Guest post by Vijay Jayaraj
Countries across the globe are at a crossroads. They must choose between competing energy sources.
On the one hand, there are fossil fuels, the long-proven, relatively simple technologies of which provide abundant, affordable, reliable, instant-on-demand conventional energy. Indeed, they provide over 80 percent of all energy used in the world today.
On the other hand, there are “renewable energy sources.” Don’t think of the old reliable ones like hydro, wood, and dung, but of what Bjørn Lomborg, in his new book False Alarm, calls “new renewables,” mainly wind turbines and solar panels. Unlike fossil fuels, wind and solar are diffuse, providing less energy per area of land, and intermittent. Consequently, they are less abundant, more expensive, unreliable, and—when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine—often completely unavailable.
Countries don’t face this decision by choice.
The United Nations’ (UN) collective decision, under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, to wage war on fossil fuels required a draconian energy policy. First it tried the Kyoto Protocol—under which almost no nation lived up to its commitments. Ironically, the United States, which never ratified it, had the world’s best record at reducing greenhouse gas emissions during the period Kyoto covered.
With the Kyoto Protocol’s expiration in 2012, the UN needed a replacement. It came up with the Paris Agreement in 2015. Over 190 nations had signed on by early 2016, and by 2019 nearly every nation had ratified and submitted its plans for greenhouse gas reductions.
But before then, the Paris Agreement lost its biggest cash cow. United States President Donald Trump announced in June 2017 that his nation would withdraw from the agreement. By the terms of the Agreement, the withdrawal becomes effective November 4, 2020—a day after America’s next Presidential election, but two-and-a-half months before the winner is inaugurated.
The key element of the Agreement is for member states to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions, which come mainly from fossil fuel use. Countries submitted individual deadlines to the Agreement and were expected to achieve those goals.
But almost all major European member states have failed to meet their emission reduction deadlines, and they remain unaccountable. Even economic powerhouses like Germany and France, both of which championed the treaty, continue to lag behind their emission reduction targets.
Moreover, advanced member states such as Japan and Australia have shown no restraints towards fossil fuels. The US has been on a fossil-fuel spree, emerging with a superior energy sector that is less dependent on oil from the Middle East.
Developing countries are in a difficult position economically. Some of their GDPs are much smaller than the European giants, all have GDP per capita below the developed countries, and poverty in them is widespread and often severe.
Developing countries understandably are reluctant to suppress their own growth by depending on expensive, intermittent, unreliable wind and solar when developed nations don’t. Some of the developing nations have expressed this through their domestic policy decisions.
The two largest developing nations, India and China, with a combined 2.8 billion people, together are the highest users of coal in the world. They have defied international pressure to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Economists say that this continued reliance on fossil fuels and the “economic growth from expanded use of fossil fuels will add thousands of dollars of annual income to the poor in India.” Ditto in China.
Quite simply, fossil fuels lifted the West out of poverty over the last 170 years. Developing countries understandably see no reason why they shouldn’t have the same benefit. Freeing up the billions of dollars these developing countries currently spend on renewable technology would speed their conquest of poverty.
Developed countries that provide them this fund are not immune from “energy poverty” themselves. Energy poverty (also called “fuel poverty” and defined in the United Kingdom as when a household must spend over 10 percent of its income solely on home heating—jeopardizing its ability to provide adequate food and other necessities) exists even in the UK and US, where the vulnerable population experience serious morbidity and mortality from their inability to pay energy bills.
In 2018, 2.40 million households in England were classified as fuel poor. Hundreds die each year in the English winter due to their inability to pay heating bills.
Reports indicate that energy poverty is a very real problem in the US, too. In 2015, “17 million households received an energy disconnect/delivery stop notice and 25 million households had to forgo food and medicine to pay energy bills.”
Developed countries must not fall into an imaginary abyss where they aggravate this widespread energy poverty. They, like the developing countries, must stop their investments in renewables and instead focus on making affordable energy.
