by Judith Curry and Harry DeAngelo
We have a new paper published in the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, entitled “A Critique of the Apocalyptic Climate Narrative.” The paper reflects the JACF’s ongoing interest in publishing articles that analyze important Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues in ways that are useful for investors, money managers, and corporate directors, as well as for economists and legal scholars who study corporate governance.
The official link for the publication at Wiley . The paper can be downloaded from SSRN . Please use SSRN to download, as is it easier to navigate and so that we can keep track of the download numbers.
The back story on this paper is that Harry DeAngelo sent me a draft manuscript for comments. I was intrigued by writing a paper on this topic for the corporate/investor audience, and the collaboration was born.
Some excerpts from the paper are provided below:
Summary
<quote>
The apocalyptic climate narrative is a seriously misleading propaganda tool and a socially destructive guide for public policy. The narrative radically overstates the risks to humanity of continued global warming, which are manageable, not existential. It prescribes large-scale near-term suppression of fossil-fuel use, while failing to recognize the huge costs that such suppression would inflict on humans because fossil fuels are currently irreplaceable inputs for producing food (via ammonia-based fertilizer), steel, cement, and plastics.
The paper details the flaws in the apocalyptic climate narrative, including why the threat from human- caused climate change is not dire and why urgent suppression of fossil-fuel use would be unwise. We argue that sensible public policies would focus instead on developing a diversified portfolio of energy sources to support greater resilience and flexibility to respond to whatever weather and climate extremes that might occur. We identify nine principles for sensible U.S. public policies toward energy and discuss implications of the flaws in the narrative for investors and their agents.
<end quote>
The first three sections provide introductory material that readers of Climate Etc. should be very familiar with. Here is the outline of sections 2 and 3:
2. Is global warming dangerous?
- Warming over the past 120 years
- Prospective warming over the 21st century
- Tipping points and surprises
3. Fossil fuel suppression: shooting ourselves in the foot
- Failure of net zero policies
- Geopolitical concerns about fossil fuel suppression
- Moral concerns about fossil fuel suppression
- Other economic, technological, and social impediments to fossil fuel suppression
- Bad energy choices
- Ever-growing demand for energy
Section 4 addresses rational energy policy for the 21st century, with the full text of this section excerpted here:
<quote>
4. Rational energy policy for the 21st century
We offer nine principles for operationalizing this approach to U.S. energy policies, with #3, #5, and #6 specifying actions we should take and the remainder highlighting what we should not do.
- We should not inflict costs on U.S. citizens – reduced overall economic prosperity, constrained individual choice, and diminished national security – by adopting public policies intended to mitigate global warming that will not detectably affect Earth’s temperature in the short or long
- We should not eliminate fossil fuels before we have technologically viable and cost-effective replacements for the critical inputs they provide in the production of food, steel, cement, plastics, and electricity.
- We should use “carrots” to foster investment in innovation in energy, materials science, and agricultural science, as well as in the ability of humans to adapt to a changing climate.
- We should not use “sticks” to punish consumption that generates greenhouse gasses (e.g., banning gas stoves, jet travel, internal combustion engines, and non-vegan food), while having no material effect on temperatures now or in the long run.
- We should cultivate clean energy (to reduce air pollution) and energy independence (for national defense and economic security reasons) with a diversified set of reliable energy sources to hedge the risks of adverse “unknown unknowns” in the evolution of our political, economic, and physical
- We should put major emphasis on the resuscitation (and refined development) of nuclear power, which is at least as safe as solar and wind and far safer than coal and oil (based on comparisons of death rates due to both accidents and air pollution per unit of electricity generated).
- We should not focus narrowly on solar panels, wind turbines, and biofuels. Solar and wind are problematic because of their (i) unreliability and consequent need for a stand-by power system, (ii) low energy density and consequent massive land requirements to deliver energy at scale, and (iii) negative externalities (e.g., from rare-earth mining to produce batteries to address the unreliability problem). Biofuel emissions are at least as bad as gasoline, while biofuel production uses massive amounts of cropland and played a significant role in three major food crises in the last 20 years.
- We should not engage in backdoor regulation of fossil-fuel use by the Federal Reserve (through bank oversight) and the SEC (through ESG empowerment) that will warp the allocation of investment capital.
- We should not use our power to impose credit policies toward developing countries (e.g., by the World Bank) that discourage fossil-fuel-based projects and thereby make it more difficult for world’s poorest people to elevate themselves out of poverty.
The three proactive principles (#3, #5, and #6) reflect the physical reality that human flourishing depends critically on the abundant availability of energy and on the currently irreplaceable role that fossil fuels play in the production of food, steel, cement and plastics. Deterrent principle #7, which cautions against a narrow focus on solar, wind, and biofuels, reflects the strong technological limits of these technologies.
The remaining deterrent principles (#1, #2, #4, #8, and #9) reflect the fact that it makes no sense to mandate or constrain choices that will cause humanity to bear costs when those choices will have no detectable effect on global warming in the short- or long-run. These costs have a direct component: Avoidable waste from outlays on unpromising technologies and on consumption goods that simply sound good from a carbon emissions perspective. They also have an opportunity cost component in terms of diverting resources from worthwhile causes, including investments to foster greater resilience to weather and climate extremes as well as to help wide swaths of humanity to elevate themselves out of poverty.
4.1 Implications for investors and their agents
The flaws in the apocalyptic climate narrative have three important implications for the risk-management decisions of private investors and for the corporate directors and money managers who work on their behalf.
- The actual risks of fossil-fuel-generated climate change are not nearly as great as portrayed in the drumbeat of worried discussions of global warming in public discourse that the apocalyptic climate narrative has fostered.
- Those who nonetheless want to do something to help mitigate global warming should realize that the long-run consequences for the planet of the ESG pursuit of a reduced corporate carbon footprint will do little, if anything, to change the climate over the course of the 21st
- The apocalyptic climate narrative is itself an element of investment. The narrative has gained such powerful traction – especially in the U.S. and other wealthy countries – that it is significantly affecting the allocation of real resources and the stock-market values of companies.
The latter traction creates upside investment potential and downside risk. The upside, of course, is the potential for profits by responding to the demand for green investments. The downside risk is the possibility that many people will eventually come to realize that the importance of suppressing fossil-fuel use has been blown far out of proportion in public discourse.
From a capital markets perspective, the current green-investment situation accordingly has elements of a stock-price bubble that is supported by a false narrative. One can expect that bubble to sustain or grow provided that many people continue to buy into the premise of an urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels and as governments add more subsidies to renewable-energy projects.
The danger is that the bubble will pop or dissolve as it becomes increasingly clear that the Apocalyptic climate narrative is an extremely effective form of environmentalist propaganda that markedly overstates the risks to humanity of continued global warming.
One might be tempted to take investment positions that effectively “short the bubble” and wait for the gains to come rolling in when the bubble pops or dissolves. The problem with such strategies is that substantial valuation errors in the capital market can take a long time to correct. Consequently, arbitrageurs who have finite capital to invest and who make strong bets against the bubble can be wiped out financially before the asset-pricing errors are corrected.
The upshot is that there is no clear path to a “free lunch” of abnormal investment performance from shorting green investments. The reason is that one simply cannot be sure about whether or when the world will come to broad recognition of the flaws in the narrative.
<end quote>
Full text is also excerpted for the final section:
<begin quote>
5. Bottom line: Sensible alternatives to net-zero policies
The apocalyptic climate narrative is a seriously flawed guide for public policy because it (1) radically overstates the risks to humanity of continued global warming, which are manageable, not existential and
(2) prescribes large-scale near-term suppression of fossil-fuel use, while failing to recognize the huge costs that such suppression would inflict on humans because fossil fuels are currently irreplaceable inputs for producing food (via ammonia-based fertilizer), steel, cement, and plastics.
