper from Yale looked at a suite of 15 rare minerals required for “full decarbonization” and reached similar conclusions: the supply of various key “rare earth” elements would have to increase 60- to 300-fold.

It is no exaggeration to say that the realities of solar silicon fabrication mean that solar subsidies and mandates have induced eager Californians to festoon their roofs with transmuted coal – because China has a 90 percent market share producing solar silicon on its coal-fired grids. 

The total direct and induced spending on the energy transition could easily exceed $5 trillion before a decade passes, or sooner, if advocates prevail.  For context, the entirety of World War II cost the U.S. roughly $4 trillion (in today’s dollars).

Read the whole article, and you will probably come to ask yourself the same question I have been asking for quite some time: how can investment management companies continue to insist that ESG investing meets their fiduciary obligations when most of the sustainability agenda is physically, economically, and politically unattainable?   

1) https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-magical-thinking-behind-the-energy-transition

Any opinions are those of Don Harrison and not necessarily those Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., or of Raymond James.  The information contained in this presentation does not purport to be a complete description of the securities, markets, or developments referred to in this material. There is no assurance any of the trends mentioned will continue or forecasts will occur. The information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but Raymond James does not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. Any information is not a complete summary or statement of all available data necessary for making an investment decision and does not constitute a recommendation.  Investing involves risk and you may incur a profit or loss regardless of strategy selected. Links are being provided for information purposes only. Raymond James is not affiliated with and does not endorse, authorize or sponsor any of the listed websites or their respective sponsors. Raymond James is not responsible for the content of any website or the collection or use of information regarding any website’s users and/or members. 

Don Harrison, creator of Heart of Liberty Portfolios, is the President of Capitalist Investment Services and a Branch Manager and Financial Advisor with Raymond James Financial Services. Heart of Liberty Portfolios — first choice for investors who want to rid their portfolios of ESG. https://heartofliberty.com/home

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/jCTOf1h

May 23, 2024 at 08:04AM

Why Do We Now Think Politicians Can Control the Weather?

From The DAILY SCEPTIC

BY JAMES LEARY

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

If in doubt, attribute a quote to Churchill because he probably did say it at one time or another. It’s certainly been stolen many times over, and the mainstream media, BBC, Sky et al. have declared an emergency, broken the glass and pulled the dusty old axiom out of its case as the pictures of bloodied passengers and crew – pure gold to the climate catastrophisers – came in yesterday after the Singapore Airlines accident over Myanmar (Burma in old money). For aircraft accident it was, and as, sadly, a death was involved, and several severe injuries, this is how it will be treated by the Singapore aviation authorities. They are nothing if not thorough there and eventually the exact truth of the sequence of events will come out, but by then the caravanserai of the chattering classes will have emptied and the climate caravan will be somewhere, anywhere else. They only need to borrow the truth for a day or two, they don’t need to own it.  

A troublesome incident for sure. A ‘perfect storm’ of events seems to have come together. Geographically, Singapore Airlines flight SQ321 was nearing the end of its journey from London and the passengers were being served ‘breakfast’, or whatever meals are called where local time has overtaken stomach expectations. Trollies were out, galleys were stacked with the detritus of 300-odd meals, and passengers were queuing for the loos to freshen up before the arrival into Singapore. All so normal. 

It was approaching mid-afternoon local time, and it’s Monsoon season in that part of the world. Time for the thunderclouds to be developing. Happens every year at this time. Has to happen or it’s a crisis for farmers, fishermen and the local economies around the Bay of Bengal. Yes, if the Monsoon is a bit too vigorous places like Bangladesh suffer loss of life with floods, but sadly, t’was ever thus. It’s no coincidence that if the Monsoon is too (un)damp a squib, then it is described as ‘failed’. It’s that important and has been over the centuries.

It does bring in its wake what the met men describe as ‘chaotic skies’. Clouds everywhere at every level, biblical thunderstorms with electrical activity – and yet hundreds of aircraft full of passengers daily pick their delicate way through the Monsoon without serious incident.

