climatechangedispatch--2020-08-19--Green Energy Push Blamed For California’s Rolling Blackouts

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news California ’ s electricity grid picked an inconvenient moment to stumble , at least for Democrats seeking to drum up support this week for Joseph R. Biden ’ s $ 2 trillion green-energy plan at the Democratic National Convention .
The Golden State ’ s ambitious renewable portfolio standard is coming under fire as the state ’ s energy grid buckles under the strain of an oppressive heatwave , prompting rolling blackouts that have left millions without power as the state moves to replace nuclear and natural gas as energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeks to generate 60 % of electricity via renewables by 2030 , but Mr. Biden ’ s Green New Deal is even more aggressive , calling for a 100 % carbon-free grid by 2035 “ to meet the existential threat of climate change while creating millions of jobs with a choice to join a union.
” “ If they want to know what ’ s going to happen in a Biden presidency with his energy plan , look to California today , ” said Larry Behrens , Western director of Power the Future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can look at forms of energy that have been reliable for decades , providing not only energy but affordable energy and jobs for communities , being swept away.
” President Trump weighed in Tuesday on the blackouts with a swipe at Mr. Biden as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders , both of whom have also called for powering the electrical grid with net-zero carbon emissions .
“ Democrats have intentionally implemented rolling blackouts — forcing Americans in the dark , ” tweeted Mr. Trump .
“ Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand … Meanwhile , I gave America energy independence in fact , so much energy we could never use it all.
” He added , “ The Bernie/Biden/AOC Green New Deal plan would take California ’ s failed policies to every American !
” California turned to rolling power outages last week as temperatures soared over 100 degrees in many locations , the first time the state has done so to combat electricity deficits since 2001 .
Last year ’ s rolling blackouts were implemented to reduce wildfire danger from electrical lines .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was caused by energy-market manipulations during peak load times , while this month ’ s blackouts occurred when demand exceeded supply after solar-power generation shut down after sunset , combined with the loss of fossil-fuel power plants across the West .
“ There are several things at play , ” said Stephen Berberich , president of the California Independent System Operator [ CAISO ] , which runs the state grid .
“ The first is we do have less capacity here in California .
A number of units have been retired since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also ] fewer resources across the West because many of the large units in the West have retired or are retiring , as people move off of coal.
” That means California has less ability to import electricity to cover surges in demand .
“ So what we ’ re seeing is less capacity in California , but more importantly , less capacity across rest of the region , ” Mr. Berberich said .
Heartland Institute senior fellow Anthony Watts , who runs the skeptical Watts Up With That website , said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abandoning reliable energy sources in favor of green energy sources.
” California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ordered Monday an investigation into the blackouts , which he noted Friday “ occurred without prior warning or enough time for preparation.
” “ Residents , communities , and other governmental organizations did not receive sufficient warning that these de-energizations could occur , ” Mr. Newsom said .
“ Collectively , energy regulators failed to anticipate this event and to take necessary actions to ensure reliable power to Californians .
This can not stand .
California residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The triple-digit temperatures , coupled with lightning strikes in Northern California , also fueled wildfires , including the SCU Lightning Complex fire in Santa Clara , which had burned 25,000 acres and was 0 % contained as of Tuesday , according to CalFire .
As Mr. Berberich pointed out at a Monday operator meeting , his agency has been concerned for years about possible power shortages .
“ Every year it ’ s a big issue , ” said Kenny Stein , a policy analyst at the Institute for Energy Research .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for about a decade now , saying , we ’ ve got more and more solar , that ’ s making it harder and harder for us to meet peak demand after the sunsets .
You need to do something.
” The problem ?
Californians already pay some of the highest electricity bills in the nation , and it would cost billions to bring battery storage in line with the state ’ s renewable mandates , he said .
“ The state has not taken any action , partly because it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ They ’ ve got to have a bunch of battery power , or they ’ ve got pay someone to have a natural gas plant sitting idle.
” On a Tuesday press call , Mr. Berberich took responsibility for Friday ’ s outage , saying “ we were caught off guard ” by a surge in demand throughout the heat-strapped West but said an unexpected drop in wind generation played a role in Saturday ’ s blackout .
“ On Saturday night , right before the peak , we lost the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been very good , and then it ran out , 1,000 megawatts , right about the time that unit went offline , ” he said .
“ And we found ourselves in a deficit.
” He added that “ if the wind hadn ’ t run out on us , we would have been okay.
” Mr. Berberich said the state needs to look at how it backfills retired coal and natural-gas units , but stressed that “ renewables have not caused this issue.
” “ This is a resource issue , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think we need to be more thoughtful about what the grid looks like now , ” he said .
Renewable energy , including hydropower , supplied nearly half of the state ’ s electrical grid in 2018 , while natural gas contributed about 40 % , but the state has moved to decommission natural-gas power plants to makes the transition off fossil fuels .
The state only has one nuclear power plant , Diablo Canyon , after shutting down the San Onofre Nuclear Station in 2013 .
“ California ’ s electricity prices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to add more renewables to its grid , and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant , Diablo Canyon , in 2025 , ” said Michael Shellenberger , author of “ Apocalypse Never , ” in an op-ed in Forbes .
“ Had California spent an estimated $ 100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar , it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix .
”

Written by Valerie Richardson on Aug 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
California’s electricity grid picked an inconvenient moment to stumble, at least for Democrats seeking to drum up support this week for Joseph R. Biden’s $2 trillion green-energy plan at the Democratic National Convention.
The Golden State’s ambitious renewable portfolio standard is coming under fire as the state’s energy grid buckles under the strain of an oppressive heatwave, prompting rolling blackouts that have left millions without power as the state moves to replace nuclear and natural gas as energy sources with solar and wind.
California seeks to generate 60% of electricity via renewables by 2030, but Mr. Biden’s Green New Deal is even more aggressive, calling for a 100% carbon-free grid by 2035 “to meet the existential threat of climate change while creating millions of jobs with a choice to join a union.”
“If they want to know what’s going to happen in a Biden presidency with his energy plan, look to California today,” said Larry Behrens, Western director of Power the Future.
“You can apply that nationwide. You can look at forms of energy that have been reliable for decades, providing not only energy but affordable energy and jobs for communities, being swept away.”
President Trump weighed in Tuesday on the blackouts with a swipe at Mr. Biden as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, both of whom have also called for powering the electrical grid with net-zero carbon emissions.
“Democrats have intentionally implemented rolling blackouts — forcing Americans in the dark,” tweeted Mr. Trump. “Democrats are unable to keep up with energy demand … Meanwhile, I gave America energy independence in fact, so much energy we could never use it all.”
He added, “The Bernie/Biden/AOC Green New Deal plan would take California’s failed policies to every American!”
Less capacity across West
California turned to rolling power outages last week as temperatures soared over 100 degrees in many locations, the first time the state has done so to combat electricity deficits since 2001. Last year’s rolling blackouts were implemented to reduce wildfire danger from electrical lines.
In 2001, however, the shortage was caused by energy-market manipulations during peak load times, while this month’s blackouts occurred when demand exceeded supply after solar-power generation shut down after sunset, combined with the loss of fossil-fuel power plants across the West.
“There are several things at play,” said Stephen Berberich, president of the California Independent System Operator [CAISO], which runs the state grid.
“The first is we do have less capacity here in California. A number of units have been retired since the 2006 heatwave, and [there are also] fewer resources across the West because many of the large units in the West have retired or are retiring, as people move off of coal.”
That means California has less ability to import electricity to cover surges in demand.
“So what we’re seeing is less capacity in California, but more importantly, less capacity across rest of the region,” Mr. Berberich said.
Heartland Institute senior fellow Anthony Watts, who runs the skeptical Watts Up With That website, said that “California is paying the price for abandoning reliable energy sources in favor of green energy sources.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered Monday an investigation into the blackouts, which he noted Friday “occurred without prior warning or enough time for preparation.”
“Residents, communities, and other governmental organizations did not receive sufficient warning that these de-energizations could occur,” Mr. Newsom said.
“Collectively, energy regulators failed to anticipate this event and to take necessary actions to ensure reliable power to Californians. This cannot stand. California residents and businesses deserve better from their government.”
The triple-digit temperatures, coupled with lightning strikes in Northern California, also fueled wildfires, including the SCU Lightning Complex fire in Santa Clara, which had burned 25,000 acres and was 0% contained as of Tuesday, according to CalFire.
‘Caught off guard’
As Mr. Berberich pointed out at a Monday operator meeting, his agency has been concerned for years about possible power shortages.
“Every year it’s a big issue,” said Kenny Stein, a policy analyst at the Institute for Energy Research. “CAISO has been warning the state for about a decade now, saying, we’ve got more and more solar, that’s making it harder and harder for us to meet peak demand after the sunsets. You need to do something.”
The problem? Californians already pay some of the highest electricity bills in the nation, and it would cost billions to bring battery storage in line with the state’s renewable mandates, he said.
“The state has not taken any action, partly because it would be very expensive,” Mr. Stein said. “They’ve got to have a bunch of battery power, or they’ve got pay someone to have a natural gas plant sitting idle.”
On a Tuesday press call, Mr. Berberich took responsibility for Friday’s outage, saying “we were caught off guard” by a surge in demand throughout the heat-strapped West but said an unexpected drop in wind generation played a role in Saturday’s blackout.
“On Saturday night, right before the peak, we lost the 400-megawatt unit, and the wind had been very good, and then it ran out, 1,000 megawatts, right about the time that unit went offline,” he said. “And we found ourselves in a deficit.”
He added that “if the wind hadn’t run out on us, we would have been okay.”
Mr. Berberich said the state needs to look at how it backfills retired coal and natural-gas units, but stressed that “renewables have not caused this issue.”
“This is a resource issue, not a renewables’ issue, and I think we need to be more thoughtful about what the grid looks like now,” he said.
Trying to end gas, nuclear
Renewable energy, including hydropower, supplied nearly half of the state’s electrical grid in 2018, while natural gas contributed about 40%, but the state has moved to decommission natural-gas power plants to makes the transition off fossil fuels.
The state only has one nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, after shutting down the San Onofre Nuclear Station in 2013.
“California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025,” said Michael Shellenberger, author of “Apocalypse Never,” in an op-ed in Forbes.
“Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.”
Read rest at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-20--Got ‘Climate Grief’? Australia’s ABC Wants To Know If You’re Suffering