Developing countries can begin by following the US example, pulling out of the Paris Agreement, which not only mandates reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but also forces them to spent billions for renewable installations that cannot provide the abundant, affordable, reliable energy indispensable to overcoming poverty.
Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), is a Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
It amazes me how long this rubbish about “greenhouse gases” has been sustained. If it were true then there would be no water on the planet.
This one chart shows how silly the concept of water heating the planet actually is:
Look at how much energy gets rejected as a function of water vapour. And please note as water vapour goes up, the energy rejected goes up. If that did not happen atmospheric water would just provide a positive feedback and it would all boil off.
One aspect these these two show in comparison is how the northern hemisphere kicks into hyperdrive once the TPW hets to 3cm. It is noticeable as well for the Southern Hemisphere but the difference more noticeable in the northern hemisphere.
Climate models that show the Earth is warming over the next 100 years are WRONG. It cannot happen. The equatorial ocean water cannot exceed 32C. It is physically impossible. And the temperature data shows that very clearly. This from the equatorial moored buoys for the last 18 years:
Where have all the enquiring minds gone?
Of course it is ‘true’ – it is basic physics and as irrefutable as gravity.
I assume you also accept logarithms and absorption bands exist too.
I was a physics major in college, and graduated in the top quarter of my class overall. So convince me, with facts and science, that it is basic physics. See also my next reply to you.
“Of course it is ‘true’ – it is basic physics and as irrefutable as gravity.”
And yet you cannot produce one single case of measured warming by atmospheric CO2
Why is that, griff ?????
Seems you know absolutely NOTHING about basic physics or science…
….. that come through in or every comment.. the evidence is irrefutable.
If you did know anything about basic physics or science, you would know that warming by atmospheric CO2 is not possible, because of the immediate compensation of any extra energy by the movement of air, controlled by the gravity based molecular density gradient. PROVEN and MEASURED by 2 million + sets of balloon data.
Seems you bypassed science and physics , and went straight to virtue and attention seeking.
Ocean temperature cannot exceed 32C. It is physically impossible. Storm clouds form at 24C when TPW exceeds 3cm and they reject heat through reflective power that far exceeds any impact the water vapour has on OLR reduction. Hence the very POSITIVE correlation between TPW and rejected heat. At 27C the atmosphere goes into hyperdrive and cyclonic storms ensue. These reject so much sunlight as well as long wave radiation that they cool the water below with full sunshine directly above The brightest spot on Earth on 30th July this year was in the mid Atlantic:
Reflective power exceeding 330W/sq.m. Hurricane Isaias progressed across the mid Atlantic from Africa to the Gulf of Mexico and then up the east coast as a rain depression, reflecting 80% of the TOA insolation and cooling the surface as it progressed for over a week. Every cyclonic storm does a similar job in producing high altitude, highly reflective clouds that cool the ocean surface.
Cyclonic storms are not a consequence of any fairy tale about global heating; they are the temperature control mechanism that must form when oceans surface temperature in latitudes above 10 degrees exceeds 27C. That means the ocean surface simply cannot get to 32C.
The only ocean-connected water surface on the planet that regularly has temperature approaching 32C or exceeding it is the Person Gulf. It does not get to the 3cm TPW that enables cloud burst that form the high altitude reflective clouds that form everywhere else above the ocean surface with temperature over 24C.
It is difficult to fathom how such tripe as “greenhouse gas” still gets currency. Take 5 seconds to think about positive feedback from water vapour in the atmosphere. If more water vapour made it hotter then it would be unstable and just keep getting hotter with more water vapour going into the atmosphere until complete evaporation of all surface water. It’s rubbish. Anyone who made it out of kindergarten should be able to comprehend this.
Any climate model that shows warming in the next 100 years is WRONG. It is unphysical claptrap. Any temperature trend in current temperature records demonstrate a lack of attention to detail in the measuring system or data tampering like homogenisation. All the supposed warming on the Australian continent in the last 50 years can be traced to (a) relocate of remote temperature gauges to airports that have had an increase in size and frequency of aircraft (b) faster responding electronic gauges (c) urban heat effect and (d) homogenisation of records with higher weighting on urban sites; all poor measurement practice.
