climatechangedispatch--2020-03-16--How Exactly Do They Plan To Replace Fossil Fuels?

Written by Paul Driessen , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news Berkeley , CA , Takoma Park , MD , and other cities ; California , Connecticut , New York , Virginia , and other states ; Germany , England , and other countries ; the European Union – all plan to banish oil , natural gas , and coal within 10 , 20 or 30 years .
A number of US states have joined Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives and proudly say We Are Still In … the Paris climate treaty no matter what President Trump says or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and look at hurricane , tornado , sea level , and other historic records .
There is no crisis , no unprecedented warming or weather events , certainly nothing that proves humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate changes and weather events .
But for now , let ’ s just examine their zero-carbon plans .
How exactly will they make this happen ?
Where do they plan to get the turbines , panels , and batteries ?
The raw materials to manufacture them ?
How do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with pricey , erratic energy and frequent power disruptions ?
How would they – or America , if the entire USA goes Green New Deal – handle a COVID-27 outbreak ?
How would they manufacture cars , airplanes , wind turbines , toilet paper , pharmaceuticals or much of anything else with intermittent energy ?
It hasn ’ t worked in Europe ( see below ) , and it won ’ t work here .
Moreover , it ’ s not just replacing today ’ s coal and gas power plant megawatts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ electricity generation because Green New Dealers want to replace all fossil fuel use : gasoline and diesel cars , trucks and buses , home and water heating , factory power , hospital emergency power , and more .
It ’ s tripling current megawatt generation , because they don ’ t like nuclear or hydroelectric power either , and they ’ ll need far more electricity to charge enough batteries to ensure backup power for all the fossil and other power they want to eliminate .
That will require a lot of wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Where do they plan to put all of them ?
Some of those states and countries have lots of rural lands , wildlife habitats and shallow waters off their coasts that they can turn into huge industrial energy zones .
But what are those self-righteous cities going to do ?
Where within their city limits do they plan to put dozens of 650-foot tall turbines and tens of thousands of panels ?
Or do they plan to just impose those facilities on their rural neighbors ?
Or tap into regional power grids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generating – with coal , gas , nuclear , hydro , and maybe wind or solar ?
How will they separate “ good ” and “ bad ” electrons ?
All of these GND cities and states will have to deal with frustrated rural families who don ’ t want the ruined scenery , desecrated ridgelines , dead birds and bats , maddening light flicker and excruciating infrasound that towering turbines would bring .
Don ’ t want millions of rural acres blanketed with solar panels .
Don ’ t want hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crossing their backyards .
Don ’ t want their lands seized via eminent domain , virtually at the point of a gun if they still resist .
They don ’ t want the 25-50-100 % higher household electricity bills , the soaring price tags for products and services that go with soaring electricity costs for every business , farm , factory , and hospital .
They don ’ t want more good manufacturing jobs destroyed by skyrocketing energy prices – and sent overseas .
Do Green New Deal politicians have the foggiest idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and miles of transmission lines they will need to replace all fossil fuels ?
How few years those energy systems last before they have to be replaced ?
Do they have any idea what they ’ re going to do with the defunct turbine blades and solar panels that can ’ t be recycled or burned ?
How many cubic miles of landfills they will need ?
Will communities want those landfills ?
Will urban pols just employ more eminent domain ?
It would take hundreds of 850-foot-tall 12-MW offshore turbines to supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major city – or thousands of 2- or 3-MW onshore turbines .
Tens of millions of solar panels .
Millions of acres of former crop , scenic and wildlife habitat land would be impacted .
They ’ d need millions of half-ton 85-kWh Tesla battery packs as a backup for a week of windless or sunless days .
Where do they intend to get the millions of tons of steel , copper , cobalt , lithium , aluminum , rare earth , carbon-fiberglass-plastic composites , limestone and other raw materials to build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and all the new transmission lines ?
Will they now support opening more US lands to mining ?
How do they plan to mine and process the materials without fossil fuels ?
If the mining is not to take place here in the United States , under our tough laws and regulations – then where exactly will it be done ?
In China and Russia ?
Or maybe in Africa and South America , where many mines are operated by Chinese and Russian companies that don ’ t give a tinker ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor , workplace safety , air and water pollution , toxic and radioactive wastes , mined land reclamation – or the soaring rates of lung , heart , skin and intestinal diseases , osteoporosis , cancers , and other maladies .
All these squalid places and horrific stories are far away – out of sight , out of mind .
Environmentalists love to say : Think globally ; act locally .
This would be a good time to start practicing that ethical code .
The more honest politicians promoting a GND future admit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gas , coal , petrochemical , manufacturing and other high-paying jobs .
But , they claim , their ( pseudo- ) renewable energy world would create millions of new jobs .
A look behind The Great Oz ’ s curtain is very revealing .
Coal-fired power plants generate 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity per mine and power plant worker ; natural gas generates 3,812 MWh per oil and gas field and utility worker .
That super high-efficiency and resultant low-cost electricity sustain millions of jobs in manufacturing and countless other industries .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measly 836 MWh for every employee , while solar panels generated an abysmal 98 MWh per worker .
Put another way , it takes 79 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as one coal worker or two natural gas workers .
Not only will this expensive , intermittent , weather-dependent electricity kill millions of good American jobs ; the GND wind and solar jobs will mostly be lower-wage positions installing , maintaining , repairing and replacing turbines and panels , and hauling huge dilapidated blades , panels , hulks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electricity prices are already outrageous in New York ( 17¢ a kilowatt-hour ) , California ( 19¢ per kWh ) , Connecticut ( 20¢ ) and Hawaii ( 31¢ ) – versus 9¢ a kWh in Arkansas , Georgia , and Oklahoma .
Going 50-100 % wind and solar would send family rates skyrocketing to German levels : 37¢ per kWh .
At the 8¢ per kWh in 2019 , Virginia ’ s Inova Fairfax Women ’ s and Children ’ s Hospital pays about $ 1.6 million annually for electricity ( based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
At California ’ s ( 15¢ per kWh ) , or Germany ’ s business rate ( 22¢ ) , Inova would have to shell out an extra $ 1.4-2.8 million a year for electricity .
That would mean employee layoffs , higher medical bills , reduced patient care , more deaths .
How is the vaunted transition to wind and solar actually working in Europe and Britain ?
In 2017 , German families and businesses were pummeled by 172,000 localized blackouts .
Last year , some 350,000 German families had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t pay their power bills .
In Britain , millions of elderly people have to choose between heating and eating decent food ; many spend their days in libraries to keep warm ; and more than 3,000 die every year because they can not heat their homes properly , making them more likely to succumb to respiratory , heart , flu or other diseases .
Across Europe , 11 million jobs are “ at-risk ” because of an EU “ green deal ” that many say is suicidal .
Meanwhile , China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas power plants , making products for the USA and Europe , creating jobs , building airports , and sending billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere .
GND politicians have dodged these issues for years – while steering billions of taxpayer dollars to the green activist groups , crony capitalists and industrialist rent-seekers that help keep them in office .
Even worse , they and their media allies neatly dodge the most glaring reality .
The only way this energy and economic transformation will happen is through totalitarian government at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal urban voters and politicians against the rest of America .
Those are the seeds of resentment , anger , societal division , endless litigation , and violence .
We need to head that grim future off at the pass .
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 .