Written by James Macpherson on .
Posted in Latest news “ Climate grief ” is overwhelming many Australians who now suffer from “ eco-despair ” because of global warming , the ABC has warned .
The national purveyor of climate doom published an article today warning that constant reporting of doom was creating a sense of doom that could leave many Australians feeling doomed .
ABC health reporter Paige Cockburn wrote : “ Feeling miserable , anxious , helpless and just generally terrible because the world is becoming less habitable ?
You ’ re not alone .
“ Climate grief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ psychological response to the current and future loss of habitats , species , and ecosystems .
“ It ’ s recognized by the Australian Psychological Society ( APS ) and sufferers may feel emotions like fear , anger , guilt , shame , grief , loss , and helplessness.
” Returned veterans suffering from PTSD will be heartened to learn that a bunch of activists now know just how they feel because of CO2 .
Of course , the best remedy for climate grief would be a strong dose of empirical scientific evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could stop trying to create an environment of hysteria .
Or we could simply defund the ABC .
But since those options are about as likely as a Tim Flannery climate prediction coming true , what to do with the growing number of traumatized people racked with guilt and shame every time they switch on a light ?
How do we help good people who can ’ t even start their car engine in the morning without hearing in the back of their mind an angry Swedish teenager chiding them “ How dare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australian Psychology Society has devoted much of its website helping people “ cope with climate change distress ” .
The Society warns that failure to process feelings of grief or guilt about climate change could lead to people being overwhelmed and unable to function in their everyday lives .
This could explain why Greens like Adam Bandt and Sarah Hanson-Young make so little sense .
Emotional wrecks are unsuitable for involvement in public debate .
The website recommends climate change worriers consider “ having a day job that is separate to your activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a fully-fledged eco-funk .
If getting a job sounds a bit extreme , another coping strategy for those burdened by “ the existential threats to civilization as we know it ” is to take what the Australian Psychology Society calls “ a doona day.
” Because , you know , sometimes you just need to lay in bed while the planet burns and , besides , it beats going to work .
Other coping strategies are to “ watch a fire , gaze at a waterfall , or pick flowers without exerting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take your mind off polar bears stranded on ice blocks then the website encourages you to “ let yourself have a cry from time to time ” .
“ Some people find that expressing their sadness by crying can be a relief .
It is sad that our planet is struggling to cope with overpopulation and overconsumption .
These feelings are real , so let them out ” it advises .
Dr. Tristan Snell , a counseling psychologist and researcher in environmental psychology at Deakin University told the ABC that “ there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment.
” “ When you lose someone , there ’ s a funeral and all sorts of ways people connect and this helps process that loss .
That ’ s just not the case for loss of environment , ” he said .
Someone might like to advise Dr. Snell that the Earth is still very much alive .
When you want to hold a funeral before the patient has even died , you really are in a bad way !
The ABC article laments the fact that “ no research on climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No doubt it will be done because everything – even eco-grief – must be viewed through the prism of race .
Black Climate Grief Matters .
But it will probably not be done until research on climate grief among the two-spirited genderqueer trans women is first completed .
While it ’ s all very well for the ABC to publish articles to assist snowflakes afflicted by climate torment , what about the acute sense of grief and loss the rest of us feel , knowing our taxes are used to pay someone @ @ @ @ @

Written by James Macpherson on Aug 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
“Climate grief” is overwhelming many Australians who now suffer from “eco-despair” because of global warming, the ABC has warned.
The national purveyor of climate doom published an article today warning that constant reporting of doom was creating a sense of doom that could leave many Australians feeling doomed.
ABC health reporter Paige Cockburn wrote: “Feeling miserable, anxious, helpless and just generally terrible because the world is becoming less habitable? You’re not alone.
“Climate grief — or eco-anxiety/despair — is a strong psychological response to the current and future loss of habitats, species, and ecosystems.
“It’s recognized by the Australian Psychological Society (APS) and sufferers may feel emotions like fear, anger, guilt, shame, grief, loss, and helplessness.”
Returned veterans suffering from PTSD will be heartened to learn that a bunch of activists now know just how they feel because of CO2.
Of course, the best remedy for climate grief would be a strong dose of empirical scientific evidence.
Failing that, teachers and politicians could stop trying to create an environment of hysteria. Or we could simply defund the ABC.
But since those options are about as likely as a Tim Flannery climate prediction coming true, what to do with the growing number of traumatized people racked with guilt and shame every time they switch on a light?
How do we help good people who can’t even start their car engine in the morning without hearing in the back of their mind an angry Swedish teenager chiding them “How dare you”?
Fear not, The Australian Psychology Society has devoted much of its website helping people “cope with climate change distress”.
The Society warns that failure to process feelings of grief or guilt about climate change could lead to people being overwhelmed and unable to function in their everyday lives.
This could explain why Greens like Adam Bandt and Sarah Hanson-Young make so little sense. Emotional wrecks are unsuitable for involvement in public debate.
The website recommends climate change worriers consider “having a day job that is separate to your activist work” in order to avoid sinking into a fully-fledged eco-funk.
If getting a job sounds a bit extreme, another coping strategy for those burdened by “the existential threats to civilization as we know it” is to take what the Australian Psychology Society calls “a doona day.”
Because, you know, sometimes you just need to lay in bed while the planet burns and, besides, it beats going to work.
Other coping strategies are to “watch a fire, gaze at a waterfall, or pick flowers without exerting attentional effort”.
If this fails to take your mind off polar bears stranded on ice blocks then the website encourages you to “let yourself have a cry from time to time”.
“Some people find that expressing their sadness by crying can be a relief. It is sad that our planet is struggling to cope with overpopulation and overconsumption. These feelings are real, so let them out” it advises.
Dr. Tristan Snell, a counseling psychologist and researcher in environmental psychology at Deakin University told the ABC that “there’s no ritual around loss of environment.”
“When you lose someone, there’s a funeral and all sorts of ways people connect and this helps process that loss. That’s just not the case for loss of environment,” he said.
Someone might like to advise Dr. Snell that the Earth is still very much alive. When you want to hold a funeral before the patient has even died, you really are in a bad way!
The ABC article laments the fact that “no research on climate grief among Australian Indigenous people exists”.
No doubt it will be done because everything – even eco-grief – must be viewed through the prism of race. Black Climate Grief Matters.
But it will probably not be done until research on climate grief among the two-spirited genderqueer trans women is first completed.
While it’s all very well for the ABC to publish articles to assist snowflakes afflicted by climate torment, what about the acute sense of grief and loss the rest of us feel, knowing our taxes are used to pay someone to write this stuff?
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-20--Fact Check: Biden’s Climate Plans Will Lead To A Million Lost Jobs

