iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--Coronavirus Is Killing The Climate Agenda

The pandemic is freezing up financing , lowering the price of oil and gas , and stymieing efforts to build consensus Former energy minister Claire Perry O ’ Neil received a phone call on Friday January 31 from the Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings .
He had called to dismiss her from her role as president of the United Nations ’ annual climate change conference due to be hosted by the UK .
Angry and shocked , she fired off a letter on the Monday morning to the prime minister , expressing her “ surprise and dismay ” and warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to win the battle against climate change ” .
The annual Cop conferences needed to be “ re-energized and focused , ” she wrote .
“ [ They are ] dogged by endless rows over agendas [ … ] You can ’ t fault the negotiators for doing their jobs , sometimes under awful circumstances – it ’ s a systemic failure of global vision and leadership.
” If global leadership on climate change was lacking then , it is now at risk of disappearing altogether by the health emergency of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 100,000 people since the first case was diagnosed in November .
At the start of April , UN officials bowed to the inevitable and postponed Cop26 , the critical climate summit Mrs Perry O ’ Neill was due to lead .
It would have seen hundreds of leading politicians and scientists descend on Glasgow in November to try and forge a deeper global consensus on cutting carbon emissions .
Coronavirus poses a major test of the gains so far made towards preventing climate change , another major public health problem .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ground and factories close , the wider picture is more complex .
It is freezing up financing , lowering the price of oil and gas , diverting consumers ’ and politicians ’ attention and stymieing efforts to build consensus .
Hopes the health and economic crisis from coronavirus will be over soon are fading , while even a short-term loss of momentum on climate change is risky .
“ Collectively , we are massively behind in the challenge of cutting carbon and avoiding dangerous climate change , ” says Simon Evans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website Carbon Brief .
“ The best time to cut emissions was yesterday or decades ago , and the next best time is now .
In that sense , any delay is unfortunate .
But of course , the overriding priority at the moment is dealing with the coronavirus emergency.
” Five years ago , Cop21 ended in Paris with a historic agreement to limit global warming to below 2 degrees centigrade , and to try to limit it to 1.5 degrees .
But progress since then has faltered .
Global emissions have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year over the latest decade , reaching a record high of 55.3Gt in 2018 .
Donald Trump is pulling the US out of the climate accord .
The United Nations said in November that the picture was “ bleak ” , with deeper and faster cuts now required because countries had not acted fast enough .
Emissions now need to be cut by 2.7pc per year if the world is to meet the two-degree goal , and 7.6pc per year if it is to meet the 1.5pc goal .
Amid mass street protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thunberg , Cop25 in Madrid broke up last November in bitterness and disappointment , with major economies such as the US and Brazil accused of blocking progress .
Key disputes including over carbon markets and financial aid to poorer countries were not resolved , heaping pressure on the upcoming Cop26 .
This year , 2020 , is already significant as it marks the deadline for nations to submit more ambitious climate change plans .
With the Cop26 conference delayed , the pandemic is also harming the crucial pre-conference diplomacy and cajoling of countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to meet via Zoom are said to have gone badly .
A key trade meeting between the EU and China due to take place in March was postponed , denting hopes of a closer alliance on climate change .
Questions remain over an investment summit in Leipzig , Germany in September .
Exactly how Britain will reach its legally-binding target of net zero by 2050 is also likely to be far from ministers ’ minds .
Business secretary Alok Sharma – who is also Mrs Perry O ’ Neill ’ s replacement at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere , regularly on British TV screens delivering the daily coronavirus update .
On the ground , investment into renewable energy projects such as wind and solar farms is slowing down .
Banks are nervous about whether big corporates who want to sign power purchase agreements with fledgling projects will be able to pay their bills amid the crisis .
Factory closures and the slump in oil and gas prices have pushed down power prices , knocking the case for renewables projects that sell directly into the market .
Gas-fired power stations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to solar farms and electric cars , while falling utility bills could take the pressure off energy efficiency .
The post Coronavirus Is Killing The Climate Agenda appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

The pandemic is freezing up financing, lowering the price of oil and gas, and stymieing efforts to build consensus
Former energy minister Claire Perry O’Neil received a phone call on Friday January 31 from the Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings. He had called to dismiss her from her role as president of the United Nations’ annual climate change conference due to be hosted by the UK.
Angry and shocked, she fired off a letter on the Monday morning to the prime minister, expressing her “surprise and dismay” and warning that “we are almost out of time to win the battle against climate change”.
The annual Cop conferences needed to be “re-energized and focused,” she wrote. “[They are] dogged by endless rows over agendas[…] You can’t fault the negotiators for doing their jobs, sometimes under awful circumstances – it’s a systemic failure of global vision and leadership.”
If global leadership on climate change was lacking then, it is now at risk of disappearing altogether by the health emergency of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has killed more than 100,000 people since the first case was diagnosed in November.
At the start of April, UN officials bowed to the inevitable and postponed Cop26, the critical climate summit Mrs Perry O’Neill was due to lead. It would have seen hundreds of leading politicians and scientists descend on Glasgow in November to try and forge a deeper global consensus on cutting carbon emissions.
Coronavirus poses a major test of the gains so far made towards preventing climate change, another major public health problem. While carbon emissions have fallen as planes stay on the ground and factories close, the wider picture is more complex. It is freezing up financing, lowering the price of oil and gas, diverting consumers’ and politicians’ attention and stymieing efforts to build consensus. Hopes the health and economic crisis from coronavirus will be over soon are fading, while even a short-term loss of momentum on climate change is risky.
“Collectively, we are massively behind in the challenge of cutting carbon and avoiding dangerous climate change,” says Simon Evans, policy director at the climate research website Carbon Brief. “The best time to cut emissions was yesterday or decades ago, and the next best time is now. In that sense, any delay is unfortunate. But of course, the overriding priority at the moment is dealing with the coronavirus emergency.”
Five years ago, Cop21 ended in Paris with a historic agreement to limit global warming to below 2 degrees centigrade, and to try to limit it to 1.5 degrees. But progress since then has faltered. Global emissions have risen at a rate of 1.5pc per year over the latest decade, reaching a record high of 55.3Gt in 2018. Donald Trump is pulling the US out of the climate accord. The United Nations said in November that the picture was “bleak”, with deeper and faster cuts now required because countries had not acted fast enough. Emissions now need to be cut by 2.7pc per year if the world is to meet the two-degree goal, and 7.6pc per year if it is to meet the 1.5pc goal.
Amid mass street protests and speeches by the climate activist Greta Thunberg, Cop25 in Madrid broke up last November in bitterness and disappointment, with major economies such as the US and Brazil accused of blocking progress. Key disputes including over carbon markets and financial aid to poorer countries were not resolved, heaping pressure on the upcoming Cop26. This year, 2020, is already significant as it marks the deadline for nations to submit more ambitious climate change plans.
With the Cop26 conference delayed, the pandemic is also harming the crucial pre-conference diplomacy and cajoling of countries to improve their climate measures. Attempts to meet via Zoom are said to have gone badly. A key trade meeting between the EU and China due to take place in March was postponed, denting hopes of a closer alliance on climate change. Questions remain over an investment summit in Leipzig, Germany in September.
Exactly how Britain will reach its legally-binding target of net zero by 2050 is also likely to be far from ministers’ minds. Business secretary Alok Sharma – who is also Mrs Perry O’Neill’s replacement at Cop26 – has his work cut out elsewhere, regularly on British TV screens delivering the daily coronavirus update.
On the ground, investment into renewable energy projects such as wind and solar farms is slowing down. Banks are nervous about whether big corporates who want to sign power purchase agreements with fledgling projects will be able to pay their bills amid the crisis. Factory closures and the slump in oil and gas prices have pushed down power prices, knocking the case for renewables projects that sell directly into the market. Gas-fired power stations and petrol-guzzling cars suddenly look more attractive compared to solar farms and electric cars, while falling utility bills could take the pressure off energy efficiency.
The post Coronavirus Is Killing The Climate Agenda appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2XQo4Lm
April 21, 2020 at 04:30AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--Tall Tales of “Shale” and Free Markets: A ChiCom-19 Fantasy

