by Judith Curry
“Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patronizing. It’s a form of racism, and it’s creating a two-tier global energy system, with energy abundance for the rich and tiny solar lamps for Africans.” – Kenyan activist and materials scientist Rose Mutiso
“To deny the developing world access to the very infrastructure that has propelled us forward, all in the name of an uncertain future, is not environmentalism, but neocolonialism masquerading as virtue.” – Earth Scientist Matthew Wielicki
100 years ago, the global population was 2 billion. Over the past century, the population has increased to 8 billion, life expectancy has more than doubled, a much smaller percent of the global population is living in poverty, global wealth has increased by a factor of 20, agricultural productivity and yields have increased substantially, and a far smaller fraction of the population die from extreme weather and climate events. Hannah Ritchie’s ourworldindata.org provides fascinating data on global progress.
And all this has occurred during a period where the global temperatures have increased by about 1oC. The UN has dropped the extreme emissions scenarios (RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5) from use in policy making, and the UNFCCC COP27 worked from an estimated 2100 warming of 2.5ºC.[1] The 2023 IEA Roadmap to NetZero Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) projects a rise in average global temperature of 2.4ºC by 2100.[2] When plausible scenarios of natural climate variability and values of climate sensitivity on the lower end of the IPCC range are accounted for, the expected warming could be significantly lower.
So our current best estimates of global warming by 2100 indicate that we will likely be close to, or within, the 2ºC target by 2100, based on our current understanding. So we are looking at an additional 0.8 to 1.2oC warming over the remainder of the 21st century, according to our current understanding. Natural climate variability is of course a wild card that can cut both ways, but the portion of the 21st century warming that the UN is hoping to control is order of 1oC.
The world has already shown that it can thrive under a warming rate of 1oC/century. To support continued human development and progress in the 21st century, there is widespread international agreement on the UNSDG Sustainable Development Goals, which provides a ranked list of 17 goals.[3] The goals related to climate and energy policy include (with numerical ranking):
- No poverty
- No hunger
- Affordable and clean energy
- Industry, innovation and infrastructure
- Climate action
There is growing recognition that climate change is as much a development problem as it is an environmental one. Development deals with the alleviation (or eradication) of poverty. More recent notions of development include sustainable development and climate resilient development, which emphasize economic development without depletion of natural resources.
Tensions arise when the “sustainable” part—which includes no new fossil fuel-based energy systems—conflicts with poverty eradication and other sustainable development goals.
Inconsistency of Net Zero by 2050 with UN Sustainable Development Goals
A recent UN Report on Progress Towards Sustainable Development Goals states:[4]
“Under current trends, 575 million people will still be living in extreme poverty in 2030, and only about one third of countries will meet the target to halve national poverty levels.”
“Shockingly, the world is back at hunger levels not seen since 2005, and food prices remain higher in more countries than in the period 2015–2019.”
“At the current rate of progress, renewable energy sources will continue to account for a mere fraction of our energy supplies in 2030, some 660 million people will remain without electricity, and close to 2 billion people will continue to rely on polluting fuels and technologies for cooking.”
Neglecting these sustainability objectives in favor of rapidly reducing CO2 emissions is slowing down or even countering progress on the most important Sustainable Development Goals.
Efforts to rapidly restrict the use of fossil fuels is hampering the #1 goal of poverty reduction in Africa and is restricting Africa’s efforts to develop and utilize its own oil and gas resources (goal #7), as funds previously used for development are being redirected to CO2 mitigation (goal #13).[5]
The #2 goal of no hunger is being hampered by food prices and availability are being worsened by climate mitigation efforts (goal #13), such as disincentives for fossil fuel development causing less supply and higher prices of fuels necessary for agriculture, biofuels (e.g. corn and seed oils), restrictions on livestock, and restrictions on fertilizer.
Industry and infrastructure (goal #8) require steel and cement, which are currently produced by fossil fuels. Until such a time when steel and cement can be produced economically without fossil fuels, restricting fossil fuel access particularly in developing countries to support CO2 mitigation targets (goal #13) is hampering the development of industry and infrastructure, including clean energy projects.
Should one element of Goal 13, related to net-zero emissions, trump the higher priority goals of poverty and hunger and the availability of energy? Not if human well-being, flourishing and thriving are the objectives. Climate policy driven by the perceived urgency of eliminating fossil fuels and without regard to other needs and trade-offs is itself dangerous.
Conflict between NETZERO, Development and Adaptation
There’s no such thing as a low energy, rich country.
Economic development and resilience in underdeveloped countries are being slowed down by a growing emphasis on linking international development funds to reducing emissions. This emphasis comes at the expense of development funds that have historically been targeted for poverty reduction.
Resilience to weather and climate extremes requires adaptive capacity. The UN Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 focuses on the adoption of measures that address all dimensions of disaster risk—hazard, exposure, vulnerability and coping capacity.[1] The Sendai Framework includes seven targets intended to define and measure progress towards its overall goal to increase resilience by reducing risk. The first four targets are to substantially reduce disaster impacts: mortality, number of people affected, economic loss, and damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services. The other three targets are to substantially increase the adoption of national and local disaster risk reduction strategies, international cooperation to developing countries and access to multi-hazard early warning systems.[2]
Now, more than halfway through the period for the Sendai Framework (2015–30), none of the Sendai Framework’s “substantially reduce” targets are on track to be achieved by 2030. Instead, direct economic loss and damage to critical infrastructure having increased substantially over the past decade. Adoption of multi-hazard early warning systems have been the most successful element of the Framework, although these efforts need to be scaled up and made more effective. While disaster-related financing has increased since 2010, most of the resources have supported activities to respond to and recover from disasters.[3]
Simply put, people are considerably less exposed to weather and climate shocks if they aren’t poor. Creating more resiliency in poor countries will require energy-intensive investments in housing, transportation infrastructure, and agricultural technology. Economic development requires the availability of cheap, reliable, and abundant energy.[4]
The World Bank and other development banks provide loans and grants for development projects, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) helps poor countries overcome currency crises and keep their finances stable. However, these institutions are under pressure from their donor governments to focus on climate change—specifically, to reduce emissions.[5] The IMF recently proposed the creation of a US$50 billion Resilience and Sustainability Trust to help countries tackle climate change, where support would be contingent on recipient countries’ plans to reduce emissions.[6] Similarly, the World Bank has unveiled a climate action plan promising to align all future projects with the Paris Agreement to slash emissions.[7]
As a result, international funds for development are being redirected away from reducing poverty and increasing resilience, and towards reducing carbon emissions. By limiting development of electric power, this redirection is exacerbating the harms from weather hazards and climate change for the world’s poor. Development and poverty reduction require abundant and cheap energy, and natural gas is regarded as the best near-term solution for most countries. Working against this need in developing countries, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called on countries to end all new fossil fuel exploration and production. The United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union are aggressively limiting fossil fuel investments; the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other development banks are being pressured to do the same. The African Development Bank is increasingly unable to support large natural gas projects in the face of European shareholder pressure.[8]
Limiting the development of fossil fuel projects is profoundly hampering development in Africa. Africa is starved for energy; sub-Saharan Africa’s one billion people have the power generation capacity that is less than the United Kingdom with 67 million people. Natural gas is needed not only for power, but also for industry and fertilizer and for cleaner cooking to avoid loss of life from indoor air pollution. One cannot overemphasize the significance of natural gas as a transition fuel in developing countries, especially in Africa. The irony is that even tripling energy use and emissions in sub-Saharan Africa driven by natural gas would add a meager 0.6 % to overall global emissions.[9] The IEA projects that Africa won’t exceed 4 percent of global CO2 emissions by 2050 regardless of energy scenario.[10]
Leaders from developing countries have been outspoken in criticizing these changes in international funding practices. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni warns that by pushing climate mitigation on African countries, the West will “forestall Africa’s attempts to rise out of poverty.”[11] A widely viewed Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) Talk by Kenyan energy expert Rose Mutiso characterized forcing emissions mitigation on the world’s poor that is widening economic inequality as equivalent to “energy apartheid.”[12]
Africa’s fragile progress in recent decades could be undone by international efforts to curb investments in all fossil fuels. However, these same countries that are working to restrict fossil fuel investments in Africa include natural gas in their own multidecade plans to transition to clean energy. The greatest hypocrisy is that some of the largest private European and US firms are developing natural gas in Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Senegal to export to Asia and Europe, since it can’t be used in the countries of origin for lack of infrastructure.[13]
Prioritizing SDGs over Net-Zero
Every dollar spent on reducing carbon emissions can have a significantly greater impact if directed into education, medical services, food security, and critical infrastructure. To promote human well-being and thrivability, climate action in the poorest countries should concentrate on reducing poverty, increasing energy access, and building resilience via investments in housing, transportation, infrastructure, and agricultural technology.[14]
Wise climate policy needs to recognize that there are no climate “cliff-edges” in the climate system, that there is a plurality of values at play, and that a plurality of goals should be accommodated in policy-making. In this spirit, climate scientist Mike Hulme has called for “climate pragmatism,” which would prioritize SDGs over Net-Zero. This approach “would not necessarily deliver the objective of the Paris Agreement: stabilizing global temperature at between 1.5C and 2C.” Recognizing that trade-offs between different SDGs and between SDGs and stabilizing global temperature are unavoidable, Hulme posits that “[i]t is quite easy to imagine future worlds in which global temperature exceeds 2C of warming which are ‘better’ for human well-being, political stability and ecological integrity, for example, than other worlds in which – by all means and at all costs – global temperature was stabilized at 1.5C.” In relation to the tension between zero-carbon and the need for affordable energy, Hulme states:
“Several of the SDGs – for example, eradicating poverty (SDG#1), securing quality education (SDG#4), ensuring decent work and economic growth (SDG#8) – will require the expansion of affordable and reliable energy services for billions of people, not least in Africa and South Asia. Only some of these services can be delivered by zero-carbon energy.”[6]
How to respond to so-called the climate “crisis” in the midst of genuine crises associated with food and energy shortages and the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine is best reflected by the response of the New Zealand government. In defending its decision to issue fossil fuel prospecting permits in spite of declaring a climate emergency, the New Zealand government stated that the climate crisis was “insufficient” to halt oil and gas exploration.[15] Climate change is indeed a crisis of insufficient weight that will be increasingly ignored by many countries as they grapple with the basic human needs for energy and food.
There is no human right to a safe or stable climate
The UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has stated that:[7]
“… environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy the right to life.”
Reference is further given to a 2019 Report written by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, which concluded the following:[8]
“There is now global agreement that human rights norms apply to the full spectrum of environmental issues, including climate change.”
No attempt has been made by the UN to create international support for a new human right to be protected from climate change. Such a right is neither implicit or explicit in the UNFCCC Paris Agreement.
Even if Net Zero objectives were achieved globally by 2050, the climate would continue to change from natural weather and climate variability: volcanic eruptions, solar effects, large-scale oscillations of ocean circulations, and other geologic processes. Further, given the inertia in the climate system (particularly oceans and ice sheets), it would be many decades before there was any noticeable change in extreme weather/climate events and sea level rise after Net Zero was achieved.
Exaggeration of the risks from human-caused climate change leads to serious contradictions in context of beliefs that human rights offer protection against the impacts of dangerous climate change. Specifically with regards to the right to life, global mortality (per 100,000 people) from extreme weather and climate events have declined by 99% since 1920.[9] Between the period 1980 and 2016, global mortality (per 100,000 people) from extreme weather and climate events has dropped by 6.5 times.[10] For the mortality statistics since 1980, there is a clear negative relation between vulnerability and wealth.[11] Thus, an increase in wealth provides much greater and much more certain protection against climate-related risks than emissions reduction.
The trend in mortality statistics does not mean that weather and climate disasters have become less frequent or less intense. The trend implies that the world is now much better at preventing deaths from extreme weather and climate events than in the past. This has been accomplished through increasing wealth, which provides better infrastructure, greater reserves, advance warnings, and greater recovery capacity.
Towards an Energy Transition that Supports Sustainable Development Goals
Yes, we can seek to lower emissions as low as reasonably practical, ideally while minimizing our regrets and maximizing our opportunities through the energy transition. But we should not pretend that we are controlling the climate. And people are less inclined to act on the energy transition if they can’t imagine the endpoint, and can’t see themselves better off in the future.