Written by Paul Driessen, guest post on Mar 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Berkeley, CA, Takoma Park, MD, and other cities; California, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, and other states; Germany, England, and other countries; the European Union – all plan to banish oil, natural gas, and coal within 10, 20 or 30 years.
A number of US states have joined Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives and proudly say We Are Still In … the Paris climate treaty no matter what President Trump says or does.
Forget the headlines and models, and look at hurricane, tornado, sea level, and other historic records.
There is no crisis, no unprecedented warming or weather events, certainly nothing that proves humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate changes and weather events.
But for now, let’s just examine their zero-carbon plans. How exactly will they make this happen? Where do they plan to get the turbines, panels, and batteries? The raw materials to manufacture them? How do they plan to function as modern societies with pricey, erratic energy and frequent power disruptions?
How would they – or America, if the entire USA goes Green New Deal – handle a COVID-27 outbreak?
How would they manufacture cars, airplanes, wind turbines, toilet paper, pharmaceuticals or much of anything else with intermittent energy? It hasn’t worked in Europe (see below), and it won’t work here.
Moreover, it’s not just replacing today’s coal and gas power plant megawatts. It’s doubling today’s electricity generation because Green New Dealers want to replace all fossil fuel use: gasoline and diesel cars, trucks and buses, home and water heating, factory power, hospital emergency power, and more.
It’s tripling current megawatt generation, because they don’t like nuclear or hydroelectric power either, and they’ll need far more electricity to charge enough batteries to ensure backup power for all the fossil and other power they want to eliminate. That will require a lot of wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries.
Where do they plan to put all of them? Some of those states and countries have lots of rural lands, wildlife habitats and shallow waters off their coasts that they can turn into huge industrial energy zones.
But what are those self-righteous cities going to do? Where within their city limits do they plan to put dozens of 650-foot tall turbines and tens of thousands of panels?
Or do they plan to just impose those facilities on their rural neighbors? Or tap into regional power grids and use electricity that someone else is generating – with coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, and maybe wind or solar? How will they separate “good” and “bad” electrons?
All of these GND cities and states will have to deal with frustrated rural families who don’t want the ruined scenery, desecrated ridgelines, dead birds and bats, maddening light flicker and excruciating infrasound that towering turbines would bring.
Don’t want millions of rural acres blanketed with solar panels. Don’t want hundreds of miles of new high voltage transmission lines crossing their backyards. Don’t want their lands seized via eminent domain, virtually at the point of a gun if they still resist.
They don’t want the 25-50-100% higher household electricity bills, the soaring price tags for products and services that go with soaring electricity costs for every business, farm, factory, and hospital.
They don’t want more good manufacturing jobs destroyed by skyrocketing energy prices – and sent overseas.
Do Green New Deal politicians have the foggiest idea how many turbines, panels, batteries and miles of transmission lines they will need to replace all fossil fuels? How few years those energy systems last before they have to be replaced? Do they have any idea what they’re going to do with the defunct turbine blades and solar panels that can’t be recycled or burned? How many cubic miles of landfills they will need? Will communities want those landfills? Will urban pols just employ more eminent domain?
It would take hundreds of 850-foot-tall 12-MW offshore turbines to supply the green new world electricity demands of a major city – or thousands of 2- or 3-MW onshore turbines. Tens of millions of solar panels.
Millions of acres of former crop, scenic and wildlife habitat land would be impacted. They’d need millions of half-ton 85-kWh Tesla battery packs as a backup for a week of windless or sunless days.
Where do they intend to get the millions of tons of steel, copper, cobalt, lithium, aluminum, rare earth, carbon-fiberglass-plastic composites, limestone and other raw materials to build all those electricity generation and storage systems, and all the new transmission lines?
Will they now support opening more US lands to mining? How do they plan to mine and process the materials without fossil fuels?
If the mining is not to take place here in the United States, under our tough laws and regulations – then where exactly will it be done? In China and Russia?
Or maybe in Africa and South America, where many mines are operated by Chinese and Russian companies that don’t give a tinker’s damn about child labor, slave labor, workplace safety, air and water pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, mined land reclamation – or the soaring rates of lung, heart, skin and intestinal diseases, osteoporosis, cancers, and other maladies.
All these squalid places and horrific stories are far away – out of sight, out of mind. Environmentalists love to say: Think globally; act locally. This would be a good time to start practicing that ethical code.
The more honest politicians promoting a GND future admit it would eliminate a lot of oil, gas, coal, petrochemical, manufacturing and other high-paying jobs.
But, they claim, their (pseudo-)renewable energy world would create millions of new jobs. A look behind The Great Oz’s curtain is very revealing.
Coal-fired power plants generate 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity per mine and power plant worker; natural gas generates 3,812 MWh per oil and gas field and utility worker.
That super high-efficiency and resultant low-cost electricity sustain millions of jobs in manufacturing and countless other industries.
In stark contrast, wind turbines produce a measly 836 MWh for every employee, while solar panels generated an abysmal 98 MWh per worker.
Put another way, it takes 79 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as one coal worker or two natural gas workers.
Not only will this expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent electricity kill millions of good American jobs; the GND wind and solar jobs will mostly be lower-wage positions installing, maintaining, repairing and replacing turbines and panels, and hauling huge dilapidated blades, panels, hulks and concrete foundations to monster landfills.
Residential electricity prices are already outrageous in New York (17¢ a kilowatt-hour), California (19¢ per kWh), Connecticut (20¢) and Hawaii (31¢) – versus 9¢ a kWh in Arkansas, Georgia, and Oklahoma. Going 50-100% wind and solar would send family rates skyrocketing to German levels: 37¢ per kWh.
At the 8¢ per kWh in 2019, Virginia’s Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital pays about $1.6 million annually for electricity (based on typical hospital costs per square foot).
At California’s (15¢ per kWh), or Germany’s business rate (22¢), Inova would have to shell out an extra $1.4-2.8 million a year for electricity. That would mean employee layoffs, higher medical bills, reduced patient care, more deaths.
How is the vaunted transition to wind and solar actually working in Europe and Britain? In 2017, German families and businesses were pummeled by 172,000 localized blackouts.
Last year, some 350,000 German families had their electricity cut off because they couldn’t pay their power bills.
In Britain, millions of elderly people have to choose between heating and eating decent food; many spend their days in libraries to keep warm; and more than 3,000 die every year because they cannot heat their homes properly, making them more likely to succumb to respiratory, heart, flu or other diseases.
Across Europe, 11 million jobs are “at-risk” because of an EU “green deal” that many say is suicidal. Meanwhile, China and India are still building coal and gas power plants, making products for the USA and Europe, creating jobs, building airports, and sending billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
GND politicians have dodged these issues for years – while steering billions of taxpayer dollars to the green activist groups, crony capitalists and industrialist rent-seekers that help keep them in office.
Even worse, they and their media allies neatly dodge the most glaring reality. The only way this energy and economic transformation will happen is through totalitarian government at the local, state and federal level: liberal urban voters and politicians against the rest of America.
Those are the seeds of resentment, anger, societal division, endless litigation, and violence. We need to head that grim future off at the pass.
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.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-16--NY’s Self-Inflicted Green Energy Crunch, Temporarily Postponed