The answers to four key questions provide a compact foundation for a far more sensible template for public policies toward global warming and the use of fossil fuels.
What would happen if the U.S. enforced a net-zero emissions policy? In 2100, according to climate- model projections. Earth’s average temperature would be lower (than it otherwise would be) by less than 0.2°C, which would be undetectable statistically given normal temperature variation. U.S. consumption and production of goods created with steel, cement, and plastics, and of food grown with ammonia-based fertilizer would immediately plummet because of the essential role fossil fuels play in their creation. A sharp decline in the quality of life would surely ensue.
Is it worth it? Is an undetectable reduction in the warming trend worth a huge sacrifice in the quality of life caused by an urgent move to net-zero? According to the apocalyptic climate narrative, the answer is yes because humanity (ostensibly) faces an existential threat from global warming. However, there is no credible evidence of an existential threat from global warming. Nor, indeed, is there evidence of warming- related costs that cannot be addressed by humanity’s resilience and ability to adapt to extreme climates.
Is an aggressive move to net-zero emissions politically feasible? Public policies that enforce an urgent move to net-zero would be especially hard to sell to the U.S. electorate once voters see the costs they would bear. The resistance would almost surely grow stronger as more voters come to realize that, regardless of their personal quality-of-life sacrifices, global warming is predicted to continue because China, India, Russia, Iran, and many other countries have strong incentives to continue to use fossil fuels.
What then should the U.S. do about global warming? We should encourage investment in efforts to find and improve alternatives to fossil fuels and in adaptation to a changing climate. We should not suppress fossil-fuel use because that would impose serious costs while generating no detectable benefits. Such suppression would put the net-zero cart before the horse, which is finding viable alternatives to fossil fuels in the myriad ways they enable humans to live far longer and much higher quality lives than our ancestors did even as recently as 100 years ago.
<end quote>
The same environmentalists that oppose fossil fuel also oppose nuclear energy. Scare tactics are used in both cases that are unrealistic and unjustified by facts.
An important, well-timed essay. There’s certainly indicators that global markets/governments are rethinking the ramifications of net zero policy. There’s a price coming due for political elite lies—propaganda.
This is a repost from the prior thread, it’s a better fit in context of this essay:
I’m starting to see distinct cracks in the armor for net zero resolve, not so much with zealots, but from the power brokers who drive politics on the geopolitical stage. Net zero will remain a political objective, but it will be taken less seriously. I believe net zero will become mostly lip service, though CO2 will still likely decline substantially—mostly by default, because of competition.
The before paradigm shift is driven fundamentally by follow the money sensibilities, the rationale is to grab as large a piece of the global AI competitive pie as possible, it’s a land grab. The losers will fall to the bottom of the geopolitical pecking order. This means that solar/wind —where zealots hold hands and otherwise ride unicorns bareback in a hypnotic dream state towards nirvana—becomes greatly diminished. The focus will increasingly land on nuclear, namely small reactor innovation specifically, at least initially.
Populations know what insolvency feels like on a personal level, bottom-up leveraging plays a role in this transition. Those politicians playing the survivor role are feeling the heat, they’ll need to either maneuver, or be forced out.
Article:
“Few nations that have signed onto the Paris Agreement are meeting its decarbonization goals, but with 31 nations—including the United States—signing onto a separate $300 billion pledge to triple nuclear energy generation by 2050, those aims remain viable, panelists at a May 1 discussion on nuclear energy expansion concurred.
This shift has been long overdue,” said William Magwood, director-general of the Nuclear Energy Agency, a Paris-based liaison of government organizations that coordinates practices and policies related to advanced nuclear technology.
The numbers have been telling us for years that nuclear was going to play a substantial role if we were going to meet the objective many countries have set for themselves, to reduce CO2 emissions.
Speaking during a Center for Strategic & International Studies’ Nuclear Energy Expansion presentation, Magwood said there are many obstacles to overcome in expanding nuclear power worldwide.
But he predicted that within five years, there will be “a sort of democratization of nuclear.
There’s a real strong possibility you’re going to see nuclear power plants in Kenya, Philippines, Indonesia, countries that really haven’t had this before,” he said.”
https://thepatriotlight.com/560775/small-reactor-innovations-spur-global-interest-in-nuclear-energy/
Exceptional scope, with one exception: carbon taxes.
They want a price on carbon, and they want it now.
Ross McKitrick makes a sound case for the use of Carbon Tax, if it is linked to the amount of warming above a nominal baseline. It would be a percentage of the amount of extra warming attributable to humans – so more warming, more tax. If it were imposed today, you would pay no tax, but if temperatures were to increase (theoretically as if line with model predictions from high sensitivity to CO2), then you starting paying tax. The more warming, the more tax.
That seems to be an equitable way of viewing it; if you don’t worry about warming, you don’t worry about the tax, but if you are worried then expect to have to pay it.
No, a carbon tax is a flawed concept in every way.
Energy use is part of every single thing we do, and everthing we have, so it effectively becomes a tax on everything.
And as currrent alternatives are actually more expensive, there is no-where to turn.
BUT is Ross’ case to tax A-Carbon Dioxide releases sound if it (as it does) ignore the strong evidentiary case against AGW? What, specifically?
Our most global, most independently checked, temperature data come from over 45 years of satellite data (in the lower troposphere). Instead of the mythologized ground temp record of matched warming to gentle CO2 rise, satellite measurements verify that nature is in control of warming or cooling.
Specifically, the Mount Pintatubo eruption in the 1990s cooling, the step change in warming associated with Super El Niño events (average 7 months in advance: SEE video presentation by Maaneli Derakhshani on Tom Nelson’s podcast #89 on YouTube etc, “ENSO Warming vs CO2 Warming”). And as Javier Vinos shows at length at YT, the recent 1C degree spike in GAT preceded by a 10%+ jump in water Vapor into the stratosphere from the Undersea volcanic eruption near Hunga Tonga in the South Pacific in 2023, temps now in retreat.
In other words, the best global temps keep corresponding to natural phenomena, almost none of which are in the competency of ridiculously funded models.
Put differently, Ross and many here out far too much trust and flight in “expert” AGW climate models, which observations continually disprove — even the fact that CGMs over-predicted much more sulfate cooling from eruptions than we’ve observed.
Can’t we all agree that putting human policy in the hands of false Gods like CGMs is a dangerous hubris by now?
Orson,
You write “In other words, the best global temps keep corresponding to natural phenomena”.
I suggest you google “ocean heat content” and look at the various trend charts you will find for the last 50 years. There is a good reason that much of the noise in the more publicized “average global temperature” is missing in these plots. The ocean heat content is also based on temperature measurements, but the oceans are heated to a few hundred meters. That means that much higher heat capacity is involved in their warming than in the warming of a thin land surface. That makes them act like a low pass filter, less responsive to natural events like Pintatubo . That is where 90% or more of the radiative imbalance heat goes. That is where you should look for the most robust global warming signal.
I compared the total amount of CO2 emitted from the 1800s to 2015 (about 1,540 Gt) to the temperature rise (about 1.15 C) and assumed that CO2 produced that warming, and I thereby concluded that emitting 1 Gt produces 0.00075 C of warming – within that basic assumption that CO2 does the warming.
In this very simple paper:
https://www.igminresearch.com/articles/pdf/igmin218.pdf
I plotted six hypothetical scenarios for future CO2 emissions in the remainder of the 21st century and found the temperature rise for each case.
The highest emission case leads to CO2 = 600 ppm and delta-T (from 1800s) 3.4C in year 2100, while the lowest emission case is CO2 = 500 ppm and delta-T (from 1800s) = 2.1 C in year 2100.
My personal guess for the future is a scenario that leads to CO2 = 580 ppm and delta-T (from 1800s) = 3.2C.
