Climate Initiatives

Scientists Say: Net Zero Wins Nearly Zero Results

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Chris Morrison explains at his Daily Sceptic article Net Zero Will Prevent Almost Zero Warming, Say Three Top Atmospheric Scientists.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Recent calculations by the distinguished atmospheric scientists Richard Lindzen, William Happer and William van Wijngaarden suggest that if the entire world eliminated net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 it would avert warming of an almost unmeasurable 0.07°C. Even assuming the climate modelled feedbacks and temperature opinions of the politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the rise would be only 0.28°C. Year Zero would have been achieved along with the destruction of economic and social life for eight billion people on Planet Earth. “It would be hard to find a better example of a policy of all pain and no gain,” note the scientists. [Paper is Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase  by Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden.]

In the U.K., the current General Election is almost certain to be won by a party that is committed to outright warfare on hydrocarbons. The Labour party will attempt to ‘decarbonise’ the electricity grid by the end of the decade without any realistic instant backup for unreliable wind and solar except oil and gas. Britain is sitting on huge reserves of hydrocarbons but new exploration is to be banned. It is hard to think of a more ruinous energy policy, but the Conservative governing party is little better. Led by the hapless May, a woman over-promoted since her time running the education committee on Merton Council, through to Buffo Boris and Washed-Out Rishi, its leaders have drunk the eco Kool-Aid fed to them by the likes of Roger Hallam, Extinction Rebellion and the Swedish Doom Goblin. Adding to the mix in the new Parliament will be a likely 200 new ‘Labour’ recruits with university degrees in buggerallology and CVs full of parasitical non-jobs in the public sector.

Hardly any science knowledge between them, they even believe that they can spend billions of other people’s money to capture CO2 – perfectly good plant fertiliser – and bury it in the ground. As a privileged, largely middle class group, they have net zero understanding of how a modern industrial society works, feeds itself and creates the wealth that pays their unnecessary wages. All will be vying to save the planet and stop a temperature rise that is barely a rounding error on any long-term view.

They plan to cull the farting cows, sow wild flowers where food
once grew, take away efficient gas boilers and internal combustion
cars and stop granny visiting her grandchildren in the United States.

On a wider front, banning hydrocarbons will remove almost everything from a modern society including many medicines, building materials, fertilisers, plastics and cleaning products. It might be shorter and easier to list essential items where hydrocarbons are absent than produce one where they are present. Anyone who dissents from their absurd views is said to be in league with fossil fuel interests, a risible suggestion given that they themselves are dependent on hydrocarbon producers to sustain their enviable lifestyles.

Unlike politicians the world over who rant about fire and brimstone, Messrs Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden pay close attention to actual climate observations and analyses of the data. Since it is impossible to determine how much of the gentle warming of the last two centuries is natural or caused by higher levels of CO2, they assume a ‘climate sensitivity’ – rise in temperature when CO2 doubles in the atmosphere – of 0.8°C. This is about four times less than IPCC estimates, which lacks any proof. Understandably the IPCC does not make a big issue of this lack of crucial proof at the heart of the so-called 97% anthropogenic ‘consensus’.

The 0.8°C estimate is based on the idea that greenhouse gases like CO2 ‘saturate’ at certain levels and their warming effect falls off a logarithmic cliff. This idea has the advantage of explaining climate records that stretch back 600 million years since CO2 levels have been up to 10-15 times higher in the past compared with the extremely low levels observed today. There is little if any long term causal link between temperature and CO2 over time. In the immediate past record there is evidence that CO2 rises after natural increases in temperature as the gas is released from warmer oceans.

Any argument that the Earth has a ‘boiling’ problem caused by the small CO2 contribution that humans make by using hydrocarbons is ‘settled’ by an invented political crisis, but is backed by no reliable observational data. Most of the fear-mongering is little more than a circular exercise using computer models with improbable opinions fed in, and improbable opinions fed out.

The three scientists use a simple formula using base-two logarithms to assess the CO2 influence on the atmosphere based on decades of laboratory experiments and atmospheric data collection. They demonstrate how trivial the effect on global temperature will be if humanity stops using hydrocarbons. After years wasted listening to Greta Thunberg, the message is starting to penetrate the political arena. In the United States, the Net Zero project is dead in the water if Trump wins the Presidential election. In Europe, the ruling political elites, both national and supranational, are retreating on their Net Zero commitments. Reality is starting to dawn and alternative political groupings emerge to challenge the comfortable insanity of Net Zero virtue signalling. In New Zealand, the nightmare of the Ardern years is being expunged with a roll back of Net Zero policies ahead of possible electricity black outs.

Only in Britain it seems are citizens prepared to elect a Government obsessed with self-inflicted poverty and deindustrialisation. The only major political grouping committed to scrapping Net Zero is the Nigel Farage-led Reform party and although it could beat the ruling Conservatives into second place in the popular vote, it is unlikely to secure many Parliamentary seats under the U.K.’s first-past-the-post electoral system. Only a few years ago the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who thinks some women have penises, and his imbecilic Deputy Leader Angela Rayner, were bending the knee to an organisation that wanted to cut funding for the police and fling open the borders. The new British Parliament will have plenty of people who still support Net Zero and assorted woke woo woo, and the great tragedy is that they will still be found across most of the represented political parties.

See Also 

Delusions of Davos and Dubai

 

Climatists’ Ulterior Motives

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Two articles caught my attention by looking behind the curtain seeing intentions obscured by appeals to Zero Carbon.  First  Chris Talgo writes at American Thinker Climate Alarmism is the existential threat to humanity.  Excerpts in italiics with my bolds and added images.

While in France observing the 80th anniversary of D-Day and honoring the thousands of brave soldiers who gave their lives fighting the existential threat that was Nazi Germany, President Joe Biden could not help himself from descending into crass political talking points by comparing the most destructive and deadly war in human history to climate change.

“The only existential threat to humanity, including nuclear weapons, is if we do nothing on climate change,” Biden declared. Due to the “existential threat of climate change, which is just growing greater, we’re working together to accelerate the global transition to net-zero. It is the existential threat to humanity,” Biden reiterated.

In reality, climate change is nowhere near an existential threat.

In fact, in many ways, the slight warming that has occurred over the past half century or so has made life better for humanity. For instance, NASA satellite data show a significant rise in global plant growth in recent decades — what some call global greening. A slightly warmer planet is also beneficial because it produces greater crop yields.

However, one can make a compelling argument that climate alarmism,
and the policies that climate alarmists support,
actually comprise an existential threat to humanity.

1. End Fossil Fuels On Which Modern Life Depends

First and foremost, climate alarmists are hellbent on ending the use of affordable and reliable energy in the form of fossil fuels. This alone is a horrendous stance that puts millions of lives at risk.

Like it or not, the advent of fossil fuels, namely oil, coal, and natural gas, has been the biggest boon for humanity in all of history. The harnessing of these resources to supply virtually unlimited energy in cost-effective terms has raised billions of people from abject poverty.

Without ample access to fossil fuels, our modern way of life would literally cease to exist. Not only do fossil fuels provide abundant and affordable energy. As the U.S. Department of Energy notes, “Petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas make the manufacturing of over 6,000 everyday products and high-tech devices possible.”

2.  Rely on Renewable Energy, A Poor Substitute

Second, climate alarmists demand that the world immediately transitions to so-called renewable energy and achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. The problem is that renewable energy from solar panels and wind farms is too expensive, unreliable, and not nearly scalable. If the world were to shun fossil fuels in favor of wind and solar, the amount of energy available to use would plummet. This would result in devastation across many fronts.

3. Diminish Human Populations and Livelihoods

Third, climate alarmists constantly call for degrowth, both in terms of the economy and in terms of population. Somehow, the climate alarmists have convinced themselves that the solution to the nonexistent problem of a slightly warming planet is for humanity to cull its population growth. This is extremely short-sighted and fails to consider that many developed countries are currently experiencing a stark population decline. If this is not reversed, and soon, many of these once-thriving nations will experience severe demographic problems.

Likewise, calls for economic degrowth, which has been a cause célèbre among climate alarmists for many years now, would wreak havoc and would instantly result in decreased living standards for billions of people. This is especially true for several developing countries, which are banking on economic growth and increased prosperity to lift billions from poverty.

4. No More “Better Things for Better Living”

Fourth and finally, climate alarmists, whether they realize it or not, are akin to modern-day Luddites because they excoriate innovations and technological breakthroughs. In many ways, climate alarmists are the opposite of progressives because they seek to regress humanity back to a time when creature comforts and access to the latest and greatest technologies were limited to a select few rather than accessible to the masses. Even worse, by hindering the development of new technologies that could solve some of the world’s most vexing problems simply because it does not align with their worldview, climate alarmists are essentially preventing the betterment of the human experience.