Take some time to look at the moored buoy data across the oceans. There is no long term trend and the temperature never exceeds 31C:
The MODIS satellite data shows the ocean surface has cooled bt 0.2C so far this century but that is the result of a cool pool in the North Atlantic; common with the Atlantic oscillation.
Griffiepoo: Kindly explain why atmospheric CO2 concentration always changes AFTER temperature in the ice-core record and not before.
Do you really believe causation can work backwards in time?
Warmmunists like Griff always bring up gravity when CAGW* is discussed. The trope is misleading at best. Nor, should it give much comfort to warmmunists.
The phenomenon of gravity has been observed at all time scales and in all frames of reference.
Mathematical theories of gravity were first formulated by Newton in the late 17th Century. His theory proved to be accurate and useful at human scales and near Earth.
However, within two centuries, anomalies were observed such as the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury, and the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment that illuminated the weaknesses of Newtonian theory. In the early 20th century, Einstein propounded his Theories of Special and general Relativity that explained or resolved many of those anomalies.
The theories of Relativity have been tested over the last century and found to be highly accurate. The system of GPS satellites incorporates relativistic adjustments that allow it to produce highly accurate location data on the surface of the Earth.
But, Relativity has not made Newtonian mechanics useless. Structural engineers and earthbound artillerymen still rely on it.
Further, it is clear that under extreme conditions Relativity is not a complete and accurate theory of gravitation.
The sizes and shapes of galaxies can only be explained within the existing framework by adding a quantity known as “dark matter” a substance that produces gravity but cannot be otherwise observed. I.e. pixie dust.
The original theory of General Relativity included a “cosmological constant” because Einstein accepted the then current philosophical idea (dating back to Aristotle) that the universe was static, and without the constant, the theory predicted the universe would expand continuously. Astronomers discovered that the universe was indeed expanding and the constant was abandoned by physicists and was labeled by Einstein as “my greatest blunder”. Later measurements indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Some theorists have modified Relativity by adding something they call dark energy to explain the acceleration. It is even less accessible to earth bound physicists than “dark matter”.
The theory of General Relativity predicts that some stars will collapse into objects that no longer shine with light generated by internal nuclear fusion dubbed black holes. General relativity predicts a point at the center of a black hole where the laws of physics do not apply dubbed a singularity. A singularity is also predicted for the beginning or end of any universe. The existence of such singularities is a very uncomfortable idea. Further, they have not been observed.
The other pillar of 20th century physics is quantum mechanics. Like General Relativity it has been experimentally verified to a high degree of precision. Unfortunately the theories are not completely compatible. General Relativity explains the universe as a non-Euclidean continuous space time. Quantum mechanics is discreet and occurs in a Euclidean space.
Einstein himself tried to reconcile the two theories and failed. Since the 1960s many “string theories” have been propounded to reconcile Quantum theory and General Relativity. So have other theories. None of them have been verified by experiment. Nor have nay of them achieved any theoretical hegemony. There is no particular reason to think that any living physicist is on the right path to a reconciliation.
Can CAGW be compared to General Relativity, or even Newtonian theory? I don’t think so.
Climate data is very sparse compared to astronomical observations. Good worldwide climate data is only about 40 years old, and is subject to much bigger error bars.
Climate models are at best clumsy approximations. They are hostages to their data, the well known instabilities of differential equation systems, the limited accuracy of discreet computer arithmetic, and the mathematical intractability of the Navier-Stokes equations.
Climate models have not converged on a value for the Equilibrium Sensitivity of global temperature to CO2 concentration changes. Indeed the new AR6 models have diverged, nor have the models and observational methods converged on a value. Indeed the AR6 versions have diverged from the observational values.
To summarize: Climate theories are not nearly as good as gravitational theories. And, Gravitational theories are less certain and more provisional than warmmunists let on.