It’s been happening like this since Ponticus was a pilot, as they say. I’ve been navigating these skies since I started commercial flying when I was 20. I learned from the old China-Hands who did it in the early days of what we would today recognise as perfectly normal aviation, not overflying most of the weather, but actually picking their way through it at dead of night with only rudimentary weather warning radar. The already red cockpit lighting turned right down to almost nothing so they could stare out into the night and try to spot the cumulonimbus with their name on it. The Flight Engineer would use a small torch to read the engine instruments so as not to disturb the pilot’s night vision. It was part of the job then. The old captains would joke that it was worse when they were doing this to spot a night fighter that would spoil their evenings more surely than any bloody fluffy white cloud. Yet they (and we) had the greatest of respect for the forces of Mother Nature, then and now. A night fighter will fill your aircraft and possibly you with holes. A cumulonimbus can take hold of you and rip you up like a paper aeroplane. 

Planes are stronger now 50 years on, but pilots’ respect for weather ‘events’ remains as ever. The generally troubled atmosphere surrounding the Monsoon also leads to clear air turbulence which, as yesterday proved, can be just as nasty. It occurs when two air masses rub against each other, thrown together by the progress of the monsoon. Think a ship docking, and slightly overcooking its approach to the quay. The bang and shudder as the irresistible force meets the immovable object. Two air masses do the same, but they’re more difficult to spot and therefore prepare for. It’s similar on the North Atlantic. The famous jet streams are separate fast moving tubes of air which similarly rub up against the surrounding air mass and where they meet turbulence occurs. Always has. They tend to lie along the coastlines of New England and up into the Maritimes of Canada, especially in winter. I remember doing this route regularly in the 1970s and getting tossed around in my 707 mercilessly. I was convinced then that it got worse there annually. It didn’t and a decade later it settled down. Apparently sun-spot activity was very high around then, and there was the odd speculation that this may be linked to rougher winds on the North Atlantic. Nothing was proved and life went on. Grumbling, and slightly queasily we made our way back to Europe. Nobody thought of asking the politicians to alter the weather for us. No cult grew up around what was thought to be happening, organised by people it wasn’t happening to. No human sacrifices were made to placate the gods of wind. But, then there was no money sloshing around either. It was enough that we were understanding more about how things were happening, where they were likely to be happening, and the best way to avoid the worst whilst carrying on the essential task of living a normal life. We knew our limitations and inadequacies when dealing with Mother Nature. The thought of a character assassination of MN herself, or that it might be somehow ‘our fault’ would be enough to get you booted out of a position of responsibility. Now it’s the other way round, and only my generation who form a bridge between now and the sane 70s can recognise the huge gulf in attitudes. Two masses of thinking rubbing up against each other causing what seems to be catastrophic turbulence in mankind itself. 

Back to Singapore. It’s very doubtful if a big nasty cloud caused the incident. They’re too easy to spot nowadays with sophisticated airborne weather radars. Clear air turbulence – not so easy. It can be and is forecast in the preflight met briefings. Only as a likelihood, though, not as a certainty nor in any one specific place. Occasionally there may be seat-of-the-pants warning. A slight rumble. A tremble going through the aircraft. That’s a signal to start monitoring the outside air temperature, the wind readouts and the skies ahead for slight changes to cloud patterns. I’ve erred on the side of safety enough in the past to annoy the cabin crew by warning them that it might get a bit bumpy soon. This throws their routine out of kilter, and they may decide to stop serving ‘hots’, and start gathering trays in. Anything more than a hunch and I’d tell them to secure the cabin, seat belt signs on, and if it’s getting really bad to sit themselves down and strap in immediately. There will be a mess to clear up after, but hopefully no injuries. Make an announcement to the passengers in best ‘resigned to inconvenience’ pilot voice to the passengers that it may be about to feel uncomfortable for a bit, but having been here many times before I know it won’t last for very long. That last bit is important. We’ve all been here before and lived to tell the tale. 

Very rarely there is almost no discernible warning and it’s seatbelt signs on, PA to the cabin crew to be seated and hope that nothing flies around the cabin. Slow the plane down a bit, get on to ATC to request an altitude change as turbulent layers are shallow and a five or six thousand feet change in cruising level can help enormously. 

The latter is what seems to have happened to SQ yesterday. No warning, a quick change of height authorised and sadly the damage control begun. 

As I said, t’was ever thus. No change. The truth is out there, and it will come with the Singapore inquiry months down the line when it will only merit a brief mention in the mainstream media. They will be after another shibboleth by then. 

James Leary is the pseudonym of a retired B747 Captain.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/SrUo1Oj

May 23, 2024 at 04:00AM

What happened to the electric car revolution?

