By Andy May
U.S. progressives are convinced that fossil fuels must be replaced with renewables by 2050. The IEA even has a plan to do it. How will this work? Unlike progressives we value observational data over ideology, so let’s examine the data. According to ExxonMobil’s 2021 Outlook for Energy the world consumed 89.4 BBOE (billions of barrels of oil equivalent) of primary energy in 2020, during the pandemic. OurWorldinData.Org provides a similar number of 93.5 for pre-pandemic 2019, as shown in Figure 1.
When discussing energy consumed globally, there are a bewildering number of units used in the literature, which is confusing. In this post we have consistently used BBOE, or billions of barrels of oil-equivalent energy. Oil is still the largest source of primary energy in the world, supplying 31-34% of our energy, further barrels of oil are familiar to the lay person.
OurWorldinData uses TWh (teraWatt-hours) to report energy consumption, which must be multiplied by 5.9×10-4 to convert it to BBOE. ExxonMobil uses quadrillion BTUs, and the conversion factor is 0.1651787. BP prefers exajoules, which differ from ExxonMobil’s quadrillion BTUs by a factor of 0.94782. You can see my point; with all the conversions and weird units, it is hard to think about what the numbers mean for our lives and welfare. Instead, the reader’s eyes glaze over, and the very real impact of the numbers is lost.
The various crude oils around the world are different complicated mixtures of hydrocarbons, so the barrel-of-oil energy content used here is the average fuel-oil energy content, which is equal to the IRS definition of the energy content of a barrel of oil, 5.8 million BTUs. A cubic foot of natural gas has the energy content of 1,000 BTUs; thus 5.8 thousand cubic feet (MCF) of natural gas has the same energy content as one BOE.
OurWorldinData tells us that the global primary energy consumed in 2019 is provided by oil (33.8%), natural gas (24.7%), coal (27.6%), traditional biomass (7%), hydroelectric (2.7%), nuclear (1.8%), wind (0.9%), modern biofuels (0.7%), and 0.8% solar plus other renewables. Obviously, electricity is consumed, but the electricity must be produced using one or more of the primary fuels. The percentage of our primary energy produced from various sources varies a little from year to year and by source, but the values I listed are very typical. They indicate that 86% of our energy comes from fossil fuels and only 2% is from wind, solar, other, and modern biofuels. The amount from solar is insignificant and combined with “other.”
Figure 1 shows that the increase in global energy consumption since 1960 is quite linear (R2 = 0.99) and increasing at a rate of 1.1 billion BOE/year. Modern renewables, contrary to popular belief, are not even increasing enough to keep up with the growth in consumption. As a result, fossil fuel use is increasing, not decreasing globally. Total growth in renewables is so small, it only covers 7% of the increase in energy consumption. You can only produce and install so many solar panels and windmills, and they don’t last that long in the open.
Developed western economies, have attempted to reduce their use of coal to reduce CO2 emissions. But except for the impact of the pandemic, it has not affected global coal use, mainly because of China and India, as seen in Figure 2. All their efforts have done is export manufacturing to China, India, and other countries, making the developed world more dependent upon imports. Even the pandemic made very little difference in coal consumption.
Progressives often ignore this fact and emphasize energy consumption in the developed world, ignoring exported fossil fuel use to the developing world. The key point is that the energy market is global, prices are set globally, not by evil fossil fuel companies. Fossil fuel energy increases prosperity globally and facilitates global commerce. Eliminating it will cut the developed world off from numerous critical manufactured goods.
“Traditional biofuels” are the burning of wood and dung in houses or businesses for heat, light, or cooking. This is not desirable because it produces toxic air pollution. The indoor air pollution caused by traditional biofuels, causes 4% of global deaths. A major study, published in The Lancet, estimates that more than two million deaths can be attributed to indoor air pollution in 2019 (Christopher Murray, 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that four million deaths, every year, are caused by indoor air pollution. Domestic wood burning is not just a problem in the developing world, the European Environment Agency, WHO, and the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research suggest that over 40% of toxic emissions are from residential biomass burning. The UK Department for Environment, Food, and Rural affairs (DEFRA) estimates that 38% of UK air pollution is due to wood-burning stove emissions. In contrast, energy production and distribution of electricity, not produced from biofuels, supplies 5%. For more on this topic, see here and here.
Modern biofuels are biodiesel and wood pellets or wood chips, which can still produce pollution, but they are burned in power plants, trucks, or cars equipped with modern pollution control equipment, so these fuels produces very little, if any, toxic pollution. However, modern biofuels are insignificant energy sources, that is, less than 1%, like solar and wind. The same pollution control equipment is used in coal power plants with the same low toxic emissions, and coal produced 42% of the world’s electricity in 2019, according to ExxonMobil. The severe air pollution from coal-burning in China and India are due to domestic coal-burning and plants with inadequate pollution control equipment (also see here).
