By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
At the forthcoming Glasgow global-warming chunderama, Boris Johnson – under the baneful, Lucrezia-Borgia influence of his crazed, extremist wife – will try to persuade other Western nations to follow him in committing economic hara-kiri by promising to galumph towards net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions over the three decades between now and 2050.
Here is why our friends and allies in Europe, America and the Commonwealth should resist the blubbering, bombastic blandishments of Boris the blond, Borgia-battered blunderbuss.
Net-zero just isn’t worth it. Let us do the math that no government seems to have done. It is not very difficult – but the results are astonishing.
For 30 years the annual growth in net anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing has been near-perfectly linear at 0.033 Watts per square meter per year, or 1 W m–2 over the 30 years:
Therefore, on business as usual, with no abatement of greenhouse-gas emissions, one might expect another 1 W m–2 of global warming over the 30 years 2021-2050, la Johnson’s target date for the economic extinction of the West. A straight-line reduction to zero over the next 30 years would abate half of the 1 W m–2 emissions growth that would otherwise have occurred on business as usual.
IPCC (2021) predicts 3 K final warming in response to 3.93 W m–2 doubled-CO2 forcing. Its implicit midrange equilibrium-sensitivity parameter is then 3 / 3.93, or 0.76 K W–1 m2.
However, in 1850 equilibrium global temperature was 287.5 K, comprising 255 K emission temperature and 24.2 K feedback response thereto, and 7.6 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases and 0.7 K feedback response thereto.
On that basis, and assuming – as climatology implicitly does [see footnote] – that system response is near-invariant with temperature, one would expect just 0.1 K feedback response to the 1.05 K direct warming by doubled CO2.
That 1.05 K direct doubled-CO2 warming is the product of the 0.3 K W–1 m2 Planck reference-sensitivity parameter and the 3.52 W m–2 CMIP6 models’ mean doubled-CO2 radiative forcing given in Zelinka et al. (2020, supplementary matter).
Therefore, final doubled-CO2 warming, roughly equivalent to all anthropogenic warming this century, will not be 3 K but little more than 1.1 K. Sure enough, the rate of warming since the end of the Second World War has been equivalent to little more than 1.1 K century–1:
If radiative forcing continues at the previously-established rate, there is no particular reason to assume a substantially greater centennial-equivalent warming rate than that. Indeed, there has been no global warming at all for 7 years 4 months (cue screeching) –
If one should indeed only expect 1.1 K final warming in response to 3.52 W m–2 doubled-CO2 forcing, the equilibrium-sensitivity parameter will be only 0.31 rather than IPCC’s 0.76.
Therefore, if IPCC is right about forcing and warming, even if the whole world went net-zero by 2050 the global warming forestalled by then would be only 0.5 x 0.76 = two-fifths of a degree. Correcting IPCC’s overblown estimates, make that 0.5 x 0.31 = one-sixth of a degree.
In reality, the warming forestalled will be a lot less than that. For 80% of all new emissions are in developing nations, such as China and India, which both have space programs but are nonetheless exempt from the restrictions laid down in the Paris climate accords.
The Western nations account for only 20% of new emissions. Therefore, even in the highly unlikely event that all the nations of the West actually achieved net-zero by 2050 (dream on: it won’t happen), the warming mitigated by 2050 would be only 1/13 degree (or 1/32 degree if IPCC is wrong).
And how much global warming will be mitigated by 2050 by shutting down the British economy alone? The answer is 1/220 degree if IPCC is right; 1/540 degree if not.
The direct cost just of British net-zero – even if it were attainable, which it is not – would be $4.2 trillion by 2050, according to the national electricity-grid authority. For various reasons, that is a howling underestimate, but let us ride with it for now.
In that event, the direct cost of achieving the 1/32 to 1/13 degree mitigation if all the nations of the West were to shut themselves down by 2050 would be $70 trillion. If the whole world were to shut down, make that $350 trillion.
On the same basis, the cost of abating the 4 K global warming that the usual suspects predict on business as usual this century would be $3.7 to 9 quadrillion.
These calculations are not particularly difficult. They are summarized in the table. The fact that IPCC, UNFCCC and governments have not done these calculations speaks volumes about the savage, irrational, nihilistic, purely partisan and nastily totalitarian attack on the West that the climate-change narrative represents.
But that is before taking indirect costs into account. Already, heavy manufacturing is being driven out of the West by mad climate-change policies and ending up in China or India, where electrical power costs one-sixth of what it does here. Worse, China, chiefly through its illegal occupation, enslavement and ruthless racial suppression of Tibet, already controls 70% of the world’s known reserves of lithium, cobalt and other rare metals necessary to the batteries in Tesla’s electric buggies.
It is also quietly buying placeholder stakes in the 30% of lithium reserves that it does not already control. It is now doing a deal with the Taliban to take control of the large lithium reserves recently found in Afghanistan. And it is buying placeholder stakes in lithium mines from Cornwall to south-western Greenland, where – for instance – it holds a 9% stake in Greenland Minerals’ recently-discovered lithium reserves.
In short, China is bidding fair to corner the global market in rare-earth metals. And if the West follows Slobberchops in his daft net-zero ambition, it will make itself utterly dependent on China for the strategic rare-earth metals without which its electric buggies won’t work.
And all this is before one counts the cost of doing away with real autos and replacing them with golf-carts. The problem with batteries is that they are heavy. Very heavy. Batteries add 25-30% to the weight of a buggy, reducing its fuel efficiency to something like what it was in an auto of the 1950s. Not exactly a ground-breaking advance, then. Energy is scarce enough as it is, without wasting as much as a quarter of it on shifting batteries around.
And don’t get me started on electric trucks. If you download the specs for the Tesla milk-float, you will find a curious, highly significant omission. Nowhere is the load capacity given:
And that’s a problem. For the maximum all-up weight of a truck on U.S. roads is 80,000 lb, or 36 tons. Of that, by the time one takes the massive weight of the batteries into account, the tare weight of a Tesla milk-float will be around 33 tons, leaving less than 3 tons for cargo.
Contrast these milk-float figures with those for a real semi. The tare weight is 35,000 lb, so that the semi can carry 45,000 lb of cargo, almost seven times the 6000 lb carrying capacity of the Tesla milk-float. Now, a pint of milk weighs 1 lb, and the weight of the bottle and a share of the crate weighs another 1 lb. So the Tesla milk-float will be able to carry about 3000 bottles of milk, about twice the capacity of the milk-float below – and nothing else:
Does no one in the climate establishment ever do even the most elementary sums? Net-zero is simply not worth the hassle, the prodigious expense or the strategic exposure to China.
Footnote: How climatology’s system response is near-invariant with temperature
Method 1: Lacis et al. (2010: above) say feedback response is 3 times direct warming by greenhouse gases, implying 4 degrees’ final warming after feedback response for each 1 degree of direct warming before feedback response.
Method 2: In 1850 the three components in the 287.5 K equilibrium surface temperature were the 255 K emission temperature, the 7.6 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases and 24.9 K total feedback response. Since 24.9 K is about 3 times the 7.6 K direct warming by greenhouse gases, climatologists imagine final warming is about 4 K for each 1 K direct warming.
Method 3: Zelinka et al. (2020) show 3.52 W m–2 midrange doubled-CO2 radiative forcing as the mean of 15 CMIP6 models, implying 0.3 x 3.52 = 1.05 K direct warming by doubled CO2. Zelinka et al. also show 3.9 K midrange final warming by doubled CO2 in the same models, again implying close to 4 K final warming for each 1 K direct warming.
So if you don’t think climatologists should make predictions on the basis that system response is near-invariant with temperature in the industrial era, don’t whine at me about it. Write to IPCC. It is official climatology that makes the implicit assumption of near-invariance.
That must be why ILUKA is building a refinery for rare earths in western Australia..(ASX:ILU)
What has mathematics, or logic, got to do with this?
Johnson, and the rest of the world’s politicians, are facing a rising driven by emotion and herd instinct. You do not, and cannot, stop such a stampede by facing a polite discussion with the panic-crazed lead animals.
This irrational movement is not driven by science, but by “THE SCIENCE”. Good luck changing that…..
The only mathematics the politicians take note of are the polling numbers .
They used to. I suspect now that they are able to manipulate them sufficiently for their own purposes.
In most cases you can commission a poll to say exactly what you want it to say. the only time a poll might mean anything is in the days leading up to an election – and I suspect that they don’t mean much there any more…
It’s all in the questions asked… or not asked.
And where the questions are asked, meaning that the pollsters go by polling booths in electorates according to previous election results to target the side of politics the pollster plans to favour.
They then phone numbers in those areas and ask very carefully crafted questions and even stop interviewing when answers do not fit their needs.
And tax rates.
David Cameron calculated “let’s have plan B if plan A fails”.
And I hope people wake up and never vote for these lunatics again.
I would blame Johnson’s stupid little wife for most of these idiotic decisions. I hope she and he have HUGE, DEEP pockets to pay for their failures in energy.
Christopher Monckton used his maths skills to analyse and audit the original UN IPCC climate change modelling and proved that it was unreliable, deceptive creative accounting.
A while later hacked emails released in two batches revealed the exchanges between the creators including admissions that they were creating a warming trend to suit the political agenda.
Monckton was ridiculed for not being a scientist and ignoring that accountants conduct audits of figures and that a highly skilled mathematician has a similar approach.
Back to the science, the science is settled nonsense, firstly science is never settled and secondly the 97% claimed to be in agreement are a very small percentage of the world’s scientists, and even Ian Plimer who is a geologist and professor emeritus of earth sciences has pointed out that climate changes naturally, weather conditions are natural.
In their ordinary lives, politicians never come in contact with people who have any interest in or need for mathematics. That is let to the underlings to work out. As a result politicians have no concept of proportion or balance of effect. The ideas in the article would be alien to or incomprehensible to the average politician, who is only interested in support or opposition and means to get their own way.
The article is very good but assumes that the idea that increasing CO2 is causing the warmth and not that the increasing warmth is causing the extra CO2, Proof of either concept is very hard to extract from the complex World atmosphere and its data/
All good Nicholas, except that the author is both a mathemetician and a politician, who regularly argues against the idea that CO2 causes excess warming, and is quite good at extracting information from data. He also wittily and frequently uses the alarmists’ faulty reasoning against their political rhetoric.
NT, here I fixed for you.
