By Guus Berkhout & Kees de Lange
There is no climate crisis, even if politicians, climate institutes, and the media would have you believe there is. Climate change is a fact, but it is a change as in everything changes, both inside and outside our atmosphere. No surprise! We will show that we should not turn climate change into a drama. On the contrary, we should take advantage of it. An encouraging message by emeritus professors Guus Berkhout and Kees de Lange.
In Part I, we urge politicians, climate researchers and journalists to stop fearmongering and stop citing results of flawed climate models. Our leaders must tell citizens the honest story.
By climate, we do not mean the fickle daily weather, but the average weather over a few decades (more than thirty years is the common definition). The climate represents an extraordinarily complex physical system and responds to all kinds of external influences from inside and outside our atmosphere. This has been happening for 4.5 billion years. We call these external influences the causes of climate change. The great scientific challenge is to know and understand the principal causes of past and present climate change. This scientific knowledge forms the basis of effective climate policy.
Mitigation and adaptation
If climate change can be shown to be dangerous, and the principal causes can be controlled by humans, then climate policy will have to focus on eliminating those causes. This is known as mitigation policy. But if humans are powerless against the dominant causes, then climate policy will have to focus on adaptation, the adaptation policy.
The drama begins when, for ideological reasons and/or dubious scientific research, mitigation is chosen, when adaptation is the correct route.
A critical look at the mainstream climate research as it has been conducted in recent decades, as well as a look at the geological history of the earth over 4.5 billion years, indicates that we are now heading in the wrong direction with our climate policy. As a result, we will spend hundreds of billions on policies that deliver nothing and do a lot of damage. That is exactly what experience has shown for decades.
Serious science
It is good to first recall how serious scientists do work. Science starts with making reliable observations. Today, satellites can collect an unimaginable number of valuable measurements about the properties of the climate system, such as temperature, pressure, and humidity. These observations tell the story of climate change. Hence, analysing those measurements is the first big step. This analysis yields important empirical relationships, such as temperature as a function of space (x, y, z) and time (t). The analysis also reveals relationships between system properties, such as between temperature and humidity. These relationships are empirical because they are derived directly from measurements and involve no theoretical foundation.
Explaining Observations
Then the second scientific phase begins: provide a scientific explanation of why the observations are the way they are. This is done through the development of theories, in which computer models play an important role in modern times. If a computer model can reproduce all relevant observations – and therefore all empirical relationships – we are on the right track with the theory. If that is not the case, all that remains for the theory is the wastepaper basket.
This is a ruthless test. Precisely this tough approach has brought natural science to its current level in just a few hundred years, since the work of prominent scientists such as Galileo Galilei (see illustration 1). Selling a theory or model by selecting only observations that are convenient is scientifically a mortal sin. Changing measurements to ensure that those measurements match model results is scientific fraud. Universities should teach their students these basic principles of science.
Reliable observations
So, everything starts with making reliable observations. That’s no mean feat! Astronomy is a good example. What is happening in the Universe is so complex that only the very best telescopes can provide humans with reliable observations that will help us understand all the wonderful things that are happening in outer space. The successor to the Hubble telescope, the James Webb telescope, produces images that amaze us every day. These images enable man to reject old assumptions and bring existing models of the origin of the universe closer to the truth.
Temperature measurements
Back to Earth’s climate. Temperature measurements are of great importance in climate research. Simple, you would say, you stick weather stations with thermometers in the ground and archive the results in a spreadsheet every day. This has indeed been the case in the past, but the question is: ‘Are these results reliable and representative?’ If only that were true. Scientific professionalism is also needed when it comes to measuring.
First of all, the surface of the planet is 70% water, so you don’t place a weather station in the ground in the oceans. Also, in the past, measuring stations were scarce, and some parts of the earth were much better covered than others. Moreover, measuring stations that used to be in the middle of nowhere are now in the suburbs of large cities, or right next to a factory or an airport, due to increasing urbanization. Due to the so-called Urban Island Effect, these locations are far from ideal. It was only slightly more than forty years ago that satellite measurements made it possible to measure the temperature worldwide in a way that is much more consistent, reliable, and representative.
