Climate Change

Climate characterizes the average weather conditions for a particular location over a long period of time (usually 30 years). World Meteorological Organization

Weather is a series of events occurring at a specific location at a specific time. The events include high and low temperatures, precipitation, wind speed, storm nature and intensity and other factors. These events are typically recorded daily and compiled as the average weather for a specific location in a specific month. This compilation is performed for each specific location for each month of a given year and reported as the average weather for that year.

Climate is the compilation of the series of events for each specific location for each year over a period of 30 years. However, the history of weather events in each year of the 30-year period can vary widely from year to year relative to the compilation which is the climate for that specific location.

Once the climate for a location has been established, future weather can be compared with the climate average for that particular climate period and also with the historic range of weather events from which the climate for the location was compiled. In most cases, the future weather would be expected to fall within the range of the weather events for the climate period. However, the future weather would not be expected to match the average weather for the climate period.

The occurrence of weather which falls outside the range of weather conditions which compose the climate period is of interest because it is different. It is typically referred to as an anomaly. The repeated occurrence of weather which falls outside the range of the weather conditions which constitute the established climate raise the question of whether there will be a long-term change in the weather conditions which would ultimately constitute a climate change.

Climate change can be tracked in several ways. Tracking a moving 30-year period, adding the most recent year’s data and dropping the data from the oldest year in the climate period would alter the range of events for the moving climate period, if the most recent year’s data is outside the range of the prior climate period. However, the effect on the climate average would likely be minimal. Tracking is more frequently done on 10- and 30-year periods, which makes the effect of weather outside the range of the previous climate period more obvious. A thirty-year period with different ranges of weather events and/or a different average would constitute a changed climate.

Weather events are recorded across the globe in a variety of different climate regimes, ranging from deserts to the poles. The changes in each of these climate regimes are monitored and recorded. They are then compiled and analyzed to establish an assessment of the global climate and of changes in the global climate. One of the results of combining the data from the numerous climate regimes is that significant detail is lost in the averaging process across months, years and the 30-year period.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Hakon Karlsen

Date: July 8, 2023

How much warming can we expect in the 21st century?

A comprehensive explainer of climate sensitivity to CO2

Short summary

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the atmosphere’s climate sensitivity to CO2is likely between 2.5 and 4.0°C. Simply put, this means that (in the very long term) Earth’s temperature will rise between 2.5 and 4.0°C when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles.

A 2020 study (Sherwood20) greatly influenced how the IPCC calculated the climate sensitivity. Sherwood20 has been “extremely influential, including in informing the assessment of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in the 2021 IPCC Sixth Assessment Scientific Report (AR6); it was cited over twenty times in the relevant AR6 chapter“, according to Nic Lewis. A Comment in Nature confirmed this view.1)

Nic Lewis took a closer look at this study, and in September 2022, he published his own study (Lewis22) that criticizes Sherwood20. By correcting errors and using more recent data, including from AR6, Lewis22 found that the climate sensitivity may be about 30% lower than what Sherwood20 had found.

If we know what the climate sensitivity is, and if we also know approximately the amount of greenhouse gases that will be emitted going forward, then the amount of future warming that’s caused by greenhouse gases can also be estimated.

In terms of future emissions, a 2022 study (Pielke22) found that something called RCP3.4 is the most plausible emissions scenario. Traditionally, another scenario (RCP8.5), has been used as a business-as-usual scenario, but this is now widely regarded as an extremely unlikely scenario, with unrealistically high emissions. (continue reading)

How much warming can we expect in the 21st century?

The UN recently reported that “extreme weather caused two million deaths, cost $4 trillion over the last 50 years”.

The graph below, prepared by Bjorn Lomborg, plots annual deaths, averaged by decade, from extreme weather and other non-weather events.

The graph provides both accurate information and misinformation in several ways. The graph accurately plots all the available data, showing the decrease in deaths from extreme weather over the period for which accurate data are available. The decrease is most dramatic prior to 1970, though the decrease continues through the following 50-year period, which is the focus of the UN report.

The graph is labeled “Annual climate-related deaths” and identifies “floods, droughts, storms, wildfires and heatwaves” as the “climate-related” events of interest. However, the UN accurately describes extreme weather events as the cause of the deaths, not climate.