Do U.S. Shale Drillers Deserve To Exist In Free Markets ?
By Mitchell McGeorge – Apr 18 , 2020 In the fallout of the current crisis , one more statistic can be added to the toll of Covid-19 – US Energy Independence .
The Shale Revolution was responsible for the growth in US oil and gas production that lead to the President , Energy Secretary and industry bodies heralding the era of US energy independence and US energy dominance .
But , with the oil markets in turmoil , US shale producers who account for over two-thirds of US production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which accounts for almost forty percent of total US production ) have been ‘ tapping the mat ’ urging President Trump to save the industry through various means of subsidies , bailouts and tariffs .
Shale producers have been arm-twisting US politicians into cringeworthy calls with Saudi Arabian officials because of their belief that Saudi Arabia , as a strategic ally , shouldn ’ t be following free market practices to harm the US Energy Independence narrative they all promoted .
So much for the US being the world ’ s champion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more apt question would be : Do “ shale ” drillers deserve access to an actual free market ?
Show the US oil industry where the free market is ( or was ) and I ’ m fairly certain we can compete in it .
OPEC wouldn ’ t exist in a free market .
Saudi Arabia wouldn ’ t be able to literally control prices by raising and lowering production rates .
Saudi Arabia ’ s grip on prices only fails when demand is either too high or too low .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone ’ s functional threshold in the global oil market , free or otherwise .
I don ’ t know of any US oil companies or trade groups , “ ‘ tapping the mat ’ urging President Trump to save the industry through various means of subsidies , bailouts and tariffs.
” The industry has been very appreciative of his efforts to broker an agreement between the Saudis and Soviets ( just honoring Mr. Putin ’ s wishes ) and use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a cushion .
After congressional Democrats blocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil , the President has begun leasing out space in the SPR for storage .
Harold Hamm , CEO of Continental Resources , the biggest Bakken player , has “ has encouraged the Commerce Department to initiate a national security investigation into the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia for ‘ excessive dumping ’ in oil markets ” and use the threat of tariffs and other measures to halt the state-sponsored dumping .
I don ’ t know of any oil company or industry trade group pushing for Saudi-specific tariffs .
Mr. McGeorge correctly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be pointless .
The “ push ” has been to use the threat of tariffs and embargoes to force Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union to agree to cut production .
This , coupled with the 20-30 % short-term reduction in demand due to the ChiCom-19 hostage crisis , seems to have worked .
There has been some talk of the Texas Railroad Commission directing oil companies to reduce production in Texas by 20 % ; but the largest industry trade group opposes even this measure .
With WTI stuck around $ 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way from being able to cover costs let alone develop again .
In the most recent survey by the Dallas Fed of 92 upstream E & P companies , WTI prices need to be above $ 50 for almost all plays before wells can be drilled profitably .
The idea that upstream E & P companies will be able to hold out until development wells can be drilled profitably again is tenuous at best .
With mounting debt loads , interest and maturities most won ’ t be able to last beyond the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price continues at $ 20 , Rystad ’ s predictions show that Lower 48 production could drop to approximately 6 million barrels by the end of next year .
That is , indeed , what Rystad ’ s Energy U Cube model indicates… Mitchell McGeorge is supposedly some sort of commodities “ expert.
” Although he strikes me more as an anti-American Putin apologist .
As a commodities “ expert ” he might have taken a look at oil price futures .
The May contract , which expires tomorrow , closed at - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contract closed at $ 20.43/bbl .
A nearly $ 60/bbl spread between the front and second months of WTI futures… A truly bizarre situation .
The price yesterday , today or tomorrow isn ’ t all that relevant , particularly the expiring May contract .
What matters is evolution of demand and prices over the next 1-2 years .
The current WTI futures price for the end of next year is around $ 37/bbl .
The odds of WTI being around $ 20/bbl in late 2021 are very slim .
While not sufficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development , $ 35-40/bbl is enough for most companies to hunker down and ride the storm out , particularly for companies with strong hedge positions… LOW OIL PRICE ?
NO PROBLEM .
US SHALE FIRMS ARE SET TO SAVE UP BILLIONS IN RECORD-HIGH HEDGING GAINS Even though oil prices plunged to as low as $ 30 per barrel this week and are likely to go even lower as OPEC+ plans to increase production from April , US shale oil operators expect to save billions in record-high hedging gains in 2020 , a Rystad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s assessment is based on an analysis of a representative peer group of 30 dedicated US light tight oil firms with a combined output of about 38 % of the total expected US oil production in 2020 , excluding royalties .
Looking at the hedging positions of the considered companies , we conclude that they hedged almost 50 % of their guided 2020 output at an average price floor of $ 56 per barrel .
Regarding the Rystad chart in Figure 1 , it excludes US Gulf of Mexico production , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunities are fairly attractive at $ 35-40/bbl .
The Gulf of Mexico is currently producing about 2 million bbl/d .
I don ’ t do “ shale ” – But I like to study it write about it .
I work the very different geology of the Gulf of Mexico ( GOM ) .
As far as I know GOM players aren ’ t begging for bailouts or ‘ tapping the mat ’ .
Mostly companies are cutting spending , particularly CapEx to ensure positive operating cash flow at $ 30/bbl .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector has been lobbying for royalty suspension until the ChiCom-19 hostage crisis ends… And I hope we are also lobbying for lease extensions and expanded timelines for abandonment and retirement obligations ( ARO ) .
Easing up on the administrative cost of doing business is neither a bailout , nor a subsidy .
The ChiCom-19 hostage crisis will likely cause GOM production to dip a little bit over the next year or two .
Royalty suspension , lease extensions and an expanded ARO timeline , would go a long way toward smoothing out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do U.S. Shale Drillers Deserve To Exist In Free Markets ?
“ It ’ s an idiotic question .
There is no global free market .
Saudi Arabia needs $ 70-90/bbl to balance their budget .
The Soviet Union needs $ 40-50/bbl to balance theirs .
The US , as a nation , has no comparable price .
And the budget-balancing price varies widely from company to company .
This is Tug Eiden ’ s estimate of the price required to cover operating costs for a group of independent oil companies , mostly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 20/bbl , no one makes money… Not the “ shale ” players , not the Saudis and not the Soviets .
If oil is around $ 20/bbl this time next year , there won ’ t be any oil ( only being partially sarcastic ) .
As demand recovers after the ChiCom-19 hostage crisis ends , OPEC+ will work to bring prices up to where they need them .
While this downturn will force a lot , maybe most , “ shale ” players into Chapter 11 , the assets don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t vanish .
Even though proved reserves will have to be taken off the books , the oil won ’ t go away .
When prices rise back into the $ 40-50/bbl range , US oil production will start to rise again .
“ Shale ” players and most independent US oil companies are somewhat analogous to Yankee Clippers – They aggressively take advantage of economic opportunities in a very un-free market .
To level the playing field , the US government could take reasonable measures to ensure that the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that American Energy dominance carries on… But that ’ s not a business decision .
Gump clearly needs more cases if he ’ s going to obstruct the reopening of the economy .
Interestingly , in addition to not recording any deaths since April 17 , Gump is refusing to record recoveries… Recording new cases without recording recoveries is as dishonest as you can get .
Can you spot which county is most firmly controlled by Democrats ?
Collin County , the reddest of the four counties has a 25:1 recovery to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovery rate , so far .
Dallas County , the bluest of the four counties is reporting a 2:60 recovery to death ration , with a Dean Wormer recovery rate , so far .
Gump ’ s order for everyone to wear masks was shot down by the Dallas County Commissioners court , despite the fact that 4/5 commissioners are Democrats .