Generally, additional atmospheric CO2 and global warming have been beneficial so far, so the debate is not about the impact of greenhouse gases and global warming today or in the past, it is about what might happen in the future. Figure 3 projects the slopes in Figure 1 to 2050.
The projections shown in Figure 1 show that renewables are very unlikely to satisfy future energy needs. Clearly another energy source is needed, and that is likely to be more fossil fuel use. Do the additional fossil fuels exist? Table 1 shows that the EIA estimates the world holds 3,357 BBOE in technically recoverable oil and an additional 3,813.7 BBOE of natural gas. Both values are conventional plus unconventional resource estimates. The USGS global undiscovered technically recoverable conventional oil and gas resources are also given, as well as a peer-reviewed unconventional resource estimate by Hongjun Wang and colleagues. The estimates vary but lie in the same ballpark.
Global coal resources are estimated to be 860 billion tonnes. In 2019 global coal production and consumption was 7,953 million tonnes (Mt) and it generated 24.2 BBOE of energy, roughly 0.00304 BBOE/Mt. If the estimate of 860 billion tonnes of unproduced coal is accurate, it represents over 2,616 BBOE of energy.
The globe has been producing fossil fuels for a long time and yet technically recoverable resources continue to grow, we can expect resource estimates to increase in the future (also see here). The main reason resource estimates increase is new technology. The projections of energy consumption shown in Figure 3 sum to 3,264.3 BBOE of energy between 2022 and 2050, the total projected renewable energy production totals to 79.3, which is only 2.4% of what is required. The remainder must be from fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants take too long to permit and build, and little hydroelectric generation will be added between now and 2050.
Between natural gas, oil, and coal we have technically recoverable resources of 9,785 BBOE, or three times as much fossil fuel energy as we will need before 2050. More importantly, we will have a lot left over.
Discussion and Conclusions
At $119 per barrel of oil, $66 per ton of coal, and $7.28 per MMBTU (as of 6/15/2022) there are no economic constraints preventing the development of our abundant natural energy resources. However, the political, regulatory, and judicial (as in environmental lawsuits) hurdles are currently prohibitive. Global prosperity and energy availability are very strongly correlated, if fossil fuels are curtailed, more people will become impoverished, global health will decline, and it is clear that growth in renewables will not make up the difference.
World governments are clearly on a dangerous and unsustainable path. Fossil fuels are essential to our well-being and survival. People know this and want to buy them; thus, we observe high prices in a time of abundant natural resources. It is only the governments that stand in the way – our elected officials and the unelected bureaucrats. We need to radically change our governments, and quickly. The impact of greenhouse gases is small, and may even be beneficial, this is not true of our current governments.
Andy’s latest book is The Great Climate Change Debate.
Sorry for the low brow comment. The societal impacts of the green mafia partnering with the world economic forum is scarier than any temperature increases. The WEF notes in the following link that Denmark will expertly show us how to solve most of our actual and imaginary climate problems by building a massive offshore windfarm. This phenomenally expensive plan for a massive infrastructure project is the shiny object they keep promoting. We’re starting to see how the economics plays out when proven technologies are kicked to the curb for any length of time. But the magic pixie dust for the batteries is just around the corner. It almost makes you forget about $8.00 gas and $12.00 for a six-pack. It shows us how nihilistic this climate “emergency” crap is.
http://ow.ly/Mv7f50Jy9F7
Have the Danes factored in the following?
According to WindEurope there is a shortage of vessels available to construct offshore wind farms.
Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania all want to build them in the Baltic before 2030 and Sweden is also looking to expansion in the Baltic.In total planned expansion in the Baltic is to rise from 2.8GW in 2021 to 35GW by 2030.
They say there will be a shortage of Foundation Installation Vessels (FIVs) and Wind Turbine Installation Vessels (WTIVs) as early as 2024/5. For Cable Laying Vessels (CLVs), that connect the windfarms to the mainland, the gap between supply and demand will be even greater over the next eight years. The wind turbines are also getting bigger and bigger and will need new vessels.
“The lack of specialised vessels for offshore wind operations is just one indication of the poor conditionn of Europe’s wind energy supply chain”
“In the first quarter of 2022 all five European wind turbine manufacturers were operating at a loss”
“shortage of FIVs,WTIVs and CLVs poses risk for project execution worldwide”
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/news/europes-offshore-wind-expansion-will-depend-on-vessel-availability/
No, hydrocarbons can not be replaced.
