“Because we need to make the science stick.”

H. Holden Thorp, writing in Science, an excerpt:

The scientific community needs to step out of its labs and support evidence-based decision-making in a much more public way. The good news is that over the past few years, scientists have increasingly engaged with the public and policy-makers on all levels, from participating in local science cafes, to contacting local representatives and protesting in the international March for Science in 2017 and 2018. Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publisher of Science) will continue to advocate for science and its objective application to policy in the United States and around the world, but we too must do more.

Scientists must speak up. In June 2019, Patrick Gonzalez, the principal climate change scientist of the U.S. National Park Service, testified to Congress on the risks of climate change even after he was sent a cease-and-desist letter by the administration (which later agreed that he was free to testify as a private citizen). That’s the kind of gumption that deserves the attention of the greater scientific community. There are many more examples of folks leading federal agencies and working on science throughout the government. When their roles in promoting science to support decision-making are diminished, the scientific community needs to raise its voice in loud objection.

I would add that, from what I have seen, efforts to “remain objective and detached” from the public discourse, even when, objectively, an individual only has the public’s interest at heart, are nearly always met by derision and dismissal by people whose interests are challenged, and, increasingly, in at least the United States, by a public which detests scholarship and expertise. Accordingly, the only path left is speaking out.

And lest readers think this is only directed towards conservatives and Republicans, there are many instances where, say, environmental progressives have departed from evidence-based, scientific considerations and knowledge. Surely not regarding climate change — although the characterization of a cliff edge in 12 years or something is obviously just wrong — but many aspects regarding plastics, potential for afforestation, and on how to implement large scale climate change mitigation and what it will cost.

Posted in American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Statistical Association, Mark Jacobson | Leave a comment

Australia: Too little, too late, and what about the future?

Or, in other words, borrowing from a bookstore in Cobargo, New South Wales: “Post-Apocalyptic Fiction has been moved to Current Affairs.”

Posted in Carbon Worshipers, climate denial, climate disruption, On being Carbon Dioxide | Leave a comment

Greta Thunberg on the BBC : Her guest edit

Also featuring:

  • Svante Thunberg
  • Sir David Attenborough
  • Mark Carney
  • Robert Del Naja
  • Maarten Wetselaar


Svante Thunberg and Greta speaking to Sir David Attenborough for the first time. Also, outgoing Bank of England chief Mark Carney on how the financial sector can tackle climate change, Massive Attack’s Robert Del Naja on reducing the music industry’s carbon blueprint, and Shell’s Maarten Wetselaar on big energy’s environmental impact.

Quoting Ms Thunberg, prompted by interviewer Mishal Husain:

MH: What would you say we should do as individuals? … What should other people do?

GT: Of course, I’m not telling anyone else that they need to stop flying or become vegan. Um, but if I were to give one advice, it would be to read up, to inform yourself about the actual science, about the situation, about what is being done and what is not being done. Because if you understand you will know what you can do yourself, and also, of course, to be an active democratic citizen, because democracy is not only on election day, it’s happening all the time. If people in general decided that this is enough, that would have to make the politicians and the people in power change their policies.

Posted in being carbon dioxide, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, bridge to nowhere, carbon dioxide, Carbon Worshipers, climate disruption, corporate responsibility, Cult of Carbon, ecomodernism, global warming, Green New Deal, greenhouse gases, Greta Thunberg, Hyper Anthropocene, investment in wind and solar energy, Juliana v United States, keep fossil fuels in ground, Mark Carney, mitigating climate disruption, On being Carbon Dioxide, Our Children's Trust, radiative forcing, Svante Arrhenius, the green century, the tragedy of our present civilization, the value of financial assets, zero carbon | Leave a comment

Why Massachusetts needs the Transportation and Climate Initiative

The Massachusetts Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) or something very much like it, perhaps stronger, is needed because of one simple reason.

The false color heatmap below shows the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions from roadways in Southern New England in 2017, based upon data from the NASA ORNL DAAC.

Period. Cannot get to the targets of the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) by decarbonizing electricity production alone, and, with NIMBYism on putting up things like solar farms and land-based wind turbines, even that’s a stretch. Moreover, next will be decarbonizing heating and cooling. Fugitive emissions from natural gas pipelines still have not been addressed.