“he ideas in the article would be alien to or incomprehensible to the average politician, who is only interested in support or opposition and means to get their own
waycampaign and lobbying money.”In response to Mr Tesdorf, I have made it repeatedly plain that my approach in examining the questionable “science” behind the climate scam is that of Socratic elenchus: I accept ad argumentum all of official climatology except what I can prove to be nonsense. That is why my articles provoke such shrieking hysteria among the true-believers, for they are compelled – without distraction – to face the gross logical inconsistencies in what passes for their thinking, and they don’t like it.
Einstein faced the same problem, until his non believers proved him right.
But without forcing expensive battery powered things and higher energy prices on the people of the west how will governments keep those people living paycheck to paycheck. That is keep them struggling so much day to day that they don’t look too closely at the ruling and political classes? Furthermore how will the intellectual technocrat class make their living?
As Louis XVI found that only works for so long. At some point it becomes too much. The 18th-19th century Age Of Revolutions terrified monarchies across Europe
“terrified” and killed.
Or, often forgotten, Charles I. We cut off his head in 1649. Many ‘moons’ before everyone else thought of it.
Ostensibly, he wanted everyone to use the new ‘approved’ Bible, a big issue back then. Kind of like ‘The Science’ is now, I guess, eradicate non-belief in the narrative.
Art Berman has a great chart
it shows 70 – 80 % of the energy comes from Coal Oil and Natural gas
20 – 30% including Nuclear does the rest
Now take out nuclear and you have 20 – 25% for the rest
Now equate this to human carrying capacity 1 – 2B people
the rest must submit to either starvation or voluntary euthanasia
we can take Boris the first volunteer
Better still we can place his head on the metal stakes at tower bridge after he is drawn and quartered by the people when they realise he was a traitor to the state
Here is a “subtle hint” I published many years ago about energy reality:
Fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change much in future decades.
The remaining 15% of global primary energy is almost all hydro and nuclear.
Eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in about a month from starvation and exposure.
John wrote:
“Better still we can place his head on the metal stakes at tower bridge after he is drawn and quartered by the people when they realise he was a traitor to the state.”
Whoa John – way too harsh! Show BoJo a little kindness and understanding. He’s in love, and men in love do foolish things that they later regret – we’ve all been there.
As I explained in a previous post in 2020:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/21/what-is-the-great-reset/#comment-3131382
BoJo is now BloJo – his new lefty lady friend has bewitched him. It’s a medical fact – guys get a new girlfriend who can suck a golf ball through a garden hose and the vacuum affects their brain – it’s like altitude sickness – the living brain-dead.
Correction: Through a straw
Straws aren’t banned?
You could have stopped at “He’s a numpty”, but no, you have to offer scientific proof of the fact Boris is a numpty.
More North Americans, here is your new “Word for the Day”: NUMPTY
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Numpty
A person who is incapable of performing the simplest of task correctly. Usual symptoms include poor hand-eye coordination, zero common sense and the general illusion that they are special (caused by parents referring to them as such and the numpty not fully grasping the meaning implied).
Look at the major democracies – all ruled by Numpty leaders – a few examples:
Biden in the USA; BoJo in the UK, and the “Numpty of Numpties”, Justin Trudeau in Canada, a trust-fund baby who has never done anything of value or significance in his entire life!.
Why to stupid voters elect these imbeciles? Maybe it has something to do with their own sense of inferiority. Maybe those of less-than-average-intelligence feel good when they elect a leader who is even stupider than they are.
As George Carlin said: “You know how stupid the average person is, right? Well, half of them are stupider than that!”
See also Dunning-Kruger Effect.
They may be stupid, but they win, because there are so many of them.
Politicians know this very well, play to THOSE galleries to be re elected.
You threw me with the pint weighing 1lb. The imperial pint weighs 1.25lb, an imperial gallon of water is 10lbs.
I don’t know if they use milk floats in the USA, but using UK pint bottles the load on a milk float in the UK is 25% more in lbs, I believe that both are the same, it’s the pints that are different.
So for the UK it’s worse than we thought.
A pint’s a pound the world around! This is what my daddy taught me years ago….
You misunderstand the calculation, in the UK there are 8 pints in an Imperial gallon. An Imperial Gallon is 1.2x a US Gallon. Therefore a UK Gallon weighs more than a US Gallon, therefore a Milk Float of UK pint bottles of milk each has 1.25lb of liquid. In the USA a pint is 16 fluid ounces in the UK a pint is 20 fluid ounces or 2.402 US Cups. Also that means an Imperial Quart of a liquid weighs more than a US Quart.
As the Milk Float is unique to the UK then the load will be liquid Imperial units so the load will be greater than a calculation using US liquid units, meaning the Tesla has a lower MFE** load capability.
**Milk Float Equivalent
I decline to quibble about the precise weight of the milk in a U.S. pint bottle.
But! Your missing out on MFE’s! (See, Lefties, WE can make up scientisms, too.)
“Net zero emissions by 2050 isn’t worth it”
Ted Kaczynski would disagree
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/08/27/quora-post36/
People should check out this link. Sounds much like XR today.
Awesome article. And the picture of the milk float brings back many memories of the UK.
I should have added that I received a firm slap about my ears one morning in the 70’s when I got in to one of these three wheelers and pushed the “go” pedal.
Milk&More say that they are going back to battery power for deliveries but I have to confirm that mine is still by a diesel Transit, but then I do live in the country.
For the 500-mile variant, the truck weight will come out to about 15 tons — leaving 21 tons for cargo, which is about the same as a conventional truck. However, just the battery alone is more expensive than a traditional truck yet it has a much shorter range. Even if the operating cost is 20% lower than conventional diesel-powered trucks, it’ll take a lot longer for trucking companies to see a positive ROI with the Tesla Semi.
https://www.tanktwo.com/why-tesla-semi-isnt-revolutionizing-the-trucking-industry/
21 tons for cargo is useless as a full size shipping container is 30 tons .
In the UK road transport still carries over 90 % of all goods movements .
They spent about £100 million upgrading about 10 miles of rail line from the countries biggest container port , with the result that trains can now carry about 7% of all goods traffic .
So the idea that any transport companies will buy the useless / very expensive electric trucks is just ” pie in the sky”
Check out some of the Australian road-trains. Big bigger than a standard “semi” of 43 tonnes, let alone a “B-double” of 63 tonnes IIRC.
Consider “Road Trains” consisting of up to four trailers carrying freight on gravel surface roads and tracks in very high summer temperatures, wet season muddy conditions and driving through flooded crossings and covering enormous distances, hundreds on the roads around Australia every day.
Don’t forget the recharging time. They will have to buy a lot more trucks to compensate for the ones stuck at the recharging terminals.
Or given how badly they treat truck drivers – and then bleat about a shortage – I expect they won’t pay the drivers while their trucks recharge.
And there will be a lot more trucks on the road. I think there are already too many, and the roads are all chewed up from the ones we have. So more and heavier trucks, and worse roads–what’s not to love??
The Charging Stations will become the Transfer Stations. The truck drives 250 miles drops the load and starts the recharge, The Fully charged truck, at the station, hooks up the trailer and repeats the process. However,BIG problem if the batteries are in the trailer. May need to come up with a small trailer that only has batteries, or a rapid transfer system.
Pony express 2.0
I’m pretty sure the batteries are in the trailer.
Anyway, even in your transfer station model, the long charge time is still a problem. In existing facilities, as soon as a truck is refueled, it’s ready to hook up to a new trailer and take off.
I wonder how electric trucks would do on “Ice Road Truckers”?
Only 250 miles or 400 kilometres, for crossing Australia east-west, north-south or many gravel roads.
Also consider the “payload”, trucks are paid by the load and the more weight the higher that revenue.
TankTwo is trying to sell batteries for trucks. I wouldn’t take their marketing hype as gospel. Every other analysis I’ve seen shows the Tesla semi with a very small payload.
While a 15ton to estimate of the weight is fine for a back of the envelope comparison, the real capacity is significantly less. The batteries charge to 90% and only discharge to 30% by default for battery life extension. This leaves about 60% of capacity for use. Thus the 15 ton value increases to 25 tons for a usable system that would make the 500mi version reliable, and not replacing the batteries every year to 2 years.
No matter how you look at it it doesn’t work.
The real evil comes from John Selwyn Gummer and his loony CCC
Bozzer is an empty vessel
The people carry a lot of the blame. Over the decades they have gradually abandoned politics and reduced democracy to a once-in-four-years ballot ticking exercise. In the golden years of politics – post war, fifties and sixties – the two main UK political parties had millions of members, who between them exercised a powerful grass roots control of the candidate selection procedure. Politics was often discussed in the pub and over the dinner table. Many MPs had previously done ordinary jobs and lived ordinary lives, and they could totally understand the concerns of their constituents. What has happened more recently is a coup detat of the political establishment against the demos, and they now exist to win power for it’s own ends. And what ends are those? Self enrichment and self aggrandizement mostly.
Same here, I would say.
Thank you Christopher, a very neat overview. It begs the question what is driving the Johnson fixation with net zero? Lest we forget, it was his predecessor Treason May that introduced the mandate for net zero into government policy, before she was kicked out of office.
What has happened at the heart of the Tory party since John Major was given the role of puppet leader.
For those of us that watch the fluid political scene evolving here in the UK it is very puzzling.
Another plus from your very clear analysis with details of pint weights, explains why American visitors to the UK find our pubs so appealing. Clearly the option of an extra 25% more beer/pint than they are used to, is irresistible…
It doesn’t beg the question, it raises it.
Regarding pub measures, it’s interesting to note that in Scotland, a measure of spirits is 30ml vs the English 25ml (iirc).
Might be why Scotland has one of the worst alcohol abuse and illness records in the world.
It’s grim up North.
Yes, Grimsby is north of Watford.
Yet still south of the wall
Having lived in Grimsby for 12yrs, I can attest it’s grim
Drugs of all kinds.
Probably the worst per capita rate in Western Europe. The more the ‘Government’ clamps down, the worse it gets. Who knew?
40 years ago the Scottish measure was a fifth of a gill, but pubs sold it in quarter gills. Many a English tourist fell foul of that.
In England the standard single measure of spirits in a public house was 1/6 gill (23.7 ml)
In old money, 1 gill is 5 fluid ounces
“Rod Evans
Thank you Christopher, a very neat overview. It begs the question what is driving the Johnson fixation with net zero?”
Sadly it is his latest Marxist, eco-nutter, wife.
Of course it is worth it…
As the UN report makes clear where we are now any CO2 reduction is important to reduce harmful climate effects. And 1% of world CO2 is still a significant amount of CO2.