Smart people have invented ways for us to use energy and improve our lifestyle. Democrats/socialists/progressive/liberals don’t like people having those lifestyles and freedoms. So, yes, dumber people are trying to tear down these ways and improve their lifestyle at the expense of everyone elses.
Climate change is a smokescreen being used to implement global communism.
From the article: “Global prosperity and energy availability are very strongly correlated, if fossil fuels are curtailed, more people will become impoverished, global health will decline, and it is clear that growth in renewables will not make up the difference.”
That’s the bottom line. Our politicians better wake up to reality before they send us all over the wind/solar cliff. Windmills and solar will not make up the difference. They cannot power the world. All windmills and solar will do is destroy the Western Democracies in their vain effort to try to reduce CO2 levels, in a vain effort to try to control the Earth’s climate.
The Western Democracies can’t control CO2 levels and they can’t control the Earth’s weather. Now what are they going to do? Continue bankrupting their nations in a losing battle? The problem is the politicians don’t think they are losing this climate change battle. But they are, it just hasn’t dawned on them yet. But it will. We’re almost there. A grid failure or two will open a lot of eyes.
Great article Andy.
Energy 101.
Andy, according to your total of technically recoverable fossil fuels (9,785 BBOE) and your projection of 3,264 BBOE to be used in the next 28 years, that would leave <50 years of technically recoverable fossil fuels after 2050, assuming no further increases in rate of use after 2050 (likely a poor assumption given current and projected trends).
Yes, it is understood that estimates of “technically recoverable” fossil fuels will change with further exploration, technology improvements, and price pressures, but a rapid transition to nuclear power will clearly be needed at some point. I am not a “Peak Oil” fanatic, but that day will come.
Rather than waste our resources and continue wrecking the environment with failed wind, solar and advanced biofuels, our education, R&D, and regulatory focus should be on advanced nuclear designs and rollout. Meanwhile, we should ignore the climate alarmists and steadily support oil, gas and coal to allow time for a painless transition to nuclear.
There would be time to accomplish this were it not for the death cult of NGOs, activists, politicians, tyrannical leaders, media and financial oligarchs. I am amused at the self-descriptor that these gutter (not left or right) lunatic fringe have inadvertently chosen for themselves – Diversity, Inclusion & Equity – DIE, because that is their murderous goal for us all, premature death of individuals and the death of societies, cultures, freedom and liberty worldwide.
Nuclear is the only option I see right now. One would think it would be an off-the-shelf technology after 70+ years, but it isn’t unfortunately. Spending more money on solar and wind is a complete waste, they clearly are not viable.
The fossil fuel usage trajectory that Andy plots will all but guarantee the eventual flooding of coastal cities all over the globe.
Define “eventual.” In the last interglacial (MIS 5e) sea level was 4-6 meters higher than today. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum, roughly 7,000 years ago, sea level was about 2-4 meters higher than today. Sea level has fallen dramatically in the past 7,000 years, as it has gotten colder.
Given enough time, with or without additional CO2, the coastal cities will all flood in their current locations. However, the rise is so slow, roughly 1-3 mm/year, we have lots of time to adapt, it is not a problem.
Also please remember, land is not static, especially in coastal areas, it goes up and down a lot also. This is particularly true of land under cities due to groundwater being pumped out of the ground and the resulting subsidence.
Here is Dave’s write up:
The Holocene Sea Level Highstand – Watts Up With That?
re: “the rise is so slow, roughly 1-3 mm/year, we have lots of time to adapt, it is not a problem.”
Andy, those numbers are simply not correct.
Satellite data shows current global sea level rise rate at 3.5 mm/yr and likely speeding up (AVISO). Along the U.S. east coast, where there is the greatest concern nationally, most all tidal gauges not only show a rise rate of well over 3 mm/yr, but there is ample reason to conclude that this rise rate is also accelerating significantly.
Moreover, scientists and civil engineering professionals whose job is to protect the public from flooding clearly state that sea level rise is absolutely a concern. The NOAA now projects a foot of sea level rise along portions of the U.S. east coast in just the next 30 years.
“Skeptics” claim that the NOAA and all these other professionals are “wrong”, but I see little if any valid reason to accept such claims. I’ll listen to what scientific and engineering professionals say, who actually work in the field of ensuring public health and safety along American coastlines, thank you.
The US eastern seaboard is sinking, thanks to the weight of ice being lifted from eastern Canada.
Why would you downrate a statement of scientific fact, ie an observation of nature?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/09/12/study-finds-the-east-coast-of-america-is-sinking-into-the-atlantic-ocean/?sh=43a2fedd33fb
Can’t both things be true? This is “Well, the fall will probably kill you” logic.
Mean sea level has risen globally since 1700, but subsidence is far more significant to relative sea level on the US East Coast.