Written by Francis Menton on .
Posted in Latest news The fundamental nature of the “ green energy ” game is that politicians make ridiculous and impossible promises without any idea how the promises will be fulfilled .
Since the promises are ridiculous and impossible , sooner or later the crunch will hit — but how ?
Maybe the promised goals will be missed by wide margins , or maybe the price of energy to the people will multiply by some huge factor , like 10 or 20 , or maybe the people will be denied needed energy altogether , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all three .
But sooner or later , it will happen .
Here ’ s what we don ’ t know : When will the crunch hit ?
And where will it hit first ?
You can ’ t go too far wrong betting on New York as the first place for the crunch to hit .
Our politicians specialize in making the most absurd pie-in-the-sky “ green energy “ promises , with no concrete plans of any sort to fulfill them .
This can ’ t continue for very long , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term .
Last fall , it suddenly seemed that the crunch was upon us : the natural gas utility in Long Island ( National Grid ) began denying new applications for hookups due to lack of supply and quickly had rejected some 3000 prospective customers .
New homes had no functioning heat .
Restaurants could not open .
Hundreds of affected customers cried out to their politicians to do something .
I covered that situation in a December 3 , 2019 post titled “ Update On New York ’ s Self-Inflicted Energy Crunch.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it had come on , the crisis passed .
In November , Governor Cuomo issued a really strong letter to the gas utility .
By January 2020 , the new customers were rapidly getting their hookups .
Problem solved !
So is this whole “ green energy ” thing really working just fine after all ?
The answer is that the utility has instituted a temporary non-solution that may work for the next two years at best .
After that , nobody has any realistic plans .
Let ’ s review some history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive Democrats took full control of the New York State legislature for the first time in many years .
At the top of their list of priorities was addressing “ climate change.
” Early in the 2019 session , proposed legislation called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act ( CLCPA ) was introduced , with the usual impossible goals for reducing “ greenhouse gas ” emissions .
With that legislation pending , an application for a major natural gas pipeline project , called the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project , came before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The pipeline was to cross New York Harbor to bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania , via New Jersey , to communities on Long Island .
In May , under pressure from environmentalists , DEC rejected the application on the completely pretextual ground of “ water quality.
” In June 2019 , the CLCPA passed the legislature and was signed by the Governor .
From a summary of the CLCPA on the State Assembly ’ s website : The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act would require that the Department of Environmental Conservation ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greenhouse gas emissions limits by regulation , to reduce emissions 85 percent by 2050 ; The bill will also make investments in renewable energy sources a priority in New York State .
It would require 70 percent of the electric generation secured by load-serving entities regulated by the Public Service Commission to be produced by renewable energy systems by 2030 .
Additionally , the bill requires that the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions by 2040 .
By September , the Long Island natural gas utility , National Grid , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after the Governor ’ s strong letter , the hookups had resumed .
Looking around the websites of the local news media , I can ’ t find any report on how this problem was supposedly solved .
But it turns out that National Grid submitted a Report to the New York regulators in February 2020 , titled “ Natural Gas Long-Term Capacity Report for Brooklyn , Queens , Staten Island , and Long Island.
” And here on page 6 , we find our answer : In the near term – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2019/2020 and the winter of 2020/2021 – we are taking a series of measures including : [ I ] nstallation of additional Compressed Natural Gas ( “ CNG ” ) capacity , which allows up to 42 trucks per day in the winter of 2019/20 to bring CNG from upstream of National Grid ’ s system to be injected into our gas system as needed during periods of peak demand , with plans to expand to 108 trucks for the winter of 2020/21 .
Congratulations !
You have blocked a natural gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility for wind turbines to heat houses or run restaurant stoves , we are just going to bring in the gas by truck instead .
This year , 42 trucks per day ( that ’ s well over 10,000 trucks if it goes on all year ) of highly explosive CNG , and next year 108 CNG trucks per day ( close to 40,000 for the whole year ) .
After that ?
The options really come down to allowing the utility to build “ large-scale infrastructure ” ( essentially , pipelines or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customers to switch to either oil or much-more-expensive electricity .
I keep hoping that the crunch will hit sooner rather than later .
But once again , they have figured out a way to postpone the self-inflicted crisis or at least this piece of it , for a couple of years .
Meanwhile , that business about “ requir [ ing ] 70 percent of the electric generation .
.
.
to be produced by renewable energy systems by 2030 ” is complete fantasy and will never happen .
But California may hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Written by Francis Menton on Mar 16, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The fundamental nature of the “green energy” game is that politicians make ridiculous and impossible promises without any idea how the promises will be fulfilled.
Since the promises are ridiculous and impossible, sooner or later the crunch will hit — but how?
Maybe the promised goals will be missed by wide margins, or maybe the price of energy to the people will multiply by some huge factor, like 10 or 20, or maybe the people will be denied needed energy altogether, or it could be some combination of all three.
But sooner or later, it will happen.
Here’s what we don’t know: When will the crunch hit? And where will it hit first?
You can’t go too far wrong betting on New York as the first place for the crunch to hit. Our politicians specialize in making the most absurd pie-in-the-sky “green energy “ promises, with no concrete plans of any sort to fulfill them.
This can’t continue for very long, but “very long” is an indefinite term. Last fall, it suddenly seemed that the crunch was upon us: the natural gas utility in Long Island (National Grid) began denying new applications for hookups due to lack of supply and quickly had rejected some 3000 prospective customers.
New homes had no functioning heat. Restaurants could not open. Hundreds of affected customers cried out to their politicians to do something.
I covered that situation in a December 3, 2019 post titled “Update On New York’s Self-Inflicted Energy Crunch.”
And then, as quickly as it had come on, the crisis passed. In November, Governor Cuomo issued a really strong letter to the gas utility.
By January 2020, the new customers were rapidly getting their hookups. Problem solved! So is this whole “green energy” thing really working just fine after all?
The answer is that the utility has instituted a temporary non-solution that may work for the next two years at best. After that, nobody has any realistic plans.
Let’s review some history. After the 2018 elections, the progressive Democrats took full control of the New York State legislature for the first time in many years. At the top of their list of priorities was addressing “climate change.”
Early in the 2019 session, proposed legislation called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) was introduced, with the usual impossible goals for reducing “greenhouse gas” emissions.
With that legislation pending, an application for a major natural gas pipeline project, called the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project, came before the Department of Environmental Conservation for approval.
The pipeline was to cross New York Harbor to bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania, via New Jersey, to communities on Long Island.
In May, under pressure from environmentalists, DEC rejected the application on the completely pretextual ground of “water quality.”
In June 2019, the CLCPA passed the legislature and was signed by the Governor. From a summary of the CLCPA on the State Assembly’s website:
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act would require that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) establish:
Statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits by regulation, to reduce emissions 85 percent by 2050;
Regulations to achieve statewide greenhouse gas emissions reductions . . . .
The bill will also make investments in renewable energy sources a priority in New York State. It would require 70 percent of the electric generation secured by load-serving entities regulated by the Public Service Commission to be produced by renewable energy systems by 2030. Additionally, the bill requires that the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions by 2040.
By September, the Long Island natural gas utility, National Grid, was rejecting new customers; but by January, after the Governor’s strong letter, the hookups had resumed.
Looking around the websites of the local news media, I can’t find any report on how this problem was supposedly solved.
But it turns out that National Grid submitted a Report to the New York regulators in February 2020, titled “Natural Gas Long-Term Capacity Report for Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island.” And here on page 6, we find our answer:
In the near term – to ensure sufficient supply for the winter of 2019/2020 and the winter of 2020/2021 – we are taking a series of measures including: [I]nstallation of additional Compressed Natural Gas (“CNG”) capacity, which allows up to 42 trucks per day in the winter of 2019/20 to bring CNG from upstream of National Grid’s system to be injected into our gas system as needed during periods of peak demand, with plans to expand to 108 trucks for the winter of 2020/21.
Congratulations! You have blocked a natural gas pipeline. But since there is no possibility for wind turbines to heat houses or run restaurant stoves, we are just going to bring in the gas by truck instead.
This year, 42 trucks per day (that’s well over 10,000 trucks if it goes on all year) of highly explosive CNG, and next year 108 CNG trucks per day (close to 40,000 for the whole year).
After that? The options really come down to allowing the utility to build “large-scale infrastructure” (essentially, pipelines or LNG terminals), or forcing the customers to switch to either oil or much-more-expensive electricity.
I keep hoping that the crunch will hit sooner rather than later. But once again, they have figured out a way to postpone the self-inflicted crisis or at least this piece of it, for a couple of years.
Meanwhile, that business about “requir[ing] 70 percent of the electric generation . . . to be produced by renewable energy systems by 2030” is complete fantasy and will never happen. But California may hit the wall well before our 2030 deadline.
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-17--Czech PM Urges EU To Ditch Green Deal, Focus On COVID-19

Written by EURACTIV with AFP on .
Posted in Latest news The Czech premier , whose country depends on nuclear energy and coal , said Monday ( 16 March ) the European Union should ditch its landmark green law seeking carbon neutrality as it battles the novel coronavirus .
“ Europe should forget about the Green Deal now and focus on the coronavirus instead , ” Prime Minister Andrej Babiš told reporters , without explaining how the two are connected .
“ Europe is now the biggest epicenter of the coronavirus in the world , ” the billionaire populist added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Green Deal earlier this month , mandating members to achieve net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2050 .
But ex-communist EU members like the Czech Republic have announced much less ambitious plans as their energy sectors are still largely dependent on coal .
The Czech Republic has registered 344 cases of COVID-19 , including three recovered patients .
No one has died of the disease in the country of around 11 million people .
The Czech Republic recently closed its borders as well as schools , most shops , and cultural facilities and restricted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government sent a special military plane to China to collect coronavirus test kits , and Babiš said another seven planes should follow suit .
He praised China for its handling of the contagion .
“ Now that the epidemic is nearly over in China , the country is once again the biggest producer of medical material and the entire planet is going shopping in China , ” said Babiš .
“ We really have a lot to learn from China .
”

Written by EURACTIV with AFP on Mar 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Czech premier, whose country depends on nuclear energy and coal, said Monday (16 March) the European Union should ditch its landmark green law seeking carbon neutrality as it battles the novel coronavirus.
“Europe should forget about the Green Deal now and focus on the coronavirus instead,” Prime Minister Andrej Babiš told reporters, without explaining how the two are connected.
“Europe is now the biggest epicenter of the coronavirus in the world,” the billionaire populist added.
The EU unveiled a draft of the Green Deal earlier this month, mandating members to achieve net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2050.
But ex-communist EU members like the Czech Republic have announced much less ambitious plans as their energy sectors are still largely dependent on coal.
The Czech Republic has registered 344 cases of COVID-19, including three recovered patients. No one has died of the disease in the country of around 11 million people.
The Czech Republic recently closed its borders as well as schools, most shops, and cultural facilities and restricted free movement.
Earlier Monday, the government sent a special military plane to China to collect coronavirus test kits, and Babiš said another seven planes should follow suit.
He praised China for its handling of the contagion.
“Now that the epidemic is nearly over in China, the country is once again the biggest producer of medical material and the entire planet is going shopping in China,” said Babiš.
“We really have a lot to learn from China.”
h/t Dave R.
Read more at EurActiv
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-17--Climate Push Loses Momentum As World Battles COVID-19

