From: Master Resource

By: Robert Bradley Jr.

Date: July 20 - July 23, 2020

 

Memo to Biden

 

W. S. Jevons (1865) on Wind - Part 1
W. S. Jevons (1865) on Waterpower, Biomass. and Geothermal - Part 2
W. S. Jevons on Coal - Part 3
W. S. Jevons on Energy Efficiency - Part 4

 

“The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.”

The most important book written on energy economics was the first: William Stanley Jevons’s The Coal Question (London: Macmillan and Company, 1865, rev. 1866). This classic is available in its entirety on the Internet.

Jevons’s remarkably sophisticated treatment of energy sustainability remains pertinent today. In a real sense, the Biden approach to energy was refuted by the insight of W. S. Jevons more than 150 years ago.

This four-part series will continue this week with Waterpower, Biomass, and Geothermal; Coal; and Energy Efficiency." ...

 

W. S. Jevons (1865) on Wind - Part 1
W. S. Jevons (1865) on Waterpower, Biomass. and Geothermal - Part 2
W. S. Jevons on Coal - Part 3
W. S. Jevons on Energy Efficiency - Part 4

 

Zero-sum, positive-sum, and negative-sum are all game theory terms that refer to the outcomes of a dispute or negotiation. They refer to the actual amount of wealth (money, land, vacation time) -- measurable rewards -- that each party receives. (link)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process which led to the Paris Accords has been a 25-year international negotiation regarding atmospheric emissions and wealth. It has been a very difficult negotiation because, ultimately, the primary focus of the negotiation must be a negative sum game. To achieve the desired outcome of the process, all parties to the negotiation must reduce their emissions of the gases identified as the primary drivers of anthropogenic global warming and climate change toward a goal of net-zero emissions. To achieve this endgame, there can be no “winners”.

The negotiations have seen the UN member nations divide into three basic groupings: developed nations, developing nations and not-yet-developing nations. The developed nations are seen as having been responsible for much of the increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other gases identified as “greenhouse gases”. The developing nations are rapidly increasing their emissions of these gases as their economies develop. Interestingly, China, the globe’s second largest economy, is classed as a developing nation, though its annual CO2 emissions are the globe’s largest by a factor of two.

The developing and not-yet-developing nations believe that they should be able to continue to increase their emissions as they pursue economic development; and, that the developed nations should decrease their emissions to offset the increases by the developing and not-yet-developing nations. This position is based on their concepts of economic and climate “justice”. However, this position is untenable when the largest and fastest growing emitter is a developing country; and, as a result, global annual emissions continue to increase and will for the foreseeable future. This approach has effectively converted what was supposed to be a negative-sum game into a positive-sum game.

A secondary focus of the UNFCCC process is the Green Climate Fund, intended to transfer wealth and income from the developed nations to the developing and not-yet-developing nations to fund climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts and provide compensatory finding for “loss and damage” resulting from climate change. The Green Climate Fund is designed as a zero-sum game in which the losses experienced by the developed nations transferring wealth and income to the Fund are equal to the gains experienced by the recipients of distributions from the Fund plus the administrative overhead of the Fund. The “winners” are more committed to this game than the “losers”.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the UNFCCC process will not be able to achieve its stated objectives without some overarching global government structure which has the power to enforce the emissions reductions and transfer payments determined necessary to achieve the objectives. However, there appears to be little interest on the part of the developed countries and the largest of the developing countries to surrender their sovereignty and subject themselves to the dictates of a global government.

 

 

From: Watts Up With That?

By: Charles Rotter

Date: June 23, 2020

 

Update: Global Man-made CO2 emissions 1965 – 2019, BP data

 

"Introduction

Every June BP publish their statistical review of world energy.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

One element of their comprehensive set of spreadsheets is a table of CO2 emissions by world countries since 1965.  For the purposes of this post, the CO2 emissions data provided by BP here is assumed to be correct.

That data is here and aggregated into seven Nation groups according to nominal state of development and attitudes towards controlling CO2 emissions, as follows:

• Developed
  • USA
  • JP CIS CA AU
  • EU (28)
• Nominally Developing
  • China HK
  • India
  • KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW
  • Rest of World (~160 Nations)

The aggregate data of CO2 emissions growth is summarised from 1965 onwards are shown above.  The marked differential between the Developed and nominally Developing worlds is shown below.

