From the Heart of Liberty Blog.
Don Harrision
Sign Up To Receive Regular Heart of Liberty Bulletins Here
The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat . . . and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isaiah 11:6
The book of Isaiah, written between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, prophesies a utopia where all natural enmities disappear and predators and prey become as one and take the same sustenance.
It is understandable that the Israelites of the time, oppressed by Assyrians and Babylonians, would long for a peaceable kingdom. Today, however, it is less understandable – in fact downright baffling — that investment managers who pride themselves on their rationality seem to believe that we live in a world in which physics and economics have gone with the wind, and the lions in their portfolios can prosper on a diet of straw.
The conceit I am referring to concerns the voracious lions of artificial intelligence (AI) and the utopian dream of decarbonization. The AI revolution needs the red meat of reliable power – in science-fiction-like quantities – while the decarb dreamers’ windmills and solar panels can deliver only unsatisfying amounts of marginally nutritious straw. Many investment managers own shares of AI leaders[1] such
as Nvidia while simultaneously professing a commitment to net zero CO2. This is portfolio management animated more by blind faith than by proven, analytical process. Investors would be wise to question whether they wish to invest with organizations which seem almost willfully ignorant of the performance-sapping implications of this conflicted approach.
AI Power Needs — AI’s bottomless appetite for power is no secret. Google “AI need for power” and you will find that banks, corporations, NGO’s, think tanks and major publications are all on the case:
- Wells Fargo projects that AI power demand will surge by 8,050% from 2024 to 2030.[2]
- NVIDIA, a leading manufacturer of AI equipment, expects to be shipping enough AI server units by 2027 to burden the grid with the equivalent of a small country’s power needs each and every year.[3]
- One large Meta data center in Iowa burns the same amount of electricity as 7 million laptops running 8 hours a day,[4] and their new campus outside Salt Lake City is expected to gobble the annual electric output of a large nuclear reactor.[5]
- Speaking of nuclear, Microsoft has signed an agreement with Constellation Energy to un-mothball its Three Mile Island Unit One to power all their data centers in the 14-state PJM regional transmission area.[6]
- According to the International Energy Agency, if you were to use the generative AI application ChatGPT to follow my search instructions about “AI need for power,” you would consume almost 10 times the electricity as you would with a plain-vanilla Google query.[7] The results of every Google search now feature an AI-generated response.
These examples are just the tip of the AI power-requirement iceberg.
Investment Companies Are Aware of AI’s Power Appetite — Investment management organizations that own AI leaders[8] are certainly cognizant of this coming tidal wave of energy demand:
- Blackrock has announced a partnership to invest in new data center infrastructure to meet both AI computing and energy supply needs.[9]
- According to T. Rowe Price, “the sheer energy demand required to run AI data centers 24 hours a day is putting huge pressure on resources,” and will cause global data center electricity consumption to exceed 1,000 terawatt hours by 2026.” [10]
- Michael Tucker, Senior Portfolio Manager at Federated Hermes, in a bit of delicious understatement, thinks AI will require a “good deal of energy,” while citing a McKinsey study that predicts that by 2030 AI programs will drive data-center power consumption up by 60 GW. To put that in perspective, the country’s current nuclear power output is 100 GW.[11]
- Clearbridge portfolio managers, Reed Cassady and Sam Peters, have observed that “innovations like cloud computing have been steadily increasing power demand from data centers, but current high-end estimates for the electricity needed for AI computing is on the order of 30x more per server.”[12]
Unlike those whom Jesus’ castigated in the Gospel of Matthew[13]forhaving eyes but refusing to see, these firms understand AI’s growing hunger for electricity.
Renewable Inconstancy — It is also no secret that the net-zero utopians’ favorite power sources – wind and solar – are unreliable. In fact, an understanding of the capricious nature of the wind and the effect of clouds on sunshine is so ingrained in our experience that generative AI, whose “intelligence” is fueled by millennia of human poetry and prose, can churn out an endless stream of cliches on the subject such as “love as fleeting as the fickle summer wind” and “troubles like a veil of clouds.” Academics, not satisfied with machine-made similes derived from common knowledge, have felt the need to conduct studies to prove that wind and solar “are inherently highly variable due to volatile weather conditions.”[14]
And if age-old wisdom and academic elucidation of the obvious leave any doubt about renewable instability, the UK and Germany have been kind enough to erase it by inadvertently conducting nationwide demonstration projects. These two former economic powerhouses currently receive over 40% of their electricity from renewables.[15] In early November of this year, both countries experienced what the Germans call Dunkelflaute (dark doldrums), which arises when high-pressure systems diminish wind and thicken clouds.[16] In the UK, this meant its wind farms were able to meet just 3-4% of the countries’ electricity demand, and in Germany theirs operated at only 7% of
capacity.[17] Of course, grid operators had to call on natural gas and coal to step into the breach.[18]
Charles Rotter at Watts Up With That? has pointed out that a proposed solution from the UK’s National Energy System Operator to this regular winter issue is “system flexibility”[19] — bureaucratize for public rationing and adjustment of energy usage based on availability. Cooking your dinner early or reading that bedtime novel at 2 pm in anticipation of a calm evening may seem trivial sacrifices to make for the greater good of saving Gaia, but imagine a world in which Dunkelflaute starves a power-hungry AI tasked with the 24/7 running of cybersecurity, healthcare and energy transmission: millions of credit cards compromised by foreign actors, AI-enabled robotic surgeons unable to perform life-saving operations, and the ironic last straw — the meager amount of power being generated by these renewables dies on the vine because the grid is managed by AI. We can’t trust AI with vital, economy-wide duties if it has to rely on gentle breezes and occluded sunshine.
Investment Companies Are Aware of Renewable Shortcomings— The research teams at AI-invested portfolio managers are just as aware of renewables’ innate limitations as they are of AI’s appetite for electricity:
- Clearbridge — “The intermittent variability of day-to-day and seasonal swings in energy production make renewables poorly suited to flex up with current demand estimates.”[20]
- First Eagle – “Capture and back-up power solutions are still needed to address intermittency—that is, harnessing and storing inconsistent supplies of renewables like sunlight and wind.”[21]
- Goldman Sachs — “Renewables alone can’t satisfy the world’s energy needs due to intermittency issues, hidden costs and potential geopolitical considerations.”[22]
- And in an excellent imitation of Batman’s Two Face, Larry Fink, chairman of Blackrock and the former Finance Minister for the Decarb Crusaders, after years of extolling the glories of wind and solar in the inevitable transition to net-zero, transitioned to the other side of his mouth at the 2024 World Economic Forum and opined: “the world is going to be short power . . . . And to power these data companies you cannot have this intermittent power like wind and solar. You need dispatchable power because you cannot turn off and on these data centers.”[23]
Inconsistency, variability, intermittency. These investment companies’ analyses of the dependability of wind and solar read like indictments drawn up by Roget’s Thesaurus.
Batteries on White Horses — Of course, no investment organizations believe that we can achieve a net zero future that still enables AI with wind and solar alone; as Blackrock has pointed out, these are only a half solution.[24] Continuous dispatchability requires grid-level battery storage.
Clearbridge thinks batteries will be an integral part of a renewable infrastructure industry that will achieve compound annual growth rates of 10-30% for the next 30 years.[25] JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Macquarie and Blackrock have all put their money where their mouths are, investing billions in battery storage companies such as Strata Clean Energy, Gridstor, Eku Energy and Waratah.[26]
These investment firms are heeding the call of the International Energy Agency (IEA),[27] one of the high priests of net zero. For the IAE, grid-level battery storage will ride to renewables’ rescue like a green savior on Revelations’ white horse,[28] and alchemize the benign but capricious production of turbines and solar panels into ever-dispatchable abundance.
Straw Batteries — But how likely is it that battery storage will be renewable’s salvation, and provide the inexpensive, always-on power needed to sustain the AI industry?
Mark Mills is a distinguished senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a contributing editor at City Journal, a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick school of engineering, director of the National Center for Energy Analytics, a former senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of numerous books and articles on energy and digital technology.[29] I have corresponded with Mark and followed his work for almost 25 years and have found him to be insightful, perspicacious and refreshingly thorough on every subject he turns his mind to. In a rare moment of agreement between Bill Gates and myself, Gates has said that Mark’s book The Bottomless Well “is the only book I’ve ever seen that really explains energy.”[30]
In testimony before the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Mark had this to say about grid-level battery storage:[31]
- Using wind and solar as the primary source of electricity means that grids will require at least twice today’s installed generating capacity because “far more than normal peak generation would be needed to supply both peak demand when sunlight and wind are available, and to have surplus to simultaneously store in batteries.”
- To build enough batteries to fill the inevitable solar/wind droughts would require spending over $1 trillion.
- The normal drop in prices as new technologies advance along the production curve will not happen with batteries: “mineral commodity inflation will be fueled by the unprecedented increases in mineral demands to build energy systems.”
- The IEA estimates the world needs a 400% to 4,000% increase in the mining of energy-critical minerals in the coming decade or two. This unprecedented increase is currently neither underway nor planned.
- It requires about 50 tons of batteries to hold the amount of energy contained in one ton of oil, and obtaining the minerals to fabricate these 50 tons requires the mining and processing of 25,000 tons of materials.
- “Building enough grid-scale batteries for 12 hours of storage for the U.S. grid . . . would entail mining a quantity of materials equal to that needed to fabricate 100 centuries worth of batteries for all the world’s billions of smartphones.”
Given the almost unfathomable cost and scale of material production required for sufficient grid-level batteries, in all likelihood they are not the magic that will transform wind and solar into the robust energy source AI demands.
The Last Straw — This past April, a Wall St. Journal piece explored a seemingly redemptive paradox embedded in the nature of AI: at first glance it looks to explode power usage, but at the same time it holds out the promise that it can increase energy efficiency and thereby reduce consumption.[32] The article focuses on savings in real estate, but the alleged potential is economy-wide. Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser believes efficiency gains over the past 15 years – before the advent of AI – have reduced energy demand by the equivalent of 90 million barrels of oil a day.[33] If smart thermostats, electronic sensors in fuel injectors and other relatively crude enhancements have produced this remarkable accomplishment, imagine what the coming AI revolution can achieve through predictive consumption forecasting, renewable energy integration, intelligent grid management and other currently undreamed of wonders!
But does Mr. Nasser’s observation about reduced energy demand mean that the world has reduced its energy consumption over the past 15 years? Not according to Our World in Data, which shows overall energy consumption growing by 20% during this period:[34]
These last 15 years continue a consistent post-war phenomena: no matter how much we increase vehicle mpg and no matter how many Thermopane windows we install, humanity unfailingly and mysteriously gobbles ever more energy. Only recessions induce power dieting (gold arrows).
So is the Saudi Aramco CEO a liar or an ignoramus, or perhaps nefariously spinning the facts to benefit the oil industry? The answer is probably not – on all 3 counts. Most likely, he is referring to efficiency gains in isolation, and neglecting the further consequences of those efficiencies. More energy saving devices and processes would reduce energy consumption if all things remained equal, but we live in a dynamic world where changing inputs leads to unexpected outputs.
Imagine in a previous life that you were a blacksmith who specializes in iron plow shares. You’re a brilliant fellow, and you devise a method that burns less wood to generate the heat needed to forge and shape the iron. You subsequently reduce your prices, which means poorer peasants can now afford your plowshares. This leads to more land under cultivation, which creates a burgeoning population, which ignites an ever-greater consumption of the wood needed to meet this expanding market that you and thousands of other imitative smiths are now servicing. And which – depending on your perspective – makes God’s green earth a little more paradisiacal for you and your fellow man, or eventually transforms it into a Boschian hellhole pocked by the pustules of oil derricks, coal mines and fracking and uranium waste.
But no matter which way you look at it, your fuel-efficient advancement in metal-working most surely does not reduce energy consumption.
All of which leads us to the real paradox regarding AI and power: Jevon’s Paradox.
William Stanley Jevons was a British economist who first described this phenomenon in a paper in 1865. It is now so widely known and so well documented that Google’s generative AI app has a synopsis, but I prefer the human insight of Mark Mills:
- That paper was focused on the claim, at that time, that England would run out of coal given the demands for that fuel coming from a growing economy, growth that itself was caused by the fuel of industrialization. The solution offered by experts at that time was to make coal engines more efficient.
- Jevons, however, pointed out that improvements in engine efficiency — i.e., using less coal per unit of output — would cause more, not less, overall coal consumption. Thus, the ostensible paradox: “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the [efficient] use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption …. new modes of [efficiency] will lead to an increase of consumption.”
- Put differently: the purpose of improved efficiency in the real world, as opposed to the policy world, is to make it possible for the benefits from a machine or a process to become cheaper and available to more people. For nearly all things for all of history, rising demand for the energy-enabled services outstrips the efficiency gains. The result has been a net gain in consumption.[35]
AI will create fuel-usage efficiencies, but it will in turn undoubtedly lead to increased consumption. The Saudi Aramco exec was probably not trying to hoodwink us. As radio host Paul Harvey would have put it, he just didn’t consider “the rest of the story.” Perversely, one man’s energy diet plan begets mankind’s need for an energy feast.