Written by Laura Millan Lombrana on .
Posted in Latest news European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde once spent more time talking about climate change than inflation .
It happened during a press conference in Frankfurt less than two months ago but already feels like something from another century—or planet .
In the days since , the novel coronavirus and an oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia have rocked financial markets and brought the world to the brink of an economic crisis .
Understandably , these two extraordinary events have grabbed global attention .
Yet the trickle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … The United Nations won ’ t hold any face-to-face climate change talks until at least the end of April , as part of the effort to contain the coronavirus , according to Climate Change News .
An EU-China climate summit due to take place at the end of the month has also been postponed .
Such events are essential for governments to draft agreements in advance of the UN ’ s next global climate meeting , scheduled to take place in Glasgow in November .
The COP26 conference is particularly critical , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more ambitious plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions than called for under the 2015 Paris Agreement .
So far , only the Marshall Islands , Suriname , Norway , and Moldova have presented such plans , according to the World Resources Institute .
The climate policy push is at risk of stalling on a national level as well .
The U.K. scaled back plans to put the environment at the center of its budget last week .
Spain , which has made climate change a central part of its political agenda , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks and declared a state of emergency over the weekend .
Despite the temporary setbacks , European Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen said last week that the European Union remains committed to its Green Deal , a moonshot plan to make the bloc carbon neutral by 2050 .
“ Clearly we can not ignore what ’ s going on globally , ” said EU Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius on Bloomberg TV .
The global “ climate emergency didn ’ t go anywhere .
But transforming the economy is a titanic effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in perfect coordination over an extended period of time .
Until now , public policy and private investment have pushed each other to advance climate goals .
Whether all the stakeholders involved can deal with the immediate shocks while keeping long-term goals in sight remains to be seen .

Written by Laura Millan Lombrana on Mar 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde once spent more time talking about climate change than inflation.
It happened during a press conference in Frankfurt less than two months ago but already feels like something from another century—or planet.
In the days since, the novel coronavirus and an oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia have rocked financial markets and brought the world to the brink of an economic crisis.
Understandably, these two extraordinary events have grabbed global attention. Yet the trickle of concerning climate news has not slowed. …
The United Nations won’t hold any face-to-face climate change talks until at least the end of April, as part of the effort to contain the coronavirus, according to Climate Change News.
An EU-China climate summit due to take place at the end of the month has also been postponed.
Such events are essential for governments to draft agreements in advance of the UN’s next global climate meeting, scheduled to take place in Glasgow in November.
The COP26 conference is particularly critical, as all signatories are supposed to present even more ambitious plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions than called for under the 2015 Paris Agreement.
So far, only the Marshall Islands, Suriname, Norway, and Moldova have presented such plans, according to the World Resources Institute.
The climate policy push is at risk of stalling on a national level as well. The U.K. scaled back plans to put the environment at the center of its budget last week.
Spain, which has made climate change a central part of its political agenda, halted all legislative activity for at least two weeks and declared a state of emergency over the weekend.
Despite the temporary setbacks, European Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen said last week that the European Union remains committed to its Green Deal, a moonshot plan to make the bloc carbon neutral by 2050.
“Clearly we cannot ignore what’s going on globally,” said EU Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius on Bloomberg TV. The global “climate emergency didn’t go anywhere.
But transforming the economy is a titanic effort, requiring all the pieces to move in perfect coordination over an extended period of time.
Until now, public policy and private investment have pushed each other to advance climate goals.
Whether all the stakeholders involved can deal with the immediate shocks while keeping long-term goals in sight remains to be seen.
Read rest at Bloomberg
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-17--Study: High Temps, Humidity Reduce COVID-19 Transmission

Written by Paul Mirengoff on .
Posted in Latest news A paper by four Chinese professors concludes that high temperatures and high relative humidity significantly reduce the transmission of the Wuhan coronavirus .
This conclusion is based on a study of all 100 Chinese cities with more than 40 cases of the virus .
The professors found that a one degree Celsius increase in temperature and a one percent increase in relative humidity lower “ R ” by 0.0383 and 0.0224 , respectively .
“ R ” is the effective reproductive number of the virus .
As I understand it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it means the virus is dying off faster than it is reproducing .
The authors note that their findings are “ consistent with the fact that the high temperature and high humidity significantly reduce the transmission of influenza.
” They conclude that “ the arrival of summer and rainy season in the northern hemisphere can effectively reduce the transmission of the COVID-19.
” The study is also consistent with the findings of a paper I wrote about here .
That study looked at average temperatures in areas across the globe that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Chinese study is a city-by-city comparison in the same country that controls for population density and GDP per capita .

Written by Paul Mirengoff on Mar 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A paper by four Chinese professors concludes that high temperatures and high relative humidity significantly reduce the transmission of the Wuhan coronavirus.
This conclusion is based on a study of all 100 Chinese cities with more than 40 cases of the virus.
The professors found that a one degree Celsius increase in temperature and a one percent increase in relative humidity lower “R” by 0.0383 and 0.0224, respectively.
“R” is the effective reproductive number of the virus. As I understand it, if that number drops below 1.0, it means the virus is dying off faster than it is reproducing.
The authors note that their findings are “consistent with the fact that the high temperature and high humidity significantly reduce the transmission of influenza.”
They conclude that “the arrival of summer and rainy season in the northern hemisphere can effectively reduce the transmission of the COVID-19.”
The study is also consistent with the findings of a paper I wrote about here. That study looked at average temperatures in areas across the globe that the virus was hitting at the time.
The Chinese study is a city-by-city comparison in the same country that controls for population density and GDP per capita.
For what it’s worth.
Read more at PowerLine
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-17--Secretary Of Climate? John Kerry And His Climate-Clown Science

Written by David Kreutzer on .
Posted in Latest news Joe Biden ’ s “ confidants ” are throwing out names for cabinet positions .
Whether this is sophisticated political jockeying or the equivalent of a frat-house bull session is unknown , but the first name on the list at Axios makes us dearly hope it is the latter .
The first bullet point on their list reads : “ John Kerry would love to take a new Cabinet position devoted to climate change… ” This possibility is emblematic of the sorry state of climate policy .
John Kerry has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basics of climate science .
Nevertheless , while he ridicules those who know more , he is aided and abetted by the media .
In a widely covered speech in Jakarta in 2014 , Kerry asserted that climate change is “ the world ’ s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.
” He also went to some lengths to lay out the basics of climate science .
After invoking the requisite “ 97 percent of scientists ” cliché , Kerry goes off script ( or we can hope it was off-script ) to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate science : “ But this is not tough .
This is simple .
Kids at the earliest age can understand this.
” It is worth watching the video just to get a sense of the condescension and derision toward skeptics .
Here is his description of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas : “ Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch , half an inch , somewhere in that vicinity – that ’ s how thick it is .
It ’ s in our atmosphere .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ edge of the atmosphere.
” Don ’ t bother going outside to look for it .
Kerry ’ s is an absolutely cockamamie description of greenhouse gases in general and CO2 in particular .
CO2 is not “ way up there at the edge.
” It is all through the atmosphere .
It is not a quarter or half an inch thick—it is part of the many-miles thick atmosphere .
It seems he may have been using talking points from the twenty-years-earlier debate on ozone .
Ozone is mostly “ way up there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-down-here pressures would form a layer 3 mm thick .
If so , Kerry confused an abstract description of ozone ( O3 ) for the reality of CO2 .
More notable than his confusion is the confidence in his ignorance .
He asserted that those who did not have his level of understanding were flat-Earthers with less comprehension than small children .
After misinforming the audience about the thin layer , way up there , he immediately adds : Kerry ’ s implication that the Earth ’ s climate has been coddled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature ” for “ literally millions of years ” is also cockamamie .
Below is a chart of the Earth ’ s temperature fluctuation for just the past one million years .
There was a lot of temperature fluctuation before central heating , air conditioning , and SUVs came into existence .
Ice ages will do that .
Those who disagree with Kerry ’ s clown-science are “ a tiny minority of shoddy scientists… and extreme ideologues.
” Everybody else , then , must think that CO2 is a half-inch layer “ way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ atmosphere ” and the Earth ’ s average temperature has been maintained for “ millions of years.
” So , get with the program , everybody , you don ’ t want to be in the loser group of shoddy scientists and ideologues .
These assertions were so ludicrous that the reporters had a field day pointing out these outrageous errors .
Ha-ha , just joking .
None of the major news organizations said anything about Kerry ’ s blatant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of climate science .
Instead , they focused on Kerry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mass destruction and his equating climate skeptics to Flat-Earth Society members .
Googling “ John Kerry climate weapon of mass destruction ” generates over 1.4 million results with virtually every news organization covering that quote and not saying anything about “ a very thin layer ” that ’ s “ way up there.
” Judging from the first several pages of hits , they are primarily about a climate group he helped form in 2019 or about his interaction with MIT-educated engineer , Rep. Thomas Massie .
Massie wondered what were Kerry ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismiss a climate advisory group put together in the Trump Administration .
Kerry called it a “ kangaroo committee.
” The media coverage was sometimes de facto cheerleading for Kerry ( here , for instance ) .
Some skeptics and bloggers pointed out Kerry ’ s Jakarta stupidity , but it got no coverage at the time .
Bonus points for anybody who finds mainstream media coverage of his error .
Put it in the “ Comments ” section , please .
What would the future for the Secretary of Climate look like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an embarrassing description of greenhouse gases as is possible to give was total silence .
Instead , the media focused on soundbite-worthy , but unsubstantiated , quotes .
It seems the media are either so unsure of fundamental science as to be easily fooled , or they are climate activists .
So , if Kerry ( or anybody else ) gets a cabinet-level , climate-change appointment in a new administration , we can be sure the Fourth Estate will provide no reality check on the First .