*Catastrophic Anthropogeneic Global Warming n/k/a Climate Change. For climate change to be a subject of politics, it must be catastrophic, other wise it is uninteresting, and anthropogenic otherwise humans can do nothing about it other than adapt.
If a mouse scurries through an unheated room during winter, the room is heated. You can’t deny it. It’s irrefutable thermodynamics. But is the effect significant?
Governments which lockdown it’s citizens based using a loon in the UK while promoting massive hysteria and fear has no concerns about imposing misery, calamity and death in order to create and maintain absolute control.
Climate change is merely a Covid hysteria that, so far, is working but not at the speed they’d hoped. It’s the nature of how humans are when given any level of power.
Good posting by Vijay. President Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the USA from the Paris Accords in order to eliminate the undue burdens on the USA, all to no actual benefit. This withdrawal was possible because President Obama did not get the Accords ratified by Congress, as is required by the Constitution. Instead he simply signed an executive order and actually started sending taxpayer monies into oblivion. However, several USA states have themselves ratified the Paris Accords, including the usual suspects, who are searching for any thing stupid that accelerates their downward spiral.
Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution specifically says: “No state shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;” I’m not sure that the plain language of the constitution could be any more clear. States have no authority to ratify or approve the Paris Accords.
The United States never officially entered into the Paris Accord because President Obama never submitted it to the Senate and it was never ratified by the Senate. The Paris Accord has no legal standing in the United States and it never did have any legal standing in the United States. I don’t understand why we even need to give notice to withdraw from something we never even entered.
Marty, right you are. How about the tax dollars that flew away into oblivion? Will they fly back?
Marty and Ron Long,
It is true that the Paris Accord technically has no legal effect in the US and Trump could have ended it by executive order nearly three years ago.
I can only assume he gave three years notice in accordance with the Paris Agreement to avoid protracted legal disputes over the effectiveness of Obama’s executive order.
As to the money wasted under Obama and flowing to the Green Fund, I have read it was some $3 billion but Trump cancelled the cheque on some $2 billion of that sum which had not been paid but promised by the Obama administration.
It seems to have escaped the author of this piece that countries across the world already opted for the renewable, zero carbon option and except in the backward areas of the USA are forging ahead with it to great success.
So tell us in detail about those “great” successes. From what I have heard, the only thing they have accomplished is the same as what California has – drive up the cost of living and make the supply of power unreliable.
I just finished checking the national weather maps this morning. They show snow and cold in Montana and North Dakota, and it is only the middle of October. So what has happened to all of this terrible global warming we have been promised we will be afflicted with due to the terrible heat-trapping ability of this carbon dioxide? For a reality check, see how much the carbon dioxide has increased (tracked monthly from the top of Mauna Loa) and then compare it with the change in temperatures over the same period.
WRONG AGAIN.. or should I say, AS ALWAYS, griff.
The two biggest emitters pay lip service only,
UNRELIABLES are barely over 1-2% of the total energy used on the planet.
Only those countries DUMB ENOUGH to follow the anti-science of human CO2 warming are installing stupid amounts of unreliables, , harming their environment and countryside and avian wildlife, and making electricity the most COSTLY in the world.
Only “success” these countries are having is devastating their economies and making their poor people suffer.
Just what griff wants, isn’t it griff.
Unreliables DO NOT reduce CO2 emissions,( not that they matter, because, according to griff and Loy, CO2 has no atmospheric warming effect.)
Only replacing coal with gas will reduce CO2 emission, as in the USA.
Funny that the US has reduced its CO2 emissions far more than many other countries, isn’t it griff.
The backward areas of the USA.???
I take it you mean California etc.. the deep Marxist states that are doing their very best to emulate Venezuela.
Unreliables DO NOT reduce CO2 emissions,( not that they matter, because, according to griff and Loy, CO2 has no atmospheric warming effect.)
Fred, this statement puzzles me.