The IEA Net Zero Roadmap makes a fundamentally important statement about the transition to Net Zero. Clean energy investment and demand reductions will drive the energy transition, not a premature removal of fossil fuel resources:
“A large and sustained surge in clean energy investment is what removes the need for new fossil fuel projects in the NZE Scenario: reducing fossil fuel supply investment in advance of, or instead of, policy action and investment to reduce demand would not lead to the same outcomes. Prolonged high prices would result if the decline in fossil fuel investment in this scenario were to precede the expansion of clean energy and the action to cut overall energy demand that are also set out in this scenario. This would reduce the chances of an orderly transition to net zero emissions by 2050 and underlines the importance of action to secure the kind of surge in investment in clean energy and the demand reductions that are seen in the NZE Scenario.”[12]
As the IEA emphasizes, clean energy development reduces the demand for fossil fuels; forced reduced supply of fossil fuels, on the other hand, causes adverse and counter-productive effects. In other words, clean energy supply precedes fossil fuels phase-out, not the other way around. The IEA prioritizes an orderly transition that aims to safeguard energy security through strong and coordinated policies and incentives that enable all actors to anticipate the rapid changes required, and to minimize energy market volatility and stranded assets.[13] The IEA recognizes that coal-to-gas switching is reducing emissions, particularly in the U.S.[14]
The rapid transition of electric power systems away from fossil fuels to meet net-zero emissions targets is introducing substantial new risks to electric power systems. A transition of the electric power system that produces reduced amounts of electricity, less reliable electricity and/or more expensive electricity to achieve net-zero goals would be a tourniquet that restricts the lifeblood of modern society and hampers development and will thwart sustainability efforts.
The debate is then between imposition of certain, intolerable risks from the rapid transition away from fossil fuels, versus the highly uncertain future impacts from climate change. This conflict can be resolved by relaxing the time horizon for reducing CO2 emissions while maintaining energy abundance, reliability and security through the energy transition.
The energy transition can be facilitated with minimal regrets by:
- Accepting that the world will continue to need and desire much more energy – energy austerity such as during the 1970s is off the table.
- Accepting that we will need more fossil fuels in the near term to maintain energy security and reliability and to facilitate the transition in terms of developing and implementing new, cleaner technologies.
- Continuing to develop and test a range of options for energy production, transmission and other technologies that address goals of lessening the environmental impact of energy production, CO2 emissions and other societal values
- Using the next several decades as a learning period with new technologies, experimentation and intelligent trial and error, without the restrictions of near-term targets for CO2 emissions.
In the near term, laying the foundation for zero-carbon electricity is substantially more important than trying to immediately stamp out fossil fuel use. Africa can develop its own natural gas resources. The transition should focus on developing and deploying new sources of clean energy. The transition should not focus on eliminating electricity from fossil fuels, since we will need much more energy to support the materials required for renewable energy and battery storage and building nuclear power plants, as well as to support growing numbers of electric vehicles and heat pumps. And adequate electricity and fuels for transportation, agriculture and industrialization will provide the framework for supporting rapid progress on the Sustainable Development Goals.
[1] “COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New ‘Loss and Damage’ Fund for Vulnerable Countries,” UNFCCC, November 20, 2022, https://unfccc.int/news/cop27-reaches-breakthrough-agreement-on-new-loss-and-damage-fund-for-vulnerable-countries.
[2] “Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach – Analysis,” IEA, September 2023, https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c-goal-in-reach.
[3] “The 17 Goals,” Sustainable Development, 2015, https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
[4] “Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals ,” United Nations, April 27, 2023, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2023/secretary-general-sdg-report-2023–EN.pdf.
[5] Acha Leke, Peter Gaius-Obaseki, and Oliver Onyekweli, “The Future of African Oil and Gas: Positioning for the Energy Transition,” McKinsey & Company, June 8, 2022, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/the-future-of-african-oil-and-gas-positioning-for-the-energy-transition.
[6] Hulme, Mike, Climate Change Isn’t Everything, Liberating Climate Politics from Alarmism, Polity Press, 2023, pp. 143-144.
[7] “CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016 ,” United Nations Official Documents, September 23, 2020, https://www.un.org/en/delegate/page/un-official-documents.
[8] “Safe Climate: A Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment,” UNEP, October 1, 2019, https://www.unep.org/resources/report/safe-climate-report-special-rapporteur-human-rights-and-environment.
[9] Bjorn Lomborg, “Welfare in the 21st Century: Increasing Development, Reducing Inequality, the Impact of Climate Change, and the Cost of Climate Policies,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 156 (July 2020): 119981, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119981.
[10] Giuseppe Formetta and Luc Feyen, “Empirical Evidence of Declining Global Vulnerability to Climate-Related Hazards,” Global Environmental Change 57 (July 2019): 101920, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.004.
[11] Bjørn Lomborg, False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2020), 218.
[12] “Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach – Analysis.”
[13] “The Green Bond Your Insight into Sustainable Finance – SEB,” SEB, February 2, 2023, https://sebgroup.com/siteassets/cision/documents/2023/20230202-sebs-the-green-bond-report-raised-forecasts-for-transition-investment-en-gb-0-3219814.pdf.
[14] “Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach – Analysis.”
[1] “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030,” United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, March 18, 2015, https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Vijaya Ramachandran and Arthur Baker, “The World Bank and IMF Are Getting It Wrong on Climate Change,” Foreign Policy, April 11, 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/11/the-world-bank-and-imf-are-getting-it-wrong-on-climate-change/.
[5] Vijaya Ramachandran and Arthur Baker, “The World Bank and IMF.”
[6] Ceyla Pazarbasioglu and Uma Ramakrishnan, “A New Trust to Help Countries Build Resilience and Sustainability,” IMF Blog, January 20, 2022, https://blogs.imf.org/2022/01/20/a-new-trust-to-help-countries-build-resilience-and-sustainability/.
[7] “World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan (2021-2025) Infographic,” World Bank, June 22, 2021, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2021/06/22/climate-change-action-plan-2021-2025.
[8] Yemi Osinbajo, “The Divestment Delusion,” Foreign Affairs, August 31, 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/africa/2021-08-31/divestment-delusion.
[9] Ibid.
[10] IEA, “Key Findings – Africa Energy Outlook 2022,” IEA, accessed August 5, 2022, https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2022/key-findings.
[11] Yoweri K. Museveni, “Opinion | Solar and Wind Force Poverty on Africa,” The Wall Street Journal (Dow Jones & Company, October 24, 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-wind-force-poverty-on-africa-climate-change-uganda-11635092219.
[12] Rose M. Mutiso, “The Energy Africa Needs to Develop.”
[13] Yemi Osinbajo, “The Divestment Delusion.”
[14] Vijaya Ramachandran and Arthur Baker, “The World Bank and IMF.”
[15] Tess McClure, “Climate Crisis ‘Insufficient’ to Halt Oil and Gas Exploration, Says New Zealand Government,” The Guardian (Guardian News and Media, July 27, 2022), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/28/climate-crisis-insufficient-to-halt-oil-and-gas-exploration-says-new-zealand-government.
Tribalism is a thing and it serves a purpose. It motivates us to take care of our children, immediate family, friends, and countrymen. Of course, one could identify other tribes.
At any rate, we in the US have to be careful who we help. China is a great example. Should we help a country which has declared itself in actions and words to be our enemy? I don’t believe we should help China for that reason. This would apply to some other countries as well.
Sometimes, tribalism is a good thing.
Thank you, Judith.
It will be interesting to see the rationalizations for the rapid elimination of fossil fuels via NetZero vs the charge of energy racism/colonialism. For the climate alarmists on the left, they have been hoisted on their own petard.
For pragmatism vs utopianism … for free markets vs central planning … it’s checkmate.
“So we are looking at an additional 0.8 to 1.2oC warming over the remainder of the 21st century, according to our current understanding. Natural climate variability is of course a wild card that can cut both ways, but the portion of the 21st century warming that the UN is hoping to control is order of 1oC.
The world has already shown that it can thrive under a warming rate of 1oC/century.”
So, in the UNSDG Sustainable Development Goals objectives, they can leave out Climate Change altogether.
I assume you meant one degree of Celsius, not ten degrees of Celsius?
So when push comes to shove the balanced reasonable well-informed citizen will take a, say, 2C increase/century over a nasty fall in prosperity. That still leaves the other 90% of citizens of prosperous nations, who have been stricken by the panic generated primarily by the efforts of climate scientists. And when I express such a view publicly I’m accused of being a “callous climate denier”. That in a nutshell is the global problem Judith faces. Her scientific colleagues have been winning the popular competition for climate doom and gloom. A successful strategy to combat this destructive state of despair is desperately needed. Good science is an essential but insufficient ingredient. You need a well-funded Global Institute of Calm Climate Hope. Surely there’s an entrepreneurial billionaire marketer out there to kick this thing off.
Tom – what is needed is a more realistic set of priorities for human societies on planet earth.
By this, I mean that climate utopians need to pushed to the sort of priority levels that western citizens always push them down to in opinion polls concerning citizen priorities.
Climate adaptation and pragmatic mitigation strategies are far more fruitful than playing God as a cover for imposing totalitarianism and shovelling billions into your own coffers.
Judith,
“climate change is as much a development problem as it is an environmental one”.
One hundred or more years ago, countries were on a starting block in the global development race. At the present stage of the race, some are leading the others. Why should they feel that have to give away their top places to the slower folk? We all started out about equal.
What worries me more is that the top places in C20 are rapidly changing to East Asian countries in C21. What a graphic display of poor leadership from the former top countries!
Maybe I am blaming poor leadership when the real cause is defining as “leaders” people who are in reality “knowing destroyers”.
Geoff S
Geoff, the wealth transfer was actively encouraged by some of the most rich and powerful Western oligarchs. At least one peer in the UK House of Lords was ‘defrocked’ due to aligning their economic interests against the UK.
I would like Ms. Curry to explain how the Nut Zero supporters (about 1/8 of the world’s population) will deprive the other 7/8 of the world’s population of whatever energy sources they want to use.
The 7/8 include most of the world’s hydrocarbon fuel production, The 7/8 includes China, India and Russia — they could not care less about Nut Zero.
1/8 of the world population lives in nations where leaders claim they support Nut Zero. Many citizens in those nations oppose Nut Zero. And not one nation has any hope of reaching Nut Zero.
How can voluntary CO2 emissions reduction “ambitions” in a few nations deprive most of the world of the fuels they want to use in the future?
Thank you.
I knew climate change fanaticism was a major impediment to the developing world, particularly Africa, but it’s much worse than I thought.
“Carbon dioxide levels have risen inexorably since the 1700s. Yet despite this… living standards and life expectancies, have improved virtually everywhere. In most areas they have never been higher, nor do they show any sustained signs of reversing.” ~Freeman Dyson
Can you give an exact quote and date? AI doesn’t find it, and says it may be a paraphrase.
Most likely the statement was made (if it was) 1-2 decades ago and Dyson is deceased. “nor do they show any sustained signs of reversing.” should be updated to the present. Both life expectancy and living standards have leveled out and are declining.
https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI
Carbon dioxide has been rising for 8000 years, but you fail to mention that the rise recently has been accelerating very fast; in the last 120 years it has risen 7 times as much as it did over the previous 8000 years.
https://berkeleyearth.org/dv/10000-years-of-carbon-dioxide/
Dated and misrepresented – typical.
ganon1950 | December 6, 2023 at 6:18 am | Reply
Both life expectancy and living standards have leveled out and are declining.
https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI
Ganon – Nice job finding report with a short study period so that you can support your statement that provides a misleading impression of the long term trend
typical of an advocate.
joethenonclimatescientist,
I gave references for 10,000 years of CO2 data (not a “short study period” particularly with respect to recent changes). And the HDI study was since 1990, and is plenty to show the “long term” trend as well as the leveling and current decline. Yeah, “advocates” for understanding climate change typically do have a tendency to use real references and real data (you should try it) – sorry it upsets you. Thanks for your attempted attack, anyway. It is always a pleasure to respond to them.
Joe, I saw that, and I responded to it:
“And the HDI study was since 1990, and is plenty to show the “long term” trend as well as the leveling and current decline. ”
No “distortion and deception”. Just facts with reputable references. If you can’t read graphs, that’s your problem. Only lies, innuendo, and insults, with no facts from Joe. My only clue is that you are angry enough to insert yourself and try to discredit my response to someone else’s comment – without factual content or success.
