By P Gosselin
As Germany’s electricity and natural gas prices soar, a wave of companies – some having a long tradition – are filing insolvency. Many midsize companies rely on natural gas as a source of energy, but prices have multiplied since early this year.
Blackout News here reports toilet paper maker Hakle has filed for insolvency, citing “increased energy costs”.
“Tenfold increase in gas and electricity prices”
Others include shoe retailer Görtz, who cite low sales as consumers cut back on their discretionary spending, and automobile supplier Dr. Schneider. Steel producer ArcelorMittal in Hamburg und Bremen are also following.
“With a tenfold increase in gas and electricity prices, which we had to accept within a few months, we are no longer competitive in a market that is 25% supplied by imports. We see an urgent need for political action to get energy prices under control immediately,” said Reiner Blaschek, CEO of ArcelorMittal Germany (Financial Market World).
Another industry sector facing extreme hardship is the bakery industry, which relies heavily of affordable energy. According to Blackout News: “For bakeries, the energy crisis is now worse than the Corona pandemic, according to industry sources. ‘We have the problem as a micro baker that we have to adjust our prices to the raw material and energy prices, of course, which also burdens the customer, if he is also a bit tighter on cash,’ says an affected baker from Heilbronn.”
One baker in our local area has seen his monthly gas bills go from 3000 euros earlier this year to 11,000 euros!
“Severe and long-lasting recession”
The wave of insolvencies has just begun, and is “picking up speed”, writes Blackout News. “What we are seeing now is just the tip of an iceberg. Increased energy prices are affecting all industries, whether directly, as in the case of steel mills and bakeries, or indirectly, as in the case of shoe retailer Görtz. If politicians do not take countermeasures here, Germany will fall into a severe and long-lasting recession, with mass unemployment and a massive loss of prosperity.”
Previous thread on this:
Mike Maguire
September 13, 2022 9:09 am
If the market needs an amount of energy = 10……..
When does 2 + 2 = 10?
2 + 2 +(bogus promises on paper) +(huge lobby money) +(crony capitalism) +(corrupt politicians) +(record subsidies) +(misled environmentalists/media)= GREEN ENERGY!
The problem when you persist with the green dream equation above is that the amount of the REAL amount of green energy will always be =4.
The additions in the equation add lots of incentive/enrichment for HAVING green energy but they don’t contribute to REAL energy and there will ALWAYS be a deficit in the real world.
Then there’s the cost in the US……..a realistic estimate of 433 trillion to electrify the entire grid/power everything with solar, wind and batteries. This is 20 times the GDP in the US.
Green energy = Boondoggle
Previous threads here on this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/13/study-climate-change-is-making-people-angrier-online/
Mike Maguire
September 13, 2022 11:43 pm
So that’s why we witnessed widespread world peace during the Little Ice Age(-:
Previous to that, during The Medieval Warm Period, the world was dominated by hatred and anger! There were constant widespread wars caused by evil people, who were driven by the
very warm temperatures.
As soon as the global temperature dropped below the anger tipping point, at the start of the Little Ive Age, all wars ended and people from every country……race, creed, religion and gender, hugged each other, held hands and broke out into an uncontrolled chorus of Kumbia.
Mike Maguire
Reply to Mike Maguire
September 14, 2022 10:50 am
Kumbia = Kumbaya (my Lord)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_eWUOYiWVo
Who also sang this awesome song before?
Mike Maguire
September 14, 2022 9:40 am
“So how do we begin to change minds?”
They would actually need to apply the complete opposite of many of their current tactics based on reasons stated below………which would require the change to come from that source but here are some good suggestions(some are a bit repetitive)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
Reply to Mike Maguire
September 14, 2022 2:02 pm
Many of us make it a top priority to be good stewards of the planet while protecting life on it. Mischaracterizing us to elevate themselves to a moral high ground, especially by prominent activist hypocrites that gobble up 20 times more natural resources than the people they lecture to is offensive.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/15/global-decarbonization-negative-agricultural-impacts/
Consider, for example, the fact that fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil) presently account for approximately 84% of all global energy production and 63% of global electricity production. By legislating these resources into oblivion without a sufficient supply of alternative resources to replace them, such policies are creating scarcity in the market, which scarcity will undoubtedly result in higher energy prices. Consequently, any commodity or product downstream of energy production will be impacted by higher costs—ergo we have at least one significant downside to enacting CO2 emission reduction schemes.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the agricultural sector of the economy, which relies on low-cost energy to produce food and other products necessary to sustaining life on the planet. As the costs to produce agricultural products increase, those costs are passed on to the consumer, thereby reducing disposable household income, which reduction also disproportionately burdens the poor.