Reduction in CO2 in countries adopting anti-CO2 garbage, has mainly been from replacing coal with gas.
The UK are such advanced leaders they have gone into lockdowns again because they can’t follow basic rules and killed even more of their economy. However what you really have to admire is when residents of this advanced country organize illegal parties to celebrate the lockdowns some cities like Birmingham managed 70 in a single night.
I love the concept of the a UK resident calling other countries backward … people in glasshouse probably shouldn’t throw stones :-).
griff, there isn’t a single country in the world that has achieved a renewable, zero carbon energy option. Prove me wrong, name one, and not one that has announced a (pie-in-the-sky) intention to achieve this goal in the distant future (which won’t happen with current technology). You can’t, so you have admit that you are dishonestly trying to convince people of something that isn’t true. Why?
According to socialists, advanced countries have everything run by politicians.
Only backwards countries believe that the people are capable of running their own lives.
As you were shown at least 4 times before, Germany’s electricity system on the verge of collapse, possibly taking all of Europe with it. Not quite “success” yet, hey griff…
Denmark and Germany have the most expensive electricity in the world.
South Australia a basket case, will be lucky to make it through the coming summer without severe shortfalls and load shedding.. They do have a lot of GAS as back-up , and some hidden nests of diesel generators.. But that will push costs up even further than they already are.
Wind in UK currently producing just 1.5GW……. USELESS.
Gas and Nuclear carrying the load, 76% combines, with about 12% of electricity coming from France, Holland and Belgium..
1.There are 193 signatories to the Paris Accord.
The Paris Accord is voluntary as to INDCs to reduce emissions nominated by signatories.There is no penalty for any country failing to meet INDCs.
2. Of these some 165 are developing countries which have no obligation whatsoever to prefer environmental commitments to industrial development and NONE intend to do so notwithstanding
pious grandstanding e.g. China will peak its emissions by 2030 and have net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2060.
3. That leaves 28 countries ( or 27 if the US stays out ) to reduce the world’s CO2 emissions.
Paris was DOA in 2015.
It has already failed as did Kyoto and Copenhagen for the very simple reasons that no one will pay $122 trillion to save the planet and “zero carbon options” are a fantasy which no country can implement.
Not to mention that human emissions of CO2 amount to less than 5% of the total emitted and absorbed each year. If humans, somehow, managed to drop their emissions to zero, worldwide, the climate would not even take notice.
Exactly how much is it worth to ‘reduce’ Co2 emissions?
Vijay had better watch out. I don’t think his opinions would be acceptable amongst his University colleagues at the University of East Anglia (UEA)…. I mean: Wasn’t that the esteemed establishment from which the now infamous “Climategate” emails originated?
Five hundred million years ago, Co2 concentration is believed to have been 4000 ppm – ten times what it is today. Over time, it dropped to about 180 ppm. Slightly less than 1/2 what it is now. If climate were a roller coaster, we would be at one of the lowest points. It is pretty obvious that the climate changes on its own, and CO2 follows. You can’t have temperature affecting CO2 and CO2 affecting temperature, or all water on earth would have boiled off millions of years ago. There have been three different makeups of atmosphere – the first had no oxygen, but was mainly nitrogen and Co2. The second replaced part of the Co2 with oxygen, thanks to plants. Those monstrous plants grew huge because of an abundance of Co2. We are now Co2 starved. Plants grow better with added Co2. Greenhouse growers routinely up the Co2 concentration to about 1500 ppm. Plant growth at that level is about 30% better than at current atmospheric levels.
Co2 is not a problem for earth – bad thinking is. One must identify cause and effect. If your models are written backwards, as they are, they will produce backwards results. Just run those damn models backwards, where we already know what the results should be, and see if we just emerged from an ice age in the last 100 years. Note to self – it didn’t happen. The models are written to show that rising Co2 will cause rising temperature. It simply isn’t true. That is why not one model, ever, has been shown to be correct regarding so-called ‘greenhouse gases’.
Anything to do with the United Nations is CORRUPT. It’s background wasn’t the Lucifer Trust for nothing.