Plus if we don’t do anything the Chinese say ‘well we aren’t going to do anything if you don’t’.
Then there are benefits in terms of reduced pollution/improved air quality and the economic stimulus of developing and deploying new technology.
Still waiting for evidence CO2 is a problem for climate.
The sacred models have spoken you heathen.
Griff, according to you, the Chinese are just waiting for Britain to show the world how to do net zero and they will eagerly follow. In reality, the Chinese are laughing at Britain as it becomes the first lemming over the cliff. China’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita are already 43% higher than Britain’s because it has hoovered up all of Britain’s heavy industry. The Chinese have no intention of reducing their carbon dioxide emissions and nobody can force them to do so.
The Chinese have just announced another 43 new coal fired power stations and 18 blast furnaces
They have you pegged, griff
And have announced a new , major oil shale discovery (potentially , deep deposit)
China announced on Wednesday the discovery of a major shale oilfield in the Daqing Oilfield cluster with expected reserves of 1.27 billion tons of oil, Chinese Xinhua news agency reported.
Daqing Oilfield is one of China’s major onshore production centers, and the new discovery is expected to help it boost its oil production in the coming years, according to Xinhua.
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/270871347/globalink–china-discovers-major-shale-oil-field
Lots more plant food on the way. Will keep gardeners and growers happy for years to come.
Griff – folks around here like to rely on His Lordship for climate science and economics.
They don’t seem to mind that he has been coming up with a ‘debunking’ of mainstream science every so often since 2006. When each is shown to be nonsense he doubles down and comes up with another sciency-sounding but in my opinion ultimately mad theory. This latest has been debunked online by Nick Stokes and Joe Born and others and rejected by every journal it has been submitted to. (The next Editor who tries that is going to get a summons to answer charges of fraud – not).
Every respectable study that has examined the costs of mitigation versus adaptation has concluded that doing nothing is the expensive option, and the longer action is delayed the higher the cost.
“Funding the UK’s transition to net-zero emissions could cost the government less over 30 years than the pandemic has cost in just two, the OBR said on Tuesday. Getting to net-zero by 2050 would add 21% of gross domestic product, or £469bn in today’s terms, to the UK’s public debt, if governments around the world took early action to reduce emissions, the fiscal watchdog said. Most of this would be due to the loss of revenue from fuel duty, with the gains from higher carbon taxes sufficient to cover public spending of about 0.4% of GDP a year on net-zero investments. The OBR described this fiscal cost as ‘significant’ but ‘not exceptional’ – while warning that it could be much higher if governments delayed acting until 2030 and then had to cut emissions sharply. Unchecked climate change could take public debt to 289% of GDP by the end of the century – compared with the post-pandemic peak of 108.6% the OBR currently forecasts for 2023-24.”
The Financial Times.
I wonder how they arrived at costings for something that is, using current strategies, impossible to achieve?
Hence that all-important ‘could’.
John Phillips, you are living in as big a fantasy world as Griff. According to the Energy Information Administration’s 2020 International Energy Outlook, coal, gas and oil use will all keep rising through 2050. If Britain achieves the impossible 2050 net zero carbon target with technologies which currently don’t exist, this will have no measurable effect on carbon dioxide emissions. The only result for Britain will be gigantic economic damage for no benefit. The developing world is intent on reaching the standard of living currently enjoyed in developed countries and they are absolutely determined that nobody will stop them.
Well, that’s one guess, other scenarios have fossils peaking around 2030.
Note also, that the EIA have renewables as the largest single primary energy source by 2050, and the same for electricity production by a large margin. We cannot afford not to be part of that revolution.
Africa has just started industrialising and will have 2.5 billion people by 2050. Quite rightly, all of these people will want to have living standards that we enjoy in the developed world. Any scenario which doesn’t show carbon dioxide emissions rising for decades to come is an utter fantasy. It is time for western greens to stop denying the reality which is to come.
“time for western greens to stop denying the reality which is to come”
That’s never going to happen, they deny reality full stop.
Unreliables are going to crash.
Reality trumps fantasy, as easy as stone blunts scissors.
You can bloviate all you like Mr Phillips, but the future is not windmills.
It has been my experience that such projections for ‘renewables’ are little more than wishful thinking.
Clyde,
You are too lenient.
wishful thinking can be quite pleasing.
It should be changed to political “thinking”, which is deadly
Dear God, who let the Numpty Nutters in?
We welcome them here.
Refuting their pathetic arguments is good practice.
For fossils to peak out, renewables have to do something they haven’t been able to do anywhere in the world, and that is provide reliable energy 24/7/365.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and all the climate nutters will hold their breath until that happens.
“Funding the UK’s transition to net-zero emissions could cost the government less over 30 years”
Only they can’t know that because it has never been costed from 2020 to 2049…
Information Tribunal orders Committee on Climate Change to reveal Net Zero calculations
During the case, the CCC revealed that their costing does not include any estimate for spending in 2020-2049, but only considered the residual amounts in 2050, after the bulk of the transition. This was not made clear to the MPs when they agreed to bring the Net Zero target into law, and it is likely therefore that MPs were misled.
https://www.thegwpf.com/information-tribunal-orders-committee-on-climate-change-to-reveal-net-zero-calculations/
They still have a few days left to do as they’ve been instructed.
“I’ll get rid of the data before I’ll turn it over to them.” Lo and behold: It wound up erased “inadvertly.”
By arguing that it has overwritten and erased the spreadsheet data, the CCC has essentially admitted that its internal processes are a shambles. This is not a competent organisation and Parliament needs to investigate as a matter of urgency. If they can’t even manage simple matters of data retention, what hope is there that they can prepare a plausible costing of a multi-trillion pound project such as the decarbonisation of the UK economy?”
https://www.thegwpf.com/information-tribunal-orders-committee-on-climate-change-to-reveal-net-zero-calculations/
Not only does he try to debunk climate science, he has an amazing track record of doing just that.
debunk
The aim of science used to be to falsify theories.
Falsify null-hypotheses?
Those too.
Like this? LOL.
Interestingly – and presumably with no bias; even from Michael Mann
we have rearranged portions of his testimony
I know it is tempting, but please try and resist the urge to quote selectively.
We have divided key assertions of Mr. Monckton’s written testimony into nine parts. For a coherent discussion of these assertions, we have rearranged portions of his testimony. The assertions are paraphrases, not direct quotations, but we believe they accurately represent the claims he made in his testimony. The complete unedited text of Mr. Monckton’s written testimony appears in Appendix D.
While Dr Mann was involved in producing this critique, none of the actual responses were written by him, you alarmist. The full list of contributors is Appendix A, on page 29.
“ please try and resist the urge to quote selectively”
Why should I deviate from your modus operandi?
“Funding the UK’s transition to net-zero emissions could cost the government less over 30 years”
Only they can’t know that because it has never been costed from 2020 to 2049…
Information Tribunal orders Committee on Climate Change to reveal Net Zero calculations
During the case, the CCC revealed that their costing does not include any estimate for spending in 2020-2049, but only considered the residual amounts in 2050, after the bulk of the transition. This was not made clear to the MPs when they agreed to bring the Net Zero target into law, and it is likely therefore that MPs were misled.
https://www.thegwpf.com/information-tribunal-orders-committee-on-climate-change-to-reveal-net-zero-calculations/
You haven’t answered that and that speaks volumes.
You take Montford and the GWPF at face value. That speaks volumes.
No, I take the Information Tribunal at face value.
During the case, the CCC revealed that their costing does not include any estimate for spending in 2020-2049, but only considered the residual amounts in 2050, after the bulk of the transition. This was not made clear to the MPs when they agreed to bring the Net Zero target into law, and it is likely therefore that MPs were misled.
There are no figures and you have been shown to be quoting made up stuff yet again. Are you and griff related in any way?
The information in the GWPF report is freely available from the Office of the Information Tribunal – and the CCC has roughly a week to comply with its order….
You did know that?
Yeah right
Well, once again you are quoting Montford’s interpretation of the case uncritically rather than the Information Tribunal directly. experience suggest this to be most unwise. I read the ruling and I could not find anywhere that the CCC concedes that ‘there are no figures’ or that ‘ their costing does not include any estimate for spending in 2020-2049‘ or that data had been overwritten or erased.
But it is a long document and maybe I missed something. Perhaps you could provide a quote or two verbatim from the IT or the CCC to back up these assertions?
Thanks.
No those are the facts – whether you like it or not
So no actual supporting direct quotes then? Just Montford’s interpretation?
You are very trusting for a ‘sceptic’.
Are you intellectually challenged?
The CCC has around a week to put their calculations forward – by order
You take IPCC and Mann at face value. That speaks volumes.
Irony is so ironical
Why nothing about personal debt for going all electric in cars. houses, power generation.
Phillips is a communist?
What is your reply to Nobel Economics prizewinner William Nordhaus’ estimate that the optimal economic temperature increase by 2100 is 3.5C? Is he reputable in your learned estimation?
In what field is your advanced degree? Economics? Physics?
I’ve a lot of respect for Nordhaus, and his DICE model of climate economics is state of the art. But you know what they say about the dismal science – if you laid all the economists end-to-end they still would not reach a conclusion.
Economic models are very sensitive to assumptions, notably the discount rate, where Nordhaus’s recommended 1.5% differs from Stern’s 0.1% (to quote just one dissenter), a small difference but one that leads to a 10-fold difference in their recommended social cost of carbon.
Also, it is an economic model and the underlying studies do not attempt to quantify in any detail several important sources of uncertainty, for example loss of biodiversity, ocean acidification, political reactions, extreme events (sea-level rise, changes in ocean circulation, and accelerated climate change), and impacts that are inherently difficult to model such as catastrophic events and very long-term warming.
The model just lumps these together and adds 25% to the loss side of the equation. (Source: DICE User Manual).
And there is a danger of making a category error here, Nordhaus’s ‘optimum’ was the economic optimum, ie the result of a cost/benefit analysis. The aim of the Paris Agreement was to avoid ‘dangerous climate change’ (insert your own definition here).
The normative criterion underlying the Paris target is safety, based on the conclusions of climate scientists, rather than economic efficiency. The 1.5-2 °C goal is intended to conform to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aim of preventing ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’ with Earth’s climate. The UNFCCC does not require its signatories to act only insofar as the discounted economic benefits of preventing dangerous climate impacts exceed the economic costs. In a similar vein, the Clean Air Act, which provides the legal basis for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the US, directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set air quality standards for ‘the protection of public health and welfare,’ allowing ‘an adequate margin of safety’ – not to weigh the benefits of clean air against its costs.
https://peri.umass.edu/images/boycebradleyFinal_2018.pdf
Ok, your advanced degree is not in economics nor physics, eh John?