By Paul Homewood

image

China is often characterised as a copycat when it comes to industry and technology but in one way it has proved to be a pioneer. It was China which saw the first boom in electric cars – and it was China that was the first to suffer when demand for them collapsed. The vast graveyards of unsold vehicles found in Hangzhou and other Chinese cities are the result of a huge, subsidised push to manufacture electric vehicles, demand for which has never caught up with supply. Ride-share services bought the vehicles– in a rerun of the great cycle-share fiasco of 2018, which led to piles of unused and unwanted bikes. But private buyers have been notably less keen.

Where China leads, the rest of the world seems doomed to follow. With China’s manufacturers struggling to sell their electric cars at home, last year they started shipping them in large numbers to Europe – where many are now accumulating in ports at Rotterdam and Antwerp. The window in which to sell them may prove small, as the EU is considering measures to prevent the ‘dumping’ of cheap Chinese cars in Europe. The Biden administration has already taken action, increasing tariffs on cars imported from China from 25 per cent to 100 per cent. While that may put paid to Chinese imports, it won’t do anything to alleviate unsold stocks of US-made electric cars. The great electric revolution that was promised just three years ago is already failing – and it will bring the car manufacturers down with it.

Unless sales soar, car manufacturers are going to be facing enormous fines in just a few months’ time

If there ever was a real-world demonstration of the old proverb ‘you can lead a horse to water…’, it is electric cars. Elon Musk’s visionary work with Tesla panicked the old combustion engine firms, which set themselves ambitious targets to phaseout petrol completely: Fiat, Ford, Jeep, Nissan and Lexus by 2030, Vauxhall by 2028, Jaguar by 2025. One of the most dramatic announcements came three years ago when Hertz declared that a quarter of its entire rental fleet would be electric by 2025. ‘The new Hertz is going to lead the way as a mobility company,’ it said. It certainly did lead the way – into headlong retreat.

At the time, Hertz signed a $4 billion deal with Tesla and announced plans to buy 175,000 EVs from General Motors. In January it went into reverse and said it would instead start selling 20,000 EVs (later raising this to 30,000). It has pledged to ‘re-invest a portion of the proceeds from the sale of EVs into the purchase of internal combustion engine vehicles’. Its share price (down 80 per cent since the Tesla announcement) has made it a case study.

In Britain, things don’t look much better. The slowing EV momentum led Rishi Sunak to drop his target of banning new petrol car sales by 2030 and push it back to 2035. The number of electric cars sold to drivers (as opposed to companies) was falling by 20 per cent as of last month. The UK’s market for EVs is being propped up by fleet companies which, spurred on by government incentives, now buy five in every six EVs sold.

‘Urgent action is needed to re-enthuse private buyers into switching,’ said the UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) in its last update. It pointed out it’s not just driver demand that is flat: the infrastructure is an issue. The ratio of charging points to EV drivers has not improved since last year. The cost of electricity from a rapid charger is up by about 10 per cent, according to the RAC. So not only are EVs themselves 40 per cent more expensive to buy than petrol cars, but they are also costlier to run. The average charge for refuelling at a rapid charger is 21p per mile, compared with 16p for petrol.

Even those figures don’t really provide a fair comparison. Around half the price of a litre of petrol is tax; the tax on electricity is just 20 per cent (in the form of VAT) or 5 per cent if you charge at home. Nevertheless petrol remains cheaper. But the government is not going to sit by and watch as £25 billion of revenue from fuel duty disappears – which will happen if electric cars do take over from petrol. So at some point it is going to devise some way of recouping lost fuel duty revenue, most likely through road-charging. Early adopters who bought electric cars have effectively been treated to a generous introductory offer, which is now stealthily going to be withdrawn. When electric cars come to be taxed like petrol ones, it is going to become obvious that they cost a lot more to buy and run. That is especially true if you live in one of the 30 per cent of UK households which do not have off-street parking.

Sunak drew outrage from the green lobby when he delayed what was an obviously unworkable target. But few seemed to have noticed that he had left in place an initiative called the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. This came into force in January and obliges car manufacturers to ensure that 22 per cent of the vehicles they sell in Britain this year are fully electric (as opposed to hybrid). If they fail, they will have to pay a fine of £15,000 for every vehicle by which they fall short. This target ratchets up. It will rise to 28 per cent next year and go up steadily until it hits 80 per cent by 2030.