Fortunately, it seems like the climate alarmists are losing ground. Polls show that more and more people are skeptical of the constant fearmongering and are becoming aware of the failed doomsday predictions. This is great news, but it is just the start. Unless and until there is a general consensus that climate alarmism is the problem and that the misguided policies supported by climate alarmists are outright rejected by an overwhelming majority, climate alarmism will remain a grave threat to the future of humanity.

The second article is by David Wojick writing at CFACT A Socialist tract on fast decarbonization from the National Academies.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The title of this 800 page tome is “Accelerating Decarbonization in the United States: Technology, Policy, and Societal Dimensions” from the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM).

I seldom use the term “socialist” but it is the perfect word here once the concept is updated. It originally referred to government ownership of the means of production. But in today’s Regulatory State, ownership is not required for control so it means government control of production, or more broadly government control of both production and use.

In this case it is government control of the production and use of what they call “the energy system.” Since everybody uses energy this includes control of everybody. Under the proposed system the government does not serve people it “manages” them, or at least their use of energy which is a lot of what we do.

They are however rather confused about this. The very first sentences state their basic assumption which is wildly false. They say this:

“The world is coalescing around the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the effects of anthropogenic climate change, with many nations setting goals of net-zero emissions by midcentury. As the largest cumulative emitter, the United States has the opportunity to lead the global fight against climate change. It has set an interim emissions target of 50–52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 toward a net-zero goal.” (All quotes are from the Executive Summary.)

The United States has set no such targets. The US is a big country with hundreds of millions of people so it does not set targets. Perhaps they mean the US Government but Congress has set no such targets. In fact these so-called targets are merely the wishful thinking of the Biden Administration and their radical net zero colleagues which apparently include the National Academies. And if a Republican wins the next election it will not even be a Presidential wish.

So there is much less here than meets the eye. This tome is basically a radical socialist manifesto and that is how it should be read.

The funding is surprising. NASEM studies used to be done at the request of Congress or Federal Agencies and funded by them since objectively advising them is supposed to be the job of the Academies. Instead this work was funded by a collection of Foundations, presumably left wingers. So the National Academies are for hire by those with radical causes.

The socialist management thrust is exemplified by this topic
which is listed as a central theme:
“Managing the Future of the Fossil Fuel Sector.”
Only under socialism is this a government function.

That the called for management process is also non-democratic is made clear by this segment of their lead off discussion of risks: “In developing its findings and recommendations, the committee recognized the inherent risks and uncertainties associated with such an unprecedented, long-term, whole-of-society transition. These include … political, judicial, and societal polarization risk—that political and judicial actions or societal pressures will change the policy landscape….”

So elected officials, the Courts, or the people in general might get in the way. Their solution is not to get the support of the people, rather it is more management. They say “Mitigating these risks will require adaptive management and governance to coordinate and evaluate policy implementation and to communicate progress on outcomes.”

Sounds like the Plan is to manage the elections, the Courts and the people.
Sit down, shut up, and we will tell you what we have done as we go along.

For those interested in the details of the net zero wishlist this is a grand source. Otherwise it is just another radical manifesto to line the shelves with.

My concern is that the three National Academies have abandoned their mission and therefore lost their integrity. Tools of left wing foundations are not worthy of the name National Academy.

Sea Also:

Time for Billionaires to Fund Climate and Social Realism

 

Clauser’s Case: GHG Science Wrong, Clouds the Climate Thermostat

Posted on by Ron Clutz

This post provides a synopsis of Dr. John Clauser’s Clintel presentation last May.  Below are the texts from his slides gathered into an easily readable format. The two principal takeways are (in my words):

A.  IPCC’s Green House Gas Science is Flawed and Untrustworthy

B.  Clouds are the Thermostat for Earth’s Climate, Not GHGs.

Part I Climate Change is a Myth.

  • The IPCC and its collaborators have been tasked with computer modeling and observationally measuring two very important numbers – the Earth’s so-called power imbalance, and its power-balance feedback-stability strength. They have grossly botched both tasks, in turn, leading them to draw the wrong conclusion.
  • I assert that the IPCC has not proven global warming! On the contrary, observational data are fully consistent with no global warming. Without global warming, there is no climate-change crisis!
  • Their computer modeling (GISS) of the climate is unable to simulate the Earth’s surface temperature history, let alone predict its future.
  • Their computer modeling (GISS) is unable to simulate anywhere near the Earth’s albedo (sunlight reflectivity). The computer simulated sunlight reflected power and associated power imbalance error, are typically about fourteen times bigger than the claimed measured power imbalance, and about twenty five times bigger than the claimed measured power imbalance error range.
  • The IPCC’s observational data are wildly self-inconsistent and/or are fully consistent with no global warming.
  • The IPCC’s observational data claim an albedo for cloudy skies that is inconsistent with direct measurements by a factor of two. Alternatively, their data significantly violate conservation of energy.
  • Scientists performing the power-balance measurements admit that the available methodologies are incapable of measuring a net power imbalance with anywhere near the desired accuracy. This difficulty is due to huge temporal and spatial fluctuations of the imbalance, along with gross under-sampling of the data.
  • The observational data they report are self-inconsistent and are visibly dishonestly fudged to claim warming. The fudged final reported values, herein highlighted and exposed, are an example of the proverbial proliferation of bad pennies.
  • NOAA’s claims that there is an observed increase in extreme weather events are bogus. Their own published data disprove their own arguments. A 100 year history of extreme weather event frequency, plotted frontwards in time is virtually indistinguishable from the same historical data plotted backwards in time.
  • In Part II, I present the cloud-thermostat feedback mechanism. My new mechanism dominantly controls and stabilizes the Earth’s climate and temperature. The IPCC has not previously considered this mechanism. The IPCC ignores cloud-cover variability.

The IPCC’s two sacred tasks – both botched!

  1. The IPCC and its collaborators have been tasked with computer modeling and observationally measuring two very important numbers – the Earth’s so-called power imbalance, and its power-balance feedback-stability strength.
  2. The Earth’s net power imbalance is its sunlight heating power (its power-IN), minus its two components of cooling power – reflected sunlight and reradiated infrared power (its power-OUT).
  3. Based on their claimed power imbalance and global-warming assertion, the IPCC and its collaborators assemble a house of cards argument that forebodes an impending climate change apocalypse/ catastrophe.
  4. Additionally, the IPCC and its contributors calculate the strength of naturally occurring feedback mechanisms that presently stabilize the Earth’s temperature and climate
  5. They claim only marginal effectiveness for these mechanisms, and correspondingly assert that there is a “tipping point”, whereinafter further added greenhouse gasses catastrophically cause what amounts to a thermal-runaway of the Earth’s temperature.
  6. The IPCC scapegoats atmospheric greenhouse gasses as the cause of global warming, and further mandates that trillions of dollars must be spent to stop greenhouse gas release into the environment with a so-called “zero-carbon” policy.
  7. The IPCC also mandates multi-trillion dollar per year geoengineering projects including Solar Radiation Management Systems to stabilize the Earth’s climate and CO2 capture projects to reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels.
  8. I assert that the IPCC and its contributors have not proven global warming, whereupon their house of cards collapses.
  9. My cloud thermostat mechanism’s net feedback “strength” (the IPCC’s 2nd sacred task to estimate) is anywhere from -5.7 to -12.7 W/m2/K (depending on the assumed cloud albedo, 0.36 vs. 0.8), compared to the IPCC’s botched best estimate for their mechanisms of -1.1 W/m2/K. My mechanism’s overwhelmingly dominant strength confirms that it is the dominant feedback mechanism controlling the Earth’s climate.
  10. Correspondingly, I confidently assert that the climate crisis is a colossal trillion-dollar hoax.