The deaths of interest are “climate-related” to the extent that climate is the sum of weather over a period of 30 years, as specified by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The choice of “climate-related” would appear to suggest some contribution of climate change to the ongoing deaths. However, the continuing decline of extreme weather deaths is inconsistent with the suggestion that climate change is making extreme weather events more extreme or more frequent.

The subheading of the graph includes heatwaves, but does not include cold waves, although studies reported by The Lancet suggest that deaths from cold are approximately 10 times greater than deaths from heat, even in areas with warm climates.

The subheading also includes wildfires, which are not actually extreme weather events, though lightning strikes are one identified cause of fires which might develop into wildfires under certain conditions. However, there are numerous other causes of wildfires which are not weather-related or climate-related, including electric transmission and distribution faults, improperly controlled cooking and campfires and arson. There are also factors which can cause fires to become wildfires, including poor forest management practices.

The UN report includes the following explanation: “Over two million deaths and $4.3 trillion in economic losses; that’s the impact of a half-century of extreme weather events turbo-charged by man-made global warming, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Monday.” However, the data over the past half-century shows little evidence of the “turbo-charging” by “man-made global warming” asserted by the WMO. In fact, this assertion, while consistent with the political IPCC Summary for Policymakers and Synthesis Report, is inconsistent with the data as analyzed in the IPCC Assessment Reports.

The UN report also gives no recognition to the results of normalization studies which demonstrate that the principal causes of the increase in economic losses are increasing GDP and increasing construction of infrastructure in areas subject to extreme weather events. The continuing decline in deaths from extreme weather events is moderated somewhat by increasing population in areas subject to extreme weather events.

It appears essential that events resulting in large numbers of deaths and massive economic losses be analyzed and reported clearly and carefully. In this case, the UN has failed to do so.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Willis Eschenbach

Date: July 7, 2023

Fossil and Non-Fossil Fuels

In my previous post, The Myth Of Replacing Fossil Fuels, I looked at the new BP global use of fossil and non-fossil fuels. In this post, I’ll take a more detailed look at individual countries, and then return to world values. To start with, here’s what I learned along the way.

Figure 1. Population by Country

Given that, let me look at the energy usage by source of the most populous countries. You may recall from my previous post that in many analyses they use what are called “input-equivalent” values for non-fossil fuels. These are the true values multiplied by 2.5 or more. Why use those? I’ll repeat BP’s explanation.

While there are indeed uses for those artificially inflated energy values, what they don’t do is show us just how much energy is actually coming from each source. So let me go through the biggest countries, showing the true energy usage by source. We’ll start with China, although by the very latest figures, India is now the most populous country. (continue reading)

Fossil and Non-Fossil Fuels

The most common graphical presentation regarding global warming, or climate change, is the graph of the increasing temperature anomalies beginning in the late 1800s. The graphs below, created by Anthony Watts for the Watts Up With That website convert that data from anomalies expressed as °C to actual temperatures in °F. The upper graph uses a truncated “Y” axis with a temperature range just slightly larger than the range of the temperature change over the period, maximizing the perception of the temperature change.

The lower graph plots the same temperature data using a “Y” axis with a temperature range representative of a typical mid-latitude location (-20°F to +120°F). The temperature change over the period is still visible on this scale, but appears far less impressive or concerning than in the upper graph.

NASA GISS 1880 – 2022 | Anomaly vs. Absolute Temperature   Source: Anthony Watts

The graph below originated on the Powerline blog and has been modified here with the addition of the red and blue bands representing the average diurnal temperature ranges for the peak summer month (July, red) and peak winter month (January, blue) in Wichita. This allows comparison of the global average annual temperature change over the period from 1880 through 2015 (~1.6°F) with the average diurnal and peak seasonal temperature changes in Wichita. Note that the chart temperature range is from -10°F to +110°F, slightly lower than the -22°F to +114°F record temperature range for Wichita.

Again, the temperature change over the period is visible on this scale, but pales in comparison to the typical diurnal temperature ranges, no less the record high and low temperatures for the reference location.