Guest “Frackin’ A Bubba ” by David Middleton
Do U.S. Shale Drillers Deserve To Exist In Free Markets?
By Mitchell McGeorge – Apr 18, 2020 In the fallout of the current crisis, one more statistic can be added to the toll of Covid-19 – US Energy Independence. The Shale Revolution was responsible for the growth in US oil and gas production that lead to the President, Energy Secretary and industry bodies heralding the era of US energy independence and US energy dominance. But, with the oil markets in turmoil, US shale producers who account for over two-thirds of US production (and in particular the Permian Basin which accounts for almost forty percent of total US production) have been ‘tapping the mat’ urging President Trump to save the industry through various means of subsidies, bailouts and tariffs. Shale producers have been arm-twisting US politicians into cringeworthy calls with Saudi Arabian officials because of their belief that Saudi Arabia, as a strategic ally, shouldn’t be following free market practices to harm the US Energy Independence narrative they all promoted. So much for the US being the world’s champion of the ‘free market’! […] Oil Price Dot Com
A more apt question would be: Do “shale” drillers deserve access to an actual free market?
Show the US oil industry where the free market is (or was) and I’m fairly certain we can compete in it. OPEC wouldn’t exist in a free market. Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be able to literally control prices by raising and lowering production rates. Saudi Arabia’s grip on prices only fails when demand is either too high or too low. The ChiCom-19 hostage crisis has dropped demand below everyone’s functional threshold in the global oil market, free or otherwise.
I don’t know of any US oil companies or trade groups, “‘tapping the mat’ urging President Trump to save the industry through various means of subsidies, bailouts and tariffs.” The industry has been very appreciative of his efforts to broker an agreement between the Saudis and Soviets (just honoring Mr. Putin’s wishes) and use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a cushion. After congressional Democrats blocked funding for the purchase of domestically produced oil, the President has begun leasing out space in the SPR for storage.
Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, the biggest Bakken player, has “has encouraged the Commerce Department to initiate a national security investigation into Russia the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia for ‘excessive dumping’ in oil markets” and use the threat of tariffs and other measures to halt the state-sponsored dumping.
One of the recurring themes from the shale industry since the Oil Price War commenced is putting tariffs on Saudi Arabian oil imports, like some magic silver bullet that will amazingly save an industry that hasn’t had the discipline to push itself away from the debt buffet table. But, how is this going to work and has anybody thought this through beyond an initial ‘emotional’ reaction? Oil Price Dot Com
I don’t know of any oil company or industry trade group pushing for Saudi-specific tariffs. Mr. McGeorge correctly points out that such a tariff would be pointless. The “push” has been to use the threat of tariffs and embargoes to force Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union to agree to cut production. This, coupled with the 20-30% short-term reduction in demand due to the ChiCom-19 hostage crisis, seems to have worked. There has been some talk of the Texas Railroad Commission directing oil companies to reduce production in Texas by 20%; but the largest industry trade group opposes even this measure.
With WTI stuck around $20, nearly every producer is a long way from being able to cover costs let alone develop again. In the most recent survey by the Dallas Fed of 92 upstream E&P companies, WTI prices need to be above $50 for almost all plays before wells can be drilled profitably. The idea that upstream E&P companies will be able to hold out until development wells can be drilled profitably again is tenuous at best. With mounting debt loads, interest and maturities most won’t be able to last beyond the next six months. If the WTI price continues at $20, Rystad’s predictions show that Lower 48 production could drop to approximately 6 million barrels by the end of next year. Oil Price Dot Com
That is, indeed, what Rystad’s Energy U Cube model indicates…
Figure 1. “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!” Oil Price Dot Com
Mitchell McGeorge is supposedly some sort of commodities “expert.” Although he strikes me more as an anti-American Putin apologist. As a commodities “expert” he might have taken a look at oil price futures. The May contract, which expires tomorrow, closed at -$37.63/bbl today. However the June contract closed at $20.43/bbl. A nearly $60/bbl spread between the front and second months of WTI futures… A truly bizarre situation. The price yesterday, today or tomorrow isn’t all that relevant, particularly the expiring May contract. What matters is evolution of demand and prices over the next 1-2 years.
Figure 3. WTI oil prices, futures and STEO. EIA
The current WTI futures price for the end of next year is around $37/bbl. The odds of WTI being around $20/bbl in late 2021 are very slim. While not sufficient to support much new “shale” development, $35-40/bbl is enough for most companies to hunker down and ride the storm out, particularly for companies with strong hedge positions…
LOW OIL PRICE? NO PROBLEM. US SHALE FIRMS ARE SET TO SAVE UP BILLIONS IN RECORD-HIGH HEDGING GAINS March 13, 2020 Even though oil prices plunged to as low as $30 per barrel this week and are likely to go even lower as OPEC+ plans to increase production from April, US shale oil operators expect to save billions in record-high hedging gains in 2020, a Rystad Energy impact assessment shows. Rystad Energy’s assessment is based on an analysis of a representative peer group of 30 dedicated US light tight oil firms with a combined output of about 38% of the total expected US oil production in 2020, excluding royalties. Looking at the hedging positions of the considered companies, we conclude that they hedged almost 50% of their guided 2020 output at an average price floor of $56 per barrel. […] Rystad Energy
Figure 4. “Shale” player hedging gain sensitivity. Rystad Energy
Regarding the Rystad chart in Figure 1, it excludes US Gulf of Mexico production, where a lot of deepwater “brownfield” opportunities are fairly attractive at $35-40/bbl. The Gulf of Mexico is currently producing about 2 million bbl/d. I don’t do “shale” – But I like to study it write about it. I work the very different geology of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). As far as I know GOM players aren’t begging for bailouts or ‘tapping the mat’. Mostly companies are cutting spending, particularly CapEx to ensure positive operating cash flow at $30/bbl. Most GOM companies are also well-hedged. Our sector has been lobbying for royalty suspension until the ChiCom-19 hostage crisis ends… And I hope we are also lobbying for lease extensions and expanded timelines for abandonment and retirement obligations (ARO). Easing up on the administrative cost of doing business is neither a bailout, nor a subsidy. The ChiCom-19 hostage crisis will likely cause GOM production to dip a little bit over the next year or two. Royalty suspension, lease extensions and an expanded ARO timeline, would go a long way toward smoothing out the currently very rough waters.
“Do U.S. Shale Drillers Deserve To Exist In Free Markets?“
It’s an idiotic question. There is no global free market. Saudi Arabia needs $70-90/bbl to balance their budget. The Soviet Union needs $40-50/bbl to balance theirs.
Figure 5. Oil price required to balance national budgets. Financial Times
The US, as a nation, has no comparable price. And the budget-balancing price varies widely from company to company. This is Tug Eiden’s estimate of the price required to cover operating costs for a group of independent oil companies, mostly “shale” players.
Figure 6. Oil price required to cover operating expenses for selected independents. Tug Eiden
At ~$20/bbl, no one makes money… Not the “shale” players, not the Saudis and not the Soviets. If oil is around $20/bbl this time next year, there won’t be any oil (only being partially sarcastic).
As demand recovers after the ChiCom-19 hostage crisis ends, OPEC+ will work to bring prices up to where they need them. While this downturn will force a lot, maybe most, “shale” players into Chapter 11, the assets don’t vanish. Most of the companies won’t vanish. Even though proved reserves will have to be taken off the books, the oil won’t go away. When prices rise back into the $40-50/bbl range, US oil production will start to rise again. “Shale” players and most independent US oil companies are somewhat analogous to Yankee Clippers – They aggressively take advantage of economic opportunities in a very un-free market.
To level the playing field, the US government could take reasonable measures to ensure that the United States’ energy security is not impaired and that American Energy dominance carries on… But that’s not a business decision.
Day Thirty-Something of America Held Hostage by ChiCom-19
Dallas County update…
4/20/2020 Dallas County CHICOM-19 Population Cases Deaths 2,637,772 2,512 60 2.4% % of population with 0.10% 0.00% % with, rounded 0.1% 0.00% % without 99.90% 100.00% % without, rounded 99.9% 100.0% Menodoza Line (.200) 12/21/2034 0.200
Fire Marshal Gump is apparently unsatisfied…
Dallas County to ‘Scrap and Claw’ for More Testing as 84 More COVID-19 Cases Confirmed Monday
Judge Clay Jenkins warns against rushing back out too soon, continuing to limit essential trips
Published 1 hour ago Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins says they are continuing to fight for more COVID-19 testing in the county as 84 more positive cases of the 2019 novel coronavirus are confirmed Monday. The latest additions of COVID-19 bring the total case count in Dallas County to 2,512. For the second straight day, the county did not record any new deaths associated with the virus. That total remains at 60. […] NBC5DFW
Gump clearly needs more cases if he’s going to obstruct the reopening of the economy. Interestingly, in addition to not recording any deaths since April 17, Gump is refusing to record recoveries…
The county said they are not reporting recoveries of the infection because it is not a surveillance variable that is being used nationally by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or by state health departments. NBC5DFW
Recording new cases without recording recoveries is as dishonest as you can get. Can you spot which county is most firmly controlled by Democrats?
Cases Deaths Recovered Rec:Death % Rec Collin County 527 13 324 25 61% Dallas County 2,512 60 2 0 0% Denton County 593 16 248 16 42% Tarrant County 1,242 39 189 5 15% Total 5,315 144 822
Dallas County, of course.
Collin County, the reddest of the four counties has a 25:1 recovery to death ratio, with a 61% recovery rate, so far. Dallas County, the bluest of the four counties is reporting a 2:60 recovery to death ration, with a Dean Wormer recovery rate, so far.
Hey Gump! You stink!
“Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins displays an improvised cloth face mask made with a bandana and hair ties as he addresses members of the media regarding the new coronavirus pandemic on Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at the Dallas County Emergency Operations Center in Dallas.(Ryan Michalesko / Staff Photographer)”
Gump’s order for everyone to wear masks was shot down by the Dallas County Commissioners court, despite the fact that 4/5 commissioners are Democrats.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--Don’t Be A Virus Conspiracy Theorist!

Don’t Be A Virus Conspiracy Theorist!

The very reliable and credible authorities in China have debunked and refuted claims they started the virus , as has the completely honest World Health Organization .
Meanwhile , 2008 Nobel laureate Dr. Luc Montagnier ( the man who discovered AIDS ) says the virus is man-made and probably came out of research for an AIDS vaccine at the Wuhan lab .
He says efforts to expose this have been crushed by the mainstream .
“ With my colleague , bio-mathematician Jean-Claude Perez , we carefully analyzed the description of the genome of this RNA virus , ” explains Luc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the daily podcast at Pourquoi Docteur , adding that others have already explored this avenue : Indian researchers have already tried to publish the results of the analyses that showed that this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus , … the HIV virus ( AIDS virus ) , but they were forced to withdraw their findings as the pressure from the mainstream was too great .
Chinese Coronavirus Is a Man Made Virus According to Luc Montagnier the Man Who Discovered HIV – Gilmore Health Whenever I see the word debunked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag to me that someone is hiding something important .
My work exposing temperature data tampering has been debunked by the mainstream media many times , and always without talking to me about it .