Written by John Binder on .
Posted in Latest news CLAIM : Democrat Joe Biden ’ s plan to re-enter the Paris Climate Accord and commit to a green energy economy will “ provide meaningful opportunities for workers and families to thrive and lead better lives , ” according to Gov .
Michelle Lujan Grisham ( D-NM ) .
VERDICT : Such plans , like those included in the Green New Deal , would likely eliminate at least one million American energy jobs , according to data from insiders with the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewable energy future with exciting and fulfilling careers for workers all across our beautiful state , ” Grisham said on the third night of the Democrat National Convention ( DNC ) .
Grisham committed that Biden will “ rejoin the international climate agreement ” which will “ provide meaningful opportunities for workers and families to thrive and lead better lives.
” “ At home , he will invest in energy workers and he ’ ll deliver for working families throughout the U.S. helping them build meaningful careers , ” Grisham said .
Numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee insiders shows that at least about one million American energy jobs would be eliminated by such plans .
This includes 712,300 jobs in mining , quarrying , and natural gas extraction and another 116,500 jobs in petroleum and coal products manufacturing .
Similarly , Breitbart News Economics Editor John Carney laid out in 2017 how the Paris Climate Accord will further gut working and middle-class U.S. jobs in middle America : The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states , according to the Chamber of Commerce study .
Michigan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs .
Missouri ’ s GDP would shrink by 1 percent .
Ohio ’ s GDP would contract 1.2 percent .
Pennsylvania ’ s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs .

Written by John Binder on Aug 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
CLAIM: Democrat Joe Biden’s plan to re-enter the Paris Climate Accord and commit to a green energy economy will “provide meaningful opportunities for workers and families to thrive and lead better lives,” according to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM).
VERDICT: Such plans, like those included in the Green New Deal, would likely eliminate at least one million American energy jobs, according to data from insiders with the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
“We’ve committed to a renewable energy future with exciting and fulfilling careers for workers all across our beautiful state,” Grisham said on the third night of the Democrat National Convention (DNC).
Grisham committed that Biden will “rejoin the international climate agreement” which will “provide meaningful opportunities for workers and families to thrive and lead better lives.”
“At home, he will invest in energy workers and he’ll deliver for working families throughout the U.S. helping them build meaningful careers,” Grisham said.
Numbers provided to Breitbart News by Senate Energy Committee insiders shows that at least about one million American energy jobs would be eliminated by such plans.
This includes 712,300 jobs in mining, quarrying, and natural gas extraction and another 116,500 jobs in petroleum and coal products manufacturing.
Similarly, Breitbart News Economics Editor John Carney laid out in 2017 how the Paris Climate Accord will further gut working and middle-class U.S. jobs in middle America:
The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-20--Jerry Brown’s Answer To Calif. Blackouts: Turn Up Your Damn Thermostats!

Written by Monica Showalter on .
Posted in Latest news It ’ s peak summer and hotter than the blazes up and down California .
In some places , it is the blazes .
And with the state ’ s greenie mandates , instead of nice air conditioning like other people have , rolling blackouts have begun , same as you find in Third-World countries .
It ’ s hot as hell , and the Sahara has nothing on this California heat : And it ’ s very bad in places where people actually live , too , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why former Gov .
Jerry Brown ’ s command to the locals is so disgusting .
Now , it ’ s easy to think that Brown , in his dotage , out in some ranch in remote , sparsely populated Colusa County , or perhaps from his mansion in the tony Oakland Hills — reports vary — is just the same mean old man he always was , dating from the ’ 70s .
If someone ’ s using “ too much ” power , regardless of their willingness to pay for it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , shame them , and try to get them all to fall for the idea of turning thermostats up .
But more likely , he ’ s the voice of the California establishment , intimately connected to the oh-so-related California power elites who have made a hash of California ’ s power grid and seem to have rigged themselves into permanent power .
What he ’ s saying is what they ’ d like to say , but don ’ t say .
The connections are just too close .
Because the name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reeling from a lack of energy , is to collectivize the guilt and privatize the goodies .
And Brown ’ s nasty yellings are nothing but bids to blame consumers for California ’ s policy failures .
Telling people to turn thermostats up in a heatwave is a recipe for failure .
Is there any proof that Brown in whatever luxury digs he ’ s in , is turning his thermostat up ?
Not in the least .
In socialism , all pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be able to skip such sacrifices that they call for from the peons .
And how does anyone check on the peons ?
Can some old lady , more vulnerable to high heat than others get a dispensation ?
What about someone willing to cool down just one room and leave the others to bake ?
The one size fits all , commanding all power thermostats to go up ( and the recommended 78 degrees is hideous ; you want to flee to the Costco refrigerated section to get out of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We already know what commanding all people to wear masks is like ; many sectors of the public are resistant , despite themselves being the obvious beneficiaries .
To imagine that the collective populace of a huge illegal-immigrant-loaded state like California will all comply together with raising the thermostats is obviously a nonstarter – some will , some won ’ t , and the ones that won ’ t get nice cool air .
In normal places , the market sets the supply and demand – and those who want more cold air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those who want to pay for less , turn the thermostats upward .
But in California , the supply is the major problem , not demand , which is natural .
Supply has been artificially reduced by Brown ’ s greenie mandates .
At a time of record-low energy prices , it ’ s outrageous that Californians are experiencing a problem of energy shortages at all .
California is not a poor country with no access to energy .
It has amazing access to imported oil via its ports and credit system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to oil itself , sitting on top of a huge oil bed stretching from Los Angeles ( originally an oil town ) to Santa Barbara to Bakersfield , all very oil-blessed places .
It can have energy if it wants energy .
But based on Brown ’ s greenie mandates , that oil goes ignored , and the state instead is reliant on bird-killing wind power , whose turbines require massive amounts of imported rare earth minerals to construct , and land-wasting solar power , whose panels are another rare-earth gobbler and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to airline pilots as well .
All about the virtue-signaling for ‘ going green.
’ Brown ’ s nasty yelling at a time of man-made energy famine in California is nothing but a bid to detract attention from state policy failures and blame the consumers for trying to protect themselves from the heat .
Even Hugo Chavez didn ’ t scold people the way Brown does – when Venezuela had its shortages , he ’ d try to tell them shite was Shinola .
When water shortages started hitting Venezuela about a decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use bucket dumps for showers , explaining that “ it ’ s so refreshing.
” Not Brown .
His unpleasant approach is the real face of socialism without the candy coating .
And bet on more such policy failures leading to more such blaming the consumers in the future .