Vehicle emissions are part of the fossil fuel infrastructure.

Posted in an uncaring American public, being carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide, Carbon Tax, Carbon Worshipers, climate change, climate disruption, ecological disruption, electricity markets, emissions, fossil fuel divestment, fossil fuel infrastructure, fossil fuels, gas pipeline leaks, Global Carbon Project, global warming, Governor Charlie Baker, keep fossil fuels in ground, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, Massachusetts, mitigating climate disruption, pollution, public health, public transport, public utility commissions, public welfare, the tragedy of our present civilization, unreason, vehicle emissions, zero carbon | Leave a comment

What it takes to explore the oceans everywhere: WHOI’s got it

Support ’em!

Posted in Association to Preserve Cape Cod, bridge to somewhere, coasts, engineering, geophysics, glaciology, ocean warming, oceanic eddies, oceanography, oceans, science, WHOI | Leave a comment

We shouldn’t forget where we are on the course towards climate disruption

We shouldn’t forget where we are on the course towards climate disruption. We shouldn’t forget we’ve already disrupted. Emissions are still increasing. This means it’s getting worse every year. It is not something which is in the future. It’s here now, and it will develop.

Professor Eric Rignot from 2014:

We have yet to apply the brakes.

Posted in Antarctica, being carbon dioxide, climate disruption, Eric Rignot, global blinding, ice sheet dynamics, icesheets, sea level rise | Leave a comment

More reasons why centralized grids and ISOs/RTOs cannot be trusted, with an afterthought

From Inside Climate News and I’m sure it’ll eventually show up at Legal Planet, where they touched the matter over a year ago:

The new rules, approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, are designed to counteract state subsidies that support the growth of renewable energy and use of nuclear power. The rules involve what are known as “capacity markets,” where power plants bid to provide electricity to the grid. The change would require higher minimum bids for power plants that receive such subsidies, giving fossil fuel plants an advantage.

The FERC order, passed 2-1, is a response to complaints from operators of coal and natural gas power plants who say that state subsidies have led to unfair competition in the grid region managed by PJM Interconnection.

Richard Glick, the panel’s lone Democrat, cast the dissenting vote and said during the commission meeting that his Republican colleagues were trying to “stunt transition to a clean energy future that states are pursuing and consumers are pursuing.”

In his written dissent, he called the order “illegal, illogical and truly bad public policy.”

Continuing, the ICN report notes:

The Trump administration has taken other high-profile steps to try to boost the coal industry, but many of them are tied up in legal challenges. The new FERC order accomplishes many of the same goals.

But FERC’s action also is likely heading to court, where opponents will argue that the regulator has overstepped its authority and is now dictating state policy.

One issue going forward is that the order has a broad definition of “subsidy,” saying this includes direct or indirect payments, concessions and rebates, among other things. Glick said the definition is so broad that it may end up affecting many more power plants than the other commissioners intended.

In the meantime, PJM has 90 days to say how it will implement the rules, and power plant operators will need to figure out what this means for them.

Such authority would not exist if the grid were not centralized. In particular, if it were instead a loose aggregation of power islands or microgrids which had substantial authority to trade among themselves, political power would not be concentrated in organizations like PJM or, for that matter, ISO-NE or the FERC.

The economic consequences of artificial propping up of coal and natural gas are pretty straightforward: They make utility-scale zero Carbon generation more expensive, disincentivizing utilities from pursuing these options. There are other disincentives being mounted in the form of public pressure against, for example, Warren Buffett’s PacifiCorp electric utility owned by Berkshire Hathaway. There, in Wyoming, PacifiCorp has filed plans to move to wind and solar and shut down coal-fired electricity generators, raising the ire of Wyoming’s pro-coal governor. (Note I originally read this at The Financial Times and would love to link and credit them, but they have a restrictive paywall.) Specifically,

PacifiCorp this year accelerated plans to install wind turbines, solar panels and battery storage, while retiring coal-fired generators in the US west. The announcement was not received well in Wyoming, which mines 40 per cent of US coal.

It is interesting, too, that businessmen as astute as Mr Buffett and PacifiCorp’s CEO, Greg Abel, seem not in the least bit worried about the intermittency which, as some diehard Carbon worshippers who defend utilities claim:

Wind and PV in large amounts are inherently unfit for purpose; they cannot supply energy as needed, nor can they decarbonize even an electric grid by themselves.

completely ignoring the reality of utility scale battery storage.