So now we put “scientists” in charge of making all economic and political decisions for the rest of us. CliSciFi practitioners, at that!
The U.S. government stipulates a 7% discount rate for Federal decisionmaking, with a low discount rate extreme of 3% for special circumstances. Nordhaus’s 1.5% vastly overstates the NPV of climate-related “costs.” Stern’s 0.1% was political theater.
Get back to me when your masters get around to putting up the “green” taxes for a vote of the people.
“So now we put “scientists” in charge of making all economic and political decisions for the rest of us. CliSciFi practitioners, at that!”
Naturally not. Fortunately Governments largely take the scientific evidence and advice more seriously than your average WUWT fanboy.
Mr Phillips, in what appears to be increasing desperation, seems unable to advance any arguments against the not particularly difficult or contentious mathematics in the head posting, other than mere arguments from appeal to authority. Those who have made scientific and also economic errors as large as those of official climatology cannot be regarded as authoritative. Therefore, Mr Phillips must make some sort of effort actually address what the head posting says: otherwise, he will convince no one but himself.
Funding the UK’s transition to net-zero emissions could cost the government less over 30 years than the pandemic has cost in just two, …
The spending on the pandemic was an immediate necessity. Net-zero expenditures are an option. That is, the UK has the option of not wasting money, as in “throwing good money after bad.”
Mr Phillips, being entirely incapable of refuting the simple argument in the head posting, tries a diversionary tactic, citing known trolls at this site as though they were authorities. They are not, and they are wrong. And, when his kindergarten mistress finally reads him the head posting, he will see that the supposed error in my analysis of climatology’s half-baked and erroneous handling of temperature feedbacks, which the trolls have tried and failed to refute, is in fact an error made by official climatology, and not made by me.
Dr Roy Spencer is a troll now?
No: Dr Spencer’s objection to our result was that control theory does not really apply to the climate, and that models certainly don’t use it. However, control theory – which is precisely the theory of feedback – applies universally to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems, from electronic circuits to climate, which is precisely why climatology prays it in aid, albeit by a howlingly inaccurate method. And, though it is true that the models do not embody control theory, that theory can nonetheless be deployed as an independent and external yardstick against which to falsify the models’ outputs. Dr Spencer was simply wrong. It happens. We have not yet come across any climatologist, outside our own co-authors, who understands control theory sufficiently to realize that of course there is a large feedback response to emission temperature and that, therefore, that large feedback response should not be miscounted as though it were part of the actually tiny feedback response to direct warming by greenhouse gases.
Lies.
Notice the wiggle word, “respectable”. By definition, the only “respectable” studies are those that agree with the consensus.
Just as the only people who qualify as “climate scientists” are those who agree with the consensus.
Exactly, and people like Phillips are the gatekeepers.
Griff, adopting my best Cantona philosophical principles.
” Those who believe in fairies do so, because they believe magic wands are available”
They’ve already ordered their magic wands, and paid extra for a rush delivery.
griff
first, the chinese will take no notice wjhatsoever of what we do. Have you any proof otherwise?
secondly, please look once again at the figures (or do them yourself) . walk one step up your flight of stairs at home. that in terms of the effect of height on temperature is the difference to the climate we will make by the UK spending £2 trillion in becoming net zero .
What do you propose to use for energy in future? Weather dependent renewables courtesy of the discretion of the weather gods, using lithium mined by child slaves in Congo assembled into solar panels by persecuted Uighurs in China? Do get as grip of reality before we tear ourselves apart
Everything I read here is about government costs! How about personal costs for new autos, lawn mowers, heat pumps, boats, RV’s, motorcycles, higher electrical rates, and on and on? How come the government doesn’t include those?
Griffypoo, if you’re SO VERY WORRIED about CO2 as a problem, when are you going to start wearing rebreathing equipment?
Please put your money where your mouth is. And please get some help with your problem of denial of reality. Every time you exhale you produce a large load of CO2, likely larger volume than anything industry produces.
Have you thought about that at all? About YOUR contribution to the CO2 levels here on Planet Earth? You haven’t? Why not?
I’m really worried about you, Griffypoo.
1) The Chinese aren’t going to do anything regardless of what the rest of the world does. India neither.
2) These harmful climate effects are still entirely theoretical, and were not present when the world’s temperatures were warmer than today during the previous warm periods nor at any time during the Holocene Optimum.
3) Making stuff more expensive and less reliable improves the economy? Weird world you come from griffie poo.
It was likely a whole lot warmer during the Carboniferous period, too. More like jungle heat – damp, humid, heavy load of O2, etc.
But that was a long time ago and I look at my shrimp and fern fossils and wonder how come the shrimp survived all these millions of years and plants, too. Then I go back to reading stuff on WUWT.
Given that the IPCC report is a pack of lies and unsupported supposition that is steadily being taken apart here and on other science websites, you claim that it is worth it to destroy our economy and way of life has no basis.
Why would I trust the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 when they won’t address the GCMs’ physically incorrect tropospheric hot spot for going on 2 decades now? They literally say that radiosondes and satellite observations are wrong because they disagree with the UN IPCC CliSciFi models.
Here is the problem little Griffy. We have done something. US emissions have been flat for some time now…and crickets from China. They laugh at our stupidity while the build coal fire power plants by the dozens. I’m thinking that saying something to you about a box of rocks is just and insult to the box of rocks’ intelligence.
Any CO2 reduction? Well, then the elites should show us how to do it, and start reducing. Then we can see how it goes, and decide for ourselves.
Ah, yes! The old economic stimulus of breaking window glass. And the ChiComs aren’t going to do anything no matter what we do or don’t do.
“Griff” is, as usual, wrong, and this time by an order of magnitude. The UK share of the straight-line reduction to net-zero by 2050 works out at about 0.1% of what would otherwise have been the CO2 concentration in 2050 at current rates of growth. And the Chinese have announced that they are going to build dozens of new coal-fired power stations.
The Chinese will do something alright. They will continue to rapidly increase their emissions while they point and laugh amongst themselves at the “western” nations being suckered into committing economic hara kiri by the “climate” bullshit.
English-to-Yorkie translation:
Yip! Yip! Yip! Yiiiiiiiiip! Yip!
The brilliant plan that griff proposes is to destroy all the jobs in the economy that currently find, extract, refine, transport, and deliver coal, oil, and natural gas. He also plans to destroy jobs of service industries that support the companies that do each of those functions. In their place he proposes to put unreliable, far more expensive energy sources that currently depend utterly on subsidies and unfunded government mandates to exist at all in the marketplace. He knows that we would need to build out 10-20 times current levels to replace fossil fuels, resulting in unspeakable ravaging of nature. The vain attempt to address the unreliable nature of his favored energy capture toys would require impossible levels of incendiary battery backups and/or further environment scarring through the setup of pumped storage schemes that are preposterously inefficient.
Let’s be generous and say that it will raise the cost of energy by 5x. That will destroy the jobs of a huge number of people whose industries see their costs skyrocket for every input that requires the use of energy. Are there any inputs that do not require the use of energy?
Does anyone think that griff actually has the first concept of economic theory? What happens to demand when price rises? What happens to employment when demand falls? What happens to employment when demand crashes because prices skyrocket? What happens to the general level of economic activity when most of the population is unemployed? What happens to a country that inflicts this pain on itself while other countries gorge on cheap fossil fuel?
The irony is that China and India will more than make up for the CO2 emissions even if the UK drives itself back to 1300’s feudalism. CO2 will rise no matter what suicidal western governments do. And it will not harm the climate in the least. Only silly old English fools like griff will be harmed.
So, griff, won’t you tell us–in which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025
I’ll buy my ‘stuff’ from China and then?
Hey, we reduced our CO2, eh? Of course we now have less employment, less tax base, hence no money to pay for your moronic spending plans and are totally reliant on The CCP for everything you need until you are a bankrupt country, Idiot.
The frightening economics of the Tesla semi.
Great. Now make a video about winter operation/performance.
Or driving through AZ-NM on I10 (actually almost any western state) during the Summer.
I haven’t watched the video, but the thumbnail is interesting because the driving position is obviously not at all practical for the open road, and quite frankly dangerous.
These central driving position type cabs are used in container ports for shunting stuff around, as the background cranes would suggest.
That’s what results when inner city folks are given a project, trucking, let’s go down to the port and have a look.
Driving in the heat, the dust, on gravel roads in The Australian “Outback” of vast empty land areas where “Road Trains” consisting of a prime mover and up to four trailers are common place.
Most very remote areas in between State borders and population areas, and even around the coastal strips where most people live there are huge road transport distances to cover.
My point was that electric trucks are a ‘Goldilocks’ solution. The batteries’ performance is degraded in weather that is either hot or cold. Hence, they are only usable, at best, when the porridge is neither too hot or too cold; only when the porridge is just right!
It is touching how Pablo believes Tesla’s vaporware claims for its new batteries. And that from a corporation whose front-man told us he’d get us to Mars by 2021. if they were so confident, why have they omitted to include in their specifications for the Tesla milk-float the maximum load that the milk-float will be able to carry? That is the fist thing that anyone thinking of buying a milk-float will want to know.
The weight reduction is claimed by non-lithium battery technology, looks like Ultracapacitors.
Only depends on the price of electricity, there was no life cycle elasticity analysis, but only modular nukes will work.
A woman called me yesterday on the telephone
She was from my electrikery supplier (EON for UK folks)
EON have been badgering me, for nearly 2 years now, into fitting a “Free Smart Meter”
I’ve written to them, replied to a few SMS but lately, simply ignored their advances.
Until yesterday.
She was, give her due, willing to talk and try to answer my questions on why me or anyone would want a Smart Meter
She did laugh when I asserted that there are ‘No Smart Meters‘, only ‘Dumb Consumers‘
‘Thanks for the compliment‘ I told her
Same goes for Smart Motorways, Smart Phones, Smart Anything
Bless her, she persisted until we got to the point where she asserted that:
“Some people use more electricity”
I felt sick to the stomach on 2 counts, 3 counts in fact and the call was ended, by me, soon afterwards
Here‘s a sweet little joke machine, wonder what hand Elon had in it?
edit to PS
I repeatedly asked if the call was being recorded, so that ‘someone’ – as per M’luds’ request, someone of authority might hear my pleas.
