Guest essay by Eric Worrall
More evidence that global climate cycles are aligned with US presidential election cycles.
‘Climate change moving faster than we are,’ says UN Secretary General
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondentUN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has said that if the world doesn’t change course by 2020, we run the risk of runaway climate change.
Mr Guterres said he was alarmed by the paralysis of world leaders on what he called the “defining issue” of our time.
He wants heads of government to come to New York for a special climate conference next September.
The call comes amid growing concerns over the slow pace of UN negotiations.
Mr Guterres painted a grim picture of the impacts of climate change that he says have been felt all over the world this year, with heatwaves, wildfires, storms and floods leaving a trail of destruction.
…
The world has the tools, and the ability. Renewables are cost-competitive with coal and oil, he said. By 2030, wind and solar could power more than a third of Europe.
But the lack of decisive political leadership was hampering everything, he said.
…
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45471410
My question – given the UN Secretary General’s assertion that renewables are cost competitive with coal and oil, why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required? Normally when something is price competitive the free market takes care of the transition, industrialists embrace the new technology of their own free will.
Update (EW): Full speech available here (h/t Nick)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is just s shake down , the Un is once again out for cash . Obama spolied them and they hopping that post Trump those ‘good old days ‘ will retrun.
“If the world doesn’t change course by 2020, we run the risk of runaway climate change”
Just another arbitrary “We’re all doomed” date. How many previous threats have come and gone without the world coming to an end?
Prince Charles: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/4952918/Prince-Charles-we-have-100-months-to-save-the-world.html
Think that’s the end of 2017.
“Renewables are cost-competitive with coal and oil, he said.” (When heavily subsidized.)
The trouble is that the market value of the energy produced is negative. Look at Germany and Ontario paying to get rid of it.
Even if you were paid to take this equipment, it is not worth the land used and the cost of connection.
It doesn’t produce energy that fulfills demand.
Leftists worldwide have gone completely insane with their Trump Derangement Syndrome.
How any rational individual can look at the empirical evidence vs. CAGW’s laughable predictions and conclude, “Global Warming is worse than we thought”, is either an imbecile, a liar or both:
(This chart is dated with the current UAH global temp anomaly at just 0.19C vs CAGW projections of nearly 1.2C)
The CAGW Ho@x is already disconfirmed, and the more Leftists continue to lie about its efficacy, the bigger the blowback will be against the Left once CAGW becomes an even bigger joke than it already is.
Samurai, what is the source for this chart?
Derby-san:
This was a chart Dr. Christy (runs the UAH Satellite database) prepared for his expert testimony during a 2016 US House EPA Hearing.
My guess would be that bottom model run, the one that so closely matches the Balloon and Satellite datasets would be called
Monkey throws darts
Hello Derg, the origin of the chart is Univ of Huntsvelle Alabama. They are heavy into rocket stuff and high energy physics.
What MIT pretends to be.
michael
Is there anyway to get an up to date version of that chart?
There is that one, lonely model that seems to be tracking the observations.
Must be broken. /sarc
That one was produced by Monkeys throwing Darts and was only included for hoots /SARC
From the speech
“We are experiencing record-breaking temperatures around the world.
According to the World Meteorological Organization, the past two decades included 18 of the warmest years since 1850, when records began.
This year is shaping up to be the fourth hottest.”
So not a record breaking temperature then.
The other years of the past two decades were not record-breaking either. None of them were warmer than 1998, except for 2016, which was 0.1C warmer.
And then there is 1934, which was 0.5C warmer than 1998 and 0.4C warmer than 2016.
The “Hottest Year Evah! narrative is pure propaganda.
And the Hansen 1999 chart showing the relationship of 1934 to 1998:
While politicians and elites denounce people who refuse to join the green express as deniers and worse,the truth is emerging.
The real obstacle to decarbonising the economy is democratic consent, or lack thereof.
Obviously the Don’s America first is very distressing for the international Marxist parasitic cancers.
2 yeats see and their NGO’s charities and assorted leeches are starting to feel the defunding pain……..
6 more years of Trump please god.
“It has a long history of watering down and undermining multilateral agreements. But, in leading the charge to block practically every discussion on finance for the Paris guidelines, the US administration is threatening the future of the agreement and multilateralism itself.”
“if the world doesn’t change course by 2020, we run the risk of runaway climate change.”
Is it my fevered imagination or do the goalposts keep shifting?
They put them on rails years ago. Makes it easier.
Even NASA, career home to Dr. James Hansen, said something about the runaway concept in the web article “Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget.” It’s still in the agency’s web archives. The author was Rebecca Lindsey. Dated January 14, 2009. An excerpt follows.