Let Them Eat Straw — In spite of their awareness of both AI power requirements and of the fickle nature of wind and solar, in spite of the well-publicized issues with grid-level battery storage, and in spite of the widespread knowledge of Jevon’s Paradox and its implications for the notion that AI-effectuated efficiencies will reduce energy consumption, many investment management organizations continue to demonstrate a deep commitment to a net-zero future and to its proponent organizations:
- According to T. Rowe Price, the sustainability wave will require trillions of dollars of investment to “eliminate carbon emissions and switch to renewable energy sources.”[36]
- Federated Hermes believes that “if we are to get at least close to 1.5 degrees, we need to considerably amp up spending on clean and renewable energy.” [37] (“1.5 degrees” refers to the goal of keeping global temperatures 1.5 degrees below pre-industrial levels.)
- Clearbridge, in its 2024 Stewardship Report, patted itself on the back for earning 5 Stars from the U.N.-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI).[38] According to PRI, wind and solar are key components of renewable energy.[39] PRI is a major supporter of a host of net zero organizations such as The Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative,[40] whose goal is “net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner.”[41]
In the investment management community, Clearbridge’s membership in a climate-change organization that promotes decarbonization through wind and solar is not an anomaly. PRI, Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, Ceres Investor Network and Climate Action 100+ are 5 of the most prominent of these initiatives. Of the 10 largest fund companies, 9 are signatories to at least one of them, and collectively they hold 31 memberships.[42]
Blackrock is a member of four of these outfits, and Blackrock International belongs to the fifth.[43] Blackrock’s Chairman Larry Fink, in a Wall St. Journal op-ed,[44] has called for a capital spending boom to build an “AI transcontinental railroad” that will juice U.S. real economic growth to 3% and increase tax revenues, thereby helping to mitigate the national debt crisis. But nowhere in this article does Mr. Fink mention that his company funds outfits who long to starve the railroad’s engines of fuel.
Investment managers’ devotion to decarbonization also manifests itself in their proxy voting records.
Each year, Pension Politics analyzes the proxy voting record of investment management companies, based on their votes on the “Fiduciary Free 50.”[45] These are 50 of the most extreme ESG-oriented proposals, 27 of which in 2023 were climate related. These proposals not only require companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degree target, but to report on how their lobbying, insuring and investing activities, and their involvement in trade associations and other alliances, promote decarbonization.[46]
At first glance, these proposals appear to be the grassroots efforts of a diverse group of shareholders who are agnostic on the means of achieving net zero (“the strategy on how to achieve this target is entirely up to the Board”).[47] But in fact they are the handiwork of a small number of progressive non-profits such as Green America, As You Sow and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, all of whom are crusaders for wind and solar.[48]
Green America does not try to hide its absolutist advocacy of these so-called renewables: “it is critical to the future of the planet that society moves away from all carbon-producing sources of energy and invests heavily in renewables such as wind, solar, geothermal, and second-generation biofuels.”[49] The other organizations appear to be making a conscious effort to obscure their belief in the role that wind and solar will need to play in the descent to net zero. They use fuzzy, feel-good language, but there can be little doubt that they believe a “just transition to a green economy,” the “phase in of low-carbon energy resources,”[50] and an “equitable energy future” will require an abundance of wind and solar, as evidenced by the many pictures of solar panels and windmills that adorn their web sites.[51]
Of the 820 investment outfits Pension Politics graded this year, 520 received a D or F for their proxy votes on the “Fiduciary Free 50.”[52] A major contributing factor to these firms’ poor grades was their collusion with these obscure, radical climate-change zealots to force corporate America to decarbonize.
Supposedly the last French queen, Marie Antoinette, when told that her starving peasants had no bread, advised them to eat cake. Though there is no historical evidence that she said this, today there is ample evidence that many investment management organizations, through their support of decarbonization and its handmaidens, are effectively telling the AI lions in their portfolios to eat straw.
A Schizophrenic Vision — All investing involves a vision of the future. That vision may originate from a top-down analysis of the economy in which a portfolio manager buys REITs because money supply growth has recently abated, creating the conditions for a snowballing beneficence: inflation will drop, the Fed will lower rates, REIT interest costs will decline, their earnings will increase and their stock prices will climb. Or it may start with a more humble, bottom-up approach: a second manager buys XYZ company because its new CEO will soon jettison the money-losing companies purchased by his profligate predecessor, and return XYZ to its profitable roots.
In either case, each of them has envisioned a future friendly to particular stocks or industries, and positioned their portfolios accordingly.
But imagine if the first manager buys REITs because of the scenario outlined above, and then pens an opinion piece in the Wall St. Journal urging the Federal Reserve not to lower rates because that will increase inflation. Or if number two buys XYZ and tries to talk the new CEO into maintaining his predecessor’s legacy. A Freudian would call this schizophrenia, while a Christian might invoke the Gospel of Mark to warn that portfolio management divided against itself cannot stand, but they would both probably agree that this is a bizarre, contrary, unworkable approach to making money.
The promotion of renewables by AI-owning investment firms is similarly confused. Either AI thrives in a world powered by the proven, reliable bounty of fossil fuels and nuclear fission, or it starves on wind, solar and wishful thinking. In addition — though the full exploration of this is a topic for another day — a decarbonized economy will suffer from low productivity and anemic growth because of renewables’ inefficiency and lack of energy density. This means that nationwide economic growth — the wind at the backs of all companies – will experience its own Dunkelflaute, enfeebling the returns of every investor and every investment organization, not just those that own AI stocks.
AI giants such as Microsoft and Google still publicly cling to the hope that they will be carbon-neutral by 2030, in spite of the recent AI-driven upwelling in their consumption of traditional energy. Analysts who see things in the harsh light of day, however, call this dream “ridiculous.”[53]
It is high time that the investment management organizations that own these AI operating companies come to this same clear-eyed understanding, and clarify the conflicted vision that shapes their portfolios. They need to either divest themselves of AI or cease to worship at the altar of net-zero. And it is also high time that investors let them know that they will no longer entrust their capital to those who refuse to see that AI lions cannot live on peekaboo sunshine and the whimsy of the wind.
Don Harrison
Every investor’s situation is unique and you should consider your investment goals, risk tolerance, and time horizon before making any investment. Prior to making an investment decision, please consult with your financial advisor about your individual situation. The information contained in this report does not purport to be a complete description of the securities, markets, or developments referred to in this material. Investing involves risk and you may incur a profit or loss regardless of strategy selected, including diversification and asset allocation.
The foregoing information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that it is accurate or complete, it is not a statement of all available data necessary for making an investment decision, and it does not constitute a recommendation. Any opinions are those of Don Harrison and not necessarily those of Raymond James.
[1] https://www.instagram.com/fastfinance_official/p/C4th4ICANWx/
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethkindig/2024/06/20/ai-power-consumption-rapidly-becoming-mission-critical/
[3]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ai-boom-could-use-a-shocking-amount-of-electricity/
[4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/21/artificial-intelligence-nuclear-fusion-climate/
[5] https://sustainability.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Meta-2023-Environmental-Data-Index.pdf
[6] https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/20/microsoft-constellation-energy-three-mile-island-deal/
[7]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/21/artificial-intelligence-nuclear-fusion-climate/
[8]https://fintel.io/i/blackrock, https://fintel.io/i/price-t-rowe-associates-inc-md-, https://fintel.io/i/federated-investors-inc-pa-, https://fintel.io/i/clearbridge-llc
[9] https://www.esgdive.com/news/blackrock-microsoft-gip-mgx-ai-infrastructure-data-center-energy-investment-partnership/727543/#:~:text=BlackRock%20CEO%20Larry%20Fink%20said,Fink%20said%20in%20the%20release.
[10] https://www.troweprice.com/en/nl/insights/ai-health-care-and-energy-transition-three-areas-of-focus-for-impact
[11] https://www.federatedhermes.com/us/insights/article/can-utilities-satisfy-ai-s-growing-appetite-for-energy.do
[12] https://www.franklintempleton.com/articles/2024/clearbridge-investments/the-challenge-of-powering-ai
[13] https://www.bible.com/bible/406/MAT.13.14-38.ERV
[14]https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/16317
[15] https://www.cladcodecking.co.uk/blog/post/renewable-energy-percentage-uk; https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-more-half-germanys-electricity-demand-first-time-year#:~:text=Clean%20Energy%20Wire,-
[16] https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/germany-is-dunkelfked-in-5-charts?utm_campaign=email-post&r=2t59c&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
[17] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/05/dunkelflaute-cut-wind-power-generation-germany-uk/
[18] https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/germany-is-dunkelfked-in-5-charts?utm_campaign=email-post&r=2t59c&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
[19] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/06/the-dunkelflaute-disaster-what-happens-when-wind-power-goes-silent/
[20] https://www.clearbridgeinvestments.com.au/perspectives/the-challenge-of-powering-ai/
[21]https://www.firsteagle.com/sites/default/files/2024-03/Energy-Transition-Long-Winding-Road-EMEA_E-TL-NPD-ENTRAN-P-LT.pdf
[22]https://houstondaily.com/stories/625951906-goldman-sachs-acknowledges-that-renewables-are-not-a-stand-alone-solution
[23]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoRVYFHNc6k&t=2787s
[24] https://www.blackrock.com/ca/institutional/en/literature/whitepaper/waratah-super-battery.pdf
[25]https://franklintempletonprod.widen.net/s/zwdmnrsjdc/clearbridge_stewardshipreport2024#page=12
[26]https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240221070832/en/Strata-Clean-Energy-Secures-559-Million-Financing-for-1GWh-Battery-Energy-Storage-Project-in-Arizona; https://www.energy-storage.news/goldman-sachs-backed-developer-gridstor-builds-440mwh-texas-bess-project/;https://www.macquarie.com/au/en/insights/accelerating-the-global-deployment-of-energy-storage-solutions.html; https://www.blackrock.com/ca/institutional/en/literature/whitepaper/waratah-super-battery.pdf
[27] https://www.iea.org/reports/batteries-and-secure-energy-transitions
[28] https://biblehub.com/revelation/19-11.htm
[29] https://manhattan.institute/person/mark-p-mills?top=false&limit=10&page-number=8&people%5B%5D=46990&dates=
[30] https://energyanalytics.org/team/mark-mills/
[31]https://docs.house.gov/meetings/CN/CN00/20220215/114399/HHRG-117-CN00-Wstate-MillsM-20220215.pdf
[32]https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/ai-data-centers-energy-savings-d602296e
[33] Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser has also pointed out that efficiencies reduced global energy demand by 90 million barrels of oil equivalent a day over the past 15 years.
[34]https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
[35] https://dda.ndus.edu/ddreview/ais-energy-appetite-voracious-efficient/
[36] https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/resources/insights/prepare-for-the-sustainability-capital-wave.html
[37] https://www.hermes-investment.com/us/en/professional/insights/active-esg/renewables-winds-of-change-2024-outlook/
[38] https://franklintempletonprod.widen.net/s/f9wgvsdjbx/clearbridge_stewardshipreport2024
[39]https://www.unpri.org/thematic-and-impact-investing/impact-investing-market-map-renewable-energy/3541.article
[40] https://www.unpri.org/pri-blog/net-zero-alliances-and-the-way-forward-for-our-industry/11724.article
[41]https://www.netzeroassetmanagers.org/
[42]https://www.netzeroassetmanagers.org/signatories/, https://www.unpri.org/signatories, https://www.iigcc.org/our-members, https://www.ceres.org/networks/investor, https://www.climateaction100.org/whos-involved/investors/, https://www.statista.com/statistics/255864/top-global-fund-groups-worldwide-by-assets/
[43]https://www.unpri.org/signatory-directory/blackrock/948.article; https://www.netzeroassetmanagers.org/signatories/;https://www.iigcc.org/our-members; https://www.ceres.org/networks/investor; https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/publication/2024-our-participation-in-climate-action-100.pdf
[45] https://www.pensionpolitics.com/scorecard/
[46] https://www.pensionpolitics.com/watchlist/
[47] https://www.pensionpolitics.com/watchlist/
[48]https://www.asyousow.org/our-work/climate-and-energy, https://www.iccr.org/issue-overview-climate-change-environmental-justice/, https://www.greenamerica.org/
[49] https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy
[50]https://www.iccr.org/issue-overview-climate-change-environmental-justice/,https://www.asyousow.org/our-work/climate-and-energy
[51]https://www.iccr.org/climate-finance/, https://www.asyousow.org/reports/2024-clean200-investing-in-a-clean-energy-future
[52] https://www.pensionpolitics.com/scorecard/
[53]https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366592778/Microsoft-and-Googles-GHG-emissions-gains-call-viability-of-net-zero-targets-into-question
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unlike Mr Harrison, policymakers, investors and data center owners (including anyone with any education) are aware of the importance of eliminating CO2 emissions and transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear energy
Oh, I see- only stupid people prefer fossil fuels and voted for Trump. I see that attitude all the time, especially here in elitist Wokeachusetts. No nukes here, though- they’ve all been shut down.
I said anyone with an education knows about climate change and its solutions. If you know about nuclear, then you know about one important solution.
You meant , “any person with an indoctrination”… blah, blah
Come on, In what way have humans change global climate change that you can provide solid empirical evidence for?
You also need to provide empirical scientific evidence that CO2 has any measurable warming effect.
But you will fail again, as you always do.
That means you are yapping an ideology you have no evidence for.
Religions and cults work that way.
There is NO CLIMATE PROBLEM, certainly not from fossil fuels.
So no “solution” is required.
Nuclear is possible future major energy supply..
Wind and solar are nothing but a parasitic fad.
There is absolutely zero need to eliminate CO2 emissions.
That is a fallacy which has been brain-washed into gullible twits.
CO2 is ALL benefit, no downside. It feeds plant life hence feeds all creatures on the planet.
Still waiting for someone to produce some empirical scientific evidence that CO2 causes any measurable warming.