3rd time is not the charm for Ganon
Try to read my original comment
Dec 6, 2023 at 8:17am in response to your comment on Dec 6 2023 at 6:18am
I know what you comment was:
“joethenonclimatescientist | December 6, 2023 at 8:17 am |
ganon1950 | December 6, 2023 at 6:18 am | Reply
Both life expectancy and living standards have leveled out and are declining.
https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI
Ganon – Nice job finding report with a short study period so that you can support your statement that provides a misleading impression of the long term trend
typical of an advocate.”
I responded to everything in it except perhaps your personal opinion “so that you can support your statement that provides a misleading impression of the long term trend”.
My response to that is: It is your personal opinion, which I don’t care about. I gave facts and references for them. If you find that misleading, it’s your problem, and you’d have to explain why.
Funny… All you need do is tab on my name and use the search engine…
‘…efficiency too, making them more resilient to drought, so that there is a double benefit in arid parts of the world.
And as Dr Goklany points out: “Unlike the claims of future global warming disasters these benefits are firmly established and are being felt now. Yet despite this the media overlook the good news and the public remain in the dark. My report should begin to restore a little balance.”
‘In a powerful foreword to the report, the world-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson FRS endorses Goklany’s conclusions and provides a devastating analysis of why “a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts”, arguing that “the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal”.’
Wagathon,
I did, I searched, and funny, I got no hits for “Dyson” or “Freeman”. I’m already familiar with your two new (truncated) Dyson quotes. Thanks anyway.
ganon1950 | December 6, 2023 at 6:33 pm |
Well, the last 8 years are the hottest on record”
Ganon again is deceptive with the facts
Yes hottest in the last 200 years,
Hottest in the last 2000 or last 10k is simply not known.
ganon1950,
It is invalid to compare data collected on a daily basis at many locations (high resolution) with data collected at longer intervals at a few locations (low resolution).
Earlier, you criticised others for lack of use of uncertainty. Wh0at uncertainty should you quote for estimates of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere 8,000 years ago, versus the last 200 years? And for the rate of change over time, given the added uncertainty of dates?
Tell you what, I’ll make you an offer of $Australian 2.50 for your scientist badge. For that, you can buy a tablet of alleged truth serum scopolamine. Geoff S
sherro01,
You can find uncertainty data for ice core C02 here (typically 2 ppm) piece of cake for a conscious person to figure out that CO2 levels for the last 8,000 years have been lower than the current 420 million years.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology/ice-core
Sorry, you don’t get decide what is valid data and what isn’t. Daily CO2 measurements have only been available for 66 years at a very limited number of sites. You must be confusing CO2 and temperature. A usual, dazed and confused, don’t know what you are talking about. Have another beer. Enough stupid for now.
‘Dr Goklany said: “Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15%. This has not only been good for humankind but for the natural world too, because an acre of land that is not used for crops is an acre of land that is left for nature”.
‘Pointing to estimates that the current value of the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect on global crop production is about $140 billion a year, he notes that this additional production has helped reduce hunger and advance human well-being.
‘But the benefits go much further than this. It is not only crops that benefit from this “carbon dioxide fertilisation effect”: almost without exception, the wild places of the Earth have become greener in recent decades, .largely as a direct result of carbon dioxide increases. In fact, it has been shown that carbon dioxide can increase plants’ water-use efficiency too, making them more resilient to drought, so that there is a double benefit in arid parts of the world.’
Foreword
By Freeman Dyson
‘Indur Goklany has done a careful job, collecting and documenting the evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm. To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.
‘I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
‘Those of my scientific colleagues who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence convincing. I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind.
‘That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts? In this foreword I offer a tentative solution of the mystery.
‘There are many examples in the history of science of irrational beliefs promoted by famous thinkers and adopted by loyal disciples. Sometimes, as in the use of bleeding as a treatment for various diseases, irrational belief did harm to a large number of human victims. George Washington was one of the victims.
‘Other irrational beliefs, such as the phlogiston theory of burning or the Aristotelian cosmology of circular celestial motions, only did harm by delaying the careful examination of nature. In all these cases, we see a community of people happily united in a false belief that brought leaders and followers together. Anyone who questioned the prevailing belief would upset the peace of the community.
‘Real advances in science require a different cultural tradition, with individuals who invent new tools to explore nature and are not afraid to question authority. Science driven by rebels and heretics searching for truth has made great progress in the last three centuries. But the new culture of scientific scepticism is a recent growth and has not yet penetrated deeply into our thinking. The old culture of group loyalty and dogmatic belief is still alive under the surface, guiding the thoughts of scientists as well as the opinions of ordinary citizens.
‘To understand human behavior, I look at human evolution. About a hundred thousand years ago, our species invented a new kind of evolution. In addition to biological evolution based on genetic changes, we began a cultural evolution based on social and intellectual changes. Biological evolution did not stop, but cultural evo…’
Obviously, Dyson had a lot more to say and September, 2015 was not that long ago but one thing is for certain, and we see that here, not much has changed from the time he said- ‘I am suggesting that the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal.’
Well, the last 8 years are the hottest on record. Climate models are much better than they were 8 years ago. Climate uncertainty is less than it was 8 years ago. Some things have changed since 2015.
I take it you couldn’t find your original “quote” – so was it a paraphrase that you just slapped on some quotation marks and Dyson’s name?
“I guess one thing I don’t want to do is to spend all my time arguing this business,” … First of all, I am 85 years old. Obviously, I’m an old fuddy-duddy. So, I have no credibility. And, secondly, I am not an expert, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert.”
Freeman Dyson, Yale Environment 360 in 2009
I’m not inclined to pay much attention to the personal opinion of “non-experts” that are 8 -14 years old and are quoted as the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
“Carbon dioxide levels have risen inexorably since the 1700s. Yet despite this, climate sensitive indicators of human and environmental wellbeing that carbon dioxide affects directly, such as crop yields, food production, prevalence of hunger, access to cleaner water and biological productivity, and those that it affects indirectly, such as living standards and life expectancies, have improved virtually everywhere. In most areas they have never been higher, nor do they show any sustained signs of reversing.” ~Freeman Dyson
You already said this (thanks for filling in the middle), still no source, no year, and various search engines do not find the quote. Since you repeat, I will too.
Inexorable rise since 1700: over 50% increase and 93% of it since 1900.
“In most areas they [living standards and life expectancies] have never been higher, nor do they show any sustained signs of reversing.”
In most areas they are both lower and declining.
Try posting something current and relevant, rather than old opinions of an admitted non-expert.
A poser questioning the expertise of a genius?
Yes, being a genius does not mean one is an expert in everything. That includes Einstein and Clauser. It does allow morons to use them as false authorities.
‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ With regard to this point and that of who can live what type of lifestyle, I expect global trade and human travel restrictions, treaties and barriers force far more people into generational global poverty in underdeveloped countries and continues to leave a considerable amount of people in poverty and trapped outside of first world luxury and privilege, depending on the country in which they are born into and how much they own and what opportunities they are provided to trade with others is greatly determined by where they were born and how much money is already in their families bank accounts.
The idea that developed countries are free global traders is misleading and an incorrect consensus of mainstream opinion. There are many barriers in order to maintain a wealth status quo of developed nations over underdeveloped ones.
This article you write is potentially such good news for the planet where time and good climate science will ultimately prove if it is true. No climate catastrophe due to increased global temperatures is such good news. Biodiversity of plants and animals on earth on the other hand is still hugely under threat and there is no easy as yet way to prevent this. With ever growing human populations putting increased pressure on the natural environment and with people becoming healthier and living longer something will have to give.
It also helps OPEC.
And our unwillingness to invest in fossil fuel energy in Africa is driving them into the open arms of Russia and China.
It’s an epic foreign policy disaster.
Plus, people rarely realize, oil producers are the number one profiteers of Climate Alarmism.
Fossil fuel interests are the biggest beneficiaries of climate change alarmism. It’s evolved into a traditional baptists & bootleggers type relationship. Climate alarmists & their focus on wind and solar ensure there will be high demand & low supply for energy, oil, & gas.
https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1731020787287523584
https://www.econtalk.org/bruce-yandle-on-bootleggers-and-baptists/
Pingback: NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals - Climate- Science.press
Spot on Judith! Thank you. I hope you can make this piece more widely available so it can be widely read.
Thank you, Dr. Judith Curry, for the very important article!
The more renewables we have, the harder it is to add.
–
The key question is how to shield an electricity system with many renewables.
–
A first answer is batteries, pumped storage which is a battery with water, hydropower, natural gas that will be part of the mix, coal that will be also part of the mix…
–
And, international interconnections and a smarter system that the consumer can shift consumption from moments when there is not enough energy to moments when there is.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m not convinced that the public will be as enthusiastic about NETZERO when it is more than just an abstract policy goal and becomes a reality that starts to pinch their every day life.
There were many environmentalists out in force protesting against an EV battery plant in our area recently. Normally, I would expect environmentalists to be arm and arm with those protesting climate change. They both are an idealistic lot. But in this case, interestingly, the NIMBY instincts prevailed over their concern about the climate.
Likewise, if the impacts of these climate policies become more than theoretical and hit them where it hurts, in the pocket books and harming their aspirations for the good life, will DTMPL (don’t touch my privileged lifestyle) make them forget about the climate?
If educated Florida Democrats can blame every hurricane on human (conservative) caused climate what would a Uganda politician’s strategy be when a drought or flood hits? Remember, they have UN science backing to attribute their suffering to the rich outside countries.
The single most empowering thing for anyone, anywhere is education.
“The single most empowering thing for anyone, anywhere is education.”
I agree.
There are individuals in Uganda capable of creating wonderful advances in any discipline: the sciences, engineering; any endevour. It’s tragic so many countries still remain 3rd world.
Cultures that manage to overcome regional feudalistic malignancies; whether religious, or ideological based, are capable of navigating their way out of 3rd world status based on the power of their human resources alone. South Korea vs North Korea come to mind. Overcoming cultural deficiency to advance national prosperity usually means overcoming internal cultural malignancies first though. No small task. Though the Left usually goes straight to broad stroke Westernized oppression as causation in order to engender ideological sympathetic alignment, in order to maintain the status quo. Allowing nations to remain oppressed has its perks, ideologically speaking.
In contemporary terms, deprived national status is mostly not caused by outside western colonial style oppression, but rather for outside ideological reasons. Example: the Lefts support for theological controlled Iran; ignoring its export of terrorism, and its destabliizing influences in the region, yet Iran has a westernized culture desperately wanting its own freedom. What an irony. The Left embraces oppression because that’s the nature of the want for collectivist centralized control, it can only be managed from a position of power, they therefore support Iran. And we also know what the Left thinks of the sole democratic nation in the region.
What if a politician and the main-stream media proclaimed a non-existing consensus to be real but it wasn’t real?
As Freeman Dyson observed, the Chinese and the Indians have a far more optimistic view of the world going forward when it comes to climate change and the benefits that increased atmospheric CO2 provides.
Is that why they are working so hard to add non-GHG sustainable capabilities, even though it is more difficult for developing countries and they still have to rely on FFs for some of their rapidly expanding energy needs?
So they want to stuff everyone else in “20 minute” cities, but they will continue sailing their yachts. Does this mean they will live on their yachts? Don’t hold your breath on that one.
The United Nations (UN) climate summit, known as COP28, featured a Tuesday discussion on sustainable yachting.
The discussion centered on finding “a variety of technical solutions developed to make the yachting experience more responsible and sustainable,” according to its official COP28 website. The event, titled “Responsible Yachting. Today & Tomorrow,” was moderated by Nico Rosberg, a yacht-owning former race car driver, and organized by Sunreef Yacht, a company that builds custom yachts and luxury vessels.
The discussion also included “a conversation about electric, hybrid and hydrogen propulsion, battery technology, plant-based composites, bottom paints, modern photovoltaics, sustainable interior finishing, water management, energy management (and) air conditioning,” according to the event’s COP28 website.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/05/elite-climate-summit-united-nations-responsible-yachting/
US wind power installations for the third quarter fell to the lowest level in five years as an industry slowdown drags on this year.
Wind developers deployed 288 megawatts of new capacity for the three months ending in September, the slowest quarterly rate since the second quarter of 2018, according to a reportby S&P Global Market Intelligence. Installations, which include onshore and offshore, in the first three quarters of 2023, hit 3,159 megawatts, down from 5,361 megawatts for the same period in the prior year.
https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/wind-power-deployments-in-us-drop-to-lowest-level-in-five-years
Jim2 – fwiw – the advertised capacity is very misleading. Wind’s average capacity factor is approximately 40% of the gross advertised capacity. Obviously significantly less during wind doldrums.