But what to do if the public are refusing to buy? In the first four months of this year, according to the SMMT, electric cars had a market share of just 15.7 per cent, hardly up on the 15.4 per cent share in the same period of last year. Unless sales soar, manufacturers are going to be facing enormous fines in just a few months’ time.

Earlier this month Carlos Tavares, the chief executive of Stellantis (the parent company of Vauxhall, Peugeot-Citroën and Fiat) warned that the ZEV had the potential to bankrupt car-makers. He complained that the ZEV had been set at ‘double the natural demand of the market’. He said he wouldn’t be selling cars at a loss – suggesting that, if electric car sales do not pick up soon, the company might have to restrict sales of petrol and diesel cars. (It would be easier to sympathise had Stellantis not cheered on government efforts to turn the car industry fully electric by 2030.)

Petrol-car owners have reservations that may be hard to budge. Even among households which have off-street parking, only 8 per cent say that it’s likely they would buy an electric car as their main vehicle during the next five years – although 20 per cent said they would consider one as their second vehicle. Electric cars have found a niche as second cars for relatively wealthy, environmentally aware households. But the market is beginning to run out of those kinds of buyers.

This leaves Sunak with a dilemma. The US wants to repel China’s incoming electric cars, while Germany wants to welcome them and cut all tariffs (hoping Beijing will reciprocate – BMW now sells a third of its new cars in China). What will the UK do? If Sunak wants to prioritise net-zero targets and help with the cost of living, the logical thing would be to leave the ZEV in place and welcome China’s low-cost cars (made by MG and BYD). This could be billed as using Brexit powers, lowering motoring costs with other carmakers forced to compete. But this is Stellantis’s nightmare scenario. ‘If you go and cut pricing disregarding the reality of cost,’ Tavares said in January, ‘it’s a race to the bottom and that will end up with a bloodbath.’

Not only are EVs 40 per cent more expensive to buy than petrol cars, but they are also costlier to run

Forcing consumers to pay over the odds for cars would lead to an electoral bloodbath, however – which is why, unless there is a sudden rush of interest in electric cars over the next few months, the government is likely to yield. The ZEV will probably be relaxed, just as the 2030 target was relaxed last year, which will mean yet another watering-down of net-zero promises, possibly just before the election. The price will be more outrage from environmentalists, and inevitable legal challenges. Last time Sunak relaxed net-zero measures, the former minister Chris Skidmore resigned his seat and triggered a by-election.

Could the outlook suddenly improve for British EVs? It’s hard to see how. The biggest single cost is batteries, and China has built up a dominant position in the global market. About 80 per cent of EV batteries are made in China, and the West’s efforts to catch up often end in debacle. The Britishvolt factory in Northumberland went bust before its foundations were even laid. But the situation is even worse when you consider that China has near-total dominance in LFP batteries, which are cheaper to produce than the lithium manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries made in Europe. They also come with fewer ethical objections as they do not require cobalt, which is often mined by child workers under terrible conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The traditional carmakers have responded by scaling back. Aston Martin has delayed its first electric model from 2025 to 2027 because of falling demand. Bentley has deferred its all-electric deadline. Fiat was going to phase out the petrol-powered Panda in 2026, then 2027, but now that date has been pushed back to 2030. Tesla’s deliveries fell 20 per cent in the first quarter of this year and market value has halved since the 2021 peak.

Last week, Stellantis announced a deal with the Chinese electric carmaker Leapmotor, which might just help it put off the day of reckoning with the ZEV: some of Leapmotor’s cars will be sold through a Stellantis subsidiary based in Amsterdam. In reality, this won’t do much for the planet. Making electric cars is a much more carbon–intensive business than making petrol ones, with the result that they have to be driven at least 15,000 to 20,000 miles before they can be said to have emitted less carbon. Worse, Chinese–made cars are manufactured with a far dirtier mix of electricity than UK-made cars are. Three-quarters of electricity in China is still generated by fossil fuels, 55 per cent of it from especially filthy coal. The government may well tinker with the ZEV before the year is out, but it is unlikely to admit to this greater folly, that the much–heralded switch to electric cars is likely to destroy our car industry, drive up costs for motorists – and fail to cut global emissions.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-happened-to-the-electric-car-revolution/#comments-container

Of course, we now have an election coming up, and there is no way the demented Miliband will stop this nonsense.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/L8TmsPJ

May 23, 2024 at 03:54AM