The very reliable and credible authorities in China have debunked and refuted claims they started the virus, as has the completely honest World Health Organization.
There is no way this virus came from us
Wuhan Laboratory Finally Refutes Claims That COVID-19 Virus Originated There – Gilmore Health
Meanwhile, 2008 Nobel laureate Dr. Luc Montagnier (the man who discovered AIDS) says the virus is man-made and probably came out of research for an AIDS vaccine at the Wuhan lab. He says efforts to expose this have been crushed by the mainstream.
“With my colleague, bio-mathematician Jean-Claude Perez, we carefully analyzed the description of the genome of this RNA virus,” explains Luc Montagnier, interviewed by Dr Jean-François Lemoine for the daily podcast at Pourquoi Docteur, adding that others have already explored this avenue: Indian researchers have already tried to publish the results of the analyses that showed that this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus, … the HIV virus (AIDS virus), but they were forced to withdraw their findings as the pressure from the mainstream was too great.
Chinese Coronavirus Is a Man Made Virus According to Luc Montagnier the Man Who Discovered HIV – Gilmore Health
Whenever I see the word debunked being used, that is a red flag to me that someone is hiding something important. My work exposing temperature data tampering has been debunked by the mainstream media many times, and always without talking to me about it.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--Gobsmacking Audacity: Wind & Solar Industries Demand $Billions in Handouts From COVID-19 Stimulus Pa

Gobsmacking Audacity: Wind & Solar Industries Demand $Billions in Handouts From COVID-19 Stimulus Package

America ’ s renewable energy rent seekers sought to snare $ billions from Trump ’ s $ 2 trillion coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re back with a vengeance , and hard at it again .
The @ @ @ @ @ ’ have always exhibited their very own gobsmacking version of audacity .
But , with @ @ @ @ @ of a magnitude not seen [ … ]

America’s renewable energy rent seekers sought to snare $billions from Trump’s $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus and failed. Now they’re back with a vengeance, and hard at it again. The wind and solar ‘industries’ have always exhibited their very own gobsmacking version of audacity. But, with America facing an economic calamity of a magnitude not seen […]
Read more
via STOP THESE THINGS
https://ift.tt/3aoFOA0
April 21, 2020 at 02:31AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--FRENCH CITIZEN’S CLIMATE CONVENTION COMES UP WITH DISASTROUS POLICIES

Those of us who are sceptical about the worth of citizens ’ assemblies have been noting with interest the upshot of the French citizens ’ convention for the climate which delivered its recommendations this week .
The thing about these assemblies of randomly selected citizens mulling over thorny issues is that they ’ re a brilliant way for elected politicians to shift the responsibility for really unpopular policies onto someone else .
Except they can go horribly wrong .
President Macron used this device to deal with the threat from the gilets jaune , back in those distant days when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He had to deal with a movement that was driven by the concerns of predominantly rural voters who felt ignored by the elite while placating the urban young exercised about climate change .
What better than to go through the motions of direct democracy to appease the first group while giving the random citizens a brief that would ensure that their conclusions appeased the environmentalists ?
The convention was asked how to ensure that French carbon emissions would be reduced by 40 per cent in 2030 from 1990 levels .
The upshot was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the convention has come up with proposals that no sane politician would actually want to take to the electorate , especially not in rural France .
They recommend closing hypermarkets , shelving the 5G network because it uses more electricity , prohibiting the sale of cars whose emissions exceed that of most current models , and banning hoardings that might encourage people to drive further to buy things .
Advertisements , whether print broadcast or online , for items generating excessive CO2 would be banned ; those that were authorised would be forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you really need this ?
’ .
Some of the proposals are decent , such as encouraging the use of local shops over chain stores , but the overall effect is bossy , authoritarian and appallingly expensive for poorer people .
The president now has to decide how to deal with this embarrassment .
You see , he made the mistake at the outset of declaring that the convention ’ s proposals would be taken seriously ; they would be implemented immediately , put before parliament for legislation , or submitted to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no one anticipated a situation where the French economy would be shrinking by six per cent in a year .
The problem with citizens ’ assemblies is that its members don ’ t , unlike elected politicians , actually have to deal with the consequences of their breezy and idealistic proposals .
In the first place , they are rarely representative of the entire population : in France , 25,000 people were approached to see if they wanted to take part ; most refused , and 150 were chosen .
Most of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are prepared to give up entire weekends in return for a stipend of £74 ( €86 ) a day plus expenses .
In other words , political activists and people with time on their hands .
It was the same with the Irish citizens ’ assembly on abortion .
As in that case , the conclusions people come to depend on the agenda they are presented with .
If the experts who brief them have a particular bias , pro-choice or hardcore green , then the recommendations will reflect that .
The Irish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts except as a minority view ( you can see the programme online ) ; I ’ d wager that the French convention was similarly skewed towards environmentalists rather than economists .
The thing about normal democracy is that it ’ s a way for us to choose people to make difficult decisions about policy and then implement them in law .
In exceptional cases , the true direct democracy of a referendum can be used .
Delegating these choices to a collection of unelected individuals is passing the buck .
Mr Macron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evade the consequences of his idiot exercise .
The old rule applies : never ask people their opinion unless you know the answer you want them to come up with , and then fix the process to make sure that ’ s what happens .

Those of us who are sceptical about the worth of citizens’ assemblies have been noting with interest the upshot of the French citizens’ convention for the climate which delivered its recommendations this week.
The thing about these assemblies of randomly selected citizens mulling over thorny issues is that they’re a brilliant way for elected politicians to shift the responsibility for really unpopular policies onto someone else. Except they can go horribly wrong.
President Macron used this device to deal with the threat from the gilets jaune, back in those distant days when citizens could actually assemble in France. He had to deal with a movement that was driven by the concerns of predominantly rural voters who felt ignored by the elite while placating the urban young exercised about climate change. What better than to go through the motions of direct democracy to appease the first group while giving the random citizens a brief that would ensure that their conclusions appeased the environmentalists? The convention was asked how to ensure that French carbon emissions would be reduced by 40 per cent in 2030 from 1990 levels.
The upshot was precisely as you’d expect: the convention has come up with proposals that no sane politician would actually want to take to the electorate, especially not in rural France. They recommend closing hypermarkets, shelving the 5G network because it uses more electricity, prohibiting the sale of cars whose emissions exceed that of most current models, and banning hoardings that might encourage people to drive further to buy things.
Advertisements, whether print broadcast or online, for items generating excessive CO2 would be banned; those that were authorised would be forced to carry the words: ‘Do you really need this?’. Some of the proposals are decent, such as encouraging the use of local shops over chain stores, but the overall effect is bossy, authoritarian and appallingly expensive for poorer people.
The president now has to decide how to deal with this embarrassment. You see, he made the mistake at the outset of declaring that the convention’s proposals would be taken seriously; they would be implemented immediately, put before parliament for legislation, or submitted to a referendum. That was then, when no one anticipated a situation where the French economy would be shrinking by six per cent in a year.
The problem with citizens’ assemblies is that its members don’t, unlike elected politicians, actually have to deal with the consequences of their breezy and idealistic proposals. In the first place, they are rarely representative of the entire population: in France, 25,000 people were approached to see if they wanted to take part; most refused, and 150 were chosen. Most of those are people with an agenda, who are prepared to give up entire weekends in return for a stipend of £74 (€86) a day plus expenses. In other words, political activists and people with time on their hands.
It was the same with the Irish citizens’ assembly on abortion. As in that case, the conclusions people come to depend on the agenda they are presented with. If the experts who brief them have a particular bias, pro-choice or hardcore green, then the recommendations will reflect that. The Irish body wasn’t presented with pro-foetus experts except as a minority view (you can see the programme online); I’d wager that the French convention was similarly skewed towards environmentalists rather than economists.
The thing about normal democracy is that it’s a way for us to choose people to make difficult decisions about policy and then implement them in law. In exceptional cases, the true direct democracy of a referendum can be used. Delegating these choices to a collection of unelected individuals is passing the buck. Mr Macron now has to find a way to evade the consequences of his idiot exercise. The old rule applies: never ask people their opinion unless you know the answer you want them to come up with, and then fix the process to make sure that’s what happens.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--Bryce’s “A Question of Power”

Bryce’s “A Question of Power”