Renewable activists like to point out that fossil fuel electric generation capacity factor is in the 60% ish range theefore (what ever advocates like to claim)
Several points worth noting .
The capacity factor for fossil fuel electric generation is reduced by demand. they can produce 100% when needed.
The capacity factor for renewables is limited by supply of fuel (wind and sun). Excess capacity is needed for renewables because the cant always produce when needed.
The discrete indirect solar forcing of mid latitude weather events, such as the 2003 and 2018 European heatwaves, are misattributed as being ‘impacts of climate change’.
Arctic warming, associated with a warm AMO phase which is normal during each centennial solar minimum, is misattributed as being an ‘impact of climate change’.
Global circulation models which predict increasingly positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions with rising CO2 forcing had failed from 1995, way before they were even published.
Negative NAO regimes increased from 1995, due to weaker solar wind states, driving the warmer AMO. Giving the UK on average wetter summers, contrary to the Met Office projections for drier (+NAO) summers.
The only climate impact we can be sure of, is global greening. But the political and economic impact of bad climate and weather science is potentially catastrophic.
A bone for Climate Doomers.
Earth on verge of five catastrophic climate tipping points, scientists warn
Humanity faces ‘devastating domino effects’ including mass displacement and financial ruin as planet warms
…
Many of the gravest threats to humanity are drawing closer, as carbon pollution heats the planet to ever more dangerous levels, scientists have warned.
Five important natural thresholds already risk being crossed, according to the Global Tipping Points report, and three more may be reached in the 2030s if the world heats 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial temperatures.
Triggering these planetary shifts will not cause temperatures to spiral out of control in the coming centuries but will unleash dangerous and sweeping damage to people and nature that cannot be undone.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/06/earth-on-verge-of-five-catastrophic-tipping-points-scientists-warn
Thanks,
You can back that up with something more reputable than the Guardian:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950
As well as downloading the 494-page PDF report from the source linked in the Guardian.
Rather than “Doomers”, I like to think we are optimists that think something can still be done about it. Seems better than, “Oh well, bad stuff happens – I don’t want to spend money on it”.
I keep hearing 1.5 C is baked in.
Jim2,
If you would please read the Science article (table 1), you would see there are a number of thresholds depending on the particular tipping point, ranging from 1.5 to 7.0 C with uncertainty limits given.
Nothing is baked in.
I don’t know when you arrived at the CAGW debate, but not so long ago, when critics would point out the wide divergence of climate model runs, Climate Doomers would say the output of the models were “projections” not predictions. I don’t believe we can justify spending 5-10 TRILLION dollars PER YEAR on specious “science.”
On top of that, from the article, selected weasel-word counts:
Model and variants: 102
Estimated and variants: 47
May: 45
Potential: 34
Possible and variants: 24
Could: 24
Might: 5
Suggested: 3
Not the stuff of policy by any means.
I’m not a climate “doomer”. The models reproduce what has happened in the past. So-called hindcasting as well as “half-casting” where the first half of what has already happened is used to predict what has happened in the second half, and they do quite well. See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16264-6
Different models with different starting points/data diverge (somewhat) the farther you go into the future. That is just the nature of non-linear dynamics – similar to weather where 3-day forecast are pretty good, 3-week forecasts can end up anywhere within the envelope of average seasonal weather for that time of year. With climate models it is similar, pretty good for 30 years, but for 200 years it is only within a rather wide envelope. They often do multi simulations from multiple groups with slightly different models and starting conditions to get a statistical estimate of future uncertainty.
Similarly, if it is anthropogenic climate change, future governmental and societal responses for controlling emissions a just a guess and they run different scenarios called RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways) and SSPs (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) that can range anywhere from “do nothing” to (actually) meeting net-zero by 2050. These result is widely different temperature response curves, that are used planning, and perhaps find a compromise between what is desired and what is practical. I think that “doubters” sometimes see these curves as very divergent, and thus conclude that nothing can be predicted. But, that is not the case, is more a case of “IF humans do this” then a reasonably accurate (at least qualitatively) prediction of what will happen can be made. If interested see:
https://wcrp-cmip.org/cmip-overview/
Note, that the temperature when tipping points will occur can be predicted more accurately that the time frame of when they will happen, because of the uncertainty in the “human factor” This is what makes modelling with the RCPs and SSPs and their guidance important. Rather being “doomers” it is a matter of being prepared for the worst (if nothing else, planning for adaptation) because these are irreversible processes, and you can’t get halfway to some bad outcome and say, “uh-oh this doesn’t look good – lets go back and try to do better”.
Fascinating article.
But no mention of the potential role of population control.
Overpopulation is the elephant in the room, in my opinion.
joethenonclimatescientist,
So you don’t know what “on record” means. No surprise.
Actually we have a very good idea of what the temperature has been for the last 2000 years, with scientific uncertainties, and the last 8 have been the hottest. See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7 (Fig. 3 inset)
You can say you do not know, but “we” have a pretty good idea.
One aspect of slowing development in Africa will be increased numbers of illegal entrants to Europe; the pious West shooting itself in the foot.
Not only are we humans the pits when it comes to forecasting the future, we are reduced to insane levels of over reaction to anything that leaders can dress up as guaranteed doom and gloom. Inspite of copious evidence that Mother Nature can cope with a whole range of temperature variables with or without a thriving human element in the overall living population in Earth and did so throughout the Holocene, we seem obsessed with our apparent ability to control the temperature of the Planet and cause tipping points without any evidence that we are doing so or have ever done so before. And all because of a minor gas which gives life to everything that happens to fluctuate slightly as to amount per million parts? How very unlikely is it that we control that level in any meaningful way?
Nature can swat us and the planet aside with one large collision. Indeed the camera, the silver screen, radio, TV, the internet etc have all added to our ability to communicate with all else at the level of the awful carnage that could happen to us – as per the horror movie/photo/picture/story. And all this is at the expense of listening to and watching nature get on with her job in much the same way as She has always done. Is She perturbed? Doesn’t look at all like She is anything other than her usual self but just might be cursing our ideas of cleaning the place up. She loves the wild and chaotic – just take a walk in wild places and get to know her.
Why do we have conceited people as leaders claiming they know the future from their machines when we have resisted such taboo throughout our illustrious past? Their machines cannot predict a coin toss and until they can they are worthless as is the data they provide. We need to wise up, get real and be fit for purpose because we are not as clever as we think we are.
Can we have sanity back as a required feature of decency, humanity and leadership before the situation gets worse please?
I think you don’t understand the power of information and statistical analysis. Casinos can’t tell which way a given coin toss will turn out, but they get rich off it. Weathermen can’t tell you what the weather will be like on a given day 2 months from now, but they can give a pretty accurate prediction for day after tomorrow, and a probability envelope for the given day in two months.
A lot of sweeping statements here to pull apart. First, you say that our models are unable to predict anything. But they already have, for the last 30 years, with remarkable accuracy. the null hypothesis would posit that every year temperatures could revert back to their 20th century norms as likely as go up. Yet, the models, over and over and over, have predicted this will not happen, the climate will also not stay the same, but rather will warm at an approximate rate of a tenth of a degree per decade. this is what has happened. the chances of this being a matter of luck are close to zero. So, we can and do predict with considerable accuracy. Second, you claim that nature is swimming along happily.
I’m not sure the coral reefs would agree, as this magnificent ecosystems has nearly collapsed the world over (yes there is encouraging signs you can point to here and there but the overall trend is horrific, the reefs of today are completely unrecognizable death zones compared to what i used to see in my childhood.) I don’t think unprecedented wildfires from siberia to canada to greece to australia to california, or the unprecedented heatwaves all across the planet this year show that nature is breezing along happily.
i am no “catastrophist” (to use the neologism of the skeptics) but i am neither a denier. you suggest that it is hubris to attempt to limit human effects upon our planet. i think it is hubris to ignore the ways in which we are affecting our planet.
DanB,
Writing as a scientist who has studied Australia for more than 50 years, I can state that –
1. Heat waves in the 8 major cities that are home to 70% of the population, taken over the entire data sets of temperature measurements, show that it is unsupportable to claim, as most people do without study, that heatwaves are getting longer, hotter and more frequent.
https://www.geoffstuff.com/eightheatwave2022.xlsx
2. The Great Barrier Reef is not facing a more difficult future because of global warming. Sea temperatures in 1871 are the same as recent ones.
https://www.bomwatch.com.au/bureau-of-meteorology/trends-in-sea-surface-temperature-at-townsville-great-barrier-reef/
On inspection the Reef looks fine. Numerous articles by Dr J Marohasy here-
https://climatechangethefacts.org.au/author/jmarohasy/
3. The Australian Instrumental temperature record from the Bureau of Meteorology is based on data that were collected for purposes other than climate change research. They lack accuracy and are unfit for purpose. The BOM estimate uncertainty in routine daily measuremnts at 0.17 deg C. The actual figure, when all relevant, known uncertainties are included, is closer to 1.7 deg C, 2 sigma if you believe in statistics of the real world of non-normal distributions and not the world of synthetic paper statistics. This link leads to Parts 2 and 3.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/24/uncertainty-estimates-for-routine-temperature-data-sets/
4. The UAH temperature over Australia shows no warming linear trend for the last 11 years and a few months.
https://www.geoffstuff.com/uahdec2023.jpg
I could go on and on with evidence from primary sources, but you will react predictably with disbelief and a list of papers showing disputed results.
You are free to believe what you like, but it is wrong of you to promote poor science for the dominant reason that it satisfies some personal comfort. Proper scientists take original data and treat it without fear or favour, as the links above show.
Geoff S
On the other hand:
Hilarious unintended consequences!
COP 28 is a really big fossil fuel trade show
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2023/12/07/cop-28-is-a-really-big-fossil-fuel-trade-show/
The beginning: “What was supposed to be a big deal climate treaty negotiation has morphed into an enormous trade fair. Even funnier the focus is on fossil fuel production which the UN treaty is supposed to curb.
COP 28 has an astounding number of attendees, with over 100,000 official registrants, more than twice the previous record. Meanwhile the number of actual climate treaty negotiators is somewhere in the hundreds, so maybe 1% at most. The negotiations area is small and walled of, while the general attendees area is huge. What do the other 99% (or 99,000 people) do as the two week session rolls slowly by? They talk to each other and a lot of that talk is apparently business related because a lot of the attendees are reportedly corporate or trade professionals doing deals.
Several green observers have complained that the COP has turned into a trade show. Fossil fuels is a huge and growing industry, but it is hilarious that the conference supposedly designed to curb that industry is in fact facilitating it big time. After all this is a chance for business types to talk to energy policy and trade officials from most of the countries in the world, especially the energy rich ones. Many government delegations likely include trade teams looking for fossil fuel action. Plus the business people do deals with each other. Fossil fuels are truly international.
For example, oil rich Nigeria lists a whopping 1,411 attendees. Of these 422 are government funded while the other 989 likely include a lot of business types. This is a lot of deal making horsepower. Other energy rich African countries also sent big delegations, including Kenya, Tanzania and Morocco. Same for big energy producers around the world.”
More fun stuff in the article. Please share it.
“… clean energy development reduces the demand for fossil fuels; forced reduced supply of fossil fuels, on the other hand, causes adverse and counter-productive effects.”
“All the above” is the only pragmatic approach to protect against a dystopic future until something trumps this equation; let’s say fusion.
A dystopic future prognosis is measured by both the political left, and right differently. It’s relative in the sense that it’s an examination based on immediate percieved worry; both practicalities, but also personal sensibiliies that may, or may not be rational. Yet common sense (here defined as being above simple emotive appeal, or faith based modeling) isn’t an equal measure between ideological left/right sensibilities; as such it must essentiallly be the basis for defining “the eventual, inevitable solution”. The inevitable energy solution must come from acknowledging the exponential growth of technology. Ignoring the before literally makes one an emotive reactionary, otherwise. The latter is simple common sense, the exponential growth of technology is demonstrable. Yet there’s little acknowlegement that the Left recognizes the exponential growth of tech, instead, they adhere to an emotive appeal to CAGW, based under the auspice of unproven climate models thay represents the sole basis for the Lefts definition for their idea of a dystopic future. If technology has no fit in the Lefts triangulation, then their sensibilty is missing. Wind, solar and batteries are their Holy Grail. The latter is a measure of religion only.