In recent months we have all experienced the sour taste of this unfortunate chain of events to one degree or another as we have dealt with rising gas prices that helped contribute to inflated food prices. Yet that experience represents only the tip of the iceberg compared to what is coming if CO2 emission reduction polices are not reversed and altogether abandoned.
Conclusion
There is a clear downside to pricing CO2 emissions. It is not only detrimental throughout multiple sectors of the economy, but at increasingly ambitious levels it leads to trade-offs with food security and human health. Unfortunately, it will probably take a much deeper trip down the CO2 emission reduction rabbit hole than we are presently witnessing before society feels the true pain of these schemes and wises up to stop it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
September 15, 2022 8:18 pm
Thanks very much for the wonderful article!
Craig Idso is an elite authority on this topic!
I don’t know of a place with more comprehensive empirical data on plants and related topics!
Related discussions:
NEW: Dutch farmers and nitrogen :
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86882/
Another secret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019
Let us go back to natural science…
«The energy is the basis of the civilisation (see point 1 in Smalley’s list). So, the starting point for the debate is whether anthropogenic CO2 emissions can be reduced to zero by 2050. As said in the first question, the plain answer is: no.
What we see, both extraterrestrial and geological-geophysical forces are changing forever and dynamically, independently of CO2 and Man: this is evidenced both by the Earth’s history and by monitoring ongoing natural processes. Al Gore used to say that the climate science is settled, but he is wrong, because science is never settled. However, we do have a few mile stones, as summarized in CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration: 1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming, 2. Warming is far slower than predicted, 3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models, 4. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth, 5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters, 6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.»
There are hardly any researchers like you who openly speak, but why?
«The vast majority of researchers have a terribly narrow field of interest, and readily accept summary findings from more distant fields. It is completely understandable. And many of them don’t even realize that these summaries can be easily fashioned. Compliance with the guidelines has an established and even incredibly sophisticated rewarding system. The final result is an easier career path. The institutional systems have already surrendered, only the hardest researchers resist. Notice that only retired researchers tend to talk about such delicate issues. The situation of young people is even more complicated, because they were educated in the mainstream atmosphere.»
Mike Maguire
September 16, 2022 9:29 am
Thanks for sharing!
Truth telling scientists like this will just be condemned and labelled as deniers.
Only people that already know the truth and are able to recognize it will pay attention because the others are trained/conditioned to ignore deniers making statements like this and believe only the manufactured narratives with religious type faith.
Mike Maguire
September 20, 2022 4:18 pm
RADIATIVE FORCING BY CO2 OBSERVED AT TOP OF ATMOSPHERE FROM 2002-2019
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf
“The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report predicted 0.508±0.102 Wm−2RF resulting from this CO2 increase, 42% more forcing than actually observed. The lack of quantitative long-term global OLR studies may be permitting inaccu-racies to persist in general circulation model forecasts of the effects of rising CO2 or other greenhouse gasses.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Profound: Smoking Guns!! Proof with accurate 2 decade long measurement of the actual amount of radiative forcing caused by CO2 of 1 irrefutable reason for WHY global climate models continue to be too warm. Climate emergency is really about social justice and brainwashing people. Even MORE confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming. Models clearly too warm yet incredibly programmed to get even HOTTER! Now, even more confirmation why the models are too warm. August 2020
Mike Maguire
Reply to John Shewchuk
September 21, 2022 4:02 pm
John,
The UN was on this for years before 1992!
For instance, the story below from 1989 shows the same false narratives, using junk science that have continually failed, that we hear today.
When you go to the1st link of this story, you will note the headline/title (that I pasted below) is gone. Several years ago, they deleted it so that it wouldn’t show up in searches.
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN Associated Press June 29, 1989:
https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
2nd link with the title:
The United Nations created the IPCC(InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change) as the world’s authority on man made climate change………so that they could hijack climate science to accomplish their agenda.
Their regular reports are used for believers of climate crisis religion, similar to how Christians use the New Testament (-:
Many climate scientists work for the government and most of the grant money to fund climate research targets climate change PROBLEMS. When applying for a grant, guess who will get funded first
One of the first things that the IPCC did was REWRITE CLIMATE HISTORY.
On face value, this sounds delusional/impossible but some of us watched them do it.
