By Vijay Jayaraj
When it comes to global energy policy, few narratives are as instructive — and as cautionary — as Europe’s.
Why?
Their ill-fated experiment with wind and solar energy.
The continent’s self-inflicted woes contain lessons that should be taken to heart by those formulating U.S. energy strategy for the incoming administration.
Europe’s Misplaced Trust in Wind and Solar
Europe’s embrace of weather-dependent power generation, particularly in Germany and the United Kingdom, was a profound miscalculation.
These nations embarked on an ambitious energy transformation, predicated on the assumption that wind and solar could replace traditional fossil fuels. The result has been a catastrophe, as predicted by many.
Germany, often celebrated as the champion of “renewable” energy, should be crowned king of incompetence.
The country’s heavy investment in wind and solar has not only failed to deliver promised reductions of carbon dioxide emissions — the bogeyman of climate alarmists — but also has destabilized its once robust industrial economy.
Germany’s manufacturing sector — historically, the economic powerhouse of Europe — has been brought to its knees, with energy costs rendering many industrial processes economically unviable.
Reporting on prices in the second week of December, Robert Bryce says that “Germany’s wholesale power market came close to $1,000 per megawatt-hour, the highest level in 18 years.”
The fundamental problem lies in the inherent unpredictability of renewable sources.
Wind power demonstrates acute vulnerabilities during critical periods.
Winter presents a perfect storm of challenges: Reduced wind generation coincides with peak energy demand, creating grid instability, and heightened risk of blackouts.
Additionally, so-called renewables are unreliable and expensive despite claims to the contrary.
The Myth of Levelized Cost of Energy
Policymakers and renewable energy advocates have long relied on Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) as the primary metric for comparing energy sources.
However, this misleading construct benefits only hucksters.
LCOE fails to account for the massive infrastructure investments, backup generation requirements and costs for grid stabilization associated with intermittent sources.
These make the true cost of wind and solar much higher than the advertised price and destructive to the economics of businesses and households.
“What we have in Europe is a disintegrating electric grid deliberately created by politicians who want to be seen as green as an emerald,” says Thomas Shepstone, a U.S. observer of energy markets.
“They have delivered, what can only be described as a green slime that threatens to engulf and smother them all.
“Electric prices are out of control, blackouts are approaching and yet, the ideologues want to press even harder.”
U.S. Must Avoid the European Disaster
The European experiment offers a clear warning: Ideological aspirations — especially like the “green” transition rooted in fevered ravings about a supposed climate crisis — must never supersede technological and economic realities.
The United States has an opportunity to chart a more responsible, pragmatic course — one that balances economic necessities and energy security with innovative technologies:
- Natural gas, made plentiful through hydraulic fracturing, already has not only lowered electricity prices but also provided a competitive edge to energy-intensive industries like chemicals, steel, and manufacturing.
- Highly vilified coal should be allowed to make a comeback with currently available technology — like that being used in Japan and elsewhere — to reduce emissions to harmless levels.
- Nuclear power appears to be on the rise.
Policy Recommendations
To avoid replicating Europe’s mistakes, some things the United States should do are:
- Prioritize reliability and affordability in promoting energy sources.
- Encourage investment in grid resilience and away from wind and solar, especially in regions with harsh winters.
- Use realistic metrics for assessing energy costs.
- Make industrial competitiveness a primary consideration in developing energy policy.
The likelihood of the U.S. pursuing this line of thought is much enhanced by the election of Donald J. Trump, as the nation’s 47th commander in chief; although this matter is too important to take anything for granted.
This commentary was first published at Newsmax on January 7, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If this new paper by Happer etc is correct. Physicists: Increasing CO2 By 100% Only Reduces Radiative Cooling To Space By An Imperceptible 1% The whole energy transition rationale goes up in smoke. Of course, we have known this for decades
Not being a scientist- asking dumb question- how does this way of looking at it- compare to an estimate of the ECS?
The paper provides instantaneous forcing on a doubling of CO2 concentration. ECS is the amount of warming that occurs a long time after doubling CO2, when equilibrium is reestablished. So ECS includes the effects of the various feedbacks that occur in addition to the climate forcing of the CO2 alone.
Importantly, cloud cover does not change spontaneously, it changes in response to other changes in the system (like CO2-driven surface warming), so changes in cloud cover are a feedback mechanism, and one that scientists consider very carefully in estimates of ECS.
Moeller claims that cloud feedbacks result in CO2 net-cooling the Earth’s atmosphere.
The IPCC AR6 reports that the net cloud feedback is highly likely to be positive:
“The net effect of changes in clouds in response to global warming is to amplify human-induced warming, that is, the net cloud feedback is positive (high confidence). Compared to AR5, major advances in the understanding of cloud processes have increased the level of confidence and decreased the uncertainty range in the cloud feedback by about 50%. An assessment of the low-altitude cloud feedback over the subtropical oceans, which was previously the major source of uncertainty in the net cloud feedback, is improved owing to a combined use of climate model simulations, satellite observations, and explicit simulations of clouds, altogether leading to strong evidence that this type of cloud amplifies global warming. The net cloud feedback, obtained by summing the cloud feedbacks assessed for individual regimes, is 0.42 [–0.10 to +0.94] W m–2°C–1. A net negative cloud feedback is very unlikely (high confidence). {7.4.2, Figure 7.10, Table 7.10}”
Alan, you should listen to this lecture by Michael Mischenko.
Michael Mishchenko Maniac Lecture, January 26, 2015
He spends much time talking about clouds and our lack of knowledge.
The problems he outlines have not been solved.
Near the very end he talks about Freedman Dyson. FD spent decades looking at the CO2 climate issue and never bought into it.
It’s a nice talk, thanks for sharing.
So all these guys got it wrong?.
“The cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of −21Wm2”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-paper-shows-clouds-have-large.html?m=1
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/settled-science-update-climate-models.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/new-paper-finds-clouds-act-as-negative.html
The first and third papers are not discussing clouds as feedbacks to long term warming, but are discussing the effect of certain types of clouds in general. i.e. does the presence of clouds act as a positive or negative forcing. This is different than addressing how clouds are responding to warming and thus what kind of feedback they are providing. The second paper is discussing a mode of error affecting diurnal temperature changes in models, again not long term feedback from changes cloud cover under global warming.