The next set of graphs show the change in the Greenland ice mass, on the left using a truncated “Y” axis to emphasize the scale of the ice loss and on the right showing the same ice loss relative to the total Greenland ice mass. Showing only the left panel conveys a severely distorted impression of the situation.

A comparison of presentations of satellite data capturing Greenland’s ice mass loss. The image on the right shows changes in Greenland’s ice mass relative to Greenland’s total ice mass. Sources: The data plotted in these graphs are from the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise, a joint exercise by NASA and the European Space Agency.4 Graphs originally by Willis Eschenbach. Adapted and annotated by Anthony Watts.

The graphs below are perhaps the most egregious example of graphical disinformation. In this case, data are available from 1926, showing a dramatic decline in acres burned over the period through 2020. However, by selecting a truncated “X” axis ranging from the lowest point in the area burned data (1983) to 2020, the lower graph conveys the impression that there is a significant upward trend in area burned. This is done to create the impression that climate change is contributing to, or perhaps causing, the increase in area burned, while the area burned was far higher before climate change might have been an issue.

A comparison of the before and after erasure NIFC dataset showing acres burned. Note the blue trend line goes from a negative trend to a positive one when cherry picked data is used. Source: Anthony Watts

Graphs can be an extremely useful tool in conveying information, but they can also easily be used to create disinformation or a distorted impression regarding a situation.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Bob Irvine

Date: July 5, 2023

Does Wind Intermittance Over Short Hourly Periods Gives a Clearer Picture?

Cheap intermittent renewables appear to be very expensive.

The current Australian Government has ruled out nuclear energy and is committed to phasing out all fossil fuel base load power with gas seen as a transition fuel to an energy grid run entirely by intermittent wind/solar with battery or pumped hydro storage, with a small contribution from direct hydroelectric base load.

Can any of the electrical engineers at this site estimate the cost to consumers of a system run in this way. Is such a system even possible?

I live in Queensland, Australia. Until 30/6/23 our power bill for general usage was 25.559 Aus cents per kwh. On the 1/7/23 it jumped to 31.724 Aus cents per kwh a rise of about 24%. This is up from about 19 cents per kwh a few years ago.

The long-term picture is not much better. The Australian power price history has a close correlation with the penetration of intermittent generation into the system. See Figure 1, below.

Figure 1, Australian Energy prices compared to intermittent wind/solar penetration into the grid.

The Australian Energy market Operator (AEMO) has been singing the praises of “low cost” wind/solar for many years now.

To counter these assertions, I decided to collate the daily wind energy input to the Main Australian Grid, referred to here as simply the “grid”. This Main Australian Grid has an enormous area but does not include the Western Australian grid which is separate and about 8% of the size of the main grid.

My data source is this great site compiled over many years by Anton Lang. Thanks Anton. (continue reading)

Does Wind Intermittance Over Short Hourly Periods Gives a Clearer Picture?

Climategate was an ugly blot on the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the consensed climate science community and the IPCC in which they participated. The release of a batch of e-mails among a number of climate scientists in 2009 laid bare a coordinated effort to manage the consensus climate narrative by controlling which scientific studies were included in the IPCC assessments. This release was met with complaints that the e-mails released “lacked context”. This triggered a second e-mail release which provided the necessary and equally damning context and was followed later by a third release of all of the “purloined” e-mails collected by “Mr. FOIA”.

The activities disclosed in the e-mails included:

“cherry-picking” data;
refusing to release data for review by other scientists;
threatening to destroy data rather than share it with other scientists;
corrupting the peer review process;
ignoring scientific studies which did not conform with their consensus;
threatening the careers of scientific journal editors; and,
attempting to destroy the careers of skeptical scientists.

A series of investigations of this conduct did not find any violations of law, but rather numerous violations of good scientific practice and ethics. The investigations attempted to put an end to the Climategate controversy. Regrettably, they did not put an end to the activities which triggered the controversy.

Perhaps the most egregious of the continuing practices are the efforts to keep scientific studies which do not conform with the consensus from publication and from inclusion in the periodic scientific assessments prepared by the IPCC.

Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado at Boulder recently reported that he had been informed by an editor at the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal that he should not bother to submit material for publication because PNAS would not be able to find peer reviewers willing to review and comment upon his work.