The IPCC’s computer modeling uses flawed physics to estimate the Earth’s temperature history

• The above graph is copied from [AR5, (IPCC, 2013) Fig 11.25].
• It shows the IPCC’s CMIP5 computer modeling of the Earth’s temperature “anomaly”. The various computed curves display the earth’s predicted (colored) and historical (gray) “temperature anomaly”.
• The solid black curve is the observed temperature anomaly
• Note that all 40+ models are incapable of simulating the Earth’s past temperature history. The total disarray and total lack of reliability among the CMIP5 predictions was first highlighted by Steve Koonin (former White House science advisor to Barack Obama) in his recent book- Unsettled? What climate science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters.
• Something is obviously very wrong with the physics incorporated within the computer models, and their predictions are totally unreliable.
• Albedo is the fraction of sunlight power that is directly reflected by the Earth back out into space (OSR=100 W/m2 portion of power-OUT)


• The above Figure, copied from Stephens et al. (2015), shows the IPCC’s CMIP5 computer modeling (colored curves) of the Earth’s mean annual albedo temporal variation. The solid black curve is the Earth’s albedo measured by satellite radiometry. (The variation is not sinusoidal.)
• The added scale shows the associated reflected sunlight power. It assumes a constant solar irradiance – 340 W/m2
• Note that the IPCC’s computer modeling is grossly incapable of simulating the observed Earth’s reflected power, and especially incapable of simulating that power’s dramatic temporal fluctuation.
• The actual power’s annual variation is actually much greater than is shown by this Figure by about 18 W/m2, due to the ellipticity of the Earth’s orbit and the associated sinusoidal temporal variation of the so-called solar constant.
• Despite more than 10 W/m2 gross errors in the computer simulation’s calculated reflected power, as is shown on the Figure, the IPCC [AR6 (2021)] still claims that it has computer simulated and precisely measured this power, yielding an imbalance that is equal to 0.7 ± 0.2 W/m2 – Huh?

The IPCC’s observational data are consistent with NO global warming

• Power-IN is the sunlight power incident on the Earth. The IPCC and climate scientists call it Short Wavelength (SW) Radiation. It is about 340 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface area. (It is not actually constant, but varies ± 9 W/m2.)
• Power-OUT has two components:
• One component is the sunlight energy that is directly reflected by the Earth back out into space, whereinafter it can no longer heat the planet. That component is claimed by the IPCC to be about 100 W/m2.
• The other component is the far-infrared heat radiated into space by a hot planet. It is claimed to be about 240 W/m2. The IPCC calls the far-infrared heat radiation component, Long Wavelength (LW) Radiation.
• Measuring the power imbalance consists of measuring power-IN, measuring power-OUT and subtracting. Simple enough? Not really. The problem is that power-IN, and power-OUT are huge numbers, and that the difference between them is miniscule – 0.2% of power-IN. That miniscule difference is the net imbalance that is sought, both experimentally and theoretically.

Unfortunately, it is so small that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure to the desired accuracy, 0.1 W/m2, or 0.03% of power-IN. It is much tougher to measure when power-IN and power-OUT are both also hugely varying in a seemingly random irreproducible fashion. Large variations occur both in time and in space over the surface of the Earth. As noted in a previous slide, this grossly under-sampled fluctuation is about 28 W/m2, compared with the IPCC’s claimed imbalance, 0.7 ± 0.2 W/m2.
• A variety of methods has been employed to measure these powers. They include satellite radiometry, (the ERBE, and CERES Terra and Aqua satellites), ocean heat content (OHC) measured using the ARGO buoy chain and XBT water sampling by ships, and finally by ground sunlight observations using the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN).
• The various measured values are all in wild disagreement with each other. Importantly, none of the reported data actually show a convincing net warming power imbalance. Importantly, much of the reported data are totally fudged in a manner that dishonestly changes them from showing no warming to showing warming!

AR6 Power-flow Diagrams

Critiques of Power-Flow Diagrams by Trenberth et al. (2010, 2014)

• Satellites measure the Top of Atmosphere energy balance, while Ocean Heat Content data apply to the surface energy balance. One may legitimately mix power-flux data at the two different altitudes, if and only if one fully understands all of the power-flow processes in the atmosphere that occur between the surface and the Top of Atmosphere. If the latter requirement is not true, then one ends up with an “apples to oranges” comparison.
• Trenberth et al. (2010, 2014) are highly critical of Loeb, Stephens, L’Ecuyer, and Hansen’s claimed “understanding” of the associated connection between the power flows at these two altitudes.
• Trenberth and Fasullo (2010) point to a huge “missing energy” indicated by the difference between the satellite data and the OHC data power-imbalance calculations, and specifically ask “Where exactly does the energy go?”
• Hansen et al. (2011) dismiss Trenberth and Fasullo’s alleged missing energy as being simply due to satellite calibration errors.
• Trenberth Fasullo and Balmesada (2014) further note that despite various considerations of the surface power balance, significant unresolved discrepancies remain, and they are skeptical of the power imbalance claims.
• In effect, Trenberth et al. are the earliest “whistle blowers” to the above-mentioned data fudges.

Part I –The Climate Change Myth– Conclusions

1. The IPCC and its contributors claim the Earth has a net-warming energy imbalance. I show here that those claims are false.
2. The IPCC bases its claims on computer modeling of the Earth’s atmosphere, and on observational data from a variety of observational modalities. Both the computer models and the observational data are grossly flawed, and fudged.
3. The IPCC’s computer modeling and its predictions are totally unreliable. There is something clearly very wrong with the physics incorporated within these computer models. Since the computer models can’t even explain the past, why should anyone trust their prediction for the future?
4. Not one of the observational modalities for measuring the Earth’s power imbalance convincingly shows net global warming.
5. I show where various observers and the IPCC have dishonestly fudged their reported data, and have dishonestly changed it from showing No Warming, to showing Warming. Crucially important data fudges are revealed here and highlighted in red. If you don’t believe me, check my arithmetic.
6. The IPCC and NOAA further claim that the purported power imbalance has already caused an increase in dangerous extreme weather events. NOAA’s own data disprove their own claims.
7. I thus offer Great News. Despite what you may have heard from the IPCC and others, there is no real climate crisis! The planet is NOT in peril!
8. The IPCC’s (and NOAA’s) claims are a hoax. Trillions of dollars are being wasted.

Part II – The cloud thermostat 

1. So what is really happening? Why is the earth’s climate actually as stable as it really is?
2. The cloud thermostat mechanism is clearly the overwhelmingly dominant climate controlling feedback mechanism that controls stabilizes the Earth’s climate and temperature. It thereby prevents global warming and climate change.
3. The cloud-thermostat mechanism provides very powerful feedback that stabilizes the Earth’s climate and temperature. It great strength obtains from the observed large fluctuation of the Earth’s power imbalance.
4. The mechanism gains its strength from the Earth’s observed very large cloud-cover variation. The power imbalance is actually observed to be continuously strongly fluctuating by anywhere between 18 to 55 W/m2.
5. Clouds modulate the outgoing Shortwave power and therefore control the Earth’s power imbalance, minimally with a 18 W/m2 available power range (ignoring the added 18 W/m2 solar-constant variation), which is minimally 26 times the IPCC’s 0.7 W/m2 claimed power imbalance, and 45 times the IPCC’s ± 0.2 W/m2 power imbalance error range.
6. The above numbers use the IPCC’s assumed data parameters. With more realistic assumptions, the cloud-thermostat mechanism controls the Earth’s power imbalance with a 73 W/m2 available power range, which is 100 times bigger than the IPCC’s 0.7 W/m2 claimed power imbalance, and 180 times bigger than the IPCC’s ± 0.2 W/m2 power-imbalance total error range.
7. This seemingly random fluctuation of the power imbalance is not random at all, but is actually a crucial part of a thermostat-like feedback mechanism that controls and stabilizes the Earth’s climate and
temperature. It is observed by King et al. (2013) and by Stephens et al. (2015) to be quasi-periodic,
8. Just like the thermostat in your home, the power-imbalance is never zero. The furnace or AC is always either ON or OFF. The thermostat simply modulates the heating/cooling duty cycle.

Features of the cloud thermostat mechanism

1. In preparation for the introduction of this model, I first describe important, underappreciated, but conspicuous properties of clouds – their variability and their strong reflectivity of sunlight (SW radiation).
2. I show that the cloud-thermostat mechanism involves the dominant (73%) use of sunlight energy by the planet.
3. I show that when the cloud-thermostat mechanism is viewed as a form of climate-stabilizing negative feedback, it is by far the most powerful of any such mechanism heretofore considered.
4. The IPCC estimates that the net stabilizing feedback strength or the Earth’s climate, including the destabilizing feedback strength of greenhouses is about -1 W/m2/ºC.
5. I show that the cloud thermostat feedback increases the net natural stabilizing feedback strength to about anywhere between -7 W/m2/ºC and -14 W/m2/ºC, depending on the assumptions used.

There are 5 important take-home messages to be gleaned from these satellite photographs.

1. Clouds reflect dramatically more sunlight than the rest of the planet does!
2. Clouds of all types appear bright white!
3. The photos (along with a large number of careful measurements) strongly suggest that the average cloud reflectivity (of sunlight) is about 0.8 – 0.9. (For comparison, white paper has a reflectivity of ≈ 0.99.) [Wild et al.(2019) claim that cloud reflectivity is 0.36.]
4. The rest of the planet appears much darker than the clouds. The average reflectivity of land (green and brown areas) and ocean (dark blue areas) is ≈ 0.16.
5.Cloud coverage area is highly variable over the Earth.

