By Andy May
Clintel has just put out a new publication, We Can Still Avoid the Net Zero Trap, by Kees de Lange and Guus Berkhout.
Climate models – constructed by governmental organizations – predict a climate catastrophe caused by greenhouse gases, primarily CO2. This is even though water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. The model-inspired narrative is that human CO2-emissions poses a fundamental threat to the survival of humanity, therefore, all fossil fuels must be banned.
Fortunately, this doom story is not consistent with the facts. Establishing cause and effect is the most difficult subject in science. After all, correlation is different from causation! This certainly applies to the behavior of our climate. After all, Earth’s climate is extremely complex. Climate processes take place in four-dimensional space: three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate. We know little about it and this is why Earth’s climate behavior is difficult to capture in models.
Experience shows that climate science should not start with complex models, but with reliable observations. The limitations of current climate models, partly due to numerous ungrounded assumptions and numerical limitations, are such that they do not yet properly emulate the climate system, thus they do not form a serious basis for forming climate policy. In particular, the premise that the human contribution to CO2 production can cause a future climate disaster is not supported by observations.
The geological archive tells us that there is no correlation, and therefore no causal link, between CO2 and temperature. Studies of ice cores show that warming precedes an increase in atmospheric CO2 content. The recent past points out that the natural variability of temperature is considerably greater than human influence on it. In the wake of the unreliable predictions of climate models, energy supply on a global scale has become a topic of heated debate. Due to the dubious conclusions of climate models about the role of CO2, fossil fuels have been condemned. The Net Zero approach has become, at least in the West, the political Holy Grail. The reliability of demand-driven fossil energy is sacrificed for supply-driven alternative energy illusions. The West is apparently prepared to risk prosperity for this. The rest of the world watches in amazement and, sometimes, delight.
The report argues for the further development of nuclear energy, with special attention given to the thorium reactor option and its associated advantages. In the long term, this is the only rational way to adequately supply the world with energy. There is therefore no reason to swim further into the Net Zero trap. We can still go back.
In summary, there is climate warming, but there is no climate crisis. Unfortunately, we are at the beginning of a self-made energy crisis. That is very bad news. A rapid and dramatic change in climate and energy policy, by all western governments, is required.
One minor correction to the report, Climate: The Movie was written, directed and edited by Martin Durkin, as well as produced by Tom Nelson.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
_________________________________________________________________
By all western governments. That is the clue as to what it’s all about.
Yes, but it goes deeper than that. Political governments are scrabbling to preserve the tatters of their legitimacy. The crisis isn’t “self-made.” It is made by the governments themselves. If you feel that those in government today are your fellows, please think again. And please, never again let yourself fall into the trap of “my country, right or wrong.”
I got called in to one of our plants at 8PM one evening to head off a “finding” by a quality organization. My wife asked me if it were an “emergency” and I said no. I said it was a “crisis” because it was just something in someone’s mind.
Net Zero is a fool’s game:
Simply put, in the healthy and wealthy countries, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to harmfully rise could vanish off the face of the earth, or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Tanzania.
China, India, and Indonesia are three of the largest emissions generators, the same countries that do not have the financial wherewithal or technical capabilities to reduce or capture anything!
It has yet to be proven that CO2 is harmful. CO2 is really a wholly beneficial trace gas on which ALL life depends. More CO2 from the “developing” nations is not a problem and should be welcomed as it promotes plant growth.
Whatever…but more importantly Markus isn’t happy he wasn’t told the truth about solar-
A Current Affair: Solar panel owners could soon pay the price for going green (nine.com.au)
Poor Markus wasn’t told about the fallacy of composition and how his neighbours don’t want his electricity glut at precisely the same time as they’ve got a glut of their own. Perhaps Markus feels there should be a pecking order with saving the planet and first virtuous first served?
Solar panels are far from “green”, if CO2 is counted from China’s mining, to refining ore and other materials, to wafer making, to panel assembly, to shipping to the US and Europe, to distributing in the US, to assembly on a roof or farmer’s field, and then comes the repairs, and replacement parts, and then the hazardous wast landfill.
Total “mierda de toro”
Also the newer, more fragile panels last shorter, about 15 years, than the more robust older panels, about 20 to 25 years
It makes 60 to 80 year nuclear plants look like a sunset school picnic.
The EROEI of solar 2, biomass 4, wind turbine 4, CCGT 28, coal 30, hydro 35
The EROEI of nuclear 75
A modern society needs at least 7 to breakeven.