Professor Pielke also reports that the contents of a paper submitted to IPCC for consideration in AR6 regarding disaster loss normalization were ignored, with the exception of a single “outlier” paper which fit the consensus.

Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has reported that two journal editors were fired after publishing papers he had submitted.

The consensed climate science community was successful in creating a toxic professional environment which caused Sally Baliunas and Judith Curry to leave university positions in the climate field. They were also successful in having Dr. David Legates removed as the Maryland State Climatologist based on his skepticism.

Climate researchers including Dr. Wei-Hock Soon, Dr. William Happer, Dr. William van Wijngaarden and others continue to report difficulty having their scientific papers published in US scientific journals and have resorted to publication in peer-reviewed foreign journals. Some have even resorted to “crowd review” on internet sites to get their work into the public domain.

These continuing actions by the consensed climate science community certainly do not conform to proper scientific practice and could properly be described using the epithet “anti-science”, which they frequently throw at skeptics.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Willis Eschenbach

Date: July 3, 2023

The Myth Of Replacing Fossil Fuels

A hat tip to the commenter on one of my posts who was kind enough to give me a heads-up as follows:

Mark BLR June 30, 2023 2:23 am

BP handed over the production of their “Statistical Review of World Energy” to an outfit called the “Energy Institute” at the end of last year.

They released the new version, with annual data updated to 2022, on Monday (4 days ago).

The latest (.xlsx) spreadsheet can be downloaded from the following URL :
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads

Since I had the new data, I thought I’d update the following graphic that I made a few years ago, which only covered up to 2019.

Figure 1. The 2019 version of energy consumption.

When I put that out, people were saying things like “You don’t understand. Solar and wind are growing exponentially! Just wait a few years and you’ll see!”

So, having now waited a few years, here’s the 2022 version. This time I’ve split out fossil fuels as a separate line. I’ve also added a line for traditional biomass. All the data is from the BP spreadsheet linked above except traditional biomass, which is from Our World In Data.

Figure 2. The 2022 version, including traditional biomass and fossil fuels as separate lines.

There are some very interesting things about this graphic. First, all the solar and wind in the world combined doesn’t provide even a third of the energy we get from wood and dung. (continue reading)

The Myth Of Replacing Fossil Fuels

Six Phases of a Project

1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Praise and honors for the non-participants

This “smart joke” apparently originated in computer science in the 1970s and spread rapidly from there. It provides a humorous perspective on the history of a failing project and the fallout from its failure. It also provides a perspective from which we can analyze the current state of the “Net Zero by 2050” project.

The Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario is an International Energy Agency scenario which identifies a potential path for all nations of the globe to achieve net zero annual CO2 emissions by 2050 to achieve the objectives of the Paris Accords. The almost universal agreement to the objectives of the Paris Accords by UN member nations led to great enthusiasm regarding potential future emissions reductions.

“The Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario is built on the following principles:

• The uptake of all the available technologies and emissions reduction options is dictated by costs, technology maturity, policy preferences, and market and country conditions.
• All countries co-operate towards achieving net zero emissions worldwide. This involves all countries participating in efforts to meet the net zero goal, working together in an effective and mutually beneficial way, and recognising the different stages of economic development of countries and regions, and the importance of ensuring a just transition.  
• An orderly transition across the energy sector. This includes ensuring the security of fuel and electricity supplies at all times, minimising stranded assets where possible and aiming to avoid volatility in energy markets.”

Disillusionment followed enthusiasm as night follows day as the violation of the above principles developed. Issues of the cost of technologies and emissions reduction options were offset by government subsidies and incentives, technology maturity was replaced by technology forcing regulations and market and country conditions were ignored. The only unaffected component of the first principle above was policy preferences.

The all-country cooperation called for in the second principle above succumbed to economic development priorities in the developing nations and disagreements over the requirements of a just transition. China, India, Indonesia and numerous African nations prioritized economic development over net zero pursuit and chose to base much of their economic development on increased use of coal and other fossil fuels. There are also continuing concerns over development funding from the developed nations to the developing nations.