Written by Monica Showalter on Aug 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It’s peak summer and hotter than the blazes up and down California. In some places, it is the blazes.
And with the state’s greenie mandates, instead of nice air conditioning like other people have, rolling blackouts have begun, same as you find in Third-World countries.
It’s hot as hell, and the Sahara has nothing on this California heat:
On Sunday, the mercury potentially hit 130F (54.4C) in California’s Death Valley National Park – a temperature that could become the hottest ever recorded on Earth.
And it’s very bad in places where people actually live, too, such as in San Diego County:
Borrego Springs reached 115 degrees, while Campo broke a 70-year record with 108 degrees, surpassing the 105 degrees reached on Aug. 19, 1950, according to the weather service. Ramona also set a new Aug. 19 high at 100 degrees, breaking the previous high of 99 set in 2007. Other high temperatures around the county included 117 degrees in Ocotillo Wells; 101 in Valley Center, 100 in San Pasqual Valley; 99 in Alpine, 98 in Santee, 97 in Julian, 96 in Poway, 96 in Escondido, and 95 in El Cajon.
This is why former Gov. Jerry Brown’s command to the locals is so disgusting.
Hey California! We can avoid a blackout, but you have to turn up your damn thermostat! https://t.co/UuH8Yr6VFH — Jerry Brown (@JerryBrownGov) August 19, 2020
What a charmer.
Now, it’s easy to think that Brown, in his dotage, out in some ranch in remote, sparsely populated Colusa County, or perhaps from his mansion in the tony Oakland Hills — reports vary — is just the same mean old man he always was, dating from the ’70s.
If someone’s using “too much” power, regardless of their willingness to pay for it, then scold them, blame them, shame them, and try to get them all to fall for the idea of turning thermostats up.
But more likely, he’s the voice of the California establishment, intimately connected to the oh-so-related California power elites who have made a hash of California’s power grid and seem to have rigged themselves into permanent power.
What he’s saying is what they’d like to say, but don’t say. The connections are just too close.
Because the name of the game right now in California, reeling from a lack of energy, is to collectivize the guilt and privatize the goodies. And Brown’s nasty yellings are nothing but bids to blame consumers for California’s policy failures.
Telling people to turn thermostats up in a heatwave is a recipe for failure.
Is there any proof that Brown in whatever luxury digs he’s in, is turning his thermostat up? Not in the least.
In socialism, all pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others. Power elites are always going to be able to skip such sacrifices that they call for from the peons.
And how does anyone check on the peons? Can some old lady, more vulnerable to high heat than others get a dispensation? What about someone willing to cool down just one room and leave the others to bake?
The one size fits all, commanding all power thermostats to go up (and the recommended 78 degrees is hideous; you want to flee to the Costco refrigerated section to get out of that) is a recipe for non-compliance.
We already know what commanding all people to wear masks is like; many sectors of the public are resistant, despite themselves being the obvious beneficiaries.
To imagine that the collective populace of a huge illegal-immigrant-loaded state like California will all comply together with raising the thermostats is obviously a nonstarter – some will, some won’t, and the ones that won’t get nice cool air.
In normal places, the market sets the supply and demand – and those who want more cold air, pay for more cold air, and those who want to pay for less, turn the thermostats upward.
But in California, the supply is the major problem, not demand, which is natural. Supply has been artificially reduced by Brown’s greenie mandates.
At a time of record-low energy prices, it’s outrageous that Californians are experiencing a problem of energy shortages at all.
California is not a poor country with no access to energy.
It has amazing access to imported oil via its ports and credit system, and even more important, has access to oil itself, sitting on top of a huge oil bed stretching from Los Angeles (originally an oil town) to Santa Barbara to Bakersfield, all very oil-blessed places.
It can have energy if it wants energy.
But based on Brown’s greenie mandates, that oil goes ignored, and the state instead is reliant on bird-killing wind power, whose turbines require massive amounts of imported rare earth minerals to construct, and land-wasting solar power, whose panels are another rare-earth gobbler and a land hog and a blinding hazard to airline pilots as well.
All about the virtue-signaling for ‘going green.’
Brown’s nasty yelling at a time of man-made energy famine in California is nothing but a bid to detract attention from state policy failures and blame the consumers for trying to protect themselves from the heat.
Even Hugo Chavez didn’t scold people the way Brown does – when Venezuela had its shortages, he’d try to tell them shite was Shinola.
When water shortages started hitting Venezuela about a decade ago, Chavez advised the locals to use bucket dumps for showers, explaining that “it’s so refreshing.”
Not Brown. His unpleasant approach is the real face of socialism without the candy coating. And bet on more such policy failures leading to more such blaming the consumers in the future.
Read more at American Thinker
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-20--How Bad Eco-Policies, Weather Are Fueling California’s Wildfires

Written by Chuck DeVore on .
Posted in Latest news In the past two years , wildfires scorched 2.9 million acres in California , including five of the state ’ s 20 deadliest fires killing 131 people .
Former California Gov .
Jerry Brown grimly warned that because of man-made climate change , these destructive wildfires are the “ new abnormal ” that threaten “ our whole way of life.
” Newly elected Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s rhetoric has been more balanced .
As with Brown before him , Newsom blames climate change for the fires , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The science is clear — increased fire threat due to climate change is becoming a fact of life in our state .
Drier , longer summers combined with unpredictable wet winters have created dangerous fire conditions.
” Claiming that climate change causes wildfires naturally leads to a demand for action , with Newsom promising an aggressive progressive pushback against the Trump Administration ’ s effort to cut red tape regarding vehicle mileage standards , power plant carbon dioxide emissions , and oil and gas extraction .
That ’ s politics .
Governing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set to do more to combat wildfires than the tentative half-measures signed into law by Brown .
Newsom is calling for improved wildfire surveillance and warning systems , better urban planning , and helping property owners clear brush .
Regarding reducing the fuel load , in an interview four months ago , Newsom said that there are “ Hundreds of millions of dead trees ” in the state and that it cost his father $ 35,000 to clear “ a small little patch of dead trees ” on his property .
Newsom didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outrageous cost to remove a few dead trees from private land is a consequence of California ’ s Byzantine environmental regulatory patchwork .
This is California ’ s big secret : it ’ s not climate change that ’ s burning up the forests , killing people , and destroying hundreds of homes ; it ’ s decades of environmental mismanagement that has created a tinderbox of unharvested timber , dead trees , and thick underbrush .
This dangerous situation attracted attention from President Donald Trump who , during the height of California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There is no reason for these massive , deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor.
” The irony is that forest management is so bad on public lands that a new report , ordered by the California legislature in 2010 , shows that the portion of California ’ s National Forests protected from timber harvesting is now a net contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fires and trees killed by insects and disease .
Every year about 3.8 billion board feet of new timber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost one metric ton of CO2 per acre in the productive timberland areas .
Trees grow until they die , burn , or get harvested .
If harvesting declines , tree mortality and fires increase .
It ’ s the tyranny of math .
In the early 1990s , a series of restrictions were placed on logging in the West to protect the Spotted Owl .
As it turned out , nature was more complicated than expected , with owl numbers continuing to decline—even after the California timber harvest plummeted—due to predation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the harvest fell below the growth rate in the 1990s , to about 1.5 billion board feet per year over the past decade .
The tree harvest on federal lands is now one-tenth of what it was in 1988 , President Reagan ’ s last full year in office .
The California forest report draft concludes by observing that the “ Current flux [ of CO2 ] may not be sustainable without forest management !
” while citing the challenge of “ Aging of forests on federal lands.
” Unlike much of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a distinct wet season , with Pacific storms rolling in by November or December and wrapping up by March .
In even the wettest years ( 2016-17 was the wettest in 122 years ) much of California is bone-dry by late fall .
Thus , it isn ’ t climate change that sets the conditions for fires—it ’ s California ’ s natural weather pattern .
Comparing acres burned in wildfires to weather and tree harvest data , there appears to be a little link to climate—but a big connection to the growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land .
Which brings us back to policy .
If federal and state environmental policies continue to make it difficult and costly to harvest timber and manage the fuel load , then the wildfires will continue and they will be bigger and deadlier .
This will , in due course , cause some politicians to blame the fires on climate change .
In the meantime , the timber harvest infrastructure is less than one-third of what it was 30 years ago , meaning that even if politicians were sincere in wanting to manage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remaining to manage them .

Written by Chuck DeVore on Aug 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In the past two years, wildfires scorched 2.9 million acres in California, including five of the state’s 20 deadliest fires killing 131 people.
Former California Gov. Jerry Brown grimly warned that because of man-made climate change, these destructive wildfires are the “new abnormal” that threaten “our whole way of life.”
Newly elected Gov. Gavin Newsom’s rhetoric has been more balanced.
As with Brown before him, Newsom blames climate change for the fires, saying during the campaign last September that, “The science is clear — increased fire threat due to climate change is becoming a fact of life in our state. Drier, longer summers combined with unpredictable wet winters have created dangerous fire conditions.”
Claiming that climate change causes wildfires naturally leads to a demand for action, with Newsom promising an aggressive progressive pushback against the Trump Administration’s effort to cut red tape regarding vehicle mileage standards, power plant carbon dioxide emissions, and oil and gas extraction.
That’s politics. Governing often dictates practicality. Here Newsom appears set to do more to combat wildfires than the tentative half-measures signed into law by Brown.
Newsom is calling for improved wildfire surveillance and warning systems, better urban planning, and helping property owners clear brush.
Regarding reducing the fuel load, in an interview four months ago, Newsom said that there are “Hundreds of millions of dead trees” in the state and that it cost his father $35,000 to clear “a small little patch of dead trees” on his property.
Newsom didn’t admit it, but the outrageous cost to remove a few dead trees from private land is a consequence of California’s Byzantine environmental regulatory patchwork.
This is California’s big secret: it’s not climate change that’s burning up the forests, killing people, and destroying hundreds of homes; it’s decades of environmental mismanagement that has created a tinderbox of unharvested timber, dead trees, and thick underbrush.
This dangerous situation attracted attention from President Donald Trump who, during the height of California’s wildfires last year insisted that “There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor.”
The irony is that forest management is so bad on public lands that a new report, ordered by the California legislature in 2010, shows that the portion of California’s National Forests protected from timber harvesting is now a net contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fires and trees killed by insects and disease.
Every year about 3.8 billion board feet of new timber grows in the Golden State, capturing almost one metric ton of CO2 per acre in the productive timberland areas.
Trees grow until they die, burn, or get harvested. If harvesting declines, tree mortality and fires increase. It’s the tyranny of math.
In the early 1990s, a series of restrictions were placed on logging in the West to protect the Spotted Owl.
As it turned out, nature was more complicated than expected, with owl numbers continuing to decline—even after the California timber harvest plummeted—due to predation from other raptors.
In the meantime, the harvest fell below the growth rate in the 1990s, to about 1.5 billion board feet per year over the past decade.
The tree harvest on federal lands is now one-tenth of what it was in 1988, President Reagan’s last full year in office.
The California forest report draft concludes by observing that the “Current flux [of CO2] may not be sustainable without forest management!” while citing the challenge of “Aging of forests on federal lands.”
Unlike much of the American South and East, California has a distinct wet season, with Pacific storms rolling in by November or December and wrapping up by March.
In even the wettest years (2016-17 was the wettest in 122 years) much of California is bone-dry by late fall.
Thus, it isn’t climate change that sets the conditions for fires—it’s California’s natural weather pattern.
Comparing acres burned in wildfires to weather and tree harvest data, there appears to be a little link to climate—but a big connection to the growing forest fuel load, especially on government land.
Which brings us back to policy. If federal and state environmental policies continue to make it difficult and costly to harvest timber and manage the fuel load, then the wildfires will continue and they will be bigger and deadlier. This will, in due course, cause some politicians to blame the fires on climate change.
In the meantime, the timber harvest infrastructure is less than one-third of what it was 30 years ago, meaning that even if politicians were sincere in wanting to manage the public forests, there few people remaining to manage them.
Read more at Forbes
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-21--The Green New Deal Equals Monumental Disruption