They did it to wipe out the Medieval Warm Period that was this warm 1,000 years ago and eliminate consideration of the 100+ previous studies that showed that this warming is NOT completely unprecedented and has to be caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/88287/#88297
We now call the building block for all life, CO2 (a beneficial gas which is greening the planet, with it’s booming biosphere and increasing food for most creatures) ……pollution.
Mike Maguire
September 21, 2022 10:10 pm
How did the polar bear survive the Holocene climate OPTIMUM?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
“The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).
Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions that were warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites for which quantitative estimates have been obtained, local temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher during the optimum than now. Northwestern North America reached peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, but the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled eastern Canada. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than now.[9] Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than now”
Mike Maguire
September 21, 2022 10:55 pm
Agree on this being junk science.
It’s like they abolished the law of photosynthesis because of the key positive contributor CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/23/un-climate-inaction-violates-human-rights/
"States that fail to protect individuals under their jurisdiction from the adverse effects of climate change may be violating their human rights under international law,” Tigroudja added.
In the same decision, the Committee indicated that despite Australia’s series of actions, such as the construction of new seawalls on the four islands that are expected to be completed by 2023, additional timely and appropriate measures were required to avert a risk to the Islanders’ lives, since without robust national and international efforts, the effects of climate change may expose individuals to a violation of their right to life under the Covenant.
As remedies, the Committee asked Australia to compensate the indigenous Islanders for the harm suffered, engage in meaningful consultations with their communities to assess their needs, and take measures to continue to secure the communities’ safe existence on their respective islands."
To suggest that Australia’s 1% annual contribution to global CO2 rise has somehow caused the changes to island geography locals are experiencing, which the UNHRC ruled were Australia’s fault, in my opinion is an utter absurdity."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
September 23, 2022 9:24 pm
According to the United Nations in 1989, this island should have been “wiped off the face of the earth” a long time ago, along with similar flat island nations by “ocean levels rising up to 3 feet”.
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN Associated Press June 29, 1989:
https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.
″Ecological refugees will become a major concern”
++++++++++++++++
They are completely ignoring the much, MUCH better than expected outcome. They should be extremely grateful that the actual predicted crisis is still a very long way off and that Australia is building flood walls well before anything close to the busted predictions happen.
“The new Boigu seawall is a practical response delivered by all levels of government working together to address the effects of climate change and the threat of inundation for our Torres Strait communities,” Mr Wyatt said.
The federal and Queensland governments, along with the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, are rolling out a $40 million coastal protection infrastructure program across five islands under Australia’s National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy.”
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do? – JM Keynes
Climate Policy is in crisis.
It’s time for a re-think.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/22/50-reasons-to-re-think-climate-policy/
Heard on All Things Considered
metmike: One of the wimpiest hurricane seasons in recent decades and of course this reduces their opportunities to sensationalize when possible........and this is one of them to blame on climate change by NPR.
I love most of their programming but they are living in a make believe weather/climate/biology/agronomy world when reporting on the fake climate crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes
The List of Florida hurricanes encompasses approximately 500 tropical or subtropical cyclones that affected the state of Florida. More storms hit Florida than any other U.S. state,[1] and since 1851 only eighteen hurricane seasons passed without a known storm impacting the state. Collectively, cyclones that hit the region have resulted in over 10,000 deaths, most of which occurring prior to the start of hurricane hunter flights in 1943. Additionally, the cumulative impact from the storms totaled over US$216.1 billion in damage (2018 dollars), primarily from Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Michael in the 1992, 2017, and 2018 seasons respectively.
Note on the list below that 11 of the strongest 14 hurricanes in history occurred BEFORE Climate Change.
When you look at empirical weather/climate/biological/agronomy data, instead of seeing a climate crisis, we see a scientific climate optimum for life on this greening planet.
| Source: HURDAT,[5] Hurricane | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mph | km/h | ||||
| Rank | Hurricane | Season | Wind speed | ||
Strongest landfallingtropical cyclones in the U.S. state of Florida | |||||
| 1 | "Labor Day" | 1935 | 185 | 295 | |
| 2 | Andrew | 1992 | 165 | 270 | |
| 3 | Michael | 2018 | 160 | 260 | |
| 4 | "Florida Keys" | 1919 | 150 | 240 | |
| Charley | 2004 | ||||
| 6 | "Miami" | 1926 | 145 | 230 | |
| "Okeechobee" | 1928 | ||||
| Donna | 1960 | ||||
| 9 | "Homestead" | 1945 | 130 | 215 | |
| "Fort Lauderdale" | 1947 | ||||
| "Florida" | 1948 | ||||
| "Florida" | 1949 | ||||
| King | 1950 | ||||
| Irma | 2017 | ||||
Meteorologist Tom Sater from CNN 10 minutes ago:
"I wouldn't be surprised to see some places in Florida get 30 inches of rain tomorrow"
He must know a secret that the rest of us don't know.