In this discussion, we are not considering local sea level, as far as I can tell. Here sea level rise= eustatic sea level rise, thus both statements cannot be true. Local sea level rise on the U.S. east coast is probably greater than 3.5 mm/year, but a very large component of that is subsidence of the land. But I don’t think that is what MGC means.
Maybe because it appears that you’re trying to pretend that land subsidence is all there is to it.
Note that the link to the research that you posted yourself later down this thread speaks directly of sea level rise (and acceleration) caused by anthropogenic influences.
Papers have to genuflect toward CACA.
There is zero evidence of human-caused acceleration. If you imagine there is, please trot it on out.
After he find out that the research reference that he provided himself makes several statements that do not adhere to his “skeptical” party line, Tillman backpedals with this sorry excuse:
“Papers have to genuflect toward CACA”
Evidence to back this claim? Oh, that’s right. None.
Very true, there is also zero evidence that human activities affect climate, but that doesn’t stop the speculation via flawed models.
MGC thinks that facts are subservient to ideology, like all climate alarmists.
It’s quite sad to see folks like Andy pretending that someone is an “alarmist” simply because they have given serious consideration to the research of scientific and engineering professionals whose job is to protect the public from flooding.
When Andy did his unique statistical review of sea level rise a couple of months ago, I aksed him at least twice to repeat, using time periods most impacted by cumulative and accumulating concentrations of GHG’s. Say 1960, 1970, and/or 1980 to present. Quite obsequiously in fact. I felt justified in not trying to replicate his work because (1) I actually got close to his results for his time period, using conventional techniques, and (2) no one else even tried. Nada.
MSL has been rising at about the same rate since c. AD 1700, ie the depths of the KIA during the Maunder Minimum. But it’s still well below the level of prior warm periods, ie the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian and especially the Holocene Climatic Optimum, ~8000 to 5200 years ago.
Not in the last 40-45 years….
Nope. Same rate, based upon tide gauges, adjusted for isostatic rebound.
Please see photos of the tree on the beach in the Maldives, just as far from the high tide line now as 45 years ago. Some Green Meannie toppled it, but its roots held, and it’s still alive.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-famous-tree-on-Viligili-Island-in-the-Maldives-Mortensen-2004-Moerner-2007b-2011_fig3_332296376
Plus other sites not subject to earth elevation movements, such as Oz. Same shoreline as in the 1840s.
Ditto isolated coral atolls in the Pacific Ocean.
bigoilbob, consider the error please. The overall Church and White trend is 1.6 mm/year. 1971-2018 is 2.4 mm/year. Considering the substantial error, these are statistically equal.
AR6 and Sea Level Rise, Part 1 – Andy May Petrophysicist
I detected a lot of possible sea level oscillations longer than 60 years in the data. Natural oscillations could easily explain the apparent “acceleration.” The proper answer is “We don’t know.”
re: “MSL has been rising at about the same rate since c. AD 1700”
False.
Even the link you just posted below states otherwise. It speaks of “recently accelerated global sea-level rise (ranging from 2.5 mm yr−1 to 3.4 mm yr−1 ) over the past two and a half decades”.
See also:
Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago
Jevrejeva et al Geophysical Research Letters 2008
“We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century. If the conditions that established the acceleration continue, then sea level will rise 34 cm over the 21st century.“
The first at least half of the 19th centuery was still in the LIA.
The 20th century “record” is bogus, corrupted by crooked “scientists”. In fact in both centuries there were cycles of advance and retreat. CO2 had little to no measurable effect.
Despite ever higher CO2, yesterday’s Arctic sea ice extent was higher than in eight of the previous ten years. And those higher were 2013 and 2014, rebounds from the record low of 2012.
CACA is thoroughly busted. But was born busted, due to the failed predictions from the naturally warmer 1930s.
re: “The 20th century “record” is bogus, corrupted by crooked “scientists”.
And here we go now with the wildly irrational zero evidence conspiracy theory clap trap.
We’re really supposed to believe, on the basis of no evidence whatever, that “crooked” tidal gauge measurement professionals at dozens and dozens of locations all over the world have all been in cahoots to “falsify” the data? Oh please.
Yeah, just like the 2020 election was “stolen” by thousands and thousands of anonymous “mules” supposedly dumping off fraudulent ballots all over the place at polling sites in multiple states.
SMH in disbelief at the lengths of truly delusional conspiracy theory irrationality that some folks are willing to go to in order to try to “defend” their “position”.
OMG, how terrifying!! One whole foot in 100 years!! How will we survive??
Of course, Andy left out “If the conditions that established the acceleration continue”
It is more than likely than the conditions that established the sea level acceleration are accelerating themselves, creating even more sea level acceleration.