From the link above:
“An increase in low cloud cover of only about 1% could largely compensate for the doubling of CO2.” – van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2025”
That is close to what Moeller is also saying about CO2.
And in the abstract they say, “To increase solar heating of the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover only needs to decrease by a few percent.”
The authors don’t predict which way the feedback is likely to be, but other scientists, who have been working on these problems for decades, do.
That (so-called cloud positive feedback conjecture) has been tested a few years back when the bogus claim of clouds doing a “positive feedback” were first introduced. Clouds are a negative feedback the cool. Lack of clouds eliminates the feedback.
Note: In nature, there are no positive feedbacks. By definition, reducing or eliminating a negative feedback is not positive feedback.
ECS like GAT are B.S. made to look scientific by using big words.
Trapping heat. Impossible.
Thermalize. A hijacked word irresponsibly redefined.
So much of what should be legitimate scientific research and debate is subjected to repurposing and redefining of legitimate terms and therefore made impossible.
This is just trivial semantics. Clouds are changing in response to warming in a way that enhances the warming. Whether you want to call this a positive feedback or an an oppositely-signed negative feedback makes zero difference in any practical sense.
Tenth-rate unscientific gobbledegook.
Proven false by field tests.
Words are important in Science are to exact definitions.
There are no positive feedbacks in nature.
Which are ?
Correct if “nature” is in balance.
It’s not.
The carbon cycle FI is way off balance.
“way off balance.”
Except in your usual goobledeegook you have no idea what the ideal CO2 balance should be, and fact is both the MWP and the 1st century AD were much warmer than today.
CO2 0.04″ of atmospheric inventory – historically lower in the LIA and much much higher before unless of course those limestone cliffs (eg. in the Jura Rhone valley) everywhere happened by magic!
“Except in your usual goobledeegook you have no idea what the ideal CO2 balance should be, and fact is both the MWP and the 1st century AD were much warmer than today.”
It’s ony “gobbledeegook” because you dont understand and I suspect refuse to try.
The “ideal CO2 balance” is that when the carbon cycle was in balance (sources = sinks) – before the industrial revolution, when it was 280ppm.
Now it is 50% higher at 425ppm.
Our complex civilization was built on that level and is all that is required.
The climate in the north Atlantic and Europe was a little warmer at the same time but other parts of the world had warmer spells that were not coincident. Therefore there was no planetary driver of it. It was energy being shifted around, most likely by ocean current feedback (vis like the “dust bowl” in the States – initially, then with a +ve feedback due stupid farming practises).
That fact is borne out by all the global temp indices …
“CO2 0.04″(%) of atmospheric inventory”
Nitrogen N2 78.084%
Oxygen O2 20.946%
Argon Ar 0.934%
Carbon dioxide CO2 0.042%
Neon Ne 18.182 ppm
Helium He 5.24 ppm
Methane CH4 1.92 ppm
Krypton Kr 1.14 ppm
Hydrogen H2 0.55 ppm
Nitrous oxide N2O 0.33 ppm
Carbon monoxide CO 0.10 ppm
Xenon Xe 0.09 ppm
Ozone O3 0.07 ppm
Nitrogen dioxide NO2 0.02 ppm
Iodine I2 0.01 ppm
Ammonia NH3 trace
(The above for dry air)
~ 99% of thos gases are transparent to terrestrial LWIR
The GHGs are just 1% of total atmos.
CO2 = 0.04250%
CH4 = 0.00019%
N2O = 0.00003%
O3 = 0.00001%
which add up to 0.04273%
Of which CO2 is 0.042%, which is 98% of GHG forcing (excluding WV which varies ~1-4%)
So from 280ppm (pe-industrial to 425 now = a rise from 65% of non-condensing GHG forcing to 98% now.
Your “global temp indices” don’t have the resolution to detect decade scale changes. In many cases, not even century scale changes. They pretty much erase the past. Then you have modern observations tacked on to the end. Apples and coconuts comparison.
Sorry to contradict you, but there are plenty of examples of positive feedback in Nature, just not in Earth’s climate. As an example, consider how an exothermic chemical reaction can run away and become explosively fast (increasing temperature -> increasing reaction rate -> increasing temperature etc. etc.). Another example from Biology of positive feedback is the amplification of a few photons of light by retinal cells to produce a nerve impulse.
That’s the claim that the models make, the problem is that nobody has been able to document this happening in the real world.
Another factor that hasn’t been considered is that an increase in clouds means an increase in the water cycle, and the water cycle is the primary means by which the planet cools itself.
None of this seems to influence any thinking or actions in will-of-the wisp, woke-land Massachusetts.
.
Tens of thousands of woke folks sing the same siren song, as the ship of state is foundering on the rocks.
.
We need to cut off the subsidies, that keep this air balloon aloft
.
Massachusetts Woke Folks Hell-Bent on Buying 5,000 MW of Batteries Will Further Impoverish the State for Decades
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/massachusetts-woke-folks-hell-bent-on-buying-5-000-mw-of
.
First of, that Massachusetts bill is total bull manure, because no offshore more windmills will be built on the East Coast, American Gulf, and West Coast, so these batteries are not needed
.
I am totally astounded at the lack of knowledge of educated people who write about battery systems.
.
Legislators, who act like babes in the woods looking for the Abominable Snowman, should have no voice regarding energy systems
.
The INSTALLED CAPACITY is defined as “MW/MWh, delivered as AC at battery system outlet voltage”, which is what you see in a field, plus you see a whole lot of other equipment to support a large battery installation.
.
Massachusetts Electricity
Massachusetts had a population of 7 million in 2023, that consumed 55.3 billion kWh/y, or an annual average of 6308 MWh/h
.
Battery System Turnkey Capital Cost and Power Supply Duration
Most recently installed battery systems are 4-hour systems, per US EIA, which means Massachusetts will be buying 5,000 MW/20,000 MWh
.
We assume this capacity will be in 100 locations, each 50 MW/200 MWh
The turnkey capital cost for each location will be about 200,000 kWh x $600/kWh = $120 million, or $12 billion at all locations, 2024 pricing
.