Written by David Kreutzer on Mar 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Joe Biden’s “confidants” are throwing out names for cabinet positions.
Whether this is sophisticated political jockeying or the equivalent of a frat-house bull session is unknown, but the first name on the list at Axios makes us dearly hope it is the latter.
The first bullet point on their list reads: “John Kerry would love to take a new Cabinet position devoted to climate change…”
This possibility is emblematic of the sorry state of climate policy. John Kerry has proven he is totally ignorant of the basics of climate science.
Nevertheless, while he ridicules those who know more, he is aided and abetted by the media.
In a widely covered speech in Jakarta in 2014, Kerry asserted that climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” He also went to some lengths to lay out the basics of climate science.
After invoking the requisite “97 percent of scientists” cliché, Kerry goes off script (or we can hope it was off-script) to explain how simple it is to understand climate science: “But this is not tough. This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this.”
It is worth watching the video just to get a sense of the condescension and derision toward skeptics.
Here is his description of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas:
“Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere.”
Don’t bother going outside to look for it. Kerry’s is an absolutely cockamamie description of greenhouse gases in general and CO2 in particular. CO2 is not “way up there at the edge.”
It is all through the atmosphere. It is not a quarter or half an inch thick—it is part of the many-miles thick atmosphere. It seems he may have been using talking points from the twenty-years-earlier debate on ozone.
Ozone is mostly “way up there” and if isolated and compressed to right-down-here pressures would form a layer 3 mm thick.
If so, Kerry confused an abstract description of ozone (O3) for the reality of CO2. More notable than his confusion is the confidence in his ignorance.
He asserted that those who did not have his level of understanding were flat-Earthers with less comprehension than small children.
After misinforming the audience about the thin layer, way up there, he immediately adds:
“And for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet – trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going.”
Kerry’s implication that the Earth’s climate has been coddled by a steady 57-degree “Ideal, life-sustaining temperature” for “literally millions of years” is also cockamamie.
Below is a chart of the Earth’s temperature fluctuation for just the past one million years. There was a lot of temperature fluctuation before central heating, air conditioning, and SUVs came into existence. Ice ages will do that.
Those who disagree with Kerry’s clown-science are “a tiny minority of shoddy scientists… and extreme ideologues.”
Everybody else, then, must think that CO2 is a half-inch layer “way up there at the edge of the atmosphere” and the Earth’s average temperature has been maintained for “millions of years.”
So, get with the program, everybody, you don’t want to be in the loser group of shoddy scientists and ideologues.
These assertions were so ludicrous that the reporters had a field day pointing out these outrageous errors. Ha-ha, just joking.
None of the major news organizations said anything about Kerry’s blatant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of climate science.
Instead, they focused on Kerry’s line about a weapon of mass destruction and his equating climate skeptics to Flat-Earth Society members.
Googling “John Kerry climate weapon of mass destruction” generates over 1.4 million results with virtually every news organization covering that quote and not saying anything about “a very thin layer” that’s “way up there.”
Googling “John Kerry climate science” turns up nearly 8 million results.
Judging from the first several pages of hits, they are primarily about a climate group he helped form in 2019 or about his interaction with MIT-educated engineer, Rep. Thomas Massie.
Massie wondered what were Kerry’s scientific qualifications that allowed him to dismiss a climate advisory group put together in the Trump Administration.
Kerry called it a “kangaroo committee.” The media coverage was sometimes de facto cheerleading for Kerry (here, for instance).
Some skeptics and bloggers pointed out Kerry’s Jakarta stupidity, but it got no coverage at the time. Bonus points for anybody who finds mainstream media coverage of his error. Put it in the “Comments” section, please.
What would the future for the Secretary of Climate look like? The media response when Kerry gave as an embarrassing description of greenhouse gases as is possible to give was total silence.
Instead, the media focused on soundbite-worthy, but unsubstantiated, quotes. It seems the media are either so unsure of fundamental science as to be easily fooled, or they are climate activists.
So, if Kerry (or anybody else) gets a cabinet-level, climate-change appointment in a new administration, we can be sure the Fourth Estate will provide no reality check on the First.
h/t F.B.
Read more at IER
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-17--Fact Check: Sea Levels Not Rising Faster From So-Called Polar Melting

Written by Paul Homewood on .
Posted in Latest news Paul Homewood fact-checks the latest alarmist sea-level drivel by the BBC , which doesn ’ t track with reality or data .
Earth ’ s great ice sheets , Greenland and Antarctica , are now losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s thanks to warming conditions .
A comprehensive review of satellite data acquired at both poles is unequivocal in its assessment of accelerating trends , say scientists .
Between them , Greenland and Antarctica lost 6.4 trillion tonnes of ice in the period from 1992 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push up global sea-levels by 17.8mm .
Of that combined 17.8mm contribution to sea-level rise , 10.6mm ( 60 % ) was due to Greenland ice losses and 7.2mm ( 40 % ) was due to Antarctica .
The combined rate of ice loss for the pair was running at about 81 billion tonnes per year in the 1990s .
By the 2010s , it had climbed to 475 billion tonnes per year .
According to the IPCC , its mid-range simulations ( RCP4.5 ) suggested global sea-levels might rise by 53cm by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s studies show that ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland are actually heading to much more pessimistic outcomes , and will likely add another 17cm to those end-of-century forecasts .
According to the Danish Meteorological Institute ( DMI ) , melting of the Greenland ice cap contributed about 0.6mm/yr to global sea-level rise between 2003 and 2017 ( Fig 1 ) .
This rise has been largely at a constant rate , except between 2010 and 2012 .
Most of the ice loss is the result of receding glacier fronts , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have more or less maintained their area since 2012 .
( 1 ) There is , therefore , no evidence of accelerating ice loss since 2003 .
The claim that the Greenland icecap has been losing ice at a faster rate than in the 1990s is true , but it is also a red herring and has no bearing on future rates of loss .
In 2003 , scientists reported that Greenland had cooled significantly between 1958 and 2001 ( 2 ) .
Unsurprisingly during this period of cooling ice loss slowed markedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to levels generally seen in the 1930s and 40s ( Fig 2 ) , with a resultant increase in ice loss .
The rise and fall in Greenland temperatures are linked to natural cycles , including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation , which runs on a 50-60 year pattern , meaning that a colder climate will likely return in the next decade or so .
Ice cores prove that Greenland was colder during the 19thC than any era since the end of the ice age .
( 4 ) .
It is therefore highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to lose mass for the rest of this century at least .
However , it is extremely poor science to extrapolate future trends from only the upward part of a cycle .
It is even worse when it is used to project accelerating trends .
Far from ice loss increasing in the Antarctic , scientists can not even agree whether the ice cap is even shrinking at all .
According to a recent NASA study , the ice sheet has actually been growing , with snowfall in East Antarctica exceeding ice loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The NASA study shows that Antarctica gained 82 billion tons of ice per year from 2003 to 2008 .
Ultimately , of course , we have tide gauges to tell us what is happening with sea levels , and the picture is consistently clear .
Globally , sea levels have been rising steadily at a rate of about 2 mm a year since the late 19th century , with a slow down between the 1960s and ’ 90s .
And , as the IPCC ’ s latest Assessment Report pointed out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar to that between 1920 and 1950 .
( 6 ) Sea levels provide no evidence that the poles are losing ice at a faster rate than in the first half of the 20thC .
They certainly do not support the theory that ice loss will significantly accelerate in the rest of the 21stC .
Read more at Not A Lot Of People Know That