A Critique of the Apocalyptic Climate Narrative arbitrarily assumes 2.5 C in year 2100. In my simple model, that would correspond to a very optimistic future scenario in the 21st century with sharply reducing emissions throughout the century, dropping from ~ 40 Gt/y presently to about 8 Gt/y in 2100, and a CO2 concentration in 2100 of about 530 ppm. I suspect that is overly optimistic regarding the future?
Congratulations, but do you also believe it? Here are at least two problems with your analysis.
1) Human CO2 emissions aren’t the sole or main CO2 source.
MME were 39.% of the cumulative net since 1959, when the ML Carbon Cycle Year rising/sinking phases are incorporated, when it is realized that the annual MME are just a portion of the rising phase every year, subject to the same annual sinking rate as ML.
https://i.postimg.cc/B6zxbgd5/Carbon-Cycle-Year.jpg
2) Your assumption that CO2 has caused all the warming can be and has been falsified in so many ways but many people apparently don’t get the message.
Even Gavin Schmidt said in Nature 2023 that CO2 and his climate models couldn’t explain the jump in 2023 temperatures, he said we [they] are in ‘uncharted territory’.
These models are like unrealistic financial pro forma statements.
The only reason CO2-based climate models even appear to work at all is because SST warming largely sets the pace of CO2 growth, meaning CO2 growth is a good proxy for SST.
https://i.postimg.cc/qRDB86H9/12m-ML-CO2-lags-12m-SST-by-5-months.png
Fake climate models just [unwittingly] invert this relationship, at least appearing credible because of the correlation and upward trends in both, but CO2 lags SST.
https://i.postimg.cc/VLrbG3Y6/Climate-and-Eq-OHCa.jpg
This type of temperature modeling based on emissions must end.
Gone are the days when someone can just hand-wave away the facts that CO2 follows sensible heat in the ocean/atmosphere and thus cannot set any trends in ocean/atmosphere sensible heat.
You say that the total amount of CO2 emitted from the 1800s to 2015 was about 1,540 Gt and compare that to the temperature rise (about 1.15 C), and assume that CO2 produced that warming. There are two errors here:
1. You ignore CO2 emissions from land use change, which over 1850-2015 are estimated to be about 215 GtC or 790 GtCO2, so total human CO2 emissions were about 50% higher than your estimate.
2. Total effective radiative forcing (ERF), which is what drives global warming, was 20-30% higher than that from CO2 alone over 1850-2015, primarily due to ERF from increases in other greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, O3 and CFCs/HCFCs) exceeding negative ERF from increased aerosols.
Therefore your estimate that emitting 1 Gt produces 0.00075 C of warming is substantially too high.
Small point: Brazilian biofuel (sugar cane ethanol) has a much better energy efficiency than US ethanol. US ethanol is made by a corn-ethanol plant to convert natural gas to ethanol. However, there’s a limit to the amount of land we can convert to grow sugar cane.
On the other hand I seriously doubt many third world countries have the technology and regulatory capacity to build and operate nuclear power plants. So either they rely on a mixture of biofuels, hydro, geothermal, a bit of wind, some solar, and even biomass.
It’s also important to consider country specific conditions. For example Congo has huge untapped hydro potential, little wind, can be very cloudy, is definitely suitable for sugar cane, and the government is a disaster (and I don’t see much hope this will ever get solved).
The evident very long term solution for the US is nuclear (as you know, I have been warning that fossil fuel prices will eventually climb so much that poor countries and the poor in the US won’t be able to afford them).
We also shouldn’t engage in resource wasting CO2 sequestration.
Here are some from my Blog posted on 10/12/2022
The Rules of the Lebensraum game.
1. SUMMARY
A battle for Lebensraum, i.e. energy,land, and food resources, broke out when Russia invaded Crimea.An associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases now threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic in 1919 world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/ – an approximate four fold increase.
The IPCC and UNFCCC post- modern science establishment’s “consensus” is that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels is the main threat to human civilization. This is an egregious error of scientific judgement. The length of time used in making the models is much too small .
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .058% by weight. That is one 1,720th of the whole. It is inconceivable thermodynamically that such a tiny tail could wag so big a dog.There is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate crisis.
Because of the areal distribution and variability in the energy density of energy resources and the varying per capita use of energy in different countries, international power relationships have been transformed. The global free trade system and the global supply The global free trade system and the global supply chains have been disrupted.
Additionally, the worlds richest and most easily accessible key mineral deposits have been mined first and the lower quality resources which remain in the 21st century are distributed without regard to national boundaries and differential demand. As population grows,inflation inevitably skyrockets. War between states and violent conflicts between tribes and religious groups within states will continue to multiply…………………………..
Miskolczi 2014 (15) in “The greenhouse effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere “says “The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water.”
AleksanderZhitomirskiy 2022,(16) says:
“The molar heat capacities of the main greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases are of the same order of magnitude. Given the low concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their contribution to temperature change is below the measurement error. It seems that the role of various gases in the absorption of heat by the atmosphere is determined not by the ability of the gas to absorb infrared radiation, but by its heat capacity and concentration. ”
Zaichun Zhul et al 2016 (17) in Greening of the Earth and its drivers report “a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated Leaf Area Index (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area from 1982 – 2009. ………. C02 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend.”
Policies which limit CO2 emissions or even worse sequester CO2 in quixotic CCS green-washing schemes would decrease agricultural food production and are antithetical to the goals of feeding the increasing population and bringing people out of poverty…………………………………..
Modern industrial civilization, especially in large Megacities, cannot function for long without continuous adequate power and water supply, and functional global food and basic resource supply chains. The Lebensraum war in Ukraine has given us a preview of wars yet to come. The UNEP, IPCC and UNFCCC “consensus” scientific community’s unwarranted focus on future CO2 levels, and global warming mitigation has led to “net zero” energy policies being adopted by most Governments. Mainstream Media, in particular the BBC, NGOs and leading left- wing politicians have rushed to promote this unnecessary, quasi-religious non -science. Reality has dictated that after only a few months of war many European nations have been forced to change their plans to move rapidly away from fossil fuels and /or find alternate sources for their fossil energy needs
Individual Governments, whether democratic or dictatorial have now to decide where and how they will draw the line between accommodation for other species and natural ecosystems and food supply, poverty reduction, economic development and consumer consumption levels. In the UK immigration policy led to Brexit In the USA the de facto open border policies of the Biden administration have become the cause of bitter political battles.
The unnecessary proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels has created an enormously expensive obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern, ecologically viable ,sustainable global economy and functional International Political System. How is Putin’s drive for Lebensraum to be stopped without a nuclear exchange. What are the current rules of the Darwinnian Lebensraum game to be and who will enforce them?
The Grain Belt Express, the largest electric transmission project in the U.S. launched today, construction will begin next year (a 3-year project). It will become the longest transmission line in the U.S. (800-miles long when finished using state-of-the-art high-voltage direct current (HVDC) technology). The infrastructure component designed to unleash American energy. A news report emphasized it as being a highway system for AI.
https://grainbeltexpress.com/grain-belt-express-awards-1-7b-to-u-s-contractors-quanta-and-kiewit-to-build-largest-transmission-line-in-u-s-history/
Bob Weber: It’s not what ” I believe”. I don’t “believe” hardly anything in climate change. Furthermore, my beliefs are unimportant in the spectrum of things. In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king. This is a simple minded model that agrees with the facts as far as they go. Lacking anything better for predicting the future, I use it with caution for prediction. But its worse than that. The whole world is worried about climate change induced by greenhouse gases. But how exactly does adding CO2 warm the earth’s surface? The common narrative is that adding CO2 increases the thickness of the IR thermal blanket. Now here is something I do believe — I believe that is wrong. Adding CO2 increases the altitude from which the earth radiates where it is cooler and that is how CO2 warms the earth. See:
igmin.link/p259
I think the action of CO2 is very widely misunderstood. Anyway, I used to read and occasionally participate in Climate, etc. for years but I gave up a few years ago when I got tired of the repetitious claims that CO2 doesn’t warm the earth. I don’t know why, like Rip Van Winkle, I woke up again and sent something in.