Oh well, back to stone ages
The big eco lie: Solar panels release five TIMES more CO2 than previously thought, report claims
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-big-eco-lie-solar-panels-produce-five-times-more-co2-than2
Good addition, thanks.
That’s why we don’t count those things. Greenies want to feel good about themselves. They don’t care about facts or reason.
Windmills and solar farms are cool. Thinking about things is uncool.
Link doesn’t work.
Edit:
Probably this one: https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-big-eco-lie-solar-panels-produce-five-times-more-co2-than
Thank you Eric
I really should have paid more attention in Physics 102. I can see where over loading a generator causes problems but don’t see how running one under zero or low load conditions can cause a problem, unless it’s a grid / transmission issue. (Maybe I’ve answered my own question). In any case, anyone putting ‘renewable’ energy into the grid should play by the same rules as conventional producers.
Running a conventionally powered generator at low or zero load is very inefficient and will cause wear on the system components just as quickly as near full load. These systems require maintenance, which is not zero cost.
Frank,
the grid needs to have input and output matched at all time. Frequency is the measure of that and is controlled very finely (In the U.K. the limits are + or – 0.5 Hz, in practice it is aimed to run + or – 0.2%, other nations grids will be similar I expect).
Generators, like most machines, slow down when loaded and vice versa. With conventional generators there is a fuel control to modulate output to match frequency. Renewables do not have this ability which is why they are difficult to incorporate in large amounts in a grid system,.and why you still need conventional as well as renewable generation. In practice you need to match renewable capacity with conventional. Essentially having two systems doing one job. Thus renewables can only increase unit energy price for the consumer.
If there is too much renewable output then it must be curtailed, i.e. disconnected.
Thanks. As you kindly reminded me, frequency is important, which conventional sources can readily handle. (AGC, spinning reserves, etc). What I had narrowly focused on were grid limitations re. how much energy can be handled on the path(s) between generation and load.
“The West is apparently prepared to risk prosperity for this. The rest of the world watches in amazement and, sometimes, delight”
The West, particularly Europe, is trying to force the rest of the world to go the dysfunctional, expensive wind, solar, battery route.
The EU wants to impose a carbon tax on any imports, to punish countries “not in compliance”.
With Trump in the White House, the EU would not dare go that route for at least 4 years, the main reason they “hate” him.
Only a few percent of 30,000 MW offshore wind by 2030 of the Obama/Clinton-holdover cabal that uses Biden as its patsy, is being implemented. The rest is on hold, cancelled, or in litigation
Here are some examples:
After Being ‘Misled’ by Appearance of Wind Turbines, Seaside Residents Awake to Nightmare as Houses Begin to Shake
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/after-being-misled-by-appearance-of-wind-turbines-seaside
BREAKING: The First Domino Falls on EV Mandates in Virginia
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/breaking-the-first-domino-falls-on-ev-mandates-in-virginia
OFFSHORE WIND FIASCO OFF THE US NORTHEAST COAST IS GETTING WORSE
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-fiasco-off-the-us-northeast-coast-is-getting-worse
This is not strongly convincing prose. I believe it because I’ve seen the average 1990 IPCC forecast of 30 some models T° anomally proving to be 300% too hot compared to two independent empirical measurements!! Even modeler Gavin Schmidt of GISS, in an unguarded moment, said before AR6 was published: “Models are running a way too hot and we don’t know why.”
Maybe that should be added to the plea to convince others that models have got it horribly wrong. Gentlemen who abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules in a fight like this need someone like me as a referee.
“Models are running a way too hot and we don’t know why.”
duh!
Many know why..ECS is too high. The equation is wrong but slowly getting closer to the truth.
https://youtu.be/SClbn4VNqjs?si=mlxlhfU2hGPuO2Xw
Err.. should be ‘models havent got it right.’
If models are based on RCP8.5, of course they will run way too hot.
RCP only affects the time for CO2 levels to double
RCP does not affect the claimed warming per CO2 x 2
It seems like these RCP’s are scenarios about global human CO2 emissions in the future, not necessarily future CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Do these scenarios take into account the fact that the rate of removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by natural phenomena depends on the concentration?
A mass balance on the atmosphere shows that if the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere increases by 8.00 gigatonnes (Gt), it would result in an increase of 1 ppm in the average concentration, if it were evenly distributed.