“Temperature doesn’t infinitely rise, however, because atoms and
molecules on Earth are not just absorbing sunlight, they are also
radiating thermal infrared energy (heat). The amount of heat a surface
radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If
temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to
the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly
emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat
loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred
to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway
heating on Earth.”
And if you connect the dots and realize what is happening above us in the variable emitter powered by weather, you can see how fixating on a runaway scenario is just not good sense.
“My question – given the UN Secretary General’s assertion that renewables are cost competitive with coal and oil, why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required? Normally when something is price competitive the free market takes care of the transition, industrialists embrace the new technology of their own free will.”
To a UN bureaucrat, cost-competitive means that the US still has some money left to be stolen, not that product X has a similar price to product Y.
Why don’t any journalists ask him how much this rise is, what it is expected to become, and how much of this is natural? He won’t know even that basic info. He talks total BS.
Also why he thinks it will run away, when the interglacial perturbations out of ice ages into interglacials are stopped dead when they get to current temperatures after 7Ka of relentless rise, while CO2 is still rising rapidly, but increasing clouds from the warming oceans cool the surface and reflect the sun with 100 times more control than any little human effect. None of this is news. It is really very simple, the planet takes care of itself, a few Watts/M^2 p are not significant either way to our planetary scale climate control system, or the long term perturbations driven by the Milnkovitch cycles.
Heat from sunlight evaporates water.
Clouds are concentrated water vapor with a dash of various particulates.
Clouds reflect and/or diffuse incoming sunlight.
Therefore, more sunlight -> more heat -> more evaporation -> more clouds -> more reflected/diffused sunlight -> less heat
It’s a textbook directly proportionate, self-correcting negative feedback. The only times it temporarily “fails” (by working TOO well) are during sudden spikes of particulate density, like volcanic eruptions or meteoric impacts.
Convincing people around the world to waste money on subsidized boondoggles that make electricity more expensive is just cover to keep the narrative consistent. The real objective is wealth transfers.
DJT is already taking steps to slash US funding for UN. Since he is going to have a second term in which to gut even more UN funding and foreign aid these hucksters had best find a new grift to run.
From your lips to God’s ear.
With the constant talk of renewables and especially wind I just have the same question in my head. As Europe was using wind power in grain mills and for raising water for a couple of hundred years before steam engines were available, why were they dumped so quickly by everyone. The only answer my simple brain comes up with was that they were a very poor means to do a job. I think that is still true today.
Better than doing those jobs by hand, but dropped with no regret when a more efficient alternative became available.
So they want to come here in sept of 2020 and meddle in our election. This is what the Logan act (Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.) was intended to prevent.
We don’t need their interference. Gitmo has a few open bunks if I recall.
michael
Keep in mind that the Logan Act has never really been tested. There are many that believe it is unconstitutional.
The SCOTUS does not hear theoretical cases, so for the constitutionality of a piece of legislation to be ultimately ruled on, someone must first invoke it or attempt to enforce it, and someone else must object to the same, thereby generating a “flesh-and-blood” case.
The line-item veto is a relatively recent example. It couldn’t be challenged in court until a President attempted to use it. Clinton finally did, and that kickstarted a real case that led to it being ruled UnCo.
Its a fair question, but I would ask a different one.
If we only have a small amount of time to start reducing global emissions in order to avert a catastrophe, why is the UN not urging the world’s biggest emitter, and the one doing over one third and rising of total global emissions, to reduce the 10 billion plus tons that it is putting out? Why are ‘we’ – whoever that is – not demanding that this country stop funding and building coal fired plants all over the developing world, when its the largest constructor? And reduce its coal use, when it mines and uses more than the rest of the world put together.
That is, China.
It makes zero sense. Why all this attention to the US, which is only doing around 5 billion tons and falling. Why all the attention paid to the developed West? The countries that are emitting two thirds or so of global emissions, and which are growing fast, are China, India, Indonesia and the rest of the developing world.
As for California, they want to go zero carbon. But there is never any account of what difference this would make to global temperatures, could they even do it. Because it would make none.
It is truly shocking how there is absolutely zero science behind CO2 causing global warming or climate change. The physics of the CO2 molecule and the Greenhouse Gas Effect simply rule out CO2 as the cause of the effects the alarmists claim.
Source #1
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/10/quantum-physics-101-why-co2-cant-be-melting-the-glaciers-and-sea-ice/
Source #2
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/why-co2-is-irrelevant-to-the-earths-lower-atmosphere-you-cant-absorb-more-than-100/
There is a reason Climate Science doesn’t do experiments, the experiments will rule out CO2 as the cause.