Fossil fuels have raised modern civilisations and will continue to be a very major source of energy for a long time to come, they cannot be dispensed with if civilisations want to continue to exist.
Wind and solar are just a fake parasitic measure to combat a fake anti-CO2 agenda, and are actually one of the most polluting forms of energy over their short life-cycle.
“Still waiting for someone to produce some empirical scientific evidence that CO2 causes any measurable warming.”
_______________________________________________________________________
Oh they might do that, but then they have to say why
warming is a problem which it isn’t. See #2 on the list:
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
I have searched. I have asked many people to help find that evidence..
… but still, nada, zip.. nothing !!
Since you can’t read, think, or speak rationally, I like your posts because there is nothing of substance I have to bother with!
As expected…
still, nada, zip.. nothing !!
…
In what way have humans changed the global climate that you can provide solid empirical evidence for?
Produce EVIDENCE !!…… or not 😉
That’s rather rich coming from a moron like you! Please specify which of the geologic epochs have lower temperatures and CO2 levels than the Holocene, and just how you propose to prevent the death of ALL LIFE ON EARTH from CO2 starvation during a glacial expansion sometime in the next 1,000,000 years!
Your ability to regurgitate corporate propaganda is only exceeded by your ignorance!
And you are contradicted by all scientific research worldwide when you claim ‘climate change isn’t a problem’. Read any of the scientific reports from the NAS, the Royal Society, or NASA here: https://climate.nasa.gov
The Royal Society? Nullius in verba. Especially them.
Sorry, anyone that posts fraudulent graphs as you just have and rejects mainstream science from the National Science Academies, has no credibility with me.
Footnote: ‘Present’ on your graph is 1950 by scientific convention, so your graph omits modern era warming from 1950 onward — which is most of it. If you knew that, you are a fraud.
Why should anyone care if you think someone else is credible?
Self induce Dunning-Kruger effect.
You are a nobody, a scientific non-entity.
Oooh get you.
What’s your title? The central scrutiniser? The supreme arbiter?
anyone that posts the nonsense you post is up for the ridicule you so richly deserve.
I caught you for knowingly posting a fraudulent graph. Why would we think you have any credibility?
The oceans have ~1,000 X the heat content of the atmosphere, and contain ~60 X the CO2; yet you still believe that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 away from the death threshold for all plant life is of major concern!? Hunh!?
You really should avoid the word ‘fraudulent;’ it’s very likely to stick!
it’s a 50% increase in atm co2 since 1750. Atm co2 is now the highest in 15 million years
And that CO2 has saved the planet from plant starvation.
It is a totally and absolutely beneficial increase in CO2 from desperately low level.
There is absolutely zero down-side from increasing CO2 to even double or triple what it is today.
If you think there is then prove it. First step….
1… provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Or stumble and faceplant on your own BS.
I have reviewed science journals from the 19th century. Over a dozen scientists measured atmospheric CO2 as part of medical studies.
Funny how the atmospheric CO2 in 1820 is comparable to today.
Funny too is how the CO2 concentration in the 1850 to 1880 timeframe was the lowest in the 19th century.
“Funny how the atmospheric CO2 in 1820 is comparable to today”
And you are grossly incompetent. Atm CO2 is well over 40% greater than in 1820. Show us your citation. Then go into hiding.
Graph is a well know established graph, from well established sources.
It is not fraudulent is any way whatsoever. !
YOU ARE AN IGNORANT LIAR.
You have 100% negative credibility. !
I caught you for knowingly posting a fraudulent graph.
You sound like the all-knowing Karnack of Johnny Carson fame. Sorry to tell you, that was a parody of what you are doing.
Show another graph that isn’t fraudulent according to you. There should be plenty of them as you say “mainstream science from the National Science Academies” tells all.
I didn’t post any fraudulent graphs. Cite the time stamp.
You didn’t post any graphs,
And most of what is in your links is provable FAKE by their own data.
That graph comes from a peer reviewed science report.
Planet is still only a tiny bump above the coldest period in 10,000 years.
Be every thankful of that.
And there is no evidence human CO2 caused that highly beneficial warming.
You will prove that, by producing no evidence…
Oh look, Beetroot agrees with me.
There is no evidence that CO2 causes warming.
In the NH the current temperature is probably about on par with 1930s’
Modern warming is nothing but a tiny dot at the end of the chart, level with the left hand end.
WB – you obviously do not have a traditional earth science background. The following image may help you get the “modern warming” in perspective. The only questionable figures on this image are the 2050 and 2100 temperature estimates on the right, and even 2050 is not a problem for this planet as it has happened during the Eemian, which is like yesterday in earth history.
I have a very traditional science education from a top northeastern US University, and I am very familiar with this graph you’ve posted. It shows a projection that by the end of this century, global temperatures could be higher than they were during the Eemian, 120,000 years ago. What the graph does not show is that the rate of global temperature rise is faster than at any time in millennia. Nor does it do anything to communicate the effects of such a rapid rise in global temperatures on humans or on our health, environment, migration patterns, droughts, storm disasters and infrastructure to name but a few of the areas affected. You might benefit from a scientific view of the risks that climate change presents to humanity, here: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/
The projections shown by the red dots are totally BOGUS and not based on anything but pure conjecture.
I replied to your JUNK PROPAGANDA below. !!
Showed it was a total load of bollocks backed by absolutely nothing that could be considered remotely scientific.
Now.. Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Or FAIL yet again. Your credibility is now at negative105%
You should ask for a refund for your science education.
You don’t seem to have learnt anything at all in those years. !
You are still an ill-informed or nil-informed scientific non-entity. !
There has NOT been a rapid rise in temperature, current level is barely a degree or so above the coldest period in 10,000 years. !
Bullshit.
“While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.”
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
and:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Your evidence link is nothing but propaganda pap, It contains absolutely zero evidence of anything
You climate.gov link is no better.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
Or you could just keep posting links to nebulous zero-science propaganda sites, and lower your credibility to -200%
Your first statement about rate of warming is totally unsupportable BS. !!
There is no way past data is defined enough to show that.
In fact, before manic data adjustments the period from 1900-1922 was about the same rate as from 1970 onwards
And as YOU have shown many times, there is no empirical evidence at all that humans have caused any of the small amount of highly beneficial warming.
You are one of the most MAL-INFORMED fools I have ever come across. !!
Not only that, we know from the UAH data that the current warming is NOT because of human CO2,.
It is from extra solar energy reaching the tropical oceans, expressing as El Nino spike/steps at semi-regular intervals.
There is absolutely no evidence of any human causation.
If you think there is, Use UAH data to show us where it is.
Think for yourself, not petty regurgitations… if you can find a pair of operable brain cells.
Why should I believe your climastrology sites?
So you are a Denier.
There is NO SCIENCE on those pages.
Just nonsense projections from unvalidated computer games.
Nothing to “DENY” because they are just fantasy.
Warren, two things.
Don’t engage.. so he can avoid posting any evidence… as always. ??
So he can post climate nonsense and get away with it ??
—–
“I firmly believe CO2 is a GHG and warms the earth”
Ahhh.. another anti-science AGW-cultist… you are not a skeptic.
Perhaps you would like to try… and fail.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
Oh look, “the hoff”, a silly AGW “believer” runs away
presents zero empirical evidence
WHY DOES THAT ALWAYS HAPPEN !!
“No matter what facts you put in front of him”
Beeton has not put forward any actual “facts”.
Haven’t you been watching.
Neither have you. !
I’m quite prepared to discuss actual scientific evidence. Beeton hasn’t produced any.
You know the questions. !
thanks.
Four things from me:
1) I did not know that wuwt had a “position” on co2. It’s hard to find any consistent position on anything among skeptics.
2) I rarely engage with Bnice for the reason you state
3) The research behind climate sensitivity estimates is extensive. I’ve seen analysis that shows Even with the lowest values found in the literature, climate change is a severe economic, health and safety risk to humanity, and only a full transition of the global economy to zero carbon emissions by 2050 can avoid very serious effects.
4) I use the word Denier with those who, like Bnice, refuse to accept facts or the conclusions of peer reviewed science. Unfortunately, exceptions like yourself are a rarity on wuwt.
Warren,
Skeptics are not a homogenous group, but we call ourselves skeptics for the specific reason that that our skepticism revolves around issues like the benefits of mitigation versus adaptation and the severity of alarm that is appropriate. Bnice is an outlier, a vocal minority if you will, but “Denier” remains an odious term which belongs in no civil discourse.
Anthony Watts started this blog a long time ago, and his position is that CO2 is a GHG. That was oft stated in the early days of this forum, it has unfortunately not repeated recently. In the early days there were extensive articles with in depth scientific analysis by well known skeptics that showed conclusively that the GHE is real and that CO2 is a GHG. These articles tend to be few and far between these last few years, so we are left with more political articles than the early days which were hardcore science. Even just a basic understanding of Stephen-Boltzmann Law shows that if the GHE is not real and there are no GHG’s, the earth would be snowball earth except perhaps for a stripe around the equator.
You are correct that the research behind climate sensitivity is extensive. In decades of research though, the range in sensitivity estimates hasn’t changed much, though more recent papers tend to the lower side, support for the upper range is diminishing rapidly. Estimates for direct effects (3.7w/m2 per doubling) have not changed at all, but the sum total with feedbacks continues to be in dispute, ranging from as low as 1.7 Deg per doubling to 3.0 with the lower end having far more support recently. That, however, isn’t what skeptics are most focused on.
The endangerment findings that you find so troubling are predicated on output from models, which have been consistently wrong. They’ve run too hot for decades, all except one. They continue to produce a tropospheric hotspot which has for decades been the “fingerprint” of catastrophe, except it exists ONLY in models, not in real world observations.
Second, having paid close attention to the IPCC reports since AR3, there is a disturbing difference between the science itself in the main report and the Summary for Policy Makers, with the latter political documents often unrelated to the actual science. We’ve even seen one lead author demand his name be taken off the SPM for its unjustified alarm. But as the IPCC reports have evolved, each one has been more political than the previous. Consider for example the 1.5 degree “limit”. Where did this number come from? What science underlies it? The answer is none. It was arrived at by “expert opinion” from a group of scientists who are clearly biased toward alarm.
I cannot summarize for you the entirety of the skeptic side in a single post, its a very broad topic. But on the issue of alarm, I shall leave you with this:
We’ve gone from 280ppm of CO2 to 430, not far off one doubling. During that time, on a global basis, the IPCC has found no discernable trend in hurricanes, floods, droughts or wildfires. The four horsemen of the apocalypse as Forbes put it. What conclusion can we draw from this?
If we put the models aside and just focus on data, the lack of a trend over decades doesn’t mean 100% for certain that there is no cause for alarm. But it does raise an important question which I can tell you from 20 years of debating this topic, tends to draw insults and jeers from the alarmists rather than any sober discussion of the facts. The question is, if the earth’s climate is so sensitive, so prone to unleashing climate fury upon the planet, why is there no sign in the data, collected over decades, of the deleterious effects? How can he climate be hyper-sensitive to changes in CO2 while also showing no changes to increases in CO2? Further, as CO2’s effects are logarithmic (hence the practice of quoting sensitivity in Deg C per doubling) each additional ppm of CO2 has less effect than the one before it. So the best conclusion that we can draw based on the data is that catastrophic changes in weather are not only insensitive to CO2 increase, they get less sensitive to each additional ppm.
I wrote this article for WUWT about 9 years ago. Its has since been moved to different servers a couple of times so the formatting is screwed up. The links are also broken for the most part as the IPCC has moved their stuff around a lot too. Yes it is AR5 and the most recent report is AR6, I did say it was a 9 year old article. But the conclusions are still clear and easily read.
The reason that I share it with you here is that as of AR5, it was VERY CLEAR from the IPCC’s main report (in other words the actual science, not the SPM) that there is no cause for alarm. Climate Change comes in dead last in nearly every category in terms of what the major effects on the human condition are likely to be in the future.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/01/we-have-bigger-problems-than-climate-change-so-sayeth-ipcc-ar5/
In fact, Richard Tol, lead author on multiple iterations of the IPCC reports shows up in comments on this article. One of his comments pertains to his reason for withdrawing from the SPM of his own chapter.
No need for you to take me at my word. You can read it for yourself.
There is also no empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 in any IPCC creation.
It is all just conjecture and supposition. Would you care to provide that empirical evidence.
Or just ignore the fact that you can’t, and go on “believing” like a good little AGW-cultist
A whole lot of regurg.
but still no empirical scientific evidence. A big FAIL !!
Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Other than the most basic theory of climate science –the GHE– I find most of your implied call for no action or minimal action unsupported in the scientific literature. Eg:
1) The latest IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) estimates equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely between 2.5°C and 4.0°C and very likely between 2.0°C and 5.0°C. The best estimate for ECS remains at 3°C. In order to safeguard the atmosphere and climate, responsible risk management requires insuring against the more severe of possible outcomes, not the mean. That implies mitigation policy based on an ECS between 3 and 4, possibly 5. Using an ECS less than 3C would be irresponsible risk management, and gambling with earth’s life support system.
2) Some models have run ‘hot’, but of course the IPCC is fully aware of this, and considers the ensemble of models with and without the hot models included. At the end of the day, for AR6 the IPCC has decided not to increase the upper end of IPCC ECS estimates in AR5 — which after all are not based on models alone, but also on paleoclimate data, as well as current warming trends.
3) It is untrue to claim, as you do, that none of the impacts of climate change have shown up. Clearly they have, and they are so identified and documented by the IPCC as effects based on current data, not on modeling.