The actual visual capacity is greater, because Tesla uses derating factors to account for internal losses related to connecting many modules.
.
Those 100 battery systems would provide at most about (20,000 x 0.6) / 6308 = 1.9 hours of power to the Massachusetts grid, in case we relied 100% on wind and solar, and a major wind/solar lull would occur, which could last 5 to 7 days.
.
As They Say, the Devil is in the Details
Question 1: After the first lull has ended, and the wind/solar system output is sufficient to meet demand, what capacity of extra wind/solar systems would be needed to refill the battery systems within, say two or three days?
.
Question 2: A multi-day lull is sometimes followed by another multi-day lull a few days later, as shown by weather data. Additional battery systems would be needed to provide power to the Massachusetts grid during that second lull.
.
Below Article
I wrote the below article at least 5 years ago, BASED ON EIA ANNUAL SURVEY REPORTS OF ACTUAL BATTERY SYSTEMS.
Subsequently, the reports had their format changed so they became obscure/less useful.
I called the EIA about it but never got an answer.
With Trump in, I hope the stone-wallers/obfuscaters will be fired
Read further for much more fun
Trouble is, no one knows what all of the feedbacks even are. It is even unknown as to whether they are negative or positive, but likely neutral or net negative or the temperature would have run away eons ago.
There is of course uncertainty in the feedbacks, but no estimates of climate sensitivity yield a negative or null value:
So the question isn’t whether we will get future warming, it’s just a question of exactly how much.
It appears that you do not understand what Fraizer is saying. In any case, the control knob hypothesis is poor in matching reality.
There is no empirical evidence that ECS is anything other than zero at levels above 280ppm. There is a ton of handwaving BS from people like you. You don’t even have a precise scientific definition for ECS.
There is abundant evidence, see the latest IPCC report. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting an ECS of zero, much less a negative one. It’s important to recognize the distinction between things that don’t exist and things you are personally unaware of.
I know there is abundant bullsh!t. No amount of your pompous pontificating and voice-in-your head conclusion-drawing will alter the fact that there is no empirical evidence that ECS is anything other than zero at levels above 280ppm.
Phil:
I assume you appreciate that ice melts in warming air (given that it was stable at the steady long-term climate set temp) ?
I assume you know that an ice surface has a high albedo.
I assume you know that a high albedo means that a relatively high amount of SW is reflected back to space ?
Now what would you say an increase in TSI absorbed means (as must be the case if there is less ice sheet) – as regards its ability to heat the Earth’s surface ?
You got it !
It must warm.
So what would you call that if not a +ve feedback ?
And that process will go until ASR = LWIR out.
Which may well take centuries.
Ergo ECS is along way into the future.
Thanks for confirming what I said:
No amount of your pompous pontificating and voice-in-your head conclusion-drawing will alter the fact that there is no empirical evidence that ECS is anything other than zero at levels above 280ppm.
Evidence free assertion with added ad hom.
Instead:
Would you like to go through my points one by one and refute them.
That really is the correct way to proceed for a productive discussion.
Thanks
It’s also important for scientists to honestly say “we just don’t know” instead of postulating about things they honestly have no evidence about.
ECS in isolation is almost certainly positive. The trouble with that theory is that there is nothing in isolation. It’s the old in vitro in vivo conundrum. No one knows what the “climate system” is much less how it reacts to a single minor variable.
ECS has not progress beyond a conjecture.
On this video, Paul Linsay states that the value of ECS is ZERO. (summarised at minute 57:00)
Also backs up the work of Shula and Ott.
Back radiation from CO2 cannot exist…
… nor can CO2 trap energy in atmosphere.
Paul Linsay, a 30 year Uni physicist before working moving to industry
Principal Research Scientist, Nonlinear Dynamics/Chaos Theory, Plasma Fusion Center MIT, 1990-1997
Principal Research Scientist, LIGO project, Nonlinear Dynamics/Chaos Theory, Dept. of Physics MIT, 1980-1990
Postdoctoral Fellow, Neutrino Experiment, Dept. of Physics, CalTech, 1976 -1979
PhD student, experimental High Energy Physics, Dept. of Physics, University of Chicago, 1970-1976
Paul Linsay: An Analysis of Climate Model Assumptions | Tom Nelson Pod #257
note, Paul Linsay was fighting a cold during this talk and stumbles on words occasionally.
Something that cannot exist is usually difficult to measure. Back radiation, not so much.
https://www.knmi.nl/research/observations-data-technology/projects/baseline-surface-radiation-network-bsrn
Here is a typical pyrgeometer graph.
You can see the natural DWLR over the range of the meter.
You can also see the 15μm dip where the radiation has been REMOVED by atmospheric CO2 and thermalised.
CO2 is actually reducing the DWLR in its main band
Yet another report showing that CO2 cannot warm the surface.
CO2 infrared absorption – Climate Auditor
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Another graph showing that CO2 is reducing the DWLR in its main band because that frequency is absorbed and thermalised.
Thermalize:
In physics, thermalisation (or thermalization) is the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction.
Eunice Foote identified that thermal energy and Electro-Magnetic radiation are not the same and not interchangeable.
Thermalization is a hijacked term that has been repurposed with a bogus definition. EM does not thermalize.
CO2 does absorb EM in the valence band and ultimately (quantum probability) emits the energy. The emission direction being in the same vector as the incident wave is the probability of the valence electron being at any specific point in the “electron cloud” which is to say, roughly spherical.
FYI,
A handheld IR meter does not generally measure in the CO2 band.
CO2 radiation has a Wiens’ temp of some -81C
The LT100, that Roy uses, only goes down to -60C
“CO2 radiation has a Wiens’ temp of some -81C”
No it hasn’t:
And another myth:
That is the temp at which 15 micron LWIR is at a max via Wien.
However there is much more produced by bodies above that temp ….
The max power radiated by a body at 200k (-73C) is ~ 8 W/cm^2
the max power radiated by a body at 300k (27C) is ~ 20 W/cm^2
The IR sensor is therefore *seeing* Earth’s atmosphere radiating from CO2 molecules at a much higher intensity.