Again the ‘female’ kicker.
She repeatedly and ‘Point Blank’ – refused to answer.
No. Things are NOT = ‘Never Better’ and they are going downhill ever faster
Christopher needs to stop with the self indulgent and childish rhetoric. You will never persuade a man, or his supporters, by insulting his wife.
The arguments are quite correct. The UK Government plans are quite mad. They are in large part impossible to do, and where they are possible, they will have little or no effect on UK emissions, and if a very serious effort is made to do them regardless, the result will be huge changes to society, leisure, shopping, living and working which will result in mass revolt.
All you have to do to see this is look at how many heat pumps will have to be installed for home heating. How many wind turbines and batteries to drive them. How many electric cars are going to have to be sold. And this is not even mentioning the idiotic hydrogen fantasy.
What you see when you think this through is that the consequence of seriously doing it will be to reduce the number of cars on the road by 90%. To do this, and to reduce oil and gas heating in houses, you’ll have to make other collateral changes, move people into dense urban housing, move shopping to be close to them, reinstall mass transit so they can get to work, install huge bike shelters so they can cycle to wherever they want to go and leave their bikes securely when they arrive. People will just not buy it.
And even would they, how on earth they manage to make a non-fossil fuelled grid support all this stuff is a mystery without any clue.
Christopher is also quite right to say that the emission reductions, even assuming they can be made, will have negligble effect on global warming even in the theory’s own terms.
Its a pity that a perfectly sound argument is contaminated by insulting Carrie. Who may be a bit of a flake, as some of us are. But this is not the point, the point is that the plans are insane.
The Government has backed off somewhat from gender madness – but the SNP/Green alliance is still heavily into it in Scotland. Anyone who says they are a woman is, regardless of biology, and its a hate crime to say otherwise. Its also being made a hate crime to voice certain opinions, not very well defined, in the privacy of your own home, for instance over breakfast!
I am not sure where they are on race. Large sections of the political and cultural establishment seem to be stuck in the American South circa 1821 – they believe there are such things as races, that your skin color is an infallible guide to which race you are, and that your race then determines your culture and personal characteristics, and that policy should treat you accordingly.
Retrograde, unscientifc racialism. The climate madness is only one symptom of a sort of collective insanity which has gripped the political and cultural establishment. Maybe they have all been hit by whatever produced the Havana syndrome?
There is however hope for the UK is that the mass of the people have a well developed sense of the ridiculous. It is after all the home of Monty Python. The case of the wonderful Miller fellow, who tweeted “I was assigned Mammal at Birth, but my orientation is Fish. Don’t mis species me”.
Ah, John Cleese, where are you now that we really need you? But even without Cleese, there is hope. Its a gene that runs widely through the whole country. What Boris needs to watch out for is when it starts being applied to climate.
John Cleese will take on the topic of “cancel culture” in a forthcoming television series for the UK’s Channel 4.
?width=460&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=1437c6278ed5a9b20778b809549ef0c3
The new documentary will reportedly explore “why a new ‘woke’ generation is trying to rewrite the rules on what can and can’t be said”.
John Cleese: Cancel Me will see the British comedian and actor meet various subjects who claim to have been “cancelled” for their actions or statements, and activists who have led opposition to various public figures.
In a statement, Cleese said: “I’m delighted to have a chance to find out, on camera, about all the aspects of so-called political correctness. There’s so much I really don’t understand, like: how the impeccable idea of ‘Let’s all be kind to people’ has been developed in some cases ad absurdum.”
UKTV to reinstate Fawlty Towers episode The Germans
Read more
“I want to bring the various reasonings right out in the open so that people can be clearer in their minds what they agree with, what they don’t agree with, and what they still can’t make their mind up about.”
Isn’t that the message of Black Lives Matter and Critical Race Theory?
Michel should stop whining. My criticisms of Mr Johnson’s shrewish Communist wife are accurate. If he does not wish to read my columns, he is under no obligation to do so.
I’m afraid that any message to a politician with in it a simple formula, or containing a dimension, or just a graph other than a pie chart will fail to register and fall on deaf ears. (I like the Lucrezia comparison, though)
The message should be simple, blunt and straight to the point. Something like this:
Dear Politician,
You have been lied to.
You have been lied to by the Green Blob.
There is no Climate Catastrophe.
The warming qualities of Carbon Dioxide have been grossly exaggerated.
The ‘warming’ will be less than 1C this century for any realistic projection of Carbon Dioxide content.
Such a modest warming is beneficial to both nature and humanity.
Hence, there is no need for ‘Zero Carbon’.
Only an ignorant fool would vote for such a policy.
There are three types of people who promulgate ClimateChange™
You won’t get through to all the first group – they have drunk the koolaid.
You will only get through to the second group when it becomes majority unacceptable. Only if ClimateChange ceases to be a route to power and profit, will they drop it.
This is also true of the Couldn’t-care-lessers. If ClimateChange ceases to be believed enough it becomes false, and is therefore no use sociologically or politically.
This indicates the optimal strategy – the truth is available and many people have accepted it, but that hasnt solved the problem of the faux narrative. None of the above are swayed by the (physical) truth. That is why the optimal approicah may be to use oratio obliqua and not oratio directa.
One should not, therefore, attack the core beliefs of the Useful Idiots, nor the preponderant narrative of the Couldn’t-care-lessers and Cynical profiteering liars. On the contrary one should agree with them of the severe danger, and use verbal ju jitsu, by using the ‘concern troll’ technique.
“Climate Change is so serious and so dangerous that we must address it, however I have deep concerns that renewable energy, smart meters, heat pumps and electric cars may not represent a viable solution, or that in fact NetZero™ is the appropriate reponse. Perhaps we should spend money on adaptation, and nuclear power, instead”.
Obviously this is not an acceptable strategy to many here, who want to be more proved right, in the science, than to preserve civilisation for their children.
But I recommended it to pragmatic conservatives…
A pragmatic approach? Put them in an entirely medieval environment – let’s say, something around 15h century – with no central heat, no electricity, candles or wick lamps of some kind, and no working bathrooms, an no modern stoves for cooking or refrigerators for preserving food for more than a day or two.
Unless you have a better way to punch a hole in their bubble, they won’t stop their stupid diatribe. Fanaticism is not a pretty thing.
“The ‘warming’ will be less than 1C this century for any realistic projection of Carbon Dioxide content.”
I’ll ask you the same question I would ask a warmist alarmist. Where is your evidence?
Climate alarmism continues to flourish because of the credibility given to it by lukewarmists.
CO2 either measurably contributes to warming or it doesn’t.
You ever hear of clouds (or the lack of said clouds)?
Those fluffy things?
It measurably contributes to warming, but the amount of warming is so far below natural variability that a few decades of measurements aren’t enough to tease it out of the signal.
Sorry, but no evidence of that exists. The supposed “contribution” is nothing but a hypothetical effect that is founded on the implicit assumption all other things held equal.
All other things are not held equal, the feedbacks are negative, offsetting feedbacks, and that is why observations do not empirically support any effect of CO2 on temperature whatsoever.
ArtStudents™ can’t Do Sums…
Ain’t that the truth, Also it is increasingly clear, art grads don’t produce art, they can’t do art either… There are some exceptions thankfully.
NB Back in the day I recommended the military should include an arts class in their training modules. Art is important, it is just a pity it has been compromised by the left who do not value it.
.
I was at college with the ‘great’ Anthony Gormley (Angel of the North). He was a superb painter. But he doesn’t paint any more. He does ‘arty’ sculptures.
Then I remembered what my late RA uncle said. “I never made it in the Art world because I wasnt ‘avant garde’ and I wasnt a poof (homosexual)”.
It’s sad that fashion counts for more than talent.
Or long-division, let alone algebra and calculus.
Thank you Christopher!
However I don’t think that Borris and the media will neither read this article nor understand it.
All this AGW is based on the false assumption, that CO2 is the one and only forcing in our climate system. All the AGW theory is based on the assumption that Earth temperature without atmosphere is 255K and the mean temperature with atmosphere is 288K. We are told that CO2 started to increase in 1950 were humans started to burn fossil fuels. However the warming started to rise from the bottom of the Dalton minimum in 1810 until 1945, with the same trend as seen in the period 1979-2000, indicating that temperature can rise without the increase in CO2. We are also told that the temperature have risen 1.2K from 1850-2021. Nothing alarming in that, because the Earth mean temperature is now back on 288K (15C), and the temperature rise seems to flatten out. (CO2 Infrared back radiation is already saturated and the effect is logarithmically diminishing).
All makes sense as new research suggest the ECS value (IPCC 1.5C-4.5C) seems to be 0.4C-1.5C and therefore about 3 times overstated by the IPCC models using wrong assumptions and feedbacks, excluding natural variations of the TSI (Total Sun Irradiation) and other unknowns as electromagnetic, cloud and cosmic radiative forcings.
Humans might have a climatic influence as we transform the land into urban landscapes and using mono crop farming, cutting down forests which warm the Earth as we diminish the cooling effect of water vapor.
However I do believe we will have to find new and more efficient energy sources than fossil fuels, but there is NO urgency or even emergency! The solar+wind is not the answer, as they are unreliable, space demanding and the pollution created by construction and demolition has not been taken into account.
Christopher,
As the Information Tribunal has ordered the Climate Change Commission to release the actual calculations on which the Parliament and the Office of Budget Responsibility accepted the cost of ‘net zero 2050’ as being £1.4 trillion, there is much excitement in watching the 35 day period from 3 August last run down.
Andrew Montford maintains that they may have “lost” the interim cost of the period 2020 to 2049 in presenting the calculated cost.
One wonders how much the true cost has been understated if the Tribunal order is productive.
Can’t wait.
The estimated cost of £1.4 trillion is absurdly low. The cost for New Zealand to achieve net zero has been estimated at 5 trillion dollars. The equivalent cost for Britain is 50 trillion pounds.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-for-rapid-net-zero-emissions-a-guaranteed-loser/
Herbert is right. “The dog ate my spreadsheet” was not an excuse that commended itself to the information kommissar.
It is virtually certain that the ghastly bunch of crooks in the climate-change committee, under the hapless Gummer, will not have provided any calculations to demonstrate how much, or, rather, how little, global warming would be abated even if Britain succeeded in reaching net-zero by 2050. Once people realize just how little difference would be made, and at what enormous cost, they will begin to rethink. That is why the trolls are shrieking so loudly in response to this posting. They can see perfectly well that the calculations are broadly correct, and that they make a nonsense of the notion of doing anything at all to mitigate global warming.