The orderly transition across the energy sector fell prey to the intermittency of renewable generation, the immaturity of the storage technologies necessary to support renewable generation during periods of low/no renewable generation, the premature closure of conventional generation capacity, the Russian war in Ukraine and the US Administration war on the fossil fuels industries. Significant volatility in the energy markets in Europe, North America, Japan and Australia has resulted.

The failure of the IEA principles has led to panic in Europe and the UK as energy supplies have decreased and energy prices have increased rapidly. Numerous European industries have shut down or reduced production as the result of energy supply shortages and rising energy prices.

The political classes in the developed nations have focused the search for the guilty on Russia, though there is plenty of guilt to go around and they will ultimately share in it.

The punishment of the innocent is focused on the citizens and industries in the developed nations exposed to rising energy prices and the possibility of major energy shortages.

So far there has been no apparent effort to provide praise and honors for the non-participants, whoever they are.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Roger Caiazza

Date: July 2, 2023

RGGI Investment Report Lessons for Cap and Invest Programs

Cap-and-invest emission reduction programs are supposed to effectively reduce emissions and generate revenues.  The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an electric sector cap-and-invest program in the NE United States that can provide insight into the potential of these programs.  This post reviews the latest RGGI annual Investments of Proceeds report to determine how well the investments are producing emission reductions and the lessons that should be kept in mind from the observed results.

Background

RGGI is a market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to RGGI:

"The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia to cap and reduce power sector CO2 emissions.

RGGI is composed of individual CO2 Budget Trading Programs in each participating state. Through independent regulations, based on the RGGI Model Rule, each state’s CO2 Budget Trading Program limits emissions of CO2 from electric power plants, issues CO2 allowances and establishes participation in regional CO2 allowance auctions. (continue reading)

RGGI Investment Report Lessons for Cap and Invest Programs

The broad concept of 15-Minute Cities is not new, though the proposed version of the future is very different from its predecessors. The earlier 15-minute cities in the United States were voluntarily established small neighborhoods distinguished by the common ethnic or religious backgrounds of their residents. Many US cities still have Italian, Irish, Polish and Slavic neighborhoods. Many large cities have a Chinatown or a Koreatown or a Little Italy. Many also have Jewish neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods, such as the Harlem neighborhood in Manhattan, grew and later divided into two neighborhoods. Some cities even have suburbs which are predominantly populated by a single ethnic or religious group.

However, the 15-minute cities being proposed as an approach to reducing anthropogenic climate change are very different. First, they would have far greater population density, leading to clusters of high-rise mixed-use buildings housing schools, retail establishments, business offices, restaurants, recreation facilities, medical and dental offices, emergency medical facilities and other service businesses. High population density is necessary to assure a customer base sufficient to support the various non-residential facilities within the city.

The proposed 15-minute cities bear some resemblance to the housing projects built in numerous US cities to provide low-income housing, many of which either started out as or later became racially segregated. However, the current emphasis on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) should avoid racial, religious or ethnic segregation, at least by intent. Economic segregation might be far more difficult to avoid.

Developing 15-minute cities within existing major cities would be very difficult because of the diverse ownership of the existing property and infrastructure. It would also be a major exercise in “broken window economics”, removing existing functional infrastructure to replace it with higher density, mixed-use infrastructure. Redevelopment would displace current residents and businesses for several years while demolition and construction occurred. Construction would require large quantities of concrete, steel, brick and glass. Fabrication of these materials is very energy intensive and current production methods require the use of fossil fuels.

The primary climate change benefits expected from 15-minute cities are reductions in vehicle use and emissions and improved building energy efficiency. Transportation outside the 15-minute cities would be primarily by electrified public transit operating on perimeter roads.

The success of individual 15-minute cities would depend upon their geographic location, the quality and character of the specific non-residential facilities and services available within the city and the features and quality of the residential dwelling units. Cities with excellent schools and recreational facilities would be likely to attract younger couples and families. Other cities might be more attractive to 55 and older residents based on the nature of the non-residential facilities available, perhaps including assisted living functionality and more extensive medical and rehabilitation facilities.

Cities with higher end shopping and restaurants, perhaps even concierge services, would be more attractive to wealthy potential occupants and would likely lead to some degree of economic self-segregation.