“The LT100, that Roy uses, only goes down to -60C”
Wronger than wrong !
To be clearer:
Draw up from the 15micron pt on the x-axis. At the intercept of the 300K curve, read from the y-axis the power emitted at that wavelength.
That is of course radiated from a high terrestrial temp of 27C .
The Troposphere doesn’t get to -81C, except in exceptionally cold polar air.
The ave temp of the Tropopause is -56C and the temp of the EEL (effective emission lyr) is -18C (255K and the Earth’s BB temp a seen from space).
These 2 graphs show the EEL of CO2 and the fact that CO2 is a broader absorber at 15micron (wave number 667cm^-1) than H2O.
Has anyone isolated a photon?
No.
A photon is a quantum of energy associated with valence electrons.
It is not a particle.
It is a definition.
One has to go with EM fields and waves to understand a lot of what is going on.
There is no greenhouse effect and as such, except in a physical greenhouse, no greenhouse gases.
If one takes the engineering approach to thermal management employing heat sinks, the whole of this makes sense, especially if one includes skin effect calculations from radar to determine how much energy is stored in the heat sink and how much is reflected.
When one gets out of the photon bullet nonsense, one can easily understand that CO2 is opaque at specific frequencies due to scattering, but not scattering as many assume. For simplicity, view a CO2 molecule as a sphere. It absorbs energy in the valence band. It emits em energy (aka photon) in any spherical direction. Very little energy is emitted in the same vector as the incident wave. All em waves from a single point have a spherical characteristic. This is part of the scattering.
So it’s a little bit more complicated than CO2 just absorbing and emitting.
I hardly ever see anyone talking about EM radiation here, in connection with CO2.
I guess they just don’t think about it.
Actually, although I know what you’re saying, it’s not phrased correctly. I know there’s no formal definition of ECS but whatever it is, even given that “climate scientists” have never defined it, ECS can never be in isolation because it’s about the whole planet’s atmosphere. Yes, it’s simple physics in a spectrometer. The planet is not a spectrometer.
If no steady state then no separating signals. The climate system in a nutshell. The Co2= forcing people assume a (non existing) steady state and that Co2 forces H2O. Both dead wrong and unsubstantiated.
Yes. ECS is another bogus expression that has no bearing on reality.
There are limits in each of the sources you cite. Hence there cannot be positive feedbacks otherwise the earth would be completely covered with clouds and the temperature increase would be unending. How then did your sources figure their increases and determine their upper limits without some sort of negative feedback? How indeed did so many arrive at the very same upper limit for so many years of work? Identical outcomes among many different researchers almost never occur in the world of any science I am familiar with. Even the world of climate models produce as many different outcomes are there are models yet all or near all have the identical limit?
There simply must be a negative feedback somewhere. If its strong, there will be little temperature increase as the temperature data shows. And if cloud cover data can be trusted, it shows a decline in recent decades more than sufficient to cause the observed temperature increase. And what is the cause of that?
Positive feedbacks do not imply an unbounded runaway effect; they amplify an initial change but are constrained by other factors, including eventual saturation of feedback mechanisms and the presence of stabilizing (negative) feedbacks. This notion that a positive feedback indicates an infinitely increasing series is simply incorrect.
These represent probabilistic ranges, the likelihood of the upper and lower bounds is not the same in all iterations. Recent work, reflected in the AR6 range, has significantly reduced the magnitude of the lower bound, but the best estimate of sensitivity remains pretty close to the 3-degree mark. They keep arriving at that central estimate probably because it’s close to the right number.
Cloud cover alone does not explain observed warming, all factors must be considered to do this. But to your question, a primary cause of the change in cloud cover is the global warming trend. This is why I made my initial point that changes in cloud cover cannot be considered to be independent drivers, but as feedbacks to some forced response.
You need to take Control Theory 101.
Your ignorance is astonishing.
How about giving us the benefit of your superior knowledge then instead of the usual lame hand-wave dismissal.
Why should he? Just because you think he should respond to your hand-waving crap with some similar hand-waving crap, doesn’t mean he has to. He can just tell you you’re spouting hand-waving crap as his response. Ball’s in your court. Show us any empirical scientific evidence that ECS is anything other than zero at levels above 280ppm. You can’t do it because there isn’t any.
If there was, I’d tell you what it was.
“Why should he? Just because you think he should respond to your hand-waving crap with some similar hand-waving crap”
What you call “my hand-waving crap” can be found in multiple papers, and text books and is accepted science.
Wheras his – not so much..
Ergo, mine is scientificaly substanciated and justified,
Where his is just, well “hand-waving crap”.
That you think that all of climate scientists are either incompetent, fraudersters or both does, not make his arguments credible, even if he were to illucidate them.
Because dismissal without evidence is not the way a constructive discussion can take place.
It effectively says.
I know better, but cant justify it.
That’s why.
Oh, perhaps you could tell us what on earth has “Control theory 101” got to do with climate feedbacks?
The so called positive feedbacks is just a word-smith of the original runaway greenhouse effect. Both are bogus.
Positive feedback cannot exist except in a closed loop system that contains a amplified that is powered by an external/independent power source.
Forcing function is another of those contrived expressions designed to create the appearance of credibility where none exists.
A forcing function, in the context of Computer Science, refers to a term added to the residual of a coarse grid solution to influence the behavior of the system being analyzed.
The feedback loop is a self-contained process, but does not need to exist in a completely closed system, and in fact system inputs are the perturbation that initiate the loop process to begin with.
A climate forcing is not a “contrived” term, but is rigorously defined and extensively used in the peer reviewed literature. This seems to be a case of you conflating the parlance of two distinct domains and convincing yourself that one holds primacy over the language.
Since the earth energy system is not close looped and isolated, there can be neither negative or positive feedbacks.
Positive feedback requires an amplified powered by an independent energy source.
Negative feedback, as it is used, is simply attenuation.
Alan, All of your results come from simulations where the code is written to give the results. The IPCC has never provided any actual data on ECS because there isn’t any. Many believe, including me, that the IPCC modeling effort offers almost nothing of value. As Willis has shown, the models all have guardrails and other fudge factors to constrain them. The models cannot accurately forecast one year ahead, much less decades out.