The effect, of course, will be to raise prices to consumers of electricity, something which, no doubt, as they have in Massachusetts, utilities will claim is the fault of zero Carbon upstarts. Indirectly that’s true, but only because, as with FERC, the fossil fuel worshippers cannot compete and, so, need their price floor increased to make renewables artificially expensive.

Getting generation on your own, if you own a residence and have the means, or building your own microgrid, if you are a major consumer of electricity, such as a manufacturing facility or a university campus, has a marginally higher return as a consequence of being a customer of PJM. I don’t doubt that, as a consequence, other capacity markets will be tempted to set higher floors.

This drives the dance of electricity generation and consumption in the direction of balkanization which I’ve written about previously, and which seems to be the fate of the United States energy grid. In retrospect, how else could it be, with its collective over-optimization of measures of economic growth at the expensive of other risks, those accepted by its embrace of such costs of anarchy? (The price of anarchy has been studied extensively.)

And this is why, in part, Claire and I have configured our home as we have. We are presently participants in the local grid’s marketplace, following a rubric nearly shouted by a roundtable speaker and environmental advocate at a conference I once attended, that “You should not hoard electrons”. But that is truly a value when said grid respects you in turn. If economic or environmental reasons suggest it turns out we’re not respected so much, to the degree that happens we have lots of options to minimize our participation and increase our hoarding. Yes, we are someone limited by the silly bylaws of the Town of Westwood where we live. (See Section 4.3.2.) But technology is flowing ever onwards, and there will be increasingly more options down the river, ranging from ever cheaper battery storage, to dynamic in-home digital management of electricity flows (fans don’t need high quality voltage and power), to the ability to draw power from our Tesla Model 3 back into the home, to ever more efficient solar PV panels.

This is a contest which PJM, carbon worshippers, social capital anarchists, and even FERC will lose, for economic and environmental reasons. PJM may have more coal plants. But to keep electricity inexpensive enough to support their agriculture and manufacturing, those players will either need to move, or they’ll need to microgrid, and the PJM network will have fewer customers over time.


There is proper concern regarding the relative disadvantage which people of color and low incomes have with respect to climate impacts and environmental harms. Setting aside scientific exaggerations such as quoted in the Vimeo link there,


In a recent United Nations report, experts predict only 12 years remain to prevent unimaginable global devastation.

I’m no luckwarmer, but that’s just

scientifically wrong

But, as I said, setting that aside, much more needs to be done to provide greater equalities and opportunities to reap the benefits of zero Carbon energy sources. Some of these can be had by subsidizing such energy for communities of color and low-income others, as has our Commonwealth, and more can be had by insisting that communities which consume much electricity which is otherwise generated in dirty centralized facilities, such as the generating facilities on the Mystic River, MA, reallocate some of their own public and other lands to the purpose of doing that generation in a clean manner. They otherwise put the burden of dirty impacts upon these disadvantaged communities.

But, in my opinion, the role of relatively wealthier members of our community and region should not be minimized. As noted above, there are economic forces which are trying to reset the competitive landscape, and, being entrenched, vested, and engaging in regulatory capture, these are formidable. So while no one can expect low income people and many of communities of color to fight back, people with means and purpose can do so, and it continues to be important to encourage them. That may or may not mean retaining subsidies. As implied above, abandonment of the grid would be accelerated if subsidies were withdrawn or electricity prices directed at them were increased. (In some utilities, such price increases have even been punitively targeted at solar adopters, for example.) But I think the role should be appreciated and, in particular, it is not constructive to dismiss their and, frankly, our participation as unimportant merely because we can afford it.