The narrow strip of bright yellow in the epi-center of the rainfall forecast below is 15 inches.
7 Day Total precipitation below:
http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.govcdx /qpf/p168i.gif?1530796126
The pocket of very warm waters off the SW coast of FL likely did play a big role in how strong Ian is this morning at 155 mph!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89131/#89285
Here's our biggest reason for the much stronger than expected hurricane on Wednesday morning:
The pocket of very warm water off the southwest coast of Florida that fueled Ian's intensification overnight/very early am Wednesday!
Cooler temps farther north, closer to the predicted track several days ago, along with more wind shear would have resulted in a weaker hurricane.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89131/#89138
Latest frozen images below for future discussions. The ones above update constantly.
We should keep in mind, the golden rule of climate extremes:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/88256/
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-golden-rule-of-climate-extremes.html
The Golden Rule
Considering the substantial confusion in the media about this critical issue, let me provide the GOLDEN RULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES. Here it is:
The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability.
Or to put it a different way, the larger or more unusual an extreme, the higher proportion of the extreme is due to natural variability.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Climate change could not have caused a pocket of warm water to form in that one location, just like it's not causing the very cool water in the tropical Pacific/La Nina.
It was natural variation. It does contribute to the slightly warmer AVERAGE temps in the oceans, however.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/28/claim-rising-global-temperatures-point-to-widespread-drought/
UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
More frequent and longer-lasting droughts caused by rising global temperatures pose significant risks to people and ecosystems around the world – according to new research from the University of East Anglia (UEA).
++++++++++++++++++
Mike Maguire
September 28, 2022 7:13 am
Models programmed to get an extreme outcome for entirely political reasons.
Why else would they use +4 deg. C? Who actually thinks that could ever be possible?
Empirical and historical evidence shows that drought increases in colder climates.
We live on a planet that’s 70% covered by water. If you want to best transport that moisture so that it falls on land areas, increase evaporation and precipitable water. An increase of 1 deg. C has increased the amount of water vapor that the air can hold by 7%.
They could make a case that those warmer temps would increase extreme rain events and blame that on climate change but this is junk science using models to be used for politics not authentic science.
Interesting graph – Fraction of the Globe in Drought: 1982-2012
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/22/interesting-graph-fraction-of-the-globe-in-drought-1982-2012/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/26/fossil-fuels-are-the-greenest-of-energy-sources/
Mike Maguire
September 28, 2022 5:18 pm
This is one of the most profoundly truthful and underappreciated articles ever presented at WUWT and belongs in the Hall of Fame.
The mischaracterization of fossil fuels as pollution because of political agenda, crony capitalism and self serving, personal enrichment schemes is the biggest fraud perpetrated on the world in history………by a wide margin.
It’s a beneficial gas and building block for all life. The science is indisputable. Greenhouse growers cherish its key role in photosynthesis by boosting levels to 1200 ppm(almost 3X the level in the atmosphere that’s supposedly dangerous).
The replacement for them, for example wind turbines are the energy from environmental hell! Half of the human race has had its ability to use objective, critical thinking to apply authentic science conditioned out of them.
Instead, they go to sources that tell them what they want to read and hear vs fact checking. Scientists sincerely using the authentic scientific method continue to get fewer and fewer.
Instead the path forward is defined by group think and following mainstream manufactured narratives. The path of least resistance and highest personal/professional rewards.
Death by GREENING!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
Another secret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39215/
Twenty-Five Industrial Wind Energy Deceptions
https://www.masterresource.org/droz-john-awed/25-industrial-wind-energy-deceptions/
(Fake) Green Energy Scores a 76X ROI for Their Lobbying Efforts
https://www.transparencyusa.org/article/green-energy-lobby-roi
Mike Maguire
September 29, 2022 11:16 am
Indisputable evidence that Ian was only a cat. 2 hurricane.
Suddenly, Ian is the 4th strongest hurricane in Florida history?
NO IT WASN’T!
Here, let me PROVE it wasn’t. Not even close to a top 10 hurricane for Florida!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89131/#89321
Mike Maguire
Reply to Nicholas McGinley
September 29, 2022 6:30 pm
“I am 30 miles inland.”