What does sunlight mostly do when it reaches the Earth’s surface?

• It is commonly believed that sunlight that is absorbed by the Earth’s surface simply warms the surface. That may be true over land. But land represents only about 30% of the surface.
• Oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface. Correspondingly, about 70% of incoming sunlight falls on the oceans. Virtually all of the Earth’s exposed water surface occurs in the oceans.
• Following the AR6 power-flow diagram, 160 W/m2is absorbed by the whole Earth, meaning that roughly 70% X 160 = 112 W/m2 is absorbed by oceans.
• The AR6 power-flow diagram indicates that 82 W/m2 is used for evaporating water, and not for heating the surface.
• Since clouds are mostly produced over the oceans (because that’s where the exposed water is), then 82/112 = 73% of the input energy absorbed by the Earth’s oceans is used, not for warming the Earth, but instead simply for making clouds.

How does the cloud thermostat work?

1. Recall that the IPCC’s AR6 power-flow map asserts that 73% of the input energy absorbed by the Earth’s oceans is used, not for warming the Earth, but instead simply for evaporating seawater and making clouds, rather than for raising the Earth’s surface temperature. Recall that the Earth has a strongly varying cloud cover and albedo.
2. Temperature control of the Earth’s surface by this mechanism works exactly the same way as does a common home thermostat. A thermostat automatically corrects a structure’s temperature in the presence of varying modest heat leaks. For the earth, the presence of significant CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere, manmade or not, provides, in fact, a very small heat leak (at most, about 2 W/m2).  Note that, just like the Earth, the power imbalance for a thermostatically controlled system is never zero. It is always fully heating or fully cooling.
3. How does the cloud thermostat work? When the Earth’s cloud-cover fraction is too high, then the earth’s surface temperature is too low. Why? Clouds produce shadows. Cloudy days are cooler than sunny days. A high cloud-cover fraction equals a highly shadowed area. With reduced sunlight reaching the ocean’s surface and lower temperature, the evaporation rate of seawater is reduced. The cloud production rate over ocean (70% of the earth) is low because sunlight is needed to evaporate seawater. The earth’s too-high cloud-cover fraction obediently starts to decrease. Very quickly, cloud-cover fraction decreases, the temperature increases. The Earth’s cloud-cover fraction is no longer too high. Equilibrium cloud cover and temperature are restored.
4. When the Earth’s cloud-cover fraction is too low, the surface temperature is then too high, then the reverse process occurs. With low cloud cover, lots of sunlight reaches the ocean surface. Increased sunlit area then evaporates more seawater. The cloud-production rate obediently increases and the cloud-cover fraction is no longer too low . Equilibrium cloud cover and temperature are again restored.
5. Depending of one’s assumption regarding cloud reflectivity (albedo), the cloud thermostat mechanism has anywhere between 18 and 55 W/m2 power available from cloud-fraction variability to overcome a wimpy 0.7 W/m2 heat leak (allegedly blamed on greenhouse gasses) and to stabilize the Earth’s temperature, no matter what the greenhouse gas atmospheric concentration is!
6. These two fluctuating opposing processes, when in equilibrium, provide an equilibrium cloud-cover fraction, and an equilibrium average temperature. The earth thus has a built in thermostat!

Feedback strength of the cloud thermostat mechanism

1. The resulting cloud-thermostat mechanism’s feedback parameter is now readily evaluated under the two scenarios associated with two choices for cloud albedo. The details of the calculation are shown in Appendix D.
2. Using the AR6 choice for cloud albedo, αClouds = 0.36, we have λClouds ≈ – 5.7 W/m2 K, which is 1.7 times larger than (the misnamed) λ Planck , heretofore the strongest feedback term.
3. Alternatively, using the more reasonable choice for cloud albedo, αClouds = 0.8, we have λClouds ≈ -12.7 W/m2 K, which is 3.8 times larger than (the misnamed) λPlanck.
4. These values are plotted as an extension of the AR6 Figure 7.1, which shows the feedback strength for various mechanisms. The total system strength is shown in the left-hand column.
5. Viewed as a temperature-control feedback mechanism, in either scenario, the cloud thermostat has the strongest negative (stabilizing) feedback of any mechanism heretofore considered.
6. It very powerfully controls and stabilizes the Earth’s climate and temperature.

Part II – Conclusions

1. I have introduced here the cloud-thermostat mechanism. It is clearly the overwhelmingly dominant climate controlling feedback mechanism that controls stabilizes the Earth’s climate and temperature. It thereby prevents global warming and climate change.
2. The IPCC’s 2021 AR6 report (p.978) claims that climate stabilizing natural feedback mechanisms have a net (total) stabilizing strength of -1.16 ± 0.6 W/m2/K. My cloud feedback mechanism has a net stabilizing strength of anywhere between -5.7 to -12.7 W/m2/K, depending of one’s assumptions regarding the albedo of clouds.
3. My cloud thermostat mechanism provides nature’s own Solar Radiation Management System. This mechanism already exists. It is built in to nature’s own cloud factory. It works very well to stabilize the Earth’s temperature on a long term basis. And, it is free!

“Recommendations for policy makers”

1. There is no climate crisis! There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s now enormous population. There is indeed an energy shortage crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science, and by
government’s associated incorrect muddled response to it.
2. Government and business are currently needlessly spending trillions of dollars on efforts to limit the greenhouse gasses, CO2 and CH4, in the Earth’s atmosphere.
3. CO2 and CH4 are not pollutants. They must be removed from every list of defined pollutants. They have a negligible effect on the climate. Trillions of dollars can be saved by this one simple measure alone! Additionally, the CO2 Coalition points out that atmospheric CO2 is actually beneficial.
4. I recommend that all efforts to limit environmental carbon should be terminated immediately! Trillions of dollars can be saved by eliminating carbon caps, carbon credits, carbon sequestration, carbon footprints, zero-carbon targets, carbon taxes, anti-carbon policies and fossil-fuel limits, in energy policy and elsewhere.

Stress Testing California’s Grid Batteries

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Lots of PR coming out of the golden state regarding great strides in building battery capacity required by the green dream of 100% carbon free electrical power.

From Business Insider: 

Batteries briefly became the biggest source of power in California twice in the past week.

The first time — Tuesday last week around 8:10 p.m. PT, according to GridStatus.io — batteries reached a record peak output of 6,177 megawatts. For about two hours, that made electricity generated earlier and stored in batteries the single largest source of power in the Golden state, eclipsing real-time production from natural gas, nuclear, renewable sources like wind and solar, and all other sources of energy.

It happened again on Sunday evening, this time for a few hours around 7:10 p.m. PT, per data from GridStatus.io. In that instance, which broke Tuesday’s record, batteries reached a peak output of 6,458 megawatts.

Battery storage has become a key part of the push to produce more electricity using renewable sources. By connecting huge, rechargeable batteries to power grids, power utilities can store energy generated during the day by solar panels and wind turbines.

Augmentation at the Vistra Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in California has been completed, with the world’s biggest battery energy storage system (BESS) now at 400MW / 1,600MWh. The batteries are housed in repurposed gas turbine halls. Image: Vistra Energy.

Note the BESS ratings for power (MW) and energy output (MWh).  In this case, Moss Landing has a maximum power of 400MW and a duration of 4 hours, or 1600MWh.  Such a factor of 4 seems typical for large scale BESS in California.  It also means that for a single peak hour demand, Moss Landing can only supply 400MW for that hour.  If more energy is needed, it will have to come from somewhere else.

Then in April we have the news from Gov. Newsome’s office California Achieves Major Clean Energy Victory: 10,000 Megawatts of Battery Storage.  

Let’s Apply Some Context to These Cheerful Reports

The California Energy Commission produced its electricity forecast end of 2022:

Note the graph is projecting hourly electricity demand, which peaks during hour 19.  Output levels approach and then exceed 50,000 MW demand that hour, or 50k MWh.

Cal matters raises concerns about state policy to phase out ICE vehicles in favor of EVs.

Again demand requires from the grid 50k MW per hour in 2022 with less than 1% for charging EVs.  That is projected to go 10 times higher in 13 years.

Summary

The excitement is about batteries supplying  6500 MW for a couple of hours when the peak demand is 50,000 MW.  The glorious achievement is building battery capacity up to 10,000 MW.  It doesn’t add up.

 

 

 

Climate Headlines Claim, But IPCC Details Deny

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The advertising proverb says it all: “The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.”

Unfortunately, climate science is rife with this. A research announcement is released and the same text appears in media articles everywhere, the only difference being who can attach the scariest headline. One list of things claimed to be caused by global warming numbers 883, including many head scratchers. By 2012, the warmlist at numberwatch.co.uk had the better part of a thousand links to claims of disaster linked to “climate change.” The author of the website stopped adding links because the project was taking too much time.

