WolfStock1 Posted December 2 Share Posted December 2 29 minutes ago, chubbs said: The chart I posted has global numbers. The US is lagging. We have large import duties on solar, and EVs from China making our costs higher than the rest of the world. Import duties on Chinese EVs are irrelevant - they are not legal to drive in the US. Electricity prices in the US are amongst the lowest in the world, so it's not that. https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/?srsltid=AfmBOoqfk-WgVGYRIpGDuUwvfazUcrDxpPwXNEyFvUDUiI8qOR-Dq7J8 China does indeed have lower electricity prices; with many factors including that allowing them to have continued growth in EV sales (though it appears to be slowing there some as well). Amongst that is that they don't have as much low-hanging fruit of fossil as we do (oil), extremely low wages (about 1/3 of US), and a regime that generally doesn't care about environmental or social conditions; instead with a "build at all costs" policy. Do we really want that in the US? Germany is probably a good example of policy gone bad, with their aggressive push towards solar and wind. This has resulted in extremely high electricity prices, and stalled EV sales (though there appears to be an uptick this year at least). Gemany generally has about 2.8M car sales per year, so they've topped out at roughly 30% being electric. They've picked the low-hanging fruit. Keep in mind that these to-date numbers are in a policy regime where EV sales have been heavily subsidized. (that includes China BTW) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted December 2 Share Posted December 2 e 9 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said: Import duties on Chinese EVs are irrelevant - they are not legal to drive in the US. Electricity prices in the US are amongst the lowest in the world, so it's not that. https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/?srsltid=AfmBOoqfk-WgVGYRIpGDuUwvfazUcrDxpPwXNEyFvUDUiI8qOR-Dq7J8 China does indeed have lower electricity prices; with many factors including that allowing them to have continued growth in EV sales (though it appears to be slowing there some as well). Amongst that is that they don't have as much low-hanging fruit of fossil as we do (oil), extremely low wages (about 1/3 of US), and a regime that generally doesn't care about environmental or social conditions; instead with a "build at all costs" policy. Do we really want that in the US? Germany is probably a good example of policy gone bad, with their aggressive push towards solar and wind. This has resulted in extremely high electricity prices, and stalled EV sales (though there appears to be an uptick this year at least). Gemany generally has about 2.8M car sales per year, so they've topped out at roughly 30% being electric. They've picked the low-hanging fruit. Keep in mind that these to-date numbers are in a policy regime where EV sales have been heavily subsidized. (that includes China BTW) Its not surprising that EV use is progressing unevenly. Transition costs for charging and other infrastructure is high. Subsidization varies. The key for EVs is battery technology which is proceeding rapidly: different lithium chemistries, sodium, and solid state. These new technologies have: lower cost, better safety, faster charging, longer battery life etc. EVs are getting better and cheaper. Now that EVs are becoming as cheap as combustion cars subsidies are becoming less important. The genie is out of the bottle. With the withdrawal of policy suppport, the US will lag; but, global penetration will continue to ramp quickly. EVs are very attractive to countries that import oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfStock1 Posted December 2 Share Posted December 2 A pretty devastating article in WSJ today on the negative effects of the renewable energy push on the European economy: https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/europes-green-energy-rush-slashed-emissionsand-crippled-the-economy-e65a1a07 While the existence of warming is undeniable (e.g. see new record low Arctic ice extent in other thread), this illustrates how hard of a problem this is to solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frontranger8 Posted December 4 Share Posted December 4 Nature Retracts Study Predicting Catastrophic Climate Toll - The New York Times https://share.google/xRSyFAwbx54BMddiW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted December 4 Share Posted December 4 4 hours ago, frontranger8 said: Nature Retracts Study Predicting Catastrophic Climate Toll - The New York Times https://share.google/xRSyFAwbx54BMddiW Below are a press release and a Q+A on the retracted paper. The problems with the original paper have been addressed and a new paper has been submitted. How do the results in the corrected