When one hears, “drill baby drill”, it’s not a calloused proclamation based on selfish immediacy, gratififation; it’s instead a general proclamation: “give us something better to survive on first”, or we’ll await the obvious; the tech solution. The latter is the common sense measure, it’s not an ultimatum, nor is it based on a lack of environmental concerns, rather it’s about global cultural viability above all else.
That’s why it is working on 25-35 year transition, and why so much effort is being put into technology development, from gravity storage to Mr. Fusion.
dr. curry, consider this a nitpick, but i believe you mean ‘plethora’, not ‘plurality’.
“In relation to the tension between zero-carbon and the need for affordable energy …
This makes the rather bold assumption that FFs will stay affordable if their rate of use continues to increase instead of decrease. And equally bold to assume that renewable (fuel costs = zero, equipment costs recognized) will increase commensurate with FFs.
Now that NATURE has shown how it will keep a relatively constant average surface temperature of the earth, you should understand that Nature has designed a very simple, but genius method to give man an environment in which to exist.
Water expands as it cools from 39-degrees to 32-degrees Faren height.
Ice resting on the floor of the ocean displaces the same amount of ocean water as floating ice.
YOU MUST ADMIRE NATURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Ice resting on the floor of the ocean displaces the same amount of ocean water as floating ice.”
You have not taken ‘level’ into account. Any ice that is above sea water level is only replacing ‘air’. When it melts it will add to the sea surface level. Ice resting on the ocean floor reduces the sea level when it melts. It does not necessarily balance out.
The only ice resting on the ocean floor is at glacial continental margins (Antarctica) where ice shelves with tops well above sea level hold the under sea level part in contact with the bottom, otherwise it float.
This essay had me reflect on another essay, by The Breakthrough Institute, posted on CE a number of years ago. It’s a very engaging read about sustainability; it cuts through a number of tropes perpetuated by media, and ideologues:
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/issue-5/the-return-of-nature
Yes, it very much reminds me of sigmoidal growth followed by exponential decay curves of bacterial populations in a Petri dish. We are probably somewhere near the top of that curve – enjoy.
Jeez you post a lot of crap not about the post. Why?
Aha! some probably starting to question their Harvard degrees but on the bright side, everyone got a good wake-up call courtesy of NY Republican Elise Stefanik as to the moral corruption of these valuless and corrupt pedants of academia and she graduated from there. Clearly, Western academia has far more things to worry about going forward than continuing to warn the public of a non-existent global warming catastrophy caused by modernity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Thomas Gray comes to mind, particularly if “willful” is added at the beginning.
Jeez you post a lot of crap not about the post. Why?
I do it just for you, Rob.
Pingback: NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals • Watts Up With That?
Pingback: NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals • Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Improvement Targets • Watts Up With That? - Finencial
Pingback: NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals • Watts Up With That? - News7g
New York state’s green energy mandates could jeopardize the reliability of its power grid in the coming years, several grid experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The state has established targets of generating 70% of its electricity by 2030 and having its grid reach zero-emissions by 2040, according to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Reaching these goals will necessitate the substitution of natural gas-fired generation sources with intermittent sources like solar and wind, and the state’s future energy mix leaves ratepayers exposed to increased costs in addition to serious reliability concerns, grid experts told the DCNF.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/09/green-energy-new-york-grid-reliability/
About 24 months ago I saw an interview from an Atlantic gathering with the Chief Scientist from the Nature Conservancy and a State of New York manager. The latter stated they have a shelter system to house the population in case of electricity black-outs. They are planning for a major grid outage.
That’s a lot of shelter!
Pingback: Wie die Klimajournalisten zu Aktivisten wurden – KlimaNachrichten
I keep on reading in the media how this year is the hottest ever, but observations tell me otherwise. I live in Northern Europe, and for the past three years, since 2020, our winter’s have been cold, with plenty of snow even in the southern parts of our country. The summers have been quite normal for these latitudes, sometimes a week or so a heat wave, then quite pleasant. This year winter began a month an a half early, and is forecasted to continue. Next door neighbors temperatures have been extremely cold, with a high pressure system spreading from Moscow to Vladivostok, with temperatures below -50C in places, and from studying temperatures across Russia, I concluded that it’s possible it averages to -15C. This has been going on for about two, three weeks now. So I have a question: how is it possible to say already in September, that this year is the hottest ever? I answer this straight away: it is only possible for people who sit at a computer and invent all kinds of scary models to make other people scared. Personally, I’m far more afraid of the extreme cold because I know what it’s like. Humans do not control the climate, the Sun, and the Earth do.
I don’t believe that seasonal local weather equates to global average climate. Higher internal variability in the climate system often expresses as greater regional and temporal extremes.
Well, you have a right to your opinion. But if seasonal local weather is not an issue, and does not reflect global climate, then why do we have to listen to the alarmists when they claim that every storm, flood and other weather event in the world is caused by humans? All I’m saying that the past three years resemble the winters we had in the ’60s and 70’s, and appear to get colder. But thank you for your opinion.
You don’t have to listen to them. There has always been extreme weather, climate change just makes them more probable and more intense (on average). Guess you are experiencing that now. In October you were still above average. You can see a global map for any given month, back to 1880, with your choice of reference time period.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
ganon1950 | December 10, 2023 at 2:28 pm |
You don’t have to listen to them. There has always been extreme weather, climate change just makes them more probable and more intense (on average).
Ganon – The statement “climate change just makes them more probable and more intense (on average).” is speculation. There is little or no evidence to support that statement.
Here is another example of a “peer reviewed” study based on pure speculation. Unfortunately, its typical of much of climate science which unfairly negatively taints the good parts of climate science. An honest scientist wouldnt participate
joethenonclimatescientist,
No it is not based on “speculation” Both the GISTEMP maps and increase in extreme weather events are based on data. You can deny and mischaracterize all you want – it doesn’t change the meteorological data and reality. Your denial is the only thing that is based on personally biased speculation, for which you provide no supporting data/evidence.
“Increasing heat and rainfall extremes now far outside the historical climate”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w
ganon
#4 citation in the link didn’t work.
The paper used an analysis of spring temperatures in Australia from 1910-1960 in support of their heat extremes conclusion. This was #5 citation. The problem with going back to 1910 is that it ignores the extremes in the 19th century. These articles cover extreme events, including heat waves for 1846, 1857, 1871, 1878, 1896, 1898. There are also articles about other heatwaves in the early 20th century.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image730_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BlackThursday_shadow.jpg
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image720_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Image0409342019.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image777_shadow.png
https://joannenova.com.au/s3/s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/photo/history/1800s/blanchetown.jpg
ganon
Citation #4 didn’t work.
Citation #5. This paper was about spring temperatures in Australia but covered only 1910-1960, which means it didn’t cover extreme weather in 1846, 1857, 1871 or 1878.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image730_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BlackThursday_shadow.jpg
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image720_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Image0409342019.png
ganon
Citation #5 also didn’t cover the heatwaves in 1790 up to 1898
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-07-31043913_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image777_shadow.png
https://joannenova.com.au/s3/s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/photo/history/1800s/blanchetown.jpg
cerescokid,
That’s nice. I don’t think we expected much evidence of climate change before 1900. Nor should it be expected that a few cherry-picked extremes in Australia are representative of global averages.
Maybe the authors of #5 forgot about 1923-24 heatwaves and the 1939 heatwave in Sydney
https://web.archive.org/web/20010306081154/http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm
https://joannenova.com.au/s3/s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/photo/history/trove/windsor-1939-122F.gif
It is interesting that 2023 is predicted to be the hottest year on record for both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. In the past, extreme temperatures could often be associated with hemispheric internal oscillations (NAO, NPO, etc.), this time it looks like global warming.
ganon
Your link used 1951-1980, as they said, a relative stable climate as the reference period to make statistical analysis. Not exactly the Holocene. Not even the 20th Century. A cherry picked baseline to compare more recent weather. Unconvincing.
I tried to link to evidence of Australia heatwaves beginning in 1790 up to 1939. What ever went on in the reference period for citation #5 doesn’t establish that anything since has been exceptional.
cerescokid, I think those are newspaper clippings, not citations nor statistical analysis. As for nothing exceptional since then:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/11/weather-tracker-temperatures-hit-435c-in-australia-as-2023-on-track-to-be-hottest-year
“Heat in Australia is 15C above December average and comes as Cop28 nears end”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59977193
Australia equals hottest day on record at 50.7C
Picking the 30-year period prior to the period under study, is not cherry-picking, it is the WMO general standard for tracking global climate change. OTH, what you did with a small set selected 150-180 year old newspaper clippings – that is a primo example of cherry-picking. Nice try though.
ganon
So, you criticize my newspaper articles and then to refute my reply you use newspaper articles. How rich.
ganon
This from your study “ For example, event-attribution analyses have shown that the prolonged heat-wave conditions in both Siberia and Australia in 2020 would have been virtually impossible without climate change”
Looks like heatwaves are pretty common in Australia.
1896
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image777_shadow.png
1898
https://joannenova.com.au/s3/s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/photo/history/1800s/blanchetown.jpg
1906
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Image2212212019.png
1923
https://web.archive.org/web/20010306081154/http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm
Cerescokid.
Nope, I used them to refute your claim that nothing exceptional has happened since then. I already gave peer reviewed publication RE global increase in heat waves, in discussion with Geoff – have you already conveniently forgotten? Rich – you even cherry-pick what I’ve presented.
ganon
For those who don’t know Australia official record doesn’t include pre 1910 temperatures. Wouldn’t it be more informative to have records that had today’s coverage, technology and reliability for global temperatures back to the MWP. But it is what it is.
1896
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image777_shadow.png
1898
https://joannenova.com.au/s3/s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/photo/history/1800s/blanchetown.jpg
1906
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Image2212212019.png
cerescokid,
Sure, it would be great to have time travel, but we don’t. Instead, cross-correlated multiple paleothermometric proxies are getting very good for the last 2000 years, e.g. PAGES2K. The MWP, was regional.
“No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
Ganon1950:
“The MWP was regional”
“No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era”
Both statements are FALSE! More of your cherry picking, do some more research.
See: The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170
Burl,
No thanks, not interested. I’ve already read several of your “papers”. I will believe the PAGES2k consortium, that publishes regularly in respected earth system and climate science journals, over a yo yo suffering illusory superiority that publishes unscientific and unsupported speculations, that are easily disproven and that nobody but himself cites, in the online only blog journal WJARR.
Ganon
”
“Unsupported speculations that are easily disproven”
Certainly NOT by you. You lack the competence
ganon
“ The MWP, was regional.”
I will attribute that to a rookie mistake. I have heard that for over a decade. Then I took a deep dive into the literature. After reading a few hundred papers that found MWP and LIA conditions in the SH and on every continent, it became clear this was just another propaganda ploy to keep the sheep in line. Both MWP and LIA were global. There is variability in T even now across the oceans and continents. Nothing is homogeneous about climate.
Back to the books. After you read a few hundred more papers you will arrive at the truth.
Elderly in the UK may be burning books again in the coming winter months, February through March, to stay warm.
You don’t have to rely on the media, you can see 143 years of monthly global average data visualized here:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5191/
People don’t yet realize the impact higher interest rates will have on “green” energy projects, especially in Europe. Europe relies much more on borrowing than the US. It will really feel the bite of higher interest rates. I predict it will slow spending on “climate change.”
Those dangers are magnified the longer borrowing costs stay where they are. The amount of maturing US corporate debt is set to double in the next two years, to about $1 trillion in 2025, and triple in the euro zone, to the equivalent of more than $400 billion, data compiled by Oxford Economics show.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-11/2024-interest-rate-cut-races-debt-to-avoid-hard-landing
Unprecedented mass gain over the Antarctic ice sheet between 2021 and 2022 caused by large precipitation anomalies
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad0863
In hindsight, perhaps not surprising that a warmer world puts more moisture in the air and increases snowfall locally in Antartica. But the decadal trend shown in this paper is the opposite.
It may be related to the huge amount of water vapor shot into the atmosphere by Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai.
Jim2:
The problem with the Hunga Tonga water vapor hypothesis is that no warming occurred for ~15 months, then it suddenly began rapidly warming up.
I have an alternate explanation for what has happened:
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.19.2.1660
Jim2,
Hunga-Tonga injected 146 megatons of water into the stratosphere – This 1/1000-th of the annual sheet ice mass changes in Antarctica. Temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere cooled after the eruption, although there has been some speculation about longer term warming, it was/is quite small. I expect that David is correct, in that changes in the weather due to warmer ocean and breakthough of the polar vortex and circumpolar current.