4) Also, it is flawed logic to claim, as you do that because some impacts of climate change are not yet showing statistical significance, that they should be dismissed from a threat assessment. Modeling is based on real data and the physical behavior of earths climate system, and many of the models do indeed accurately reproduce the current warming trend. Disregarding future impacts based on those models would be irresponsible.
5) In your last paragraph you say, “How can the climate be hyper-sensitive to changes in CO2 while also showing no changes to increases in CO2?” AR6 is replete with examples that make that an absurd claim.
As I said earlier, each iteration of the IPCC reports had become more political than the previous. I spend little time these days on IPCC reports. If I delve into something I delve into the papers upon which the reports are supposedly based. I find little alarming in them. The IPCC is a UN construct, and like many UN constructs, corrupt to the core. Their purpose is to grow their organization, their funding, and their power. If they were to proclaim that there is no cause for alarm, they would instantly be out of jobs. An executive position at the UN pays on the order of $700K per year. The incentive for alarm is obvious.
Hence my focus on the actual papers than their conclusions. Sensitivity in the range of 5.5 Deg C per doubling is pure garbage. If it was that high would would see it leaping out of the data. But we don’t, we can barely tease the warming signal out of natural variability.
As for the impacts, I did not say none have shown up. Its getting warmer. It doesn’t matter which temperature series you want to look at, its getting warmer. UAH, RSS, HadCrut, etc it is warmer now that it was 100 years ago. No doubt about it. That doesn’t change the fact that there are no discernable trends in the exact things we should be most worried about. Tree lines moving north is real, and not at all alarming. More arable land, not alarming. Island atolls aren’t being swamped by sea level rise, they are getting larger. Agricultural output has sky rocketed, outpacing population increases without using more land. For every heat related excess death we are seeing 10+ lives saved from excess cold. If you look at nothing but negative effects, you have reason for alarm. If you look at ALL the effects, it turns out that there are a lot of positives. In fact, the heights of civilization all coincide with the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warming periods. In fact history books record them as climate optimums. You might be able to convince me that we’re as warm now as the Medieval warming period, but the Roman and Minoan warming periods were absolutely warmer than it is now.
As for irresponsible risk management, allow me to point out two things:
I’m going to have a little fun with bnice blow, you might want to follow along just to be amused.
A little fun with your headless chook routine showing absolutely zero empirical evidence.
RUN AWAY again.. post a load of irrelevant regurg… Hilarious. !
Making a compete joke of yourself ???
What a load of low-end kamal-speak. Absolute GIBBERISH !!
Pertaining to absolutely nothing but the stupid opinions of a manic AGW -cultist.
Andreas not Antonius. I should review more before hitting the post button.
First, I want to thank you for your professionalism and polite dialogue That’s a rarity on WUWT, and some, like BNICE, are so deep into their silos of rage and fact denial that they are often, as you say, ‘hoist on their own petard’.
Now to your most recent reply to me:
1) I am a bit disappointed in your first paragraph — instead of dealing with the science, you attack motives of the IPCC, which is tasked with summarizing the work of the thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific institutions around the world that have conducted and published the original research. If the IPCC is as corrupt as you say, you should be able to show where its conclusions deviate from the published peer reviewed science it’s based on. Many Deniers and skeptics I encounter attack motives or claim corruption and make no effort (or no competent effort) to debunk the research they criticize. That tells me they can’t justify their position and are driven by emotion, not reasoning.
2) You call an ECS of 5 (which is characterized by the IPCC as ‘likely’, not ‘very likely’, ie, the tail of the probability distribution) as pure garbage. But you don’t demonstrate why it’s pure garbage. Unsupported assertions don’t make the case.
3) Re: impacts — see my earlier posting on this point — you cannot justify leaving out the modeled threats. I would add that your claim civilization is enhanced by the warming trend also cannot be justified. First, it’s not only the high level of future temperatures that will harm us — it is the high RATE of warming that is a major concern. E.g., most modern population centers are along seacoasts. The potential for a sea level rise of 25 feet or more in 150 years carries with it catastrophic consequences for those cities. And dont tell me you can calculate the rise to be less — because you cannot rigorously calculate future ice loss — one can only estimate tail risks. And we mitigate against tail risk, not for the mean of probability.
4) You say mitigation strategies are a waste of money. That is the biggest mistake in all of your postings. Solar wind and nuclear are all viable technologies, and the last two are being aggressively deployed across the world. And if you believe solar and wind are not viable, you should tell that to the world’s utilities who are using renewables for over 80% of new generating capacity as they expand their grid systems. And your point that energy required to manufacture these products will emit vast amounts of CO2 is just plain silly — those energy sources can ultimately be renewable as well — or be nuclear power, also zero emission technology.
5) Finally, I find your argument about risk to be flawed. Risk = probability times consequence. You insure your home when the risk of total destruction is well less than 5%. Yet we are dealing with humanity’s life support system — and a probability of harm that is estimated at 95% by the IPCC. So you cannot tell me we should use an ECS much less than the mean of 3C for designing mitigation policy.
6) Finally, if someone like yourself wants to put forth a credible case climate change is not a high risk for humanity, and/or that mitigation should not be attempted, they should submit their ideas in the form of scientific papers to a respected scientific journal. The fact that there are tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers that form the basis of the IPCC’s work products, but NOT ONE (to my knowledge) that makes the case ECS is as low as you say, or that an ECS less than 3 should be used for policy, convinces me that the Skeptics and Deniers have it wrong, and the body of scientific and economic literature has it right.
I despise you AGW hoaxers for trying to deprive me of methane, gasoline and diesel, and for forcing me to pay your stupid battery cars.
Stuff your corrupt journal papers where there is no sunshine.
Your children and grandchildren will thank those concerned citizens who worked to preserve the world for them to enjoy, and they will forget those who closed their eyes to the unanimous, and overwhelming scientific consensus, that climate change was caused by the burning of fossil fuels and represented a serious threat to humanity.
Consensus is agreement of opinions.
Opinions of experts in the field. As in orthopedic surgeons consensus on the best method for hip replacement. Janitors and ditch diggers’ opinions don’t count.
If you continue to use the word Denier to describe me or anyone, even the moronic outbursts of Thats-Not-A-Fact-Only-My-Facts-Are-Facts-Bnice, I will not respond to you, and neither should anyone else. It was coined by Naomi Oreskes in her book Merchants of Doubt for the specific purpose of associating skeptics with Holocaust deniers. It is an odious term and even Reuters has foregone its usage.
I’m not going to deal with your entire rant, and this post will be my last on this thread. As I pointed out in reply to the not nice troll, I have in the past taken IPCC reports apart piece by piece. I wrote a series of articles on the leaked AR5 preprint and exposed multiple instances of fraudulent claims (as did others). By the time the formal AR5 came out, those claims had disappeared.
Writing an in depth analysis like that takes hundreds of hours of research. I did it for AR5, I’m not going to put in that kind of time to satisfy your demands for proof of problems with AR6. I am trying to point you in the right direction. I started asking questions of AR4 and that’s where I had my epiphany. The wording is all exaggeration, lies by omission, misuse of statistics, and worse. But I can tell you from experience that you can only get there yourself. No one has that epiphany by being backed into a corner with facts. It just turns into an insult war at the end, I’m not interested.
I do suggest you put some of your own time into wind and solar and their actual impacts to the grid. Google spent a $1 billion trying to build a cost effective solar power plant and at the end their own engineers said publicly that it could not be done. Try and find that with a google search, they buried it three days after it came out. Wind and solar are being built out all over the world based on the will of politicians forcing it down the throats of the grid operators. Then when it doesn’t work, they do what politicians do, they paper it over. In Ontario they went crazy on wind, subsidized it like mad to make sure lots got built, and the result was electricity prices so high that there was a rate payers revolt. Did the politicians admit their error? No. They subsidized the rate payers to bring their bills down to something reasonable, pacifying them with their own tax dollars. This same dynamic is being played out all over the world. The recent wind and sun drought in Germany drove the prices on interconnected grids so high that several countries are planning to disconnect so it doesn’t happen to them again. Where does that leave Germany in their next wind and sun drought? It leaves them with grid failure. People die during grid failures. But that’s not the worst part. The worst part is the amount of CO2 that goes into making these things. Steel for windmills and purified silicon for solar panels comes from coal fired blast furnaces.
Like I said, you need to start asking the tough questions yourself, digging into the details yourself. That’s the only way you get to an epiphany.
My last post on this thread, I’ve put too much time into it already.
Again, just waffling irrelevant gibberish… and mal-information.
…. with no empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Why is that?
The models are a load of unphysical garbage filled with errors and unproven suppositions.
They are little more than computer games.
IPCC can make all the estimates of ESC they want, but they are all based on models that don’t remotely represent the atmosphere.
There is no evidence ESC is anything but zero.
It is massively irresponsible to waste billions of dollars based on erroneous garbage models while destroying electricity grids and the environment.
AR6 is a political document voted on by representatives of some 129 countries. If the summary report disagrees with the science reports, it is mandated the science reports change.
I’ve worked with scientists and laymen who worked on the IPCC. What you say is false.
The Green House Effect is not a theory. It is a hypothesis.
AR6 clearly documents that the impacts are low to zero except a mild warming.
Models are approximations. Models do not indeed accurately represent that which they model.
Models have numerous assumptions, many of which are not qualified through experimentation. Models do not include everything and are on a, now, 25 km grid, which does not represent the planet adequately.
Hindcasting is curve fitting, nothing more. They tweak the “control knobs” until they get a decent fit. This hindcasting neither increases nor decreases uncertainties and errors in the outputs. The outputs are nothing more than hypothetical approximations.
Models can predict, but such predictions are no better than guessing.
Now, take your comment 5 and list all of the hypersensitivities to CO2 included in AR6.
The GHE has been an established theory since 1896.. Your science is wacko out of date.
And we’re still awaiting your Dick and Jane coloring book citation for “atm CO2 concentration was higher in 1820 than it is today.” Did you find it yet?
You still haven’t present one bit of peer-reviewed science to back up anything you have said.
You cannot even say what I “deny” that you can present actual empirical science to back
You have zero credibility, because you are also totally clueless what journal peer-review even means or does.
Here is some peer-reviewed science do you DENY the result?
8 Taiwanese Engineers Determine The Climate Sensitivity To A 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is ‘Negligibly Small’
Seems YOU ARE A DENIER under your own description.
Hi Bnice200, thanks for posting that.
So, after insisting that there is NO empirical evidence to show that CO2 has ANY warming effect, you’ve now posted evidence that falsifies your own assertion. Hoisted on your own petard as they say.
If we are to believe the 8 Taiwanese engineers you cite, take them completely at their word, assume their calculations are 100% accurate, then CO2 in fact DOES have a warming effect. Per your cite, going from 100ppm to 400ppm has a warming effect of 0.3 Deg C.
Which means according to YOUR cite, all the rubbish you have cluttered up the threads with about there being no empirical evidence to show that CO2 has any warming effect at all are rubbish. Crap. Bull sh*t.
You’ve just admitted that there IS an effect. Its not zero. They will not be the first to suggest a very low sensitivity, nor will they be the last. The point is that it is not zero as you claim. They start out though by “tripling” CO2 concentration from 100 to 400 ppm. They appear to have a math problem, that is quadrupling, not tripling. Then they make the astounding claim that there’s no additional warming from 350 ppm to 400 ppm. Well if there is measurable warming from 100 to 350, then NO warming from 350 to 400 is physically impossible. So what game did they play to arrive at that conclusion? Well, they limited the calculations to 5 years. So they got a number so small that they rounded it off to zero. The real world doesn’t end in 5 years.
But bottom line is they showed that CO2 in fact does have an effect, and all your blathering is wrong.
Want some more empirical evidence? Here is a real experiment. A 10 cm long tube with IR transparent windows at each end is filled with an artificial atmosphere with 2.6 % water vapour and 357 ppm of CO2. They shine a known IR source in one end, and measure exactly what comes out the other end. Then they double the CO2 concentration and do it again. Their conclusion? 0.054w/m2. Very small, but most definitely NOT zero, read it for yourself:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Now let me explain why that conclusion is WAY too low. To get an actual result that is accurate using this methodology, you’d have to build an apparatus the height of the troposphere. Not practical, but the point being that you’d need thousands of these 10 cm tubes end to end and the total effect would be cumulative. Secondly, there is no ocean in this experiment, or a whole lot of other things that exist in the real world. In the real world increased temps promote more evaporation into an atmosphere that can hold more water, which is also a GHG. Feedbacks are real.
Thanks for playing along, your apology is accepted.
David H. is partially right when he points to a warming effect due to CO2. It was shown in the referenced paper which is likely from the same cause as the 0.24 C per doubling reference by Wilpost in another paper.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-researcher-doubling-of-atmospheric-co2-causes-only-0-24-c
The cause is the widening of the 15 µm absorption window for CO2. This effect was also mentioned in the work by Wijngaarden and Happer.
The problem is this is only part of the story. There is also an induced cooling effect by CO2 which appears to be of about the same strength. I’ve mentioned this in the past. It is caused by the increase in IR radiation at the surface leading to additional evaporation and enhanced convection (first mention by Dr. William Gray).
As a result, Bnice turns out to be correct. There is no warming from increases in CO2 even going back to 100 ppm. (we could see some warming at less than 100)
The additional evaporation results in an increase in water vapour, which is a GHG. Net positive feedback.