Roughly 3.3 billion people—about 45 percent of all the people on the planet—live in places where per-capita electricity consumption is less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year , or less than the amount used by my refrigerator .
By 2017 , more than 6,600 coal-fired power plants , with a combined capacity of about 2,000 gigawatts , were operating around the globe… .
Not only that , coal ’ s share of global electricity production has remained nearly constant , at about 40 percent , since the mid-1980s .
Why is this ?
For the simple reason that coal is cheap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing significant uncertainty over how the drop in oil prices , the COVID-19 virus , and governments ’ response to both will harm the economy and their long-term prosperity .
However , the harm caused by governments that limit access to affordable and reliable electricity is well understood .
That ’ s one of my big takeaways from Robert Bryce ’ s excellent new book , “ A Question of Power.
” Throughout history most humans have lived on the edge of subsistence , almost completely dependent on how much sun and rain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many life is much better today because of electricity , others living in what Bryce calls “ Unplugged ” countries , like El Salvador , the Philippines , Bolivia , Pakistan , and India , still living in the past : Roughly 3.3 billion people—about 45 percent of all the people on the planet—live in places where per-capita electricity consumption is less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year , or less than the amount used by my refrigerator .
That consumption is less than a quarter of the 4,000 kilowatt-hours per year per capita @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered the minimum for living a long , high-quality life.
” Bryce adroitly marshals the facts to clearly show the connection between increased electricity use and increased health and prosperity .
For instance , he examined a number of studies that found “ unidirectional causality between electricity consumption and economic growth.
” That is , electricity use drives economic growth .
While electricity drives economies , it is also clear that greater wealth increases electricity consumption .
That makes sense .
As people get wealthier , they consume more electricity because they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points out that the “ close correlation between electricity use and human health and economic growth has become so obvious that international investment bankers have adopted electricity use as a measure of economic activity.
” He continues : “ By using hydrocarbons ( at first coal , then later oil and natural gas ) humans were able to harness ever increasing quantities of power and do so in ever-denser packages .
In place of animal power , sun power , and wind power , factories began using advanced waterwheels and coal-fired steam engines.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of the world ’ s population are living in Unplugged countries where they “ are using about the same amount of electricity as an average resident of Chicago did back in 1925 ?
” It is because the progress of the last 200 years has not taken place uniformly .
Bryce explains that the three critical components to an affordable and reliable supply of electricity—integrity , capital , and fuel—have often been in short supply in many parts of the world .
By integrity Bryce means that the system must not “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design , poor maintenance , or theft .
“ People who operate the grid , as well as the people who rely on it , need to have some sense of responsibility for it .
Or , if they don ’ t feel responsible for the grid , they have to fear getting caught and punished for stealing electricity.
” This often doesn ’ t happen , however , in impoverished countries operating without the rule of law because the elites have “ organized society for their own benefit at the expense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries where the elites are best at oppressing their citizens , corruption is rife , black markets abound , and grids leak .
That is , to the extent they have grids in the first place .
To build those , societies also need capital , the second component .
“ Keeping theft and corruption at a minimum is imperative because theft robs the grid of the capital it needs , ” say Bryce .
In fact , it robs entire countries of the capital they need to prosper .
Particularly when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes , heavy regulation , confiscation of property , and inflation of the money supply .
People in countries like this often can ’ t afford to build a reliable grid , or much of anything else .
The last of the three “ key determinants of the quality , cost , and cleanliness of the electricity ” that we consume is fuel : “ Without fuel , you can ’ t make electrons move.
” Bryce makes it clear that the fuel of choice around most of the world is coal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ power plants , with a combined capacity of about 2,000 gigawatts , were operating around the globe .
That coal-fired capacity accounted for nearly one-third of all global generation capacity .
Not only that , coal ’ s share of global electricity production has remained nearly constant , at about 40 percent , since the mid-1980s .
Why is this ?
For the simple reason that coal is cheap and widely available : The world has gargantuan coal deposits .
At current rates of consumption , global coal reserves are projected to last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Australia both have more than three hundred years ’ worth of coal reserves in the ground .
Russia has nearly four hundred years ’ worth .
The large number of countries that produce and export coal allows buyers to compare prices from a number of suppliers and therefore get the best quality and price .
Add natural gas to coal , and it is clear that ( in contrast to integrity and capital ) , over the last 200 years there has not been a general shortage of the affordable fuel we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet .
But that is changing as the political leaders of the High-Watt World are doing their very best to make fuel more expensive and less available .
In three ways .
First , they are imposing draconian controls on the use of carbon-based and nuclear fuels , controls that do nothing to improve human health .
Whether it is micromanaging every aspect of the design of nuclear generators or requiring levels of particulate emissions that are below the natural levels , the government has dramatically and artificially increased the cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are taking billions of dollars from taxpayers and giving it to corporations with markets caps totaling into the hundreds of billions to subsidize wind and solar generation .
In the U.S. alone , my calculations show , taxpayers have ponied up more than $ 80 billion since 2006 .
Top 11 Recipients of Federal Tax Credits for Wind Source : Angela Erickson and the Texas Public Policy Foundation All this money is going to unreliable and inefficient sources of energy that can never supply us with the energy we need at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electricity only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining .
Because of this , they require battery storage so that we ’ ll have electricity when we need it .
Yet Bryce calculates “ storing the 9.6 terawatt-hours of electricity needed for California to get 80 percent of its electricity from renewables would require the state to install more than seven hundred million Power walls ” ( Tesla ’ s latest battery ) .
The truth is that every penny spent on renewable energy is being wasted .
Third .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of coal as a fuel because of concern about climate change .
Bryce notes that even as coal use around the world is thriving , in the U.S. “ more than half of all coal plants have announced planned closures since 2010.
” If I had one nit to pick with A Question of Power , it would be that it takes more or less as a given that the world needs to do something to address CO2 emissions to reduce man ’ s effect on the climate .
On this topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis used elsewhere in the book to challenge the conventional wisdom .
Yet there is plenty to challenge , as Patrick Michaels and Caleb Stewart Rossiter explain : Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap , reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier , longer lives .
For decades , these models have projected dramatic warming from small , fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide , with catastrophic consequences .
Yet , the real-world data aren ’ t cooperating .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at night and in winter .
They go on to cite atmospheric scientist John Christy , an author for a previous edition of the U.N. report on climate change , who “ recently concluded that , on average , the projected heating by the models is three times what has been observed.
” The story told in a Question of Power ( through my lens ) is one of scientists , politicians , and activists holding themselves out as experts and telling us how to power the world while taking our money to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is not unrelated to the current COVID-19 situation where the models developed by the experts have failed even faster than the climate change models , yet politicians all across the world are taking advice from these experts about how deal with this pandemic .
Bryce doesn ’ t focus as much on the elite and government in his book as I do here , but he does give us plenty to think about when it comes to the future of powering this world .
In particular , he shows us through discussions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the electrification of the world that began less than 200 years ago has shown no sign of slowing .
He makes a compelling case that the demand for electricity is going to continue to grow and displays his optimism that we ’ ll succeed in our efforts to meet this demand : Electricity has conferred on us a bit of the creative power that God showed in Genesis .
With the flip of a switch , we can kill the anti-God and banish darkness .
With a touch of our mobile phones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strange hotel or garage at night .
With quadrillions of electrons at our beck and call , we can create as much light as we want .
I join him in that optimism , with one caveat : the path to increased electrification and protection from disease–and everything else–will continue to be hindered until voluntary exchange through free markets usurp overregulation by the governing elite .

Roughly 3.3 billion people—about 45 percent of all the people on the planet—live in places where per-capita electricity consumption is less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year, or less than the amount used by my refrigerator. By 2017, more than 6,600 coal-fired power plants, with a combined capacity of about 2,000 gigawatts, were operating around the globe…. Not only that, coal’s share of global electricity production has remained nearly constant, at about 40 percent, since the mid-1980s. Why is this? For the simple reason that coal is cheap and widely available.
Americans are currently facing significant uncertainty over how the drop in oil prices, the COVID-19 virus, and governments’ response to both will harm the economy and their long-term prosperity.
However, the harm caused
by governments that limit access to affordable and reliable electricity is well
understood.
That’s one of my big takeaways
from Robert Bryce’s excellent new book, “A Question of Power.”
Throughout history most humans
have lived on the edge of subsistence, almost completely dependent on how much sun
and rain came their way. And while for many life is much better today because of
electricity, others living in what Bryce calls “Unplugged” countries, like El Salvador,
the Philippines, Bolivia, Pakistan, and India, still living in the past:
Roughly 3.3 billion people—about
45 percent of all the people on the planet—live in places where per-capita electricity
consumption is less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year, or less than the amount
used by my refrigerator.
That consumption is less
than a quarter of the 4,000 kilowatt-hours per year per capita electricity use that
Bryce suggests is “considered the minimum for living a long, high-quality life.”
Bryce adroitly marshals the
facts to clearly show the connection between increased electricity use and increased
health and prosperity. For instance, he examined a number of studies that
found “unidirectional causality
between electricity consumption and economic growth.” That is, electricity use drives
economic growth. While electricity drives economies, it is also clear that greater
wealth increases electricity consumption. That makes sense. As people get wealthier,
they consume more electricity because they can afford more electrical devices.
He also points out that the
“close correlation between electricity use and human health and economic growth
has become so obvious that international investment bankers have adopted electricity
use as a measure of economic activity.”
He continues: “By using hydrocarbons
(at first coal, then later oil and natural gas) humans were able to harness ever
increasing quantities of power and do so in ever-denser packages. In place of animal
power, sun power, and wind power, factories began using advanced waterwheels and
coal-fired steam engines.”
So why is it that almost
half of the world’s population are living in Unplugged countries where they “are
using about the same amount of electricity as an average resident of Chicago did
back in 1925?”
Source: A Question of
Power
It is because the progress
of the last 200 years has not taken place uniformly. Bryce explains that the three
critical components to an affordable and reliable supply of electricity—integrity,
capital, and fuel—have often been in short supply in many parts of the world.
By integrity Bryce means
that the system must not “leak,” either because of poor design, poor maintenance,
or theft. “People who operate the grid, as well as the people who rely on it, need
to have some sense of responsibility for it. Or, if they don’t feel responsible
for the grid, they have to fear getting caught and punished for stealing electricity.”
This often doesn’t happen,
however, in impoverished countries operating without the rule of law because the
elites have “organized society for their own benefit at the expense of the vast
mass of people.” In countries where the elites are best at oppressing their citizens,
corruption is rife, black markets abound, and grids leak.
That is, to the extent they
have grids in the first place. To build those, societies also need capital, the
second component. “Keeping theft and corruption at a minimum is imperative because
theft robs the grid of the capital it needs,” say Bryce. In fact, it robs entire
countries of the capital they need to prosper. Particularly when the theft comes
from oppressive governments through high taxes, heavy regulation, confiscation of
property, and inflation of the money supply. People in countries like this often
can’t afford to build a reliable grid, or much of anything else.
The last of the three “key
determinants of the quality, cost, and cleanliness of the electricity” that we consume
is fuel: “Without fuel, you can’t make electrons move.” Bryce makes it clear that
the fuel of choice around most of the world is coal.
By 2017, more than 6,600 coal-fired power plants, with a combined capacity
of about 2,000 gigawatts, were operating around the globe. That coal-fired capacity
accounted for nearly one-third of all global generation capacity. Not only that,
coal’s share of global electricity production has remained nearly constant, at about
40 percent, since the mid-1980s.
Why is this? For the simple
reason that coal is cheap and widely available:
The world has gargantuan
coal deposits. At current rates of consumption, global coal reserves are projected
to last another 134 years. The United States and Australia both have more than three
hundred years’ worth of coal reserves in the ground. Russia has nearly four hundred
years’ worth. The large number of countries that produce and export coal allows
buyers to compare prices from a number of suppliers and therefore get the best quality
and price.
Add natural gas to coal,
and it is clear that (in contrast to integrity and capital), over the last 200 years
there has not been a general shortage of the affordable fuel we need to generate
electricity.
At least not yet. But that
is changing as the political leaders of the High-Watt World are doing their very
best to make fuel more expensive and less available. In three ways.
First, they are imposing
draconian controls on the use of carbon-based and nuclear fuels, controls that do
nothing to improve human health. Whether it is micromanaging every aspect of the
design of nuclear generators or requiring levels of particulate emissions that are
below the natural levels, the government has dramatically and artificially increased
the cost of electric generation from these fuels.
Second, they are taking billions
of dollars from taxpayers and giving it to corporations with markets caps totaling
into the hundreds of billions to subsidize wind and solar generation. In the U.S.
alone, my calculations show, taxpayers have ponied up more than $80 billion since
2006.
Top
11 Recipients of Federal Tax Credits for Wind
Source: Angela Erickson and the Texas Public Policy Foundation
All this money is going to
unreliable and inefficient sources of energy that can never supply us with the energy
we need at any cost. Wind and solar generate electricity only when the wind is blowing
or the sun is shining. Because of this, they require battery storage so that we’ll
have electricity when we need it. Yet Bryce calculates “storing the 9.6 terawatt-hours
of electricity needed for California to get 80 percent of its electricity from renewables
would require the state to install more than seven hundred million Power walls”
(Tesla’s latest battery). The truth is that every penny spent on renewable energy
is being wasted.
Third. they are seeking to
completely eliminate the use of coal as a fuel because of concern about climate
change. Bryce notes that even as coal use around the world is thriving, in the U.S.
“more than half of all coal plants have announced planned closures since 2010.”
If I had one nit to pick
with A Question of Power, it would be that it takes more or less as a given
that the world needs to do something to address CO2 emissions to reduce man’s effect
on the climate. On this topic, there is little of the insightful analysis used elsewhere
in the book to challenge the conventional wisdom.
Yet there is plenty to challenge,
as Patrick Michaels and Caleb Stewart Rossiter
explain:
Computer models of the climate
are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving
economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected
dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations
of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences. Yet, the real-world data aren’t
cooperating. They show only slight warming, mostly at night and in winter.
They go on to cite atmospheric
scientist John Christy, an author for a previous edition of the U.N. report on climate
change, who “recently concluded that, on average, the projected heating by the models
is three times what has been observed.”
The story told in a Question
of Power (through my lens) is one of scientists, politicians, and activists
holding themselves out as experts and telling us how to power the world while taking
our money to make us pay for their ideas.
This is not unrelated to
the current COVID-19 situation where the models developed by the experts have failed
even faster than the climate change models, yet politicians all across the world
are taking advice from these experts about how deal with this pandemic.
Bryce doesn’t focus as much
on the elite and government in his book as I do here, but he does give us plenty
to think about when it comes to the future of powering this world. In particular,
he shows us through discussions of the high tech and financial industries that the
electrification of the world that began less than 200 years ago has shown no sign
of slowing. He makes a compelling case that the demand for electricity is going
to continue to grow and displays his optimism that we’ll succeed in our efforts
to meet this demand:
Electricity has conferred
on us a bit of the creative power that God showed in Genesis. With the flip of a
switch, we can kill the anti-God and banish darkness. With a touch of our mobile
phones we can ensure safe passage through a strange hotel or garage at night. With
quadrillions of electrons at our beck and call, we can create as much light as we
want.
I join him in that optimism,
with one caveat: the path to increased electrification and protection from disease–and
everything else–will continue to be hindered until voluntary exchange through free
markets usurp overregulation by the governing elite.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-22--Man Eaten by Shark Dies from Coronavirus