Runaway UN budget demands after the next U.S. election.
And Trumps a shoe-in anyway,…….
”its the economy silly”.
“It’s the economy, stupid!” Originally a quote by one of Clinton’s staff. Coming back to bite them now. Between that and near-daily TDS tantrums broadcasted on national television, I say the Dems will be lucky if Republicans don’t take enough seats for two-third majorities post-midterm.
(In a 100% just world, that would be three-quarter majorities of real conservative Reps and summarily proposing amendments to undo the century-old vandalism done to the Constitution by so-called Progressives. But that’s too much to ask, at least for now.)
The Democrats wouldn’t have a chance at the voting polls if we had a genuine neutral news media. The Leftwing News Media’s lies and distortions are the only thing keeping the Radical Left in the game.
Run away? At best it’s a slow crawl away.
Driven by statistical unicorns that are measured and randomly assigned blame to.
I say remove the U N building in New York and put up wind turbines on the land. Shirley a win-win for everyone.
and then relocate the UN building to a country whose economic system is in-line with what the UN has been insisting is they type of economic system that the world should switch to in order to combat global warming/climate change, like Venezuela. They get what they want (a socialist economy) and we get what we want (rid of the UN globalists). win-win
“and don’t call me Shirley”
Thank you 🙂
God bless the Trumpster, orange hair, blue flame shooting out of hjs butt and all. Love him!
From the article: “Mr Guterres painted a grim picture of the impacts of climate change that he says have been felt all over the world this year, with heatwaves, wildfires, storms and floods leaving a trail of destruction.”
He couldn’t prove any of this was connected to CO2 if his life depended on it. Yet he speaks with such certainty. I guess that’s what makes a good liar.
Nick Stokes , as usual, exaggerates and misleads. He is making grandious claims for solar power in China,claiming it is the means of reducing pollution in Chinese cites,which he claims is due to coal burning. That is quite a lie, but that’s another “coal is dirty fiction” tale. As to solar, China did spend $126 billion on solar facilities in 2017, which accounts for practically all of the solar expenditures in that year worldwide ($160 billion). Nick failed as usual to mention that on
June 18th 2018, China announced a suspension of any new solar projects. Dead is their previous plan for 20% solar by 2030. Wind projects had been suspended a year or two ago.
As per usual, the main fiction from the renewable crowd is in the presentation of data. Typically they cite “installed capacity” (maximum possible output) not net capacity (actual energy produced)when comparing energy sources. A nuclear plant typically operates at (or
even above) their installed capacity, while onshore wind operates at roughly 20-25%, and solar varies – averaging roughly 20%. Nick produces numbers which sound impressive, until compared to other energy sources. The fact is that in 2017 Chinese solar generated 118 TWhrs. That is miniscule compared to the energy produced by the only reliable renewable, Chinese hydro, which produced 1126 TWhrs of power that year. Solar acounted for 1.8% of total power.
One single nuclear plant can produce roughly 12 TWHrs per year and China has on order or
in the immediate planning stage 150 new reactors, capable of producing 1800 TWhrs and another 300 reactors are planned, capable of producing 3600 TWhrs, or a total of 5400 TWhrs from
new nuclear construction. Solar power will hardly be more than an asterisk in future Chinese energy tables. A nuclear plant lasts for more than 60 years, often three times longer than solar or wind.
But, I’m sure, this buildout of conventional reactors is not what is going to happen : China is pushing development of molten salt nuclear reactors, which no energy technology can possibly compete with, from any standpoint . These nuclear reactors can operate in load following generators, eliminating the need for much peak energy fossil fuel power generation.
The Chinese have already demonstrated their ability to produce Gen 3+ light water reactors for less than $5 billion per GW. Does anyone realistically doubt that they will not do as well for molten salt reactors?
Hahaha. Always in the future never now! Always planted just far enough ahead to give them time for the goldfish brains to forget. However this is different. An unacceptable political message from this over promoted mouthpiece. He should resign immediately for intrreferring in a sovereign countries democratic process as well as demonstrating an inability to tell empirical data based fact from politically motivated belief.
And again, I ask, what exactly will be the impact that the UN provides in regards to the climate?
I can already tell you their solution will provide them with money and power.
My guess is that ANY impact on the climate will be indecipherable – except possibly eliminating people’s ability to live comfortably within it if you don’t happen to live along that particular latitude line where you don’t need heat or AC.
Caves, urine and bugs, remember.