“that the IPCC modeling effort offers almost nothing of value.”
Not only that, but they are riddled with conjecture and errors from their quicksand foundations all the way up.
They are far worse than “nothing of value”..
Roy Clark: A Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors | Tom Nelson Pod #271
Tom Nelson eh ?
Has
”an MS degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering”
Not a climate scientist or modeller then?
Ah, of course, the perfect person to pontificate on the subject of the modelling of climate via GCMs.
Just another example of peeps here jumping over and embracing any, literally anything, that they think supports their denialist stance.
Just another example of peeps here jumping over and embracing any, literally anything, that they think supports their alarmist stance.
FIFY
As I am constantly saying on here.
”Alarmists” – if you mean peeps like me that try to convey the science contained in the IPCC ARs.
Have the benefit of the research of thousands of scientists into the issues of climate.
To say that by reporting that here is “embracing any, literally anything that they think supports their alarmist stance.”
Is just typical of the distorted world-view held, in thinking that the, often bizarre “theories” of deniers (yes you are, as sceptics examine both sides and not dismiss one reflexively) is in any way comparable.
Some serious illogical ideation is required to do that.
lol
Roy Clark is a retired engineer with over 30 years of experience in new product and process development, including optical and spectroscopic measurements in adverse environments. He received his MA in chemistry from the University of Oxford University and his Ph.D. in chemical physics from Sussex University.
Very much a scientist….. [snip, be better. You are hereby precluded from saying anything negative about another use. This does not apply to post authors-ctm]
“…Tom Nelson eh ?
Has
”an MS degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering”…”
As opposed to your PhD in BS
A very productive response.
Thanks.
My “BS” is called science.
You may one day learn some of it and be educated.
Australia’s top modeller until about 2014 was an astonishingly smart mechanical engineer. Slurring someone because they have the wrong label is gutter level commentary.
It was an observation.
There are people in the field, who do climate modelling, the physics of which come either from themselves or colleagues who have that knowledge.
I do not question his abilities as a modeller – just his knowledge of climate science, of which an engineer, obviously, does not have.
If that logic eludes you , then as ever the case on here, I cannot help.
That’s just embarrassing man.
Not to me, else I wouldn’t have said it !
(see below and tell me that you do not meet that description and rather the one of a sceptic).
You know someone is coming from the shallow end of the pool when they moronically spout the “denialist” epithet.
That is the only word for that behaviour.….
noun: denier; plural noun: deniers
If you prefer to be called a sceptic, then how’s about doing what a sceptic does, which is ….
To not immediately call contrary “evidence” the truth without investigating its veracity.
IE: a sceptic is someone who questions both sides of the argument.
I see very little of that on here.
I give credence to an Electrical Engineer over a computer software modeler. An engineer has to produce working results. If it fails, the engineer has to figure out why and make corrections.
So does a climate modeler, when evidence from his/her output indicates a problem.
Just because a GCM isn’t deterministic (as an engineer’s must be) does not invalidate it.
It is a usefull tool to identify where it does not meet realistic results to investigate the reasons.
But unlikely for it to be an “emergency”- the official dogma here in Wokeachusetts, NY, CA, etc. (Germany, the UK, Australia, etc.)
Yes, that is the question.
Will we be able to measure and separate out, said CO2 warming?
Would you prefer cooling since the Industrial Revolution? That would have been just great for humanity, eh?
There are no positive feedbacks.
Unless there are larger negative feedbacks from other mechanisms.
Why should that be the case ?
In the earth energy system there are no positive feedbacks and attenuators are misnamed as negative feedbacks.
See above
See my post on top. Watch the video..
Garbage. The composition of the atmosphere has changed by 0.014% in 175 years (14 thousandths of 1%) due to CO2, water vapour can change the composition by 2% in less than a day. This imaginary ‘equilibrium’ of which you speak has never existed.
A dynamic, chaotic, coupled system really never does achieve equilibrium.
When one considers all of the variable inputs, for example the sun, there is always movement towards equilibrium, but equilibrium is never attained.
The equilibrium is assumed because it fits a steady state model in which you can infer A leads to B.
Handy if you make models. And then make the models kinda fit the projection line and if they don’t, recalibrate the parameters. The shoe has to fit after all.😀
Models are built with assumptions. I learned half a century ago that it is necessary to challenge the assumptions.
Finite element analysis (FEA) is a grid model. It has assumptions, such as no impurities or imperfections and uniformity.
It also has an assumption of a valid grid size. The grid size assumption has been validated through extensive testing. A finer grid does not give better results but costs much more in terms of processing time. The gird size used is the optimum between results and costs. This is known as a qualified assumption.
Despite all those thumbs down – I’ll ask another question. When you say “a long time”- how long does equilibrium take? Of course it’ll be an estimate. I did know that it included feedbacks but I had no clue it wasn’t rapid.
The ECS is the state the climate system reaches after it has had time to fully adjust to the initial perturbation of doubling CO2. Because of the slow response time of the oceans, this is on the order of centuries to millennia. This is in contrast to the transient climate sensitivity, which represents the amount of warming at the moment of doubling assuming CO2 concentration increases at 1% per year.
And climate scientists have models to account for those centuries and millennia? That should be a difficult problem.
Yes, climate models can be run over the complete timespan required for the system to equilibrate, although there are also less computationally intensive approaches used. It is an extremely challenging problem, and has taken the effort of many hundreds of scientists over many decades to get even close to an answer.
OK, so a lot of work has gone into this issue- but since it’s about the future, we don’t have the data- so it’s not known how close it is. (again, I admit to not being a scientist)
Work on estimating sensitivity comes not just from models, but from modern observational data and paleoclimate archives, so in that sense we are not relying on future projections in our estimates. But, yes, we have to wait until the future to obtain absolute certainty about the skill of our projections of future change.
Climate models work using Clayton’s physics, in a Clayton’s atmosphere.
Clayton’s… a pseudo physics or atmosphere you use when you don’t want to use the real thing.
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, But you claim it can be modelled millennia into the future? Pull the other one.
He also claims it can achieve equilibruim.
How close? Missed it by this far.