It shows:

• The virtual stabilisation of world emissions 2012 – 2019
• The continuing diminution of CO2 emissions from the Developed world from 2005 onwards
• The growing escalation of CO2 emissions from the “Developing” world, including China and India. This growth of CO2 emissions will inevitably continue and accelerate." ...

 

Update: Global Man-made CO2 emissions 1965 – 2019, BP data

 

greenwashing: expressions of environmentalist concerns especially as a cover for products, policies, or activities – Merriam-Webster

socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods – Merriam-Webster

 

Environmental activists have accused numerous corporations of “greenwashing” to improve their public image regarding environmental issues. The questioned corporate actions range from introduction of a limited number of new “green” products or services to refocusing marketing and advertising of existing products and services as “green”. The activists have attempted to assure that “it’s not easy being green”.

 

Environmental activists inside and outside government are participating in an international effort to greenwash socialism. In the United States, this effort has culminated in the introduction of the Green New Deal and A Green Stimulus to Rebuild Our Economy, which combines elements of the Green New Deal and the Blue New Deal.

 

Each of these programs embodies numerous “green” elements, primarily focused on climate change, though it is clear that none of these “green” program elements would have any measurable impact on global climate change, if for no other reason than that they are not global in scope. Each of these programs also embodies numerous socialist elements, all of which would move the nation further toward socialism. This movement toward socialism would have a measurable societal impact.

 

The Green New Deal would: “Enact energy democracy based on public, community and worker ownership of our energy system. Treat energy as a human right.” It would also effectively eliminate property rights associated with energy: “End destructive energy extraction and associated infrastructure: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, natural gas pipelines, and uranium mines.” These aspects of the Green New Deal are consistent with the socialist effort to eliminate certain historic rights while creating new “human rights” including rights to medical care, food, housing, employment and a “living wage”.

 

The Green Stimulus to Rebuild Our Economy builds on the Green New Deal and the Blue New Deal to “greenwash” a program of expanded socialism during the economic recovery from the COVID-19 shutdown. Public housing, affordable housing, rent control, federal zoning regulations, workers cooperatives, unionization, worker ownership, living wage, etc. have little or no impact on climate change, but they do expand socialism.

 

Estimates of the costs of the Green New Deal have ranged up to $93 trillion over 10 years. No such estimates are available for the Blue New Deal or the Green Stimulus to rebuild our economy. The estimated costs for the Green New Deal do not include the $60+ trillion Deadweight Loss associated with abandoning fossil fuels in the ground and abandoning the facilities which use those fuels. It is also important to note that the existing estimates are for 10 year costs, though the programs would continue beyond 10 years; and, that the cost of such social programs has historically always exceeded the original estimates and has grown over time.

 

Finally, all of these efforts and their costs would produce no measurable effect on global climate change.

 

By: Clear Energy Alliance

 

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know”, Donald Rumsfeld.

Merriam-Webster defines science as “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding. Merriam-Webster defines supposition as “something that is supposed: hypothesis” and supposed as “alleged, believed, imagined, expected”.

Climate science consists of a combination of knowledge and supposition. Climate alarmism consists of supposition regarding future conditions which are “alleged, believed, imagined or expected”. Climate science requires a way forward, from limited knowledge and substantial supposition to broader knowledge; a way forward from alarmism to thorough, dispassionate research to advance the science.

This process must begin with a clear understanding of what is known (known knowns), followed by applied research into those factors which are currently supposed (known unknowns) and basic research to determine if there are other factors of which we are ignorant (unknown unknowns) which affect the global climate. The objective of the process is to answer four fundamental questions: 1) What has happened?; 2) What is happening now?; 3) Why is it happening?; and, 4) What will happen in the future?

What is known can be summarized as follows: the globe has warmed; sea level has risen; glaciers have melted; atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased; and, human actions have changed the globe’s albedo.

What is supposed can be summarized as follows: global warming is undesirable; the globe has warmed because of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations; glaciers have melted because of this warming; sea level has risen because of this warming and glacial melting; increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause increased warming, glacial melting and sea level rise; increased warming will cause increased frequency and intensity of weather events such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and floods; increased warming will ultimately produce a climate catastrophe.

The way forward appears clear – resolve the known unknowns, then search for unknown unknowns in cases where the known knowns do not resolve all the climate questions.

The first issue which must be addressed is accurate global temperature measurement, including resolution of the relationship between atmospheric temperatures as measured from satellites and near-surface temperatures as measured by the US CRN and the Argos buoys. This might require global installation of CRN stations and expanding Argos buoy coverage.