The change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere with time therefore obeys the equation
dC/dt = [ E(t) + G(t) – D(t) ] / 8.00
where E(t) = global human emissions in year t, Gt
G(t) = natural generation rate of CO2 (animal respiration, ocean degassing)
D(t) = natural removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere (photosynthesis, etc)
which can be re-written as
8.00 dC/dt – E(t) = G(t) – D(t)
I have done a linear regression of the quantity on the left side as a function of concentration at Mauna Loa in January of each year from 1959 through 2022, using publicized estimates of global human CO2 emission rates for each year. This resulted in
G(t) – D(t) = 39.92 – 0.140 C (R^2 = 0.83)
We can therefore estimate the natural CO2 generation rate as about 40 Gt/yr, and that the removal rate D(t) = 0.140 C, meaning that the total sink is a first-order reaction with a rate constant of (0.140 Gt/yr-ppm) / (8.00 Gt/ppm) = 0.0175 yr^-1.
Before the industrial revolution, when human CO2 emissions were negligible, if G(t) – D(t) = 0, the equilibrium concentration would be 39.92 / 0.140 = 285 ppm, which is close to the IPCC estimate for “pre-industrial” CO2 concentrations.
Future CO2 concentrations will depend on the future variation of E(t). Global human CO2 emissions in 2022 were estimated as 37.2 Gt/yr. If this emission rate remained constant into the foreseeable future, the CO2 removal rate would catch up to the total (human + natural) emission rate when
37.2 + 39.92 – 0.140 C = 0
Solving for C results in an equilibrium future concentration of 551 ppm, which is less than double the “pre-industrial” concentration of ~285 ppm.
We don’t need “net zero” human emissions. If we limit ourselves to “net zero increase in current emissions”, the future CO2 concentration will level out at about 550 ppm, somewhere around AD 2250, and the atmosphere will be in CO2 equilibrium. What do we have to fear, other than increased crop yields and slightly longer growing seasons?
Gavin Schmidt of GISS, in an unguarded moment, said before AR6 was published: “Models are running a way too hot and we don’t know why.”
To me, the answer is quite simple: The basis of the models is that they have a positive factor for CO2. CO2 is going up. There are a myriad of known periodic factors that are not included in the models: ENSO, Several other ocean “oscillations”, Solar Cycles, Milinkovic Cycles, etc. Cloud variations are not included, as well as many other unknowns. There are a number of other known factors with unknown magnitudes that are also included.
When ‘hindcasting is performed, these unknown magnitudes are inaccurately adjusted to correlate with past temperatures, which were heavily influenced by the non-included natural cycles. Meanwhile CO2, with its large positive influence, is going forever upward. Then, when the models are used for forecasting future temperatures, the ‘unknown magnitudes’ tend to randomly adjust to an average factor approaching zero since they have no correlation with the actual cycles. This leaves the positive CO2 factor relentlessly sending the predicted temperatures ever higher.
It’s amazing what real sciences can do- like astronomy- which can explain the cosmos back to the first trillionth of a second- or something like that- very dependably and there is little debate about it.
Astronomy has its own controversies. And old ways of looking at things are being constantly changed as new information comes in.
Not really. They are just spitballing with plug numbers like dark matter and dark energy. They also have something like 5 different theories to play with. They don’t have lots of data for the truly distant past. That is why they put Webb on the far side of the moon. And, they cannot in principle see past the cosmic background which represents the state of the universe some 300,000 years after the big bang.
Astronomy is a very sophisticated science. Still lots of things not understood given the scope of the science. Dark matter and dark energy seem to work as theories. Dark matter explains the rotation of galaxies- at least why the different parts rotate at about the same speed. Dark energy explains why the expansion of the universe is accelerating based on quantum effects of “the vacuum”. Of course there is no proof. They are just theories. At least astronomers aren’t trying to revolutionize our entire civilization like so many climate “scientists”. The prevailing view doesn’t attempt to suppress other views.
Net Zero is the tipping point for the collapse of human civilization.
Net-Zero is deindustrialization in disguise.
And depopulation! (but not for the ruling elites)
Because it was never about the climate, we know that now for sure.
Perhaps the “elite” can be excluded for a time. If the hoi polloi have nothing left to lose, why would they not go after the people who caused the deprivation?
In the end i think none of this matters. Reality is kicking in about green tech and that will only increase the worse things get. With the green cult there is no point of redemption. People will not put up w imposed suffering and continued self flaggelation, especially when they see other areas, non western countries not complying w the green rules set by the West.