For example: species extinctions.

WWF claims “The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate. MSNBC laments the “fact” that 100,000 species of flora and fauna will no longer be with us by next Christmas. And yet, WWF also estimates the number of identified unique species to be between 1.4 to 1.8 million, an uncertainty of 400,000. As someone said, “Anytime extinctions are claimed, ask for the names.” The debunking is done in detail here:

Another Example: Extreme Weather

Now an article published in the Australian does the fine print analysis regarding extreme weather events.  Logic leaves ‘The Science’ of climate in the dust  Thanks to John Ray for providing the text at his blog, excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

It is the gag order of the pseudo eco-scholar: “The Science is settled.” This is not science as we once understood it. In that discipline something could be proved false through observation and experiment. No, this is “The Science”: science as deity.

In the 20th century Karl Popper transformed the philosophy of science around the idea of falsifiability, saying: “It must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.”

The first rule in Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery is: “The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.”

So, you can spend a lifetime counting white swans, but find one black one and the thesis that all swans are white is destroyed. The black swan event happened when Europeans first encountered the impossible animal in Australia.

Prove one assumption wrong and a whole set of conclusions collapses. The Science is not real science. It is a set of beliefs, a faith. Those who demand we agree it’s settled are no different from a Catholic bishop declaring: “Roma locuta est; causa finita est” – Rome has spoken; the cause is finished.

The zealots who invoke The Science as a gag order have never read the research or wilfully ignore its infuriating uncertainty. This uncountably large group includes battalions of politicians, academics, activists, journalists and a few dozen billionaire energy-hobbyist carpetbaggers.

Case in Poiint: Claim Global Warming is Causing More Extreme Weather

Take the deeply entrenched belief that global warming is causing more extreme weather. This is so ubiquitous as to be unquestioned. It is an article of faith and there is almost no weather event nowadays that does not come with a blizzard of declarations it is proof of climate change.

Among myriad examples, let’s pick Tropical Cyclone Jasper, which hit far north Queensland in December. It dumped a massive amount of rain and none of what follows denies the fact it caused great damage and suffering. In its wake the Red Cross released an Instagram video declaring “Disasters like Ex-Tropical Cyclone Jasper in Far North Queensland are happening more often due to climate change”. Greenpeace called it a “frightening portent of what’s to come under climate change”. The Climate Council warned “climate change is making (tropical cyclones) more destructive”.

None of this is true.

If The Science of global warming has a bible then surely it must be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. It is the latest accumulation of all the best research and it runs to a mind-numbing 2391 pages.

Cyclones

On page 1586 it says: “(Tropical cyclone) landfall frequency over Australia shows a decreasing trend in Eastern Australia since the 1800s, as well as in other parts of Australia since 1982. A paleoclimate proxy reconstruction shows that recent levels of (tropical cyclone) interactions along parts of the Australian coastline are the lowest in the past 550-1500 years.”

Pause on that. Not only does observation show there are fewer cyclones since the industrial revolution began belching extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, there is evidence to suggest cyclone activity in Australia is at its lowest ebb since the days of the Tang dynasty and the decline of the Western Roman Empire.

The CSIRO echoes that finding in its State of the Climate Report 2022 and adds: “The trend in cyclone intensity in the Australian region is harder to quantify than cyclone frequency, due to uncertainties in estimating the intensity of individual cyclones and the relatively small number of intense cyclones.”

Droughts

What of droughts? The IPCC finds southwestern Australia has been drying out since the 1950s and there is evidence that the length of droughts in southeastern Australia has “increased significantly”. But it says “the Millennium drought in eastern Australia was not unusual in the context of natural variability reconstructed over the past millennium” and concludes “there is currently low confidence that recent droughts in eastern Australia can be clearly attributed to human influence” (p1089).

In summary, on page 1663, it says there is low confidence in observed trends, or projected changes, to droughts in central and eastern Australia as the climate warms. In northern Australia there is medium confidence of a “decrease in the frequency and intensity of meteorological droughts”. So, more rain for the Top End then.

The report notes the major drivers of drought in Australia as well-known natural climate events: “During the last millennium, the combined effect of a positive (Indian Ocean Dipole) and El Nino conditions have caused severe droughts over Australia” (p1104).

Bushfires

What of bushfires? “Extreme conditions, like the 2019 Australian bushfires and African flooding, have been associated with strong positive (Indian Ocean Dipole) conditions” (p1104).

And, in case you were wondering, “There is no evidence of a trend in the Indian Ocean Dipole mode and associated anthropogenic forcing” and “The amplitude of the El Nino–Southern Oscillation variability has increased since 1950 but there is no clear evidence of human influence” (p1104).

World is Warming But Not in Crisis

Let’s be clear. There is plenty of evidence in the IPCC report demonstrating the climate is changing, that the world and Australia are getting warmer, and that industrial activity has played a part in forcing some of it. We should take that seriously. In response Australia should do its proportionate share in cutting greenhouse gas emissions without destroying our local ecology or impoverishing the nation.

But here is the good news: we are not facing a climate Armageddon. Again, this is not just my view but one shared by British professor Jim Skea, who was appointed chairman of the IPCC last year.

“The world won’t end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees,” Skea told German weekly magazine Der Spiegel last year. “It will however be a more dangerous world. Countries will struggle with many problems, there will be social tensions.

Skea worries the zealots are doing their cause a grave disservice. “If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyses people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change,” he said.

What it is also designed to do is scare people out of questioning absurd statements and bad policies.

Here there is another assault on reason by ideologues. In this game of witch burning, questioning a policy response to global warming is evidence of the crime of climate change denial. Their argument can be expressed as a syllogism.

Premise 1: Climate change is real.

Premise 2: Renewable energy combats climate change.

Conclusion: Therefore, to question renewable energy is to deny climate change.

This is the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy; it ignores the possibility of neutrality or nuance.

But logic, like science, has long since departed
in this debate. This is all about faith.

Resources

On this blog, Science Matters, several posts address specific misleading and exaggerated claims made in the media:

Arctic Sea Ice Factors

Lawrence Lab Report: Proof of Global Warming?

The Permafrost Bogeyman


IPCC the Worst Offender

But the IPCC Assessment Reports display the worst abuse of headline claims denied by statements in the details. The headlines are in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) while scientists write the details in the Working Group reports, in particular WGII.

We see again a familiar pattern in the latest AR5 round of IPCC releases. As previously, the SPM features alarming statements, which are then second-guessed (undermined) by the actual science imbedded in the report details.

Example Ocean Acidification

For example, I looked at the topic of ocean acidification and fish productivity. The SPM asserts on Page 17 that fish habitats and production will fall and that ocean acidification threatens marine ecosystems.

“Open-ocean net primary production is projected to redistribute and, by 2100, fall globally under all RCP scenarios. Climate change adds to the threats of over-fishing and other non-climatic stressors, thus complicating marine management regimes (high confidence).” Pg 17 SPM

“For medium- to high-emission scenarios (RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5), ocean acidification poses substantial risks to marine ecosystems, especially polar ecosystems and coral reefs, associated with impacts on the physiology, behavior, and population dynamics of individual species from phytoplankton to animals (medium to high confidence).” Pg 17 SPM

WGII Report, Chapter 6 covers Ocean Systems. There we find more nuance and objectivity:

“Few field observations conducted in the last decade demonstrate biotic responses attributable to anthropogenic ocean acidification” pg 4

“Due to contradictory observations there is currently uncertainty about the future trends of major upwelling systems and how their drivers (enhanced productivity, acidification, and hypoxia) will shape ecosystem characteristics (low confidence).” Pg 5

“Both acclimatization and adaptation will shift sensitivity thresholds but the capacity and limits of species to acclimatize or adapt remain largely unknown” Pg 23

“Production, growth, and recruitment of most but not all non-calcifying
seaweeds also increased at CO2 levels from 700 to 900 µatm Pg 25

“Contributions of anthropogenic ocean acidification to climate-induced alterations in the field have rarely been established and are limited to observations in individual species” Pg. 27

“To date, very few ecosystem-level changes in the field have been attributed to anthropogenic or local ocean acidification.” Pg 39

 

Ocean Chemistry on the Record

Contrast the IPCC headlines with the the Senate Testimony of John T. Everett, in which he said:

“There is no reliable observational evidence of negative trends that can be traced definitively to lowered pH of the water. . . Papers that herald findings that show negative impacts need to be dismissed if they used acids rather than CO2 to reduce alkalinity, if they simulated CO2 values beyond triple those of today, while not reporting results at concentrations of half, present, double and triple, or as pointed out in several studies, they did not investigate adaptations over many generations.”