“Yesterday, I had what must have been gusts over 120 mph, and hours of wind between 80 and 100.”
Appreciate your reporting Nicholas. One would think that if this went on for hours, that there would be at least 1 reporting station that showed anything like that.
“A sustained wind in a hurricane means one-minute-average maximum sustained winds at 10 m above the surface. Not a wind gust/spike higher in the wind.
Highest wind GUSTS reported below.
A reminder, we hear/read that this hurricane made landfall with 150 mph SUSTAINED winds. It was still being referred to as having 90 mph sustained winds at 11pm, over 6 hours after landfall, when I couldn’t find sustained winds greater than 50 mph at even one reporting station.
The first source below was from reports along the coastline that had the HIGHEST wind gusts of the event.
The 2nd source includes highest wind gusts inland. Again, NOT sustained winds but the peak wind that spiked MUCH higher ABOVE sustained winds used to calculate the intensity of hurricanes.
The empirical data below in the form of measurements/observations comes from extremely reliable sources that serve us 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with accurate weather information.
There is no reason to think that all those instruments were missing something on such a large scale that somehow, dodged them and only happened in between them because of some unknown flaw.
Keep in mind that the reports below were the HIGHEST wind gusts, not the AVERAGE wind gusts or even average sustained winds, which were obviously much lower.
The 2nd link was 15+ hours after the hurricane made landfall. More than enough time for the highest winds to have been measured and reported.
The NWS stated it well last evening. “Dozens of reports of Wind Gusts of Hurricane force( 74 mph or greater) across Southwest Florida.
I agree completely with that!”
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89131/#89323
Mike Maguire
September 29, 2022 6:58 pm
I should also add that this is not intended to bash the NHC. They are greatly under appreciated and have saved 10’s of thousands of lives with their extremely informative and timely reports.
Meteorologists like myself would never be able to do our jobs effectively without their assistance.
I flew into Hurricane Gloria with their meteorologists in a hurricane hunter in September 1985 and am extremely grateful from a personal standpoint.
This is intended to make a specific, authentic point about a massive flaw in how they/we record and communicate wind speeds of hurricanes.
They use a technique to measure wind speed which is independent of land based instrumentation so they can estimate wind speeds over data sparse oceans.
To be consistent, they continue using that technique when hurricanes are over land……….even when much more accurate surface measurements are available from instruments just above the ground that tell us what the wind is……..not estimate it.
This has been going on for many decades. The disparity between NHC estimated winds and actual land instrument winds is very well known. However, in 4 decades of following hurricanes, the disparity between these 2 different methods for obtaining winds this time, with Hurricane Ian was twice as great as any other hurricane that I can remember.
CNN and others have been calling hurricane Ian a 1 in 1,000 year weather event from the rain.
Suddenly, 1 in 1,000 year events are happening very frequently, thanks to the new terminology of the fake climate crisis's new narrative this year.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/29/weather/hurricane-ian-1000-year-rainfall-climate
Radar estimates suggest well over 12 inches of rain fell in just 12 to 24 hours in a wide swath from Port Charlotte to Orlando. In some of the hardest-hit locations, Hurricane Ian produced 1-in-1,000-year rainfall, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
A 1,000-year rainfall event is one that is so intense it’s only seen on average once every 1,000 years – under normal circumstances. But extreme rainfall is becoming more common as the climate crisis pushes temperatures higher. Warmer air can hold more moisture, which loads the dice in favor of historic rainfall.
metmike: Here we go again!
The Rainiest Days in Florida History
https://www.directac123.com/blog/the-rainiest-days-in-florida-history/
Florida’s precipitation record for 24 hours was Yankeetown in Northwest Florida, which accrued 38.7 inches on September 5, 1950. This is also the highest known storm-total maximum related to any tropical cyclone which impacted Florida. Furthermore, it was also the second highest 24-hour rainfall total in the history of the United States and was the result of Hurricane Easy. It remained the national highest 24-hour rainfall record until Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/florida-deluge-was-all-time-record/
More than 15 inches of rain in one day was aided by a warmer atmosphere that can hold more moisture
metmike: Last I checked, 2014 was 8 years ago and 1950 was 72 years ago and 38.7 inches of rain is almost double the top amount from Ian.
One would think that a 1 in 1,000 year rain event for 24 hours would do better than 50% of the state record for 24 hours.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
metmike: Too late...........the media and fake climate crisis advocates have already changed the definition.