Since the continuation of green subsidies for individuals seems to falter in various countries ( like the money people get from putting electricity fr their solar panels back into the grid), going green in the future looks like a bad deal. And people do appreciate well working facilities like hospitals, child and elderly care, healthcare and proper roads far above a possible future green heaven. In short, when the money rolls and the economy and institutions are ok a society has the luxury of doing green stuff. It looks like Peak Green has passed, doubt has crept in like with every ideology. It is the natural way..
Good comment. When green renewables were a small grid penetration compared to normal grid operating reserves, they were not a problem. With higher penetration, the problems become self evident. Ditto for EVs. The whole green thing must self destruct. The harder greens push net zero, the faster that happens.
The oceans have 60-70 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. They are like a big bottle of soda pop. When they warm not as much CO2 can dissolve in them and they release it into the air like soda pop does.
Recent studies are showing that smog was blocking the Sun’s rays and SO2, especially from burning sulfur-containing fuels, was seeding cloud formation which also blocked the Sun’s rays. Since they have been reduced more sunlight is reaching the oceans and the land warming them and the atmosphere.
‘Pollution Paradox: How Cleaning Up Smog Drives Ocean Warming’
https://e360.yale.edu/features/aerosols-warming-climate-change
‘Cutting pollution from the shipping industry accidentally increased global warming, study suggests’
“A reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions may have caused “80% of the measured increase in planetary heat uptake since 2020.”
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/cutting-pollution-from-the-shipping-industry-accidentally-increased-global-warming-study-suggests
“A reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions may have caused “80% of the measured increase in planetary heat uptake since 2020.”
Total BS
The whole notion of “net zero” is patently ridiculous and unrealworldly. What chemical or nuclear process that has been known to science to date depended upon one of the participants or reactants be driven all the way to zero in order to sustain life on Earth?
The real world does not operate that way. Most everything that is productive and stable in the universe is a product of forces or processes that seek and achieve a balance. The planets are held in orbit with their stars by gravity, but prevented from simply crashing into their stars by countervailing rotational inertia, but also not so much inertia that planets go flying off into nothingness … such that the planets are held in stable orbits that produce certain characteristics within both the planets and the stars. Every process is like that, whether physical, chemical, biological, or nuclear. There is no net zero.
The predictions of the climate models featured in the 1979 Charney Report, 45 years later, are still in the ballpark of reality.
The CO2 level in 1975 will take until almost 2150 to double. It’s far too early to dismiss the model predictions as wrong.
If you make a worst cases assumption that all +0.7 degrees C. warming since 1975 was caused by manmade CO2 emissions, then the total warming by 2150 could be +2.4 degrees C.
Not far from the average guess in 1979 of +3.0 degrees C. per CO2 x 2 (1.5 + 4.5 / 2 = 3.0)
We loved the “catastrophic” warming in SE Michigan, especially in the past 20 years, because it was mainly warmer winters.
We Climate Realists should return to the most basic climate question, that is rarely asked:
Is global warming bad news?
Because if global warming is bad news, then global cooling must be good news.
Yet we have many centuries of anecdotes telling us that warm is good and cold is bad.
My full article showing the derivation of my +2.4 degrees C. warming for CO2 x 2, based on worst case assumptions:
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: Why I started calling climate computer models “Climate Confuser Games” in 1997
“My full article… blah blah…”
Most land surface warming is urban heat effect and other fakery such as zombie sites, instrument changes etc etc.
Since 1979, there has been no warming of the atmosphere except from El Nino events, which have nothing to do with CO2.
Warming of the oceans is from solar energy and maybe some geothermal…. not CO2.
There is no CO2 warming signature anywhere.
Some clown doing a CO2 warming calculation, when none has even been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.. Yawn…..
Very nice Andy. This is important, we need to tell people flat out that they have been lied to, this needs to be said in simple straight forward language like you have used here. I don’t like being lied to, the fact that the person lying to me is well educated makes it worse.
We’re already avoiding that trap simply because there are still no available high-capacity storage batteries that can be charged by the wind or sun and retain enough energy long enough to power entire cities for a week at a time. For some reason, the energy experts are loathe to admit this fact and keep believing that wind and solar can somehow supplant fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear without such battery technology. This is the dangerous part: the eco-extremists want to dispense with reliable energy sources without having anything to replace it. They’ll achieve Net Zero alright, but there will also be almost net zero energy supplies.
“After all, correlation is different from causation!”
100% of people who don’t understand the difference between causation and correlation will die.
(Courtesy Elon Musk in an X post)