David and ganon – The water vapor from H-T was 10% of the water in the atmosphere. That’s where precipitation comes from. As far as lags go, a lag in temp vs time of eruption, it may be some mixing cycle. Once initiated, there could be some feedback mechanism, in the engineering sense of feedback, that continued the warming for a few months. Last months global temp didn’t jump up again, so the spike may be over.
I don’t know they whys, but neither do you guys. I noticed no climate scientists jumped up and predicted what’s was going to happen. That’s because they don’t know either. At least I’m able to admit it. They aren’t.
Jim2,
Your suggestion that climate scientists can’t predict anything is hogwash. Once upon a time, climate models were indeed criticized as being “too hot”. The last several years have changed that. The predictions of ~ 2000 about 2023 were pretty good. Perhaps the reason that warming in the first decade of this century was less than predicted was the sulfur aerosol problem, but that is my speculation. Warming has caught up to predictions since. You seem to think that heavy snowfall in Antarctica for one year somehow nullifies this. You are grasping at straws.
Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth Closer to 1.5°C of Warming
The underwater eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai sent megatons of water vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global warming over the next 5 years.
https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming
+.05 C for 3-5 years. And that 10% was for the stratosphere (which has very little water to start with) not the atmosphere.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/climate/tonga-volcano-climate.html
The troposphere has 100 times as much water as the stratosphere and any precipitation effects would rain out within a month, not show up 18 months later.
You don’t know what you are talking about, ganon. And climate scientists didn’t tell us in advance about the jump in global temp. They don’t have a clue either.
Your article said a slight jump. It was almost 1 C. Not slight from a historical perspective (UAH record). They were wrong.
It takes ABOUT 1 year to mix hemispheric gasses.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/acmg/files/intro_atmo_chem_bookchap4.pdf
On page 67, chpt 4 of that same book. 1-2 years for exchange between troposphere and stratosphere. 18 months, eh?
Jim2,
You forgot to mention that UAH attributes the recent (since June) temperature rise to ENSO , not the Tonga eruption.
See a comparison of Northern and Southern Hemispheric monthly temperature anomalies (HadCRUT 5.0.2.0), starting one year before the TH eruption (link below). The rise, starting in early in 2023, is essentially synchronous and somewhat more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere. Both indicate that the cause is ENSO, not the eruption. It will be interesting to see what another year or two of data shows.
https://mega.nz/file/EncUkRqC#DXhcvLi1MeqeDoGXjee5kBhkWgn8iSrIdX7_Y_8yAjk
Ganon1950:
You say “Both indicate that the cause is ENSO, not the eruption”
No, ALL volcanic-induced ENSO’s are preceded by an eruption, in this instance, Hunga-Tonga.
See “The definitive cause of La Nina and El Nino events.
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
Nobody knows, ganon. Not even UAH.
JIm2,
LOL. You only get to speak for yourself. I believe the data.
Burl,
ALL volcanic-induced ENSO’s are preceded by an eruption.
That is true, but there may well be that there zero volcanic-induced ENSOs. It is also true that all ENSOs are preceded by eruptions. When both occur every few years, that is always true. You have failed to show causality.
Ganon:
“That is true, but there may well be that there zero volcanic-induced El Ninos”
WHAT are you trying to say?
“It is also true that all ENSO’s are preceded by volcanoes”
No, that is a false statement. all ENSO’s are preceded by a decrease in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels (3 causes identified)
“You have failed to show causality”
Only in your dreams!
ganon says: I believe the data.
Correction, you believe in your interpretation of the data.
JIm2,
Both. I also believe the interpretation of the professionals that take and interpret the data.
Burl,
What I was saying is that volcanic eruption VEI4 or greater occur on average every 18 months, VEI3 every 3 months. Thus, you can almost always find (time-delayed) coincidence with ENSO events. Coincidence does not imply correlation does not imply causation.
I am saying that you don’t know. You have proposed 3 possible causes, but you have done no statistical analysis of time or intensity correlation to support those speculations.
It appears that only in your dreams are you able to do real analyses or literature research that support your speculations.
https://volcano.si.edu/faq/historical_activity_200years.jpg
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28210-1
Ganon:
Both of your references are useless!
I have drawn my conclusions from a careful examination of WoodforTrees. org temperature graphs, and, with respect to volcanic eruptions, ONLY VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions show any climatic effect.
In using actual temperature plots, there is no need for any type of literature search or statistical analysis of time or intensity correlation. There is no speculation. IT IS WHAT IT IS!
The 3 causes of decreased SO2 aerosol emissions are not proposed, but were actually discovered THROUGH analysis of the graphs.
Your statement that “volcanic eruption VEI4 or greater occur on average every 18 months, so that you can almost always find coincidence with ENSO events” further shows your ignorance. Examination of the graphs shows that volcanic activity CAUSES ENSO events.
Uh huh, sure, Burl.
“You don’t know what you are talking about”. Speak for yourself, oh, that’s right, you already did. I know what fraction of water is in the atmosphere, and I gave a reference for other things, with literature references therein.
Pingback: Nobel Laureate Al Gore – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
A nice primer on the carbon cycle that would be useful for some readers of this blog. Yes, decarbonization is difficult. That does not imply we should quit on it.
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2023/11/20/carbon-dioxide-removal-needs-more-attention
Sometimes, failure is a good thing …
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The prospect of a deal to end fossil fuels faded on Monday in the oil-rich United Arab Emirates, when organizers of the U.N. climate summit released a draft proposal that merely suggested reducing them instead.
That outcome would fall far short of the demands that environmental groups, the U.S., the European Union and vulnerable island nations had laid out before the COP28 summit in Dubai, with some activists saying the talks would be a failure if they did not call for phasing out the production of coal, oil and natural gas.
The draft “really doesn’t meet the expectations of this COP in terms of the urgently needed transition to clean sources of energy and the phaseout of fossil fuels,” U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said during a fractious, closed-door meeting late Monday night and early Tuesday, which POLITICO listened to via an unsanctioned feed.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/11/fossil-fuel-phaseout-dropped-cop28-00131066
cerescokid,
Sorry, I believe scientists that can support their work. Not, non-scientists that think personal attacks and unsupported claims are refutation.
Burl. I certainly disproved your hypothesis that reduction of anthropogenic SO2 emissions (RASE) is responsible for global warming, using multiple libes of evidence; tropospheric residence times, equilibrium climate sensitivities which show that total RASE can be responsible for removing a maximum of 10% cooling of global warming, and the actual reduction of about 1/3 since the 1980 peak emissions, can only account for a few percent. And finally, direct comparison of SO2 emissions and the temperature record 1950 – 2010, shows that the hypothesis unequivocally incorrect.
It is pretty clear who is incompetent and butt hurt because his pet hypothesis has been so utterly and easily destroyed.
Ganon1950:
I have been in the process of moving, and have not had time, as yet, to refute your attempt to refute my hypothesis.
But stay tuned.
Refute away. I look forward to it – should be entertaining.
https://mega.nz/file/IvVzTTgA#cp-CCfdj589Dww9_8PhU1uey2VV1ma5n5yZaRlrjknA
Ganon1950:
Here is my promised response. Enjoy.
Earlier, I had directed you to a graph from the notrickszone showing exactly what I have been maintaining–decreasing temperatures 1950-1980, and rising temperatures after 1980.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-comments/uploads/2021/Arch_2.png
You countered by showing a graph of the raw HadCRUT5.0.2.0 data set (global monthly average) with “NO MASSAGING”
I have examined the graph, and it shows a cherry-picked temperature of +0.196 deg. C. for 1980, which was during the 1979 Sep-1980 Mar El Nino , when temperatures are always temporarily higher, and not representative of the usual average temperatures. So much for NO massaging.
Also, all of the temporary increases and decreases shown are due to increases and decreases in the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, primarily due to-incident volcanic eruptions, or volcanic-induced El Ninos, and definitely not due to changing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The changing slope after 1980 is from “Clean Air” reductions in SO2 aerosol emissions.
Regarding the notrickszone graph which you rejected as being heavily massaged, I have reproduced it in two different ways.
In the first instance, using the Table of HadCRUT5 temperatures (downloaded on Dec 16), I deleted all TEMPORARY monthly increases and decreases in temperature due to La Ninas and El Ninos betwen 1945 and 2020 , and when the remaining temperatures are plotted, the resultant graph has the same shape as the notrickszone graph: decreasing temperatures until 1980, then rising temperatures thereafter.
In the next instance, using the Woodfortrees.org graph of HadCRUT4 average global temperatures for the same period, I took its integral, and, again, the resultant graph has the same shape–decreasing temperatures until 1980, then increasing temperatures thereafter. This appears to be the method used for the notrickszone graph.
The phony graph that you used to “falsify” my hypothesis that SO2 aerosols are the control knob for our climate indicates that you were unable to do so, that it follows that the CO2-warming hypothesis, itself, has been falsified, since there can only be one correct solution for a given problem, in this instance, Climate Change.
Burl,
There is no doubt that anthropogenic SO2 causes some cooling. There is also no doubt that the global decrease in SO2 emissions is not enough to explain the observed warming.
Thanks for trying.
Ganon1950:
“There is also no doubt that the global decrease in SO2 emissions is not enough to explain the warming”
Please explain why there is no doubt in your mind why that that is true.
Burl,
Radiative forcing values, tropospheric lifetime, and emissions vs temperature data. I’ve already discussed them all.
Representatives from nearly 200 countries agreed at the COP28 climate summit on Wednesday to start cutting global fossil fuel consumption to stave off the effects of climate change, a first-of-its-kind deal that marks the potential end of the oil era.
TotalEnergies will attempt to replace petroleum and nat gas with methanol made from “green” hydrogen and recycled CO2. So what happens when there isn’t CO2 due to “green” policy. No matter how that works out, this will be more expensive than oil and gas.
This will be an aspect of just about all “green” approaches to any existing, and cheaper, activity. More expensive. This will keep up inflationary pressure around the world. And that is NOT a good thing.
“TotalEnergies R&D program on Carbon Capture and Utilization is developing approaches for
the economically viable reuse of CO 2 which is in line with the climate ambition of the company.
e-CO 2Met is the first pilot project for TotalEnergies to convert CO 2 with renewable electric
energy to methanol. Whilst this methanol can be considered itself an e-fuel, it can importantly
be used as a platform in a further upgrading to products including sustainable aviation fuels,”
explains Marie-Noelle Semeria, Chief Technology Officer at TotalEnergies.
“With the innovative production of synthetic methanol, crude oil and natural gas can be
replaced in the chemical industry and the required raw materials can be produced in a climate-
neutral way. In this way, we are making a contribution to the decarbonisation of basic
chemicals,” says Thomas Behrends, Managing Director TotalEnergies Raffinerie
Mitteldeutschland.
https://www.igb.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2021/totalenergies-sunfire-and-fraunhofer-give-the-go-ahead-for-green-methanol-in-leuna.html
Meanwhile, new oil and gas discoveries continue apace. Pretty impressive. When the “green” ship sinks, we will have a nice backstop.
https://www.rigzone.com/news/topic/discoveries/
The Wood Mackenzie representative highlighted in the piece that exploration offshore Namibia dates back to the 1970s but noted that the “breakthrough” happened in February 2022, “with major discoveries by Shell and TotalEnergies in the Graff and Venus blocks”.
“Venus in particular is potentially the biggest ever oil discovery in Sub-Saharan Africa, and among the top 10 globally since the turn of the century,” he added.
https://www.rigzone.com/news/deepwater_oil_discoveries_offshore_namibia_generating_huge_excitement-24-nov-2023-174827-article/
ESG fund “juices” it’s returns with oil and gas investments.
Funds that are registered as “promoting” environmental, social and good governance metrics had about 2.3% of their holdings in fossil fuel assets at the end of the third quarter, up from 1.4% right after Europe introduced a framework for ESG investing in early 2021, according to data provided by Morningstar Inc. Exposure to renewable energy assets slipped to 0.3% of total holdings from 0.4% in the same period, the data show.