Almost everything to do with ANY government or other political entity is corrupt. Only the level of corruption varies. The amazing Biden laptop shows more than one pay “my relatives” to play scheme of a 47 year politician.
TRUMP! played the pay to play system from the outside as a developer/builder because he had to. He is not a politician, which is clear from his tweets, etc. He is a businessman who knows how the “system” works and is intent on breaking the “system”. The “system” understands this and is doing all it can to stop him. That is why the FBI has sat on the laptop’s contents for 10 months when it appears child porn is on it. One wonders what the system has on the senators to stop their immediate demand for the FBI director to appear and explain why nothing has been done. But FBI director Wray is of the swamp, which was obvious when he was easily confirmed by the Senate.
There is an inevitable relationship between power and corruption.
The more powerful government gets, the more corrupt it gets.
Yes, the FBI needs a new Director. And it appears, the CIA needs another Director. The current one is stonewalling turning over documents just like FBI Director Wray.
We also need to call Robert Mueller up to congress to ask him why he pursued a prosecution of Trump when he knew good and well that Trump had done nothing wrong. It looks to me like Mueller and his henchmen should all be going to jail for false prosecution, and Treason.
If Trump wins, all this corruption and criminality is going to come out into the pubic. If Biden wins, it will all be covered up, and the American people will never be given another chance to govern themselves. All successive elections will be rigged in the Democrats favor, like they tried unsuccessfully to rig the 2016 election. The way XI and Putin do elections. The Democrats will correct the mistakes they made in 2016, and apply them to future elections, and we will never be the wiser.
We are on the brink of a socialist takeover of the United States. Anecetdotally, it looks like Trump is ahead in the race. The polls all show Biden winning, like they showed Hillary winning in 2016. If the polls miss the mark as badly as they did in 2016, they will lose all credibility. And rightfully so, since polls are forming opinions by the way they are rigged in the Democrats favor. We cannot depend on polls to tell us the truth of the situation.
Trump has tens of thousands of people turning out for every rally he gives. Biden has a few dozen, if that. Trump signs and flags seen everywhere, even in Blue States like California and New York. Hardly any Biden signs. What does this portend?
I’ve noticed that the entity known as Griff does not engage and essentially runs a one-way street of baseless obviously flawed commentary.
Which is OK, as that generates the very knowledgeable comments on this site.
But it does get predictable, and I would humbly suggest just a bit more snark from the Griff thing to liven up the debate. Requires originality and thought which may not be possible.
“Energy poverty (also called “fuel poverty” and defined in the United Kingdom as when a household must spend over 10 percent of its income solely on home heating—jeopardizing its ability to provide adequate food and other necessities) exists even in the UK and US, where the vulnerable population experience serious morbidity and mortality from their inability to pay energy bills. ”
This is not a definition generated by the UK. The World Bank managed Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) uses that 10% of income yardstick everywhere. It has been amply demonstrated that once 10% of net income is spent on domestic energy, food and chronic underheating start to impact health. Once it reaches 20%, food, education and medicine, housing and transport are affected. At 25% people will abandon any fuel for any other is a desperate search for cooking and heating energy alone.
Readers, this is a serious problem deserving our urgent attention. Literally billions of people are living in energy poverty and they are under threat from ninnies who insist that, pending the development of advanced nuclear power, we can or must get by on solar and wind power with existing big hydro, but no new installations. Go figure.
The whole “emergency” is of course predicated on RCP8.5 which assumes an enormous increase in the burning of fossil fuels far beyond the expectable earthly reserves. That’s the problem with models: extrapolating some situation into the future without considering the physical limitations of the resources. And they are supposed to be the ones leading the argument that things are limited.
Fossil fuels are limited, but not in RCP8.5.
Why then should the modelers be allowed to direct policy? Obviously they should not because they have demonstrated their cluelessness. They cannot correctly diagnose the disease and they know not the cure. They are ignorant physicians. Cut off their microphones.