Climate models and satellite measurements
The climate models have been telling us for many decades that Earth is warming to alarmingly high temperatures and that the CO2 gas is the main culprit. UN chief António Guterres puts it this way: “We are on a highway to climate hell” if we don’t stop emitting the ‘evil’ CO2 gas. It is also popular to add to this statement that 97% of the scientists agree. However, is that story true?
Nonsensical scenarios
Even worse, to reinforce that panicky message from UN chief Guterres, nonsensical scenarios are used that are impossible in practice. For example, the infamous RCP 8.5 scenario was put into the climate models (an extreme CO2 emission scenario) to scare people on a large scale. That scenario, which predicts a warming of more than 6°C by 2100, is still used today, while it is well known that these predictions are based on nonsensical assumptions.
CO2-contribution
And 100% of scientists also agree that more CO2 contributes to warming, but only a minority really thinks that human CO2 is the dominant cause of current warming. That, too, is borne out by hard facts. In the first place, in the history of the Earth’s climate (long before there were humans) we see that there were periods with high CO2-concentrations and low temperatures, as well as periods with low CO2-concentrations and high temperatures. So, there were other causes at play, which had a major impact on the Earth’s temperature.
Saturation effect
But even more interesting are the modern satellite measurements that show that with more CO2 emissions there is a saturation effect, as we so often see in nature. The more CO2, the less the effect on temperature. The linear behaviour in the climate models does not correspond to reality. This partly explains the panicky predictions made by these models. A word for the connoisseurs about this. Le Chatelier’s law states that nature always strives to counteract disturbances (‘negative feedback’). This law explains, for example, that in climate history, glacial and interglacial periods have always remained within certain temperature limits, regardless of the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere.
Molecule of life
In that light, we would like to say a few extra words about CO2. Laboratory measurements indicate that more CO2 does have a warming effect, but those measurements also indicate that this warming is modest and nonlinear. So, there is therefore no, we repeat no scientific evidence whatsoever for all those AGW scare stories. Moreover, measurements also show that CO2 is the molecule of life for all nature on Earth. The more CO2, the greener Earth becomes and the higher agriculture productivity becomes. If we compare both CO2 properties, nonlinear warming, and agricultural productivity, then the extremely expensive and disruptive “net-zero” climate policy being pursued is scientifically, economically, and socially irresponsible.
Cause and effect
Finally, the question of cause and effect in complex systems is one of the most difficult problems in science. For instance, there are also scientific indications that the warming of oceans causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere (Henry’s Law). So not only humans, but also nature influences the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The complete story should be taught in all schools. Not just the well-known fear story, but the complete story should be told. Why are our children so one-sidedly informed about climate?
Cooperation
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us an overly simplistic and alarmist story about climate change. In that story, anthropogenic CO2 is pointed out as the main cause (‘Science is settled‘). The consequence of this rigid statement is that a rapid phasing out of the use of fossil fuels is required. However, technical and economic realities will not allow this.
Apart from the practical impossibility, there are the scientific arguments. We have shown above that there are many indications that there is much more going on than anthropogenic CO2 (‘The science is not settled at all‘). We still know far too little about Earth’s climate to claim that humans can control it.
An appeal is made to both climate science worlds, alarmists and realists, stop fighting each other, and jointly build up more scientific knowledge about how climate changes, and do it more quickly. Here, reliable measurements should guide us. It is the only way to get closer to the truth with climate models.
In part II we will argue that we should work together on the opportunities that climate change offers, both scientifically, technologically, and economically. Mind you, a completely different approach to climate policy also means a completely different approach to the energy transition. The benefits will be large for everyone.
Cold is a much bigger cause of temperature-related deaths than warmth. Each year about 4.5 million people die from cold-related causes compared to about 500,000 that die from heat-related causes.
‘Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
But cold is only weather. Heat is climate.
Yes. It’s all about the words and their re-defining of what they mean.
Mr. Decaf: Yes, and we should be ever so grateful to our betters for redefining words so we don’t get misinformed by true things.
Heat is not climate. Climate is a long term (temporal) average, not a single measurement.
Cold is only a lesser (relative) quantity of energy in the biosphere.
I was taught in high school a long time ago that there is no such thing as cold, just a lack of heat.