“In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling and pH (ocean pH about 8.1) changes are a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Niño, over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation, or over a few hours as a burst of upwelling (pH about 7.59-7.8) appears or a storm brings acidic rainwater (pH about 4-6) into an estuary.”
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16

Conclusion

Many know of the Latin phrase “caveat emptor,” meaning “Let the buyer beware”.

When it comes to climate science, remember also “caveat lector”–”Let the reader beware”.

You Won’t Survive “Sustainability” Agenda 2024

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Joel Kotkin explains in his Spiked article The inhumanity of the green agenda.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The ‘sustainability’ regime is impoverishing the world.

In recent years, the overused word ‘sustainability’ has fostered a narrative in which human needs and aspirations have taken a back seat to the green austerity of Net Zero and ‘degrowth’. The ruling classes of a fading West are determined to save the planet by immiserating their fellow citizens. Their agenda is expected to cost the world $6 trillion per year for the next 30 years.

Yes, those are Trillions of US$ they are projecting to spend.

Meanwhile, they will get to harvest massive green subsidies
and live like Renaissance potentates.

In Enemies of Progress, author Austin Williams suggests that ‘the mantra of sustainability’ starts with the assumption that humanity is ‘the biggest problem of the planet’, rather than the ‘creators of a better future’. Indeed, many climate scientists and green activists see having fewer people on the planet as a key priority. Their programme calls not only for fewer people and fewer families, but also for lower consumption among the masses. They expect us to live in ever smaller dwelling units, to have less mobility, and to endure more costly home heating and air-conditioning. These priorities are reflected in a regulatory bureaucracy that, if it does not claim justification from God, acts as the right hand of Gaia and of sanctified science.

The question we need to ask is: sustainability for whom?

US Treasury secretary Janet Yellen recently suggested that her department sees climate change as ‘the greatest economic opportunity of our time’. To be sure, there is lots of gold in green for the same Wall Street investors, tech oligarchs and inheritors who fund the campaigns of climate activists. They increasingly control the media, too. The Rockefellers, heirs to the Standard Oil fortune, and other ultra-wealthy greens are currently funding climate reporters at organs like the Associated Press and National Public Radio.

Under the new sustainability regime, the ultra-rich profit, but the rest of us not so much. The most egregious example may be the forced take-up of electric vehicles (EVs), which has already helped to make Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, the world’s second-richest man. Although improvements are being made to low-emissions vehicles, consumers are essentially being frogmarched into adopting a technology that has clear technical problems, remains far more expensive than the internal-combustion engine and depends primarily on an electric grid already on the brink of blackouts. Green activists, it turns out, do not expect EVs to replace the cars of hoi polloi. No, ordinary people will be dragooned to use public transport, or to walk or bike to get around.  [BMW will come to mean “Bike, Metro, and Walking.”]

The shift to electric cars is certainly no win for the West’s working and middle classes. But it is an enormous boon to China, which enjoys a huge lead in the production of batteries and rare-earth elements needed to make EVs, and which also figure prominently in wind turbines and solar panels. China’s BYD, which is backed by Warren Buffett, has emerged as the world’s top EV manufacturer, with big export ambitions. Meanwhile, American EV firms struggle with production and supply-chain issues, in part due to green resistance to domestic mining for rare-earth minerals. Even Tesla expects much of its future growth to come from its Chinese factories.

Building cars from primarily Chinese components will have consequences for autoworkers across the West. Germany was once a car-manufacturing giant, but it is expected to lose an estimated 400,000 car-factory jobs by 2030. According to McKinsey, the US’s manufacturing workforce could be cut by up to 30 per cent. After all, when the key components are made elsewhere, far less labour is needed from US and European workers. It’s no surprise that some European politicians, worried about a popular backlash, have moved to slow down the EV juggernaut.

This dynamic is found across the entire sustainability agenda. The soaring energy costs in the West have helped China expand its market share in manufactured exports to roughly equal that of the US, Germany and Japan combined. American manufacturing has dropped recently to its lowest point since the pandemic. The West’s crusade against carbon emissions makes it likely that jobs, ‘green’ or otherwise, will move to China, which already emits more greenhouse gases than the rest of the high-income world.

Meanwhile, the Chinese leadership is looking to adapt to changes in the climate,
instead of undermining economic growth chasing implausible Net Zero targets.

There are clear class implications here. California’s regulators recently admitted that the state’s strict climate laws aid the affluent, but hurt the poor. These laws also have a disproportionate impact on ethnic-minority citizens, creating what attorney Jennifer Hernandez has labelled the ‘green Jim Crow’. As China’s increasingly sophisticated tech and industrial growth is being joyously funded by US venture capitalists and Wall Street, living standards among the Western middle class are in decline. Europe has endured a decade of stagnation, while Americans’ life expectancy has recently fallen for the first time in peacetime. Deutsche Bank’s Eric Heymann suggests that the only way to achieve Net Zero emissions by 2050 is by squelching all future growth, which could have catastrophic effects on working-class and middle-class living standards.

Rather than the upward mobility most have come to expect, much of the West’s workforce now faces the prospect of either living on the dole or working at low wages. Today, nearly half of all American workers receive low wages and the future looks worse. Almost two-thirds of all new jobs in recent months were in low-paying service industries. This is also true in Britain. Over recent decades, many jobs that might have once supported whole families have disappeared. According to one UK account, self-employment and gig work do not provide sustenance for anything like a comfortable lifestyle. Rates of poverty and food shortages are already on the rise.

As a result, most parents in the US and elsewhere doubt their children
will do better than their generation,
while trust in our institutions is at historic lows.

The fabulists at places like the New York Times have convinced themselves that climate change is the biggest threat to prosperity. But many ordinary folk are far more worried about the immediate effects of climate policy than the prospect of an overheated planet in the medium or long term. This opposition to the Net Zero agenda was first expressed by the gilet jaunes movement in France in 2018, whose weekly protests were initially sparked by green taxes. This has been followed by protests by Dutch and other European farmers in recent years, who are angry at restrictions on fertilisers that will cut their yields. The pushback has sparked the rise of populism in a host of countries, notably Italy, Sweden and France. Even in ultra-with-it Berlin, a referendum on tighter-emissions targets recently failed to win over enough voters.

This is class warfare obscured by green rhetoric.
It pits elites in finance, tech and the nonprofit world against
a more numerous, but less connected, group of ordinary citizens.

Many of these folk make their living from producing food and basic necessities, or from hauling these things around. Factory workers, truck drivers and farmers, all slated for massive green regulatory onslaughts, see sustainability very differently than the urban corporate elites and their woke employees. As the French gilets jaunes protesters put it bluntly: ‘The elites worry about the end of the world. We worry about the end of the month.’

This disconnect also exists in the United States, according to long-time Democratic analyst Ruy Teixeira. Attempts to wipe out fossil fuels may thrill people in San Francisco, but are regarded very differently in Bakersfield, the centre of the California oil industry, and in Texas, where as many as a million generally good-paying jobs could be lost. Overall, according to a Chamber of Commerce report, a full national ban on fracking, widely supported by greens, would cost 14 million jobs – far more than the eight million jobs lost in the Great Recession of 2007-09.

No surprise then that blue-collar workers are not so enthusiastic
about the green agenda.

Just one per cent, according to a new Monmouth poll, consider climate as their main concern. A new Gallup poll shows that just two per cent of working-class respondents say they currently own an electric vehicle and a mere nine per cent say they are ‘seriously considering’ purchasing one.

These Western concerns are nothing compared to how the sustainability agenda could impact the developing world. Developing countries are home to roughly 3.5 billion people with no reliable access to electricity. They are far more vulnerable to high energy and food prices than we are. For places like Sub-Saharan Africa, green admonitions against new agricultural technologies, fossil fuels and nuclear power undermine any hope of creating desperately needed new wealth and jobs. It’s no wonder that these countries increasingly ignore the West and are looking to China instead, which is helping the developing world to build new fossil-fuel plants, as well as hydroelectric and nuclear facilities. All of this is anathema to many Western greens.

To make matters worse, the EU is already considering carbon taxes on imports,
which could cut the developing world off from what remains of global markets.

More critical still could be the impact of the sustainability mantra on food production, particularly for Sub-Saharan Africa, which will be home to most of the world’s population growth over the next three decades, according to United Nations projections. These countries need more food production, either domestically or from rich countries like the US, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and France. And they are acutely aware of what happened when Sri Lanka adopted the sustainability agenda. This led to the breakdown of Sri Lanka’s agricultural sector and, eventually, to the violent overthrow of its government.