The development, which reflects changes in asset valuations as well as outright purchases, follows a spike in oil prices triggered by the Ukraine war and a “terrible year” for renewables, Hortense Bioy, global director of sustainability research at Morningstar, said in an emailed response to questions.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-13/world-s-no-1-esg-fund-class-ratchets-up-exposure-to-oil-and-gas
Oil industry helps the poor!
n deep blue waters off the coast of Guyana, gargantuan ships are sucking oil from reservoirs three kilometres below the surface. These machines are transforming the fortunes of one of South America’s smallest and poorest countries. In 2015 ExxonMobil, an American oil giant, found the first of what are now around 11bn barrels of proven crude oil reserves, or around 0.6% of the world’s total. Production began three years ago, and is now picking up pace. By 2028 it could reach 1.2m barrels a day—a rate that today would make Guyana one of the top 20 oil producers. That is a stunning bonanza for a country of only 800,000 inhabitants. Foreign politicians no longer struggle to find it on the map. On July 6th Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, paid a visit.
https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2023/07/11/latin-america-is-set-to-become-a-major-oil-producer-this-decade
It is worth keeping in mind, COP 28 determined all these “green” “fixes” will cost 5-10 TRILLION per YEAR!!! Adaptation is the rational choice, not mitigation.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/11/17/a-bad-recipe-for-science/#comment-996545
You still haven’t answered – what are you going to do to help other species adapt?
As I’ve said before, the rational choice is a combination, of better understanding, conservation, mitigation, and adaptation. Either/or is hardly ever rational for complex problems.
ganon – on Earth, species come and go. The science backing a mass extinction is very sketchy. We don’t even know all the species that exist now, much less how many existed in the past, and how many of those have gone extinct. The mass extinction talk is nothing more than more Climate Doomer dribble.
Joe,
“do you have any concept of the multitude of math , logic errors, omissions and deceptions in lazards LCOE computation.”
I’m not aware of any. Certainly not going to take your word for it.
Joe,
My comment – “do you have any concept of the multitude of math , logic errors, omissions and deceptions in lazards LCOE computation.”
Gannon’s response to my comment – “I’m not aware of any. Certainly not going to take your word for it.”
Ganon – to summarize your response – you have a strong interest promoting the agenda – but have no interest in understanding the flaws.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666792422000300
https://energyforgrowth.org/article/lcoe-and-its-limitations/
https://watt-logic.com/2023/08/26/challenging-the-cheap-renewables-myth/
Joe,
I’m aware of the limitations and misuse by end users. Just not aware of the things you complained about. Please recommend a better, impartial system/model that is available to replace it.
ganon1950 | December 13, 2023 at 11:12 am |
Joe,
I’m aware of the limitations and misuse by end users. Just not aware of the things you complained about. Please recommend a better, impartial system/model that is available to replace it.
ganon – the two major flaws are :
A) LCOE only takes into account the total costs of a system uses each fuel type (wind, solar, gas, coal, etc). The average kw cost for each fuel type is the computed based on the total cost projected kw generated using average capacity factor. Most all of the critique of LCOE emcompasses those flaws.
B) the second major fallacy of LCOE is the misunderstanding of capacity factor. The average capacity of wind and solar is approx 40% & 30% for wind and solar respectively. However, the average capacity factor is inappropriate for both wind and solar due to the periods in which Wind and solar generate little electricity. As is well known, both wind and solar have period of low production and therefore to compensate at high penetrations, there is a need to overbuild with excess redundancy to cover the low periods. Those costs
Joe,
Complain all you want. Please recommend a better, impartial system/model that is available to replace NREL-LCOE.
ganon1950 | December 13, 2023 at 1:54 pm |
Joe,
“Complain all you want. Please recommend a better, impartial system/model that is available to replace NREL-LCOE.”
Ganon – Great comment – It also demonstrates how little you understand about which you so vehemently defend. LCOE is used quite heavily by venture capitalists and others promoting renewables. However, as Russell S correctly notes, the industry doesn’t use LCOE in planning and development of operational plants because it is simply a very poor metric. See prior posts in CE by actual industry experts.
Joe,
“It also demonstrates how little you understand about which you so vehemently defend.”
Funny, all I’ve seen is vehement attacks from you, and your inability to respond to my request for you to educate me.
“the industry doesn’t use LCOE in planning and development of operational plants because it is simply a very poor metric.”
Yet “the industry” is installing a lot of wind and solar. Perhaps they understand the big picture than somebody that just complains without solutions.
Ganon repeats my statement – “the industry doesn’t use LCOE in planning and development of operational plants because it is simply a very poor metric.”
Ganon Responds – “Yet “the industry” is installing a lot of wind and solar. Perhaps they understand the big picture than somebody that just complains without solutions.”
Ganon – Again thanks for the comment and again thanks for demonstrating that you dont understand the subject matter. The contents of your reply that doesnt not address the merits of my statement. ( a common deception)
Ganon – Go back and read numerous post on CE by Russell S – also known as planning engineer. he is a actual industry expert. His posts clearly explain why LCOE is a very poor metric for costs and his posts clearly explain why the industry doesnt use LCOE. Promoters use LCOE, not industry experts.
Joe,
You are misquoting. Your paraphrasing doesn’t interest me. I’m still waiting for solutions instead of complaints. If you don’t like LCOE, that’s your problem.
ganon1950 | December 13, 2023 at 3:35 pm |
Joe,
Ganon ‘s comment – “You are misquoting. Your paraphrasing doesn’t interest me. I’m still waiting for solutions instead of complaints. If you don’t like LCOE, that’s your problem.”
Ganon – The solution is to recognize that LCOE is crap and for the AGW activists to quit using LCOE.
As noted by Russell in multiple posts LCOE is not used by the industry experts, because it is crap.
the bigger question is why you would defend what is known to be crap – At least known by the actual industry experts.
Joe, I haven’t defended it. I have asked you for a better solution for evaluation of electricity costs. You haven’t been able to do that. No one is required to use it, and calling it crap is not a solution. What is crap, is your inability to be constructive.
You should also consider that adaptation with “business as usual” is estimated to cost more than mitigation. Planning for the future makes more sense that being selfish now and paying more later.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/11/fighting-climate-change-cheaper-than-business-as-usual-and-better-for-the-economy/
That article is from 2020. Yet another Climate Doomer fail. On top of that, Paul Krugman is a well know leftist shill. Sorry, no support from that article.
Ganon links a paper from climate activists.
Here is the paragraph discussing LCOE
The financial advisory and asset management firm Lazard recently published its annual levelized cost of energy analysis, providing an apples-to-apples comparison of lifetime energy costs from various sources, excluding government subsidies. Lazard concluded that solar and wind farms are currently the cheapest sources of new electricity, and in fact on average are cheaper than continuing to run existing coal power plants. Solar and wind farms save about 37% over their operational lifetimes as compared to new gas plants, and 66% compared to new coal plants.
Ganon – do you have any concept of the multitude of math , logic errors, omissions and deceptions in lazards LCOE computation.
fwiw – at low penetrations, wind and solar are moderately less expensive. That fact is not in dispute. However at high penetrations, the cost of maintaining a system highly reliant on wind and solar is vastly more expensive than fossil fuel. The major logic error in LCOE computation is not understanding the effect of capacity factors of the various forms of electric generation has on the overall cost of the system.
Joe,
PS ~ It seems to me that Yale Climate Connections are climate realists, while you are an (anti-) climate activist that is more worried about money than the future habitability of the planet. Most people “get it”, most people in this selfish little enclave don’t.
Money and prosperity are good for us all, including other species. We can afford more to spend on “saving” them. Don’t denigrate the importance of a thriving society. You and your fellow Climate Doomers will miss it when it’s gone. It is essential to life.
Jim2,
“Don’t denigrate the importance of a thriving society.”
I haven’t, that is a false implied accusation. However, I think the demise is much more likely under your head-in-the-sand approach
ganon1950 | December 13, 2023 at 11:21 am |
Joe,
PS ~ It seems to me that Yale Climate Connections are climate realists, while you are an (anti-) climate activist that is more worried about money than the future habitability of the planet. Most people “get it”, most people in this selfish little enclave don’t.
Ganon – Yale climate connections are a group of heavy agw activists. They are no where close to being climate realists.
I am far closer to the middle as a realist.
The Yale climate connection article you cited has replete with multitude of agenda driven misrepresentations. I pointed out only one of the multitude.
An honest scientist wouldnt promote so many easily debunked junk science. An honest scientist would recognize the junk portions of the science. Which raises the obvious question is how can the scientist possess the superior intellectual capacity to understand the complex climate science when they are so easily fooled by basic physical science.
Jim2,
So you have no plan to do anything for other species except “let ’em go extinct – I don’t care”. Talk about selfish, short-sighted dribble.
People are continually saving species. Some “species” are very small groups of life forms adapted to a particular mud puddle. Trying to save those is nuts.
Jim2,
Thanks, you continue to make your callous disregard, and lack of solutions, apparent. Maybe study up on impacts of loss of biodiversity.
“Maybe study up on impacts of loss of biodiversity”
Polly wanna?
You conflate the rise of CO2 with threatened species. The 1.5 degree warming since the mid 19th century, in Darwinistic terms, isn’t related to demonstrable stress on biodiversity. Don’t conflate threatened species with climate change. If 1.5 degrees threatens a species then it’s viability was already marginal, measured within a matter of time. Weather alone can wiggle yearly at averages that are over/under 1.5 degrees for extended periods; the latter is called natural variability.
Now, Polly, if you wish for an actual logical argument about biodiversity, 3rd world deforestation for example, or poaching, etc; this is where the biodiversity questions are best found. Nobody wants to see species extinction. Broadstroke, 3rd world prosperity is a better focus for protection of species centric questions–more energy would be a good example of an answer to this question.
Jungletrunks,
Not interested, Karen.
ganon
As you know other species have died out over the last several hundred years due to human population growth and expansion not climate change. You don’t seem to admit when you are shown to be in error.
ganon
What is your play to stop the death of other species as the human population grows to 10 billion?
Rob Starkey,
I haven’t been shown to be in error. I asked what Jim would do to help other species adapt – that refers to the future. And yes, at present, loss of habitat due to agriculture is the biggest problem for extinctions, but climate is also a contributor. And yes, human population growth is the root cause for both. What am I going to do about it? – I’ve already done my part, only 2 children and won’t have any more. I will also die when my time comes.
Polly: “I haven’t been shown to be in error”
Yet you conflate the rise of CO2 with extinction, without proof.
But it makes sense that you’re not interested in being called out, Polly. You’ve already described yourself as an activist, translation; you lack veracity, that you’ll obfuscate truth. Activism truncates science, it’s the ideological way. Your career has culminated to that of a political hack, saddening to be sure that your center is ideological above all else.
If you want to help prevent species extinction we should kill all the cats.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42766-6
“We identify 2,084 species eaten by cats, of which 347 (16.65%) are of conservation concern.
…
In the United States, research by the federal government and the Smithsonian Institution estimated that cats kill a median of 2.4 billion birds per year. That’s especially concerning given the alarming declines in North American bird populations, which have gone down 29 percent since 1970.”
I guess I would rather eat cats than insects :)
Jim2,
Me too. However I wouldn’t put it past the FDA to let the industrial agriculture industry start slipping insect protein into the small print of the list of ingredients.
Its all a mater of priorities, the US spends over $124 billion a year on our pets or about twice what we spent on the Ukraine war last year.
“Germany is heading in the direction of a radical climate protection dogma that almost completely ignores the costs of the path taken. And once again, the two predominant patterns of argumentation in the pandemic can be observed: A refusal to weigh things up and an ends-justify-the-means mindset,” Schröder adds. “I am convinced that large sections of the climate protection movement are also fighting our way of living and our economy at least as much as they are fighting climate change.”
CO2 as the virus to fear
Schröder adds that it is easy to see that CO2 is being viewed as a virus and to imagine future measures to curb it: “there is a threat of regulations affecting our most private lifestyles. How we live, heat, get around, travel and what we eat could soon no longer be an individual decision, but increasingly be dictated by the state.”
https://notrickszone.com/2023/12/12/former-federal-german-minister-under-merkel-warns-germany-heading-to-a-climate-tyranny/
Here’s an interesting development. A Uranium fueled reactor cooled by molten salt. It uses ceramic fuel pellets and operates at low pressure.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted approval for the construction of a salt-cooled, high-temperature nuclear reactor in Tennessee on Tuesday, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).
Kairos Power will operate the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, facility, which is the first non-water-cooled reactor to receive regulatory approval from the NRC in more than five decades, according to the company. While Kairos will still need to apply for an operating license from the NRC, a DOE sub-agency, it expects the facility to begin operations as early as 2026, according to the DOE.
https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2023/12/13/huge-milestone-biden-admin-green-lights-nuke-reactor-using-tech-not-utilized-in-decades/
Very promising. With some luck they might reproduce a 1965 Oak Ridge reactor.