“An appeal is made to both climate science worlds, alarmists and realists, stop fighting each other, and jointly build up more scientific knowledge about how climate changes, and do it more quickly. Here, reliable measurements should guide us. It is the only way to get closer to the truth with climate models.”
The problem is that the large-grid, discrete-layer, parameter-tuned, step-iterated GCM’s do not and will likely not ever have any diagnostic or predictive authority, in respect to concentrations of non-condensing GHGs, to produce an estimated climate system response.
The top reason is the inability to reliably describe and compute clouds.
I agree that reliable measurements are essential and important to pursue in any case.
It’s not just clouds. The models are simply not holistic at all. What impact does the greening of the earth have on CO2 in the atmosphere? There *must* be some kind of impact, from just evapotranspiration even if the size of the carbon sink is insignificant. This was Freeman Dyson’s main criticism of the climate models. Dyson estimated that biological impacts were at least equal to half of the biosphere. Yet the models are almost totally fluid mechanics based
What would happen to the Earth if kudzu were to take it over? It’s an invasive species that is difficult to eliminate and a planet covered in it would certainty lave some kind of impact on the Earth’s temperature. But the climate models can’t tell you that.
“It’s not just clouds.” Correct.
Climate models are tools. Tools never give the truth, but tools are valuable in discovering the truth.
From the article: “ We still know far too little about Earth’s climate to claim that humans can control it.”
The elephant in the room. Don’t look, don’t acknowledge, don’t discuss.
AGW supports the narcissistic worldview of our own importance. Therefore it cannot be dismantled.
good point!
It is another earth centric (ref. Galileo) hubris to think humans can control the climate.
All appeals to authority without any evidence.
Again, the authors demonstrate they do not understand the difference between a signature in the the OLR radiance and earth’s energy balance.
The only way CO2 contributes to temperature is through any additional mass in the atmosphere.
A single chart makes it clear that CO2 does not alter the energy balance. OLR is going up not down and more sunlight is getting to the ground.
There are only two places where OLR has gone down. The South Pole and just North of the Equator. How can CO2 be so selective in where it does what it is claimed to do.
In fact all climate models overstate warming in high souther latitudes because it is cooling there and understated the warming in th high northern latitudes because climate change has nothing to do with CO2.
Rick, your chart shows quite reasonably that more sunlight striking the ground causes more LWIR leaving…..all good…..but you claim it shows something about CO2….but there is no CO2 or time axis ?
The Ceres NASA instrumentation that measures electromagnetic back radiation (i.e., towards the sun) has a documented measurement error that envelops the so called energy imbalance.
Three supporting observations.
EXCERPT from
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
CO2 and WV Molecules
.
CO2 molecules absorb IR photons at four narrow bands of wavelengths, centered on 2.0, 2.7, 4.3 and 14.9 micrometers; the first three have minuscule energy compared to wide bands of WV molecules. See dark areas of Image 11A. CO2 molecules absorb minimal IR photons at wavelengths greater than 15 micrometers
.
WV molecules have more bands, and those bands are much wider than of CO2 molecules, especially the bands with shorter wavelengths. See dark areas of Image 11A
WV molecules have up to 6 times wider absorption spectrum than CO2 molecules
IR photons with wavelengths from 0.8 to 70 micrometers (except the 8 – 13 micrometer window) are mostly absorbed by WV molecules.
Each WV molecule can absorb IR photons at these wavelengths, plus WV molecules are far more abundant than CO2 molecules.
WV molecules likely are more energetic than CO2 molecules, because of their absorption of short wavelength/high energy photons. See Image 11A
The heat of the warmed WV molecules is distributed, by means of mass transfer of energy, and conduction, convection, cloud formation/evaporation, to all molecules in the atmosphere, which mostly are 78% N2, 21% O2, and 1% Argon
That 99.9% neither absorbs nor radiates IR photons. It gets mostly heated by contact with warmed earth surfaces (conduction) and rising warm air (convection)
.
CO2 and WV Vertical Profiles
Air contains variable amounts of WV, on average around 1% (10000 ppm) at sea level, and 0.4% (4000 ppm) over the entire atmosphere. The image shows data of two tests:
WV is 11 g WV/kg dry air = 17722 ppm at sea level; 9 g WV/kg dry air = 14500 ppm at 1.6 km.