If you want to pick nits, CO2 has an absorption band in the downwelling solar radiance. At surface this completely get swamped by water vapour, but at high altitude and high latitude it is cold, very little water vapour. So in theory CO2 in fact has a cooling effect too.
Fun fact, there are winds that blow high in the atmosphere over Antarctica that are warmer than the surface below. So the net effect of CO2 there is to intercept downwelling photons from the warm winds and then xfer the energy either by collision or emission. So the “greenhouse effect” is actually reversed in Antarctica. Keep that in mind when you see some warming event in Antarctica being blamed on CO2.
“Net positive feedback.”
Again, a load of baseless supposition. Never proven.
And if there is no CO2 signal , there is no feedback.
So…. Still waiting for you to present some empirical scientific evidence of CO2 warming the atmosphere.
All you have so far is empty waffle..
Sorry, this is simply not true. You are missing the effects of saturation and convection.
The increase in water vapor only occurs low in the atmosphere where all the energy available to H2O is already being absorbed, aka saturation. Can’t cause any warming there.
The increase has the added effect of increasing buoyancy. This ends up driving convective currents higher into the colder troposphere which increases condensation. As a result you have less residual water vapor exactly where saturation is no longer in effect. This occurs primarily in the Tropics and then is carried by the Hadley circulation to the higher latitudes.
The reduced water vapor ends up allowing more energy to radiate to space thus a cooling effect.
The extra energy that was captured low in the atmosphere due to the widening of the absorption window is basically what is sent high in the troposphere as latent heat of the extra evaporation. This is the energy that now has an easier time getting to space.
This is one of the non-obvious effects that have fooled most scientists, so don’t feel bad. There are more.
You have a fundamental misconception. Or perhaps several. Heat transfer beyond earths system cannot occur by conduction or convection — only by radiative heat transfer. And the ghe is never saturated. That mistake was first made by Angstrom in the 19th century, but corrected by Arrhenius and all other researchers since then.
Warren, such massive ignorance in one short comment. It’s no wonder you have zero credibility. Go read my more detailed description to David and learn.
Detailed or not, the only heat transfer mechanism that can move energy out of earth’s system is radiative. Convection and conduction only cause heat exchange WITHIN earth’s system, and cannot cause global warming or cooling
Which is exactly what I said in my more detail description. However, the process which drove the increase in radiative energy loss started with increased evaporation.
Once again it becomes obvious that you have almost no basic understanding of science.
a) The body of scientific literature , as reflected in the IPCC summary, concludes an ECS mean of 3C. We await your publication of a contrary analysis in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
“as the 0.24 C per doubling reference by Wilpost in another paper.”
Which for a small increase in CO2 in the last 100 or so years would lead to a totally immeasurable amount, totally swamped by natural variability.
There is no cooling effect from co2. Evaporation does not transfer heat to outer space so cannot affect earths heat content.
Poor Hoff.. the rabid AGW-cultist. !
Doesn’t understand the words “ no additional warming as CO2 rises from 350 ppm to 400 ppm.”
Then an experiment that cuts out convection, conduction and air movement so it no longer even remotely resembles the atmosphere.
How much more stupid can you get !!
And a call to the fallacy of WV feedback
A complete FAIL !!
It was not an experiment. It was a model.
Its in the first effing paragraph of the description, FFS.
You know what?
Eff off. I’m putting you back on ignore.
Calling ME a rabid AGW cultist is as ignorant and insult as one can get. I’ve authored well over a dozen articles for WUWT challenging the entire CAGW premise. I’ve dissected IPCC reports, I wrote damning articles calling out the hypocrisy in the leaked AR5 pre print which then disappeared from the final version. I’ve written for other skeptic forums, I have in fact risked my career by publicly refuting the CAGW thesis as I write under my own name.
Do you have the guts to write under your own name? I am betting you do not. You’re just a troll whose only argument is to say anything that s shown to you is invalid. You clutter up threads with the same blather over and over. You are convincing no one except perhaps yourself.
I actually feel rather sorry for you.
Set/Bnice=Ignore
The fact that you think an enclosed tube in any way represents the atmosphere, really does indicate the low level of your scientific understanding.
Apparently you missed the entire part of the post where I explained exactly that?
Do the words you disagree with just disappear while you are reading them? Or do you read them and then delete them from your brain?
Ask me if I care about your stupid labels, shillboi.
“So you are a Denier.”
So you are a troll.
I’m also a denier. Now you just have to figure out what I deny. Good luck!
That is hate speach.
What’s not accurate about this? “I use the word Denier with those who, like Bnice, refuse to accept facts or the conclusions of peer reviewed science”
Which is a totally meaningless description when you are totally incapable of producing any peer-reviewed science.
If you say I “deny” something you must be able to produce precise empirically based science to prove the thing you say I deny.
So far you have failed absolutely and completely
You have also shown that you are totally clueless what “peer-review” actually is. !!
You are just a mouth, with no brain driving it.
Denier is hate speech.
Poor baby — buck up; when you finish 6th grade science, you’ll be able to understand your betters.
More insults. Such a mature way to discuss science.
No, it was adult advice for a child.
It’s all he has (well insults and his IPCC scriptures).
Denier is hate speech.
That is not a peer reviewed published science paper.
One of the issues that I have noticed with “traditional science education” is a lack of teaching of “traditional earth science”. In my day, there was a School of Applied Geology. That faculty no longer exists, and geology is a bit player in the school of Environmental Science.
This lack of traditional earth science teaching and understanding leads to statements such as:
What the graph does not show is that the rate of global temperature rise is faster than at any time in millennia.
Are you certain that is the case? NASA only goes back to 1880. The only other long term record is that for Central England which goes back to the 1600’s, but the data integrity is often questioned. The next alternative are temperature estimates from ice cores, with data points +/- a thousand years.
Having another look at the CET data, it seems that a similar warming rate may have happened during the 1700’s.
“While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.”
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
and:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
What do you find in the links that you disagree with? If so, why?
Links aren’t working..
Both links work for me.
While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
There is no data provided on any of your links to support this statement.
You don’t look very deeply. In the first section , read this statement, and footnote 1 referencing AR6:
” The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia.1 “
go back to the link and read footnote 1.
You love your propaganda pap, don’t you beetroot.
Quite pathetic that you think it is actual science, though !!.
Not surprised that you can’t tell the difference between a bald-faced LIE, and actual science though.
Let’s watch your squirm away in avoidance.. yet again…
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
Pre data adjustment….
graph didn’t attach….
And according to GISP data there have been several periods in the Holocene where warming was just as steep over a much large increase than current.
Note, according to Mann the bottom of the current warming starts in 1850, so the end of the graph would be around the 1930s, very similar temperatures to now.
My issue is with the claim that current (global) warming rates (ie 1960 to present) of about 0.24 DegC/decade is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years. There is no forensic method available to estimate such rates for a ~60 year period prior to about 1880. It rings my sciency alarm bells.
BTW, I’m with you on nuclear!
There is plenty of scientific literature explaining how proxy data,with error bars, allow for this determination. The NASA footnote cites AR6
Except you didn’t produce it.
We can assume you have never read it while thinking.
Just swallowed the nonsense hook line and sinker.
You do realize that AR6 conclusions are based solely upon correlations and not causation don’t you? Again, you say you are trained in science, yet you use correlation as your proof? That is not scientific!
I don’t believe you have the qualifications or competence to claim you’ve found fundamental errors in the body of peer reviewed science.
You are obviously totally lacking in any qualifications or scientific education.
What you “believe” is totally irrelevant and has well below zero credibility.
There is not data provided anywhere. it is all just mindless propaganda.
This is what beetroot builds his case on.. NON-science nonsense.
I have replied to this propaganda nonsense further down.
That you seem to think it contains anything remotely scientific is a very sad indictment of the your education in science.
From your NASA link :
OK, so it goes from a headline precise “in the past 10,000 years” to a more vague “over many recent millennia” in the main text, and just provides a reference to the (112 page PDF file) AR6 WG-I assessment report’s “Technical Summary” chapter.
.
In the “Introduction” to the TS there is a “Selected Updates and/or New Results since AR5” sub-section, in which we find (on page 41, bold in the original, underlining added by me) :
The IPCC AR6 WG-I TS document referenced by the NASA webpage says “the last 2000 years”, not 10,000.
Attached at the end of this post is a screenshot of panel a of Cross-Section Box TS.1, Figure 1, which can be found on page 61.
URL to IPCC original : https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/technical-summary/ts-ccbox-1-figure-1/
You will note that it repeats the “in a rate unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years” number, neither “10,000” nor “many (recent) millennia”.
You will also note that the “Resolution:” for data before 1000AD is in “Centuries” … which makes it completely useless when comparing paleoclimate datasets to the warming rate “Over the last 50 years“.
.
Your NASA “supporting evidence” link does not actually support your parroting of its “in the past 10,000 years” bald assertion.
Datasets with resolutions of “centuries” cannot be used to calculate “rates of warming” for periods of decades (/ “50 years”).
Please try again.
I Said “millennia”. 2000 is two millennia.
This is lame even for you, shillboi.
Mark had the receipts and this is all you can manage.
Mark has no idea what data NASA has. Until he discusses with NASA, or reads the original journal papers from which the conclusion was drawn, he hasn’t debunked anything. I trust NASA, not armchair deniers.
My bad, it was “obvious” to me on looking through the “supporting evidence” list that only the “AR6 WG-I TS” reference could potentially be relevant, so I only showed how that one did not include a “in the past 10,000 years” qualifier.
Going through it more rigorously, let’s start with the full list from the NASA webpage :
NB : The last URL is to a “stale link”, for which the doi.org website returns a “This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System” error.
Correct link : https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba6853
Notes
1) The second and third references are dated from 1996 (pre-TAR, 2001), the fifth from 2003 and the fourth from 2006 (pre-AR4, 2007).
AR6 (2021) is the latest summary of climate science.
2) None of the second to fifth papers contain anything relating to data from (back to at least) 10,000 years ago.
3) From the caption of Figure 1 of the final option, the Westerhold et al (2020) paper :
Again, you cannot use data sampled (once !) every 2000 years to compare against the rate of warming over the last 50 years.
.
Conclusion
There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the list of “References” supplied by NASA to support their headline “in the past 10,000 years” bald assertion.
Prove me wrong. Provide a citation to the specific paragraph(s) in any of the “References” on that webpage that includes the character string “the past 10,000 years” (or “ten millennia” ?).
You’ll find that is why Beeton, nyolci, and other trolls never, ever show the EVIDENCE they refer to. Only that the evidence exists in papers from the experts.
I’ve caught the them in inaccurate quotes by checking the papers they happen to refer to. What a joke.
Good work!
youve shown nothing. Your ‘scientific work’ is the equivalent of a janitor trying to debunk relativity.
You could be right. You could be wrong if you’ve missed something. I don’t know. But I do know this, posted by NASA, is from the IPCC recent assessment:
“Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age:
I also believe this statement, from NASA, is undeniable:
“The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia. It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun’s energy in the Earth system. This extra energy has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, and widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred.”
So, then no peer review published science papers?
Just IPCC.
Roger that.
the IPCC is a summary of the peer reviewed science. Wuwt ramblings don’t count
No, you do not “know” any such thing, you simply read it on
the Interneta NASA website.It’s called the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy.
Look it up. Check it for yourself.
.
No it isn’t, ***I*** actually went to the bother of checking.
This from your “climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp” webpage, which indicates that the “supporting evidence” for that entire paragraph is “Reference 3” :
Note that the DOI link for the Gaffnet & Steffen paper gave me an “Error 404 : Not Found” message from the doi.org website. Try using this link instead.
That paper doesn’t include the character string “ice age” at all, but does include
so it clearly is not the source of any “10 times faster than …” claims about the “recent” warming rate.
.
OK, so let’s check out the AR6 WG-I Chapter 2 contents …
… nothing for “10 times faster than” …
… how about looking for “interglacial” instead … Aha ! …
In FAQ 2.1, “The Earth’s Temperature Has Varied Before. How Is the Current Warming Any Different?”, on page 378, we find the following “summary” of a sub-sub-element of the “climate science” domain :
It mentions “the last glacial period” … singular (!) … which cannot be used to calculate “the average rate of warming after an ice age”, and explicitly rules out trying to make a “direct comparison” for time-resolutions below 150 years, let alone “the last 50”.
Look at the very last sentence again.
For 50-year resolution comparisons the IPCC explicitly states that it can only go back 2000 years, not 10,000.
.
For NASA’s “science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/” webpage, the “current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years” claim that I reacted to so strongly in my first post was clearly written by an intern who was either misinformed or deliberately lied.
The data required to calculate “the warming rates for the last 10,000 years with a 50-year resolution” doesn’t exist, according to the IPCC.
You even get the “Appeal to authority” fallacy wrong. It means that an appeal to an authority without expertise is a fallacy. But if you appeal to an orthopedic surgeon for advice on how you should proceed with a severe pain in your knee joint, that is not a fallacy. If you appeal to the local janitor, however, that is obviously unreliable.
In this case, NASA has the expertise, and you are the janitor.
There are two versions of the “appeal to authority” sequence.
URL : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I happen to use the “deductive method” version :
You clearly prefer the “inductive method” version :
Neither of us is “wrong”, we are simply “two people separated by a common language”, as Winston Churchill might have put it.
.
Humour me.
Please provide some “real evidence” — i.e. an actual extract, along with a full citation / reference and page number(s) — to support NASA’s original “the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years” claim.