The next issue which must be addressed is accurate global sea level rise measurement, including resolving the discrepancies between satellite measurements and tide gauges and discriminating among natural causes and anthropogenically induced warming.

Resolving these two issues would answer the “What has happened?” and “What is happening?” questions.

The next issues which must be addressed are accurate measurement of climate sensitivity, forcings and feedbacks. Resolving these issues is essential to answering both the “Why is it happening?” and the “What will happen in the future?” questions.

The other issue which must be addressed is verification of a single accurate model of the climate which addresses all of the factors affecting the climate and produces projections which match accurate observations over time.

None of these issues is new. They have been issues since global warming became a concern. They remain unresolved; and, they remain fundamental to understanding climate, now and in the future.

 

 

By: Michael Shellenberger

Date: June 28, 2020

 

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

"On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

• Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
• The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
• Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
• Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
• The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
• The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
• Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decades and peaked in Britain, Germany and France in the mid-seventies
• Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
• We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
• Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
• Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
• Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like" ...

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

 

Many members of the consensed climate science community refer to CO2 as the “control knob” of the climate. Some suggest that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations resulting from human activities are solely responsible for the increase in global average temperatures, as if natural variation had somehow ceased when human emissions of CO2 began to be significant.

The graph below plots the monthly temperature anomalies reported by the University of Alabama Huntsville for the period January 2019 (Point 1) through June 2020 (Point 18). The blue line is the temperature anomaly which would be expected if there were no natural variation and global temperature anomalies continued to increase at the average rate of increase of temperature over the entire period of the satellite record. The orange line plots the reported temperature anomalies over the same 18-month period.

The long-term rate of increase of the UAH global temperature anomaly is 0.00117° per month (0.14°C per decade divided by 10 years per decade divided by 12 months per year). The rates of change of the global temperature anomaly over the period plotted above range from 0.0 to 0.28°C per month, or up to 239 times the average monthly increase. Clearly, natural climate variation has not ceased.

The graph above focuses on the final 18 months of the period shown in the graph below, which shows the anomalies over the entirety of the satellite temperature anomaly record. The diagonal line shown between the endpoints on the graph determines the average temperature anomaly change over the period, 0.14°C per decade. The monthly temperature excursions above and below that line are the result of natural variation. The largest of these excursions are typically associated with El Nino and La Nina events in the Pacific Basin.

 

The graph below shows the Oceanic Nino Index for the period 1950 – 2019. The very strong El Nino events in 1982-1983, 1997-1998 and 2015-2016 are clearly visible. The peaks of the 1997-1998 and 2015-2016 events correspond with the highest anomalies shown in the graph above. The strong La Nina events are also clearly visible. There has not been a strong La Nina event since 2010-2011.

 

These ENSO events are relatively short lived, as shown above. The occurrence and strength of the ENSO events is not predictable, nor is the effect of the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on the events. The magnitude and speed of the effects of these Pacific Basin events on the global temperature anomaly is an indication of their power compared to the power of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, which affects the atmosphere of the entire globe.

The large changes in the monthly anomalies caused by the ENSO events emphasizes the significance of the starting and ending points used to analyze global temperature anomaly changes. For example, it is common to use the period 1980-2010 as the climate period of reference. Applying this period to analyze the rate of increase of the global temperature anomaly would result in a much lower rate of increase than the 0.14°C rate reported by UAH.

 

The people of the United States cherish their hard-won liberty and freedom. They have recently been required to temporarily relinquish a degree of that liberty and freedom in the face of a global pandemic. They have reluctantly acquiesced to this temporary loss of liberty and freedom in the interests of reducing the risk of serious illness and death to their fellow citizens and themselves. However, they are anxious to reclaim their lost liberty and freedom and return to their normal lives. They have been uncomfortable with the intrusion of government control over their actions.

The global pandemic has been an unplanned opportunity to experience life under a far greater degree of government intrusion and control, as would be the case in the event of an accelerated effort to mitigate climate change under a program such as the Green New Deal or the Blue/Green New Deal. However, while the loss of freedom and liberty during the pandemic was temporary, the losses under an accelerated climate mitigation effort would be permanent and would lead to many changes to the lifestyle we have come to expect and enjoy.

The deindustrialization of the United States desired by climate change alarmists would result in permanent job losses far more extensive than the temporary losses experienced during the response to the pandemic. The temporary shortages of food and supplies would be far more extensive and permanent. However, they would likely also be accompanied by shortages of energy for heating, cooling, water heating and transportation, which have not been an issue during the response to the pandemic. The accelerated schedules for “carbon” emissions reductions would virtually assure increased unreliability of the energy supply as well as increased energy costs.