Posted in American Solar Energy Society, an ignorant American public, an uncaring American public, Ørsted, Berkeley Haas Energy, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, bridge to somewhere, Carbon Worshipers, children as political casualties, clean disruption, CleanTechnica, corporate litigation on damage from fossil fuel emissions, Cult of Carbon, decentralized electric power generation, decentralized energy, demand-side solutions, destructive economic development, distributed generation, ecomodernism, ecopragmatism, electric vehicles, electrical energy storage, electricity, electricity markets, emissions, energy levy, energy storage, fossil fuel infrastructure, green tech, Green Tech Media, greenhouse gases, grid defection, Hermann Scheer, Hyper Anthropocene, IEEE, investment in wind and solar energy, ISO-NE, Karl Ragabo, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, local generation, local self reliance, Mark Jacobson, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, Mathematics and Climate Research Network, Michael Bloomberg, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, population dynamics, public utility commissions, PUCs, rate of return regulation, regulatory capture, solar democracy, solar domination, solar energy, solar power, solar revolution, SunPower, the green century, the right to be and act stupid, the right to know, the tragedy of our present civilization, the value of financial assets, Tony Seba, tragedy of the horizon, utility company death spiral, Westwood, wind energy, wind power, zero carbon | Leave a comment

On odds of storms, and extreme precipitation

People talk about “thousand year storms”. Rather than being a storm having a recurrence time of once in a thousand years, these are storms which have a 0.001 chance per year of occurring. Storms aren’t the only weather events of significance which have probabilities of occurrence like these. Consider current precipitation risks for the Town of Westwood, Massachusetts, where I live:

I have highlighted events which have a 0.01 chance per year of occurring, including things like a rainfall of almost an inch in 5 minutes, or 8 inches in a day. Again, the recurrence time is not once in a 100 years. And, note, these are not based upon expected climate change, although there already is some change in the climate baked into these. These are current risks.

So what does 0.01 per year mean? Well, as Radley Horton explains in part below, think of it as rolling a dice (*) having 100 faces, and looking for the event “It rolled the number 10”.

Assuming the rolls are independent, calculating the likelihood of at least once of these events in N years is calculating the upper tail probability of a Binomial Distribution (Lesson 8, page 76).

(Figure is from Statistics How To.)

What’s that mean?

It means that, for each successive number of years, the chances of the event happening at least once is as in the following table:

number of years chance of event happening 1 or more times
1 0.010
2 0.020
4 0.039
5 0.049
8 0.077
10 0.096
15 0.140
20 0.182
25 0.222

So by the time 10 years roll by, the 0.01 event has an almost ten times greater chance of happening. If a stormwater management system in the Town of Westwood is effectively destroyed by an 8 inch rain, there’s a 1-in-10 chance of that happening in a 10 year stretch.

As climate chances, extreme precipitation events become more likely. If the 8 inch rain has a 0.01 chance per year now, it will soon have a 1-in-50 chance per year, or 0.02 per year. How does the risk table chance for that?

number of years chance of event happening 1 or more times
1 0.020
2 0.040
4 0.078
5 0.096
8 0.149
10 0.183
15 0.261
20 0.332
25 0.396

Unsurprisingly, that 1-in-10 chance takes 5 years to realize, and in 10 years there’s a slightly less than 1-in-5 chance of it happening. If the stormwater management exceedance costs $10 million to repair, that means, in the first case that there’s an expected cost per year of $100,000, and, in 10 years a million dollars. When climate changes to the 1-in-50, these expected losses double.
In the case of weather events, they may not be entirely independent. Events might “bunch up” due to ENSO or other influences. Similarly a big volcanic explosion can affect global weather for a year or two, and depress probabilities of weather events.

When estimating risks of events like these directly from data on occurrences, it’s important to note that Gaussian approximations to distributions or even Poissons will underestimate risk. What’s needed to be used is a Generalized Extreme Value distribution. Lee Fawcett in his article, “A severe forecast” in the current issue of Significance Magazine (December 2019) explains in greater detail. A good book explaining use of the GEV distribution is:

E. Castillo, A. S. Hadi, N. Balakrishnan, J. M. Sarabia, Extreme Value and Related Models with Applications in Engineering and Science, Wiley, 2005.

The R statistical programming language facility offers a number of packages for doing inference with this distribution.