The selection of a 15-minute city with the optimal combination of facilities would be more critical than the current situation, since travel out of the 15-minute city would be less convenient than is typical currently.

By: The Aspen Institute

The 15-Minute City is a relatively recent fascination of those interested in fomenting concern about climate change and using that concern to expand control over our lives.

The basic premise is a city, or section of a larger city, in which residents would have access to basic human needs including work, shopping, education, healthcare and leisure within a 15-minute walk or bicycle ride from anywhere in the city. To put that in perspective, a typical walking pace is approximately 3 miles per hour, while a typical cycling pace is approximately 15 miles per hour. Therefore, the diagonal distance between the opposite corners of a square 15-minute city would be between approximately three quarters of a mile and three and three quarters miles. If we assume that not all residents have or use bicycles, our square city would be approximately one-half mile square, or one quarter of a square mile, or approximately 5 city blocks on a side. This 15-minute city would have a population of 50,000 to 100,000, or 200,000 to 400,000 per square mile. Manhattan Island, for comparison, has a population density of approximately 74,000 per square mile and is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Therefore, the population density of the 15-minute city would be almost 2.5 times the population density of Manhattan Island.

Activities such a manufacturing and farming would almost certainly not occur within the 15-minute city, but 15-minute cities could be constructed adjacent to manufacturing facilities or surrounded by farmland to minimize travel distances for those working in the factories or on the farms. Such cities would be reminiscent of the “company towns” built by many industrial facilities to provide employee housing and services.

The size of dwelling units would be far smaller than is currently typical in the US. For example, assuming an average occupancy of 3 persons and an average dwelling size of 600 square feet, the 15-minute city would require approximately 16,000 to 30,000 dwelling units with a total area of 10-20 million square feet in a total land area of approximately 1.7 million square feet. Assuming a 25% land area allocation for parks, recreation facilities and walking/cycling paths, plus building space allocations for offices, stores, schools, hospitals or urgent care facilities and indoor leisure facilities, the buildings in the 15-minute city would average approximately 10-20 stories.

These cities would be expected to constitute substantial urban heat islands, with average near-surface temperatures 6-8°F warmer than the surrounding rural areas. This warming would be the result of the combination of wind blocking by the multi-story buildings and heat absorption by the building mass during the day, which would be released at night, raising nighttime temperatures. The UHI effect would likely be offset somewhat by the relative absence of road surfaces and vehicle traffic.

These conditions might be relatively acceptable to current city dwellers, despite the minimal living spaces and the increased population density. However, they would likely be unpleasant for current suburban and rural dwellers.

From: ResearchGate

By: Roger Higgs

Date: April, 2019

33 simple 'Bullet Points' prove CO2 is innocent of global warming: by a GEOLOGIST for a change