1 in 1,000 year rain events = Any extremely heavy rain event with excessive flooding and they are ALL caused by climate change.
It even applies to events that take place as frequently as every 25 years!
4th time this Summer for a 1 in 1,000 year rain event
Started by metmike - Aug. 22, 2022, 7:17 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/88256/
++++++++++++++++++++
Again, this is what applies:
We should keep in mind, the goldenrule of climate/weather extremes as stated by Cliff Mass below:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-golden-rule-of-climate-extremes.html
The GoldenRule
Considering the substantial confusion in the media about this critical issue, let me provide the GOLDENRULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES. Here it is:
The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability.
Or to put it a different way, the larger or more unusual an extreme, the higher proportion of the extreme is due to natural variability.
++++++++++++++++
This also applies:
For every 1 deg. C we warm the atmosphere, it has a 7% increased capacity to hold moisture based on the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation
The Clausius–Clapeyron relation, named after Rudolf Clausius[1] and Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron,[2] specifies the temperature dependence of pressure, most importantly vapor pressure, at a discontinuous phase transition between two phases of matter of a single constituent. Its relevance to climatology is the increase of the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere by about 7% for every 1 °C (1.8 °F) rise in temperature.
++++++++++++++++++++
However, the oceans have warmed a bit less than that so the amount of extra precipitable water in a hurricane like this, is probably on the order of +5% because of climate change. All things being equal, that would add 5% more rain to the totals of a hurricane like Ian.
That means that this same system 100 years ago, when the Gulf of Mexico water temperature was slightly cooler would have caused a maximum of 17 inches instead of the isolated 18 inch maximum amounts we saw this time...........an inch of extra rain because of climate change.
Climate change did not cause the event.
Climate change did not double the rainfall.
Climate change likely added 5% more rain or around an inch more.
https://www.axios.com/2022/10/05/biden-hurricane-ian-climate-change
One of the weakest/slowest hurricane seasons in decades .......Ian is the I named tropical system (we ran out of letters in the alphabet before!) and you just knew that as soon as a big hurricane hit........it would be absolute proof of a climate crisis.
metmike: One would think that cutting CO2 would be a no brainer if it prevented events like this but here's the reality check and if you believe their hoowee.
1. Fossil fuels are feeding half the world right now with the combination of solid/liquid fertilizers for the soil and CO2 as an atmospheric fertilizer.
2. Eliminating them completely tomorrow and going back to the old climate would cause over 1 billion people to starve to death within 3 years and food rationing to triple food prices and only the rich could afford to eat.
Another secret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39215/
3. You want to give up fossil fuels? You have no idea what you're really giving up. They won't tell you this either.
Life without petroleum based products: 6,000 products made with petroleum. Killing Coal. Fossil fuels and fertilizer. Biden praises high gasoline prices.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84689/ 2022
4. How about the cost?
Charles Payne on the economy and in particular, inflation: Biden's intentional war on fossil fuels energy disaster started by Obama. Why anti environmental and bird/bat killing wind and solar can NEVER come close to replacing fossil fuels. The cost = 433 Trillion!. Government forcing anti environmental wind/solar on the market. Stifling new investments in crude and natural gas. 2022
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85535/
5. This is a climate optimum for life. Polar bears have increased 30% since 2005 and so on. It was 2 deg. C warmer than this in the higher latitudes 5,000-9,000 years ago with LESS Arctic ice.
DeathbyGREENING!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
Climate Reality/Energy-4 new additions
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
++++++++++++++++++
Neil Frank was the director of the NHC for many years and knows a thing...or 100 about hurricanes!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Frank
Hurricane Ian “rapidly transformed from a relatively weak storm into a strong one, [a] phenomenon that has become more common” due to climate change.
So reported the New York Times in its daily email newsletter. It also said, “Ian embodies several of the major hurricane trends in recent years, as the world copes with the effects of climate change. It’s a strong storm — and strong storms are becoming more common in the Atlantic Ocean, as its surface water has warmed.”
The prayers of a nation go out to the people in Florida devastated by Hurricane Ian, particularly those in the Ft. Myers area. Ian was indeed one of the most powerful and destructive hurricanes ever to strike southwest Florida.
Unfortunately, the tragedy is compounded by climate-change activists who are using it for political purposes. They blame Ian on global warming. Headlines in the mainstream media claimed Ian was the fourth-strongest hurricane ever to hit Florida and that its strong winds were caused by global warming. Both statements are wrong.