version compare to the original: "The revisions did not significantly alter the central estimates, but did increase the uncertainty range they sat within. Correcting the underlying data for Uzbekistan and introducing additional controls to make the model more robust to outlier data and anomalies resulting from the transition between data sources changed the global median income loss from 19% (18.8%) to 17% (17.4%). Accounting for spatial correlation using ‘Conley standard errors’ did not affect the median, but did increase the uncertainty ranges, with the likely range of damages by mid-century increasing from 11-29% to 6-31%." https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/authors-retract-nature-study-on-economic-damages-from-climate-change-will-resubmit-for-peer-review https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/questions-and-answers-nature-study 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfStock1 Posted December 4 Share Posted December 4 1 hour ago, chubbs said: Below are a press release and a Q+A on the retracted paper. The problems with the original paper have been addressed and a new paper has been submitted. How do the results in the corrected version compare to the original: "The revisions did not significantly alter the central estimates, but did increase the uncertainty range they sat within. Correcting the underlying data for Uzbekistan and introducing additional controls to make the model more robust to outlier data and anomalies resulting from the transition between data sources changed the global median income loss from 19% (18.8%) to 17% (17.4%). Accounting for spatial correlation using ‘Conley standard errors’ did not affect the median, but did increase the uncertainty ranges, with the likely range of damages by mid-century increasing from 11-29% to 6-31%." https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/authors-retract-nature-study-on-economic-damages-from-climate-change-will-resubmit-for-peer-review https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/questions-and-answers-nature-study Thought this bit was kind of odd: "The revised analysis shows economic damages from climate change till mid-century are substantial and outweigh the costs of mitigation" It seems the relationship of the costs shouldn't necessarily be 1:1 or anything like that. Every dollar spent on mitigation doesn't lessen the costs of CC by a dollar - it may be much less or it may be much more; and you may actually want one or the other. E.g. say the costs due to CC (generally storms - wind and flooding) end up being $500 billion in a given area over the next 25 years, if no mitigation was done. You could spend say twice that - say $1 trillion - on sea walls, stricter building codes, river flood mitigation (drainage and walls), and lessen the resulting damage costs from $500B to say $300B. Was it bad to spend the $1 trillion, since the net loss is $700B? Maybe, but maybe not if you consider that there are also lives involved; presumably less lives lost in the do-mitigate case. Looking from a strictly financial standpoint - it seems like you generally would *want* your mitigation costs to be less than the damage costs, right? This is due to the unpredictable nature of storms. If you spend more money to mitigate then the delta between the two is by definition wasted money - generally. That said - there's probably some low-hanging fruit that is worthwhile. E.g. the US built a series of flood-control dams after the big Ohio river flood in 1937; this likely ended up saving money in the long run, so that might be a case where the cost of mitigation reduced the likely cost of non-mitigation damages. Same is true for flood walls in various places - usually it's money well spent. But it's rarely a 1:1 tradeoff though; so comparing the two sets of figures seems odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted December 5 Share Posted December 5 China has shown that it is possible to ramp solar very quickly. The main constraint is factories not resources in the ground like fossil fuels. With batteries dropping rapidly in cost, the addressable market for solar has expanded significantly. The ability to cost-effectively replace fossil fuels at scale has suddenly developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbenedet Posted December 5 Share Posted December 5 This is a fantastic read on CC if you live in the New England area. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/13/12/246 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted December 5 Share Posted December 5 Our cyclical climate change is doing it's thing! United States snow cover is now the highest it’s been in 20 years on Dec 5th! The Dec 5th snow coverage is 45.4%. The only higher year on record (since 2003) was 45.7% on December 4, 2005. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted December 5 Share Posted December 5 6 minutes ago, ChescoWx said: Our cyclical climate change is doing it's thing! United States snow cover is now the highest it’s been in 20 years on Dec 5th! The Dec 5th snow coverage is 45.4%. The only higher year on record (since 2003) was 45.7% on December 4, 2005. The United States is just a small part of the northern hemisphere's cryosphere. Overall, NHem snow cover is still at a record low for the date. This is in large part due to that huge deficiency in Eastern Eurasia, some 3x the surplus in the US. Eurasian snowcover growth is at a standstill. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfStock1 Posted December 5 Share Posted December 5 2 hours ago, ChescoWx said: Our cyclical climate change is doing it's thing! United States snow cover is now the highest it’s been in 20 years on Dec 5th! The Dec 5th snow coverage is 45.4%. The only higher year on record (since 2003) was 45.7% on December 4, 2005. Weather vs climate. If a football team is down 50-0 and then scores a touchdown - you can't really say that they've turned it around and are suddenly the better team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChescoWx Posted December 5 Share Posted December 5 Some great insight on the attached link below focused on the decline of climate alarmism and a move toward climate realism - enjoy! https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/12/05/live-at-1-pm-et-good-news-climate-cult-in-decline-the-climate-realism-show-184/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted December 5 Share Posted December 5 7 hours ago, chubbs said: China has shown that it is possible to ramp solar very quickly. The main constraint is factories not resources in the ground like fossil fuels. With batteries dropping rapidly in cost, the addressable market for solar has expanded significantly. The ability to cost-effectively replace fossil fuels at scale has suddenly developed. They probably have 10 year olds building them too along with the tons of new coal plants and don't care about any environmental harm with little regulations, but yes, go China! We see how careless they were with their lab and the virus they unleashed 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted December 8 Share Posted December 8 cope^ 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted December 9 Share Posted December 9 On 12/8/2025 at 7:59 AM, A-L-E-K said: cope^ I'm not wrong. But feel free to go inspect the environmental damage they have been doing. I'm sure it is all top notch construction too like the bridge that just collapsed that was lauded just a few weeks ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted December 9 Share Posted December 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted December 10 Share Posted December 10 https://phys.org/news/2025-12-hypertropical-climate-emerging-amazon-exposing.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted Thursday at 04:17 PM Author Share Posted Thursday at 04:17 PM I put a number of papers on how climate change has affected the MJO (many thanks to @bluewave for providing links in a number of posts/threads) and used Notebook LM to generate an infographic. That infographic is based solely on the literature. It is below: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted Friday at 01:04 AM Share Posted Friday at 01:04 AM 8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said: I put a number of papers on how climate change has affected the MJO (many thanks to @bluewave for providing links in a number of posts/threads) and used Notebook LM to generate an infographic. That infographic is based solely on the literature. It is below: 1. For Dec, I recently counted the # of days that had weak MJO (amp <1) as well as strong MJO (amp of 2+) days 1974-2024: Avg # days <1/>2 MJO amp per Dec 70s: 14/1 80s: 16/1 90s: 10/3 00s: 12/7 10s: 12/5 20s: 8/7 Note how weak far outnumbered strong in the 1975-1989! And then note how the strong was almost up to weak in 2020-24! —————— 2. Jan: Due to time constraints, I just counted strong amp days 1975-2025: Avg # >2 MJO amp days per Jan 70s: 11 80s: 3 90s: 6 00s: 9 10s: 9 20s: 9 -Keep in mind that Jan has on average the strongest amp of any month, which seems intuitive. -Note that the 70s had the strongest, which may be due to randomness since there were only 5 years. - If you were to ignore the 70s, you’d see a notable progression to a higher # of strong amp days in Jan from the 80s to the 00s+. ————— 3. Feb: Like for Jan, I just counted strong amp days 1975-2025: Avg # >2 MJO amp days per Feb 70s: 4 80s: 4 90s: 5 00s: 5 10s: 9 20s: 6 One can see a slow increase of strong amp days in Feb as we move forward in time if we ignore the 2020s. ———— 4. DJF all combined