WSJ: Fires and Blackouts Made in Sacramento


Newsom tries to deflect blame, but PG&E is the agent of his policies.

After again shutting power to hundreds of thousands this week, California’s utility PG&E disclosed Thursday that it had discovered a broken jumper cable by the ignition site of a wildfire blazing across Sonoma County. The company has warned of more blackouts this weekend and perhaps for the next decade as it refurbishes its aging grid.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to deflect political blame. “It’s about dog-eat-dog capitalism meeting climate change. It’s about corporate greed meeting climate change. It’s about decades of mismanagement,” Mr. Newsom declared. But Democrats for years have treated PG&E as their de facto political subsidiary. The wildfires and blackouts are the direct result of their mismanagement.

The state Public Utilities Commission is in charge of enforcing state safety laws and regulations, which can carry penalties of up to $50,000 per violation per day. Yet PG&E received no safety fines related to its power-grid management over the last several years. The commission has instead focused on enforcing the Legislature’s climate mandates.

State law mandates that utilities obtain 33% of electric generation from renewables such as wind and solar by 2020 and 60% by 2030. Utilities must spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to reduce the cost of green energy for low-income households. PG&E has prioritized political obeisance over safety.

In 2018 PG&E spent $509 million on electric discounts for low-income customers in addition to $125 million for no-cost weatherization and efficiency upgrades for disadvantaged communities. Utilities also receive allowances from the state’s cap-and-trade program—$7.5 billion since 2012—to pay for other “ratepayer benefits” that reduce emissions.

Posted in Climate, Climate Change, Uncategorized | 3 Comments

CA: No Global Warming Last 5 Years

The Climate Reference Network (CRN) was established by NOAA to provide climate measurements free from urban influences; thus, they are located in remote rural locations. Specific information is HERE. The data set used in this analysis came from this NOAA CRN website.

Here are two siting example:

Screen Shot 2019-08-17 at 9.42.40 AMScreen Shot 2019-08-17 at 9.45.09 AM

The CRN was established in 2004 to counter the urban influence that was distorting temperatures of the existing networks of weather stations. The CRN network has 143 stations in the United States, A station map is HERE. California hosts seven CRN sites, all located in remote areas well away for urban influences.

    • Bodega Bay
    • Redding
    • Merced
    • Santa Barbara
    • Yosemite
    • Fallbrook
    • Stovepipe Wells

A Sacramento TV station (CBS News) has been reporting on climate change impacts in California. These scary reports indicate temperatures are continuing to rise and will soon exceed the two degrees Celsius threshold established by the UN in the Paris Accord. How accurate are these news reports? Is California continuing to warm?

The most accurate source of surface measurement data is the CRN.  I downloaded the California CRN data set in Excel format. After cleaning up the data I loaded it into a Python program to visualize the data. Below are the results of my analysis.

Let’s start with Redding at the upper end of the Sacramento Valley, which shows slight warming after 2012.


Then I plotted just the last five years, and I cannot see any significant warming.


Next, let’s look at Bodega Bay, one of my favorite places to visit on the California Coast. The graphic shows some significant warming:


But, what about the last five years at Bodega Bay? The graphic shows some significant cooling over the previous five years.


Next up is Merced in the Central Valley. Use to live near Merced in the 1960s, and it was hot in the summer. Only a slight increase in temperature.


And, in the last five years not much warming if any at all:


Now to the Southern CA Coast at Santa Barbara where the CRN observed about two degrees of warming.


That Santa Barbara warming declined by a degree in the last five years.


How about in the mountains? The Yosemite CRN shows some warming over the last ten years.


No Yosemite warming in the last five years:


Fallbrook is in Southern California and has experience about one degree of warming in ten years.


However, it has cooled in the last five years.


Finally, let’s check the warmest place in California Death Valley, Stovepipe Wells is only slight warming than ten years ago.


And, in the last five years, only slight warming.


In the previous five years, California has not had any significant warming or a slight cooling according to the Climate Reference Network.  It appears the local Sacramento TV stations are promoting a climate change agenda that cannot be supported by the facts. More fake news?


Posted in California, Climate Change, History, Local Media, Weather | 1 Comment

What if there is no Climate Emergency?

Screenshot 2019-09-25 at 12.10.57.png

What if there is no Catastrophic Risk from Man-made Global Warming?

What if Man-made Climate Change really is a non-problem?

But what if there is a Global Cooling Catastrophe in the offing?

via What if there is no Climate Emergency ?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Death of American Citizenship

Tribalism, the erosion of the middle class, and de facto open borders are turning Americans into mere residents of a particular North American region between Mexico and Canada.

Heritage Foundation

Posted in Uncategorized

Climate Fraud Exposed

Tony Heller in this video exposes the climate fraud in the US Climate Assessment.

Posted in Climate Change | 2 Comments

Plummeting September 15 Temperatures In The US

Reposted here:

Something happened after 1955 which caused September 15 temperatures to plummet in the US. If climate science was a real science, academics would want to understand this rather than bury it.

Temperatures have decreased as CO2 has increased.

Posted in Analysis, Climate, Weather

Climate Models Are Non-scientific Junk

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections

Patrick Frank

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University, Menlo Park, CA, United States

The reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient theory. The resulting long-wave cloud forcing (LWCF) error introduces an annual average ±4 Wm–2 uncertainty into the simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. This annual ±4 Wm–2 simulation uncertainty is ±114 × larger than the annual average ∼0.035 Wm–2 change in tropospheric thermal energy flux produced by increasing GHG forcing since 1979. Tropospheric thermal energy flux is the determinant of global air temperature. Uncertainty in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux imposes uncertainty on projected air temperature. Propagation of LWCF thermal energy flux error through the historically relevant 1988 projections of GISS Model II scenarios A, B, and C, the IPCC SRES scenarios CCC, B1, A1B, and A2, and the RCP scenarios of the 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, uncovers a ±15 C uncertainty in air temperature at the end of a centennial-scale projection. Analogously large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.

Full Paper is HERE.

Pat Frank makes the scientific argument that “climate models cannot predict future global air temperatures; not for one year and not for 100 years. Climate model air temperature projections are physically meaningless. They say nothing at all about the impact of CO₂ emissions, if any, on global air temperatures.

H/T to Watts Up With That


Posted in Analysis, Climate Change, History | 4 Comments