The climate state never reaches equilibrium. In the millennial time scale even orbital mechanics become significant.
That’s never stopped ’em.
Yet there is still a theoretical state that would be reached after the system equilibrates from an initial perturbation, and understanding this theoretical state can help us understand how the system will respond over human timescales.
“,,,Yet there is still a theoretical state…can help us understand how the system will respond,,,”
No, it can’t. Your “theoretical state” is fantasy land. That is not how the system responds.
50 years so far and none of the predictions have come true.
50 years is a fair percentage of a human lifespan.
Which predictions, specifically, that were meant to take place in the last 50 years have not “come true”? Provide citations to peer reviewed literature, please and thanks.
Didn’t see your response had beat me Alan.
“50 years so far and none of the predictions have come true”
OK, could you please tell us what they are?
And I mean IPCC “predictions” and not some daft solo scientist blathering some off-the-cuff remark that the media picked up and reported as it makes good headlines and sells.
Hence how you know about it and not via a peer-review paper’s inclusion in the IPCC ARs
Let me translate that for you Joseph from the hand-waving crap to scientific language:
There is no formal definition of ECS.
(Which is kind of odd, because it’s the most important unit of climate change).
OK, good to know. But if I google the term, I do get definitions. Does the term get used in the IPCC reports? In peer reviewed papers? Of course I don’t have much trust in either- just asking. Does everyone agree that there is no formal definition of ECS or is it just your opinion? I’m nit picking because it seems important.
ECS is formally defined as the equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature due to a doubling of CO₂, after the climate system has fully adjusted. This definition has been consistently used in the scientific literature for decades, including in the IPCC AR6 (see chapter 7.5 quoted below) and the Charney Report in 1979.
The people insisting otherwise are speaking from ignorance misconstrued as expertise.
OK, sounds like climate scientists really understand this. Yet, when a physicist says the mass of a proton is 1.67262192 × 10-27 kilograms, I feel confident they are right. I am not confident that climate scientists really have a grip on to what extent CO2 emissions are a threat or emergency sufficient to drastically upend our energy systems. It’s just all extremely complicated and not really well understood.
Our confidence in measuring physical constants is indeed higher than our confidence in modeling a complex, dynamic system like the climate. However, this complexity doesn’t absolve us from making decisions; it simply means we must act in the absence of perfect information.
The information that we have, within its bounds of uncertainty, says it is extremely likely that human caused warming will result in significant adverse impacts. It’s a choice we can make to say, “given the uncertainty I am going to do nothing,” but we have to recognize that this is actually an intentional act and not a passive strategy, because it’s acting against the weight of available evidence.
ECS definition:
Entity–component–system (ECS) is a software architectural pattern mostly used in video game development for the representation of game world objects. An ECS comprises entities composed from components of data, with systems which operate on the components.
Seems to fit.
So no clue then. 😉
“like CO2-driven surface warming”
Which doesn’t exist. !
CO2 infrared absorption – Climate Auditor
W. J. Witteman has been professor in laser physics at the University of Twente (The Netherlands) from 1969 until 1999. He has written numerous articles in the field of CO2-lasers, excimer lasers and free electron lasers.
I would say he knows far more of the action of CO2 than any self-named “climate scientist”.
“I would say he knows far more of the action of CO2 than any self-named “climate scientist”.”
And I would say you are clutching yet more straws.
So a “laser physicist” also is an expert on the radiative properties of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Truely a polymath.
To add: a very recent presentation on Tom Nelson’s channel:
https://youtu.be/PsM4aOmCb_U?si=1zAhoa1hFruvG9Dp
This addresses most of the questions in regards to Co2 and the history in relation to our atmosphere (Fourrier, Arrhenius, Wannabe and the modeling).
The video, and paper it is based on, are rambling Gish Gallops. Please restate the central thesis and most compelling points so that we may formulate a basis of discussion.
The paper and video exhibit numerous fundamental errors in understanding of basic physical concepts and how they relate to atmospheric dynamics, along with egregious ignorance of advancements in the field since the 1970s. But since it isn’t clear what you’ve taken from the work it isn’t clear where to even begin.
Sorry but you go first. The video explains various processes quite thoroughly and i have nothing to add. There is no ‘central thesis’. And as far as ‘basic physical concepts’ are concerned i look forward to your correction. Make sure you have thoroughly investigated proper fundamental physics as the atmospheric dynamics are quite intricate, especially those related to the rather complicated fluid dynamics and phase transitions within the system.
Off you go..🙂
If you cannot articulate a central thesis or even highlight specific claims from the video that you find compelling, it’s unreasonable to expect me to sift through over an hour of content in search of points to refute. This isn’t how productive discussions work.
Appeals to “various processes” that allegedly “explain things thoroughly” is not how lively or invigorating debates happen. Without specific claims to address, it is an exercise in chasing shadows.
If you’re earnestly looking for serious discussion, summarize the video’s claims or specify some arguments you find convincing. Otherwise, this looks like an attempt to avoid engaging in substance, while trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. That’s not a debate; it’s a waste of time. Off you go… 😊
So, you first slag off the video (and the man) by using general non specific putdowns to which i objected, then you want ME to repeat a non existing “central thesis” and the various points made in the video just for you to still not responding in detail about what exactly you find wrong with it while at the same time insisting that i should represent the video once more for a “serious discussion” and then accuse me of ‘avoiding engagement’. That’s pretty…mm..RICH.
I..rest..my..case, your Honour..😊
Asking me to engage with the entire video without articulating which specific points you find convincing is an abdication of your responsibility in good-faith discourse. If you can’t or won’t articulate what you’ve taken from the video, I have no reason to wade through it and address every point in isolation; it’s entirely up to you to guide the discussion around your video.
In the absence of any specific arguments from you, I’m content to dismiss the video by pointing you to the entire body of published literature on climate modeling, which fundamentally undermines the claims of a single author with no expertise in the field. Let me know if you’d like to have a serious discussion on specific points, but until then, there’s nothing more to address.
The burden of proof is on you dude.
We know you can’t do it, but it’s fun watching you twitch.
It has been amusing to watch. Some sort of warped logic..