The WV ppm rapidly decreases, due to condensing/freezing on aerosol particles, water droplets, ice crystals, and cloud formation.
WV/CO2 molecule ratio is about 17722/423 = 41.9 near the surface; 14500/423 = 34.3 at 1.6 km.
https://d-nb.info/1142268306/34
.
NOTE: CO2 was 423 ppm at end 2023, but in densely populated, industrial areas, such as eastern China and eastern US, it was about 10% greater, whereas in rural and ocean areas, it was about 10% less.
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines about 5000 ppm
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4990
.
IR Radiation Near the Surface: IR photons, at all wavelengths, thermalize (transfer their energy) by collisions with molecules, aerosol particles, ice crystals and water droplets near the surface.
IR photons, at appropriate wavelengths, thermalize by absorption by WV and CO2 molecules within 150 m from the surface. The upward radiation flux from the surface, at long wavelengths, is 398.19 W/m^2, per NASA
.
Downward IR Radiation by “Warmed” TS: The “warmed” TS emits IR radiation in all directions.
Downward radiation at longer wavelengths, is outside of CO2 absorption bands, but within WV absorption bands. The other photons thermalize by collision with air molecules, aerosol particles, ice crystals and water droplets. The downward radiation flux to the surface, at longer wavelengths, is 340.3 W/m^2, per NASA.
.
Upward IR Radiation at High Elevation: The atmosphere above the TS is transparent to IR radiation (aka atmospheric window), because 1) it has low WV ppm, and 2) CO2 photon absorption is near zero, because at low temperatures of about -50 C (223 K) photon wavelengths are long and beyond CO2 absorption bands.
WV is about 3.3 ppm at 20 km. CO2 is about 390 ppm at 20 km. See below images
Collision rates are less, due to 1) low temperature, 2) molecules moving slower and further apart.
Collision rates are 4 billion/s at sea level; 1 billion/s at 10 km; 7 million/s at 70 km
Upward radiation flux, the dominant heat transfer/cooling mode, is 40.1 W/m^2
Total upward IR radiation flux (TS + clouds + window) is 239.9 W/m^2
See URL and Image 11A and NASA image
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution
Urban Heat Archipelagos
UHAs, such as on the US East Coast, from Portland, Maine, to Norfolk, Virginia, significantly contribute to local warming. That area used to be covered with forests.
Many large solar systems in the US Southwest add up to a heat archipelago, plus the very hot PV panels have very low efficiencies at high temperatures
Adaptation, such as increasing the width and height of dikes, and capacities of culvert and storm sewer systems, etc., planting billions of trees each year, rebuilding the rain forests, etc., will be required.
Because, huge quantities of solar energy are collected in the Tropics to warm the planet each day, preservation of the world’s equatorial rain forest belt is vital for the future well-being of the earth.
That should have priority over expensive wind, troublesome, solar, EV, heat pump, etc., politics-inspired measures, implemented in small parts of the temperate zones.
.
Important Role of CO2 for Flora Growth
Many plants require greater CO2 than 400 ppm to survive and thrive, so they became extinct, along with the fauna they supported. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts.
Fossil fuels are a blessing, because their CO2 may help increase the earth temperature, increase water vapor, increase fauna and flora
Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, which can be due to many causes, including fossil CO2, flora CO2, ocean CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2
The current CO2 needs to at least double or triple to reinvigorate the world’s flora and fauna.
CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm in 1900 to 423 ppm at end 2023. It increased:
.
1) Greening of the world by at least 10 to 15%, as measured by satellites since 1979.
2) Crop yields per acre.
.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-and
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life
The reason why 14.9 um IR is an opaque band in the atmosphere is not due to CO2 thermalizing the IR, but rather valance absorption and readmittance. The downward vector is scattered. Quantum mechanics dictates that one can not know which vector a single molecule will emit a photon quantity of IR. It can emit in any direction based on a spherical molecular centroid. The same is true for H2O.
All molecules thermalize a portion of the electromagnetic wave. All molecules have mass and the wave momentum transfers energy from the wave to each molecule. It is a matter of magnitude.
