Month: September 2024

Anthony Watts on the Tom Nelson Podcast

Last week I was interviewed by friend and colleague Tom Nelson about my journey in the climate wars. The full video and transcript follows, along with a link to the slideshow I prepared.

Understanding the Science Behind Climate Change Headlines | Tom Nelson Pod #242
From Tom Nelson:

Anthony Watts discusses his background and work in debunking misleading climate change headlines. He has spent decades in the media industry and now works for the Heartland Institute, where he provides articles, commentary, and research. Watts is known for his website, “Watts Up With That,” and has faced criticism from climate alarmists.

00:00 Introduction and Guest Introduction
00:27 Anthony Watts’ Background and Contributions
01:58 Climate Realism Show and Hosting Challenges
03:27 Debunking Climate Alarmism
04:02 Misleading Climate Headlines
06:22 Proxy Data and Temperature Records
14:53 Temperature Measurement Issues
24:19 Analyzing Temperature Data Bias
25:30 Questioning the Climate Emergency
26:16 Temperature Adjustments and Media Representation
27:37 Droughts and Natural Variations
28:30 Sea Level Rise Myths
29:49 Ghost Stations and Data Integrity
33:16 Temperature Measurement Evolution
36:05 Global Temperature Estimates and Satellite Data
37:41 The U.S. Climate Reference Network
42:39 Tree Ring Proxies and Historical Climate Data
45:21 Current Climate Debate and Public Perception
46:29 Final Thoughts and Reflections

Anthony’s Slide Show – download here

Transcript – download here

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/hG1CelW

September 1, 2024 at 12:07PM

August 2024 Arctic Ice, NOAA Missing Nearly Half a Wadham

The images above come from AARI (Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute) St. Petersburg, Russia. Note how the location of remaining ice at late August varies greatly from year to year.  The marginal seas are open water, including the Pacific basins, Canadian Bays (Hudson and Baffin), and the Atlantic basins for the most part.  Note ice extent fluctuations especially in Eurasian seas (lower right) and in Can-Am seas (upper right).  Notice the much greater ice extent in 2022 compared to 2020. As discussed later on, some regions retain considerable ice at the annual minimum, with differences year to year. [Note: Images prior to 2009 are in a different format.  AARI Charts are (here)

The annual competition between ice and water in the Arctic ocean is approaching the maximum for water, which typically occurs mid September.  After that, diminishing energy from the slowly setting sun allows oceanic cooling causing ice to regenerate. Those interested in the dynamics of Arctic sea ice can read numerous posts here.  This post provides a look at end of August from 2007 to yesterday as a context for anticipating this year’s annual minimum.  Note that for climate purposes the annual minimum is measured by the September monthly average ice extent, since the daily extents vary and will go briefly lowest on or about day 260. In a typical year the overall ice extent will end September slightly higher than at the beginning.

The melting season mid July to mid August shows 2024 melted at nearly the average rate, while retaining more ice extent at the end than some other reccent years of note.

Firstly note that on average August shows ice declining 1.8M km2 down to 4.9M km2.  2024 started 288k km2 below average and on day 244 was only 98k km2 or 2% in deficit to average. The extents in Sea Ice Index in orange  were considerably lower during August, meaning that SII August 2024 monthly average will be ~400k km2 lower than MASIE., nearly half a Wadham.

The table for day 244 shows how large how the ice is distributed across the various seas comprising the Arctic Ocean.

Region 2024244 Day 244 ave 2024-Ave. 2007244 2024-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 4802455 4900416 -97962 4525136 277319
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 331017 568911 -237894 629454 -298437
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 508350 261504 246846 96232 412118
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 476831 342187 134644 196 476635
 (4) Laptev_Sea 209967 163938 46029 245578 -35612
 (5) Kara_Sea 253 47999 -47746 74307 -74054
 (6) Barents_Sea 0 15867 -15867 11061 -11061
 (7) Greenland_Sea 101048 171695 -70647 288223 -187174
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 51428 26156 25272 32804 18624
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 224943 301460 -76516 234389 -9445
 (10) Hudson_Bay 3868 19658 -15790 28401 -24533
 (11) Central_Arctic 2893622 2980244 -86622 2883200.58 10421

The largest deficit to average is in Beaufort Sea, followed by smaller losses in Greenland Sea, CAA and Central Arctic.   Hudson Bay and Barents Sea are mostly open water. The offsetting surpluses are in Chukchi, East Siberian and Laptev seas.