Pure speculation, with no foundation in observations. Typical.
re: “Pure speculation, with no foundation in observations”
False. This is founded upon the continuance of observed trends since the 2008 publication of the Jevrejeva study being quoted here. 21st century sea level rise will not only likely surpass those 2008 estimates, but it will probably be significantly so.
That sounds exactly like what I said, pure speculation. While sea level has generally risen since the LGM (last glacial maximum), there are periods when it has gone down, particularly during the Little Ice Age from circa 1300 to 1850, as land-based glaciers advanced. Since it is getting warmer now, thankfully, sea level is again rising, it is not surprising, nor is it alarming that Jevrejeva detected acceleration since the Little Ice Age (or pre-industrial, if you prefer). A child could have done that, it means nothing with regard to the future. See Figures 4 and 5 in this post:
Glaciers and Sea Level Rise – Andy May Petrophysicist
re: “That sounds exactly like what I said, pure speculation”
Sorry, but direct observations between 2008 and the present are not “pure speculation”.
re:”sea level is again rising, it is not surprising, nor is it alarming”
And again, I’ll continue to listen to what folks say whose job is to protect the public from flooding. They don’t consider this to be a trivial issue, and have published carefully researched evidence on which they base their statements.
True.
bigoilbob,
I did work for a while at trying to do what you ask but got weird results. I suspect that all the intervals I tried were too short. I think the natural periodicity of sea level rise trends has some multidecadal components, perhaps even multicentury. This is combined with the error in the individual measurements, which is between 1 and 5 cm, or 10 to 50 mm, and makes the sort of comparison you requested impossible, as far as I can tell using standard statistical tests.
I need either a longer series, perhaps 500 years, or more accurate true sea level measurements. The trend I created in the following post is as good as I can make it right now, with the data available. I didn’t write a new post, because I couldn’t do any better. My projection is still superior, at least from a statistical perspective, to the AR6 projections. It might not be correct, but I don’t think it can be improved, or tested with shorter intervals. You get into the Michael Mann conundrum if you try.
AR6 and Sea Level, Part 3, A Statistically Valid Forecast – Andy May Petrophysicist
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11544-y
John,
Great article thanks. I reminds me of a post by Dave Middleton, where he wrote:
“When asked about the assertions that sea level rise has made hurricane storm surges more destructive, Mr. Bastardi said that it was insignificant. The influence of tides and waves were far more relevant than a minor rise in sea level.”
Here is a link:
A geological perspective on sea level and storm surges. – Watts Up With That?
“Satellite data shows current global sea level rise rate at 3.5 mm/yr and likely speeding up (AVISO). Along the U.S. east coast, where there is the greatest concern nationally, most all tidal gauges not only show a rise rate of well over 3 mm/yr”
I’m sure you can cherry pick an interval that has a rise rate of 3.5 somewhere, but it is BS. The rate for any climatically significant time period is much less, the most recent such interval has a rate of 2.4 mm/yr.
The U.S. east coast is subsiding, it is not an area that is much affected by sea level rise, the land subsidence dominates there. You can believe whomever you like, but that doesn’t change the facts.
See here:
AR6 and Sea Level Rise, Part 1 – Andy May Petrophysicist
Andy complains here about “cherry picking” of data, yet in his “AR6 and Sea Level Rise” blog post referenced above, he refers to one of the all-time ultimate cherry picks, McKitrick & Christy 2018, in order to try to “back” the false claim that “the IPCC models have not predicted climate accurately after 30 years”.
McKitrick & Christy 2018 cherry picked the one small portion of the atmosphere that currently displays the greatest negative divergence between observations and models. Many “skeptical” folks like Andy have then used this singular divergence to “conclude” that most everything that climate projections say must therefore be “wrong”.
Sorry, but in my view this is ridiculous. Climate models are admittedly imperfect and don’t get all the details correct; yet the projections of the basic overall trends have now been quite accurate for several decades, even from very simple “global only” models that do not make any projections of the regional details at all.
MGC,
That “small portion of the atmosphere” covers 50% of Earth’s surface, has over 60% of the total atmospheric water vapor, the vast majority of Earth’s greenhouse gases, and receives most of the Sun’s radiation.
McKitrick and Christy (2018 and 2020) completely invalidate the CMIP climate models in a statistically significant way. Simple logic says if they can’t get the tropics right today, when they know the answer, their projections to 2100 are invalid.
More here:
Climate Model Democracy – Andy May Petrophysicist
The focus of McKitrick and Christy 2018 was the 200- to 300-hPa layer of the troposphere between 20N and 20S latitudes.
The spherical section 20N to 20S latitudes covers 34% of the earth’s surface, not 50%.