This is pretty much the way things are looking today .
Thanks to Michele Selover for this graphic The post @ @ @ @ @ from Coronavirus appeared first on Ice Age Now .

This is pretty much the way things are looking today.
Thanks to Michele Selover for this graphic
The post Man Eaten by Shark Dies from Coronavirus appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/3au8M1v
April 21, 2020 at 07:20PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--Earth Day at 50: Progress, Not Politics, Cleaned Up America

My Earth Day column at RealClearPolitics.com… based on “ Eco-Reality Strikes Back : Earth Day at 50 ” Environmental activists decreed in 1970 that April 22 was to be commemorated as Earth Day .
Fifty years later , if you listen to these activists , especially as they are fog-horned by the mainstream media , you might get the impression that our environment is in more jeopardy than ever .
Is this true ?
Let ’ s stipulate that post-World War II America was much dirtier than 2020 America .
Industrial cities were beset with smog .
Pollution in rivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t always managed well .
Not much thought was given to use and exposure to chemicals like pesticides .
Litter was commonplace .
All that said , with the exception of three days in October 1948 , when the weather trapped acrid factory emissions in the valley town of Donora , Pa. , resulting in the deaths of 20 people , the environment was not an actual public health problem .
Still the Donora tragedy propelled states and then the federal government to take action on the environment .
Awareness of the value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions were all underway by the time of the first Earth Day .
Over the decades we have made tremendous progress .
Here are some examples to consider : • Air pollution has declined dramatically.There is no chance of another Donora-like incident .
• Except for rare accidents like what occurred in Flint , Mich. , drinking water is clean and safe .
• Except for stubborn surface water problems caused by runoff ( as seen in the Gulf Mexico and Chesapeake Bay ) surface water quality has dramatically improved .
Any industrial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the surface water itself for decades .
• There are no more uncontrolled toxic waste sites that threaten anyone ’ s health .
• Pesticides are thoroughly tested for safetybefore use and use is strictly regulated .
How did all this progress happen ?
Environmentalists would like to take all the credit .
But reality is more complex .
As our society became wealthier , we could afford the luxury of paying more attention to our environment .
That same wealth has made it possible to afford expensive laws and regulations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The key , though , was and remains wealth – a reality backed up by closer examination of the environments of poorer nations around the world .
Air quality , for example , is awful in places like China and India not because they don ’ t know what to do or don ’ t care , they just can ’ t afford to do much about it at this point in time .
Despite all this progress , environmentalists used the 50th Earth Day to sound the alarm about climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change is literally the end of the planet .
Climate is a variegated subject , but suffice to say , for present purposes , that since pre-industrial times , there has been approximately 1.1 degree Celsius of warming and almost 50 % more CO2 in the atmosphere .
Despite the alarm , no one knows what the future holds .
The assumption of the alarmists is that emissions are bad , but history tells a different story .
Since man started emitting vast quantities of greenhouse gases , more people are living longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Life expectancy is up from approximately 40 years ( 1850 ) to approximately 79 ( 2019 ) .
U.S. per capita GDP is up from approximately $ 2,825 in 1850 to approximately $ 53,000 in 2016 ( 2011 dollars ) .
The Earth is greener today than it was 40 years ago when we started taking satellite photos of the planet , according to NASA .
What is the future of the environment ?
No one knows for sure , but if the past is any hint of the future , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education and new technologies will enable us to keep our environment clean .
We could also use less hysteria , which just causes money to be wasted versus being spent more productively .
Early hysteria about toxic wastes site ( such as Love Canal in upstate New York ) resulted in $ 50 billion being wasted litigating Superfund cleanups .
A lot of sites could have been cleaned up with that money .
Instead , it went to lawyers .
More generally , green groups have often taken extreme positions to advocate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasted time and money .
Radicals often attack capitalism with the line , “ You didn ’ t build that.
” On Earth Day , that should be retorted with : “ You didn ’ t clean that up.
” Environmental protection has been a group effort enabled by our wealth , culture and system of government .
Steve Milloy served on the Trump-Pence EPA transition team , is the author of “ Scare Pollution : Why and How to Fix the EPA ” ( Bench Press , 2016 ) and publishes JunkScience.com @