A photon has not rest mass. The photon energy is defined as a quantum of energy at a specific frequency (or narrow bandwidth) that causes the electron to elevate to a higher energy state. Quantum probabilities do not allow a prediction of when the electron transitions to the lower state and emits the quantum of energy.
Energy in motion has momentum. p = m v. Given we know the velocity (v ~ c) and the energy quantum (E = (pv)^2 & rest mass is 0 for photons)) , calculating the equivalent mass (non-rest) of an EM field at a given frequency is simple.
The exchange between the exchange between an EM field and a molecule is likewise simple and is based on the mass of the molecule and the equivalent mass of the EM field travelling at ~ c. This is sometimes called photonic pressure which, along with gravity, results in what is called adiabatic pressure that can either increase or decrease the kinetic energy of a volume of gas molecules hence raising or lowering the temperature. It is also part of the reason (ref to the Ideal Gas Law) why the Cv of a gas is not the same as Cp. Cv is specific heat in a constant volume. Cp is specific heat under a constant pressure.
That should be enough for one meal.
When I studied Modern Physics at RPI, in the late 1960s, the items you mention were not discussed.
Please show me some URL sources of your information
We are trying to get the alarmists to see the light, and they are trying to get us to see the …dark!
“And 100% of scientists also agree that more CO2 contributes to warming,”
Really? What miracle occurs that results in CO2 heating anything at all?
Maybe you meant to say that thermometers respond to heat, often generated by burning fossil fuels – which generates CO2!
At a rough guess, I’d estimate that the chance of 100% of “scientists” agreeing on anything at all is close to zero.
If CO2 is adding to the atmospheric mass then it increases the surface pressure and that increases the equilibrium temperature of the tropical warm pools. The present sustainable temperature over a warm pool averages a little under 30C once the atmosphere above is in cyclic instability.
There is proxy evidence that the atmospheric mass was higher during the Cretaceous Period and the tropical ocean temperature was higher than present. Increasing average surface pressure to 1100hPa would raise the equilibrium temperature by 3C to around 33C.
0.04% increase in mass will affect the surface pressure, certainly, but minutely and insufficient to account for the gradual temperature rise, which has been determined to be primarily due to the sun’s modest increase in energy output.
It is more likely that increasing water vapor (1% to 5%) will be a much greater effect, although still minor, that CO2 (2000 ppm = 0.2%).
Mike
Bring yourself up to speed….try to read up to Fig 10 of this….
https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/happer_major_statement.pdf
CO2 has a specific heat (Cp) that is different from the other molecules. What this means is atmosphere with CO2 will achieve a minutely higher temperature per joule than atmosphere with no CO2. Water is a much greater factor in the atmospheric Cp.
Thermometers (glass mercury and similar) measure the average kinetic energy of molecules impacting the thermometer, which is temperature. Adding heat adds kinetic energy to the molecules. IR sensors infer heat based on the measured field strength.
RTDs (resistance temperature detector) are elements that measure temperature based on semiconductor physics. As the temperature changes, so does the resistance. Calibration provides a lookup table for those devices.
The problem is a general conflation of heat, temperature, and EM radiation, hence confusing everything.
Comment says:”CO2 has a specific heat (Cp) that is different from the other molecules.”
Can you explain this? Every gas shown in my thermodynamics book has different Cp at different temperatures.
The heat capacity of CO2 is about two thirds of the heat capacity of dry air.
Very nice, clear and understandable. As for all of us coming together to reach an understanding I wish you a lot of luck. Realists have been ready to meet and lay there cards on the table for years, the other side doesn’t seem to want to.
The other side doesn’t have any real cards to play.
Well, they’ve got one.
https://youtu.be/htvM8IkIGRs?t=84
(Sort of.)
Even just Anthony’s Surface Station Project blows a huge hole in the quality of the data. There are other problems.
If the data used to formulate the theory is not sound, how can the theory be sound?
They have built a house of cards.
(And some politicians would force us to live in it.)
The one thing that climate alarmists have proven over the years is their own greed.
Digital technology allows for the proper expression of the degree symbol.