Written by David Wojick and Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Senate resolution to support the Green New Deal .
Now Joe Biden has endorsed the plan .
Naturally , people want to know what the GND will cost – usually meaning in state and federal government spending .
But that is the wrong question .
The real question is , how much do Green New Dealers expect to get out of it , at what total cost ?
Mr. Biden says he wants the feds to spend nearly $ 7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , energy and housing transformation , climate change , and other GND agenda items .
But that is only part of the picture .
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( who has a degree in some socialist version of economics ) and the folks who helped her write Biden ’ s so-called Climate Plan have a clear idea of how much money they want , and pretty much know where they expect the money to come from .
Here it is in its clearest form , as stated by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez ’ s then-chief of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution describes the 10-year plan to transform every sector of our economy to remove GHG [ greenhouse gases ] and pollution .
It says it does this through huge investments in renewables , at WW2 scales ( which was 40-60 % of America ’ s GDP ) .
” [ emphasis added ] World War II was a time of great sacrifice and hardship , as part of a dramatic and historic mobilization to win a horrific global war .
However , that hard reality doesn ’ t matter to these folks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ war to stop catastrophic climate change .
So money , sacrifice , and disruption are irrelevant .
Our nation ’ s GDP is around $ 20 trillion a year , or $ 200 trillion in ten years .
40-60 % of that is $ 80-120 trillion .
For simplicity , let ’ s call it an even $ 100 trillion to finance the Green New Deal utopian dream .
$ 100 trillion !
The ways and means of raising this stupendous sum are also clear in their minds .
It will be done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however that was .
To them , it ’ s obvious that we can simply do this because we did it before .
The specifics don ’ t matter .
Government elites will figure them out .
But even this arrogant , cavalier attitude is only part of the picture .
If you read what Green New Dealers say , confusion arises because people think the GND is an ordinary policy proposal : “ Here ’ s what we want done , and this is what it should cost.
” It is nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more along the lines of , “ Here ’ s the level of effort we require to transform our entire economy , and this is what we should be able to do with that much money.
” People tend to interpret Green New Dealer talk of a WW2-like mobilization as a simple metaphor .
But these folks mean it as an actual measure of what they are determined to do .
So far they have glossed over and ignored the extreme hardships of mobilization .
Here ’ s just one example – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the United States home front during World War II .
Gasoline , meat , and clothing were tightly rationed .
Most families were allocated three US gallons of gasoline a week , which sharply curtailed driving for any purpose .
Production of most durable goods , like cars , new housing , vacuum cleaners , and kitchen appliances , was banned until the war ended .
In industrial areas , housing was in short supply as people doubled up and lived in cramped quarters .
Prices and wages were controlled .
[ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World War II ] No doubt the Green New Deal mobilization would impose different hardships .
But all mobilizations are oppressive .
You can ’ t commandeer half of the GDP without inflicting severe disruption on people ’ s lives .
The argument is sound in its way , provided there is a need for all-out war – which there is not .
The minor-to-modest temperature , climate , and extreme weather changes we ’ ve been seeing ( in the real world outside computer models ) explain why most Americans see no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does the fact that China , India and other emerging economies are not about to give up fossil fuels anytime soon .
In fact , polls show that roughly half of Americans do not even believe in the idea of human-caused global warming , much less that it is an “ existential threat , ” as Senator Harris claims it is .
The latest Gallup poll found that only 1 % of US adults consider “ climate change/environment/pollution ” to be “ the most important problem facing this country today.
” That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the May 28-June 4 poll .
Even more revealing , a 2019 AP-NORC poll found that 68 % of adult Americans were unwilling to pay even an extra $ 10 on their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming .
Indeed , 57 % of them would not be willing to pay more than $ 1.00 in added electricity charges to fight climate change !
Just wait until they see what the Biden-Harris-AOC-Democrat Green New Deal would cost them .
And it ’ s not just that their costs would likely skyrocket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 11.4¢ or less in ten states ) to well beyond the nearly 20¢ per kWh that families are already paying in California and New York , or the 30¢ that families are now paying in ultra-green Germany .
Or that factories , businesses , hospitals , schools and everyone else would also see their costs escalate – with blue-collar families , the sick and elderly , poor and minority communities hammered hardest .
It ’ s that the GND would force every American to replace their gasoline and diesel cars and trucks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas furnaces and stoves with electric systems ; their home , local , and state electrical and transmission systems with expensive upgrades that can handle a totally electric economy .
They ’ ll see their landscapes , coastlines , and wildlife habitats blanketed with wind turbines , solar panels , transmission lines , and warehouses filled with thousands of half-ton batteries .
Virtually every component of this GND nation would be manufactured in China and other faraway places .
The cost of this massive , total transformation of our energy and economic system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 30,000 per person or $ 120,000 per family – on top of those skyrocketing electricity prices .
And that ’ s just the intermittent , unreliable energy component of this all-encompassing Green New Deal .
These are stupendous , outrageous costs , and personal sacrifices .
Every American , at every campaign event and town meeting , should ask Green New Deal supporters if they think America needs to – or can afford to – cough up $ 10 trillion or $ 100 trillion over the next ten years .
And not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evasive answers , or attempts to laugh these questions off as meritless or irrelevant .
The American people are not about to be mobilized into an all-out war against dubious climate change , with price tags like these coupled with repeated blackouts , huge personal sacrifices , and massive joblessness in every sector of the economy – except among enlightened government ruling classes .
They ’ ve already seen news stories about the latest rolling blackouts in California ( here , here , here and here ) – resulting from one-third of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewable ” sources , and with another third of the state ’ s electricity imported from other states that also get heatwaves .
They should ponder what their lives , livelihoods , and living standards would be under 100 % wind and solar power .
And yet , once again , even all this insanity is only a small part of the picture .
Remember , the Green New Deal is also about government-run healthcare – and an economy and nation where “ progressive ” “ woke ” legislators , regulators , judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can manufacture and sell … and tell us what we can buy , eat and drink ; how and how much we can heat and cool our homes ; and what we can read , hear , think and say , as they “ transform ” our culture and traditions .
The GND is being promoted by politicians , news and social media , “ educators ” and “ reformers ” who also want to eliminate free enterprise capitalism ; have totally open borders , even for criminals and people who might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defund the police , put anarchists , looters , and arsonists back on our streets , and take away our right and ability to defend ourselves , our homes and our families .
The time to think long and hard about all of this is NOW .
Not sometime after the November 3 elections .
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of books and articles on energy , environment , climate , and human rights issues .
David Wojick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , logic , and human rights in public policy , and author of numerous articles on these topics .