My Earth Day column at RealClearPolitics.com… based on “Eco-Reality Strikes Back: Earth Day at 50”
Environmental activists decreed in 1970 that April 22 was to be commemorated as Earth Day. Fifty years later, if you listen to these activists, especially as they are fog-horned by the mainstream media, you might get the impression that our environment is in more jeopardy than ever. Is this true?
Let’s stipulate that post-World War II America was much dirtier than 2020 America. Industrial cities were beset with smog. Pollution in rivers caught fire. Waste dumps weren’t always managed well. Not much thought was given to use and exposure to chemicals like pesticides. Litter was commonplace.
All that said, with the exception of three days in October 1948, when the weather trapped acrid factory emissions in the valley town of Donora, Pa., resulting in the deaths of 20 people, the environment was not an actual public health problem. Still the Donora tragedy propelled states and then the federal government to take action on the environment. Awareness of the value of environmental protection and the regulation of emissions were all underway by the time of the first Earth Day.
Over the decades we have made tremendous progress. Here are some examples to consider:
Air pollution has declined dramatically.There is no chance of another Donora-like incident.
Except for rare accidents like what occurred in Flint, Mich., drinking water is clean and safe.
Except for stubborn surface water problems caused by runoff (as seen in the Gulf Mexico and Chesapeake Bay) surface water quality has dramatically improved. Any industrial discharges to surface water have been cleaner than the surface water itself for decades.
There are no more uncontrolled toxic waste sites that threaten anyone’s health.
Pesticides are thoroughly tested for safetybefore use and use is strictly regulated.
How did all this progress happen? Environmentalists would like to take all the credit. But reality is more complex.
As our society became wealthier, we could afford the luxury of paying more attention to our environment. That same wealth has made it possible to afford expensive laws and regulations and to afford scientific knowledge and technology development. The key, though, was and remains wealth – a reality backed up by closer examination of the environments of poorer nations around the world.
Air quality, for example, is awful in places like China and India not because they don’t know what to do or don’t care, they just can’t afford to do much about it at this point in time.
Despite all this progress, environmentalists used the 50th Earth Day to sound the alarm about climate change. We have been told that climate change is literally the end of the planet.
Climate is a variegated subject, but suffice to say, for present purposes, that since pre-industrial times, there has been approximately 1.1 degree Celsius of warming and almost 50% more CO2 in the atmosphere. Despite the alarm, no one knows what the future holds. The assumption of the alarmists is that emissions are bad, but history tells a different story.
Since man started emitting vast quantities of greenhouse gases, more people are living longer and at a higher standard of living. Life expectancy is up from approximately 40 years (1850) to approximately 79 (2019). U.S. per capita GDP is up from approximately $2,825 in 1850 to approximately $53,000 in 2016 (2011 dollars).
The Earth is greener today than it was 40 years ago when we started taking satellite photos of the planet, according to NASA.
What is the future of the environment? No one knows for sure, but if the past is any hint of the future, more wealth, strong property rights, better education and new technologies will enable us to keep our environment clean.
We could also use less hysteria, which just causes money to be wasted versus being spent more productively. Early hysteria about toxic wastes site (such as Love Canal in upstate New York) resulted in $50 billion being wasted litigating Superfund cleanups. A lot of sites could have been cleaned up with that money. Instead, it went to lawyers. More generally, green groups have often taken extreme positions to advocate for overregulation that has impeded environmental protection and wasted time and money.
Radicals often attack capitalism with the line, “You didn’t build that.” On Earth Day, that should be retorted with: “You didn’t clean that up.” Environmental protection has been a group effort enabled by our wealth, culture and system of government.
Steve Milloy served on the Trump-Pence EPA transition team, is the author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA” (Bench Press, 2016) and publishes JunkScience.com.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--Percent Of Days Above Freezing Declining In The US

The percent of days above freezing has been declining in the US for a century , with last year among @ @ @

The percent of days above freezing has been declining in the US for a century, with last year among the lowest.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--#EarthDay EPIC! Michael Moore’s new film trashes ‘planet saving’ renewable energy – full movie here!

A MUST READ !
Wow , the renewable light bulb of “ great idea ” over Michael Moore ’ s head just burned out .
He ’ s trashing renewables in this new film Planet of the Humans .
The irony meter is pegged .
It ’ s an epic take-down of the left ’ s love-affair with renewables by one of the left ’ s most known public figures .
Full video follows .
New Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables Over the last 10 years , everyone from celebrity influencers including Elon Musk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to major technology brands including Apple , have repeatedly claimed that renewables like solar panels and wind farms are less polluting than fossil fuels .
But a new documentary , “ Planet of the Humans , ” being released free to the public on YouTube today , the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day , reveals that industrial wind farms , solar farms , biomass , and biofuels are wrecking natural environments .
“ Planet of the Humans was produced by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore .
“ I assumed solar panels would last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I didn ’ t know what went into the making of them.
” The film shows both abandoned industrial wind and solar farms and new ones being built — but after cutting down forests .
“ It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at was a solar dead zone , ” says filmmaker Jeff Gibbs , staring at a former solar farm in California .
“ I learned that the solar panels don ’ t last.
” Like many environmental documentaries , “ Planet of Humans ” endorses debunked Malthusian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of energy .
“ We have to have our ability to consume reigned in , ” says a well-coiffed environmental leader .
“ Without some major die-off of the human population there is no turning back , ” says a scientist .
The film unearths a great deal of information I had never seen before .
It shows Apple ’ s head of sustainability , former EPA head Lisa Jackson , claiming on-stage at an Apple event , “ We now run Apple on 100 % renewable energy , ” to loud applause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researched corporate renewables programs who said , “ I haven ’ t found a single entity anywhere in the world running on 100 % solar and wind alone.
” The film shows a forest being cut down to build an Apple solar farm .
After Earth Day Founder Denis Hayes claims at a 2015 Earth Day concert that the event was being powered by solar , Gibbs goes behind the stage to find out the truth .
“ The concert is run by a diesel generation system , ” the solar vendor said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a toaster , ” said another vendor .
The film also debunks the claim made by Elon Musk that his “ Gigafactory ” to make batteries is powered by renewables .
In fact , it is hooked up to the electric grid .
“ Some solar panels are built to only last 10 years , ” said a man selling materials for solar manufacturing at a corporate expo .
“ It ’ s not like you get this magic free energy .
I don ’ t know that it ’ s the solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that go in photovoltaics.
” “ What powers a learning community ?
” said [ Bill ] MicKibben at the unveiling of a wood-burning power plant at Middlebury College in Vermont .
“ As of this afternoon , the easy answer to this is wood chips .
It ’ s incredibly beautiful to look at the bunker of wood chips .
Anything that burns we can throw in there !
This shows that this could happen everywhere , should happen everywhere , and must happen everywhere !
” The film reveals that McKibben @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiative that would have required the state get 25 % of its electricity from renewables by 2025 , and that the initiative was backed by biomass industrial interests , and that efforts to build a biomass plant at Michigan State University were hotly opposed by climate activists — including ones from 350.org .
Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans , a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America .
This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face : that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event , the environmental movement ’ s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids .
It ’ s too little , too late .
Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us : getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption .
Why is this not THE issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profits , bad for business .
Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions , “ green ” illusions , that are anything but green , because we ’ re scared that this is the end—and we ’ ve pinned all our hopes on biomass , wind turbines , and electric cars ?
No amount of batteries are going to save us , warns director Jeff Gibbs ( lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “ Fahrenheit 9/11 ” and “ Bowling for Columbine ” ) .
This urgent , must-see movie , a full-frontal assault on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generate anger , debate , and , hopefully , a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it ’ s too late .
Featuring : Al Gore , Bill McKibben , Richard Branson , Robert F Kennedy Jr. , Michael Bloomberg , Van Jones , Vinod Khosla , Koch Brothers , Vandana Shiva , General Motors , 350.org , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Sierra Club , the Union of Concerned Scientists , Nature Conservancy , Elon Musk , Tesla .

A MUST READ! Wow, the renewable light bulb of “great idea” over Michael Moore’s head just burned out. He’s trashing renewables in this new film Planet of the Humans.
The irony meter is pegged. It’s an epic take-down of the left’s love-affair with renewables by one of the left’s most known public figures. Full video follows.
Via Forbes writer Michael Shellenberger
New Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables
Over the last 10 years, everyone from celebrity influencers including Elon Musk, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Al Gore, to major technology brands including Apple, have repeatedly claimed that renewables like solar panels and wind farms are less polluting than fossil fuels.
But a new documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” being released free to the public on YouTube today, the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, reveals that industrial wind farms, solar farms, biomass, and biofuels are wrecking natural environments.
“Planet of the Humans was produced by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. “I assumed solar panels would last forever,” Moore told Reuters. “I didn’t know what went into the making of them.”
The film shows both abandoned industrial wind and solar farms and new ones being built — but after cutting down forests. “It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at was a solar dead zone,” says filmmaker Jeff Gibbs, staring at a former solar farm in California. “I learned that the solar panels don’t last.”
Like many environmental documentaries, “Planet of Humans” endorses debunked Malthusian ideas that the world is running out of energy. “We have to have our ability to consume reigned in,” says a well-coiffed environmental leader. “Without some major die-off of the human population there is no turning back,” says a scientist.
…
The film unearths a great deal of information I had never seen before. It shows Apple’s head of sustainability, former EPA head Lisa Jackson, claiming on-stage at an Apple event, “We now run Apple on 100% renewable energy,” to loud applause.
But Gibbs interviews a scientist who researched corporate renewables programs who said, “I haven’t found a single entity anywhere in the world running on 100% solar and wind alone.” The film shows a forest being cut down to build an Apple solar farm.
After Earth Day Founder Denis Hayes claims at a 2015 Earth Day concert that the event was being powered by solar, Gibbs goes behind the stage to find out the truth. “The concert is run by a diesel generation system,” the solar vendor said. “That right there could run a toaster,” said another vendor.
The film also debunks the claim made by Elon Musk that his “Gigafactory” to make batteries is powered by renewables. In fact, it is hooked up to the electric grid.
“Some solar panels are built to only last 10 years,” said a man selling materials for solar manufacturing at a corporate expo. “It’s not like you get this magic free energy. I don’t know that it’s the solution and here I am selling the materials that go in photovoltaics.”
“What powers a learning community?” said [Bill] MicKibben at the unveiling of a wood-burning power plant at Middlebury College in Vermont. “As of this afternoon, the easy answer to this is wood chips. It’s incredibly beautiful to look at the bunker of wood chips. Anything that burns we can throw in there! This shows that this could happen everywhere, should happen everywhere, and must happen everywhere!”
The film reveals that McKibben and Sierra Club supported a Michigan ballot initiative that would have required the state get 25% of its electricity from renewables by 2025, and that the initiative was backed by biomass industrial interests, and that efforts to build a biomass plant at Michigan State University were hotly opposed by climate activists — including ones from 350.org.
Read the full article here
The film:
The film description says:
Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America.
This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It’s too little, too late. Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption.
Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business. Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars? No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine”).
This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late. Featuring: Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Richard Branson, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Vinod Khosla, Koch Brothers, Vandana Shiva, General Motors, 350.org, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Elon Musk, Tesla.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--Finally! “North Pole soon to be ice free in summer” – Why did it take so long?