I’ve fulfilled the burden of proof by directing ballynally to the entire body of peer reviewed climate modeling literature. I’m waiting for him to address every single paper ever written. I won’t expand on that or add anything, the burden of proof is on ballynally.
So, you have no answer so you push the onus back on the questioner.
The onus is on the person who provided the video to guide a discussion around their video. It’s as silly to say, “you have to watch this hour+ long video and address every single point in it or you’re wrong” as it is for me to say, “you have to read every single modeling paper ever written and rebut every single point in them or your video is wrong.”
Like… that’s a tack we can take, but it doesn’t yield productive or interesting discourse. I’ve expressed an eager willingness to debate the details of the video, provided ballynally can articulate them as a basis of discussion, which they steadfastly refuse to do. Perhaps you’re willing to take up the reins where ballynally isn’t up to the challenge.
Gish Gallops? I googled it- it’s a term. I bet few people ever heard it.
It used to be in vogue about 2013. 🙂
Gish Gallop. One of the many logic fallacies.
Description: Overwhelming an interlocutor with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.
Correction: spelling error..Manabe io Wannabe. Apologies..
Insanity (def.): Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results. , A. Einstein
There is growing recognition that a wind plus solar grid requires backup from Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources (DEFRs). However, if there is enough DEFR capacity to provide backup, there is no need for the wind and solar. They are redundant and redundancy is expensive.
Fortunately, with Trump, it seems we are not ready to jump off the high dive board into the empty pool just yet.
“Insanity (def.): Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results. , A. Einstein”
The expected result is so seldom mentioned. Why is that?
Not enough angry lesbians controlling CO2 measurements?
Don’t go giving them ideas now !!
No results yet, we must do more!
Mauna Loa observatory.
Sitting atop one of the world’s most active volcanoes. Had to move in 2022 due to eruptions. 10 miles laterally from Kilauea, which erupted in Dec. 2024.
They make conjectures about the variations, but they do not measure ocean temperatures (Henry’s Law).
At 11K feet altitude and making dry mol measurements. This somehow represents the total atmosphere.
At 11K feet altitude and making dry mol measurements. This somehow represents the total atmosphere.”
It does at mauna Loa as Hawawii lies under the trade-wind outflow from the subsiding air of the sub-tropical jet. The northern arm of the Hadley cell.
The air It is sampling is thus likely to have been sourced from the ITCZ.
Also, Muana Loa isn’t the only CO2 monitoring station:
This is a graph of 3 stations overlain.
One being at the S pole …
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/
“The fundamental problem lies in the inherent unpredictability of renewable sources.”
It’s not the “unpredictability” that is the fundamental problem. Better to recognize that even if the wind and solar sources were 100% predictable as to the timing of their variable outputs from zero to nameplate rating, it does NOTHING to alleviate the need for 100% reliable, dispatchable supply. Storage – especially batteries or hydrogen – are not capable of affordably solving this problem – not even close.
Otherwise this is a very good summary of our situation in the U.S. to push ahead with a much more common-sense set of policies.
Yes. The unpredictability just adds another confounding layer to the whole mess.
While the issues of intermittent solar PV and wind turbine generated electricity are very true, the actual cause of Germany’s deindustrialization is the “mysterious” sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. This cheap Russian natural gas was what kept the massive costs of solar PV and wind from being egregious.
That sabotage is part of the problem- but Germany’s desire to terminate fossil fuels is the real problem. They shut down their nukes and coal plants and their intention was to quit gas too, eventually. And, if Germany hadn’t been so nice to Russia in recent years- there might not be a war in Ukraine. It could have warned Russia that it would strongly support Ukraine if attacked and give Ukraine its best weapons. So, don’t blame Germany’s energy problem entirely on that sabotage. Besides, destroying the pipeline was an act of war- just like Russia and China currently damaging cables in the Baltic. Germany really thinks it can prosper with green energy. It’s not working for them.
Germany in so many areas is infected with stupid think presently.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/germanys-mace-control-keep-women-from-defending-themselves-against-muslim-terrorists/
What is a “muslin mass stabbing attack” ?
Muslin(s) stabbing a bunch of people
OR
non-muslin(s) stabbing a bunch of muslins?
Investigate Russia’s reason for intervening in Ukraine before mouthing off.
The real reasons or the Russian propaganda?
It seems that one only speaks of ‘russian propaganda’ nowadays. I still remember us europeans sniggering at americans who were clearly oblivious to their own. It was akways the OTHER side.
Chomski was on the right track in ‘manufacturing consent’.
It’s sad that we europeans have been so captured by the constant western propaganda in our media that even investigation and questioning by thoughtful, informed journalists is frowned upon.
Your reply indicates precisely the dichotomy, the binary choice one is forced to take: OUR way or Russia’s. It is so mindbogling stupid that argueing is futile.
So you have no answer.
Ok then: the US, like w the Nordstream pipeline, sabotaged the Minsk accords which offered a solution to the Donbass issues/ civil war type situation created after the US led Maidan coup ( typical Regime Change policy) and the ultra nationalists Nazi sympathisers de-russivying eastern Ukraine w western VS/ UK weapon systens ( much like the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan/ Iraq etc).
Ever since Kissinger proposed accelerated agression against Russia while they were weak in theceraly 1990s, and old style Mafia Robber Barons looting russian assets, the plan was to topple every country bordering Russia. They are still at it in the likes of Georgia.
If you think this is all russian propaganda you are either unintelligent or ignorant.
You are not alone. You are meant to think that way.
Some of your history is correct, some is incorrect.
I made no claim as to binary. Nor have I made claims the USA is perfect.
I was merely curious if you bought into the Nazi propaganda, which was one of the stated reasons made by Russia for the invasion..
Everyone has a reason for everything they do- doesn’t mean you have to naively believe them. Intervening is a nice way to say ATTACK with 200K troops and thousands of tanks.
Didn’t Germany cease buying natural gas from Russia as a consequence of the invasion of Ukraine> So the sabotage wouldn’t matter?
Also, wasn’t the Nordstream pipeline sabotaged before any gas had flowed through it?
NS2, I believe was not yet operational. I could be wrong.
NS1, I believe was operational and I cannot recall any reports of it being damaged.