‘Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint.,’ (Dr. Timothy Ball)
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin and transparent – it doesn’t keep Earth warm. It is the Rotational Warming Phenomenon which makes Earth warmer than Moon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Good piece. The Marshall School of Business at USC is also raising concerns about the economic impact of refinery closures in California.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/california-gas-prices-could-rise-75-percent-by-end-of-2026-usc-analysis-5852821?utm_source=ref_share&utm_campaign=copy
Well folks, as a former petroleum industry guy, I’ve been on this soapbox before, but I’ll say it again, in a more succinct way. In a world of increasing energy demand, and even with rapid adoption of nuclear, “managing down” petroleum use is not possible. There are two reasons for this. One is that an artificial imbalance of the demand mix (ie, no gasoline use) will inevitably cause refinery throughput reductions, leading fairly quickly to shutdowns, and the loss of all other products (like jet fuel). The second is the irreplaceable aspects of products only produceable through processing petroleum. Petrochemicals, a very small part of petroleum use volumetrically, are needed in thousands of products and processes that can’t be replaced with alternatives. If we need a gallon of a critical petrochemical, someone needs to process 42 gallons of crude oil. We cannot do that and have 41 gallons of waste product flowing nowhere.
Excellent piece and excellent comments, as usual, whenever JC is involved. However, I have a question when I read Fernando L’s comment! How can sugarcane ethanol be more efficient than US ethanol? I was taught and I also taught that Ethanol is Ethanol, regardless of the source. If there’s any difference, then one of them is NOT ethanol and may contain an impurity. Am I missing something? I would love to know where I’ve gone wrong!
sugarcane is easier and less expensive to refine into ethanol than corn
You wrote: I would love to know where I’ve gone wrong!
Of course, we get sugar from sugar cane, we do not even try to get sugar from corn, we get corn surip .
Sugarcane Ethanol is more efficient than Corn Ethanol because it takes less land and crop and cost to produce the Ethanol. Nothing to do with the end product.
Ethanol is absolutely necessary, only because we need the Corn States Votes, ethanol compromises our gasoline vehicles and other gas powered devices and tools. We can shut down a gasoline powered device in the fall and expect it to work in the spring, when there is ethanol in the gas, we drain it and run the engines until the carburetors are drained or use special expensive additives to avoid harm from the ethanol.
Consumer probably better off financially if corn used as cattle feed instead of making ethanol. However, farmers would likely pitch-a-fit if forced off this particular Federal give away of taxpayer money.
The article is lukewarmer middle of the road claptrap
The future climate is unknown
Could be warmer or cooler in 100 years
Could be good news or bad news
The past 50 years of global warming is known, but ignored in this article
Based on the past 50 years:
We need a celebration of CO2 and global warming.
CO2 warming is mainly in the coldest nations, coldest 6 months of the year, at night (TMIN). Larger food plants & longer growing seasons from more CO2.
Net Zero: A leftist political power strategy, not a real engineering project. CO2 will increase unless all economic activity stops in all nations.
‘We should not eliminate fossil fuels before we have technologically viable and cost-effective replacements for the critical inputs they provide in the production of food, steel, cement, plastics, and electricity’, and zirconia for tooth’s sake!
Tesla powered tuna seiners ain’t going to hack it either!
Very good and very useful article!
Thank you.
Pingback: A Critique of the Apocalyptic Climate Narrative – Climate- Science.press
When individual tidal gauge data begins to show acceleration rates greater than 0.0128mm/yr2 for 149 locations and for individual gauges such as NYC at
0.008mm/yr2, then I might buy into the apocalyptic narrative.
Until then, I have to go with the most reliable source for SLR, not some computational models with inherent uncertainties.
https://meridian.allenpress.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/2/272/450977/Sea-Level-Acceleration-Analysis-of-the-World-s?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468013320300474
Tidal gauge data show just sea level. Not a rate of rise or – God forbid – an acceleration. An ageless warning: Interpolate at will. Extrapolate at your own peril.
Pingback: Trump Targeting California Climate Programs – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
“Implications for investors and their agents…The upside… is the potential for profits by responding to the demand for green investments.”
An example of an upside win/win for investors, both advocates, and non-advocates of net zero goals:
Invest in LNG.
I’d also suggest investing in advanced small reactor nuclear technology, but it’s a crowded investment that’s been bid up.
There will be major winners and losers. LNG is a safer near-term investment. Both Exxon and Chevron have developed NG power infrastructure to address AI needs. I believe they’ll be winners near-term, but invest in the picks and shovels, LNG exporters, they’ll be among the first big winners in the AI race.
Net zero pundits will ignore this based on ignorance, it’s LNG after all. Yet the LNG power plants developed by Exxon and Chevron are green…call it turning over a new leaf.
If we’ve learned anything, ideology trumps common sense. I’m happy enough if the Left wishes to hold their bag full of hyperventilated CO2. For those wishing to join the common sense party, welcome aboard.
It’s as if we do not all know by now that it has been the limitless pocketbook of the secular, socialist Big Government bureaucracy and the education industrial complex — along with a more than willing media — that outspends business by a factor of 1,000 to 1 to perpetuate the global warming hoax.
Let’s be honest, even if just for a moment- Tesla drivers are using electricity generated from legacy facilities like dams on rivers and coal-fired power plants which were built to provide taxpayers with light, heat, clean water to their homes, and to treat sewage and provide energy to their employers. This legacy energy was not built and priced with the intention of enabling millionaires to drive expensive tax-subsidized electric cars to the golf course while workers wait in gas lines. Tesla drivers aren’t even paying their share to maintain the roads they’re driving on.
It does not require published results from a massive research effort to know what is going on. Accurate findings do not take much study: people who have less energy actually have poor health outcomes.
To explain this finding, researchers need only point to Third World and developing nations. Their experiences suggests that lower energy use may have harmful effects on health and survival and increasing access to low-cost energy creates more health, wealth and wellbeing.
Dr. Curry,
Thanks for this essay. We agree on many things:
• The atmospheric CO2 increase over the last century is a result of human activities.
• The atmospheric CO2 increase over the last century is warming the oceans and causing average global temperatures to rise, i.e. AGW is not a “hoax”.
• This temperature rise as presently projected should NOT be called “an existential threat”, if what is meant by that is the imminent extinction of our species. We are adaptable, sometimes clever, and will figure out how to deal with it.
• Developing a new, safer generation of nuclear power without carbon emissions should be a priority.
But I disagree with some of your other points:
• You suggest a “business as usual” approach in the US because we are but a small part of a global problem. But the consequences of everyone saying “my role is small” should be obvious. You note that worst-case emission scenarios for the 21st century have become unlikely. Isn’t that partly because some did not take your do-nothing approach? I recognize that the US is in the process of backing away from the global leadership position it has held all of my lifetime, and that the current lack of global leadership is very problematic. “Every man/country for himself” does not address the climate change problem.
• Unlike you, I favor a phased in, revenue neutral carbon tax that acknowledges the not-so-hidden costs associated with carbon emissions. This allows free markets and private enterprise to steer development and deployment of the most promising energy technologies.
• I am more optimistic than you are about future solar energy prices. Future energy can be both carbon-free and cheap. No, we are not there yet.
There is an issue relevant to finance that you do not take up in your essay, and that is the need for sustainable policy allowing predictable investment environments. The curse of polarization has caused the US to flip its climate position multiple times in the last decade. You have written about real uncertainties that contribute to the flips, but based on this essay I think you have framed the debate incorrectly. The real debate is not between you and an alleged “Apocalypse” narrative. Neither is the real debate between me and those on this blog who persist in arguing there is uncertainty as to where the CO2 increase comes from. The real substantive debate should be between people like you who acknowledge the science but fear negative consequences from too hasty actions, and people like me who believe a “stich in time saves nine” and worry about negative consequences from inaction. If we can block out the noise from BOTH the doomsday crowd and the intractable deniers, we would have a chance to develop bipartisan and sustainable climate policy for the benefit of our grandchildren.
Dr. Curry,
Thanks for unsticking this comment from the moderation filter.
The best way to achieve a predictable investment environment is for government to provide no direct subsidies to energy companies. Hopefully you aren’t one of those who falsely states the the depletion allowance is a subsidy. It isn’t.
jim2,
If I were king, we would phase in a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend scheme. There would be no need for government subsidies. Good ideas would attract the necessary private capital. Far out ideas might lobby for government support, but the most interesting fusion projects at the moment are privately funded.
The subsidy to oil companies that would be phased out by this is the free pass they get when we put CO2 from their products into the atmosphere.
David
Good we dont have you as king implementing taxes on oil companies for no reason.
The depletion allowance isn’t a subsidy, David. It acknowledges the fact that as a resource is depleted, the property is worth less. This applies to all mining operations, not only oil companies.
David, jump on board with activist/antagonist Engine No.1, they’re now actively involved in development plans with Chevron to ramp up LNG power, to feed the upcoming AI revolution. LNG will be the start-up fuel needed for the new technological revolution.
In case you haven’t heard, Exxon and Chevron have moved into power generation; new low carbon power plants fueled by LNG. These new plants use carbon capture technology to remove 90% of the CO2 while generating power.
LNG power plants will front-run nuclear power generation because they can be brought online quickly, by around 2027 last I heard. LNG will be used to kick-start the AI revolution.
We all have a stake in the fossil fuel industry, with gratitude, or contempt, nothing changes this fact; the fossil fuel industry has given us all the modern spoils of life, even the poor are less poor than they otherwise would have been. The fossil fuel industry is now making significant contributions towards a cleaner world, including a more enriched world through further contributions. This industry will help to spread the wealth from here. Life is going to get better for everyone globally, unless certain new imperialistic powers rain on humanities parade.
The predictable investment environment you’re promoting is the Rob Peter to Pay Paul Plan. It’s a massive inverse pyramid scheme to bleed developed nations of wealth, mostly the U.S.—to redistribute its wealth (what remains), to make despots wealthy, or wealthier. A carbon tax is merely an exchange of feel good for no good.
Poor nations, the would-be recipients of carbon tax cash, will have greater benefit from technology developed from the forthcoming AI revolution. Allowing first-world developed nations to keep, and rapidly reinvest its capital to ramp new technology will feed the third world figuratively, and literally. Third world nations will not have to spend on the massive upfront capital required, they’ll get all the benefits they need to advance their respective cultures, mostly for free. It’s best that they make their lives better organically from this exchange, don’t just give them fish.
Using “carbon tax” and “free market” in the same comment is misleading. A carbon tax hobbles only one area of the energy economy. It is anything but a free market. On top of that the regulation feeds more money to the government, making it grow even more intrusive and obnoxious than it already is. Government needs to be smaller, not larger.
Jim2 and Jungletrunks,
The particular carbon fee and dividend scheme I am talking about would be like H.R.5744 – Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2023 (which was not passed). It is revenue neutral and does not bring net income to “grow the government”. It does not transfer money to developing countries. (That is an important but separate topic.) The carbon fee paid by fossil fuel companies would be passed on to consumers at the pump and in their electric bills, but the revenue collected would be returned to those consumers as a dividend. There will be losers who drive gas-guzzlers and get the same dividend as winners who don’t. But that is the point: it will motivate behaviors which reduce emissions. Most importantly, it will leave to consumers, markets, and the ingenuity of private enterprise the decision on which energy technologies win. If Jungletrunks is correct that LNG electricity generation with efficient carbon capture for AI is cost effective, it will be a go. (Without a carbon fee, there is no financial motivation for carbon capture, and that is a big problem.) If the Economist is correct an energy rich future is within reach, and solar power will flourish. (See an earlier link to an article from last June very bullish on the future of solar power.) Of course the carbon fee is not imposed abruptly. It is ramped up predictably over time to allow the fees to motivate change rather than punish. I am having an exchange with Harry Deangelo (Judith Curry’s coauthor) on this separately, and he correctly points out that the cost of the AI enterprise Jungletrunks describes would rise because of the fee, because only consumer households, not industrial entities, get the dividend.
David, under the proposed Bill, seemingly, EV owners get a windfall dividend since they’re never at THE pump, so on and so forth?
Will EV owners dividend be diminished by brown out/blackout curves–i.e., paying for all spoilage in freezers among other things?
Keep it simple, don’t do it. If CO2 decline is part of the new energy paradigm, why would said bill be needed anyway? I can imagine enough policy machinations for abuse in such a system that can’t be adequately calculated.
AI will change the landscape soon enough. CO2 concerns are aleady long in the tooth, even for a lightweight apolitical visionary.
Jungletrunks,
The presumed bump in electricity prices will affect EV owners, but to the extent that they are responsible for fewer emissions, yes, EV owners will be winners. Why are you hostile to EV’s? The reduction in gasoline demand from deployment of EV’s and hybrids, and general fuel efficiency improvements, have brought down gas prices for those who drive Hummers.
I suspect whoever designed the carbon capture system you described was motivated by the reasonable expectation of a future carbon fee, not because “CO2 decline is part of a new paradigm.” Do you think he did it just to be nice?
Yes, CO2 concerns are long in the tooth, but emissions continue to grow and temperatures continue to rise. Shame on us.
David, if you believe warming is a problem, which isn’t a given, how many degrees of warming will H.R.5744 prevent over what period? How much inflation adjusted damage will the prevent over what period? How many lives will be saved over what period by this bill? On the other hand, how many people will die of fuel poverty if this bill is enacted. How much will our lifestyle deteriorate due to this bill. It’s probably not worth the bother and the distortion of free markets.
I read the discussion – but there isn’t a problem from CO2.
It is a trace gas very much in demand for plants well-being,
It is a wish we had more CO2, not less.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Jim2,
Tough questions that I can’t answer. I could ask you similar ones about the consequences of inaction.
I had a back and forth with Harry Deangelo on one of the conundrums that affects our answers. If the US takes an isolated action (like HR5744) and thereby reduces our contribution to global emissions, but others do nothing, the overall effect will be small. I am sure you have heard people talk about the futility of whatever we choose to do or not do, now that China is a bigger emitter than we are. Judith Curry told us a year or two ago about her planned testimony in the Held vs Montana case. If called, she would have said Montana’s contribution to global emissions is tiny, so no restrictions should be placed on whatever kind of power plant we want to build here. The consequences of such thinking are obvious. Let’s all do nothing, okay? What could go wrong? Or maybe instead we should reconsider the ongoing disengagement of the US from the rest of the world. The Chinese have grandchildren to worry about too. Maybe if we act responsibly they will too.
David: “I suspect whoever designed the carbon capture system you described was motivated by the reasonable expectation of a future carbon fee, not because “CO2 decline is part of a new paradigm.” Do you think he did it just to be nice?”
You misquoted me: “If CO2 decline is part of the new “ENERGY” paradigm…”
I’m referring to new NG, and nuclear power technology designed to spin up AI. Near carbonless NG power production design is motivated by responsive design to address societal concerns, it incorporates a low carbon footprint for self-evident reasons, therefore these technologies represent a paradigm shift for future power production. Design to make things cheaper, and safer, is what all responsible businesses do. It’s responsible design, they’re certainly not evil people.
You have a very cynical take, David. The individuals who work in the fossil fuel industry take the do no harm approach, the logical approach.
BTW, correcting a technicality, Exxon and Chevrons power generating facilities will use NG, not LNG.
The poor are already struggling. They don’t need higher energy due to carbon taxes or other green schemes.
There’s a growing gap between what low-income families earn and what it actually costs to live in the US, according to a new study that says headline measures of inflation fail to capture the burden on these households.
The report by the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity compares Americans’ incomes to a Minimal Quality of Life Index, a metric that accounts for essential living expenses and other needs for well-being. It found that the bottom 60% of US households — who made about $38,000 on average in 2023 — fell more than $29,000 short of meeting the threshold to afford those goods and services.
SOURCE:www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-12/low-income-us-families-face-growing-gap-between-earnings-costsrvices.
NOAA Says It Will Stop Tracking Financial Impact of Extreme Weather, Climate Events
The budget cited examples such as NOAA’s educational grant programs, which the administration said have “consistently funded efforts to radicalize students against markets and spread environmental alarm,” and its funding of organizations such as the Ocean Conservancy and One Cool Earth that the adminsitration said have “pushed agendas harmful to America’s fishing industries.”
https://www.ntd.com/noaa-says-it-will-stop-tracking-financial-impact-of-extreme-weather-climate-events_1066148.html
What’s the inverse of that old business proverb “What gets measured, gets done.”.
627 actions taken and counting…
https://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker
Anyone asking the Federal government to spend money for something should be required to find a way for it to save twice as much.
Cause and effect.
27 March 2025
75% of US scientists who answered Nature poll consider leaving…
The massive changes in US research brought about by the new administration of President Donald Trump are causing many scientists in the country to rethink their lives and careers.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00938-y
“Mr. Macron’s message to scientists was this: “If you love freedom, come help us to remain free.”
France announced its own program to lure U.S.-based researchers last month. The government promised universities and research institutions in the country up to 50 percent of the funding needed to lure international researchers, including those working in areas under pressure from the Trump administration like climate studies and low carbon energy.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/world/europe/eu-us-scientists-trump.html
Hey jim2, you want me to post the latest stats on who is leading the world in new patents?
Jack: Who says that Columbia has the skill to identify an issue correctly? Ask the Science Tracker at Columbia Law School. They track government attempts to restrict or prohibit scientific research, education or discussion.
It makes sense—Hamas can attest to it.
Until scientists start reproducing work instead of just writing papers, many of which are not correct or reproducible, it’s probably a net savings to cut them off.
The storage of the exsessive electric energy is a very expensive stand-by equipment endeavour.
A stand-by unit is a stand-by unit, no matter the way it operates.
Let’s explain:
Assuming we have Renewables which are supported with
stand-by conventional units.
And assuming we have Renewables which are supported with
stand-by storage units.
When there is not wind and solar, the conventional units will produce electricity.
But when there is not wind and solar, the storage units will not produce electricity, because they would be empty.
And, when there is a lot of wind and solar, the storage units will not produce electricity, because they would stand-by.
And they will not storage more exsessive electricity, when they are already charged.
If we built more storage units – for all the exsessive green electricity to accumulate – there will be enourmous large stand-by reservoirs.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here is a great insurance policy for when the grid goes down.
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/05/07/ecoflow-stream-ultra-a-game-changer-for-plug-play-home-solar-systems/
The Spanish have a better one.
What I think is a combination of all-kinds-energy-units system is the best.
It should include all of them – the conventional, the renewables and the storaging.
So the more differentiated electricity producing sourses – it is the best choice.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CO2 doesn’t rise temperature.
And it is very beneficial for the plants. It is plants’ food. It is good for plants humans burn some of the fossil plants – it is the necessary recicling for plants existance.
By doing so humans prolong the life on our planet for all of us living.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Climate Apocalypse Now.
‘Western societies have had some kind of millennial or apocalyptic movement at work through most of human history, said Lorne Dawson, the chair of department of sociology and legal studies at the University of Waterloo, who has been studying apocalyptic movements for the past decade. There are also more secular apocalyptic movements today, he said.’ ~Sarah Boesveld
The phenomenon of AGW global warming alarmism shares so much in common with religious beliefs that scientists who are closest to the phenomenon often cannot see it until it is pointed out by someone like Michael Chrichton. AGW is much like an apocalyptic doomsday faith that Crichton tells us was borrowed from Christianity.
In generations to come every retrospective, of necessity, even those following the scientific method, has to begin there. We are part of the equation. That doesn’t mean it is, but the box has to be checked, yes or no. If we have prolonged periods of less apocalyptic warming and natural variability intercedes, the more religiosity will be invoked.
As a Detroit Lions fan who never tired of watching the Bears/Packers extreme animus, I never thought The Papacy would be involved. The jokes have already started.
Apocalyptic events are historically evident, periodically, for the past 8000 years. Humanity survived, in small numbers to continue the species survival. All they needed was a wooden plough, a horse or donkey, or tame mule. Science had progressed; on food biology and animal husbandry and its use for agriculture.
What would we do today, if the grid was down, for long periods, or for good? What came periodically will come again.
jim2 above says “Until scientists start reproducing work instead of just writing papers,”. Recent papers, of the past five or so years, have provided enough supporting evidence to what I wrote further up. In fact it was instrumental in my ‘putting 2&2 together’. The material in those papers was mostly empirical.
4000 years ago predicting accurately the solstice day was easy, weeks in advance of the event. I made a correction to Wiki on that matter (see ‘solstice determination’). It promptly took it down. Too heretic.
Quo Vadis?
Sorry, can’t let this pass.
Wagathon says “– religious beliefs that scientists who are closest to the phenomenon often cannot see it until it is pointed out by someone like Michael Chrichton.”
As cerescokid says “That doesn’t mean it is, but the box has to be checked, yes or no.”
Michael Chrichton should learn, as I finally did, it is the other way round. The apocalyptic beliefs are in fact remnants of bitter experiences that ended influencing religion. So severe that memories have survived in great detail. But never understood for what they were.
@ cerescokid. I am very happy – and greatly relieved – that the papacy today understands Maths.
You can believe science fiction if you want. I’ll go with real science. Since you call AGW a hoax, I’ll just assume you are scared s**tless and going ostrich. Maybe you should ask Dr. Curry if AGW is real – it is – the real problem is how to deal with it; denial won’t work.
A bullet is real. That doesn’t mean I’m afraid of it tearing through my flesh… unless, someone like yourself puts it in a gun points, it at me and pulls the trigger.
melitamegalithic …
> Michael Chrichton should learn, as I finally did, it is the other way round. The apocalyptic beliefs are in fact remnants of bitter experiences that ended influencing religion. So severe that memories have survived in great detail. But never understood for what they were.
When you say the horse (bitter experiences) comes before the cart (religion), I can see your argument. Although I would add that some attention needs to be drawn to … the tack. VMAT2, the God gene, supposedly predisposes us to spirituality, or mysticism. Whether that is true or not, we all know that humans do function with a significant portion of belief. An event and its experience is a fact. But not all who witness such things are affected equally. Just as those who hear the retelling of such events see varying meanings.
I can see your attraction to the importance of the horse. But without the tack, the cart goes nowhere.
Bill: In due time.
The matter is pure science. The first hint was a scientific anomaly; evidence contradicting science dogma. Over the past ten years small hints were found, in the papers from the research of others, towards resolving the anomaly.
In an earlier work I looked at ancient texts for info on ancient agrarian practices – found plenty; described clearly. There were other things in ancient texts; for long many unknown, some unexplainable curiosities and considered beyond belief. But in rare instances the neurons connect properly, (from a jolt or two in my case), to realise the extreme scientific value in the curiosities that the ancient authors themselves did not understand, but recorded carefully.
The proof, not the argument.
A side-issue. Re VMAT2, like ‘damned lies and statistics’, may be a verbal camouflage for ulterior motives. Read Thorkild Jacobsen’s ‘The Treasures of Darkness’, the first chapters, on the invention of powerful deities as a psychological weapon in peace and war. Or Xenophon “Man created the gods in his own image”.
Wagathon, That’s OK. The bullet is already in the chamber, and it is people like you pulling the trigger.
Revealing the way AGW global warming alarmists refer to those in the free Enterprise marketplace.who pay the salaries of the freeloaders of Western academia who feed off the productive like ticks sucking blood on a boar’s back by fomenting hoaxes for the gullible.
Christos Vournas’ X post links to his blog, http://cristos-vournas.com, where his “Rotational Warming Phenomenon” theory, arguing that Earth’s higher temperature compared to Moon results from its faster rotation and higher surface heat capacity (N*cp), not from Warming from Atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph clearly is a hoax. Urban Dictionary- a “hoax” is generally defined as something deceptive or fraudulent, a trick or put-on, or an attempt to deceive someone. It can refer to a fake claim, a fabricated situation, or an act intended to mislead.
“Ever since the Climategate e-mail scandal exposed how Mr. Mann’s graph used ‘a trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures, public support also has declined for the fable that cosmic irritation at mankind’s exhalations has made things hotter by an imperceptible one-third of one degree over the course of a decade…,” according to, Washington Times’ Andrew Thomas who noted that, “pursuing policies that sacrifice jobs and economic prosperity on the pagan altar of warmism,” amounts to simply paying Western academia to push politically motivated cash-for-clunkers socio-economics.
Al Gore ran for president in 2000, shortly after publication of Mann’s initial graph (1998) and its later extension (MBH99, published in 1999).
Upper low blocked by jetstream in southern US will generate thunderstorms in eastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/JWfsVqWJ/ventusky-rain-3h-20250511t1500-32n90w.jpg
Yes. Once again, the absurd notion that we can control climate when CO2 can’t. And even then, we can’t control CO2.
Mitigation means adaptation, not magical ritual. We must not do these rain dances.
Jim White:
You are wrong!
To a large extent, we ARE controlling our climate. The mechanism is decreasing or increasing levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere;
Decreased levels causes temperatures to rise, and increased levels causes temperatures to decrease.
This pattern is evident throughout history, although earlier, the SO2 aerosols levels were controlled by the presence or absence of volcanic eruptions.
“To a large extent, we ARE controlling our climate.” Nope. We do influence climate, in many ways -paving, UHIs, etc – but we are nowhere close to control. We could of course, seed the upper atmosphere with SO2 or block the sun in other ways, if we could withstand the ridicule. And the retribution…
More rational people suggest that decreasing our output of CO2 will control global warming, but there is no evidence that it ever has, nor that decreasing our measly 4% contribution to the annual input of CO2 will have any effect whatsoever, given the logarithmic decline in its GHG effect, discovered by Arrhenius and the math is now correct (see MODTRAN at U of Chicago).
Undeniable facts, so far, are (1) that CO2 at this time, at these levels, is not in control of climate, and (2) we are not in control of CO2.
It is more and more obvious – the AI doesn’t think by itself to decide on the matters.
What AI does is to fast-reviewing multiple publications to formate some opinion.
Yes, it is very-very fast. But it doesn’t make it intelligent.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Jim White:
You are STILL wrong!
ALL of our modern warming (since 1980) has been due to decreasing levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere, due to 1970’s American and European legislation to decrease their amount because of Acid Rain and Health concerns.
In the run-up to 1980, the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution increased from 56 million tons in 1955 to 141 million tons 1n 1979, and there were worries of a new Ice Age!
Because of the earlier legislation, their levels began falling in 1980 (139.4 million tons), 1981 (135.1 million tons), and they continued to fall, dropping to 73.5 million tons in 2022.
As their levels decreased, temperatures naturally increased because the less polluted air increased the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
SO2 aerosols are clearly the Control Knob of our climate, which is unfortunate, since their decrease always causes temperatures to increase.
There is no evidence for that. Correlation is not causation. There are 8 major forcings, including CO2.
This is an observation on a negative aspect of peer review: https://youtu.be/qkXZ3_ZmKzw
Dan, rejected or afraid to submit?
Jim White”
“There is no evidence for that”. I gave you abundant evidence that SO2 controls our climate, too bad that you could not understand it.
Now, provide the 8 major forcings, with proof, that you claim control our climate. It should provide a good laugh!
B A Bushaw wrote that the bullet (of harm from climate change) is already in the chamber.
Is there not more than one weapon?
As an Australian, I have watched the US DOGE team allege an enormous corruption of money and reality by insiders from the Federal Government. To me, this indicates an extra uncertainty that needs to be taken into account when assessing policies and actions.
Put in blunt terms that are too simple, why should we believe anything that past US governments have been involved in?
Is there not another bullet that has (for example) shot climate change in its foot and left it with terminal bleeding-out?
Geoff S
Yes, there are many “bullets” aimed at denying or minimizing climate change. Geoff, you are just another trying to pull that trigger. No. Climate has neither feet nor blood. Explain why past US governments should be judged by the current one. I believe you’ve got that backwards.
Sherro01 was referring to the corruption in government – Just One example is the peer reviewed, yet academic fraud level, gas stoves associated with asthma which was funded through USAID. The a few weeks later, the Biden administration initiates actions to ban gas stoves.
At this point, you are likely aware of the extensive corruption in the paleo arena. Much of which is funded via government grants.
Easy.
The same bureaucrats are there (more or less) from one admin to another. The horrible corruption reported by Trump/Musk DOGE teams did not magically end when President Biden departed.
Geoff S
Jo, I’m aware of conspiracy theories from the willfully ignorant – corruption, not so much.
Global warming alarmist enjoy pulling the trigger on American producers while buying Chinese goods made In industries powered by coal and delivered in tankers burning bunker fuel…
A poll was recently released, 30% of Democrats would rather see China win tariff negotiations. Its makes sense to me, I’ve long calculated that 25-30% of the Democratic Party is officially Marxist. No hyperbole here.
A recent poll of Democrats found 71% want Musk jailed for his role in the Trump DOGE efforts. The logic makes as much sense as keying Teslas that are owned by private individuals, some of whom might be Democrats themselves. It is also consistent with videos that I have seen many times, including yesterday, when an unhinged young lady knocked off the MAGA hat being worn by a young guy on an airplane, as she shrieked at him that it was an insult to all the passengers for him to wear the hat.
All of this behavior reinforces a finding that young, liberal women are 14 times as likely to seek out mental health services as old conservative men. Some have speculated that Trump’s long game is to have half of Democrats either institutionalized in mental health facilities voluntarily or self medicating to such an extent they can’t make it to the polls in future elections. More than 1 way to skin a cat….the Trump effect.
cerescokid: “A recent poll of Democrats found 71% want Musk jailed for his role in the Trump DOGE efforts.”
The Progressive movement is tactically regressive for the individual, contemporary political progressivism is collectivist, it seeks hegemony. Musk is progressive as an individualist (per classical liberal/U.S. conservatism). This is why I’ve come to reject all political labels except: Right/Left, individualist/collectivist. There’s nothing more evil than when collectivism becomes evil; an evil individualist can be more easily contained if separation of powers and laws are maintained, to mitigate evil. This truism is why I reject all ambition for global governance.
I don’t know about global governance but the oil-dependent Mideast seems to be changing its spots, e.g., signing of the Abraham Accords, marginalization of Iran, seeking to alter their economies, all with little regard for Western academia’s fears of AGW and Leftist politics.
Hello fellow apex predators! Are there any AI alarmist here? The effects of global warming will take many decades to degrade the biosphere while AI will change our reality in just a few years and it’s accelerating.
I thought we were a republic, 50 states and a handful of ‘territories’? Giving the central government 100% control of how we are going to let AI infiltrate and manipulate our reality sounds more like the China model. Just like having a single point of failure in a grid, too much centralize power can be catastrophic.
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/05/gop-sneaks-decade-long-ai-regulation-ban-into-spending-bill/
And that corporate owned AI (soon to be AGI) will soon ingest the world’s largest collected archives, the Library of Congress and the US Patent office.
https://cyberscoop.com/us-copyright-office-ai-report-firing-fair-use-debate/
Maybe we should just jump ahead and start nominating corporations for public office?
You’ve got to know the limitations of AI- if you ask, AI, isn’t it true that the no hypothesis of the AGW anthropogenic global warming conjecture has never been rejected, it will call you on that. Yes, you will hear from AI that it has been rejected because nothing but CO2 can explain current warming whereas earlier warming periods are explained by other factors. As far as AI knows, which has only been schooled on Western academic Hot World misinformation, nature does not currently exist.
The higher CO2 content in ice core samples relates to colder periods.
Christos Vournas argues that higher CO2 levels in ice core samples, often linked to warmer climates in mainstream science, actually indicate colder periods because CO2 solidifies and precipitates at extremely low temperatures (below −78.5°C) in polar regions during Ice Ages, getting trapped in ice.
He challenges the greenhouse gas warming narrative, suggesting that the mechanism of CO2 capture in ice is not from trapped air in snowflakes but from CO2 freezing out of the atmosphere, a process he claims has been misinterpreted to support warmer climate assumptions during times like the Holocene Optimum (~11,000 years ago).
Vournas asserts Earth is currently in a natural, orbitally forced warming phase, not cooling, contradicting mainstream views by proposing that high CO2 in ice cores correlates with colder climates, supported by CO2’s physical property of solidifying at low temperatures as noted on Wikipedia.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Has any person reported the discovery of solid CO2 “dry ice” on the Antarctic ice sheet? Geoff S
Geoff, I doubt Christos could do that, not any better than he could explain how the triple-point phase diagram of CO2 falsifies his claim.
I know that smile, B A !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you Geoff,
“Christos,
Has any person reported the discovery of solid CO2 “dry ice” on the Antarctic ice sheet? Geoff S”
–
From web search, Antarctic ice sheet temps can drop to -89.2°C, the lowest recorded at Vostok station.
CO2 solidifies at -78.5°C, which is warmer than Antarctica’s coldest temps.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Chemists like me are taught about phase diagrams and triple points that essentially deny the solid CO2 possibility under present conditions in Antarctica.
So, please answer the question. Has dry ice been found in the Antarctic? If not, your speculation has a big problem. Geoff S
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice
At pressures below 5.13 atm and temperatures below −56.4 °C (216.8 K; −69.5 °F) (the triple point), CO2 changes from a solid to a gas with no intervening liquid form, through a process called sublimation.[a] The opposite process is called deposition, where CO2 changes from the gas to solid phase (dry ice). At atmospheric pressure, sublimation/deposition occurs at 194.7 K (−78.5 °C; −109.2 °F).[2]
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Formation of solid CO2 is theoretically possible at occasional very low temperatures in the Antarctic. Some difficulties:
1. The relevant temperature has to be that of the water ice on which the dry ice would settle, no matter what the air temperature was. Otherwise it would melt before being seen, more or less.
2. The typical comment about the phase diagram relates to normal atmospheric pressure. The pressure high in the Antarctic Plateau is less than that at sea level, meaning a lower temperature is needed (though not much lower).
3. Industrial dry ice is usually made by cooling liquid CO2. In the Antarctic, you do not start with a liquid in which the atoms are close together. You start with a gas and a very dilute one at 400 ppm or so by volume. I suggest, but have not proved by experiment, that the CO2 molecules are much too far apart to gather into crystalline form.
4. These are reasons why the proof is in the pudding. First show that solid CO2 has been observed in the wild.
I appreciate the significance of your observation that the ice core record would likely be affected if solid CO2 had formed and can only encourage the inquiring mind in science. Geoff S
Pingback: An Expert Analysis of “A Critique of the Apocalypse Climate Narrative” in the Context of Climate Science and Corporate Finance | José Luis Oreiro
Pingback: News Round-Up – The Daily Sceptic
This is the only website you need to debunk CO2 causes warming.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
CO2 evenly blankets the globe; in other words, CO2 concentration is a constant per location.
The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule doesn’t change per location, so the backradiation of CO2 evenly blankets the globe.
What has changed over time is the concentration of CO2 over time. The scientific challenge then becomes how to design a controlled experiment that isolates the impact of CO2 on temperatures. How do you tease out the effect of the Urban Heat Island, water vapor, and other exogenous factors?
In other words how do you design this experiment : Temperature = f(CO2) and not Temperature = f(CO2, Water Vapor, UHI, and other factors)
The solution is relatively simple. One simply needs to choose locations, mostly the dry hot and cold deserts, that are shielded from large swings in H2O and impacted by the UHI. When you do that, you see that the temperature doesn’t increase with an increase in CO2. The obvious reason for that is that CO2 shows a log decay in the backradiation with an increase in concentration, and the CO2 concentration and Backradiation function forms an asymptote, and at the current concentration, the slope is approaching 0.00 quickly.
Those who started the decarbonisation campaign knew perfectly well that ending cheap energy use would cause deindustrialization, unemployment and poverty, and also prevent economic growth. It’s always been intentional and deliberate, and an essential feature of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Pingback: Existential This! | Kingdom Venturers
The apocalyptic wiggler sandbox: “The UK and EU…plan to link their emissions trading schemes to avoid carbon taxes and cooperate on a limited and capped youth mobility scheme.”
Pingback: More Climate Elitism from UNLV Professor Leffel - Master Resource
Nearly 50 years ago a couple of scientists warned of the possibility of feet of sea level rise by 2000. Even 25 years after that date according to tidal gauges across the globe it’s been inches.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-05101533-down.png
I was just in Savanna for some fine southern cooking and walked the beaches of Hilton Head Island, SC and can attest that they look like same as they did 60 years ago.
I’ve wondered how those scientists have coped psychologically after being so dramatically wrong. After a session with their shrink dealing with their adjustment disorder, they could very likely look like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mus%C3%A9e_Rodin_1.jpg
Aretha Franklin once asked the pertinent question.
“Who’s Zoomin’ Who?”
Your citation doesn’t say what you say it says. What a surprise.
Read harder.
They say feet were possible. Reading comprehension not your long suit?
You read harder – you forgot the conditional ‘should the west Antarctic ice sheet melt in the next century’ [a possibility, but extremely low probability] and then they examine the consequences of the estimated 15-25 ft SLR. Nowhere does it say it will be “feet by 2000”. The big difference now is that Greenland will probably go first. Thanks for making the evidence of your misrepresentation available to anyone interested.
Funny thing about inches – they add up to feet, and right now with MSLR ~ 0.2 inches/year it is pretty quick, even without accounting for measured (and projected) acceleration.
ganon
Let me explain the essence of the issue. For decades scientists have been saying we might see runaway SLR. Hasn’t happened. Based on the tidal gauge data it’s not happening anytime soon. Acceleration is insignificant.
Tidal gauges at Sydney (0.0207mm/yr2), San Diego (0.005mm/yr2) and North Shields (0.000698mm/yr) don’t show acceleration of any concern. Tidal gauges are the only reliable source of data.
All the other hundreds of locations depict similar numbers.
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=680-140&co2=0
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=9410170
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=170-053
Mysterious radio waves detected beneath the Antarctica Ice Sheet. A cause of reduced SMB? Since it isn’t AGW, sounds good to me.
https://nypost.com/2025/06/15/science/scientists-detect-mysterious-radio-waves-coming-from-beneath-antarcticas-ice/
Pingback: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry Says Climate Science Has Become ‘Pseudo-Science’