North Pole soon to be ice free in summer by University of Hamburg The Arctic Ocean in summer will very @ @ @ @ @ 2050 , at least temporarily .
The efficacy of climate-protection measures will determine how often @ @ @ @ @ These are the results of a new research study involving 21 research institutes from around @ @

Guest “post that doesn’t mention ChiCom-19” by David Middleton
APRIL 20, 2020
North Pole soon to be ice free in summer
by University of Hamburg
The Arctic Ocean in summer will very likely be ice free before 2050, at least temporarily. The efficacy of climate-protection measures will determine how often and for how long. These are the results of a new research study involving 21 research institutes from around the world…
[…]


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--It’s not just lungs: Coronavirus can affect brains, may increase stroke risk

Coronavirus can infect brain and spinal fluid , and sometimes the first sign of a serious coronavirus complication can be delirium and confusion .
Some kind of neurological effect is quiet common with Covid-19 ( CCP-flu ) .
As many as 30 – 60 % of coronavirus cases may lose their sense of taste or smell .
But now we should also look out for stroke type symptoms or confusion .
This may be the first sign someone is in trouble with Covid-19 .
It appears that the virus can infect brain and nerve tissue , causing inflammation .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s obvious that it could increase the risk of strokes as well .
Her father ’ s delirium was a first sign of coronavirus That was when she noticed her father , who had shown no previous signs of dementia , was largely unaware of what was happening around him .
There is growing evidence to suggest that COVID-19 , the illness caused by the coronavirus , can affect not only the lungs , but the brain , too .
A recent study of 214 patients in Wuhan , China , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a third had neurologic manifestations of the disease , including loss of consciousness and stroke .
[ … ]

Coronavirus can infect brain and spinal fluid, and sometimes the first sign of a serious coronavirus complication can be delirium and confusion.
Some kind of neurological effect is quiet common with Covid-19 (CCP-flu). As many as 30 – 60% of coronavirus cases may lose their sense of taste or smell. But now we should also look out for stroke type symptoms or confusion. This may be the first sign someone is in trouble with Covid-19. It appears that the virus can infect brain and nerve tissue, causing inflammation. And if it increases blood clotting then it’s obvious that it could increase the risk of strokes as well.
Her father’s delirium was a first sign of coronavirus
NBC News
That was when she noticed her father, who had shown no previous signs of dementia, was largely unaware of what was happening around him.
There is growing evidence to suggest that COVID-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, can affect not only the lungs, but the brain, too.
A recent study of 214 patients in Wuhan, China, where the pandemic started, found more than a third had neurologic manifestations of the disease, including loss of consciousness and stroke. […]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
via JoNova
https://ift.tt/2XW6qpl
April 21, 2020 at 01:56PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-21--Climate Change Makes US Tornadoes Worse–As They Weaken & Decline!

Talking of tornadoes , this is a good example of how the climate scam works .
This PBS report was published in May 2019 : When Americans hear the word tornado , their minds may bolt to huge twisters rolling across northern Texas , Oklahoma , Nebraska and Kansas , like a scene out of “ The Wizard of Oz.
” But the deadliest U.S tornado in six years didn ’ t strike the Great Plains — instead , it touched down Sunday hundreds of miles away in Alabama and Georgia .
On Monday and Tuesday , search crews , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through wreckage caused by the violent tornado , which blew across 30 miles with winds reaching up to 170 miles per hour .
So far , the storm has killed 23 people , including three children , and dozens remain missing .
While this weekend ’ s storms took the Southeast by surprise , the events fit into a growing trend for a region meteorologists now call Dixie Alley .
Since the turn of the millennium , the Dixie Alley has witnessed an ever-increasing onslaught of tornadoes .
Rather than lie squarely in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tornadoes appear to be sliding into the Midwest and Southeast .
“ Whether this is climate change or not , what all the studies have shown is that this particular part of the U.S. has been having more tornado activity and more tornado outbreaks than it has had in decades before , ” said Mike Tippett , a Columbia University applied mathematician who studies the climate .
In fact , as the SPC point out , the hot spot for the strongest tornadoes , EF-4+ , is not the Great Plains at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Alabama , based on 1986-2015 climatology : The same is true with all tornadoes : The article goes onto quote the hopelessly flawed study by Victor Gensini : “ As an entire country , the United States hadn ’ t seen much change in the frequency of tornado events [ since the 1970s , ] ” said Victor Gensini , an atmospheric scientist at the Northern Illinois University who studies extreme weather .
But last October , his team After examining a giant repository of severe weather reports — collected by storm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the public — the team found a shift in the location of the nation ’ s so-called Tornado Alley .
Rather than lie squarely in the Great Plains , America ’ s tornadoes appear to be sliding into the Midwest and Southeast .
This finding is worrying because it means severe weather and tornadoes are pushing into states and communities with higher densities of people — raising the chances of human casualties and property destruction .
Gensini ’ s lab has also found hailstorms , another feature of convective storms like tornadoes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though this work is yet to be published .
“ That doesn ’ t mean that Kansas , Oklahoma and Texas don ’ t get tornadoes .
They still see a majority of the tornadoes every year , ” Gensini said .
It ’ s more [ that ] the trend in those locations is downward over the past 40 years and increasing in places further to the east.
” I demolished that study at the time here .
Below is the key chart : Clearly , apart form the outlier year of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Alabama , the opposite of what was being claimed .
As often with these sort of studies , Gensini used 1979 as the start of his analysis .
I wonder why ?
So much of this PBS story is straight out of the climate change playbook – take a single weather event , claim it is part of a trend , quote a highly flawed study with cherry picked dates written by someone who is not even an expert in the subject , and blame it all on climate change .
via @ @ @ @ @ @ @

By Paul Homewood
Talking of tornadoes, this is a good example of how the climate scam works.
This PBS report was published in May 2019:
When Americans hear the word tornado, their minds may bolt to huge twisters rolling across northern Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Kansas, like a scene out of “The Wizard of Oz.”
But the deadliest U.S tornado in six years didn’t strike the Great Plains — instead, it touched down Sunday hundreds of miles away in Alabama and Georgia. On Monday and Tuesday, search crews, aided by dogs and drones, sifted through wreckage caused by the violent tornado, which blew across 30 miles with winds reaching up to 170 miles per hour. So far, the storm has killed 23 people, including three children, and dozens remain missing.
Rather than lie squarely in the Great Plains, America’s tornadoes appear to be sliding into the Midwest and Southeast.
While this weekend’s storms took the Southeast by surprise, the events fit into a growing trend for a region meteorologists now call Dixie Alley. Since the turn of the millennium, the Dixie Alley has witnessed an ever-increasing onslaught of tornadoes.
Rather than lie squarely in the Great Plains, America’s tornadoes appear to be sliding into the Midwest and Southeast.
“Whether this is climate change or not, what all the studies have shown is that this particular part of the U.S. has been having more tornado activity and more tornado outbreaks than it has had in decades before,” said Mike Tippett, a Columbia University applied mathematician who studies the climate.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/is-climate-change-making-u-s-tornadoes-worse
In fact, as the SPC point out, the hot spot for the strongest tornadoes, EF-4+, is not the Great Plains at all, but Dixie Alley centred in Mississippi and Alabama, based on 1986-2015 climatology:
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/climo/viotorn.png
The same is true with all tornadoes:
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/climo/ef1torn.png
The article goes onto quote the hopelessly flawed study by Victor Gensini:
“As an entire country, the United States hadn’t seen much change in the frequency of tornado events [since the 1970s,]” said Victor Gensini, an atmospheric scientist at the Northern Illinois University who studies extreme weather. But last October, his team reported a major geographical change . After examining a giant repository of severe weather reports — collected by storm chasers, news outlets, emergency managers and the public — the team found a shift in the location of the nation’s so-called Tornado Alley. Rather than lie squarely in the Great Plains, America’s tornadoes appear to be sliding into the Midwest and Southeast. This finding is worrying because it means severe weather and tornadoes are pushing into states and communities with higher densities of people — raising the chances of human casualties and property destruction. Gensini’s lab has also found hailstorms, another feature of convective storms like tornadoes, have increased across the nation — though this work is yet to be published. “That doesn’t mean that Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas don’t get tornadoes. They still see a majority of the tornadoes every year,” Gensini said. It’s more [that] the trend in those locations is downward over the past 40 years and increasing in places further to the east.”
I demolished that study at the time here. Below is the key chart:
Clearly, apart form the outlier year of 2011, strong tornadoes have been declining in Alabama, the opposite of what was being claimed. As often with these sort of studies, Gensini used 1979 as the start of his analysis. I wonder why?
So much of this PBS story is straight out of the climate change playbook – take a single weather event, claim it is part of a trend, quote a highly flawed study with cherry picked dates written by someone who is not even an expert in the subject, and blame it all on climate change.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3avccRA
April 21, 2020 at 12:39PM