Written by Paul Homewood on Mar 17, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Paul Homewood fact-checks the latest alarmist sea-level drivel by the BBC, which doesn’t track with reality or data. But first, the drivel:
Earth’s great ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, are now losing mass six times faster than they were in the 1990s thanks to warming conditions.
A comprehensive review of satellite data acquired at both poles is unequivocal in its assessment of accelerating trends, say scientists.
Between them, Greenland and Antarctica lost 6.4 trillion tonnes of ice in the period from 1992 to 2017.
This was sufficient to push up global sea-levels by 17.8mm.
Of that combined 17.8mm contribution to sea-level rise, 10.6mm (60 %) was due to Greenland ice losses and 7.2mm (40%) was due to Antarctica.
The combined rate of ice loss for the pair was running at about 81 billion tonnes per year in the 1990s. By the 2010s, it had climbed to 475 billion tonnes per year.
According to the IPCC, its mid-range simulations (RCP4.5) suggested global sea-levels might rise by 53cm by 2100.
But the Imbie team’s studies show that ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland are actually heading to much more pessimistic outcomes, and will likely add another 17cm to those end-of-century forecasts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51846468`
FACT CHECK:
Greenland
According to the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), melting of the Greenland ice cap contributed about 0.6mm/yr to global sea-level rise between 2003 and 2017 (Fig 1).
This rise has been largely at a constant rate, except between 2010 and 2012.
Most of the ice loss is the result of receding glacier fronts, but the DMI confirmed in Nov 2018 that glaciers have more or less maintained their area since 2012.(1)
There is, therefore, no evidence of accelerating ice loss since 2003.
The claim that the Greenland icecap has been losing ice at a faster rate than in the 1990s is true, but it is also a red herring and has no bearing on future rates of loss.
In 2003, scientists reported that Greenland had cooled significantly between 1958 and 2001 (2).
Unsurprisingly during this period of cooling ice loss slowed markedly. Since 2001, temperatures have recovered to levels generally seen in the 1930s and 40s (Fig 2), with a resultant increase in ice loss.
The rise and fall in Greenland temperatures are linked to natural cycles, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which runs on a 50-60 year pattern, meaning that a colder climate will likely return in the next decade or so.
Ice cores prove that Greenland was colder during the 19thC than any era since the end of the ice age. (4).
It is therefore highly likely then that the Greenland icecap will continue to lose mass for the rest of this century at least.
However, it is extremely poor science to extrapolate future trends from only the upward part of a cycle. It is even worse when it is used to project accelerating trends.
Antarctica
Far from ice loss increasing in the Antarctic, scientists cannot even agree whether the ice cap is even shrinking at all.
According to a recent NASA study, the ice sheet has actually been growing, with snowfall in East Antarctica exceeding ice loss in West Antarctica. (5).
The NASA study shows that Antarctica gained 82 billion tons of ice per year from 2003 to 2008.
Sea Levels
Ultimately, of course, we have tide gauges to tell us what is happening with sea levels, and the picture is consistently clear.
Globally, sea levels have been rising steadily at a rate of about 2 mm a year since the late 19th century, with a slow down between the 1960s and 1990s.
And, as the IPCC’s latest Assessment Report pointed out, the recent rate of rising has been similar to that between 1920 and 1950. (6)
It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. Tide gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate during the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.
IPCC AR5 (6)
Sea levels provide no evidence that the poles are losing ice at a faster rate than in the first half of the 20thC. They certainly do not support the theory that ice loss will significantly accelerate in the rest of the 21stC.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750
References
1) DMI – http://polarportal.dk/en/news/2018-season-report/
2) Hanna & Cappelen – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2840137.stm
3) DMI – https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/dmirep20-04.pdf
4) Steffensen – https://vimeo.com/14366077
5) NASA – https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
6) IPCC AR5 – https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_observedchanges.php#node11
Read more at Not A Lot Of People Know That
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-18--Nashville-Area Tornadoes: Just Weather, Not Climate Change