While US citizens have generally been willing to accept the efforts to control the coronavirus pandemic, with its relatively high level of illness and death, they would likely be far less willing to accept such efforts in the face of a less compelling “crisis”, such as the climate “crisis”.  This is especially true in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic response, which has created significant economic hardship.

The responses to the pandemic globally have temporarily halted the frequently violent activities of groups such as the Extinction Rebellion. The end of restrictions on assembly will likely result in renewed aggressive and more frequently violent demonstrations. However, people are likely to be far less tolerant of these demonstrations and the resulting violence. There is likely to be significant pressure on law enforcement agencies to control the violence and arrest the violators. There will be very limited tolerance for additional economic disruption.

The American people are a resilient and driven people. They will do what is necessary to recover from the economic disruption caused by the pandemic response and restore the surge of economic growth over the past three years. They will resist efforts to prolong the economic disruption resulting from the government response to the pandemic. They will not willingly surrender their liberty and freedom and their potential for increasing prosperity for a Quixotic battle against climate change.

 “Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.”, Benjamin Franklin

 

Numerous professions develop and apply models to project how a process of interest to them might change in the future as the result of process maturation or the effects of external perturbations. The utility of these models is a function of the degree to which the models mimic the real process, the accuracy of data used as inputs to the models and the relevance of the assumptions regarding future process maturation or future external perturbations. The ability of the models to mimic the real process is limited by the extent to which the science underlying the real process of interest is understood.

The nations of the globe have recently been exposed to the limits of models of poorly understood processes and underlying science in the case of the COVID-19 coronavirus “pandemic”. Existing epidemiological models were used to project numerous factors related to the coronavirus, including infection rate, hospital bed and hospital ICU bed demand and mortality rate based on a very limited understanding of the coronavirus.  

The model projections varied widely among themselves; and, they varied widely from the actual observations. For example, initial model projections suggested up to 2.2 million deaths from the coronavirus in the United States. Those projections were continuously modified based on experience, reducing the estimated death toll to fewer than 60,000, or approximately 3% of the original projections. Clearly a substantial contributor to the reduced mortality projections is the result of government-imposed limitations on travel and recommendations for “social distancing” and “sheltering in place” to reduce the likelihood of disease transmission.

The initial model projections helped to shape government actions in response to the coronavirus “pandemic”. In retrospect, it appears that reliance on the early model projections contributed to an overreaction on the part of numerous national governments including the US government. The economic impacts of this overreaction have been devastating to numerous businesses and their owners and employees.

There is a lesson to be learned regarding reliance on unverified models which do not reliably mimic the real process in the formation of government policies with major societal implications. Current climate models have not been verified to accurately mimic global climate. The climate models rely on incomplete, “adjusted” data and are run using ranges of critical values, since the actual values are uncertain. They produce a range of projections of future climate, none of which are consistent with actual observations. The consensed climate science community recognizes that current climate data are inadequate and that the current CMIP5 climate models (with the exception of a Russian model) are producing projections of excessive warming.

The perceived climate “crisis” is based solely on the climate models and does not manifest in actual observations. Citizens have been responsive to the coronavirus crisis because it is obvious that people are being sickened and are dying in large numbers. Citizens have been far less responsive to the climate “crisis” because there is no obvious crisis, but just modest warming and sea level rise.

Climate activists have seized on the effectiveness of government response to the coronavirus “pandemic” as an indication of what government could accomplish if it took the same type of approach to climate change. However, they fail to recognize that the public would be far less responsive to the adverse effects of government actions in response to an unobvious “crisis”, particularly in the wake of the adverse effects of the government response to the coronavirus crisis.

 

 

From: Climate Depot

By: Dr. John Happs

Date: June 9, 2020

 

Sowing the Seeds of Climate Corruption: ‘So-called UN climate summits have little to do with global climate. They are smokescreens for the UN’s intent of changing the world and how it is governed’

 

Perhaps Piers Akerman was a little harsh over his criticism of the United Nations (UN) although there is no doubt that current climate hysteria had its origins within that organisation.

To its credit, the UN initially focused on nuclear arms control, disarmament, the protection of human rights, securing the independence of colonized countries and the economic development of poor countries.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf

Starting its journey for world peace and human rights, the UN has now morphed into a massive unelected socialist bureaucracy that attempts to interfere in the business of nations worldwide on just about every aspect of their lives. The UN now sees itself as a quasi-world government with global socialism as its raison d’être.