What other species do you care about?
Stop using oil and gas? No.
Oil and gas will play an instrumental role in Africa’s economy for decades to come, and as such, African producers will not agree to any phase-out of these resources.
Despite the fact that over 600 million people are still without access to electricity and over 900 million people lack access to clean cooking solution in Africa, the continent’s COP 28 negotiators are caving into pressure from the west, stating that Africa is open to a phase-out approach regarding fossil fuels. The African Energy Chamber (AEC), as the voice of the African energy sector, clarifies that this is not true. African producers – both established and emerging – are not willing to forfeit these previous resources for a global agenda, and the negotiators should not sell out on the hopes and aspirations of Africa.
https://energychamber.org/we-will-not-sell-out-by-phasing-out-african-negotiations-urged-to-fight-for-africa/
Africa has about 20% of the world’s population, but only about 10% of the oil reserves. Are you advocating helping them buy foreign oil as their demand increase?
According to the African Union Development Agency, the energy needs of the African continent are expected to more than triple by 2040. To help countries to address this growing demand for energy and meet socioeconomic needs in a clean, sustainable, and affordable way, the IAEA and International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) have been supporting, as official modelling partners, the development of the Continental Power System Masterplan (CMP) in Africa since 2021. In the margins of the IAEA’s 67th General Conference, experts from different international organizations, including from the European Union who have been backing the initiative, shared the vision behind the CMP and discussed its key deliverables, which were adopted by the African Ministers of Infrastructure and Energy earlier in September and are due to be presented to the African Union assembly next year for final endorsement by African heads of state.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meeting-africas-growing-energy-needs-in-a-sustainable-affordable-and-efficient-way
Africa is endowed with abundant oil and gas resources. Over the years, new discoveries have progressively increased the continent’s energy potential. However, these resources are not equally distributed among the 53 African countries. Presently, 38 of these nations are net oil importers, importing more than they produce.
The paradox deepens as we consider that despite having only 15 percent of the world’s population, Africa consumes merely 3 percent of global commercial energy. Yet, Africa’s share in global energy production stands at 12 percent and is trending upwards. The potential to harness these resources and achieve self-sufficiency is evident.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/paradox-africas-potential-self-sufficiency-oil-gas-uwera-steven-ja0nf
I’d just say check out the source and his numbers. 18.5% of world population in 2023 and oil production has dropped 30% since 2007 to 8% of worldwide production. Besides, it’s a limited, non-renewable resource that is the major cause of current climate change. Try to have some vision about the future.
It was published Oct./23. I would say check your own numbers.
Tell starving Africans to “have some vision” you heartless oaf.
Jim2, I did check my numbers. Being published in Oct 2023 does not mean that your “Rwandan entrepreneur” used up-to-date numbers. The heartless oafs are those with vested oil interests trying to force starving Africans to buy foreign (and local) oil without any vision of how it will get worse in the future. SMH
Stepping into 2024, Africa is emerging as a strong contender in the global petroleum market. Boasting crude oil reserves of approximately 125 billion barrels and natural gas reserves of roughly 620 trillion cubic feet (tcf), Africa’s oil and gas industry holds ambitious plans to deliver economic diversification, job creation and energy security through the development and monetization of these resources.
Following a slate of massive discoveries in the offshore Orange Basin in 2022 – including the Venus-1X, Graff-1X and La Rona-1X discoveries – 2023 has been another banner year for Namibia. Last March, a consortium led by supermajor Shell successfully drilled the Jonker-1X exploration project. Two months later, the successful spudding of the Lesedi-1X exploration well by Shell also verified the presence of hydrocarbons.
https://energycapitalpower.com/tracking-africas-upstream-developments-in-2023/
jungletrunks,
Karen – you are the only one that has conflated CO2 with extinctions. I associate it with human over-population, and increasing climate change will only be a contributing factor to loss and change of habitat. Yes, I’m an activist for science, and proud of it – much better than being a lying, presumptive anti-science hack.
Polly, Who the heck is Karen, a spurned lab tech? Obviously it’s a name that haunts you. Whatever.
“I’m an activist for science, and proud of it – much better than being a lying, presumptive anti-science hack.” An oxymoronic statement, like all big seeds are to a parrot.
Polly: “loss of habitat due to agriculture is the biggest problem for extinctions, but climate is also a contributor.”
Then Polly a couple of squawks later: “you are the only one that has conflated CO2 with extinctions”.
Of course you conflated species extinction with AGW.
I’m not sure who “Karen” is other than a paranoid delusion— or maybe she kept poor Polly caged in a lab.
Karen,
I already explained my position. You can make up all the false BS narratives you want. If you can’t figure out what “conflate” and “Karen” mean, that’s your problem.
Polly, one always knows they’ve butted heads with an ideologue once they begin peeling off their prized litany of psychobabble labels. There’s no surprise with how you deploy your backhanded racist propensity; it’s indicative in the pedigree of flock you perch with.
Here you’ve doubled down your conflation with denial. Ideologues are practiced at repeating a lie to change the narrative. Earlier you stated about extinctions: “climate is also a contributor.”
So in this string you walk back your language by adding ambiguity to your statement: “increasing climate change WILL only be a contributing factor to loss and change of habitat”. You flatly state you never conflated AGW with extinction, but you did, Polly. Truth isn’t a Left wing value.
No, I didn’t conflate anything, I relate extinctions to large, rapid changes in climate, anthropogenic or not, warming or cooling. You are the only one that is conflating, and then assigning it to me. If you’d like to understand mass extinctions, and their causes, see:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25019-2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574421/
If you can’t understand them and would rather continue your irrelevant personal attacks – that OK too – I enjoy seeing AHs making fools of themselves.
junglepanties,
” You flatly state you never conflated AGW with extinction, but you did, Polly. ”
You first said I conflated it with CO2. Now it’s AGW. You are the one changing your made up story. Give one quote where I “conflated” CO2 with extinctions.
My apology, Polly, I assumed your description of agricultural practices (certainly tied to contemporary extinctions) was also tied to contemporary AGW (mostly associated with CO2), mentioned within the same sentence in your original post; and that both these were responsible for contemporary extinctions.
You actually were referring to a future prognosis for large climatic change, i.e. CAGW, as causation for concern for mass extinctions. Go figure. Got it.
Appology accepted, Karen. Actually, agricultural land use has a small negative effect on AGW due to increased albedo.
Actually, I was referring to JIm2’s statement that adaptation is the rational solution to AGW, and simply asked (if that was the case) what he was going to do (future tense) to help other species (that don’t have technological capabilities) adapt.
As for extinctions caused by rapid large, climate change (regardless of source, or direction), I refer you to paleoclimatology, and the references I have already given.
Albedo isn’t the issue with species living their dream.
Yes, Jim is correct, adaptation. This is inclusive of technological advances; but it means much more than stale, hyper proposed, visionless, bankrupting, bit player alts—wind, solar and batteries. Though admittedly technological advances as a measure of advancement requires a reasonable extrapolation from where we’ve been as a species, to where we’re going. Demonstrably the left has no faith in science and technology, they mostly can’t see the massive advancement we’ve made as a species. They’re deniers, how ironic. Instead they’re all in—wind, solar, batteries—and clueless to boot.
Individuals promoting all in for wind, solar, batteries; no matter the cost, aren’t rational visionaries—not even a little bit, they can only best be described as ideologues who follow tropes.
A reasonable extrapolation sees the benefits for all species, prosperity through technological advancement; birds are feathers down with alt wind, you should be more sensitive to their plight, Polly.
It is time to look elsewhere and retool.
–
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster.
–
At the same distance from the sun, Earth receives 28% less solar energy (higher Albedo), but Earth rotates
very much faster…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth is warmer than the moon because it has an atmosphere.
What you, ganon, still claiming is already an old science!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, and very well established. What you are claiming is also old science, and not very important for earth because of it’s high rotation rate and surface heat capacity.
It is not a rotational warming effect. It is a cooling effect for non- or slowly rotating celestial bodies. Also, your formulation is fundamentally wrong. If N continues to increase, it should asymptotically approach the result for a body with uniform meridional illumination. Simulations for the (atmosphere free) Earth result in 251 K, approaching the canonical (simple) 255 K result from the low side.
ganon,
“not very important for earth because of it’s high rotation rate and surface heat capacity.”
–
The difference of rotation speed between Earth and its Moon is the most important factor in our computation of their respective warming!
–
Also the five (5) times difference in the average surface specific heat between Earth’s and Moon’s surfaces (water vs regolith), plays a very important role too.
–
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster than Moon, and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon,
“If N continues to increase, it should asymptotically approach the result for a body with uniform meridional illumination.”
–
Who says so, because it is a huge mistake.
Let’s introduce to the very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
( N*cp )^1/16.
–
When comparing the various different planets’ and moons’ (without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, Earth included), when comparing the planetary surface temperatures, the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon emerges:
–
Planets’ and moons’ (without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere) the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
–
( N*cp )^1/16
or
[ (N*cp)^1/4 ]^1/4
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Petroleum is heating up in Africa.
Stepping into 2024, Africa is emerging as a strong contender in the global petroleum market. Boasting crude oil reserves of approximately 125 billion barrels and natural gas reserves of roughly 620 trillion cubic feet (tcf), Africa’s oil and gas industry holds ambitious plans to deliver economic diversification, job creation and energy security through the development and monetization of these resources.
Following a slate of massive discoveries in the offshore Orange Basin in 2022 …
https://energycapitalpower.com/tracking-africas-upstream-developments-in-2023/
Based on population projections for Africa I wonder if its even enough to bring the billions of their own people out of poverty.
“According to March 2022 exchange rates, the average monthly pay in Africa is around 758 USD (US dollar). This is roughly ten times lower than typical incomes in the United States and the United Kingdom, which are 7,900 USD and 7,795 USD, respectively.”
Some, if not most, problems in places like Africa and some other parts of the world, is ingrained sick cultural practices, crime, and governmental corruption. There is no way for external entities to fix these kinds of problems. It is made even more difficult given the trend to “respect”, and therefore not change, cultures. Oil and gas won’t be able to fix these problems either, the change will have to come from within.
Africa represents one of the wealthiest continents in terms of proven and estimated natural gas reserves and, producing fewer emissions than oil and coal, the resource has been dubbed the “fuel of the future.”
Methods of monetization such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) hold the promise of an energy secure and industrialized Africa, with new, gas-based revenue streams unlocking opportunities for broader socioeconomic growth.
https://energycapitalpower.com/african-lng-as-a-catalyst-for-global-growth/
While some analysts propose that existing discoveries hold enough oil and gas to meet global demand for the foreseeable future, others argue that the remaining supply will not sustain us beyond the next quarter century.
Regardless of which prediction eventually proves more accurate, since its founding, the African Energy Chamber (AEC) has asserted that Africa’s fossil fuel resources will play a crucial role in support of humanity as we power along our journey to the next massive technological breakthrough in terms of energy.
https://energycapitalpower.com/aec-optimistic-about-african-oil-gas-exploration/
The added expense of “green” energy schemes will in many cases cause them to end badly. Costing citizens unnecessary expense will ding politicians who, being spineless, will renege and back out the offending policy. I predict there will be many cases of this based on the nonsense coming from the Biden administration, Climate Doomers generally, and COP 28.
The solar industry in California could lose 17,000 jobs by the end of 2023, representing 22% of all solar jobs in the state, due to the implementation of NEM 3.0 – a billing structure of California’s rooftop solar net metering scheme – in April 2023.
https://www.pv-tech.org/calssa-california-could-lose-17000-solar-jobs-by-end-of-2023-due-to-nem-3-0/
Sea level predicted to rise 30 feet sometime within the next 50 years!
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/14/tsunami-risk-index-fema-washington-00131544
The article posted didn’t claim 30 ft of sea level rise it said there could be a 30 ft to 50 ft impact from a tidal wave
Ah! You are very observant, Rob Starkey.
Pingback: Climate Goals Undermining Global Poverty Reduction
Pingback: Climate Change Weekly #492: Climate Goals Undermining Global Poverty Reduction • Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Climate Goals Undermining Global Poverty Reduction • Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: Local weather Targets Undermining World Poverty Discount • Watts Up With That? - Finencial
Pingback: Klimaziele unterminieren die Reduktion der globalen Armut | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie