Speculative climate chaos v. indisputable fossil fuel benefits

Federal judge tells climate litigants to tally the numerous blessings from fossil fuels since 1859

Guest essay by Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek

Judge William Alsup has a BS in engineering, has written computer programs for his ham radio hobby, delves deeply into the technical aspects of numerous cases before him, and even studied other programming languages for a complex Oracle v. Google lawsuit.

As presiding judge in People of the State of California v. BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell, he insisted that the litigants present their best scientific evidence for and against the state’s assertion that fossil fuel emissions are causing dangerous climate change. Now he wants to see, not just the alleged damages from burning oil, natural gas and coal – but also the immense benefits to humanity and the people of California from using those fuels for the past 150 years and more.

Environmental and climate activists, including cities pursuing climate lawsuits against oil companies, almost never acknowledge those benefits, which are far-reaching and indisputable. We can only hope attorneys Anne Champion, Philip Curtis, Diehl Kemper, et al. and friends of the court will do justice to the many blessings attributable to our use of these once unimaginable energy resources.

For countless millennia, our ancestors struggled to survive amid deprivation and backbreaking dusk-to-dawn labor, often on the brink of starvation – with the bulk of humanity living little better than their domesticated animals. Average nasty, brutish and short life expectancy hovered in the low thirties.

But then, suddenly and miraculously, in barely two centuries, health, prosperity and longevity began to climb. First coal, then oil, then natural gas paved the way, providing the fuels for transportation, communication, refrigeration, electricity and other incredible technologies that improve, enhance, safeguard and save lives. Incomes increased eleven-fold. Mass die-offs so confidently predicted by Malthus and Ehrlich never materialized. In fact, global life spans more than doubled, and today billions of people enjoy living standards that even kings and queens could not dream of 120 years ago.

Sadly, equal numbers of people still struggle on the edge of survival. A billion and a half are still without electricity, two billion still exist on a few dollars a day, and millions still die every year from insect-borne, lung and intestinal diseases – largely because they still burn wood and dung, instead of fossil fuels.

In 1900, New York City’s 3.4 million people relied on 100,000 horses whose “tailpipes” emitted 2.5 million pounds of manure and 60,000 gallons of urine every day. Sanitation crews cleaned it up, dumped it mostly in local rivers, and hauled dead horses to rendering plants. Farmers devoted thousands of acres just to growing horse feed. Imagine what today’s 8.6 million NYC residents would require and emit.

Today, far more powerful, far less polluting, trucks, cars, buses, trains, subways and airplanes move people, food and products far more quickly and efficiently. They take us to work, school and worship services; to the grocery, bank, drug store, doctor and restaurant; to movies, picnics and sporting events. Fire trucks help us battle devastating conflagrations, and ambulances take our injured to hospitals.

All these vehicles (internal combustion and electric) exist because of, are fueled by – and travel on roadways made with fossil fuels: asphalt from oil, metal and concrete manufactured using fossil fuels.

Even electric cars require oil, gas and coal for manufacturing and recharging. Indeed, the earth-moving machines, drilling rigs and production platforms, pipelines, foundries, factories and other technologies needed to extract, process and fabricate raw materials into the world around us exist because of fossil fuels. Every bit of metal, plastic, concrete, wood, fabric and food we see results from fossil fuels. Even wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels are impossible without the fuels that California so loves to hate.

Medical devices, computers, cell phones, radios and televisions, kitchen appliances, household and office heating and air conditioning, millions of other products of every description require fossil fuels for their components, manufacturing and daily operation. The schools and research laboratories that made our amazing technologies and other advancements possible are themselves made possible by fossil fuels.

The modern agricultural equipment and practices that feed the world share the same ancestry: tractor and harvester fuel, ammonia fertilizer from natural gas, pesticides and herbicides from petrochemicals. Carbon dioxide from burning these fuels helps crop, forage, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, with less water and better resistance to droughts and diseases. Our bounteous grain and other crops mean fewer famines, except where forced starvation is used to subdue and eliminate enemies.

Indeed, between 1961 and 2011, the total monetary value of CO2 enhancement for 45 crops reached an estimated cumulative value of $3.2 trillion! Carbon dioxide’s annual enrichment value rose from $19 billion in 1961 to $140 billion in 2010. Between 2012 and 2050, these benefits will total $9.8 trillion!

Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products all have their roots in petrochemicals – as do paints, synthetic fibers and plastics. Hockey and football players are dressed head to toe in fossil-fuel-sourced materials.

High-rise office and residential buildings made possible by steel and concrete allow our cities to grow upward, instead of just outward, preserving millions of acres of wildlife habitats and scenic areas.

Then there’s electricity. Look around you, and try to imagine your life without this wondrous, pervasive energy source. Electricity was properly ranked humanity’s second most significant innovation of the past 6,000 years, after the printing press! It has created, shaped, defined and powered the modern world, and facilitated virtually every technological achievement of the past century. Electrification of nations is undeniably the world’s most significant engineering and life-enhancing achievement of the past century.

Economic growth, quality of life and longevity are directly correlated to sufficient, reliable, affordable electricity. In today’s world, nothing happens without it: communication, transportation and research; the operation of every home, office, hospital, factory and airport; refrigeration to preserve food and medicine; heating and air conditioning to save lives and enable people to survive and prosper in any climate.

Electrification will be increasingly important in the 21st century, and world electricity consumption is forecast to double within four decades, as electricity supplies an increasing share of the world’s ever-increasing energy demand. Fossil fuels will continue generating at least 75% of electricity, even in 2050.

Hydroelectric and nuclear (which radical environmentalists also despise and oppose), a bit of geothermal, and a smattering of unreliable, weather-determined wind and solar power will supply the rest. The land, resource and environmental impacts of building and operating wind and solar must also be considered.

Social media and internet search engines (to run biased searches for alarmist climate news) also depend on electricity – 91.4% of which was generated by fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro in 2016 in the USA.

Increased productivity generated by all these technologies creates the leisure time and wealth that enable everyone to enjoy evenings, weekends and holidays – and the fossil fuel transportation to go places (including to faraway, exotic locales and 5-star hotels for IPCC climate change confabs).

Finally, aside from nuclear-powered ships, our highly mechanized military gets there “the fastest with the mostest” thanks to fossil fuels, to combat terrorism and provide for our national defense.

Judge Alsup’s case is thus really about highly speculative manmade climate disasters versus indisputable fossil fuel benefits – as further documented here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and elsewhere. Indeed, today’s undeniable fossil fuel benefits outweigh any hypothesized climate, sea level and other costs by literally orders of magnitude: at least 50:1 to more than 200:1.

Barring major efficiency, battery storage and other technology improvements, renewable energy cannot possibly replace fossil fuels. Judge Alsup has no choice but to rule in favor of the oil company defendants … and all who rely on oil, gas and coal for the countless, life-enhancing benefits barely touched on here.


Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of articles and books on energy, climate change, carbon dioxide and economic development. Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and president of Management Information Services, Inc.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tom Halla

Renewables cannot replace conventional fossil fuels or nuclear until one has Douglas-Martin sunscreens feeding Shipstones. And the concept remains science fiction, with an emphasis on fiction.

crowcane

Perhaps the judge should also ask these cities for their detailed plans to stop using fossil fuels since they claim to be convinced of the harm of the continued use.

paqyfelyc

+1
actually, I understand judge are polite, which I am not. So would just had told them to FU with a fine as huge as they seek to inflict, just for being such hypocrites.

joelobryan

One could argue the downsides of parenting children.
– Its expensive.
– Too many instances of domestic child abuse.
– The teenagers might get their hands on dad’s guns or booze.

Of course, never discuss the tremendous huge benefits for the child to be raised by his/her parents.
So for the Left, the best thing is for the State just to take parental authority away from biological parents.

You could run this analogy through for many things in our society today.

Remember, the “You didn’t build that (business)” from our Manchurian Candidate president?
Remember, the “You must bake and decorate me a wedding cake, depicted and ornamented with two men (or two women) holding hands or I will use the state to ruin you.”

This crusade against fossil fuels is just a piece of the larger struggle, the larger civil war that the Left is waging right now in our culture.

Whether it’s the push for Nanny State-ism or total control of Energy, or subjugation of private business to the state, it all flows from the same Marxist mindset. That the state knows whats best. Don’t question it. Don’t look for the benefits of a free society.

LdB

Totally agree and that is why the world is lurching right and pushing back.

Warren Blair

I want Alsup to do the following when the Plaintiff’s lawyers stand to present their ‘evidence for and against’:
1. Instruct the lawyers, for the remainder of the case, not to:
Drive to court; only take public transport and provide a ticket as evidence.
Not eat processed food within 50km of the court.
2. Instruct the lawyers, at the beginning of each court day, to provide a detailed summary of their fossil-fuel use for the prior day.
4. Instruct the lawyers to provide the court with a detailed estimated of their client’s monthly fossil-fuel use for all State government activities.

Hugs

It might be fun but I guess it only goes like this in Hollywood movies / TV.

AGW is not Science

I think that needs to be more like:
1. Instruct the lawyers, for the remainder of the case, to WALK to court – no fossil fuel powered transport for you!
2. Instruct the lawyers, for the remainder of the case, not eat food they didn’t hunt or grow themselves.
3. Instruct the lawyers, at the beginning of each court day, to provide a detailed summary of their fossil-fuel use for the prior day, even WITHOUT the benefits of fossil fuel transport or fossil fuel derived food.
4. Instruct the lawyers to provide the court with a detailed estimated of their client’s monthly fossil-fuel use for all State government activities.

markl

I’m waiting for their answer, or non answer as the case may be. To date there have been no, as in none, negative affects to man proven by climate change. The attempts to attribute “extreme” weather on climate change are hot air balloons. The Goreacle is probably feverishly working to get Judge Alsup discredited and thrown off the case. Who knows, maybe the judge sold lemonade on the street without a business license when he was a child.

joelobryan

Printing press may be #1, and electricity #2, but I’m putting Air Conditioning pretty high up. The industrialization of the northern U states and the industrialization of northern Europe before A/C wasn’t a climatic coincidence. And the south was exclusively rural and agriculture before A/C.

sonofametman

I’d be wary of that suggestiion. The iron and coal deposits that fuelled industrialisation in Europe are largely north of the Alps and across the channel in Britain. Likewise in the US, Pennsylvania is rich in iron deposists and anthracite, but Florida isn’t. There’s a good reason why even in the 20th century, power stations were often built more or less on top of the coal mines.

markx

Nah, the washing machine 🙂

https://youtu.be/6sqnptxlCcw

BallBounces

Nah, the TV remote control. I hear they have cordless models now!

Yirgach

No more tags on underwear!
Brand names printed right into the waistband.
Try doing that w/o fossil fuels!

Paul

“No more tags on underwear!…Try doing that w/o fossil fuels!”
Just getting the cotton undies to print on w/o fossil fuels could be challenging. Talk about a step back in time, whoa.

Alan Watt Climate Denialist, Level 7

Civilization did not exist in any meaningful way before hot baths/showers.

Phil Rae

Paul…..As usual, an excellent summary of the facts. These are the facts that the education system should be REQUIRED to teach their students, at a bare minimum. We’re only what we are, because of where we came from and that history of penury, grunt labour, deprivation and subsistence is too often forgotten, overlooked or deliberately buried. You hit most of the high points in your short article……well-written and required reading for so many of today’s zealots and “not sures”, alike. Great stuff!

davidmhoffer

This is one smart judge, hats off to him. By going this route, he completely side steps the “my experts versus your experts” dilemma of who to believe. He no longer has to make a decision on the “science” that could easily be overturned by a higher court. Instead he’s made it about actual benefits versus potential risks. On that basis, the alarmists can’t possibly win. But his strategy is one better than that. He’s made the alarmists responsible for listing out the benefits. That’s absolute genius.

If they come back with a credible list, they destroy their own argument. If they come back with a less than credible list, their credibility gets easily shredded, possibly by the judge himself, never mind cross examination. That will hold up in higher courts, letting them off the hook to decide the science also.

What a strategem!

“He’s made the alarmists responsible for listing out the benefits.”
That’s said a lot here. But it just isn’t true. The order was:

“Finally, by MAY 31 AT NOON, the parties shall submit 10-page supplemental briefs on the extent to which adjudication of plaintiffs’ federal common law nuisance claims would require the undersigned judge to consider the utility of defendants’ alleged conduct. There will be no replies. “

He has just asked for legal arguments as to whether he should consider utility. He hasn’t asked anyone to list benefits. The deadline has now passed, and the briefs are here.

davidmhoffer

Well thanks for that Nick. The plaintiff’s response is hilarious. To the effect that it doesn’t matter how much utility the defendant supplies, they should pay for the nuisance they have not caused, but might in the future. By that standard, allergy sufferers not yet showing symptoms should sue farmers for growing food that might cause them symptoms in the future, and it doesn’t matter how many people are saved from starvation by the farmers.

What a sad disgusting joke.

davidmhoffer

That analogy doesn’t come close to expressing my contempt for the plaintiffs.

Better would be fat people suing farmers to pay for the cost of their weight loss plans while arguing that the number of people saved from starvation by the farmers is immaterial and ignoring the fact that they are eating the food that they are complaining about.

paqyfelyc

indeed. Not only it doesn’t matter how many people are saved from starvation by the farmers., but it doesn’t matter that those very same allergy sufferers are themselves eating the said food.

paqyfelyc

Interesting reading. Plaintiffs wrote in their brief
1)
“The Cities are expressly not seeking, in any way, to enjoin or curtail defendants’ business
activities, including defendants’ current and future production of fossil fuels.
….
Rather than seeking to enjoin or curtail defendants’ conduct—and thus limit the harmful
effects of global warming—plaintiffs are instead seeking a remedy to mitigate those effects.

plaintiffs seek an order “requiring Defendants to fund a climate change adaptation program,”
i.e., to provide monetary relief to mitigate the harm defendants have caused and will continue to cause. ”
Plaintiffs don’t want to stop global warming!
I guess alarmists don’t read legal stuff, or they should feel betrayed
2)
The plaintiffs DO acknowledge the benefits of fossil fuel, and they basically write that there is no need to list them
3)
Plaintiff obviously are in bad faith, citing only cases of direct and obvious damage (dust of a coal operation on a home, sewage in creek, …) while they seek money for, quote, “a risk”, and writing
“[plaintiffs] chart[ed] a path for monetary relief, [to] obviates the need for this court to engage in
any balancing of utility versus harm, “

Charles Wardrop,

We in Europe have an egregiously corrupt, antdemocratic example of liberal-left sabotage, the EU, which is, DV, breaking up, albeit conclusively.

richard verney

If only the EU would break up, and hence the citizens of Europe could once again breath the free air, and not be under the jack boot of Berlin and Brussels.

The UK’s policy following the Brexit vote ought to have been divide and conquer. It was our generation’s moment to save Europe from the tyrannical rule of the out of touch, unrepresentative technocrat global elitists that are ruin the lives for so many, but, unfortunately, May is no Trump, and does not know the art of the deal.

Fossil fuels gave us the millennial.

Stephen Pouncey

Yesterday in the UK, electricity produced by windmills was 0.05 GW according to gridwatch, from a nameplate capacity of 18 GW.
How do the firm’s that supply ‘renewable’ energy manage it?

Kenneth Irwin

Africa derives some 50% of its energy from renewables (but that includes mostly burning wood and dung) and equates to the most impoverished place on the planet.

In 1971, China derived 40 per cent of its energy from renewables and the bulk of its population lived in abject poverty. Since then, it has powered its incredible growth almost exclusively with CO2 “unfriendly” coal, lifting a historic 680 million people out of poverty. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23 per cent of its energy from unreliable “renewables” wind and solar.

Past history suggests that the degree of renewable energy employed is an accurate barometer of poverty.

Phoenix44

The annual value of oil sold in 2016 was $1.7 trillion.

Since nobody buys anything at a price higher than the value to them (unless forced to by the state) we can confidently say that the value of just oil each year is at least that $1.7 trillion.

I would imagine gas and coal are both also pretty big numbers.

You don’t need to do deep analysis, just look at what people freely pay for fossil fuels each year. That’s the minimum value.

4 Eyes

Great summary by Paul. I’m printing it out and sticking on the fridge for my alarmist friend, and relatives, to see. I might even frame it

michel

Yes, people really do need to read the filings before commenting. I understand why they want to believe that Alsup has asked for a briefing on the benefits of fossil fuels, but as you point out, he has not done that at all.

He has asked for filings on whether the benefits are relevant and something that he must take into account under the common law of nuisance.

The parties have predictably differed. The plaintiffs argue that the benefits might be relevant were they requesting an injunction, but they are not, they are asking for financial compensation.

I suspect this is going to end up exposing the contradiction at the heart of the plainfiffs case. They are asking for relief for future damages under the common law of nuisance which only allows relief for damages incurred. It is universally admitted that the appropriate remedy for forecast future damages is an injunction.

So we might end up with a judgment to the effect that no, he does not have to take benefits into account, because no injunction is being sought, but also that the fact that benefits are irrelevant to this case means that the remedy of damages for future alleged harm is also not available.

Judges are very hard to predict, but one suspects plaintiffs have spent the last couple of weeks tidying up the hole they are in, posting signs to it, plastering and painting, and have now invited buyers in to inspect it, handing them all full color brochures at the entrance….

Please, please everyone. Read the filings before commenting. Otherwise you can’t understand anything of what is going on.

Alan Tomalty

“Indeed, today’s undeniable fossil fuel benefits outweigh any hypothesized climate, sea level and other costs by literally orders of magnitude: at least 50:1 to more than 200:1.”

CORRECTION

The benefits outweigh the costs by much more than 200 to 1. That ratio might been right in the days of no pollution controls but these days the the number is more like a 1000 to 1. It would be higher if large commercial truck diesels were held to the same air pollution standard as cars.

michel

I think the legal problem, and remember this is a legal case and a legal matter, is that the common law remedy for future damage is an injunction. However plaintiffs specifically say they are not seeking an injunction.

This enables them to argue that benefits are not relevant, which is correct if one is not seeking a common law of nuisance injunction.

But then they fall into the other branch of the dilemma, which is the inability to use the common law of nuisance to get compensation for future damages. You can use it to get damages that you have incurred. But the universal view in the profession is that you cannot use it to get compensated for damages which are forecast to occur in future.

The dilemma is basically this: seek an injunction, and then be obliged to take account of benefits. And risk, if the injunction is overturned, being liable for damages caused by the conduct mandated by the injunction. And one other big problem with this, it is not even clear what you would ask for in an injunction in this case

They have rightly backed off from this. But then they fall into the other arm of the dilemma, the damage is forecast and in the future, and you can’t get damages for it.

August is going to be an interesting month.

michel

Folk, the benefits are immaterial to the case and to the request. Please read the filings and stop worrying about the benefits and the benefit/damage ratio. This is not what Alsup’s request is about at all.

Alsup is requesting views about the law, not about the benefits of fossil fuels. He is not asking what the benefits are, or whether they exceed the costs. He is asking whether the benefits are relevant, and whether he is obliged to take them into account.

The head article is very bad indeed in not making this clear. It is profoundly unhelpful to understanding this case to write a long screed about the benefits, when the question is not how great they are, but whether they are relevant.

To be clear, I think they are not, because the plaintiffs are not asking for an injunction. If they were, the benefits would be relevant. But not asking for an injunction lands them in the other horn of the dilemma, where the common law of nuisance cannot give them compensation for future damages.

I think the motion to dismiss is getting more and more likely to succeed. On legal grounds, not because of ‘the science’ or consensus, or the certainty or otherwise of global warming. Just like all the other climate cases. Waste of taxpayers’ money.

rd50

I fully agree with you. The head article is pure BS.

ripshin

Sigh…maybe I’m just grumpy this morning, but I’m really annoyed with inaccurate or misleading head postings. This site, and others like it, are already caricatured by the “other side” as hokey b.s. Putting up posts that confirm their suspicions is extremely unfortunate.

Precision, balance, and an ability to understand nuance seem to be qualities in short supply. Throwing out inaccurate “fake news” soundbites to rouse the masses is a tactic I’d rather see left to others.

rip

paqyfelyc

+1
Plus, it is far more comfortable for a judge to rule on legal grounds, than it is to rule about facts. liberal/conservative judges are first and foremost judges.

Actually, even if the plaintiff were right, then the case should had be treated just like pollution issues were. That is,
1) Oil producers never were asked to contribute a fund to mitigate air pollution from engines; instead, engine manufacturers and owners are compelled to limit pollution to an acceptable level.
2) And relevant authorities use taxes to mitigate. That’s the purpose of taxes, actually.
Could and should be the same, IF there was an issue, of course.

Bloke down the pub

At the rate things are going, the plaintiffs will consider themselves lucky if they get out of this case without having to stump up a few trillion dollars more for the benefits of fossil fuel that they’ve been receiving but not paying enough for.

High Treason

The benefits of fossil fuels are civilisation itself. Pretty well everything we have is the from human utilisation of fossil fuels. Even the “renewable” installations must be made with fossil fuels. The steel and concrete for wind turbines comes from…. you guessed it.
Insulation for electricity conducting wires and all electronics- from fossil fuels. There goes everything electronic. Like snakes and ladders, go back 2,000 years.
No more coal- making metals will be expensive, difficult and expensive. There goes cheap metals, including wires. No metals- go back another 5,000 years.
No oil for mass transport for food from farms to the cAGW believers in cities who could not grow food, let alone hunt- most of us will starve. The blind sheep believers will BE the food.
In short, abandoning fossil fuels will make humanity revert pretty well back to the stone age, an era that supported around 7 million humans. Hang on, there are 7 billion of us. Oh dear, 99.9% of us must perish. No debate required- just blind belief.
To add insult to injury, the snowflakes can’t even soil their diapers- they too are made with fossil fuels.

commieBob

Here’s a case that was decided on the basis of utility.

Clearly the benefits of the defendant’s behaviour change the outcome of the case. In the above linked case the benefit didn’t even need to actually happen. It was enough that the defendant was trying to do something beneficial.

‘Utility’ clearly indicates benefits.

Notes for Judge Alsup – I’ve added a few points to my 2008 and 2015 papers.

Regards, Allan

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SUGGESTING TEMPERATURE DRIVES ATMOSPHERIC CO2 MORE THAN CO2 DRIVES TEMPERATURE
By Allan M.R. MacRae, P.Eng., June 13, 2015
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/

Observations and Conclusions:

1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record. The rate of change dCO2/dt vs. temperature plot follows:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

References:

“CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING:
THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST”
By Allan MacRae, January 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Spreadsheet at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls

“COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER“
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf

________________________________________________________________________

ADDENDA:

A. RE POINT #1 ABOVE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ~9-MONTH CO2 LAG AND THE AVERAGE ~36-MONTH TEMPERATURE CYCLE IN THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC.

Introduction:

I proved in January 2008 that the rate-of-change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with global atmospheric temperature, and its integral the atmospheric CO2 trend lags temperature by ~9 months.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
– See Figures 1 and 3

The integral of a sine curve lags the sine curve by 90 degrees, which equals 1/4 of the 360 degree full cycle.

CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months, therefore this total cycle time should be about 4×9 = 36 months.

Hypothesis:
This approx. 36 month cycle is the Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Cycle and the Global Temperature cycle.

Equatorial Pacific Ocean SST’s and global atmospheric temperatures have a natural temperature cycle (peak-to-peak) averaging about 36 months peak-to-peak.
For example, based on UAH LT temperature peaks, the mean cycle is 36.3 months and the lag is 9.1 months vs the approx. 9 months in my 2008 icecap.us paper.

The above Hypothesis is supported by the evidence.

B. GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES CLOSELY FOLLOW EQUATORIAL PACIFIC OCEAN TEMPERATURES WITH A 4-to-6 MONTH LAG

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/28/solar-activity-flatlines-weakest-solar-cycle-in-200-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2803244

Summary:

The Equatorial Pacific Ocean has a natural Sea Surface Temperature cycle averaging about 36 months peak-to-peak.

Equatorial average air temperature and humidity follow Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature – about 3 months after the Nino34 SST Anomaly and about 5 months after the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly.

Global average air temperature follows Equatorial average air temperature and humidity about 1 month later – about 4 months after the Nino34 SST Anomaly and about 6 months after the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1458004480943776&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1618235531587336&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater

Notes:
“Sato” is an adjustment for the Sato Global Mean Optical Depth Index – the volcanic atmospheric aerosol index.
Formula: UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom (four months earlier) + 0.15 – 8*SatoGlobalMeanOpticalDepthIndex
Data: Sato Global Mean Aerosol Optical Depth at 550 nm https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.line_2012.12.txt

C: ALSO RE POINT #1 ABOVE: HUMLUM ET AL REACHED SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS IN 2013:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

“Highlights:
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
– Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
– Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1551019291642294&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater

D. CONCLUSIONS:

I suggest that the global warming alarmists could not be more wrong. These are the true facts, which are opposite to their alarmist claims:

1. CO2 is plant food, and greater atmospheric CO2 is good for natural plants and also for agriculture.

2. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2-deficient and the current increase in CO2 (whatever the causes) is net strongly beneficial.

3. Increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause significant global warming – regrettable because the world is too cold and about to get colder.

Regards to all, Allan

Update re my above post:
B. GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES CLOSELY FOLLOW EQUATORIAL PACIFIC OCEAN TEMPERATURES WITH A 4-to-6 MONTH LAG

Correct address:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/solar-activity-flatlines-weakest-solar-cycle-in-200-years/#comment-2341336

previous address before new wattsup server was : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/28/solar-activity-flatlines-weakest-solar-cycle-in-200-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2803244

michel

No, the issue is claims under common law nuisance.

You are citing a case which is based on a quite different law. Its irrelevant to the Exxon case whether utility was a factor in the case you cite.

Under common law nuisance, if you are seeking an injunction, then benefits and utility would be relevant. Its very unclear what the injunction would be in this case, but its not important since they are not seeking one. Therefore on this fork, there is no need to assess benefits because the plaintiffs are not seeking a remedy to which they are legally relevant.

Now to to the other fork. Here they are seeking not injunctive relief but damages. In this case they can only claim for damages that have been incurred, not for future forecast damages. So in this case too, benefits or utility is irrelevant. It does not matter how much benefit was due to fossil fuel. It has no bearing on their attempt to sue. Their suit is going to stand or fall in this fork on the question of whether, contrary to all authorities, you can claim for future harm under the common law of nuisance.

If you want to argue that benefits are important in this case, find a common law nuisance claim where this was successfully argued. And argued regarding a claim for damages, not over an injunction. Maybe there are some. I have not found any.

If you want to argue that plaintiffs can under common law of nuisance claim for future damages, find a case where they succeeded. All the authorities I have found say this is out of the question.

This is a legal question. Its about the law. Fairness, science, consensus, evidence on warming etc do not enter into it. The question is about the applicability and legitimacy of various arguments under the common law of nuisance. Its quite technical. People who want to think connectedly about this case have to engage with the legal technicalities.

rd50

“”If you want to argue that plaintiffs can under common law of nuisance claim for future damages, find a case where they succeeded. All the authorities I have found say this is out of the question.””

I fully agree with you.

TA

This article on the benefits of fossil fuels should be sent to Judge Alsup ASAP.

As for this from the article: “Judge Alsup’s case is thus really about highly speculative manmade climate disasters versus indisputable fossil fuel benefits”

More properly it should be described as “highly unrealistic manmade climate disasters” seeing as how there is no evidence in all of Earth’s history that supports a runaway greenhouse effect caused by CO2.

It’s never happened before. It’s not going to happen now.

TDBraun

This worries me.
Does this judge think he has the power to tally up the pros and cons of any issue, weigh them, and decide to ban or not ban something based on whether the pros outweigh the cons? Will he next be trying to weight the pros and cons of alcohol? Of gun ownership? Of legalized gambling? etc. All of these things have extensive pros and cons, and people have the freedom in this country to use them wisely or not.

Edwin

While I am not going to disagree that electricity is not one of mankind’s greatest innovations and probably in the top five. I would argue that agriculture and separate drinking water from domestic sewage rank first and second. I would also note that indeed life expectancy from birth has been quite low through much of human history, however those making it to 21 had a life expectancy of some where in their sixties. That brings in two of the other top five innovations, childhood vaccines and medical hygiene.

subtle2

The judges request forces climate activists to review all of the data.
Which is marvelous.
So is this essay.
Bob Hoye

subtle2

Ooops.

Left out ‘

I thought the new format allowed edits?

William Astley

Cheap and reliable energy. Good thing or bad thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo

An interesting aside is that most of the substances that are called ‘fossil’ fuels are actually created from primordial CH4 that is extruded from the liquid core of the planet as it solidifies.

There are roughly 50 independent observations to support this assertion.

If this assertion is correct, we are not going to run out hydrocarbons to burn and the increase in atmospheric CO2 has not caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Obviously, the increase in planetary temperature was also not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

The liquid core of the planet is roughly the size of the moon and contains roughly 5% to 10% CH4 based.

The liquid core of the planet is believed to have started to solidify roughly 0.7 billion to 1.0 billion years ago. The start of the CH4 extrusion provides the change in environment which caused the Cambrian revolution of life.

The super high-pressure core extruded liquid CH4 is the prime driver of tectonic plate movement and explains mountain building.

MarkW

Please explain plate tectonics that occurred prior to 1 billion years ago.
Please explain your evidence that the core has any CH4 in it.
When the earth was young, dense materials sank, light materials rose. How did all that alleged CH4 remain in the core.
Anywho, the core has been cooling since the planet first formed over 4 billion years ago.

michel

No, he does not think that. No, he is not asking for briefings on the benefits of fossil fuels. He is asking for a briefing on a purely legal question.

He is asking whether in this case the benefits are something that are relevant to the case.

Put it another way, since people seem not to grasp this. He is asking for arguments on what the common law of nuisance is.

He is not asking for a briefing about the effects of fossil fuels. The article very misleadingly fails to make this clear.

He is saying something like this:

Suppose the defendants were to argue as a defense that their activities have delivered benefits which outweigh the costs by a long way.

Please file briefs on what the law is in this matter.. Is this relevant? Am I the judge in this case legally obliged to consider such an argument in defense?

Its not a question about whether fossil fuels have benefits. Its a question about whether, if they do, it is relevant to this particular case, brought, remember, under the common law of nuisance. Its a question about what the parties’ view of the law is.

Mike-SYR
ResourceGuy

Let’s see the graph of lawyers per 100k population vs energy use per capita for countries.

RoHa

“the immense benefits to humanity and the people of California”

The people of California do not count as humanity.