April 14, 1886 Tornado Outbreak

1886 was the most active year on record for US hurricanes and it brought lots of other extreme weather – like a tornado outbreak on April 14.

“Perry County Democrat (Wed, April 21, 1886, Page 2):

THE WORK OF THE TORNADO.

Scenes of Devastation and Death in three Minnesota Towns.

Seventy-four Persons Killed and Two Hundred or more Injured in St. Cloud, Sauk Rapids and Rice’s Station—Two of the Towns Nearly Destroyed—Loss of Life and Property in Iowa and Missouri Also.

ST. CLOUD, Minnesota, April 15.—The ghastly effects of the tornado which visited this city and Sauk Rapids yesterday have never been equalled since the harvest of death at New Ulm and Rochester a few years ago. A few minutes after 4 p. m. the skies became overcast with a dark cloud, and a great black mass rose over the hills southwest of the city, and coming with terrible velocity toward the western outskirts, in the direct line for the Manitoba freight yards. The clouds hung low, and rolled over and over like smoke on a battlefield, and were accompanied by a loud roaring and crackling sound that resembled a conflagration. The cloud was funnel-shaped, and the point dragged along the ground like the tail of a huge beast, lashing to pieces everything that came in its path. Citizens had hardly time to flee to their cellars and seek other points of refuge, before the whirlwind was on them, and the air was filled with flying boards, shingles, bricks and other debris. The utmost excitement prevailed.”

Apr 21, 1886, page 2 – The Perry County Democrat at Newspapers.com

“Cyclone Views: Pictures Sauk Rapids Cyclone” by Brown and Riley

Re-Analysis Project

About Tony Heller

Just having fun

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/Pef0kWs

February 5, 2025 at 04:25PM

Trump’s Withdrawal From the Paris Agreement Won’t Hurt the Climate

By Chris Johnson

President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Cue the leftwing meltdown.

Though everyone knew the withdrawal was coming, the left and the “international community” are still decrying America’s alleged abdication of leadership on climate. 

But toothless agreements window dressed with international summits and photo ops are not the same as leadership. The truth is America has led the world in reducing emissions for years not because of the Paris Agreement, but because innovation and the free market facilitate the deployment of cheaper and cleaner energy.

Let’s review the record.

In recent decades, America has achieved unprecedented — and unexpected — energy production thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling. Since the early 2000s when these twin technologies began to be deployed much more expansively, U.S. natural gas production has more than doubled. By 2016, hydraulically fractured gas wells accessed through horizontal drilling accounted for nearly 70% of all oil and natural gas wells.

While the left may clutch its pearls at the increased production of a fossil fuel like natural gas, this clean energy source has been a main driver of U.S. emissions reductions. 

Over the past 15 years when America has massively increased natural gas output, the U.S. reduced carbon emissions more than any other country. We can see this year by year.

For example, from 2022 to 2023, America offset dirtier coal energy generation with natural gas. As coal declined by 121.9 terawatt hours of electric generation over that time, natural gas increased by 118.9 terawatt hours. At the same time, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions declined 1.9%. Notably, 80% of the U.S. carbon emissions reductions were driven by the electric power sector — precisely where natural gas has an outsized impact.

Notice what didn’t cause those emissions reductions? The Paris Agreement. The American energy sector — powered by innovation and good-old-fashioned free market economics — has been driving down carbon emissions cheaply and effectively before the Paris Agreement was a twinkle in climate activists’ eyes. And it will continue to reduce carbon emissions long after President Trump’s decision to withdraw.

The Paris Agreement is far from the panacea some activists claim it is. It isn’t even a particularly effective tool to rally nations toward greater climate success. In the middle of the allegedly climate-conscious Biden administration, none of the world’s biggest emitters — America included — had reduced their emissions in accordance with the Paris goals. Apparently, the $1 trillion regulatory and subsidy regime erected by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act had little bang for the buck. What Agreement supporters forget is that no number of high-profile international accords can make command-control tactics work — or instill other nations with the ambition to fulfill their empty promises.

The Paris Agreement is the definition of bureaucratic failure, conflating meetings, busyness, and lofty goals as success. Its only achievement is to make climate ideologues and green jetsetters feel good about themselves as they fly to international conferences.

It’s no wonder President Trump withdrew. Talk is cheap. What matters is success. On that metric, the Trump administration is set to actually achieve what Paris Agreement signatories only write on paper.

Trump entered office promising to deregulate the fossil fuel industry, increase permitting for natural gas extraction, approve the construction of energy facilities like natural gas export terminals, and re-establish American energy dominance.

By leaning into America’s carbon advantage and exporting clean American energy abroad, he will boost the U.S. economy, supplant dirty energy from nations like Russia and Venezuela with a clean American alternative, and lower emissions both at home and abroad, all without the jaw-dropping price tag of the failed Biden-era green agenda. We should combine these steps with efforts to actually hold the biggest polluters accountable (which are being discussed by President Trump’s cabinet). This approach would be the antithesis of the Paris Accords’ America-last strategy.

Of course, some are urging President Trump to go further and not just withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but also back out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This may seem like an easy choice, seeing as the UNFCCC, like so many UN bodies, acts contrary to American interests. But that’s exactly why America must remain in the UNFCCC.

Climate treaties will be formed whether or not the U.S. is involved, and the UNFCCC will continue to operate as a forum for those negotiations. Staying in the UNFCCC costs America nothing while allowing Trump and his appointees to keep a seat at the table, hold the UN accountable, and counter any deal that would put America at a disadvantage. While the UNFCCC can be harmful, it’s only the Paris Agreement that’s impotent.