I certainly don’t buy your claims since you are the equivalent of a janitor. I go to the real experts who dedicate their lives to researching the climate and publish in top scientific journals.
ROTFLMAO! 🤡. You wouldn’t know an expert if they bit you on the butt. Especially when you don’t quote any.
I have a pretty good idea who isn’t an expert
Thanks for the compliment, I wasn’t expecting one from you.
Check out the life of James Croll, for example the biography outline in this media outlet.
A more academic summary is given in this second link.
Just because someone is “the equivalent of a janitor” does not automatically mean that they have absolutely nothing to contribute to “The Science” in general, or “Climate Science” in particular.
Just because an organisation is “an authority / expert in the domain” does not make them immune from making (honest) mistakes.
.
Check out what the “janitor” James Croll accomplished.
That is precisely what he did during his lifetime.
I was referring to you as the janitor in this analogy in my earlier post:
”You even get the “Appeal to authority” fallacy wrong. It means that an appeal to an authority without expertise is a fallacy. But if you appeal to an orthopedic surgeon for advice on how you should proceed with a severe pain in your knee joint, that is not a fallacy. If you appeal to the local janitor, however, that is obviously unreliable.
In this case, NASA has the expertise, and you are the janitor”
Note that doesn’t necessarily mean janitors are always wrong. In fact the janitor in your story earned accolades from numerous scientific societies and experts — the peer review of its time.
So when you are able to pass peer review with your hypothesis that every scientist since 1896 has been wrong and the ghe ‘saturates’ , do less us know. We’ll be sure to attend your induction into the Royal Society 😂
You are now saying that this assertion by a third party expert is incorrect.
You don’t even quote an expert supporting your assertion that the statement is wrong. Nor do you provide a logical argument that shows your conclusion is correct.
Your only claim is that you know far more than anyone else because you know what the “experts” say and are able to pass judgement on anything and everything! Is it any wonder that no one believes your assertions?
I hate to tell you this but there are experts that disagree with your assertions. Some of them are here making posts. You are not in a position, by your own admission, to judge which experts are correct and which are not.
You’re prattling on aimlessly without reading the thread. I explained why the ghe doesn’t saturate,, I explained why Mark BLR’s explanation was incorrect, and I posted a detailed explanation by Professor Pierrehumbert of Oxford. And finally I ask the question: why haven’t you guys been honored by the Royal Society for overturning 125 years of climate science?
There are articles by respected professors describing how CO2 can saturate and where it currently stands. Professor Happer and Professor van Wijngaarden have shown this. WUWT just posted a thread about this with more experts authoring them.
Instead of telling folks THEY ARE WRONG, maybe, just maybe you could point out diplomatically that you have references that disagree and then show quotes and graphs explaining why.
Oh, so now YOU commit the REAL Appeal to Authority fallacy — by citing a paper that couldn’t pass peer review — an appeal to NON-EXPERTS!!
“You are now saying that this assertion by a third party expert is incorrect.”
That’s an irresponsible distortion, I said “It means that an appeal to an authority without expertise is a fallacy. “
Which is what you guys are: “persons without expertise”
You can’t say that the person who wrote the statement Mark BLR referenced is wrong without admitting that the statement is incorrect.
Mark BLR gave you a link to Wikipedia. Why don’t you go and tell the author of the page that it is incorrect and needs to be replaced with a paragraph authored by you?
Then come here and show us the paragraph you wrote to have placed into Wikipedia that correctly describes the Argument from Authority description.
Then take your children to a janitor when they need surgery. Im sure you’ll appreciate the reliability of the janitor’s expertise.
You are confusing me with someone else. I have never advanced that particular “hypothesis” ( / “conjecture” ?).
What I did, in my OP on this comments thread at least, was simply ask for “citation(s) please”.
.
You haven’t “explained” anything.
You simply keep repeating variants of the bald assertion that “NASA has the expertise”.
.
Oh dear …
The “fallacy” part comes from asserting that the statement “X is true” is somehow “proven” because it was made by an “authority”.
The “inductive, non-fallacious” version of an “argument from authority” ends with something along the lines of :
“… and therefore it is (much) more likely than not that X is true.”
My preferred “deductive / Popperian / Feynmanian” version can be inferred from this quote by Richard Feynman himself, on how “The Scientific Method” should be applied :
Your fallacious “reasoning” is limited to repeating variants of :
“NASA (/ an “expert”) said it, and therefore it is 100% guaranteed certain that they must be right and that you must be wrong.”
When presented with “counter-examples” your responses are along the lines of :
“You are not NASA (/ an “expert”), and therefore I am not even going to bother looking at your ‘evidence’ …”
You entire attitude / mindset is one of :
“How dare you even think about asking a question about anything written in the name of NASA (/ an “expert”) you … you … you ignorant peasant | / janitor ] you ! ! !”
You should not be surprised that people react badly when that is your reaction to simple, and polite, “citation(s) please” or “please show your working” requests.
And:
“As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.
So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.
By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push ‘the action’ higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.
The Greenhouse Effect isn’t even remotely Saturated. Myth Busted!”
Once again, Mark has the receipts, and the AGW shills are bankrupt.
As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.
So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.
By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push ‘the action’ higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.
The Greenhouse Effect isn’t even remotely Saturated. Myth Busted!
Glad I’m not the only one getting massively tired of these folks making assertions like “Because science says so!”.
I try to back up my assertions with evidence like quotes and graphs when needed to bolster them. I utilize textbooks on metrology, papers and Technical Notes from NIST, and numerous BIPM & ISO documents.
When was the last time any of the trendologists ever posted any reference documenting how time series should be treated? Stationarity, differencing, changing means, variance. Just use excel to draw a linear regression and it has a fantastic r-squared. Guess what?
From: https://www.statology.org/good-r-squared-value/
Does anyway believe the response variable (CO2 or temperature) can be explained by the predictor variable (time)? These are time series, not linear relationships.
You AGW hoaxers are beyond pathetic.
It appears you’re so buried in your deniers silo that you can’t even understand that the NASA data you cite indicates a rapidly warming climate, that can only be explained by the increased ghe from the accumulation of co2 emitted by fossil fuel burning. Deniers never have a coherent explanation for this warming, and you don’t either.
FUA
/plonk/
You will also note that the “Resolution:” for data before 1000AD is in “Centuries” … which makes it completely useless when comparing paleoclimate datasets to the warming rate “Over the last 50 years“.
Thanks for your forensic work Mark. It is a sad day when NASA allows unverified statements on their websites.
Nice write up Mark.
One of the first things that triggered my BS meter was reading AR4 and coming across a value and wondering where it came from. The reference would be to a previous AR which would then reference a paper which would then reference another paper which would inevitably be behind a paywall. Accept their number or spend a fortune finding out where it came from. Why the obvious effort to shroud the source of a value used across multiple AR’s? I discovered that other people were asking the same questions and getting the run around.
The second was the steadfast refusal to share data and methods. You’ll just try and find something wrong with it complained Hanson.
Well isn’t that the whole point of science? Trying to find errors? The fate of humanity lies in the balance and these clowns are afraid we’ll find errors? If we did find errors, would that not be a cause for celebration, the world not ending after all? Or if we didn’t find errors it would prove them right, isn’t that what they want, for us to believe them?
I got banned from multiple “science” sites for asking those questions.
NASA global data back to 1850 is a manically distorted fabrication of homogenised urban heat effect surface data,.
It is totally meaningless as a measure of global temperature change
Central England is regional –not the world.
“such a rapid rise in global temperatures on humans or on our health, environment, migration patterns, droughts, storm disasters and infrastructure to name but a few of the areas affected. “
NONE of which actually exist in real data, except the highly beneficial temperature rise since the LIA.
Warmth enhances health. 10X more people die from cold as from heat, life expectancy has increased massively due to warming and the products and use of fossil fuels.
Environment.. the whole planet is much greener.. is that a bad thing. Only thing destroying the environment is wind and solar factories.
Migration patterns are never set in stone.
No trend in droughts.. Cold causes more droughts than warmth does.
No trend (maybe slightly downwards) in storms or cyclones/hurricanes except the silly naming thereof.
No increase in disasters, except where people build on flood plains etc.
Infrastructure .. nope… you have nothing.
So.. just another load of fake mantra pap from you. !
Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
How many years does each dot on the graph cover? How do you determine the rate of change when a single point covers a century or a millennia.
If you had a proper science education, you would know how to interpret time series graphs. Apparently you missed that day at school!
That is not a peer reviewed published science paper.
Don’t know what post you’re referring to. But we’re still awaiting your citation for “atm co2 concentration was higher in 1820 than it is today”. Got anything yet?
Beetroot doesn’t seem to have any science background whatsoever !!
And he has to resort to spamming to prop up his lies.
That chart comes from a peer reviewed science report.
Didyou locate that citation for “atm co2 ppm in1820 was roughly comparable to today”? We can’t wait to see it. But we’re beginning to believe you can’t find it. Could that be true? 🤣
Oh dear…the beetroot falls for on-line propaganda pap, yet again !!
And there it is. As always the warmists ultimately rely on the “argument from authority” fallacious position rather than providing evidence that supports their claims. They rather believe that there are experts who can be relied on to tell them what the facts are because that’s what they are told by – you know -really smart people.
For Mr. Beeton’s information, many of us have read these reports and papers, looked closely at the methods and data and researched other information and data and found them to be unconvincing, biased and sometimes fraudulent. You cannot claim to be well educated on a subject unless you’ve thoroughly researched and considered all sides. I’ve only ever seen what I believe to be truly objective research on the climate change issue from what are called skeptics.
“many of us have read these reports and papers, looked closely at the methods and data and researched other information and data and found them to be unconvincing, biased and sometimes fraudulent.”
So, since 99.9% of all peer reviewed research, every one of the 270 scientific institutions in the world, all University textbooks on Atmospheric Physics, and nearly every single researching climate scientist in the world contradict Deniers — who have no consistent theory to explain the warming of the planet — I consider your position to be untenable in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Another way of looking at this is to consider the hubris — and scientific incompetence–of someone who believes he’s found fundamental errors in the work of nearly every climate scientist on the planet.
Liar.
You have a problematic relationship with facts, it seems:
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
Agree…. so what… because they get funding
NOT ONE OF THEM provides scientific evidence that it does.
If you think one does, then point to the exact one.
That means you will have to read them all to find it exists…
.. instead of posting links you are totally clueless about..
Modelled crap does not count.
Noted, yet again you RUN AWAY. so funny to watch your headless chicken routine. 🙂
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
“problematic relationship with facts”
And you have ZERO or negative relationship with facts. !!
You run and hide from them. !
Noted that YET AGAIN you are totally incapable of supporting the very basis of your cult-religion
Hilarious headless chicken routines to avoid the fact.
You have NEVER read a book on Atmospheric Physics, you do not have a capability to understand it.
The scientific incompetence is totally YOURS.
Prove me correct , yet again.. !!
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
Your credibility is now at negative 220%
Try again.. see if you can present something with any credibility.. or FAIL !
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
So just an appeal to “more and bigger” authorities? Perhaps you are unaware that all those scientific institutions represent mostly academic researchers highly dependent on massive government grants for their livelihood and those grants only go to those who support the approved narrative. Are you, by chance, one of them?
You don’t even seem to know how bogus the 99% [97%] consensus argument is. You need to read more widely.
He’s just regurgitating the talking points he’s been handed.
“in the face of overwhelming evidence”
You haven’t produced any actual scientific evidence. !!
8 Taiwanese Engineers Determine The Climate Sensitivity To A 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is ‘Negligibly Small’
tripling atmospheric CO2 from 100 ppm to 400 ppm produces a “negligibly small” 0.3°C warming effect. This temperature change is only associated with the increase from 100 ppm to 350 ppm and includes no additional warming as CO2 rises from 350 ppm to 400 ppm.
You can DENY or ignore.. We know who the real “deniers” are.
There is part of your problem. You have obviously not done a deep dive into your science education. Have you never been taught something by a professor and found it in error. Yet it has been propagated to many students through booksand papers the professor has written. How many text books still contain the Micheal Mann debunked hockey stick? As a student if you are taught this and never research it depth, you’ll never know it is based on suspect statistics.
How many textbooks can you find that show empirical data substantiating the effective warming potential of CO2 as a cold body compared to the surface? How many textbooks deal with the subject using calculus to integrate the variations in day, month, annual orbital equations? How many just use averages and time series correlation? How many have a functional relationship between CO2 and surface temperature rather than just graphical time series?
Climate science has not progressed into science yet. That is what makes me skeptical. Like it or not climate science is still at the alchemy stage of development still trumpeting that “We have found the way to make CO2 the control knob”!
Youve now convincingly demonstrated you have neither the qualifications nor competence to claim you’ve found fundamental errors in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
You know absolutely NOTHING about peer-review, do you. !
Totally ignorant as to what it even means.
You are LYING about having ever done any science.
You have neither the temperament, nor the competence or qualifications to judge.
100 scientists can agree with me, but it only take 1 to prove I am wrong.
Who said that, again?
You mean like everything on the internet is true because it says so on the internet?
Even if a ‘green’ future is necessary there are two fallacies in place. (1) Lack of due process (2) You can’t throw a switch, which, of course, you might learn with due process.
No fallacies required. First, all climate policy are and must be carried out constitutionally by legislation or by constitutional executive orders. Second, no policymakers advocate ‘throwing a switch’. Rather, the common goal is to transition the economy to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 — and the transition is already underway.
But fallacies are all you have.!