(*) According to the Oxford dictionary the singular of plural dice is still “dice”, although the older “die” is acceptable.
Posted in American Meteorological Association, American Statistical Association, AMETSOC, catastrophe modeling, climate disruption, climate economics, climate education, ecopragmatism, evidence, extreme events, extreme value distribution, flooding, floods, games of chance, global warming, global weirding, insurance, meteorological models, meteorology, R, R statistical programming language, real estate values, risk, Risky Business, riverine flooding, science, Significance | Leave a comment

There’s Big Data, Tiny Data, and now Dead Data

You’ve heard of Big Data. You may have heard of Tiny Data. But now, presented in the Harvard Data Science Review, Professor Steve Stigler presents

Dead Data


S. M. Stigler, "Data have a limited shelf life", Harvard Data Science Review, November 2019.


Data, unlike some wines, do not improve with age. The contrary view, that data are immortal, a view that may underlie the often-observed tendency to recycle old examples in texts and presentations, is illustrated with three classical examples and rebutted by further examination. Some general lessons for data science are noted, as well as some history of statistical worries about the effect of data selection on induction and related themes in recent histories of science.

Keywords: dead data, zombie data, post-selection inference, history

Of particular historical interest is whether or not modern scholars can ever properly interpret classic experiments, with their defects, like the Millikan oil drop experiment, or Eddington’s measurement of light deflection to confirm General Relativity.

Also of interest is whether enough metadata about old datasets in business, such as insurance or operations, or even scientific observation, is kept to be able to properly reconstruct the provenance.

Hat tip to Professor Christian Robert for pointing out this article at his blog.

Posted in big data, dead data, statistics, tiny data | Leave a comment

Climate Adam on Greta Thunberg

Posted in #sunrise, #youthvgov, Bill Nye, bridge to somewhere, Climate Adam, climate change, climate disruption, climate mitigation, climate policy, ClimateAdam, forecasting, global warming, Greta Thunberg | Leave a comment



  • D. Engwirda, 2017: JIGSAW-GEO (1.0): Locally orthogonal staggered unstructured grid generation for general circulation modelling on the sphere, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2117-2140, doi:10.5194/gmd-10-2117-2017

and a general description at NASA. The figure below is copied from there.

Posted in climate models, climate science, fluid dynamics, geophysics, numerical algorithms, numerical analysis, numerical software | 1 Comment

ClimateAdam opines upon 45


Let it be said, apart from his so-called base, 45 is not a popular guy. Even his bud, Boris Johnson, is making moves to avoid his endorsement.

Yeah, that’s a popular, well respected guy.

Isn’t he?

Posted in Climate Adam, climate denial, climate disruption | Leave a comment

Consumption: Towards the Trillionth Tonne

(Click on figure to see a larger image. It will open in a new browser tab.)

The Trillionth Tonne

Posted in climate disruption, consumption, corporate responsibility, corporate supply chains, economic trade, global warming | Leave a comment

What you need to do

Yes, I know, this is from Orsted, a public company which, primarily, builds offshore wind farms. And, as a result, you out there (which is, frankly, an infinitesimal fraction of the world, because, basically, no one follows me), will critique me for promoting a specific company.


Think of it.

Someone has a good idea. They pursue it. They promote it. They find a way of moving it into people’s lives. Great. What do they do? They found a company which has that as its purpose.

But, oh know, say the Environmental Purists, this is now “corporate greed” and we can’t have anything to do with that. It’s not us!

So, given a group of folks, the Environmental Purists, who want to advance a cause, but, then, deny the means to achieving that, they are either masochists, or they eternally want to be guaranteed of an opposition to fight, but they can never dominate and win.

I’m sick of this nonsense, whether it be Sierra Club or Extinction Rebellion. I want answers and programs, and not sham policies which hijack the hugely important issue of climate disruption to achieve long sought social objectives. I do not say the latter aren’t important. I say holding the rest of society in ransom for their objectives is cruel, heartless, uncharitable, and downright stupid.

Posted in #climatestrike, American Solar Energy Society, an uncaring American public, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, bridge to somewhere, clean disruption, climate disruption, climate policy, decentralized electric power generation, destructive economic development, distributed generation, ecological disruption, ecological services, ecomodernism, economics, ecopragmatism, electrical energy storage, emissions, exponential growth, extended producer responsibility, finance, Friedman, South Shore Recycling Cooperative | Leave a comment

“The trouble with trees” (The Economist)

Posted in afforestation, carbon dioxide capture, climate disruption, ecological disruption, ecomodernism, global warming | Leave a comment

What we’ve done and do to ourselves

Who do you think carries most of the burden for fixing the problem?