The strength of a hurricane can be determined in two ways. First, you can fly into the storm and measure the winds. Second, you can drop a barometer into the eye and determine the pressure. There is an excellent relationship between wind and the pressure in the eye. The lower the pressure, the stronger the winds. If you know one, then you can calculate the other. For decades before the 1990s, pressure was the main factor in determining the strength of a hurricane.
Using pressure, Ian was not the fourth-strongest hurricane in Florida history but the tenth. The strongest hurricane in U.S. history moved through the Florida Keys in 1935. Among other Florida hurricanes stronger than Ian was another Florida Keys storm in 1919. This was followed by the hurricanes in 1926 in Miami, the Palm Beach/Lake Okeechobee storm in 1928, the Keys in 1948, and Donna in 1960. We do not know how strong the hurricane in 1873 was, but it destroyed Punta Rassa with a 14-foot storm surge. Punta Rassa is located at the mouth of the river leading up to Ft. Myers, where Ian made landfall.
Note well: all these hurricanes occurred before SUVs, so CO2 and the warming it purportedly causes were not their cause.
This is an extremely long read that I haven't finished but has dozens of profound nuggets explaining where we are and why we are in the fight to kill fossil fuels and destroy the biggest gift to humankind in history.
Featured at:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/07/a-comprehensive-roundup-of-official-energy-madness/
At this website, I try to give readers a steady flow of the latest instances of official energy madness, the ongoing efforts of our politicians, bureaucrats, academics and journalists to undermine and destroy the energy infrastructure that is the basis for our prosperity and our comfortable lives. But if you just read these examples one by one, however outrageous they may be individually, you can lose track of the overall picture. In the big picture, our government, aided and abetted by academics and journalists, is conducting a full scale war on the energy sector of the economy.
Now comes along a guy named Joseph Toomey, who has published a relatively long piece at RealClearEnergy with the title “Energy Inflation Was By Design.”
Made this comment the other day but seems it disappeared. MM is one of the most knowledgeable people anywhere on climate. I have said before he needs to be on national debates with green wackos. He has forgotten more on this subject than most people ever knew. And can express the facts and counter the wacko claims. He is a climate treasure and we should not waste his knowledge on this subject.
Thanks for the awesome compliment, mcfarm!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
1. In other words, an electrical supply system based on today’s PV technologies cannot be termed an energy source, but rather a non-sustainable energy sink or a non-sustainable NET ENERGY LOSS. The methodology recommended by the expert working group of the IEA appears to yield EROI levels which lie between 5 and 6, (see Section 4.1), but which are really not meaningful for determining the efficiency, sustainability and affordability of an energy source. The main conclusions to be drawn are:
The result of rigorously calculating the “extended ERoEI” for regions of moderate insolation levels as experienced in Switzerland and Germany proves to be very revealing. It indicates that, at least at today's state of development, the PV technology cannot offer an energy source but a NET ENERGY LOSS, since its ERoEIEXT is not only very far from the minimum value of 5 for sustainability suggested by Murphy and Hall (2011), but is less than 1.
Our advanced societies can only continue to develop if a surplus of energy is available, but it has become clear that photovoltaic energy at least will not help in any way to replace the fossil fuel. On the contrary we find ourselves suffering increased dependence on fossil energy. Even if we were to select, or be forced to live in a simpler, less rapidly expanding economic environment, photovoltaic technology would not be a wise choice for helping to deliver affordable, environmentally favourable and reliable electricity regions of low, or even moderate insolation, since it involves an extremely high expenditure of material, human and capital resources.
Research and development should however, be continued in order in future to have more efficient conversion from sunlight to electricity and a cheaper, more reliable PV-technology offering increased efficiency and a longer, failure-free lifetime. The market will then develop naturally.
metmike: In case the points are not clear, this study found that PV solar energy systems in areas with only moderate amounts of sunshine(all higher latitudes and regions with a great deal of clouds) actually use up more energy in production and maintenance than they produce.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/kumar2/images/f1big.gif
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/csp-and-pv-differences-comparison/
Conclusion
Nowadays, there are two technologies that dominate the solar power industry: the Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and Photovoltaic (PV). These two may be similar in that they both use the sun in order to generate power. But beyond that, they are as different as can be.
To start with, CSP makes use of the sun’s radiation to heat a liquid substance that will then be used to drive a heat engine and drive an electric generator. Meanwhile, PV uses light through the “photovoltaic effect” — the absorbing of light which then leads to the breaking of the electrons — to generate an electric current.