There is no transition underway in any country that isn’t destroying it economy
World fossil fuel use remains around 80% of world energy use, wind and solar are a tiny slice, barely visible on the graph below.
There is absolutely zero need to move away from fossil fuels to unreliable, erratic, intermittent parasitic low-integrity energies like wind and solar.
Yes there is a transition, well underway in the world, including the US, EU, Japan, and China. EVs are in production, and more in development, 80% of new power generation capacity being installed is solar wind or nuclear, and funding and incentives from legislation is already helping to build out infrastructure. In addition, 42 countries are considering, or already have in place, a carbon tax. Also, this year the EU has implemented a new border carbon adjustment mechanism that will incentivize trade with countries that have a carbon tax. Lots happening, so you need to pay attention if you want to have credibility in your comments.
Data says otherwise.
Fossil fuel growth continues to outstrip wind and solar
That 80% is really less than 20% when considering capacity factors.. sorry if you are too dumb to realise that.
The largest countries in the world continue to massively increase their fossil fuel energy use.
Countries CANNOT survive or progress without fossil fuels.. period. !
You rely totally on them every day of your pitiful existence.
Drive a battery car yet, beetman?
If no, you’re a hypocrite.
If yes, you’re a sucker.
so that makes you….uneducated
Noted , yet again, the total lack of anything remotely related to scientific evidence.
You ran away from answering, just like all the other AGW shills.
I wonder if he parks and charges his pretend EV in an attached garage.
He is dumb enough to do that. !
BOOM! Goes the Chinese EV.
Have you come to grips with the fact that indeed global temperatures are
rising at the fastest rate in millennia?
“While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.”
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
and:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Spamming is all you got in the tank, shillboi.
Totally destroyed above.
They are just regurgitated propaganda fakery with zero scientific content.
I meant “below”
Exactly — and he can’t even regurgitate the 97% propaganda correctly.
You have a problematic relationship with facts, it seems:
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-changeG
The climatology literature is corrupt, why do you believe what is in there?
You say, “The climatology literature is corrupt, why do you believe what is in there?”
I say, “Your statement is pure Science Denial”
Yes, fool. the climate peer-review nonsense is TOTALLY CORRUPT.
Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Cornell? That source is sufficient proof to ignore it.
2nd link.. is impure propaganda nonsense
U.S. Sea Level Likely to Rise 1 to 6.6 Feet by 2100
Currently around 2-3mm/year, the 6.6ft value is pure fantasy.
Climate Changes Will Continue Through This Century and Beyond
Based on fake unvalidated models.. ie scientific BS.
Hurricanes Will Become Stronger and More Intense
No evidence of that happening. Mantra BS.
More Droughts and Heat Waves
No evidence of that happening.. mantra BS.
Longer Wildfire Season
Wildfires in the USA consumed far larger areas in the 1930s
Yet another piece of fakery based on unvalidated models
Changes in Precipitation Patterns
Have happened throughout history, no evidence human cause them except local land use.
Frost-Free Season (and Growing Season) will Lengthen
GREAT NEWS for farmers and food supply, but still based on unvalidated models.
Global Temperatures Will Continue to Rise
Again, based on unvalidated models based on unproven assumption.
Arctic Is Very Likely to Become Ice-Free
More model based BS, Arctic has been stable for last 15 years after recovering from an extreme peak in 1979. Is still far above the extent for most of the last 10,000 years
3rd link
Global average surface Temperature
Based on massive urban warming , manic data adjustment through fake homogenisation routines.. FAIL. !
The planet has been a lot warmer than now for most of the last 10,000 years.
Anything else is based on unvalidated computer games. !
There is no evidence the El Nino of 2023 has any human causation.
If you think there is, then present actual real evidence not propaganda pap.
1st link.. Seriously…. Mannian tree rings.
How moronically stupid can you get !!!
Please see my response timestamped “December 23, 2024 4:28 am” to one of your other copies of this post in this comments section.
Nope. But given that we have recently (past couple hundred years or so) emerged from one of the coldest eras in modern history, I am grateful for every 0.1 C improvement.
Besides, that 10000 year bogus claim was debunked in a prior post.
It is not a fact. It is a speculative claim with minimal supporting data and note that the sources are all government websites that are obliged to tow the line of Presidential policy.
If you bothered to read Biden’s 5 year climate report and compare it to AR6, you would recognize that glossy piece of propaganda for what it is.
So you are endorsing either the US 5 Year Climate Report, or AR6, or both?
No. I am pointing out that what was in the 5 years report did not match anything in AR6.
That’s absurd. They are consistent. Unlike you
Totally energy use 2023.
Solar 2.5%, wind 3.5% fossil fuels 81.5 %
Data makes you look like a brain-washed idiot. !. !
There is no “transition”.. period
—–
Coal Use Hits Record High in 2024 Thanks to India and China
Get over it, beetroot. !
Each and every scheme a scam.
https://www.youtube.com/@Bernie-is-Artemis
Marxist.
…. and a completely indoctrinated gormless twit. !
…the common goal is to transition the economy to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 — and the transition is already underway.
This is pure fantasy. Don’t see any sign of either a common global goal or a transition. Look at the track record of China and India on coal use and emissions.
Look at the various COPs and at progress (or lack of it) on the Paris agreements.
The plain fact is, no-one outside of the English speaking countries and Germany has taken global warming seriously, and the countries that have tried to reduce their emissions from electricity generation are right now seeing themselves approaching the cliff of intermittency.
And not liking it, getting very alarmed, and getting ready for U-turns. As will happen in February in the US.
The other countries are just growing their economies as fast as possible, and letting emissions and coal use go where they may.
“Don’t see any sign of either a common global goal or a transition. Look at the track record of China and India on coal use and emissions”.
China’s goal is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060. and they are well on their way,,ahead of most countries including the US.
Coal Use Hits Record High in 2024 Thanks to India and China.
wind and solar in China are barely visible in the energy chart
They now have a working pebble bed nuclear, those will expand rapidly, and wind and solar will be left to rot. !
Not one nation has a chance of meeting their FAKE goals.
Wind and solar make up a very small part of China’s energy usage, they have had hydro for a long time.
EV’s in China make sense, crowded huge cities… anything is better than those old 2 cycle motor bikes., and the COAL fired power they will run is well out of the cities.
Places like USA and America EVs are basically just a low-level second car or virtue-seeking of very little actual use.
Plans, stated to fool twits like you and your mates.. works every time…
… yet their use of coal grows year one year.
The others are just gimmicks to fool the western world into sticking with the idiotic net-zero plan to destroy their manufacturing bases.
It will fail in the USA now Trump is in, because he will aim fossil fuel self-dependency in a very short time
😆
“dropping by more than 80% by 2060.”
By then, all their current coal fired power stations will be still running at high efficiency.
Current wind and solar will have ceased to function and be in scrap heaps or left to rot.
Why always portray new renewable energy sources with capacity rather than actual production of energy? World wide renewable energy production is about 20% of stated capacity. Combined renewable wind and solar with 100 Giga-watts of capacity over time have average output of about 20 Giga-watts of energy.
Because it is the only way they can keep the hoax alive.
shillboi — praising his marxist masters and earning his keep.
There are only 195 nations of which 193 are part of the UN.
If China is so great, why not move there?
There is such thing as “constitutional executive orders.”
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46738
“Executive orders are written instruments through which a President can issue directives to shape policy. Although the U.S. Constitution does not address executive orders and no statute grants the President the general power to issue them, authority to issue such orders is accepted as an inherent aspect of presidential power, though their legal effect depends on various considerations.”
Yes, presidential executive orders are constitutional when they are supported by the Constitution or authorized by Congress:
Executive orders are a way for the president to set policy without waiting for Congress to pass legislation. They have the force of law unless they are voided or revoked by Congress, the president, or the judicial branch.
Quite a spin. There are no “Constitutional Executive Orders” and your response matches mine that prove it.
Article II of the constitution makes no mention of executive orders. What you describe is an interpretation. “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” does not define executive orders.
The second point is also not a definition of executive order. It is another interpretation.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
Of course it’s an interpretation. Supported by SCOTUS
rulings. Which then become part of the body of Constitutional law.
So Warren, why are you using FF every day? And I bet you have no solar panels on the roof. If you are going to talk the talk then you better walk the walk. Do not be a hypocrite.
So Jim, do you need to read this in my post?
“ Rather, the common goal is to transition the economy to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 — and the transition is already underway”
I’m doing my share — including lobbying my Congressional representative and Senators to pass climate legislation. What are you doing, Jim?
“I’m doing my share”
Yep, you continue to use fossil fuels every second of every day.
Trump is in now.. All this anti-CO2 nonsense will disappear.
Drill baby, drill ! 🙂
““ Rather, the common goal is to transition the economy to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 — and the transition is already underway””
1… NOT underway, fossil fuels % is holding steady and is still BY FAR the main energy supply
2… Politically and idiotology based wishful thinking and propaganda.
The Anti-CO2 nonsense will be dead and buried by 2050.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says
ATTN: Warren
RE: CO2 Does Not Cause Warming Of Air.
To refresh your memory, shown below in the graphic are plots of temperatures from the weather station at Furnace Creek in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001.
In 1922, the concentration of CO2 was 303 ppmv (0.6 g of CO2/ cu. m. of air),
and, by 2001 it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.7 g/cu. m. of air), but there was no corresponding increase in the air temperature. The reason for no temperature increase is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the current concentration of CO2 in dry air is 422 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 0.8 g of CO2 and a mass of 1.29 kg at STP.
This small amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of air by a very small amount if at all.
I remined you that the heavy industries and heavy transportation systems will always use enormous amounts of fossil fuels. It is now winter in the Northern
Hemisphere and huge amounts of fossil fuels will be used for space heating.
NB: The graphic was obtained from the late Joh Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.John-Daly.com.
Totally energy use 2023.
Solar 2.5%, wind 3.5% fossil fuels 81.5 %
There is no “transition”.
COAL consumption continues to grow
GAS consumption continues to grow
OIL consumption continues to grow
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”
Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Climate “Science” | Dr. Richard Lindzen | Jordan B Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LVSrTZDopM
If you are so busy lobbying, how do you manage to find the time to post so many times?
If you are so busy lobbying, how do you manage to read all of those thousands of peer reviewed science papers?
And, why do you not answer J Boles questions?
Beetroot relies absolutely and completely on the many things that use fossil fuels.
He could never exist without them. Even beetroots need CO2 to grow..
Don’t be too hard on the poor baby, bnice! He’s so delusional that he actually believes that a trace gas has more control over our climate than oceanic cycles and currents, or the Sun! Think how embarrassing it is going to be for him when the adults in his life finally have to explain reality to him! Some are made to be fools!
No, Mr. Beeton, you are wrong. There is absolutely no need to bankrupt economies in fear of global warming.
A warmer Earth would be an entirely beneficial thing. Historically, the Earth has been warmer than today for 99% of the last 240,000,000 years. We are currently in a Great Ice Age. The coldest point in geologic history was a mere 20,000 years ago, a blip in geologic time. Feigned ignorance of these facts is deliberate abuse of science.
No preceding period or epoch with a warmer climate was detrimental to life. On the contrary, life was abundant in past warmth, more abundant, widespread, bio-diverse, and productive than today.
All human endeavors also benefit from warmth, including agriculture. The warmest climes are the best for farming, ranching, forestry, and horticulture. That’s a known fact. And CO2 increases yields of all the above.
Production of food, clothing, and shelter increase with increasing warmth. The basic needs for human survival correlate. AI, on the other hand, is not needed at all, provides no survival necessity, is a toy, a useless indulgence, and is in fact a hazard to human survival and the well-being of all life.
Nope. The transition to cheaper cleaner energy is all good. But if not done, the harmful costs and effects of global warming will continue to worsen. Governments are moving ahead, including in the US. You may not like it, but the energy transition is underway
“…, the harmful costs and effects of global warming will continue to worsen….”
where are your “costs” and “bad effects”
Put up or SHUT UP !
Read and be educated:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/
“Scientists predict ”
you can’t show any of your imaginary effects are happening .
But just Beet on .
Still only find nebulous propaganda pap.. that is just sad.
Nothing on that page has a single bit of scientific credibility whatsoever.
U.S. Sea Level Likely to Rise 1 to 6.6 Feet by 2100
Currently around 2-3mm/year, the 6.6ft value is pure fantasy.
Climate Changes Will Continue Through This Century and Beyond
Based on fake unvalidated models.. ie scientific BS.
btw, the climate has ALWAYS changed over time, so I’m assuming they mean the fallacy of human-based CO2 warming.
Hurricanes Will Become Stronger and More Intense
No evidence of that happening. Mantra BS.
More Droughts and Heat Waves
No evidence of that happening. Mantra BS.
Longer Wildfire Season
Wildfires in the USA consumed far larger areas in the 1930s
Yet another piece of fakery based on unvalidated models.
Changes in Precipitation Patterns
Have happened throughout history, no evidence human causes them except local land use.
Frost-Free Season (and Growing Season) will Lengthen
GREAT NEWS for farmers and food supply, but still based on unvalidated models.
Global Temperatures Will Continue to Rise
Again, based on unvalidated models based on unproven erroneous assumptions.
Arctic Is Very Likely to Become Ice-Free
More model based BS, Arctic has been stable for last 15 years after recovering from an extreme peak in 1979. Is still far above the extent for most of the last 10,000 years
All just propaganda pap for the low-IQ ignorant AGW-cultist.
And you still put it forward as “evidence” !!! Really
You have well below zero credibility !!
Lets see if you can provide some precise evidence rather than this sort of nonsense and mantra pap.
Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
That is not a peer reviewed paper and a lot of what is posted contradicts ARg.
Totally energy use 2023.
Solar 2.5%, wind 3.5% fossil fuels 81.5 %
There is no “transition”.
COAL consumption continues to grow
GAS consumption continues to grow
OIL consumption continues to grow.
You are DELUDED and brain-hosed, until all that is left in your skull is a sickly green ooze.
President Donald Trump will put an end to this energy transition nonsense by ending the billion dollars of subsidies for wind an solar.
Legislation is required to change US energy policy. At the moment, the Republican margin in the House is razor thin, and they are so fractured, they can’t get anything done. in two years, the other party will likely be back in power in the House and the energy transition will continue .
You think Trump can’t find away around the green mess that stops progress.
Great to see you so against democracy….. you must be a marxist or a moron. !
And you are even more deluded than I thought. !
Only transition in the USA has been from coal to GAS.
DRILL BABY DRILL.
Trump flipped 4 Senate seats at the last election.
He could easily flip a few more in two years time.
Probably had 3 more if the marxo-democrats didn’t count “ballots” for week on end.
A number of Democrats in Congress have defected from the pack. It will not take but a few more getting back to sensible legislation to make your speculation prove false.
“Governments are moving ahead, including in the US.”
Drill Baby DRILL !!
Liar.
Over their short life time from mining to disposal, wind and solar are one of the most polluting forms of electricity there is.
The amount of mining and highly toxic chemicals used in their production is horrendous. They then decimate whole environments, farmland and avian critters in their installation and use. Then at end of their short life have to be disposed of in dump sites, leave huge lumps of concrete in the ground
And they are not clean!
Oh dear still falling for that furphy.
So MAL-EDUCATED and gullible.
SOLAR DOES NOT WORK AT NIGHT
Are you so dumb that you don’t realise that?
It is almost totally absent at peak electricity usage.
All it is is a parasitic supply available only when the sun shines.
Everywhere that wind and solar infect the grid..
…. electricity prices SKYROCKET. !
And you STILL haven’t answered the question…
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
OK, shillboi, see if you can answer this:
What material is vital for the production of steel, glass, silicon, etc. from raw ores?
And the IEA is a much bigger liar than you.
N.B. shillboi ran away from answering.
The answer is coal and petroleum.
Energy is vital for their production. Did you sleep through the science class that explained the different forms of energy?
Are you claiming it is possible to manufacture steel with wind turbines?
Fool.
As usual, Karlomonte seems to be the fool:
“Yes, steel can be made with electricity:
You’re the fool if you think you can source electricity for these processes from wind turbines and turn a profit.
But because you’re a marxist, you are trying to eliminate capitalism.
At a very high cost.
Everything you put up as evidence NEVER, analyzes the cost to the end user.
Show a study that steel from electricity (and no FF allowed for backup) and purchased by end users will be cheaper than steel made from fossil fuels.
If you can’t show this, all RE will be doing is causing more inflation and hurting people at the low end of the income scale. You must enjoy that!
It’s likely that some uses of electricity instead of direct fossil fuel combustion will raise costs. But that will be a far smaller cost to society than the increasing environmental damages due to climate change, already underway.
You quote the International Energy Agency?
Try finding a credible source.
You are deep into your Denial Silo — denial of peer reviewed science, now denial of reliable sources, and embrace of junk science.
Another moronic comment from the beetroot.
Your insults further erode what minimal credibility you once had.
Read that. First it is IEA, which is a propaganda arm of the UN. Second, their analysis is terribly flawed. Third, LCOE has many unqualified assumptions, one of which is how long an energy producing system functions at 100% and excludes MTBF.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Solar-Is-Cheapest-Energy-Source-Says-IEA.html
It is also BY FAR the most polluting of all electricity supply options.
It’s truly one of the most filthy industrial processes ever invented.
The mining, acid leaching, high tonnage coal use for heat treatment and smelting with associated fumes and silicosis disease from dusts and much more makes solar manufacturing one of the filthiest processes ever. It costs 3x more to recycle than landfill, so recycling is nearly non-existent. The toxic heavy metals leach out over time.
The first step in cleaning silica to produce metallurgical grade silicon is to rinse it with a mixture of one part acid to one part water
This process is called acid leaching and is used to remove impurities such as iron, aluminium, and calcium from the silica. The purified silica is then heated with carbon in the form of coal or charcoal in an electrode arc furnace at a temperature of 1500-2000°C to produce metallurgical grade silicon that is 98% pure..
Some of the solvents used are hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid possibly in combination with each other as a solvent for purification of MG-Si.
You are POLLUTION WORSHIPPER….. disgusting !!
You are absolutely correct, silicon wafer production is not an easy task.
Bullshit, from a bullshitter.
So now you are quoting a source that quotes IEA.
Peer reviewed? Not. In fact, you did not even read it.
LOL. I read it. It is contrary to your stubborn position.
Some key points in that oilprice article:
“Substantial cost related to renewables that gets overlooked on a regular basis is the need for storage capacity to offset the intermittency problem.”
“But what the LCOE formula does not account for is the fact that wind and solar do not generate electricity around the clock. That’s one major cost that is getting overlooked.”
“Another substantial cost related to renewables that gets overlooked on a regular basis is the need for storage capacity to offset the intermittency problem.”
“First, there is no such storage capacity available that could solve the problem in its entirety, and this already means solar is not as cheap as suggested by its LCOE. Second, available storage technology is rather expensive, piling on more additional costs, also overlooked by the LCOE formula.”
BOTTOM LINE:
“The reason that the IEA has reached that conclusion is a simple one: cost assumptions. It is based on cost assumptions for solar power generation costs versus fossil fuel costs by the International Energy Agency, an enthusiastic cheerleader for a complete energy transition to a wind, solar, and hydrogen dominated grid, who has concluded that solar is the cheapest form of energy available.”
“But what the LCOE formula does not account for is the fact that wind and solar do not generate electricity around the clock. That’s one major cost that is getting overlooked.”
And the expert (read “fool”) thinks it is possible to operate electric blast furnaces from these sources, and make a profit.
“The transition to cheaper cleaner energy is all good“
Which is why electricity prices SKYROCKET everywhere the infection of wind and solar gets too big. 😉
New AI in the USA will mean a HUGE increase in GAS, and nuclear…
… and coal is also likely to make a big resurgence.
Wind and solar are totally useless for this purpose.
It is neither cheaper nor is it cleaner.
So Beeton is gaslighting? Who could have ever guessed?
That is a categorically false statement. You are ignoring reality.
Its is totally TRUE.
You are just too dumb to realise you are doing it.
Cite with a link the peer reviewed science paper that refutes my statement.
I double dog dare you!
Still awaiting a scientific citation from you for your claim that atmospheric CO2 ppmv in 1820 was comparable to today. Still searching? Or were you just blowing smoke?
Cheaper? Cleaner? Not when one includes the lifecycle costs and the total cost of ownership, which includes disposal of use, non-recyclable materials.
Yes renewables are indeed both cleaner and cheaper.
Liar.
Show us ONE large location, like a state or country, where the installation of wind and solar has reduced the price of electricity to the average end user.
Because utilities allocate the investment costs of any new power plants to all ratepayers, your bill always go up when utilities add generating capacity. But with nuclear, those rate increases will be greater than if the utility added natural gas or coal plants. With solar or onshore wind, those rate increases are usually less.
From the electronic bible…
The iron shall lie down with the lamp
Climate change is not a problem, they have a crisis of faith
Running an industrial society on wind and solar will require science fiction level storage, something with the performance of Robert Heinlein’s Shipstones. A major plot element in “Friday” was that the trade secret was so valuable the various factions of the Shipstone Trust run that fictional society.
A note to various investment companies:it is fiction.
Thanks for the Heinlein reference. I was not aware of that when I mentioned that AI would require dependable energy “in science-fiction-like quantities.”
“These two former economic powerhouses currently receive over 40% of their electricity from renewables.”
Really? I kinda doubt it- other than some rare moments. I don’t know- somebody here can nail it down.
It is actually about correct.
Go to https://ourworldindata.org/energy
Scroll down to the selection boxes about half way down, and click “Electricity Mix”
Find the graph which has a tab saying “edit countries and regions”, deselect ‘World’ and select the country you want to look at.
You should get a chart where you can read of the values for each type of electricity supply, and be able to do some quick calculation.
Bear in mind though… both the UK and Germany are teetering on the edge of collapse energy-wise and are destroying all their manufacturing base because of very high electricity prices. They are on their way to third world status.
Anglo-Saxons are practically there …
Practically, but..,
‘Strained’ Keir Starmer badly needs holiday, his friends say as they reveal PM is suffering from the ‘relentless strain’ of the job https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14217547/Strained-Keir-Starmer-badly-needs-holiday.html
Snowflake PM
For the UK, number is actually 43% https://www.cladcodecking.co.uk/blog/post/renewable-energy-percentage-uk and for Germany 52% https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-more-half-germanys-electricity-demand-first-time-year#:~:text=Clean%20Energy%20Wire,-, according to these two sources.
Even if these numbers are too high, the wind and solar contribution is large enough to have put both countries in jeopardy from Dunkelflaute in November and again in the past 10 days, after I wrote the piece.
There is a very simple solution to our energy conundrum, we know big tech, AI and related industries need outrageous amounts of power. If we want a reliable and plentiful source of energy we put them last in line for the power. In other words if there is a danger of a brown out or black out they are the first to have to cut back. The health and wellbeing of the citizen comes before anything else. If we demanded this new fossil fuel and nuclear generators would start popping up everywhere and the big tech/AI guys would be standing in line to help finance them. As for the government and outfits like Blackrock they can go to hell. We don’t much care what they think.
Also, maybe, those with the larger demand should pay more per unit because they’re putting a strain on the system.
Yes, they should pay more. In Virginia, the legislature is considering changing the cost allocation formula to put more of the burden on data centers instead of spreading the costs across all rate payers.
Is that the Virginia that plans to import lots of coal, gas and nuclear powered electricity from out of state ??
Virginia is basically surrounded by Republican states.
I hope they say.. “If you want the data centre, the you provide the electricity for it.”
That will force Virginia to build new COAL, GAS or NUCLEAR power stations.
That would be fun to watch 🙂
Or, require the data centers to build their own power plant.
If the data centers pay more for energy, then data center users pay more. Those users then pass their higher costs on and on and on.
Either way, the common folk foot the bill. This is econ 101.
Under most Public Utility Commission regs, as set by the state, that is correct. However, because there will be so many power generation facilities added in n VA for data centers, the state legislature is considering legislation that would allocate more of the new power plant and transmission line costs to data centers. Stay tuned.
Joseph, I don’t want them treated different in any way so long as they see to it that new fossil fuel and nuclear generators are built. I would hope that since they are so dependent on reliable and available energy that they would build plenty for all of us.
Germany and UK are moving steadily toward economic oblivion. BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen are all facing losses with massive slump in profitability.
It is not possible to combine 2,500kg of exotic materials in a way that makes any motor vehicle suitable for the masses. They are creating engineering monstrosities unfit for purpose. A motor vehicle weighing 2,500kg capable of carry 4 people and luggage – say 500kg payload.
The Ford Model T weighed 750kg and could transport 750kg if needed. It was a useful vehicle. .
Great for woke virtue-seeking though !!
“AMD’s new series scales from eight cores up to the $14,813 192-core / 384-thread EPYC 9965, a 500W behemoth that leverages TSMC’s 3nm node for the ultimate in compute density with dense Zen 5c cores.”
A building full of these for a super-computer will require several nuclear generators
Quick…. build the solar farm to drive it. 😉
Conventional data centers consume about 300-400 watts per sq ft. AI will increase that number 3x or 4x, or more.
And that will require solid reliable electricity supply
Are you ADVOCATING GAS or Nuclear ?
Even a nil-educated monkey like you must know that wind and solar can never provide.
He is the co-founder of the Prince William Virginia Chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby and teaches the science of energy and climate change to continuing education students in Northern Virginia.
Is this you ?
That’s a collection of uneducated brain-washed students in the making !!
No hope for their future , thanks to this low level indoctrination. Really sad.
The IEA estimates that data centres total electricity consumption could reach the equivalent of the electricity consumption of Japan by 2026.
IEA ‘Electricity 2024 Analysis and forecast to 2026’ (Jan 2024)
Ok.
Cite with a link the peer reviewed science report that backs up your claim.
Those Data center power consumption estimates were presented by the Data Center Trade Association in a public forum. I took notes, but I have no written report from the association.
Or, investors should recognize that an AI stock market bubble is growing and will eventually burst.
I want to put my money into self-driving cars!
Then sell them to gullible Democrats and AGW-cultists. 🙂
What could possibly go wrong !! 😉
The future of AI investments was outside the scope of my piece. See this Goldman Sachs report, in particular the comments by Acemoglu and Covello https://www.goldmansachs.com/images/migrated/insights/pages/gs-research/gen-ai–too-much-spend%2C-too-little-benefit-/TOM_AI%202.0_ForRedaction.pdf?ref=wheresyoured.at?ref=wheresyoured.at
Thanks for this. It’s a lot to read, but it’s interesting commentary.
Half of what most people think about AI is true and the other half not. The true part is that it is artificial. As for renewable, green, net zero, climate protecting, sustainable, energy systems, the only true part is that they are tenuously connected somehow to the idea of energy.
Well, my friends and opponents, I bid you adieu and wish you a Merry Christmas (or the equivalent based on your beliefs) and peace and good will to all.