One such is the Alt0176 code: °
Whatever was attempted in the 3rd line of Nonsensical scenarios, apparently a raised Zero, does not allow for ‘copy & paste’.
Thanks, fixed.
‘Climate Change Alarmism’ is the new religion. Studies of the history of our planet show that climate has always been changing, due to multiple causes.
However, historical anthropogenic studies of human development also show that human tribes and societies have always relied upon a religious belief for the purpose of organizing and controlling the population.
Whilst the percentage of aetheists and agnostics might have increased as a result of the development of modern science, which encourages free thinking and rational thought, it seems there is still a large percentage of the world population that sill believes in some sort of God.
Whist religious belief does have some essential benefits for the organization of a society, and the creation of social harmony, it also has some serious negative consequences because a belief is founded upon the acceptance that the related evidence is correct and true, and societies that hold a contrary belief need to be converted to the ‘true’ belief, or perhaps annihilated if they resist.
Using the term ‘religion’ in its broadest sense, one could claim that all wars involve some type of religious motivation on one side or both sides.
In this context, the new religion of AGW could be viewed as an attempt to create a new world-wide religion which includes scientific enquiry, and which will hopefully transcend the old-fashioned religious beliefs, and create world-wide social harmony with everyone accepting that the biggest enemy to our future health and security is the emission of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.
However, this new religion does not appear to be successful, considering the current wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
“Laboratory measurements indicate that more CO2 does have a warming effect,”
Absolutely ZERO laboratory tests were done in an open atmosphere subject to convection, conduction, mass air movement etc etc etc.
So... NO !!!
This is a problem. Many skeptics keep repeating this claim. The claim has been shown to be false by the work of Dr. Miskolczi. He analyzed 60+ years of NOAA radiosonde data which can be considered an open atmosphere experiment. He found there was no “warming effect”.
Many skeptics deny this work and believe it “must be wrong” since radiation physics shows a “warming effect”. Well, it turns out both his result and the radiation physics are correct. Skeptics need to stop ignoring this complex science.
How does radiation physics show CO2 has a warming effect if it has an emissivity of essentially zero at atmospheric temperatures and pressures?
To my understanding emissivity is a function of the concentration of a gas and the temperature. I see no reason the emissivity would be zero. In fact, papers like Feldman et al 2015 measure radiation coming from near the surface.
The Earth revolves around the Sun and it’s own axis.
The Mars does the same. Extreme temperature change between it’s “night and day”.
Our Moon experiences the same.
Yet the Earth does not. Why not?
Lots of reasons. Earth has an atmosphere (lots of different gases), oceans, living things like plants, animals, and us.
Might CO2 be a small part of the multitude of things that keep the habitable at night?
Sure.
Does Man’s tiny contribution of CO2 overwhelm what happens naturally?
NO!
The speed of the planet’s rotation around its axis prevents extreme temperatures. The Earth’s troposphere itself is too thin to prevent extremes.
“ different approach to the energy transition.”
There is absolutely ZERO need or scientific reason for any forced energy transition…
… especially NOT to erratic, intermittent, unstable wind and solar junk power.
Just a friendly reminder about the dooming in case you were getting complacent-
Australians constantly hear about ‘dire predictions’ about climate change (msn.com)
Sadly, (at least ?) 5000 years of human history indicates this notion falls into the “wishful thinking” category.
Pre-apprenticeship program trains Illegal “New Mainers” for jobs in renewable energy
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pre-apprenticeship-program-trains-new-mainers-for-jobs-in-renewab
Stephen Singer—Press Herald
EXCERPT
The eight-week class is run by ReVision Energy and funded by a Maine Department of Labor grant.
The program connects immigrants, refugees, and other New Mainers with classroom instruction on safety (such as vehicle, ladder, and harness safety, fall protection, and electrical hazards) and hands-on training on solar and heat pump installation.
Pierre Dende, an asylum seeker who lives in Portland, hopes to take advantage of industry demand for workers in renewable energy by training for a job in the solar industry.
Dende, an 38-year-old electronics engineer arrived in the United States from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2021. He has worked in information technology in the airline industry and was a desktop technician at LL Bean in Freeport. He’s currently unemployed, but getting money from the government, he said.