The breathless alarm over the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is overwrought. When President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord during his first administration, America went on to cut carbon emissions to the lowest level in 25 years. Re-embracing the power of natural gas in his second term, he’ll do it again. 

So instead of the UN and international climate activists judging the U.S., we should remind everyone that if you want to put climate first, you should actually put America first.

Chris Johnson is a GOP strategist who organizes the next generation of conservative leaders. He also serves as a senior advisor to the National Federation of College Republicans, focusing on energy issues.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/kVLuYab

February 5, 2025 at 04:01PM

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf And Thermodynamics

By Frank Bosse
Klimnachrichten here
(Translated, edited by P. Gosselin)

The scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is an oceanologist and studied physics before his specialist training. He is therefore familiar with thermodynamics and its 2nd law, which states that with every change of state, the “disorder” increases, also known as entropy. This is reflected in warming. Growing entropy is a basic characteristic of our universe; without investing work, everything tends towards disorder .

You are probably familiar with this phenomenon. Growing entropy also prevents perpetual motion machines; every working machine also generates friction and thus heat and inevitably a loss of useful energy. So what does all this have to do with Stefan Rahmstorf?

He published the following post on Twitter (now X) on January 14, 2025:

Screenshot X

[In English: “Nuclear energy, whether from fusion or fission, has the problem of waste heat, just like fossil fuel energy. It is still small compared to CO2, but it will soon become a relevant warming problem with the growing energy demand by mankind.”]

In his tweet, he complains that nuclear energy generates waste heat and would therefore represent a further relevant problem for our planet, which is warming up due to greenhouse gases.

An astute reader will remember that astrophysicist Professor Harald Lesch also advocated precisely this thesis, even in a lecture to teachers(!). He failed as well to take into account that all converted energy (whether from wind, sun or thermal) ultimately leads to an increase in entropy, i.e. to heat. It all depends on the order of magnitude.

If humanity produces energy by burning carbon (which leads to the production of the “greenhouse” gas CO2), the problem is orders of magnitude higher. It reduces the escape of heat by radiation into space and accumulates its effect in the atmosphere, waste heat does not. This has long been known from the scientific literature.

What was the share of low-CO2 electricity of total consumption in Germany in January 2025?

Share of electricity produced in Germany from 
solar, wind and hydro power in total consumption

How much of the total consumption was carbon combustion, the “rest” in the chart? Unfortunately, the average for the month was 61%, or just 39% low-carbon electricity. It fluctuated between an outstanding 9% and a completely inadequate 93% if you analyze the hourly data from “Agora Energiewende”.

In Germany, 90 GW of solar power and 69 GW of low-CO2 wind power have been installed; only around half of the total renewable capacity would have been utilized if the “installed capacity” had also been available.

In reality, however, photovoltaics contributed on average only 2% to total consumption, wind 29%, fluctuating widely between 1.7 and 67%. Renewable energies alone are therefore not really suitable for solving the CO2 emissions problem. The weather at around 50° north latitude is too changeable for this. That would be the logical conclusion of “climate enthusiasts” such as Professors Stefan Rahmstorf and Harald Lesch.

And why then completely counter-physical pretexts against the likewise low-CO2 generation of electricity by nuclear power, regardless of the weather? We don’t know. We only know that they are talking nonsense in order to oppose low-CO2 technologies, which were also recommended by the “Climate Council” IPCC, 6th Assessment Report, Working Group III as a necessary supplement for renewable energies.

Doubters of the greenhouse effect are sometimes rightly accused of denying the climate problem. But what are Rahmstorf, Lesch and Co. doing when they reject everything except green energies, which alone are probably only very inadequately capable of solving the climate problem (as shown in January 2025), by swearing about physics?

They are very effectively obstructing the solution to the problem. In the end, it makes little difference to the outcome whether you don’t want to see the challenge or only accept it inadequately with the help of bogus arguments.

Donate – choose an amount

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/POUkpyi

February 5, 2025 at 01:49PM

NGO’s emerge as The shadow government

The Blob

By Jo Nova

It turns out the Non-Government Organizations were really The Government

The word for that is GONGO — a government organised non-government organisation.

Hands up who is still reeling with the news that USAID had 50 thousand million dollars of political and media influence? The annual budget of $50 billion dollars in the hands of unaccountable activist NGOs buys a lot of “journalists”, editors and teenage protestors. Suddenly a lot of global patterns make more sense.

Today we found out that news outlets like Politico, and the New York Times were being given millions of dollars from the US government.

Benny Johnson says:

This is the biggest scandal in news media history: No employee at Politico got paid yesterday. First time ever the company missed a pay period. This is a crisis. Now we learn Politico — a “news company” — which spent the last 10 years trying to destroy the MAGA Movement was being massively funded by USAID.

It seems some $27 million dollars went to Politico during the Biden years — and that’s just the subscriptions (not the USAID). Truly, Politico charges as much as $10,000 for a single “Politico Pro” subscription — and so the taxpayers fork out big bucks to pay for politicians “work expenses”, and the money ends up covering the salaries of journalists who are working hard to deceive the hapless taxpayers.

As ZeroHedge reminds us, Politico went in hard in the 2020 election to cover for the Hunter Biden laptop from hell.

They also point out that the Blob has many other ways to keep newspapers toeing the line…

It’s not just the subscriptions: there are huge “ad contracts”, dinner parties DC throws itself under the guise of “media conferences”, sponsorships, etc all paid for by taxpayers. Once done with Politico look at its spawn Axios, founded by Politico veterans

 

The Soviet quote fits disturbingly well.

 

 

 

 

 

0 out of 10 based on 0 rating

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/sImQtOn

February 5, 2025 at 01:37PM