Action. “We have work to do.” (Bill Nye)

Posted in #sunrise, #youthvgov, an ignorant American public, an uncaring American public, Anthropocene, attribution, Bill Nye, climate disruption, climate economics, climate justice | Leave a comment

A glimpse of Solar Domination

Hat tip to PV Magazine:

Highlights of Frew, Cole, Denholm, Frazier, Vincent, Margolis

  • Load and operating reserves can be met in US grid with up to 55% PV with storage
  • Power system must rapidly transition between synchronous and inverter-based generation
  • Significant curtailment is seen, with hours of >40% economic curtailment
  • Hours with very low energy prices become more frequent, up to 36% of hours


With rapid declines in solar photovoltaic (PV) and energy storage costs, futures with PV penetrations approaching or exceeding 50% of total annual US generation are becoming conceivable. The operational merits of such a national-scale system have not been evaluated sufficiently. Here, we analyze in detail the operational impacts of a future US power system with very high annual levels of PV (>50%) with storage. We show that load and operating reserve requirements can be met for all hours while considering key generator operational constraints. Storage plays an active role in maintaining the balance of supply and demand during sunset hours. Under the highest PV penetration scenario, hours with >90% PV penetration are relatively common, which require rapid transitions between predominately conventional synchronous generation and mostly inverter-based generation. We observe hours with almost 400 GW (over 40%) of economic curtailment and frequent (up to 36%) hours with very low energy prices.

(Emphasis added in the above.)


Posted in American Solar Energy Society, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, bridge to somewhere, Buckminster Fuller, clean disruption, climate economics, destructive economic development, disruption, distributed generation, EBC-NE, ecocapitalism, ecopragmatism, electrical energy storage, electricity, electricity markets, energy storage, energy utilities, FERC, fossil fuel divestment, green tech, Hermann Scheer, investment in wind and solar energy, keep fossil fuels in ground, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, photovoltaics, Sankey diagram, solar democracy, solar domination, solar energy, solar power, solar revolution, Spaceship Earth, the energy of the people, the green century, Tony Seba, tragedy of the horizon, wind energy, wind power, zero carbon | Leave a comment

On why I write this blog

I mused a bit about why I write this blog here.

Posted in science | Leave a comment

“On the road again …”

Suggested citation: Davis, Lucas. “Electrification? We Are Already On The Way“, Berkeley Haas Energy Institute Blog.​

Even without environmental incentives, the United States has moved towards greater electrification.

Note, however, that Massachusetts is not numbered amongst the Enlightened.

Posted in adaptation, Amory Lovins, Anthropocene, Berkeley Haas Energy, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, bridge to somewhere, CleanTechnica, cliamate mitigation, decentralized electric power generation, decentralized energy, electricity, electricity markets, energy utilities, global warming, greenhouse gases, greenwashing, ILSR, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, solar domination, solar energy, solar power, solar revolution | 2 Comments

Wanna buy some cheap land?

Hat tip to the Financial Times.

Posted in coastal communities, coastal investment risks, coasts, risk, sea level rise | Leave a comment

“Microplastics in the Ocean: Emergency or Exaggeration?” (Morss Colloquium, WHOI)

Update, 2019-10-28 00:34 ET

I have compiled notes from the talks above, and from the audience Q&A and documented these in a Google Jam here.

Posted in American Association for the Advancement of Science, bag bans, Claire Galkowski, coastal communities, coasts, diffusion processes, microbiomes, microplastics, NOAA, oceanic eddies, oceanography, oceans, perceptions, phytoplankton, plastics, pollution, quantitative biology, quantitative ecology, science, science education, statistical ecology, WHOI, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution | Leave a comment


A farmers’ guide to going solar.

Money crop.

Posted in agriculture, agrivoltaics, agroecology, ecopragmatism, solar democracy, solar domination, solar energy, solar power, solar revolution | Leave a comment

Sir David King (1), climate: What’s it all about, and what it will mean

Note the citing of how talent migrated from the fossil fuel industry to offshore wind energy.

Posted in climate change, climate data, climate disruption, climate economics, climate justice, climate policy, global warming | Leave a comment

“The financial crash and the climate crisis” (The New Yorker Radio Hour)

A great podcast episode.