No ice free Arctic this year.
There’s always next year I guess…
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Only missing it by about 5,000,000 km^2. Must be too big to spin, because there is no mention of it in polite circles.
How NOAA can attribute so much forcing to Methane?
Because it’s another completely imaginary effect.
Just like the supposed effect of CO2.
CO2’s effect is not “completely imaginary”. It was demonstrated by experiment getting on for 200 years ago. Get with the picture. The question is not whether CO2 has an effect on global temperature. It does – get over it. The question is how much – or, rather, how little – global temperature will change as we return to the atmosphere some of the CO2 that was there before.
Professor of engineering Michael Kelly has done some essays on the UK’s Net Zero insanity.
He calculates that to electrify the cars on the road would require up to five times the known global reserves of some essential minerals. That’s just for the UK with a population of around 60m, if America alone follows suit it will be considerably more.
He also calculates the cost to householders just to bring their modest, 3 bedroom houses up to standard will be around £100,000 each. Before Prof Kelly wrote his paper I did the exercise to cost my own modest 3 bedroom house and reached the same number.
Bankers will be rubbing their grubby paws together at the prospect of millions of householders taking out the second biggest loan of their lives.
Possibly more significantly, and from memory, Prof Kelly tells us there is about one third of the manpower required for this in the UK in terms of skilled labour. That will mean another influx of immigrant labour who won’t be able to provide for their own country to reach their environmental ambitions.
Of course the incentive for householders to comply with this madness isn’t coercive at all. No, not in the least, it’s just that Boris intends to make it illegal to sell a house which doesn’t comply to Net Zero standards.
I sincerely hope he means new build homes because I can’t afford to take out a £100,000 loan.
New Zero standards really means returning to the pre-industrial age, in which you had to light your home with oil lamps and cook with wood or coal, and have fireplaces or parlor stoves (heaters) in every room. And warm up the bed with a few heated bricks. That was not so very long ago, y’know. I think we take far too much for granted these days.
Sounds like arson will soon be a cottage industry in the UK.
No pun intended!
Not to mention the environmental burden of trashing the existing fleet of vehicles before their full service life has expired.
“Boris, here’s why net-zero emissions by 2050 just aren’t worth it”
Because the GHE is a load of tosh.
It is as certain as gravity.
don’t float off now…
Leitmotif has made an ass of himself. Consider the position in 1850. The global mean surface temperature was 287.5 K, of which 255 K was the emission temperature that would have prevailed on Earth if there were no greenhouse gases in the air at the outset. The remaining 32.5 K was the natural greenhouse effect, comprising 24.2 K feedback response to emission temperature, 7.6 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases and 0.7 K feedback response to the direct greenhouse-gas warming.
If that 32.5 K was not caused by greenhouse gases, what was it caused by?
My Lord, The calculation of the 255K was using the Stefan Boltzmann equation which in itself is only valid for a solid surface emitting IR. 2nd in your calculation you assumed that the earth did not have an atmosphere to arrive at the 255 K. But to calculate the 255K in the Stefan Boltzmann equation you assumed that the earth has an atmosphere. The only valid method is to use comparisons of the moon and the earth. If you do that you will find that the earth would be much colder w/o an atmosphere as Ned Nickolov did in his 2 papers. Ned may very well be wrong in his assertion that it is gravity together with the sun that produces the heating of the earth, but in his calculation of the temperature w/o an atmosphere, his moon/earth analysis is very compelling.
Mr Tomalty has not, perhaps, understood that our approach is to accept, for the sake of argument, all of official climatology except what we can formally demonstrate to be false. In dozens of papers throughout the literature, 255 K is given as the Earth’s emission temperature. Therefore, we use climatology’s value, plus or minus 15 degrees’ uncertainty.
And we are not concerned with the Earth without an atmosphere. We are concerned with the Earth as it stood in 1850. The Earth without an atmosphere would have no clouds. Therefore, the albedo would he half today’s value (Stephens 2015), from which it is not difficult to calculate, using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, that the Earth’s surface temperature would be 271 K or thereby (Lindzen, 1994).
It is precisely because, for the sake of argument, we accept so much of official climatology that we force it to confront its error, rather than being diverted into side-channels that lead nowhere.
The sun cannot melt ice but back radiation can?
I see.
Stop talking bollocks, Brench. You’re worse than Willis with your stupid back radiation hypothesis.
Where is your evidence that it is a real forcing. I’ll save you time, there isn’t any.
“blubbering, bombastic blandishments of Boris the blond, Borgia-battered blunderbuss.”
An accurate description
to which we should add .. Tyrannical totalitarian traitor.
“the blubbering, bombastic blandishments of Boris the blond, Borgia-battered blunderbuss.” – article
That’s a lot of alliteration for a little mitigation to get aggravation off your chest.
So if I understand this, Boris is setting out to ransack his own country the way the Goths (Ostro and Visi both) and Huns and other looters and pillagers did the Empire, although they only touched the surface.
Boris, you’ll be sorry you ever listened to that cackling hag.
And the world becomes a junk pile of used and broken gear because some idjit politician’s girlfriend tickles him in the right places.
I can only hope the slime that now rule Afghanistan wake up one day and find that their entire landscape has been poisoned by China. Oh, I know that’s mean as hell of me, but they agreed to China’s terms with no forethought to the consequences. After all, opium is their only real product and doesn’t pay nearly as much as renting out mining rights to a looting, pillaging neighbor next door. If China flattens every mountain in Afghanistan, I do not care. Let them.
All of this is slowly morphing into a Very Very Bad Ending to a Tale of Sordid Stupidity.
Some things simply never, ever change.
At least my palantir works nicely right now.
Always remember, Musk is in the business of making money for playing his rockets (so he can make money off NASA et al), not making sense of what the nutters like Boris want. He just gives them something to spend it on.
By the way, Lord M, whatever happened to you getting Scotland Yard in to investigate some climate paper or other as yo mentioned in your last article’s comments?
Poor Griff is rightly terrified that when Mr Plod looks at the way the supposedly learned climate journals are acting as gatekeepers for climate Communism some collars will be felt. As I have already explained – do try to pay attention – on the first of the two previous occasions on which our paper was rejected without any of the reviewers addressing the main points at all, I consulted a senior police contact, who asked me to obtain two more rejections from journals, made on an improper basis. The paper is now before the third journal – and has been there for almost nine months. It is, perhaps, proving rather more difficult to refute than Griff would like. If the third journal acts as improperly as the first two, the matter will be reported to the police via my senior contact, who fully understands the seriousness of what has been going on. He was also particularly interested to learn that IPCC is refusing to activate its error-reporting protocol when errors are reported to it. He has asked me to provide the evidence of its failure to respond not only to us but to another scientist who had drawn IPCC’s attention to another serious error, but also without reply. The net is closing.
I should make it quite clear that if a genuine and material error in our paper is found then we shall accept the position. So far, that has not happened.
Griff,
His Lordship amusingly claims he will bring legal proceedings against a journal if they decline to publish his paper.
Not sure what possible offence would have been committed but since when have facts and logic been any kind of barrier to bluster?
Never gonna happen.
I see you know as little about how the legal system works as you do about how climate works.
The legal system moves slowly, always has, but it’s getting worse in recent decades. Various legal actions against Mikey Mann have been going on for decades. One was finally tossed when the judge finally lost patience. The other is still waiting for discovery to complete,
Poor, hate-filled Mr Phillips, realizing that he has devoted himself to a cause that is nonsensical, now whines that I am proposing to bring legal proceedings against a learned journal. But I am proposing no such thing. I am proposing – on the advice of a very senior police contact – to report the climate scam, in which the journals are playing their part, to the police here and internationally as the largest fraud in human history. The evidence is very substantial, and goes far more widely than just the unprincipled refusal of two journals to review our paper fairly and of one journal to get on with reviewing it at all.
My police contact, on realizing how elementary is the error by climatology that has led to the climate scam, and on seeing how evasive are climatologists when confronted with the error, said that a pattern of fraud was arguably present and that the serious fraud unit would be particularly interested to examine it. I used to investigate frauds on behalf of HM Government, so I have some working experience of fraud. And the pattern of misconduct in climatology when confronted with its error gives the police a pathway into investigating the entire climate nonsense.
the history of peer review for our paper is scandalous. I have already discussed it with a senior police contact. He is waiting for me to attract just one more rejection which, in the opinion of my distinguished co-authors, is not a sound, scientific or justifiable rejection, whereupon he will pass the file to the fraud squad and to Interpol, which is now investigating the climate scam.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/08/how-to-constrain-unconstrained-global-warming-predictions
when Mr Plod looks at the way the supposedly learned climate journals are acting as gatekeepers for climate Communism some collars will be felt.
Sure sounds like threatening a fraud case to me… 😉 Never gonna happen.
Academic journals, of course, have absolute discretion over what they choose to publish or not. Some routinely do publish review comments but there is absolutely no obligation, legal or otherwise to give reasons for rejection.
Magically, every time Lord Monckton discovers an error in mainstream climate science it is in the direction of ‘we have nothing to worry about’. They have all been wrong so far but maybe this is finally on the money, and it actually makes sense to talk about feedback from unvarying emission temperature.
But I know where my money is. Roy Spencer and Lord Monckton cannot both be right.
Mr Phillips seems to have the closed mind of a totalitarian. It will be for the public authorities, not for me, to decide whether a fraud case is appropriate. And, as I have explained, Dr Spencer is not expert in control theory and, like nearly all climatologists on both sides of the debate, does not understand the elementary error that climatologists have made. Indeed, he does not even understand that control theory is universally applicable to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems, including climate.
He does have something of a history of attacking those who find errors in climatology’s methodology. For instance, he attacked Dr Frank’s paper on the propagation of uncertainty in models, which makes them entirely useless as predictors of global warming. For he knows no more of elementary statistics than he does of elementary control theory. That is the curse of increasing overspecialization in the sciences. And that is why, having discovered climatology’s error of control theory, I drew together a team of climatologists and control theorists to investigate it.
Only a totalitarian would argue, as Mr Phillips does, that Dr Spencer must be right because he has a piece of paper to say that he is a climatologist and I don’t. Even if one were to overlook Mr Phillips’ feeble-minded argument from appeal to authority – which was exposed 2400 years ago as a logical fallacy – we have experts on our side whose combined experience and pieces of paper trump those of Dr Spencer.