Rational people want to lift everyone out of poverty, yet many selfish advocates would deny those in developing countries access to the things we take for granted. The UN wants to see constraints on industry and human progress, arguing that the world can only be “saved” by stifling economic growth." ...

 

Sowing the Seeds of Climate Corruption: ‘So-called UN climate summits have little to do with global climate. They are smokescreens for the UN’s intent of changing the world and how it is governed’

 

• Blue/Green New Deal #1
• Blue/Green New Deal #2
• Blue/Green New Deal #3
• Blue/Green New Deal #4
• Blue/Green New Deal #5
• Blue/Green New Deal #6

 

Government Under the Blue/Green New Deal

 

1. Housing, Buildings, Civic Infrastructure, and Communities

Expanded LIHEAP funding

Green New Deal for Public Housing Act (public housing retrofits)

Public procurement of building materials and appliances

Indian Country housing retrofits

Federal / State investment in rent-controlled housing

Federal zoning regulations to expand dense and affordable housing

National green rental subsidy

Federally backed green mortgage lending

Public Housing Operating Fund

Fund out-of-work artists through Smithsonian and NEA

Climate Justice Resiliency Fund

Office of Climate Resiliency for People with Disabilities

 

2. Transportation Workers, Systems and Infrastructure

Federal direct transfers to local transit authorities

Equitable Transit Oriented Development (affordable housing)

Partnership for Sustainable Communities

Grants and no-interest loans to transit authorities for ADA and Complete Streets

“Fix It First” mandate for infrastructure and public works projects

 

3. Labor, Manufacturing and Just Transition for Workers and Communities

Federal fund to support formation of worker cooperatives

Funding to support opportunities for low income women

 

4. Energy System Workers and Infrastructure

All clean energy tax credits immediately deployable

Protect “right” of clean energy workers to unionize / incentivize worker ownership

 

5. Farmers, Food Systems and rural Communities

Strengthen organic standards

Reform agricultural subsidies to small producers

Re-staff and fully fund USDA science office

Re-staff and fully fund EPA science offices

Re-staff and fully fund Agriculture Extension offices

Support regenerative agriculture and ocean culture

Establish food supply management programs

Living wage for food chain workers

Empower USDA to address “food deserts”

Support International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (UN FAO)

Reparations for Black and Indigenous farmers

Federally backed land trust

Incentivize community and cooperatively owned farmland

Make government owned farmland available as incubator farms

Support shift toward healthy food consumption

Classify farmers markets as “essential services”

Farm Service Agency issue no-interest, no-match loans to small family farmers

Secure “rights” of migrant and permanent resident workers to healthcare, food and shelter

 

6. Green Infrastructure, Public Lands and the Environment

Create Clean Water Corps – sewer and storm water system repairs

Create Civilian Conservation Corps

Create green infrastructure maintenance jobs

National Parks Service fully funded and directed to clear project backlog

US Forest Service fully funded and directed to clear project backlog

US Army Corps of Engineers fully funded and directed to clear project backlog

HUD, DOT and EPA fully funded and directed to develop parks and open space plans

New permanent funding for HUD, DOT, EPA, to manage stimulus projects

 

7. Regulations, Innovation and Public Investment

Federal Reserve Bank Act to make green bonds secure as Treasury Bills

Large corporation bailouts and bridge loans require:

• economic, social and ecological conditions
• 10-year plan to cut majority of carbon pollution
• government gets equity position
• funds must be used to maintain payroll
• $15 minimum wage within 1 year
• no share buybacks or dividends
• labor representative board seats
• maintain collective bargaining agreements

Departments of Energy and Treasury assume larger share of decarbonization financial risks

SEC Office of Credit Ratings require climate due diligence

EPA becomes cabinet department

NOAA becomes cabinet department

Government green procurement – include project-labor or prevailing wage requirements

Federally backed bridge loan support to “green” firms

Increased ARPA-E funding (up to100x)

DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Office of Science funding

State-owned public banks fund community low carbon infrastructure

 

8. Green Foreign Policy

Science Envoy Program reinstated.

Prioritized aid packages for countries which adopt 1.5C roadmaps

Remove agriculture from purview of the World Trade Organization

Food supply classified as national security issue

Trade policies safeguard food security and sovereignty globally

 

Summary

Government at all levels becomes larger, more expensive, more intrusive and more socialist. Federal government becomes more globalist. American liberty and freedom are progressively limited.