Written by David Wojick and Paul Driessen, guest post on Aug 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Senate resolution to support the Green New Deal. Now Joe Biden has endorsed the plan.
Naturally, people want to know what the GND will cost – usually meaning in state and federal government spending. But that is the wrong question.
The real question is, how much do Green New Dealers expect to get out of it, at what total cost? Mr. Biden says he wants the feds to spend nearly $7 trillion over the next decade on healthcare, energy and housing transformation, climate change, and other GND agenda items. But that is only part of the picture.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who has a degree in some socialist version of economics) and the folks who helped her write Biden’s so-called Climate Plan have a clear idea of how much money they want, and pretty much know where they expect the money to come from.
Here it is in its clearest form, as stated by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s then-chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti:
“The resolution describes the 10-year plan to transform every sector of our economy to remove GHG [greenhouse gases] and pollution. It says it does this through huge investments in renewables, at WW2 scales (which was 40-60% of America’s GDP).” [emphasis added]
World War II was a time of great sacrifice and hardship, as part of a dramatic and historic mobilization to win a horrific global war. However, that hard reality doesn’t matter to these folks.
They say we are now waging a war to stop catastrophic climate change. So money, sacrifice, and disruption are irrelevant.
Our nation’s GDP is around $20 trillion a year, or $200 trillion in ten years. 40-60% of that is $80-120 trillion. For simplicity, let’s call it an even $100 trillion to finance the Green New Deal utopian dream.
$100 trillion! The ways and means of raising this stupendous sum are also clear in their minds. It will be done the same way WW2 was financed, however that was.
To them, it’s obvious that we can simply do this because we did it before. The specifics don’t matter. Government elites will figure them out.
But even this arrogant, cavalier attitude is only part of the picture.
If you read what Green New Dealers say, confusion arises because people think the GND is an ordinary policy proposal: “Here’s what we want done, and this is what it should cost.”
It is nothing like that. The Green New Deal is more along the lines of, “Here’s the level of effort we require to transform our entire economy, and this is what we should be able to do with that much money.”
People tend to interpret Green New Dealer talk of a WW2-like mobilization as a simple metaphor. But these folks mean it as an actual measure of what they are determined to do.
So far they have glossed over and ignored the extreme hardships of mobilization. Here’s just one example – not from front lines mayhem, but from the United States home front during World War II.
Gasoline, meat, and clothing were tightly rationed. Most families were allocated three US gallons of gasoline a week, which sharply curtailed driving for any purpose.
Production of most durable goods, like cars, new housing, vacuum cleaners, and kitchen appliances, was banned until the war ended. In industrial areas, housing was in short supply as people doubled up and lived in cramped quarters. Prices and wages were controlled. [Harold Vatter, The US Economy in World War II]
No doubt the Green New Deal mobilization would impose different hardships. But all mobilizations are oppressive. You can’t commandeer half of the GDP without inflicting severe disruption on people’s lives.
The argument is sound in its way, provided there is a need for all-out war – which there is not.
The minor-to-modest temperature, climate, and extreme weather changes we’ve been seeing (in the real world outside computer models) explain why most Americans see no need for a painful war. So does the fact that China, India and other emerging economies are not about to give up fossil fuels anytime soon.
In fact, polls show that roughly half of Americans do not even believe in the idea of human-caused global warming, much less that it is an “existential threat,” as Senator Harris claims it is.
The latest Gallup poll found that only 1% of US adults consider “climate change/environment/pollution” to be “the most important problem facing this country today.” That’s down from a meager 2% in the May 28-June 4 poll.
Even more revealing, a 2019 AP-NORC poll found that 68% of adult Americans were unwilling to pay even an extra $10 on their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming.
Indeed, 57% of them would not be willing to pay more than $1.00 in added electricity charges to fight climate change!
Just wait until they see what the Biden-Harris-AOC-Democrat Green New Deal would cost them.
And it’s not just that their costs would likely skyrocket from an average US 13.2¢ per kilowatt-hour (11.4¢ or less in ten states) to well beyond the nearly 20¢ per kWh that families are already paying in California and New York, or the 30¢ that families are now paying in ultra-green Germany.
Or that factories, businesses, hospitals, schools and everyone else would also see their costs escalate – with blue-collar families, the sick and elderly, poor and minority communities hammered hardest.
It’s that the GND would force every American to replace their gasoline and diesel cars and trucks with expensive short-haul electric vehicles; their gas furnaces and stoves with electric systems; their home, local, and state electrical and transmission systems with expensive upgrades that can handle a totally electric economy.
They’ll see their landscapes, coastlines, and wildlife habitats blanketed with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, and warehouses filled with thousands of half-ton batteries. Virtually every component of this GND nation would be manufactured in China and other faraway places.
The cost of this massive, total transformation of our energy and economic system would easily reach $10 trillion: $30,000 per person or $120,000 per family – on top of those skyrocketing electricity prices.
And that’s just the intermittent, unreliable energy component of this all-encompassing Green New Deal.
These are stupendous, outrageous costs, and personal sacrifices. Every American, at every campaign event and town meeting, should ask Green New Deal supporters if they think America needs to – or can afford to – cough up $10 trillion or $100 trillion over the next ten years.
And not let them get away with glib, evasive answers, or attempts to laugh these questions off as meritless or irrelevant.
The American people are not about to be mobilized into an all-out war against dubious climate change, with price tags like these coupled with repeated blackouts, huge personal sacrifices, and massive joblessness in every sector of the economy – except among enlightened government ruling classes.
They’ve already seen news stories about the latest rolling blackouts in California (here, here, here and here) – resulting from one-third of that state’s electricity coming from “renewable” sources, and with another third of the state’s electricity imported from other states that also get heatwaves.
They should ponder what their lives, livelihoods, and living standards would be under 100% wind and solar power.
And yet, once again, even all this insanity is only a small part of the picture.
Remember, the Green New Deal is also about government-run healthcare – and an economy and nation where “progressive” “woke” legislators, regulators, judges, and activists tell companies what they can manufacture and sell … and tell us what we can buy, eat and drink; how and how much we can heat and cool our homes; and what we can read, hear, think and say, as they “transform” our culture and traditions.
The GND is being promoted by politicians, news and social media, “educators” and “reformers” who also want to eliminate free enterprise capitalism; have totally open borders, even for criminals and people who might have COVID and other diseases; and want to defund the police, put anarchists, looters, and arsonists back on our streets, and take away our right and ability to defend ourselves, our homes and our families.
The time to think long and hard about all of this is NOW. Not sometime after the November 3 elections.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate, and human rights issues. David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic, and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-21--Thanks To Democrat Rule, California Is Officially A Failed State

Written by John Nolte on .
Posted in Latest news California ’ s Democrat Gov .
Gavin Newsom is urging the residents of his failed state to turn their thermostats up to 78 degrees .
Here are some highlights from the governor ’ s August 20 guidelines : • Set your thermostat to 78° or higher between 3 and 10 P.M. • Refrain from major appliance use between 3 and 10 P.M. • Postpone using major appliances like the oven , dishwasher , clothes washer , and dryer until cooler times of the day to avoid heating up your home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ washer only when full .
Wait until after 9 p.m. to use these and other major appliances .
• When possible , wash clothes in cold water .
About 90 percent of the energy used in a clothes washer goes to water heating .
After years of being unable to deliver the citizens of California enough water , this failed state now can not deliver enough electricity .
Fact : when you can not deliver the basics — and few things are as basic as water and electricity — you are officially a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was avoidable .
But the Luddite Democrats who run California , who have enjoyed a veto-proof majority in the former-Golden State for a decade or so , who own the state ’ s government lock , stock , and barrel with no Republican opposition whatsoever — they are solely responsible for not delivering electricity and water to residents because they refuse to build the power plants necessary to deliver the desired electricity , and they refuse to build the reservoirs necessary to guide the state through its periodic droughts .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some lunatic , backward crusade to deliver the unicorn of “ emission-free ” power in less than 25 years .
You want to know why Governor Luddite is telling people to turn their thermostats up to five degrees over comfortable… ?
You ’ re going to think I ’ m kidding but I ’ m not… Just like the cavemen and other ancient savages were unable to escape the elements , California is so unenlightened , so backward and primitive , that if the wind doesn ’ t blow and the clouds cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now living in the 21st century — Californians suffer… I ’ m sorry , but if your personal indoor comfort exists at the mercy of the weather and depends on the elements , depends on wind speed and sunlight , you are not living in a progressive state .
You ’ re not even living in a modern state .
There is no reason for anyone in the United States of America to be uncomfortable indoors anymore .
More than fifteen years ago — when I just so happened to be living in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I purchased a brand spanking new 5,000 BTU air conditioner for $ 49.00 — and it came with remote control .
I still have it .
See , that ’ s what the free market can do .
That ’ s what capitalism and free enterprise and free people can do — they can make the miracle of air conditioning available to every American regardless of income , gender , sexual preference , handicap , hair color , or shoe size .
But the primitive , superstitious Gaia worshipers who run California can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worshipers who run California can not deliver water , even though there would be plenty of it for everyone if the primitive , superstitious Gaia worshipers who run California would simply build some reservoirs .
We could all be comfortable , we could all enjoy homes and offices as comfortable as a shopping mall — the only thing in our way is…