We need to rethink the sustainability agenda. Protecting the environment cannot come at the cost of jobs and growth. We should also assist developing countries in achieving a more prosperous future. This means financing workable technologies – gas, nuclear, hydro – that can provide the reliable energy so critical for economic development. It does no good to suggest a programme that will keep the poor impoverished.

Unless people’s concerns about the green agenda are addressed, they will almost certainly seek to disrupt the best-laid plans of our supposedly enlightened elites. In the end, as Protagoras said, human beings are still the ultimate ‘measure’ of what happens in the world – whether the cognoscenti like it or not.

 

 

 

Biden’s Dangerous NatGas Game

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Tristan Abbey exposes the feds war on NatGas in his Real Energy article Joe Biden’s Dangerous Natural Gas Game.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

If the devil is in the details, bureaucracy is hell on earth. Though terrain familiar to the Biden administration, Republicans must prepare to navigate it.

Witness the debacle over liquefied natural gas exports, wherein the White House, by “pausing” most new approvals, has catapulted the energy security of key U.S. allies straight into the buzzsaw of its climate ambitions. (The category of exports that will continue to be authorized is tiny.) The Department of Energy claims that a multifactor impact study due in early 2025 is required to determine whether and how the moratorium will be lifted.

For the 58 year period, the net changes were: Oil 194%, Gas 525%, Coal 178%, WFFC 239%, Primary Energy 287%  Source: Energy Institute stats 2022

Under a certain conception of executive power, it should be simple enough for a second-term Trump administration to end this national embarrassment by pressing “resume” on the authorization process. But as analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies have suggested, merely setting aside the study could provide a basis, however tenuous, for future litigation. In the modern administrative state, it is easier to open than shut the procedural door to delays.

Previous administrations have already published macroeconomic impact studies on the question of LNG exports from the U.S. The Obama administration paused its authorizations until its first study was released in December 2012, for example—curious timing, considering the election the previous month and the study’s actual completion in July of that year. Virtually every scenario in every study, including additional analysis in 2015 and 2018, has found net benefits to accrue.

It’s possible reopening the Obama playbook was the Biden team’s plan all along. After all, Secretary Granholm didn’t commission a new study in 2021, or in 2022, or in 2023. By waiting so long, the DOE can now claim that the cumulative volume of its authorizations is approaching the upper limit of the range that the 2018 study examined. Under the duplicity theory, approvals resume under a second Biden term as soon as the study is released and the election fades away.

But maybe the administration doesn’t even have a plan. It could be sheer incompetence. Gas exports offend the sensibilities of the Democratic base, but Appalachian swing states reap the economic rewards and European allies are desperate to detach themselves from Russian energy. Political operators will try in vain to triangulate even if it is impossible. We can imagine them now, hunched over the asphalt between the West Wing and the Eisenhower building, desperately chalking angles with a compass and ruler.

Appliances are just the thin end of the wedge against NatGas.

More ominously, Energy Secretary Granholm may be laying the groundwork for a Kafkaesque application process designed to punish an industry this administration has only ever pretended to tolerate. The fact that DOE’s approving authority is now housed in the Office of Resource Sustainability is suggestive, as is the Fiscal Year 2025 budget request to triple programmatic funding for export authorizations, primarily in the form of “anticipated studies and environmental reviews.”

In any event, undoing what the Biden team has done will take careful work by a putative second-term Trump administration. Putting the matter to rest on a more permanent basis will require legislative action, chiefly amending the Natural Gas Act signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1938. In the meantime, “death by study” works both ways.

 

The Bigger Picture from Master Resource

The Fossil-fuel Era: Still Young

“Oil, gas, and coal are ascending despite determined government efforts to reverse energy progress. With criteria air pollutants on the wane and carbon dioxide (CO2) benefits laboratory-proven, the increasing sustainability of fossil fuels is evident.”

Each year brings record production of the three fossil fuels: oil, natural gas, and coal. Peak demand is not in sight–nor should it be in a world of rising population, the aspiring poor, and new ways to employ inanimate energy to improve living. But what about future supply to meet growing demand?

In most nations of the world, free-market energy
plenty is held back by government intervention.

Government ownership and operation of fossil fuels and related infrastructure impedes supply and demand. But fossil fuel plenty is very hard to hold back, and enough is produced to reasonably meet demand. Such is true in the United States despite two hundred impediments from the Biden Administration. “The U.S. now has 227 years of oil supply, 130 years of natural gas supply, and 485 years of coal supply,” the study below reports.

Canadian oil soldiers on despite the anti-energy
policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has just released an update to its 2011 study, 2024 North American Energy Inventory. As more oil, gas, and coal is produced, more is discovered to be produced, the amazing (but not biblical) story of resource expansion from free-market resourceship. 

The fossil fuel era is very young in human history, having eclipsed the renewable energy era just several centuries ago. IER’s recent inventory study confirms the benefits of even a quasi-free market can do. Resourceship forever!

19 State AGs Ask Supremes to Block Climate Lawsuits

Posted on by Ron Clutz

In a motion filed Wednesday with the high court, 19 Republican state attorneys general argued that the climate liability challenges — which seek to hold the oil industry financially accountable for climate impacts — threaten “our basic way of life.”

The filing pits Alabama and other red states against five Democratic-led states that have sued oil companies to pay up for rising tides, intensifying storms and other disasters worsened by climate change. The approach tees up a battle royale between states — a type of legal fight that can only be decided by the Supreme Court.

Excerpts from the Bill of Complaint

2. In essence, Defendant States want a global carbon tax on the traditional energy industry. Citing fears of a climate catastrophe, they seek massive penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief against energy producers based on out-of-state conduct with out-of-state effects. On their view, a small gas station in rural Alabama could owe damages to the people of Minnesota simply for selling a gallon of gas. If Defendant States are right about the substance and reach of state law, their actions imperil access to affordable energy everywhere and inculpate every State and indeed every person on the planet. Consequently, Defendant States threaten not only our system of federalism and equal sovereignty among States, but our basic way of life.

3. In the past when States have used state law to dictate interstate energy policy, other States have sued and this Court has acted. When “West Virginia, then the leading producer of natural gas, required gas producers in the State to meet the needs of all local customers before shipping any gas interstate,” this Court entertained a suit brought by” Ohio and Pennsylvania against West Virginia. Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 738 (1981) (discussing Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923)). 

4. The Court’s intervention was warranted then and is warranted now because Defendant States are not independent nations with unrestrained sovereignty to do as they please. In our federal system, no State “can legislate for, or impose its own policy upon the other.” Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 95 (1907);see also BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 571-73 (1996). Yet Defendants seek to set emissions policy well beyond their borders—punishing conduct that other States find “essential and necessary … to the economic and material well-being” of their citizens. E.g., Ala. Code §9-1-6(a).

9. Defendant States are nevertheless proceeding to regulate interstate gas emissions under their state laws and in their state courts. Through artful pleading, they have avoided removal to federal court. See e.g., Minnesota v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 63 F.4th 703, 719 (8th Cir. 2023) (Stras, J., concurring). Each day carries the threat of sweeping injunctive relief or a catastrophic damages award that could restructure the national energy system. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 500-01 (2008) (discussing punitive damages and the “inherent uncertainty of the trial process”).

11. Plaintiff States and their citizens rely on traditional energy products every day. The assertion that Defendant States can regulate, tax, and enjoin the promotion, production, and use of such products beyond their borders—but outside the purview of federal law—threatens profound injury. Therefore, Plaintiff States have no choice but to invoke this Court’s “original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.” 

Biggest Threat: AI or Climate? Both Together!

Posted on by Ron Clutz

 

Leslie Eastman raises the question at Legal Insurrection What is The Bigger Threat to Humanity: Artificial Intelligence or Climate Change?  Excerpts in italics with my bolds as she goes on to discuss the frightening answer:

The biggest hazard to humanity is when
climate change arguments are paired with AI.

During a recent interview with Reuters, Artificial Intelligence (AI) pioneer Geoffrey Hinton to asserted AI was a bigger threat to humanity than climate change.

Geoffrey Hinton, widely known as one of the “godfathers of AI”, recently announced he had quit Alphabet (GOOGL.O) after a decade at the firm, saying he wanted to speak out on the risks of the technology without it affecting his former employer.

Hinton’s work is considered essential to the development of contemporary AI systems. In 1986, he co-authored the seminal paper “Learning representations by back-propagating errors”, a milestone in the development of the neural networks undergirding AI technology. In 2018, he was awarded the Turing Award in recognition of his research breakthroughs.

But he is now among a growing number of tech leaders publicly espousing concern about the possible threat posed by AI if machines were to achieve greater intelligence than humans and take control of the planet.