 

 

From: Watts Up With That?

By: Mike Jonas

Date: June 5, 2020

 

Cloud Feedback, if there is any, is Negative

 

ABSTRACT

"Virtually all the climate models referenced by the IPCC show a strong positive cloud feedback. Cloud feedback is the process by which a changing surface temperature affects cloud cover, which in turn affects surface temperature. In this paper, all monthly satellite data for sea surface temperatures and cloud cover over the oceans, for the whole available period of July 1986 to June 2017, is analysed, in order to test this feature of the climate models. As expected, the trends for the overall period are of rising sea surface temperatures and of falling cloud cover. But the analysis also shows an unexpected relationship between sea surface temperature and cloud cover: increases in sea surface temperature are associated with increases – not decreases – in cloud cover over the next few months. Moreover, the cloud cover increases tend to intercept a greater proportion of incoming solar radiation than they do of outgoing ocean radiation. The inevitable conclusion is that cloud feedback is negative. In any case, the observed reduction in cloud cover over the oceans between 1986 and 2017 could not have been a feedback from rising temperature. The implications for climate models are devastating." ...

 

Cloud Feedback, if there is any, is Negative

 

• Blue/Green New Deal #1
• Blue/Green New Deal #2
• Blue/Green New Deal #3
• Blue/Green New Deal #4
• Blue/Green New Deal #5
• Blue/Green New Deal #6

This commentary and those that follow will analyze the programs in each policy proposal which focus directly on minimizing climate change and its effects on society.

 

Green Stimulus Policy Menu

 

7. Regulations, Innovation and Public Investment

This policy would establish a green investment bank to fund green energy retrofits and low-carbon investments.

The policy would restore a climate test (SCC) as a metric for federal procurement and permitting decisions.

The policy would provide assistance to colleges and universities to establish green energy degree and training programs.

The policy would streamline permitting for offshore wind farms and provide subsidies for their development.

The policy would also fund microalgae development for use as fuel feedstocks.

This policy would also deal with green bond security, require carbon reduction provisions in bridge loans to corporations, require funds be used to maintain payroll, provide for government equity in in corporations receiving bailouts, require a $15 minimum wage, set aside corporate board seats for labor representatives and require corporations to include climate die diligence in their planning efforts. The policy would also elevate the EPA and NOAA administrators to full cabinet level, dramatically increase ARPA-E funding, and double the budgets for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and its Office of Science. Again, no cost estimates are provided for the policy.

 

8. Green Foreign Policy

This policy would expedite aid packages, including green technology transfers.

This policy would end all direct and indirect funding of fossil fuel infrastructure internationally.

This policy would increase funding for the Green Climate Fund.

This policy also ensures fair trade agreements are centered on worker and climate protections, supports local and sustainable farming in the US and internationally, classifies food security as a national security issue.

The policies outlined in the Blue/Green New Deal appear to go far beyond the provisions of the original Green New Deal and this can be expected to exceed the $93 trillion estimated cost for that program, which does not include the ~$60 trillion deadweight loss associated with abandoning fossil fuel resources in place.

The time frame for these policies is repeatedly stated as “by 2030”, which is an extremely compressed time frame for achieving the enormous energy economy transition envisioned by the authors. Achieving the objectives of the policy in that time frame would require substantial government compulsion over a broad range of industries.

The authors suggest funding at the level of 4% of US GDP for the effort, but chose not to relate that to the level of increase of various tax vehicles required to provide the funding. It would appear that the funding requirements would represent an approximate 50% increase in the US federal budget over the period. These tax increases would be in addition to the investments required by private industry to meet the goals set forth in the policy.

One can only hope that the global greening affecting forests and croplands is equally effective with the “money tree”.

 

 

From: Real Clear Investigations

By: Eric Felten

Date: June 4, 2020

 

COVID Vs. Climate Models: Cloudy With A Chance Of Politics

 

"COVID-19 has proved to be a crisis not only for public health but for public policy.

As credentialed experts, media commentators, and elected officials have insisted that ordinary men and women heed “the science,” the statistical models cited by scientists to predict the spread of contagion and justify the lockdown of the national economy have proven to be far off-base.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York complained this week about the “guessing business” experts had presented to him dressed up as scientific fact: “All the early national experts [said]: Here’s my projection model. Here’s my projection model,” Cuomo said. “They were all wrong. They were all wrong.”

A computer model produced by statisticians" ...

 

COVID Vs. Climate Models: Cloudy With A Chance Of Politics