Check out the thoughts of the late Professor Martin Weitzman as well, in “The man who got economists to take climate nightmares seriously“.

Posted in American Statistical Association, an uncaring American public, Anthropocene, being carbon dioxide, bifurcations, bridge to nowhere, Buckminster Fuller, Carbon Cycle, carbon dioxide, Carbon Worshipers, catastrophe modeling, climate change, climate disruption, climate economics, climate grief, climate justice, climate mitigation, climate nightmares, climate policy, climate zombies, coastal investment risks, flooding, floods, Florida, global warming, global weirding, home resale values, Hyper Anthropocene, objective reality, oceans, Robert Young, Scituate, shorelines, Sir David King, temporal myopia, the tragedy of our present civilization, the value of financial assets, unreason | Leave a comment

House Speaker Pelosi

Update, 2019-10-20, 00:37 EDT

And it’s not only Speaker Pelosi, but Admiral William McRaven, and then General Joseph Votel.

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

two kinds of resilient solar-powered machines

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

The CO2 Coalition: A cabal of digital denial

That’s climate denial. And the CO2 Coalition is all over it. Led by 45‘s climate toady Dr William Happer, it is funded by a cast of the usual suspects:

These funds make their way to (at least some of) their members:

William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 by Peabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition. [8]

“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email. [114]

As part of a 2018 case where he provided supporting testimony for the side of fossil fuel companies against cities suing for damages related to climate change, Happer was required to disclose any funding he had received in the past. In these disclosures, Happer estimated the amount he received for the 2015 Minnesota testimony as “$10,000 to $15,000, though he does not recall the precise number.” [100], [101]

Happer also noted he had received $1,000 for a speech on climate change at the Heritage Foundation in 2017. [101]

advised by representatives of the climate clowns:

and having prominent members of the denialosphere and luckwarmosphere on their roster:

including a recent visitor in the comments to this blog.

Mr Burton has also opposed measures for coastal protection in North Carolina on political grounds:


and, based upon his own vitae, continues to exaggerate his credentials, claiming there “… the following year [I] wrote this paper, published in the journal Natural Hazards: doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0159-8″ when, actually, all he did was submit a letter of comment to its editors:


Generally “publication” means peer review. This one was not.

Consider the source, and the funding! And the tie to both the Kochs and “beloved” President 45.

Oh, and he won’t appear here again. I have kept (most of) his comments so you can see his style.

Posted in American Association for the Advancement of Science, an ignorant American public, climate activism, climate change, climate denial, climate disruption, CO2 Coalition, David Burton, luckwarmism, William Happer | Leave a comment

Acceleration in rise of Global Mean Sea Level (Yi, Heki, Qian, from 2017)

Most impressive!

This is Figure 2 of S. Yi, K. Heki, A. Qian, “Acceleration in the global mean sea level rise: 2005-2015”, 2017, Geophysical Research Letters:

See also their data supplement.

Of particular interest to me is their use of a Fan filter in order to, in the authors’ words, “restore the leakage of the land signals to the oceans”.

Yi, Heki, and Qian check on the closure of their fits:

and the robustness of their acceleration estimates:

Posted in anomaly detection, attribution, carbon dioxide, climate change, climate data, climate disruption, geophysics, global warming, ocean warming, oceanography, oceans, sea level rise | 21 Comments

Eminent Domain, the Natural Gas Act, and Explosive Methane Pipelines

Courts are beginning to question the appropriateness of eminent domain as applied to rights of way for pipelines.

Damn about time.

Posted in American Petroleum Institute, an uncaring American public, Anthropocene, bridge to nowhere, carbon dioxide, CleanTechnica, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, emissions, explosive methane, FERC, fossil fuel divestment, Governor Charlie Baker, greenhouse gases, keep fossil fuels in ground, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, methane, mitigating climate disruption, natural gas, petroleum, pipelines, politics, public utility commissions, public welfare, PUCs, regulatory capture, rights of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth, stranded assets, the tragedy of our present civilization, tragedy of the horizon, utility company death spiral, zero carbon | Leave a comment

ClimateAdam: “Ice, Sea & Climate Change: The new IPCC report”

Posted in Climate Adam, climate change, climate disruption, global warming, IPCC | Tagged | Leave a comment