Abstract

GEOCLASTICA LTD TECHNICAL NOTE 2019-11, updated Feb 2023. Firstly, please be aware that ALL GEOLOGISTS ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS; we adore nature and abhor pollution. Welcome. You're one of >40,000 people to visit since I posted this item in April 2019. After reading these 33 simple 'bullet points', you will know that: (1) harmless CO2 is certainly not a 'pollutant' (as if!); and (2) it is madness to waste trillions of taxpayer dollars on 'carbon capture and storage' (CCS) that is both needless (CO2's small greenhouse effect is negated by feedbacks omitted in 'climate models') and undesirable (man's CO2 additions have made Earth greener, stimulating vital crop yields and forest growth). Nevertheless WE DO NEED TO TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS (i.e. oil, gas, coal; NB I'm a geology consultant for oil companies), but not due to life-giving CO2, instead because they will become too expensive as they grow scarcer. THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE: (A) freeze fossil-fuel usage at current levels (no new fossil-fuel-burning power stations or industry); (B) ban petrol & diesel vehicles & the REAL pollution they emit (nitrous oxides, unburnt diesel, tyre dust, etc.) immediately in cities & towns; (C) rapidly expand nuclear power (it produces ZERO air pollution; ample barren locations exist for radioactive-waste storage) while we … (D) urgently accelerate development of clean nuclear FUSION. PLEASE SHARE THESE 'BULLET POINTS', which collectively prove CO2 did not cause the 'Modern Global Warming'. I have assembled these 33 unquestionable FACTS (as opposed to INTERPRETATIONS, always open to question) during my 7 years, to date (Feb 2023), of self-funded (hence unbiased) full-time literature research on ALL the scientific disciplines relevant to climate- and sea-level change (i.e. geology, geophysics, archaeology, astrophysics, meteorology, oceanography, physics, chemistry, etc.), backed by 35 years as a geological consultant, preceded by a doctorate (Oxford 1982-86), MSc (Calgary) and BSc (London), all in geology. Contrast the IPCC's 2013/14 and 2021/22 reports, each with more than 700 authors, NONE (or possibly 1) of them a geologist (see my 1-page Technical Note 2019-10 here on ResearchGate). We urgently need to get the truth about CO2 out to the public and especially into schools and universities, to end the brainwashing of YOUR children and grandchildren with the 'CO2 is a pollutant' fallacy. The money squandered needlessly and ineffectually 'tackling' beneficial(!) CO2 should instead be spent alleviating GENUINE problems faced by world society, including overpopulation, poverty, famine, REAL pollution (auto emissions, chemical spills, plastics, sewage, etc.) and the IMMINENT >2-METRES SEA-LEVEL RISE jointly driven by (A) man's emissions of airborne soot and (B) our Sun's recently ended, record-breaking 'Grand Maximum' (Bullet 17). For literature SOURCES, please click on 'Linked data'. (continue reading)

33 simple 'Bullet Points' prove CO2 is innocent of global warming: by a GEOLOGIST for a change

The United States energy independence achieved in 2020 has been sacrificed on the altar of climate change, terminated with malice as part of an effort to “end fossil fuels”. This effort would ultimately make the entire US energy economy dependent upon intermittent renewable generation, some form of energy storage plus existing nuclear, hydro, geothermal, biomass generation and as yet undefined “Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources”.

The ”end fossil fuels” effort has proceeded faster on the supply side than on the demand side, causing the US Administration to go “hat in hand” to OPEC, Venezuela and even Iran seeking to arrange imports of foreign oil to fill the growing gap between domestic supply and demand. This Administration effort has not been well received by those potential suppliers. OPEC has recently announced a 1 million barrel per day reduction in production. US dependence, in this case, is amplified by sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which have left the SPR dangerously depleted.

The transition to a largely renewables plus storage energy economy increases our dependence on weather, as well as on foreign supplies of key materials required for the manufacture of wind turbines, solar collectors and storage batteries. Many of these materials are rare earth minerals, most of which are not currently available in the quantities which would be required to repower the US energy economy and some of which might not ever be available in those quantities. Many of those minerals are primarily controlled by nations which are unfriendly to the US, leaving us dependent on our enemies for our future wellbeing.

The requirement for energy storage in the renewables plus storage energy economy leaves us dependent upon technology which, for the most part, does not exist today and might never exist. The large seasonal variation in wind and solar generator output creates a requirement for long-duration storage capable of storing energy over a period of months when generation is in surplus for use during months when generation is inadequate to meet grid demand. The only established technology for such storage currently in use is pumped hydro storage. However, there has been major environmentalist resistance to the construction of pumped hydro storage facilities, particularly flow of stream facilities which require damming existing waterways.

Elimination of fossil fuel use also faces major challenges in several industries for which there is no existing electric alternative process, such as the production of iron and the calcining of coal. The impact of the “end of fossil fuels” on industrial processes which rely on fossil fuels for their process chemistry, on the synthetic fertilizer industry and on the production of the thousands of products made from derivatives of oil remains uncertain.

Our growing dependence is purportedly driven by a perceived need to avoid the adverse effects of climate change resulting from the emissions of CO2 and CH4 from fossil fuel production and use. However, numerous other nations of the world are increasing their consumption of fossil fuels in the interests of economic development and energy independence. As a result, our growing dependence on weather, renewable energy and energy storage, the increasing cost of energy in our economy and the decreasing reliability and resilience of our electric grid will have no measurable effect on future climate change, but will likely result in economic de-development.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

H. L. Mencken