The 200- to 300-hPa layer of the troposphere comprises, at most, only about 15% of the entire tropospheric volume in these latitudes.
So overall, the region of analysis for McKitrick and Christy 2018 was 15% of 34%, or around 5% of the entire three dimensional global tropospheric volume. Yes, it was very much just a “small portion”. A small cherry picked portion.
Also, just for the sake of being thorough and complete: almost all of the atmosphere’s water vapor, as well as the majority of the other greenhouse gases, lie at altitudes below the 200- to 300-hPa layer. The claim that the McKitrick and Christy region of analysis has “over 60% of the total atmospheric water vapor” is wildly incorrect.
Sorry, but an analysis of a cherry picked 5% of the tropospheric volume does not in any way “invalidate” anything. That claim is just another typically false misrepresentation being blindly parroted about within the “skeptical” echo chamber.
MGC, We could quibble over how much of the atmosphere is affected by the mythical climate model hot spot all day, I say 50%, you say 5%, it really doesn’t matter to the results.
The key point is that 100% of the CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models predict a hot spot over the tropics that is not there, and the predicted hot spot is hotter than reality by a statistically significant amount. Both the AR6 and AR5 modeled atmospheric profiles are compared to the observations in the link below, along with a discussion of the comparison. The models are flat wrong, regardless of the percentage of the atmosphere you assume, from 850 hPa to over 100 hPa and all over the tropics. For that matter, the entire tropical Pacific SST (sea surface temperature) map from the models is wrong as well, but that is another story.
Comparing AR5 to AR6 – Andy May Petrophysicist
re: “I say 50%, you say 5%”
Andy, I say it is 5% because it is 5%. And the information that demonstrates why it is 5% was provided.
McKitrick and Christy cherry picked the little 5% region of the entire three dimensional troposphere that happens to show the greatest negative divergence between models and observations. Moreover, if we used percent mass of the troposphere as our measure, this little region being quibbled about would be less than 2%.
Yeah, so the models got a 5% region of the troposphere too warm. They also got some other places too cool. There was also more observed warming in some places than was projected. Funny how “skeptics” never seem to mention those, though.
These are not indications that greenhouse warming models are “invalidated”. Given that the overall global trends have been essentially correct, for decades, these are indications that there are some details about how the greenhouse gas warming is distributed throughout the atmosphere that are not all ironed out, not the greenhouse gas warming effect itself.
I’m not a religious man, but these constant ankle biting “objections” from “skeptics” bring Matthew chapter 23 verse 24 to mind.
Fine, it doesn’t matter.
The key point is that 100% of the CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models predict a hot spot over the tropics that is not there, and the predicted hot spot is hotter than reality by a statistically significant amount.
This is known and discussed in both AR5 and AR6, and they even admit that the problem is getting worse with each new IPCC report.
Further, it is well known that this discrepancy means that the CMIP models are overestimating the effect of CO2. Argue 5% or 50% all you want, it doesn’t matter. For more details read this post:
Comparing AR5 to AR6 – Andy May Petrophysicist
re: “the predicted hot spot is hotter than reality by a statistically significant amount.”
Wow, they got a whopping 5 whole percent of the troposphere wrong. Good gracious, whatever will we do? [My sincere apologies for the sarcasm, but I just couldn’t help myself, LOL.]
re: “it is well known that this discrepancy means that the CMIP models are overestimating the effect of CO2”
You’ll have to provide some bona fide evidence to back that claim, Andy, especially given that even your own quotes of AR6 state that a significant part of the discrepancy has to do with getting SSTs correct.
Not to mention that many things that some “skeptics” have claimed to be “well known” have turned out to be false.
It is all presented in the post I have referenced twice already, and you clearly have not read.
Comparing AR5 to AR6 – Andy May Petrophysicist
Exactly! The models do not get SSTs correct, they significantly overestimate them on average, and especially in the Pacific and Southern Oceans. Remember the oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface, making a lie of your 5%. They exaggerate the warming on the ocean surface by up to 2 degrees C in the eastern Pacific according to AR6.
Read the references I’ve provided you are making yourself look foolish. Consider the comparison of the models in color to the observations in black in the attached figure from my post above.
re: “and you clearly have not read”
Oh please. I spoke directly about some particular information from the IPCC that you’d quoted in your posted reference . So obviously I did read it.
re: “the oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface, making a lie of your 5%.”
The 5% referred, of course, to the volume fraction of the troposphere that was the focus of analysis by McKitrick and Christy. The 5% had nothing to do with what percent of the earth is covered by oceans.