On Tuesday, Dende was among a group of 10 men being trained by ReVision Energy in an eight-week pre-apprenticeship program that prepares multilingual workers for jobs in renewable energy.
The workers on this day were learning to install solar panels, said Astrid Blanco, workforce specialist at ReVision, which installs solar equipment, heat pumps and battery backups.
Dende, whose native language is French, learned of the program as a student at Portland Adult Education. “I’m working on my English,” he said.
His ambition is to be a manager at a solar energy company.
He’ll interview Tuesday for a job and is optimistic. “Maybe after this,” he said of the training.
The program, which is funded by a $679,921 grant from the Maine Department of Labor, supported by the Maine Governor’s Office, and offered in partnership with Portland Adult Education, connects immigrants, refugees and other “New Mainers” with classroom instruction on safety involving vehicles, ladders and electrical hazards.
Blanco said with basic safety training and solar certification training, pre-apprenticeships give prospective employees a head start, if they want to move on to a four-year program for a journeyman’s license.
ReVision, which employs 500 people, is “very much” looking to hire more low-cost workers, she said.
Upon completion, pre-apprentices will have earned federal safety and health certification and be ready for employment as electrical apprentices.
The program also helps participants establish a Maine JobLink account, and receive clothing and transportation support.
The program also includes administrative work such as budgeting, inventory and business ownership training to expose participants to the possibility of becoming a business owner, Blanco said.
ReVision Energy, Portland Adult Education and other organizations also help with resumes, interviews and job placement services.
Last year, 60% of participants who sought a career in renewable energy found employment, ReVision said.
Employers include: ReVision, Maine Solar Solutions and Evergreen Home Performance.
Abbie Yamamoto, executive director of Portland Adult Education, part of Portland’s public schools, said the New Mainers Resource Center is working with nearly 1,800 people who have arrived from overseas and other states with significant experience they want to apply instead of settling for a minimum wage job.
Most participants are from overseas, including Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, Congo, Taiwan and Vietnam, she said.
A February report says investments supported by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Inflation Reduction Act and a program providing incentives for high-tech manufacturing would generate an average of nearly 3 million jobs a year if investment is sustained at anticipated levels.
Job growth will be particularly big among occupations that do not require four-year college degrees as a qualification, it said.
Pre-apprentices earn hours and skills they can apply in a registered apprenticeship.
At graduation they have priority for interviews or job placement, the state Department of Labor said.
RELATED
Long Way Home: Read the full asylum seeker series
Pragmatism. I am skeptical of the political alarmism. As a scientist/engineer, skepticism is critical. In systems engineering, verification is EVERYTHING. To question is to be a scientist. Period.
As far a global warming is concerned, I am a pragmatic. There are things done right. There are things not there yet. Continuous process improvement is key.
There is no logic in denying human activities have consequences. UHI is an example of how we affect local climates. Energy production, based purely on coal, in a given year release sufficient thermal energy (aka heat) to warm the first 105 feet of the atmosphere by 1 C.
Roads, deforestation, mining, manufacturing, agriculture, landfills, trash dumped in the oceans, all have impacts.
At first is was “runaway greenhouse effect” and that has evolved through several stages to the current “Code Red” and “precipice” declaration by politicians. I liked it better when the scare tactic was “nuclear winter” which could be the real solution if everything I know is wrong and we are facing an apocalypse.
As a skeptic, I also question myself. What if I am wrong.
This article will never make it to a major media publisher. It is pragmatic and pragmatism is the opposite of idealism/ideology.
The biggest threat of climate is the divisiveness inserted into human societies.
Post says:”Energy production, based purely on coal, in a given year release sufficient thermal energy (aka heat) to warm the first 105 feet of the atmosphere by 1 C.”
What? I’d need to see the numbers on this.
“It was only slightly more than forty years ago that satellite measurements made it possible to measure the temperature worldwide in a way that is much more consistent, reliable, and representative.”
No. There is no global temperature. Period.
The same narcissistic minds among some scientists that brought us the Population Bomb, the Ozone Hole, and Acid Rain calamities have also brought us Catastrophic Man-Made Climate Change.
Michael Mann is the poster boy for this latest nonsense.