Climatology’s error of physics is not particularly difficult to understand, provided that one has a sufficiently open mind and a willingness to think a little, rather than clinging with a sort of malevolent desperation to the sinking ship that is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Can Mr Phillips come up with a proper, scientific argument of his own against the error we have identified? Or an economic argument that shows it is worthwhile to bankrupt the West that he so hates for the sake of forestalling what, even if climatology were right, would be only one-thirteenth of a degree of warming over the next 30 years?
If not, let him fall silent. He is adding nothing to the debate except demonstration after demonstration of a sullen and disfiguring prejudice.
Only a totalitarian would argue, as Mr Phillips does, that Dr Spencer must be right because he has a piece of paper to say that he is a climatologist and I don’t.
I never argued any such thing, I find Dr Spencer’s arguments – inter alia that it makes no physical sense to treat emission temperature at equilibrium as a forcing – to be rather more compelling than the response (‘Dr Spencer is wrong’). But I am not going to get into the weeds, better people than I have tackled this.
Argument from authority is a fallacy, however when the argument is that an entire discipline has made a fundamental error, and the claim is being made by someone with little or no training in that discipline, backed up by shadowy anonymous experts, I turn to Sagan and ‘extraordinary claims’, etc. I also step back and consider a little history…
Of course being serially wrong in the past does not prove this latest argument is similarly wrong, but I will eat my hat if this paper does not disappear without a trace, and we never hear from either Interpol or the Fraud Squad. (ROFL).
Make up your own minds. Choose wisely.
Anyhow I’ve been told I should fall silent, only too pleased to oblige.
Mr Phillips continues to fail, and fail abjectly, to address the scientific argument. He asserts, without evidence, that I have been proven wrong in the past. Well, we all make mistakes: Mr Phillips, in everything he writes, is evidence of that.
In 1850 the equilibrium surface temperature of 287.5 K comprised 255 K emission temperature and 24.2 K feedback response thereto, plus 7.6 K direct warming by greenhouse gases and 0.7 K feedback response thereto.
The feedback responses are distributed proportionately between the two components – 255 K and 7.6 K – in the 262.6 K reference temperature in 1850 because feedback processes are inanimate. They cannot, at any particular moment, decide that they will not respond to 33/34ths of reference temperature, but that they will respond excessively to just 1/34th of it.
To imagine, as Dr Spencer and Mr Phillips do, that feedbacks cannot respond to emission temperature is – in the words of our professor of control theory – to imagine that the Sun is incapable of evaporating water.
Since the error is strikingly elementary, if Mr Phillips had not been so desperate to cling to the climate-Communist Party Line he would have been able to see for himself how silly it is of him to appeal to the authority of Dr Spencer, who is not a control theorist.
Mr Phillips whines that he has not been told who our co-authors are. Well, our professor of control theory has been threatened by his university, another co-author has been dismissed from his university, another has had a vicious campaign mounted against him in the Marxstream media and another has been bullied into resigning his tenure – all because they put their names to our paper.
We are having to be very careful until everything is in the hands of the police. But Mr Phillips, if he were not blinded by hate and totalitarian prejudice, would realize that the malevolent mistreatment of our co-authors would not have happened if there had been an error of any significance in our paper: for if there had been, we should not have persisted with it. Our co-authors are suffering not because we are wrong but because we are right, and the climate establishment cannot face that inconvenient truth.
We have the example of the Xhosa cattle killing movement in 1856 to show us that human societies are quite capable of wiping themselves out by following a blind belief promulgated by a few activists.
A little while earlier the Chincha people are believed to have created the Lines at Nazca as a way of calling on the gods to supply them with more water, since the region was undergoing climatic change to a drought condition. Future archaeologists will view our windmills in much the same way – though they will not find any marked climate change associated with them…
China is not WOKE like the US Dem/Progs, but is FORWARD THINKING, based on REAL POLITIK.
Navalny, a tool of the West, mouthes the West’s WOKE mantras to maintain support.
Russia, under Putin, is FORWARD THINKING, based on REAL POLITIK.
This is a revealing article, but the explanations not entirely clear to me.
I like its conclusions.
The article needs to be revised for layman clarity
Regarding capital cost. Here is an excerpt of my article with turnkey estimates for the US and World
WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption
World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the US Energy Information Administration, EIA.
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/
Most of this growth is expected to come from countries not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.
Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.
The driver shown in the Tesla milk float is “Bubba J”.
As all Bubba J fans know, he would *Never* drive a Tesla truck to deliver milk; he would only use it to deliver beer. And the 0-60 performance is important so the beer will be delivered quickly to all the NASCAR fans so they will have plenty of cold beer before the start of the next race.
See here for the best of Bubba J.
I thought that it was Alfred E. Neuman.
Bubba J. without a doubt. Click the link above to see for yourself. Bubba J. is a better choice in this case anyway.
The difference between “Boris J.” and “Bubba J.” is that Bubba is an intentional parody of himself.
Or Howdie Doodie.
You’re dating yourself! 🙂
The first 2 paragraphs could have been written by Boris himself, well his style anyway.
Don’t get me wrong, as I’m the first to say that the Tesla Semi is a scam, but Lord Monckton’s estimates for the cargo capacity of the Tesla semi are wrong. The Tesla semi is a scam but only partially because it’s cargo capacity is lower than a diesel semi.
Look this just isn’t hard. Here are the numbers. A diesel semi gets 6.4 mpg of diesel, diesel has 40 KWhrs of energy per gallon. A truck diesel operates at about 40% thermal efficiency, so it uses 2.5 KWhr/mile. Remember that number, 2.5 KWhr/mile, because Tesla falsely claims that their semi will use just 2 KWhr/mile.
Tesla is offering 2 different range models, a 300 mile range and a 500 mile range. Let’s take 500 miles as the range needed to do long distance trucking – that’s about 8 hours of driving at 62 mph.
To go 500 miles would require 1250 KW hrs or 13 of Teslas 100 KWhr battery packs at 1300 lbs apiece. 16,900 lbs of batteries. Compare that with the weight of a semi truck’s motor (2900 lbs) + transmission (700 lbs) or 3600 lbs. The rest of the drive train of a diesel truck (drive shaft, differential, etc. is comparable to the weight of the electric truck’s charger, motors (about 400 lbs for 4 large electric motors)
So,a diesel semi’s tare weight is 35,000 lbs leaving 45,000 lbs for cargo, the Tesla semi will have a 32,000 lbs cargo capacity. That’s bad because a trucking company will have to own 3 Tesla trucks for every 2 diesel trucks they replace. 3 drivers instead of 2.
The other reason that the Tesla semi is a scam is that Tesla batteries can only be fully charged and discharged about 600 to 900 times before they degrade significantly. To prevent degradation Tesla batteries are recommended to be charged when they drop below 20% and only charged to 80%, rendering the 500 mile range only 300 miles – useless for long distance trucking. But, if you use 100% of the battery, it will degrade in 2 to 3 years also rendering the battery useless for long-distance trucking as the driver couldn’t possibly stop after 6 or 7 hours of driving to charge for 2 or 3 hours and then resume driving.
MEAB,
The Tesla semi is more aerodynamic
The electric drive train is more efficient than diesel
The semis will have the new, more efficient battery cartridges
Semis would be dead, if not for the new units; the reason it was delayed, will be built in Texas, sometime in 2022.
One kWh AC from wall plug, minus charge loss of at least 15%, more if truck is refrigerating while charging, gets 0.85 kWh DC in the battery.
Tesla states 2 kWh/mile, but should state 2 kWh DC/mile
Moving from a to b, has various drags, wheels, road surface, wind, etc.
Your comments about 20% and 80% are spot on, i.e., range is a lot less to preserve battery life.
MEAB,
It is important to compare modern vs modern
Modern, latest model semi’s get 10 mpg; per google
It takes 128,488 Btu/gal of diesel, LHV, to drive 10 miles, or 12,849 Btu/mile from the tank.
A very small percentage of the Btus are needed for on-board auxiliaries.
It would take 4.43 kWh AC from the wall plug to have 3.765 kWh DC in the battery, or 12,855 Btu/mile from the battery.
A percentage of the Btus is needed for on-board auxiliaries, about 10% in summer, much more in winter.
The above is true, if all items, such as (truck gross curb weight + cargo) are the same for both semis, and both have high aerodynamics, etc.
However, the Btus from the battery are used by a much more efficient (60%, electric vs 40%, diesel), drive train, which would significantly reduce kWh DC from battery/mile, and from the wall plug.
There is no free lunch, when counting Btus.
What you’re missing is that all semi-trucks ALREADY use aerodynamic aids. That’s included in the 6.4 mpg number. Only small efficiency improvements can be had from even more advanced aero. The newest most efficient diesel trucks don’t get 10 mpg, you made that up. The most efficient ones actually on the road get about 7.5 mpg and they do it with the best aero and by increasing their thermal efficiency by running at a lower, nearly constant RPM. They are 45% efficient. Run the numbers – 7.5 mpg, 45% efficiency, is 2.4 KW hr / mile – only slightly better than my 2.5 number. So you would need 12 battery packs, not 13, saving 1300 lbs and increasing the Tesla’s cargo capacity to 33,000 lbs.
The rest of your post is a combination of made up numbers and muddy thinking. If the electric drivetrain was only 60% efficient it would need a much bigger battery, not smaller. Electric drive trains are more like 95% efficient – my analysis assumed 100% – so my numbers are likely to be, if anything, slightly conservative. It appears that Tesla’s scam worked on you.
MEAB,
Just getting out of battery takes about 5%, then to the DC motor which has an average efficiency of 95%, peak efficiency is higher, then to the drive assembly, then to the wheels.
The overall loss is much greater than 5%
We need to compare road test vs road test of modern, new vehicles, otherwise it is not apples to apples.
New diesel road tests show 10 mpg, just google.
For your files
ELECTRIC TRANSIT AND SCHOOL BUS SYSTEMS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE IN NEW ENGLAND AND CANADA
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-likely-not-cost-effective-in-vermont-at
Explain how aerodynamics work for tracks hauling very heavy loads up hills or mountains averaging maybe five kilometres an hour under escort, travelling vast distances on gravel roads with corrugations that shake everything apart at speeds greater than eighty kilometres an hour or less on back roads that have not been graded for some time?