Both CSP and PV have their own pros and cons. In terms of energy storage and efficiency, CSP is superior since it can store energy with the help of TES technologies. PV, on the other hand, is incapable of producing or storing thermal energy since they directly generate electricity. Aside from that, it’s also difficult to store electricity.
Although CSP is obviously the more efficient one in terms of energy saving, that doesn’t mean it’s the best option. Between the two, PV is cheaper, so energy investors are more inclined to use it than CSP. In other words, despite its advantages, CSP isn’t the favoured one.
However, all these debates — of which is better the option — are pointless because they don’t have to compete against each other. In fact, the world will be a better place if they actually work together. Hopefully, one of these days, a new technology for solar power will arise, and it will be a hybrid of the two.
Whatever the case, both CSP and PV are helpful in promoting the solar industry. They both made solar power possible, and they will be the reason why solar power will be here to stay.
The rise in the popularity of solar power energy comes with the expansion of the technologies associated with it. After all, once people realized that the sun can be used to generate electricity, they would understandably find ways on how to do it. And so far, there are two technologies that are used nowadays to generate solar power. These are the Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and Photovoltaic (PV).
++++++++++++++++++++
Excellent additional information/explanation links used by the source above:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89923/
Energy security-China
Tokyo | China says it will increase coal production in the next three years as it seeks to insulate itself from global energy shortages and rising prices by bolstering its reserves of commodities.
China’s state planner, the National Development and Reform Commission, said while China would continue to invest heavily in wind and solar, annual coal production would rise to 4.6 billion tonnes in 2025 compared to 4.1 billon tonnes last year.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Energy Insecurity-United States
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48696
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Coal Report
U.S. coal production totaled 535 million short tons (MMst) in 2020, a 24% decrease from the 706 MMst mined in 2019 and the lowest level of coal production in the United States in any year since 1965.
The insane thing about this is that the US has more coal reserves than any country by a wide margin(24%):
THAT's where the most of our energy security is! Many thousands of times more energy than what's in the SPR!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_reserves
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
KillingCoal
14 responses |
Started by metmike - Nov. 21, 2021, 10:57 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/78168/
+++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++
metmike: The real green energy are fossil fuels greening up the planet with beneficial CO2. Fossil fuels are their own battery. Fake green energy is NOT clean energy!
Our clean energy needs to be sourced responsibly right from the get-go.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/renewable-energy-dirty-mining/
Mineral extraction levies an incredible cost on the communities and ecological landscape of a place. Material mined for renewable energy fuels the violation of human rights, pollutes local water sources, and often destroys wildlife.
metmike: Diffuse and intermittent fake green energy sources, like wind, the energy source from environmental hell killing millions of birds/bats are advancing rapidly using crony capitalism and governmental funded support that steals tax payers money and discourages reliable fossil fuels. The need for massive batteries to store these energy sources is raping the earth with massive mining plays tearing up many times more of the planet than fossil fuels. Destroying ecosystems and landscapes.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Saving the planet? From what?
We're having a climate optimum that's greening up the planet BECAUSE OF the increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
Wind turbines and fake green energy is what's wrecking the planet.
https://www.masterresource.org/droz-john-awed/25-industrial-wind-energy-deceptions/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89748/#89749
Time to rethink this insanity!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/88832/#89156
HEY, MIKE
IF YOU EVER GET BORED WITH "STATS" OR "FACTS"...YOU MIGHT ENJOY THIS. LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq15eF5vCbI
THE THINGS PEOPLE COME UP WITH SIMPLY AMAZE ME HAHAHAHAHAAA
Mike Maguire
October 24, 2022 10:14 am
Multiply that by 10 million+ people to get the deaths which will occur from replacing fossil fuels that are greening up the planet with things like, diffuse, intermittent wind: The energy source from environmental hell…….tearing up the earth to mine, destroying landscapes and ecosystems, while killing millions of birds and bats that last 25 years, then have to be replaced.
That’s actually what these people want?
No, they just don’t know this is what they’ll get!
++++++++++++++++++
And fertilizing crops from the air, CO2 and from the soils which supports billions of humans right now:
Dutch farmers and nitrogen :
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86882/
Fertilizer/Natural Gas Prices. Energy crisis in Europe because of unreliable fake green/anti environmental energy!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/88331/
Another secret about fossil fuels:
Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzCn69iASGo
BILL GATES IS AT 15:10, IN THAT 16 MINUTE VIDEO
No Jean, the Biden administration is NOT causing hurricanes and wildfires. This guy's positions are extreme, wacko, conspiracy theory nuts.