Written by Chris Martz , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news As a weather forecaster , I love being able to break down and forecast extreme and/or noteworthy weather events here in the United States .
Tropical cyclones , nor ’ easters , and Arctic outbreaks are a particular interest of mine .
Yet , throughout this very mild winter with very little barotropic instability and surges of cold air in the Lower 48 , I have found myself bored as of late .
It has been a rinse , wash , and repeat kind of winter with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and little snowfall for many cities east of the Rocky Mountains , particularly along the east coast , where I dwell .
Now that spring is at our doorstep , severe weather season is about to begin .
Of course , with any type of weather that occurs , someone with zero credibility will attempt to link it to man-made climate change .
Without any disruption in the Northern Hemisphere polar vortex circulations or any significant winter storms sweeping across the Heartland or east coast , climate change activists have been rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With the coronavirus outbreak , many of them have seemingly forgotten that we are allegedly in a climate emergency – whatever that means – and have now shifted their focus to the coronavirus apocalypse .
Even so , that hasn ’ t stopped some journalists from attempting to reinvigorate the global climate breakdown .
In the early morning hours of Tuesday , March 3 , a series of tornadoes spawned from a parent supercell – rotating – thunderstorm , touched down in Tennessee resulting in at least 24 fatalities and hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Figure 1 ) , seven of them struck the middle of the state and the two worst struck the Nashville area at velocities of 60 to 70 miles per hour ( mph ) .² Just after 12:30 a.m. on March 3 , a tornadic debris signature ( TDS ) showed up on radar about one mile west of John C. Tune Airport in Nashville.¹ Tornadic debris signatures are seen when the radar beam bounces off shrapnel and other debris rather than raindrops or hail .
Just as the tornado was ravaging the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be over $ 90 million – the National Weather Service issued a tornado warning.¹ Earlier that evening , the weather service had issued tornado watches , but they were dropped due to a lack of damage reports , according to Mike Rose , a meteorologist.¹ The EF-3 tornado with 165 miles per hour ( mph ) winds went on to plow through the heart of Music City before dissipating just south of Interstate 40 ; it traveled 60.13 miles ( Figure 3 ) .² The stronger tornado was an EF-4 which caused considerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cookeville , Tennessee on an 8.21-mile path ( Figure 4 ) .² Fortunately , the tornado rapidly came to an end just before entering downtown Cookeville.² Despite the mainstream media ’ s widespread coverage of the Tennessee tornadoes , most of their pieces didn ’ t mention climate change being a factor in the severity of the tornado outbreak .
I was honestly surprised .
Even so , this didn ’ t stop some .
David Wallace-Wells , an editor and climate columnist for New York Magazine , tweeted : I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigated tornado path lengths in relation to global warming , but I ’ m going to assume that David is just making things up .
Given the complex and small-scale nature of tornadoes and their parent supercell thunderstorms , which require a variety of crucial meteorological and environmental parameters such as instability , moisture , lift , and wind shear , and vary considerably at the mesoscale level on the order of seconds to minutes , or and even occasionally hours , it would be very tough to attribute climate change to tornado @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tornado frequency assuming there have been any .
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ‘ s ( NOAA ‘ s ) Storm Prediction Center ( SPC ) agrees.³ According to their Tornado FAQ page , Just for some rational thought , the longest path ever carved by a tornado was 218 miles long during an EF-5 tornado associated with the Tri-State Tornado Outbreak of March 18 , 1925 .
That particular tornado was on the ground for 3 hours and 37 minutes .
Did global warming play a role in that tornado outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tornado Alley is concerned , the study he was alluding to ( Gensini and Brooks , 2018 ) did not specifically state that [ man-made ] climate change was responsible for the eastward shift of Tornado Alley .
Rather , the study found : The study also concluded that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding whether anthropogenic forcing of the climate system or natural internal variability may be driving these changes : ⁴ So , it is clearly evident that Wallace-Wells didn ’ t actually read the study .
If he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported what the author ’ s explicitly stated in the paper .
I ’ m not surprised , however , this inaccurate representation of findings in climate studies has , unfortunately , become commonplace in mainstream journalism .
There is also evidence that the timing of tornado season has shifted as well , however , the causes of this shift are once again unknown .
Is it natural variability ?
Is it man-made climate change ?
Is it both ?
Nobody has a clue .
A study published in the Geophysical Research Letters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2014 ) , found that peak tornado activity within Tornado Alley has become earlier by approximately seven days over the last 60 years ( Figure 6 ) .⁵ As far as actual United States tornado frequency trends are concerned , there has been little change in EF-1 to EF-5 tornadoes since relatively good records began in the 1950s ( Figure 7 ) .
Violent tornadoes , which are rated as EF-4 or EF-5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale , have been on a noteworthy decline over the last several decades ( Figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the first year on record with no reported violent tornadoes .
I contacted Dr. Roy Spencer , a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville , and he affirmed what the statistics show : In order to get a more accurate , but not perfect , representation of United States tornado climatology , I disregarded EF-0 tornadoes from the dataset .
My reasoning behind this is because tornado reports have increased substantially over the last several decades due to over a doubling of Great Plains population since 1950 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photographic evidence and video footage ; the introduction of NEXRAD Doppler radar in the 1990s ; and an overall increased effort to document tornadoes for both meteorological analysis and climate studies .
Tornadoes of EF-1 intensity , and especially EF-2 and higher , are the most likely to be documented with fairly consistent accuracy since the mid-1950s and early-1960s .
Both the United Nations ’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) and 4th U.S. National Climate Assessment ( NCA ) agree : ⁶ ⁷ “ Since 1920 , the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has increased by an order of magnitude , but this increase reflects greater effectiveness in collecting tornado reports ( Doswell and Burgess , 1988 ; Grazulis , 1993 ; Grazulis et al.
, 1998 ) .
On the other hand , severe tornadoes are not easily overlooked .
Restricting the analysis to very strong and violent tornadoes results in a much different assessment ( Figure 2.38 ) showing little long-term change , though some years like 1974 show a very large number of tornadoes.
“ “ A particular challenge in quantifying the existence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the data source : rather than measurements , the occurrence of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms is determined by visual sightings by eyewitnesses ( such as “ storm spotters ” and law enforcement officials ) or post-storm damage assessments .
The reporting has been susceptible to changes in population density , modifications to reporting procedures and training , the introduction of video and social media , and so on .
These have led to systematic , non-meteorological biases in the long-term data record.
” As an aspiring meteorologist myself , I am by no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , I am in solid agreement with almost every scientist that mankind is responsible for at least some of the warming observed globally since around 1950 .
While I do not think climate change is a serious threat to humanity , I do think it ’ s a serious issue that needs to be discussed within the scientific community .
One of the things I love about science is being able to debate things , do research , and explore the unknown .
Extreme weather has always been around as far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes back .
Ridiculous and/or sometimes extreme claims made by a select few scientists , politicians , and even on occasion , the media are usually based on climate model projections , not actual real-world observations .
Those who choose to blame every single weather event , or so it seems , on man-made climate change are not only a roadblock for the progress of our scientific understanding of the issue , they ’ re just practicing a scientifically meaningless self-fulfilling prophecy .
[ 1 ] Cappucci , Matthew .
“ How the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday.
” The Washington Post .
WP Company , March 3 , 2020. https : //www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/03/03/how-deadly-destructive-tornadoes-ravaged-nashville-tuesday/ .
[ 3 ] Edwards , Roger .
“ The Online Tornado FAQ ( by Roger Edwards , SPC ) .
” The Online Tornado FAQ ( by Roger Edwards , SPC ) .
NOAA SPC , April 19 , 2018. https : //www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/index.html .
[ 4 ] Gensini , Vittorio A. , and Harold E. Brooks .
“ Spatial Trends in United States Tornado Frequency.
” npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 1 , no .
1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
[ 5 ] Long , John A. , and Paul C. Stoy .
“ Peak Tornado Activity Is Occurring Earlier in the Heart of ‘ Tornado Alley.
’ ” Geophysical Research Letters 41 , no .
17 ( October 2014 ) : 6259–64 .
https : //doi.org/10.1002/2014gl061385 .
[ 6 ] Folland , C.K.
, T.R .
Karl , J.R. Christy , R.A. Clarke , G.V .
Gruza , J. Jouzel , M.E .
Mann , J. Oerlemans , M.J. Salinger and S.W .
Wang , 2001 : Observed Climate Variability and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The Scientific Basis .
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [ Houghton , J.T.
, Y. Ding , D.J .
Griggs , M. Noguer , P.J .
van der Linden , X. Dai , K. Maskell , and C.A .
Johnson ( eds. )
] .
Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , United Kingdom and New York , NY , USA , 881pp .
( PDF ) [ 7 ] Kossin , J.P. , T. Hall , T. Knutson , K.E @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Waliser , and M.F .
Wehner , 2017 : Extreme storms .
In : Climate Science Special Report : Fourth National Climate Assessment , Volume I [ Wuebbles , D.J.
, D.W. Fahey , K.A .
Hibbard , D.J .
Dokken , B.C .
Stewart , and T.K .
Maycock ( eds. )
] .
U.S .
Global Change Research Program , Washington , DC , USA , pp .
257-276 , doi:10.7930/J07S7KXX .
Chris Martz is a soon-to-be meteorologist and runs the website Awesome Weather Facts and Chris Martz Weather .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our weather , and forecasting .

Written by Chris Martz, guest post on Mar 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As a weather forecaster, I love being able to break down and forecast extreme and/or noteworthy weather events here in the United States. Tropical cyclones, nor’easters, and Arctic outbreaks are a particular interest of mine.
Yet, throughout this very mild winter with very little barotropic instability and surges of cold air in the Lower 48, I have found myself bored as of late.
It has been a rinse, wash, and repeat kind of winter with inland Appalachian storm tracks, mild temperatures, and little snowfall for many cities east of the Rocky Mountains, particularly along the east coast, where I dwell.
Now that spring is at our doorstep, severe weather season is about to begin. Of course, with any type of extreme weather that occurs, someone with zero credibility will attempt to link it to man-made climate change.
Without any disruption in the Northern Hemisphere polar vortex circulations or any significant winter storms sweeping across the Heartland or east coast, climate change activists have been rather quiet over the last couple of months.
With the coronavirus outbreak, many of them have seemingly forgotten that we are allegedly in a climate emergency – whatever that means – and have now shifted their focus to the coronavirus apocalypse.
Even so, that hasn’t stopped some journalists from attempting to reinvigorate the global climate breakdown.
In the early morning hours of Tuesday, March 3, a series of tornadoes spawned from a parent supercell – rotating – thunderstorm, touched down in Tennessee resulting in at least 24 fatalities and hundreds of injuries.¹
Among the ten reported across Tennessee (Figure 1), seven of them struck the middle of the state and the two worst struck the Nashville area at velocities of 60 to 70 miles per hour (mph).²
Figure 1. “March 2-3, 2020 Tornado Outbreak Map” － NWS Nashville.
The Nashville and Cookeville Tornadoes
Just after 12:30 a.m. on March 3, a tornadic debris signature (TDS) showed up on radar about one mile west of John C. Tune Airport in Nashville.¹
Tornadic debris signatures are seen when the radar beam bounces off shrapnel and other debris rather than raindrops or hail.
Figure 2. “A slice through the storm’s radar data shows a “debris ball” at ground level. The tornado’s corkscrew updraft high into the storm can be seen. (Matthew Cappucci/GR2 Analyst).” － Washington Post‘s Capital Weather Gang.
Just as the tornado was ravaging the airport – where damages are estimated to be over $90 million – the National Weather Service issued a tornado warning.¹
Earlier that evening, the weather service had issued tornado watches, but they were dropped due to a lack of damage reports, according to Mike Rose, a meteorologist.¹
The EF-3 tornado with 165 miles per hour (mph) winds went on to plow through the heart of Music City before dissipating just south of Interstate 40; it traveled 60.13 miles (Figure 3).²
Figure 3. Nashville tornado map － NWS Nashville.
The stronger tornado was an EF-4 which caused considerable damage to Putnam County between Baxter and Cookeville, Tennessee on an 8.21-mile path (Figure 4).² Fortunately, the tornado rapidly came to an end just before entering downtown Cookeville.²
Figure 4. Cookeville tornado map －NWS Nashville.
Did Climate Change Play A Role?
Despite the mainstream media’s widespread coverage of the Tennessee tornadoes, most of their pieces didn’t mention climate change being a factor in the severity of the tornado outbreak.
I was honestly surprised. Even so, this didn’t stop some. David Wallace-Wells, an editor and climate columnist for New York Magazine, tweeted:
Tornadoes are getting longer and more destructive thanks to climate change, and “tornado alley” has moved 500 miles east in just 30 years, so disasters that once struck communities in Texas and Oklahoma familiar with the threat are now hitting unprepared places much further east. https://t.co/Wbt4MAcPvR — David Wallace-Wells (@dwallacewells) March 3, 2020
I’m not aware of any studies that have investigated tornado path lengths in relation to global warming, but I’m going to assume that David is just making things up.
Given the complex and small-scale nature of tornadoes and their parent supercell thunderstorms, which require a variety of crucial meteorological and environmental parameters such as instability, moisture, lift, and wind shear, and vary considerably at the mesoscale level on the order of seconds to minutes, or and even occasionally hours, it would be very tough to attribute climate change to tornado path length changes, let alone, tornado frequency assuming there have been any.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s (NOAA‘s) Storm Prediction Center (SPC) agrees.³ According to their Tornado FAQ page,
“Climate models cannot resolve tornadoes or individual thunderstorms. They can indicate broad-scale shifts in three of the four favorable ingredients for severe thunderstorms (moisture, instability and wind shear), but as any severe weather forecaster can attest, having some favorable factors in place doesn’t guarantee tornadoes. Our physical understanding indicates mixed signals–some ingredients may increase (instability), while others may decrease (shear), in a warmer world. The other key ingredient (storm-scale lift), and to varying extents moisture, instability and shear, depend mostly on day-to-day patterns, and often, even minute-to-minute local weather.” – NOAA SPC: The Online Tornado FAQ, by Roger Edwards.
Just for some rational thought, the longest path ever carved by a tornado was 218 miles long during an EF-5 tornado associated with the Tri-State Tornado Outbreak of March 18, 1925.
That particular tornado was on the ground for 3 hours and 37 minutes. Did global warming play a role in that tornado outbreak? Probably not.
As far as Tornado Alley is concerned, the study he was alluding to (Gensini and Brooks, 2018) did not specifically state that [man-made] climate change was responsible for the eastward shift of Tornado Alley. Rather, the study found:
“Negative tendencies of tornado occurrence have been noted in portions of the central and southern Great Plains, while robust positive trends have been documented in portions of the Midwest and Southeast United States.” – Spatial trends in United States tornado frequency (Gensini and Brooks, 2018)
Figure 5. While the most tornadoes reported in the U.S. still occur in the Plains, there has been a slight decline in the frequency with a larger increase relative to what is considered “normal” along the Mississippi River. –Gensini and Brooks (2018).
The study also concluded that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding whether anthropogenic forcing of the climate system or natural internal variability may be driving these changes:⁴
“At this point, it is unclear whether the observed trendsin tornado environment and report frequency are due to natural variability or being altered by anthropogenic forcing on the climate system.“ – Spatial trends in United States tornado frequency (Gensini and Brooks, 2018)
So, it is clearly evident that Wallace-Wells didn’t actually read the study. If he had done so, he would have accurately reported what the author’s explicitly stated in the paper.
I’m not surprised, however, this inaccurate representation of findings in climate studies has, unfortunately, become commonplace in mainstream journalism.
There is also evidence that the timing of tornado season has shifted as well, however, the causes of this shift are once again unknown.
Is it natural variability? Is it man-made climate change? Is it both? Nobody has a clue.
A study published in the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), Long and Stoy (2014), found that peak tornado activity within Tornado Alley has become earlier by approximately seven days over the last 60 years (Figure 6).⁵
Figure 6. “Plot of peak tornado activity for the heart of Tornado Alley. The Julian day that corresponds to peak tornado activity plotted for each 10-year moving window by variable type for the region, with linear trendlines. The years on the x-axis represent the last year of the associated 10‐year moving average (e.g., 1963 represents 1954–1963).” －Long and Stoy (2014).
As far as actual United States tornado frequency trends are concerned, there has been little change in EF-1 to EF-5 tornadoes since relatively good records began in the 1950s (Figure 7).
Figure 7. U.S. annual tornado count, excluding EF-0’s; 1954 － 2020.
Violent tornadoes, which are rated as EF-4 or EF-5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, have been on a noteworthy decline over the last several decades (Figure 8). In fact, 2018 was the first year on record with no reported violent tornadoes.
I contacted Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and he affirmed what the statistics show:
“The incidence of strong to violent tornadoes in the U.S. has gone down 50% since statistics began in the 1950s. The limiting factor in strong tornado formation is a cold air mass, not warmth, otherwise, the tropics would be filled with tornadoes, which is not the case.“ – Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D.
Figure 8. U.S. annual violent tornado (EF-4 or EF-5) counts; 1954 － 2020.
In order to get a more accurate, but not perfect, representation of United States tornado climatology, I disregarded EF-0 tornadoes from the dataset.
My reasoning behind this is because tornado reports have increased substantially over the last several decades due to over a doubling of Great Plains population since 1950, and therefore increased public awareness; more photographic evidence and video footage; the introduction of NEXRAD Doppler radar in the 1990s; and an overall increased effort to document tornadoes for both meteorological analysis and climate studies.
Tornadoes of EF-1 intensity, and especially EF-2 and higher, are the most likely to be documented with fairly consistent accuracy since the mid-1950s and early-1960s.
Both the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and 4th U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) agree:⁶ ⁷
“Since 1920, the number of tornadoes reported annually in the United States has increased by an order of magnitude, but this increase reflects greater effectiveness in collecting tornado reports (Doswell and Burgess, 1988; Grazulis, 1993; Grazulis et al., 1998). On the other hand, severe tornadoes are not easily overlooked. Restricting the analysis to very strong and violent tornadoes results in a much different assessment (Figure 2.38) showing little long-term change, though some years like 1974 show a very large number of tornadoes.“ – IPCC TAR Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, WG1, Chapter 2, Observed Climate Variability and Change, Section 2.7 “A particular challenge in quantifying the existence and intensity of these events arises from the data source: rather than measurements, the occurrence of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms is determined by visual sightings by eyewitnesses (such as “storm spotters” and law enforcement officials) or post-storm damage assessments. The reporting has been susceptible to changes in population density, modifications to reporting procedures and training, the introduction of video and social media, and so on. These have led to systematic, non-meteorological biases in the long-term data record.” – NCA4, Chapter 9, Section 9.3
Closing Remarks
As an aspiring meteorologist myself, I am by no means a denier of man-made climate change. Indeed, I am in solid agreement with almost every scientist that mankind is responsible for at least some of the warming observed globally since around 1950.
While I do not think climate change is a serious threat to humanity, I do think it’s a serious issue that needs to be discussed within the scientific community. One of the things I love about science is being able to debate things, do research, and explore the unknown.
Extreme weather has always been around as far as documentation – official or unofficial – goes back.
Ridiculous and/or sometimes extreme claims made by a select few scientists, politicians, and even on occasion, the media are usually based on climate model projections, not actual real-world observations.
Those who choose to blame every single weather event, or so it seems, on man-made climate change are not only a roadblock for the progress of our scientific understanding of the issue, they’re just practicing a scientifically meaningless self-fulfilling prophecy.
REFERENCES
[1] Cappucci, Matthew. “How the Deadly, Destructive Tornadoes Ravaged Nashville on Tuesday.” The Washington Post. WP Company, March 3, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/03/03/how-deadly-destructive-tornadoes-ravaged-nashville-tuesday/.
[2] “March 2-3, 2020 Tornadoes and Severe Weather.” National Weather Service. NOAA’s National Weather Service, March 12, 2020. https://www.weather.gov/ohx/20200303.
[3] Edwards, Roger. “The Online Tornado FAQ (by Roger Edwards, SPC).” The Online Tornado FAQ (by Roger Edwards, SPC). NOAA SPC, April 19, 2018. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/index.html.
[4] Gensini, Vittorio A., and Harold E. Brooks. “Spatial Trends in United States Tornado Frequency.” npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 1, no. 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0048-2.
[5] Long, John A., and Paul C. Stoy. “Peak Tornado Activity Is Occurring Earlier in the Heart of ‘Tornado Alley.’” Geophysical Research Letters 41, no. 17 (October 2014): 6259–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl061385.
[6] Folland, C.K., T.R. Karl, J.R. Christy, R.A. Clarke, G.V. Gruza, J. Jouzel, M.E. Mann, J. Oerlemans, M.J. Salinger and S.W. Wang,
2001: Observed Climate Variability and Change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer,
P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA, 881pp. (PDF)
[7] Kossin, J.P., T. Hall, T. Knutson, K.E. Kunkel, R.J. Trapp, D.E. Waliser, and M.F. Wehner, 2017: Extreme storms. In: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 257-276, doi:10.7930/J07S7KXX.
Chris Martz is a soon-to-be meteorologist and runs the website Awesome Weather Facts and Chris Martz Weather. He regularly writes about the climate, our weather, and forecasting.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print