Written by John Nolte on Aug 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
California’s Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom is urging the residents of his failed state to turn their thermostats up to 78 degrees.
Here are some highlights from the governor’s August 20 guidelines:
Set your thermostat to 78° or higher between 3 and 10 P.M.
Refrain from major appliance use between 3 and 10 P.M.
Postpone using major appliances like the oven, dishwasher, clothes washer, and dryer until cooler times of the day to avoid heating up your home.
Run your dishwasher and clothes washer only when full. Wait until after 9 p.m. to use these and other major appliances.
When possible, wash clothes in cold water. About 90 percent of the energy used in a clothes washer goes to water heating.
After years of being unable to deliver the citizens of California enough water, this failed state now cannot deliver enough electricity.
Fact: when you cannot deliver the basics — and few things are as basic as water and electricity — you are officially a failed state.
And all of this was avoidable.
But the Luddite Democrats who run California, who have enjoyed a veto-proof majority in the former-Golden State for a decade or so, who own the state’s government lock, stock, and barrel with no Republican opposition whatsoever — they are solely responsible for not delivering electricity and water to residents because they refuse to build the power plants necessary to deliver the desired electricity, and they refuse to build the reservoirs necessary to guide the state through its periodic droughts.
In fact, California is shutting down power plants in some lunatic, backward crusade to deliver the unicorn of “emission-free” power in less than 25 years.
You want to know why Governor Luddite is telling people to turn their thermostats up to five degrees over comfortable…?
You’re going to think I’m kidding but I’m not…
Just like the cavemen and other ancient savages were unable to escape the elements, California is so unenlightened, so backward and primitive, that if the wind doesn’t blow and the clouds cover the sun — even though we are now living in the 21st century — Californians suffer…
Officials blame weekend blackouts on the “unexpected loss of a 470-megawatt power plant Saturday evening, as well as the loss of nearly 1,000 megawatts of wind power,” the San Jose Mercury News reported. In addition, cloud cover over the desert meant solar energy was in short supply.
I’m sorry, but if your personal indoor comfort exists at the mercy of the weather and depends on the elements, depends on wind speed and sunlight, you are not living in a progressive state. You’re not even living in a modern state.
There is no reason for anyone in the United States of America to be uncomfortable indoors anymore.
More than fifteen years ago — when I just so happened to be living in Los Angeles, by the way — I purchased a brand spanking new 5,000 BTU air conditioner for $49.00 — and it came with remote control.
I still have it.
See, that’s what the free market can do.
That’s what capitalism and free enterprise and free people can do — they can make the miracle of air conditioning available to every American regardless of income, gender, sexual preference, handicap, hair color, or shoe size.
But the primitive, superstitious Gaia worshipers who run California cannot.
The primitive, superstitious Gaia worshipers who run California cannot deliver water, even though there would be plenty of it for everyone if the primitive, superstitious Gaia worshipers who run California would simply build some reservoirs.
We could all be comfortable, we could all enjoy homes and offices as comfortable as a shopping mall — the only thing in our way is…
Democrats.
Read rest at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-21--Media Blame Heatwave On Climate Change – Used To Call It Summer

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Dozens of prominent media outlets have published stories in the last few days claiming climate change is causing wildfires and a deadly heatwave .
Objective data , however , show there has been no increase in either one as the Earth modestly warms .
A story on the Colorado Public Radio website , titled “ Colorado Wildfires Are Climate Change ‘ In The Here And Now ’ — And A Sign Of Summers To Come , ” explicitly links wildfires in the state to human-caused climate change , warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post ( “ Why California Wildfires are So Extreme Right Now , ” ) and Capitol Public Radio News ( CPRN ) , “ As Californians Deal With Heat , Lightning , Fire , Scientists Point To Climate Change , ” also claim a heatwave and wildfires in California right now are caused by climate change .
“ The heatwave , the fires and weather patterns are in part related to climate change , says UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain , because warming temperatures are ‘ with great certainty ’ increasing these conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ This whole event started as a record-breaking heatwave … and we also know that climate change is increasing the severity and the acres burned by wildfires in California , ” Swain told CPRN .
The CPRN reporter doesn ’ t question Swain ’ s asserted link between climate change and wildfires , despite the fact he provides no evidence to back it up .
In fact , no such evidence exists .
Data show the number and severity of heatwaves , droughts , and wildfires have all decreased over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the planet has modestly warmed .
As summarized in Climate at a Glance : Heatwaves , data from the U.S .
Climate Reference Network and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration prove climate change has not increased the number or severity of heatwaves .
Indeed , in recent decades heatwaves have been far less frequent and severe , for example , than in the 1930s – nearly 100 years of global warming ago .
In fact , 40 states ’ record-high temperatures were set before 1960 , with 25 of the record highs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone .
The most accurate nationwide temperature station network , implemented in 2005 , shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005 .
Concerning droughts and wildfires , the data is just as clear – there has been a downward trend during the past century .
Data from the National Integrated Drought Information System ( NIDIS ) cited in Climate at a Glance : Drought shows droughts have not become more frequent or severe in recent years .
In point of fact , the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “ very dry ” conditions .
Indeed , in 2017 and 2019 , the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history .
And the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) reports with “ high confidence ” precipitation over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere ( including the United States ) has increased during the past 70 years , while IPCC has “ low confidence ” about any negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drought is the key contributing climate factor , one should not be surprised to find , as reported in Climate at a Glance : Wildfires , records from the U.S. National Interagency Fire Center ( NIFC ) show wildfires have declined in number and severity in recent decades .
The NIFC tracks data on U.S. wildfires back as far as 1926 , and it shows the number of acres burned is far less now than it was throughout the early 20th century .
As the Figure below shows , current acres burned run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values which occurred in the 1930s .
Globally , the data on wildfires is just as clear .
On page 67 of Bjorn Lomborg ’ s book False Alarm , he points to research demonstrating : “ There is plenty of evidence for a reduction in the level of devastation caused by fire , with satellites showing a 25 percent reduction globally in burned areas just over the past 18 years … In total , the global amount of area burned as declined by more than 540,000 square miles , from 1.9 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last century to 1.4 million square miles today.
” While the economic costs of wildfires have increased in recent decades , that is due to ever greater numbers of people moving into , and communities expanding into , areas historically prone to wildfires .
Also , people are erecting ever more expensive homes , commercial developments , and related infrastructure there .
Urban development in formerly rural , wildfire-prone areas is the reason economic costs from wildfires are increasing .
Scientists can say what they want and journalists can write what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they say climate change is causing an increase in the number or severity of heatwaves , drought , and wildfires , they are lying .
The data prove it .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Aug 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Dozens of prominent media outlets have published stories in the last few days claiming climate change is causing wildfires and a deadly heatwave.
Objective data, however, show there has been no increase in either one as the Earth modestly warms.
A story on the Colorado Public Radio website, titled “Colorado Wildfires Are Climate Change ‘In The Here And Now’ — And A Sign Of Summers To Come,” explicitly links wildfires in the state to human-caused climate change, warning of worse to come.
The Washington Post (“Why California Wildfires are So Extreme Right Now,”) and Capitol Public Radio News (CPRN), “As Californians Deal With Heat, Lightning, Fire, Scientists Point To Climate Change,” also claim a heatwave and wildfires in California right now are caused by climate change.
“The heatwave, the fires and weather patterns are in part related to climate change, says UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain, because warming temperatures are ‘with great certainty’ increasing these conditions,” CPRN’s reporter writes.
“This whole event started as a record-breaking heatwave … and we also know that climate change is increasing the severity and the acres burned by wildfires in California,” Swain told CPRN.
The CPRN reporter doesn’t question Swain’s asserted link between climate change and wildfires, despite the fact he provides no evidence to back it up. In fact, no such evidence exists.
Data show the number and severity of heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires have all decreased over the past century and a half, even as the planet has modestly warmed.
As summarized in Climate at a Glance: Heatwaves, data from the U.S. Climate Reference Network and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration prove climate change has not increased the number or severity of heatwaves.
Indeed, in recent decades heatwaves have been far less frequent and severe, for example, than in the 1930s – nearly 100 years of global warming ago.
In fact, 40 states’ record-high temperatures were set before 1960, with 25 of the record highs being set or tied in the 1930s alone.
The most accurate nationwide temperature station network, implemented in 2005, shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005.
Concerning droughts and wildfires, the data is just as clear – there has been a downward trend during the past century.
Data from the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) cited in Climate at a Glance: Drought shows droughts have not become more frequent or severe in recent years.
In point of fact, the evidence shows the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions.
Indeed, in 2017 and 2019, the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history.
And the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports with “high confidence” precipitation over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) has increased during the past 70 years, while IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.
Regarding wildfires, since drought is the key contributing climate factor, one should not be surprised to find, as reported in Climate at a Glance: Wildfires, records from the U.S. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) show wildfires have declined in number and severity in recent decades.
The NIFC tracks data on U.S. wildfires back as far as 1926, and it shows the number of acres burned is far less now than it was throughout the early 20th century.
As the Figure below shows, current acres burned run about 1/4th to 1/5th of the record values which occurred in the 1930s.
Globally, the data on wildfires is just as clear. On page 67 of Bjorn Lomborg’s book False Alarm, he points to research demonstrating:
“There is plenty of evidence for a reduction in the level of devastation caused by fire, with satellites showing a 25 percent reduction globally in burned areas just over the past 18 years … In total, the global amount of area burned as declined by more than 540,000 square miles, from 1.9 million square miles in the early part of the last century to 1.4 million square miles today.”
While the economic costs of wildfires have increased in recent decades, that is due to ever greater numbers of people moving into, and communities expanding into, areas historically prone to wildfires.
Also, people are erecting ever more expensive homes, commercial developments, and related infrastructure there. Urban development in formerly rural, wildfire-prone areas is the reason economic costs from wildfires are increasing.
Scientists can say what they want and journalists can write what they want about climate change, but, if they say climate change is causing an increase in the number or severity of heatwaves, drought, and wildfires, they are lying. The data prove it.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-21--New Study Finds We May Be Entering The Next Grand Solar Minimum