And how much energy saving is achieved by the not very big payload Tesla truck at the recommended 90 KMH road speed maximum 100 KMH?
I have been followed by a Tesla S sedan on a motorway slip streaming behind my 4WD diesel SUV at a genuine 110 KMH speed limit, after about one hundred kilometres up and down hills the Tesla slowed down and dropped far behind, I have no doubt that battery energy had been dropping alarmingly.
How do you make the truck aerodynamic when it is hauling something like a wind turbine blade or something like a couple of high-voltage transformers and are just sitting on the bed, unenclosed?
When the battery packs are new. It is probably a good idea to provide reserve power so that the system is more likely to fail slowly and not catastrophically.
That is generally true, particularly in nice weather. However, it tends not to be true in the Winter in cold climate because that 40% diesel efficiency provides ‘free’ waste heat to heat the cabin and de-ice the windshield.
Clyde,
Right, all bets are off in the COLD CLIMATES of northern areas of the US and almost all of Canada.
In Norway lots of people drive EVs, largely because of:
1) VERY HUGE subsidies and other bennies, such as free parking and no tolls and driving in reserved-for-transit bus lanes, a huge time saver in Oslo.
2) Gasoline at about TEN DOLLARS PER GALLON.
Well, the evidence that I have seen is that the Tesla milk-float will weigh about 33 tons. Tesla’s claims for new, lighter batteries etc. have been made so often in the past, but without delivering on the promises, that I’ll believe the new batteries when I see them. Either way, the Tesla semi will not be an economic method of transport, and I strongly suspect that Musk knows this but is counting on the “Democrats” to ban real semis altogether on the pretext of Saving The Planet, but with the real aim of utterly destroying the economy of the nation they so viscerally hate.
I used the actual weight of Tesla’s 100 KWhr battery used in the Model S.
What process did you use to arrive at the claim that EV’s are getting fuel efficiency of 1950s model automobiles?
Elementary arithmetic.
Christopher Monckton, you’re going to have to put on some lipstick and a skirt and then vigorously wiggle your tail if you ever hope to get Boris’ attention.
Appeals to reason aren’t going to cut it with Boris.
Well, we’re going to try to get some Parliamentary scrutiny of climatology’s errors.
Ah, I see you’ve already accounted for that fly in the pudding.
Besides, high heels are a pain to walk around in just to get the eye of the PM. It’s just not worth it.
Wise tactics you’ve chosen.
Trouble is, the average MP or Peer is so terrified of the savage and lavishly-funded campaign of reputational assaults to which he would be subjected if he spoke out that he tends to keep holy silence. But it is worth trying to bring some common sense to the debate.
You can see just how feeble the responses of the usual trolls here have become. They now understand perfectly well that climatology is in error and that, therefore, there is no climate “emergency”.
What is sad is that even climatologists on the skeptical side of the debate, though unable to find any substantive objection to our result, simply won’t admit that they’ve all made so large a mistake. No one wants to know. So quadrillions will be squandered and the West may well go under – which is, after all, the real objective of the climate fanatics.
It’s worse than you think – because all of these assumptions, which is all they are, about the “effect” of CO2 on temperature, are implicitly based on an assumption that is completely ignored. The purely hypothetical effect of CO2 on temperature assumes all other things held equal, which they are not. And the “feedbacks” are negative, offsetting feedbacks, as demonstrated by plenty of empirical observation that show CO2 “driving” nothing and NO empirical observations that show CO2 having any effect. They double down on their hypothetical bullshit by assuming positive, amplifying feedbacks never empirically demonstrated to exist.
So although your math may indeed show, even generously accepting the hypothetical bullshit, that “net zero” is is not worth the economic hara kiri, we should be further pushing back on the notion that even the immeasurably small amounts of hypothetical warming that would be hypothetically reduced are even anything real and scientifically demonstrated. Because they are not.
“They double down on their hypothetical bullshit by assuming positive, amplifying feedbacks never empirically demonstrated to exist.”
The main positive feedback is water vapor and that has been observed, measured and found to be in line with model projections.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.182.6212&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Mr Phillips is not, perhaps, aware of the wider literature on the water-vapor feedback. The models predict that the water-vapor feedback will be negligible near the surface, but will be very strong in the mid- to upper troposphere, where they all predict a “hot spot” in the tropics, where temperature will increase at altitude at up to twice the rate observed at the surface.
However, except in one or two datasets that are questionable, the predicted hot spot is not observed. Therefore, the water-vapor feedback cannot be as strong as the models purport to find.
But the simplest argument against a large total feedback response – without which global warming will be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial – is that climatology incorrectly defines feedback as responding only to perturbations, such as the direct warming by anthropogenic and natural greenhouse gases. But climatology’s definition – and this appears to be universal throughout the literature on both sides of the debate – does not also state that feedbacks must perforce also respond to the far larger emission temperature.
Climatology’s mishandling of feedback, and its consequent false prediction of four times as much global warming as is tenable after correction of its error, is described in the footnote to the head posting.
Consider the position in 1850. Equilibrium global mean surface temperature that year was 287.5 K, comprising 255 K emission temperature and 24.2 K feedback response thereto, plus 7.6 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases and 0.7 K feedback response thereto.
Thus, the 287.5 K comprised a reference temperature (before feedback response) of 255 + 7.6 = 262.6 K, and a natural greenhouse effect of 24.2 + 0.7 = 24.9 K. The system-gain factor, the ratio of the 287.5 K equilibrium temperature in 1850 to the 262.6 K reference temperature, was thus a little below 1.1.
However, climatology makes the mistake of omitting the 255 K emission temperature from the numerator and denominator of the system-gain factor, because climatologists, when borrowing feedback math from control theory, a branch of engineering physics, did not realize that there was a feedback response to emission temperature.
So, instead of the correct system-gain factor of (255 + 32.5) / (255 + 7.6) < 1.1, climatology imagines that it is 32.5 / 7.6 > 4. This is an elementary and grave error. The magnitude of the error may be appreciated when one realizes that the entire history of climate up to 1850 had produced a feedback response of only 0.7 K to the 7.6 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases, but that the CMIP6 models’ midrange 3.9 K equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity implies 2.85 K feedback response to just 1.05 K direct doubled-CO2 warming.
Climatologists were fooled by the size of the natural greenhouse effect – about 32.5 K – into imagining that it comprised 24.9 K feedback response to 7.6 K direct warming by preindustrial greenhouse gases. That is why, in paper after paper, they say they expect final warming to be three or four times direct warming. But they are simply wrong. They did not know enough control theory to realize that at any given moment, such as 1850, the feedback processes then present must, at that moment, respond equally to each degree of reference temperature and thus proportionately to each component therein.
The error is that elementary. It is not really surprising that climatology is very reluctant to admit it, and that, on the previous two occasions on which we have submitted our paper setting out the error, the reviewers have been meticulous in not addressing it at all. However, in the end the truth will out, and no amount of pious recitation of papers embodying or influenced by the error on Mr Phillips’ part will make any difference whatsoever.
An open mind is so much more attractive than an open mouth.
Several times now Lord Monckton has claimed that in rejecting his paper, the reviewers have not addressed the main point. Oddly and coyly he has not actually shared the reviews [to my knowledge]. I invite him to do so in the spirit of openness, but I don’t suppose he will take up the invitation.
“The amount of surface temperature change in response to that energy imbalance is, by definition, the climate sensitivity, which in turn depends upon feedback components. You can call the feedbacks anything… maybe “temperature sensitivity parameters” if you wish. Feedback is just a convenient term that quantifies the proportionality between an imposed energy imbalance and the resulting temperature change response, whether it’s for a pot of water on the stove, the climate system, or anything that is initially at a constant temperature but then is forced to change its temperature. Christopher’s claim that the Earth’s effective radiating temperature (ERT) to outer space (around 255 K) itself causes a “feedback” makes no sense to me, because it isn’t (nor does it represent) a “forcing”. Feedbacks, by the climate definition, are only in response to forced departures from energy equilibrium”
Neatly put by Dr Spencer. The finding of error contains a basic misrepresentation. No amount of bafflegab will change that.
From <http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/climate-f-words/>
Dr Spencer is simply wrong. Climatology’s definition of feedback, on which he unwisely relies, is incorrect, in that it excludes the feedback response to emission temperature.
Like it or not, feedback processes are inanimate. They cannot decide – say, in 1850 – that they will respond only to an arbitrarily-selected and minuscule fraction of the reference temperature then obtaining, for they must respond equally to each degree of reference temperature, and thus proportionately to each component therein.
The reference temperature in 1850 comprised two components: the 255 K emission temperature and the 7.6 K direct warming by (or reference sensitivity to) the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases.
Therefore, the feedback response to the 255 K emission temperature was 24.2 K, and the feedback response to the 7.6 K direct greenhouse-gas warming was 0.7 K.
Therefore, Mr Phillips, instead of lazily appealing to the authority supposedly represented by Dr Spencer, who is evidently not a control theorist or he would not have written what he did, should try to imagine a plausible scenario in which the feedback processes present in 1850 were somehow capable of deciding that they would not respond at all to the 255 K emission temperature but that they would respond, and with absurdly exaggerated vigor, to the remaining 7.6 K of reference temperature.
There is no such plausible scenario. Therefore, climatologists – including Dr Spencer – are simply flat-out wrong when they attribute all of the 24.9 K feedback response in 1850 to the direct warming by greenhouse gases.
How can feedback processes distinguish between one degree of reference temperature and another? The answer is that they can’t, for the good and sufficient reason that 1 = 1.
No reviews, then.
No reviews have yet addressed climatology’s central error. The editor of the most recent journal from which we received reviews said we had satisfactorily answered all the reviewers’ points [which were footling: for instance, one reviewer said he disliked the conclusion and thus refused to read the paper itself], but that his fellow editors would not allow this or any paper coming to so inconvenient and embarrassing a conclusion to be published. He has confirmed he will be saying as much to the fraud-investigating authorities in due course. He commented that this was a situation that required the most thorough investigation.
Yeah, as I predicted we will not be allowed to read the actual reviews…..
AGWisnotscience should appreciate that the greenhouse effect is indeed real and substantial. Consider the position in 1850, when the equilibrium global mean surface temperature was 287.5 K. But the emission temperature – the temperature that would prevail on Earth in the absence of any greenhouse gases in the air at the outset – is only 255 K. If there is no greenhouse effect, what caused the 32.5 K further warming in 1850 that is known to climatologists as the natural greenhouse effect?