For context, note that the average maximum has been 15M, so on average the extent shrinks to 30% of the March high before growing back the following winter. Presently 2024 is at 32% of last March maximum.  In this context, it is foolhardy to project any summer minimum forward to proclaim the end of Arctic ice.

Resources:  Climate Compilation II Arctic Sea Ice

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/Mvo3gwR

September 1, 2024 at 12:01PM

Monday

10 out of 10 based on 1 rating

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/u1LDMN7

September 1, 2024 at 09:41AM

Warning! Trojan Horses Offshore (Wind Farms)

Gordon Hughes explains the analogy in his Rea Clear Energy article Offshore Trojan Horses.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

In July, the U.S. Department of Interior greenlighted large offshore wind farms in New Jersey and Maryland. Once the financial agreements are in place, New Jersey’s Atlantic Shores and Maryland’s MarWin and Momentum will join the two large wind farms in New York approved in June. These projects will receive huge, multibillion-dollar subsidies from the federal government and electricity ratepayers. What benefits will New Jersey and Maryland enjoy from this flood of money?   

To answer this question, it is best to recall the classic warning of the Trojan Horse legend,  “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts”—in other words, the hidden dangers of accepting something that seems too good to be true. New York State ignored that warning when it agreed to pay very high prices for the electricity to be supplied from its new offshore wind farms—Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind—located off the coast of Long Island.

In announcing the final agreements, New York Governor Kathy Hochul triumphantly claimed that the new projects would create more than 800 jobs during the construction phase and deliver more than $6 billion in economic benefits for the state over 25 years. 

Rather less emphasis was given to the fact that New York will pay an average price of over $150 per MWh (megawatt hour) for the electricity generated by Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind.That’s more than four times the average wholesale price of electricity in New York during 2023–24, $36 per MWh. The total annual premium over the wholesale market price for the power from these wind farms will be about $520 million per year at 2024 prices. Over 25 years, New York ratepayers will be paying about $13 billion for alleged benefits of $6 billion.

That is not all. Thanks to tax credits, U.S. taxpayers will cover at least 40% of the costs of constructing the wind farms. At a minimum cost of $5.5 million per MW (million watts) of capacity, the total federal subsidy for New York’s two wind farms will be at least $3.8 billion.

What about jobs and other economic benefits?  A study prepared for Equinor, the owner of Empire Wind 1, and submitted to the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) claimed that it would directly generate 180 annual jobs in New York during the six-year construction phase. The study estimated another 60 annual jobs due to the indirect employment effect, i.e., extra employment in the supply chain for the project. 

A more reasonable estimate for the two projects together would be 515 annual jobs, not 800. The total contribution to New York State’s gross value added (the equivalent of GDP at the state level) during the construction of both projects would be less than $450 million, based on the report submitted to BOEM. Similar calculations for annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs suggest an annual contribution of about $24 million to gross value-added or about $600 million over 25 years.

Rather than the benefits of $6 billion over 25 years touted by Governor Hochul, a realistic assessment would be closer to $1.1 billion at 2024 prices. In any event, residents will be paying a cumulative premium of $13 billion for  the electricity these projects will generate. 

Moreover, the additional jobs claimed for the project are concentrated heavily in the final year of construction—and the largest share (47%) consists of professional services. Overwhelmingly, these are jobs for people who would otherwise be working on other assignments.

The economic benefits of the two offshore wind farms are much lower than claimed by the governor and the jobs are, in large part, temporary assignments for professional services staff. Promoting business for consulting firms may be considered a desirable outcome by Ms. Hochul. Still, the very high financial burden will be borne by almost the entire population of the state.

Stepping back from the New York projects, the Biden administration’s overall goal is to reach a target of 30 GW (billion watts) of offshore electricity generation capacity by 2030 or shortly thereafter. That is equivalent to 17 times the capacity of the combined Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind projects. Detailed costs and financial arrangements vary, but the figures above suggest that the recurring premium paid by electricity ratepayers in states with offshore wind farms will be about $9 billion per year. The benefits of new job creation and incomes from capital and O&M expenditures are likely to be less than $800 million per year. 

In addition to the very large subsidies paid for from ultra-high electricity bills, federal taxpayers will contribute about $65 billion via tax credits if the Biden administration’s offshore wind target is met. While the subsidies for individual projects may not seem outrageous, the commitment of money to subsidize offshore generation is about $870 for every member of the country’s population. This may be spread over 25 years, but it is a huge liability for one very small element of U.S. programs to support renewable energy. 

PS  And it’s doubtul how many wind turbines will last 25 years

The Short Lives of Wind Turbines

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/MVsliJ7

September 1, 2024 at 09:01AM