shows the increase of strong amp days better: # of >2 MJO amp days per DJF 70s-80s: 11 90s-00s: 17.5 10s-20s: 23 So, per each DJF, 2010-25 had on average twice the number of strong amp MJO days as 1974-1989! Source for daily MJO amp: https://www.bom.gov.au/clim_data/IDCKGEM000/rmm.74toRealtime.txt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted yesterday at 01:13 PM Share Posted yesterday at 01:13 PM Pacific upwelling much faster at the equator than scientists thought “It turns out that equatorial upwelling in the Pacific is about 10 times faster than we previously thought,” Karnauskas said. “And this could be really important because that water rising toward the surface in the Pacific covers a huge fraction of the ocean surface, and it affects things like temperature and nutrients needed for photosynthesis.” His work, published today in the Journal of Climate, reveals the faster rate of upwelling and determines why older estimates were off. Karnauskas combed through old observations and analyzed vast amounts of new data from state-of-the-art measurement tools to get a more accurate estimate. The findings point to a key discrepancy in global climate models, which currently predict significant warming along the equator in the Pacific. This new rate may help researchers understand why they have struggled to capture key climate trends in the region. https://cires.colorado.edu/news/pacific-upwelling-much-faster-equator-scientists-thought https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/38/16/JCLI-D-24-0704.1.xml 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted yesterday at 08:22 PM Share Posted yesterday at 08:22 PM https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/15/climate/glosat-global-temperature-data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamn3 Posted 23 hours ago Share Posted 23 hours ago Perhaps this doesn’t really fit the climate change discussion, and perhaps is more of a conspiracy theory/fact. I feel the whole thing is a scam. By that I mean renewable energy, because the temperature is certainly rising there is no denying that. However I feel it has been monetized to death. All real efforts for clean and cheap energy vanishes and their engineers usually come down with a case of the dead’s. Everything we have in place is to simply make the rich richer, from solar farms to natural gas. Electric cars still run on fossil fuels for the most part. Not to mention the batteries for them and for solar power. The amount of materials, energy and pollution it takes to make wind turbine farms, they will never not be in the red. I know how much energy is needed to make steel. I worked in a melt shop in a steel mill for several years, making steel is not a clean or green process. Even when using electric arc furnaces, and if you put a blast furnace in the mix, which you will, forget about it. I just wish there was actual hope for us as a people. It seems like we will never be allowed to have an actual energy source that will not destroy the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted 20 hours ago Share Posted 20 hours ago 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted 8 hours ago Share Posted 8 hours ago Interesting new study confirming other recent studies that the cold pool in the North Atlantic is more a sign of the atmospheric patterns rather than an AMOC decline. Anthony Masiello @antmasiello.bsky.social Follow Natural variability, in low frequency states of atmospheric circulation, is becoming increasingly likely as the main explanation for the North Atlantic warming hole. Sang-Ki Lee @sklee621.bsky.social · 1mo The Atlantic's warming hole is not a sign of the AMOC weakening, a new study suggests ocean2climate.org/2025/11/12/t... The Atlantic’s ‘Warming Hole’ Isn’t What You Think: 5 Surprising Truths From New Climate Research This blog post and the “Deep Drive” podcast on a new paper “Atmosphere-driven processes in shaping long-term climate variability in Greenland and the broader subpolar North Atlant… ocean2climate.org 11:10 AM · Nov 12, 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago Just now, TheClimateChanger said: A little dated (from the spring), but I chanced upon this today and I think it's quite relevant. This lines up with what I've been seeing - the common adage "the wet get wetter" just doesn't seem to be accurately reflecting the conditions on the ground. We've now had several years in a row east of the Rockies (the last couple extending all the way to the coast) with fairly extensive drought. While annual precipitation numbers might not be too far from historical means, enhanced evapotranspiration seems to be drawing down surface and ground waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheClimateChanger Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now