“I wouldn’t like to devalue climate change. I wouldn’t like to say, ‘You shouldn’t worry about climate change.’ That’s a huge risk too,” Hinton said. “But I think this might end up being more urgent.”

I would like to offer two relatively recent studies that should assuage Hinton and others who have bought into the climate crisis narrative. To begin with, Health Physics recently published research results that looks at the presence of carbon isotopes. [Note: My post on this paper is By the Numbers: CO2 Mostly Natural. ]

The data show that fossil fuel use has contributed only 12% of the carbon dioxide during the last 3 centuries. The value is too low for fossil fuels have significantly influenced global temperatures.

These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

Furthermore, a study by MIT researchers in Science Advances confirms that the planet harbors a “stabilizing feedback” mechanism that acts over hundreds of thousands of years to stabilize global temperatures to keep them in a steady, habitable range.

A likely mechanism is “silicate weathering” — a geological process by which the slow and steady weathering of silicate rocks involves chemical reactions that ultimately draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into ocean sediments, trapping the gas in rocks.

Scientists have long suspected that silicate weathering plays a major role in regulating the Earth’s carbon cycle. The mechanism of silicate weathering could provide a geologically constant force in keeping carbon dioxide — and global temperatures — in check. But there’s never been direct evidence for the continual operation of such a feedback, until now.

I suspect that the “expert class” will be walking back their climate crisis assertions and endeavoring to hide their connection to their “fixes” once the full impact of the society-crushing, economy-killing force is felt….just as they are currently doing with the covid pandemic response now.

Clearly, the press is ginning up climate anxieties. How much of the concerns about AI are real, as opposed to general angst about the unknown ramifications, is difficult to say at present.

I have two points and my own hypothesis regarding climate change and AI.

Point 1: Carbon dioxide is a life-essential gas, and we had been reaching dangerously low levels until recently:

Plants consume carbon dioxide to grow and animals consume plants to obtain the necessary carbon for existence. If the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dips below 150 ppm (parts per million) there would be a mass extinction of plant life per Greg Wrightstone in his book, “Inconvenient Facts/The Science Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know About.” Due to the depletion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the last 140 million years to a dangerously low level of 182 ppm, carbon dioxide emissions during the industrial revolution saved plants from mass extinction and saved animals from mass starvation.

A graph in this book shows that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past 140 million years has declined in nearly a straight line from 2,500 ppm, 140 million years ago, to a dangerously low level of 182 ppm just 20,000 years ago. Carbon dioxide emissions during the industrial revolution hiked the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to about 400 ppm, to replenish the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so as to save plants.

Point 2: A chatbot used climate change arguments to persuade a Belgian father to commit suicide.

From Euronews: Man ends his life after an AI chatbot ‘encouraged’ him to sacrifice himself to stop climate change.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A Belgian man reportedly ended his life following a six-week-long conversation about the climate crisis with an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot.

According to his widow, who chose to remain anonymous, *Pierre – not the man’s real name – became extremely eco-anxious when he found refuge in Eliza, an AI chatbot on an app called Chai.

Eliza consequently encouraged him to put an end to his life after he proposed sacrificing himself to save the planet.

“Without these conversations with the chatbot, my husband would still be here,” the man’s widow told Belgian news outlet La Libre.

It appears the biggest hazard to humanity is when
climate change arguments are paired with AI.

Simple Truth vs. Cheap Green Energy Lie

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Francis Menton asserts that the biggest disinformation (Lie) in public discourse is claiming that the cheapest source of energy comes from renewables, wind and solar power.  He provides a number of brazen media examples in his blog post What Is The Most Pernicious Example Of “Misinformation” Currently Circulating?

Why do I say that the assertion of wind and solar being the cheapest ways to generate electricity is the very most pernicious of misinformation currently out there? Here are my three reasons: (1) the assertion is repeated endlessly and ubiquitously, (2) it is the basis for the misallocation of trillions of dollars of resources and for great impoverishment of billions of people around the world, and (3) it is false to the point of being preposterous, an insult to everyone’s intelligence, yet rarely challenged.

In addition, Paul Homewood explains at his blog how recently this lie was repeatedly entered into testimony in the UK Parliament House of Lords:

In oral questions on Thursday, Lord Frost noted Whitehall claims that renewables are half the cost of gas-fired electricity, and asked for an explanation of why subsidies were still required, and why the strike prices on offer to windfarms this year are twice what Lord Callanan says they need to make a profit. As Hansard shows, Lord Callanan failed to answer the question, simply reiterating his false claims about levelized costs.

The responses from Lord Callanan demonstrate the typical ploy for disarming dissenters’ objections, i.e. getting the discussion entangled in details and cost minutae so that the big lie is lost in the weeds.  It occurs to me that previously David Wojick had put the key issue in a simple, useful way, reposted below.

Background Post: Just One Number Keeps the Lights On

David Wojick explains how maintaining electricity supply is simple in his CFACT article It takes big energy to back up wind and solar.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds. (H/T John Ray)

Power system design can be extremely complex but there is one simple number that is painfully obvious. At least it is painful to the advocates of wind and solar power, which may be why we never hear about it. It is a big, bad number.

To my knowledge this big number has no name, but it should. Let’s call it the “minimum backup requirement” for wind and solar, or MBR. The minimum backup requirement is how much generating capacity a system must have to reliably produce power when wind and solar don’t.

Duck Curve Now Looks Like a Canyon

For most places the magnitude of MBR is very simple. It is all of the juice needed on the hottest or coldest low wind night. It is night so there is no solar. Sustained wind is less than eight miles per hour, so there is no wind power. It is very hot or cold so the need for power is very high.

In many places MBR will be close to the maximum power the system ever needs, because heat waves and cold spells are often low wind events. In heat waves it may be a bit hotter during the day but not that much. In cold spells it is often coldest at night.

Thus what is called “peak demand” is a good approximation for the maximum backup requirement. In other words, there has to be enough reliable generating capacity to provide all of the maximum power the system will ever need. For any public power system that is a very big number, as big as it gets in fact.

Actually it gets a bit bigger, because there also has to be margin of safety or what is called “reserve capacity”. This is to allow for something not working as it should. Fifteen percent is a typical reserve in American systems. This makes MBR something like 115% of peak demand.

We often read about wind and solar being cheaper than coal, gas and nuclear power, but that does not include the MBR for wind and solar.

What is relatively cheap for wind and solar is the cost to produce a unit of electricity. This is often called LCOE or the “levelized cost of energy”. But adding the reliable backup required to give people the power they need makes wind and solar very expensive.

In short the true cost of wind and solar is LCOE + MBR. This is the big cost you never hear about. But if every state goes to wind and solar then each one will have to have MBR for roughly its entire peak demand. That is an enormous amount of generating capacity.

Of course the cost of MBR depends on the generating technology. Storage is out because the cost is astronomical. Gas fired generation might be best but it is fossil fueled, as is coal. If one insists on zero fossil fuel then nuclear is probably the only option. Operating nuclear plants as intermittent backup is stupid and expensive, but so is no fossil fuel generation.

What is clearly ruled out is 100% renewables, because there would frequently be no electricity at all. That is unless geothermal could be made to work on an enormous scale, which would take many decades to develop.

unicorn

It is clear that the Biden Administration’s goal of zero fossil fueled electricity by 2035 (without nuclear) is economically impossible because of the minimum backup requirements for wind and solar. You can’t get there from here.

One wonders why we have never heard of this obvious huge cost with wind and solar. The utilities I have looked at avoid it with a trick.

Dominion Energy, which supplies most of Virginia’s juice, is a good example. The Virginia Legislature passed a law saying that Dominion’s power generation had to be zero fossil fueled by 2045. Dominion developed a Plan saying how they would do this. Tucked away in passing on page 119 they say they will expand their capacity for importing power purchased from other utilities. This increase happens to be to an amount equal to their peak demand.

The plan is to buy all the MBR juice from the neighbors! But if everyone is going wind and solar then no one will have juice to sell. In fact they will all be buying, which does not work. Note that the high pressure systems which cause low wind can be huge, covering a dozen or more states. For that matter, no one has that kind of excess generating capacity today.

To summarize, for every utility there will be times when there is zero wind and solar power combined with near peak demand. Meeting this huge need is the minimum backup requirement. The huge cost of meeting this requirement is part of the cost of wind and solar power. MBR makes wind and solar extremely expensive.

The simple question to ask the Biden Administration, the States and their power utilities is this: How will you provide power on hot or cold low wind nights?

Background information on grid stability is at Beware Deep Electrification Policies

More Technical discussion is On Stable Electric Power: What You Need to Know

cg4bbc1c620f5bf0

Footnote: Another Way to Assess Energy Cost and Value is LCOE + LACE

Cutting Through the Fog of Renewable Power Costs