So please stop using such glaringly obvious misrepresentations as “arguments”, thank you. That kind of stuff makes folks look foolish. Or worse.
re: “It [bona fide evidence] is all presented in the post I have referenced”
Sorry, but I see zero evidence in your reference to back the claim that “this discrepancy means that the CMIP models are overestimating the effect of CO2”. All I see are empty handwaving assertions that this is the case.
I see no evidence presented at all that this particular divergence, in only 5% of the troposphere, cannot be due to some effect other than “overestimating the effect of CO2”.
And if CO2 warming really has been “overestimated”, then why have the overall global warming trend projections on average been correct?
They are correct on average because that is the factor they tune the model parameters to. If you were a computer modeler, like I was for 42 years, you would know that you can always tune a model to a particular target, like the “overall global warming trend.” The trick is to get the other trends correct, the ones you do not tune for. When those are right you have a robust model.
The tropical hot spot is something all models generate, but they do not tune to it, that is why it is a good test, as McKitrick and Christy discuss in their papers.
Next, ask yourself, why is the overall trend correct, but the sea surface temperatures are too warm?
AR6 says: “On average, CMIP6 models have higher mean ECS and TCR values than the CMIP5 generation of models.”
Yet, both AR5 and AR6 say that CMIP5 was too high, as does anyone else with a brain. ECS and TCR are the impact of CO2 on global temperatures, ergo both CMIP5 and CMIP6 overestimate the impact of CO2 according to the two most recent IPCC reports. I refer you to those reports and their references (some are cited in my post) for the details, they are interesting.
The IPCC models hold natural impacts on climate constant, the only factors they consider are CO2, other greenhouse gases, volcanos, and other human impacts. CO2 is the only thing left that can cause the overestimate, thus, ECS and TCR are too high, thus, the CO2 impact is too high, no other options.
You might have read my post, but obviously not much of it sunk in. You might also consider reading the relevant sections of AR6, all of what I am saying here is in there as well.
re: “CO2 is the only thing left that can cause the overestimate”
Nonsense. The discrepancy of that little 5% region could be just differences between models and reality for how heat energy distributes itself within the earth’s climate system; differences that have nothing to do with the magnitude of CO2 forcing.
In fact, the totality of the evidence points in that direction: some places are warmer than models predict, and some places are cooler than models predict, because models do not (yet) allocate precisely enough how accumulated heat energy distributes itself.
But the overall amount of heat energy gained due to CO2 forcing is modeled correctly, not only for current conditions but for a variety of conditions spanning the past 50 million years. See attached Box TS.2 Figure 2a, p. 46 of AR6 Technical Summary.
I agree that the transport of energy across the globe, and variations in it, affect climate change. That is called meridional transport or “MT.” The variations probably control climate change in all time frames less than 100,000 years. But, you clearly got this wrong:
Remember “ECS” is the measure of the impact of CO2 in the IPCC world. In both AR5 and AR6 they emphasize that their ECS is too high.
As I’ve emphasized in numerous blog posts, it is obvious that they have ECS too high, thus they have the “CO2 forcing” too high. As for your paleoclimate AR6 image. My answer is:
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM – Andy May Petrophysicist
Andy, why are you speaking about the PETM? The PETM was not mentioned in my previous post. Your PETM article does not address the graph presented in my previous post.
And I’m sorry, but your other reference in the post below cannot be taken seriously. The data and conclusions from a large multitude of studies were completely ignored and simply handwaved away, while just a couple of studies, that are, for good reason, poorly regarded (at best) within the worldwide scientific community, were the focus of attention.
Sorry, but from where I sit, that kind of “reasoning” has all the earmarks of biased, agenda driven ideological rationalization, not worth bothering with.
Andy (falsely) claims:
“In both AR5 and AR6 they emphasize that their ECS is too high.”
Sorry, but this is one of the most utterly ridiculous claims I’ve ever seen.
Andy is pretending that in one breath the IPCC says “here is the most likely range for ECS” but in their very next breath they say “our ECS range is too high”.
“Utterly ridiculous nonsense” doesn’t even begin to properly describe this kind of completely clueless clap trap catastrophe.
Not false at all, from AR6: 3-24, there are also similar statements in AR5:
I suggest reading AR6 Chapter 3 before commenting, you are not helping yourself by commenting on things you obviously know very little about. And as you have seen from my previous comments, their phrase “by at least 0.1” is off by a factor of 2x to 4x. They overestimate the temperature by more than a factor of 4 at many altitudes.
And here we see Andy at it again, cherry picking just that little 5% region of the troposphere.
Sorry, but an overestimate of just 5% of the troposphere is not sufficient “evidence” that global ECS is “too high”. This is especially so when there are also areas of the globe that were underestimated.
We don’t find so-called “skeptics” constantly clamoring that “model ECS must be too low” because of those areas that were underestimated now, do we? Nope. And why not? Ideological bias. That’s why.