Written by Cap Allon on .
Posted in Latest news “ Galactic Cosmic Radiation in Interplanetary Space Through a Modern Secular Minimum ” is a new paper just published in the journal Space Weather .
The paper ’ s abstract opens with : “ Recent solar conditions indicate a persistent decline in solar activity‐‐‐possibly similar to the past solar grand minima .
During such periods of low solar activity , the fluxes of galactic cosmic rays ( GCRs ) increase remarkably… ” From here , the researchers ’ primary focus is on the impact low solar activity and increasing GCRs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how else would it have gotten published ) , however , they do leave a number of GSM truth-bombs along the way , and their conclusion is an admissible one : “ GCRs are bad–and they ’ re only going to get worse.
” “ During the next solar cycle , we could see cosmic ray dose rates increase by as much as 75 % , ” says lead author Fatemeh Rahmanifard of the University of New Hampshire ’ s Space Science Center .
This spells bad news for astronauts , limiting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space ( from 1,000 days back in the 1990s to just 290 days for men and 204 days for women ) .
Why are cosmic rays growing stronger ?
“ Blame the sun , ” writes Dr. Tony Phillips in his excellent article over at the always excellent spaceweather.com .
The sun ’ s magnetic field wraps the entire solar system in a protective bubble , normally shielding us from cosmic rays .
In recent decades , however , that shield has been growing weaker–a result of the sputtering solar cycle .
Solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be , continues Dr. Phillips .
In the 1950s through the 1990s , the sun routinely produced intense Solar Maxima with lots of sunspots and strong solar magnetic fields .
Now , look at the plot ( below ) .
Since the heyday of the late 20th century , the 11-year solar cycle has weakened , and the sun ’ s magnetic field has weakened with it : Rahmanifard and colleagues believe we could be entering a Grand Solar Minimum–a long , slow dampening of the 11-year solar cycle , which can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as concluded by NASA , can result in a sharp cooling of the planet .
The most famous example of a Grand Minimum is the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when sunspots practically vanished for 70 years .
“ We are not in a Maunder Minimum , ” stresses Rahmanifard .
“ The current situation more closely resembles the Dalton minimum of 1790-1830 or the Gleissberg minimum of 1890-1920.
” During those lesser Grand Minima , the solar cycle became weak but didn ’ t completely go away .
Nevertheless , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the people of the time .
Like the deeper Maunder and Spörer Minimums preceding it , the Dalton brought on a period of lower-than-average global temperatures .
The Oberlach Station in Germany , for example , experienced a 2C decline over 20 years , which devastated the country ’ s food production .
The Year Without a Summer also occurred during the Dalton Minimum , in 1816 .
It was caused by a combination of already low temperatures plus the aftereffects of the second-largest volcanic eruption in 2000 years : Mount Tambora @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 1815 ( for more on the link between reduced solar activity , cosmic rays , and volcanic/seismic upticks click here ) .
One Virginia resident recalled , “ In June another snowfall came and folks went sleighing .
On July 4 , 1816 , water froze in cisterns and snow fell again , with Independence Day celebrants moving inside churches where hearth fires warmed things a mite.
” Clothes froze on the line in New England , ice on ponds and lakes was reported in northwestern Pennsylvania in both July and August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The temperature occasionally got into the 90s , but then would drop to nearly freezing in just a few hours .
Crops that had managed to sprout were frozen out in early June , replanted , and frozen again in July .
Very few crops were actually harvested , and of those that were , the yields were very poor .
In turn , food and grain prices skyrocketed — for example , in 1815 , oats sold for $ 0.12 a bushel but by the next year , a bushel would @ @ @ @ @ @

Written by Cap Allon on Aug 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
“Galactic Cosmic Radiation in Interplanetary Space Through a Modern Secular Minimum” is a new paper just published in the journal Space Weather.
The paper’s abstract opens with: “Recent solar conditions indicate a persistent decline in solar activity‐‐‐possibly similar to the past solar grand minima. During such periods of low solar activity, the fluxes of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) increase remarkably…”
From here, the researchers’ primary focus is on the impact low solar activity and increasing GCRs have on interplanetary space missions (well how else would it have gotten published), however, they do leave a number of GSM truth-bombs along the way, and their conclusion is an admissible one: “GCRs are bad–and they’re only going to get worse.”
“During the next solar cycle, we could see cosmic ray dose rates increase by as much as 75%,” says lead author Fatemeh Rahmanifard of the University of New Hampshire’s Space Science Center.
This spells bad news for astronauts, limiting the time they can work safely in interplanetary space (from 1,000 days back in the 1990s to just 290 days for men and 204 days for women).
Why are cosmic rays growing stronger? “Blame the sun,” writes Dr. Tony Phillips in his excellent article over at the always excellent spaceweather.com.
The sun’s magnetic field wraps the entire solar system in a protective bubble, normally shielding us from cosmic rays. In recent decades, however, that shield has been growing weaker–a result of the sputtering solar cycle.
Solar activity isn’t what it used to be, continues Dr. Phillips. In the 1950s through the 1990s, the sun routinely produced intense Solar Maxima with lots of sunspots and strong solar magnetic fields.
Now, look at the plot (below). Since the heyday of the late 20th century, the 11-year solar cycle has weakened, and the sun’s magnetic field has weakened with it:
Rahmanifard and colleagues believe we could be entering a Grand Solar Minimum–a long, slow dampening of the 11-year solar cycle, which can suppress sunspot counts for decades and, as concluded by NASA , can result in a sharp cooling of the planet.
The most famous example of a Grand Minimum is the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when sunspots practically vanished for 70 years.
“We are not in a Maunder Minimum,” stresses Rahmanifard. “The current situation more closely resembles the Dalton minimum of 1790-1830 or the Gleissberg minimum of 1890-1920.”
During those lesser Grand Minima, the solar cycle became weak but didn’t completely go away.
Nevertheless, the Dalton still brought-about immense suffering and misery to the people of the time. Like the deeper Maunder and Spörer Minimums preceding it, the Dalton brought on a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.
The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2C decline over 20 years, which devastated the country’s food production.
The Year Without a Summer also occurred during the Dalton Minimum, in 1816. It was caused by a combination of already low temperatures plus the aftereffects of the second-largest volcanic eruption in 2000 years: Mount Tambora’s VEI 7 on April 10, 1815 (for more on the link between reduced solar activity, cosmic rays, and volcanic/seismic upticks click here).
One Virginia resident recalled, “In June another snowfall came and folks went sleighing. On July 4, 1816, water froze in cisterns and snow fell again, with Independence Day celebrants moving inside churches where hearth fires warmed things a mite.”
Clothes froze on the line in New England, ice on ponds and lakes was reported in northwestern Pennsylvania in both July and August, and Virginia had frosts in August.
The temperature occasionally got into the 90s, but then would drop to nearly freezing in just a few hours.
Crops that had managed to sprout were frozen out in early June, replanted, and frozen again in July. Very few crops were actually harvested, and of those that were, the yields were very poor.
In turn, food and grain prices skyrocketed — for example, in 1815, oats sold for $0.12 a bushel but by the next year, a bushel would set you back $0.92.
Read rest at ElectroVerse
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print