“Didn’t Germany cease buying natural gas from Russia[?]”
Maybe not:
https://www.dw.com/en/is-germany-still-importing-russian-gas/a-70813419
“‘Potentially leaked documents’ [11-19-2024]
DET is a state-owned company that operates four German LNG terminals on the North Sea coast — Brunsbüttel, Wilhelmshaven I and II, and Stade — that are essential for ensuring Germany’s gas supply.
When asked by DW if DET had received such an instruction, the company responded in an emailed statement: “For legal reasons, we cannot provide information about contracts with third parties.”
The fact that the ministry saw it necessary to issue such an order now raises several questions. First of all, has Russian LNG been unloaded in Germany despite the boycott? And second, does such an instruction even exist?
The German Economy Ministry said in a statement that it “will not comment on any potentially leaked documents, as usual.”
end excerpt
In the near future, Trump will be happy to supply Germany with gas.
Drill, Baby, Drill !
Story tip – Step Aside Starter Log, Nothing Burns Hotter Than DEI – PJ Media
Marxists benefit from such firestorms. They revel in the destruction. The L.A. fire destruction is the literal interpretation of the commie battle cry of “burn it all down and rebuild it fairly.” Bonus points: Many of the houses being torched are mansions owned by those who dared to work hard and succeed, many of whom can’t purchase fire insurance due to California being a woke pile of kindling. Also, the pinkos get to point an accusing finger at their god, “klymatt change.”
Can they really guarantee that charred bodies won’t be misgendered?
Yes , the eco-loons are dangerous .
And they have way too much control of California .
“profound miscalculation” ??
“profound, and possibly criminal avoidance and deliberate suppression of the calculation” would seem to be more accurate.
It’s not like nobody has been trying to enlighten Europe about energy.
Outside of California it’s a beautiful era in America for all the real Americans.
Well, California, New York, Washington State, Oregon…it’s almost like all these SHoles have something in common.
It’s not all bad in California – in fact it’s fairly easy to live life in a libtard-free zone without being bothered. I sometimes venture into it even for a good laugh.
Yesterday I spent a considerable amount of time considering the future of all those Rich poor souls Northwest of downtown LA.
Well today you can read my thoughts by listening to Adam Carolla explain the future for those neighborhoods here.
https://x.com/EricAbbenante/status/1877207054105886836
“Europe’s embrace of weather-dependent power generation, particularly in Germany and the United Kingdom, was a profound miscalculation.”
As we have seen on this site, none of this makes sense if you actually do calculations. This strategy is based on hopes and dreams, not solid engineering.
Agree with solid engineering.
However, I believe it is ideology, not hopes and dreams that drives the strategy.
But isn’t ideology placing faith in hopes and reams?
In some cases that might likely be true. In others ideology is simply brainwashing.
A lot of what we are witnessing is ideology. In other cases it is a hidden agenda: wealth, power, control, etc.
A lot of effort has been put into getting people to respond emotionally and that means without thinking.
“To avoid replicating Europe’s mistakes, some things the United States should do are…”
Indeed, and fortunately we have an incoming Administration who will not stand for that. But we don’t even need to look over to Europe for what not to do; the other 49 states only need to look at California. Whatever they do, do the opposite. If they don’t care if your house burns down, do you think they’ll care if your fuel/energy bills go through the roof?
And New York, and Oregon, and Washington State. The contagion has spread, and continues to spread.
It appears DJT is laying political land mines across Europe to ensure the far-left WOKE lunacy is put to bed for good.
He employed Elon as an attack dog in the UK to spark the Pakistani child rape furore. It got little to no traction for the last 40 years, so why now. The Don is gunning for Starmer and his Extreme-Left Labour party. If Starmers days aren’t numbered, another scandal will come along very soon.
Trump’s also partly responsible for Justin resigning. No premier can survive when his counterpart humiliates him publicly and he has no response.
DJT’s pushing Europe around as well. He’s allies with Ficu and Orban who are detested by Van der Lyen and her far left allies. They have attempted to interfere in elections in Georgia, Moldovia and Romania, not entirely unsuccessfully. I suspect DJT has some land mines specially reserved for her, assuming they’re not already planted.
The problem the EU has is they burned their boats with Russia and China over Ukraine and are about to suffer badly for it as the only ‘ally’ they have as the political and trading union sinks into a financial mire is the US. They are walking into the lions den with a stick of wilting celery for defence.
Europe (and the UK) has plenty of fracked gas available they just refuse to use it. DJT is rightly licking his lips at the prospect of selling mountains of LPG to Europe, on which basis Europe wades deeper into the mire.
There is now not enough time for Europe to start building nuclear so, other than coal, they begin fracking or the continent dies a slow death.
No need even for fracked gas. Holland is on top of the biggest onshore natural gasfield in Europe but decided to shut it because of local tremors.
It has offshore gasfields as well but…sold the right to…wait for it..RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS! But dont worry, they are on our side so by nature good just like the ukrainian ones..
“Additionally, so-called renewables are unreliable and expensive despite claims to the contrary.”
***************
…and low density which means renewables take up considerably more surface area than fossil fuel and nuclear power stations do. If one of the environmental movement’s tenets is to minimize humanity’s footprint size on the Earth, wind turbines and solar panels are not the way to go.
and considerably more mineral resources.
Wind and solar are the horse and buggy of energy — intermittent, unreliable and expensive. Nuclear is now and will continue be the carbon-free, low-cost, reliable and clean (low/no carbon) energy of the future. If the luddites want to live with solar and wind power, let them … but don’t let them push their cave-man energy sources on us.
Windmills were used throughout the high medieval and early modern periods; the horizontal or panemone windmill first appeared in Persia during the 9th century, and the vertical windmill first appeared in northwestern Europe in the 12th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill
Very nice Vijay. If the government were held accountable for the things they say and the money they spend we would all be buying the vehicles and appliances we want and we would have plentiful, clean and affordable energy. It is as simple as that.
Président Macron did any about face on nuclear reactor, after saying we had too much of these, and after shut down two very good PWR (they recently were enhanced with a core catcher), he now wants to build more!
Negative prices coming up-
Victorians with rooftop solar will get virtually nothing for feeding power to the