I don’t know if your reading comprehension is poor, or you are just dense. Did you miss the above partial sentence?
Also, remember, 100% of the CMIP models create a hot spot in the tropical troposphere that is not there. That alone invalidates them, and most certainly means that they are exaggerating the GHG effect. As I explain in the post below, if the models turn off the GHG effect entirely, they match observations very closely.
Pay attention! You will look less foolish and you might learn something.
Comparing AR5 to AR6 – Andy May Petrophysicist
From the post:
re: “if the models turn off the GHG effect entirely, they match observations very closely.”
This is an utterly absurd statement. If the GHG effect of our atmosphere was turned off entirely, the earth would soon be 33 degrees colder, rapidly turning into a snowball, and the models would most certainly show that.
Just another bunch of handwaving clap trap that bears no resemblance at all to a genuine scientific argument. I grow weary of listening to obvious nonsense.
“Pay attention. You will look less foolish and you might learn something”
Here and in Part 1, is a primer on ECS:
Climate Sensitivity to CO2, what do we know? Part 2. – Andy May Petrophysicist
Here is a comparison of actual Pacific SSTs versus modeled SSTs from AR6. The color scales in the two plots are designed to match. It is Figure 7-14 on page 7-193. As you can see they are completely different.
It was also dismaying to see Andy reference in his “AR6 and Sea Level Rise” what was in my view a terribly juvenile anti-science article.
“Proxy Rates of Sea Level Rise” (WUWT March 2022) childishly made fun of researchers who had recently published sea level rise proxy data in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. That data is admittedly messy but, when considered carefully, is also quite reasonably useful.
But the juvenile “analysis” in that article consisted of little more than “the data looks messy, ‘therefore’ any conclusions derived from it ‘must’ be ‘wrong’ “.
And “skeptical” folks wonder why the mainstream scientific community does not take them seriously. SMH.
The research in question (Walker, et al. Nat Commun 2022) actually demonstrates pretty clearly that global sea level rise has exhibited a “hockey stick” pattern over the past couple thousand years, just as global temperatures have done (as has already been well established by a plethora of various studies). Both are driven by the hockey stick pattern of exponentially increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.
That’s true, assuming that the rate continues for a thousand years or so.
An unfortunate example of classic head-in-the-sand refusal to accept reality.
Excellent article, Mr. May, well organized and succinctly presented. The most significant point, which was rather understated but IMHO had a huge impact, is that the growth in “renewable” energy output is not even keeping pace with increasing energy demand.
I particularly liked your brief but very useful background on energy units. This post could be a standard primer for anyone concerned with energy.
The fanaticism of the Left over pushing “renewables” is baffling in one sense. Our total energy consumption is roughly 95 BBOE, yet our annual electric energy consumption (as of 2018) is 15.7 BBOE. So only 16.5% of the work done by our myriad devices is electrically powered. Yet all of the “renewables” generate electricity. Even if it were possible to produce as much total energy as we currently consume using nothing but “renewables” (and it isn’t), 83.5% of our equipment – our energy-using infrastructure – doesn’t use electricity now, and would have to be completely replaced just to accommodate the supply. That’s an even more stupendous expenditure than what would be required to build all of those “renewables.” The expenditure is more than just monetary. We frequently discuss in these pages the natural resources required to build renewable energy sources, and almost as frequently the resources needed to build a fleet of electric cars. But the totality of energy-consuming infrastructure dwarfs mere cars. Some of it can never use electricity (e.g. airplanes). Most of it can never use electricity very well, or it already would.
Anyway, very nice job.
Thanks Michael, all of your points are very valid. Vaclav Smil makes the point that the 4 cornerstones of our modern society are cement, steel, ammonia (fertilizer), and plastic. Currently electricity alone cannot make any of them. As you correctly point out, our infrastructure today is only made to deliver about a sixth of the electrical energy we need, so even if we could make these critical items with electricity alone, we could not deliver the necessary energy.
China (Pakistan) completed 2 1GW nuclear plants in 5 years and South Korea (Dubai) are building 1.4 GW nuclear power plants at a cost of roughly $5 billion and taking 5 years.
That is very good, but it is not enough, or fast enough to matter. Nuclear, worldwide, is growing at a rate of 1.6%/year according to EIA. Electricity is about 15% (ExxonMobil) to 18% (Vaclav Smil) of the total energy consumed. Nuclear is 9.9% of the total 2021 electricity production (OurWorldinData), thus nuclear is less than 2% of the total. Building a few nuclear plants every five years is not significant, unfortunately. We need thousands of them.
Sooner or later , fossiles , including uranium or thorium, have to be replaced !
thats a fact ! All other considerations are nonsense …