From: The Honest Broker - Substack

By: Mike Hulme

Date: January 13, 2025

From Idealism to Realism

This is a guest post by Mike Hulme, Professor of Human geography at Cambridge University. Mike is one of the world’s most accomplished climate scientists. Hulme participated in the IPCC second and third assessments, was part of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, where he subsequently founded the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA. He has been at Cambridge University since 2017. Mike and I are long-time collaborators, and we co-authored The Hartwell Paper (2009). Mike’s publication record is expansive and involves many collaborators around the world. He maintains an active website where you can find his research and commentary. Now over to Mike . . . —Roger Pielke Jr.

Geopolitics, History and Climate Change: A Personal View[1]

Mike Hulme, University of Cambridge

“To think that we can draw some useful analogies from history dramatically underestimates the novelty and scale of the climate challenge.”[2]

“In the contest between geopolitics and sustainable climate policies, the former takes precedence.”[3]

Starting in the early 1980s, I have spent my entire professional life studying climate change, as well as teaching, writing and speaking about it in universities, conferences, and public forums around the world—in 43 countries at the latest count. With such a professional and personal investment in the idea of climate change, it is not surprising that for a long period I uncritically absorbed the notion that climate change represented the pre-eminent challenge facing humanity in the twenty-first century.

Since first immersing myself in the topic in the 1980s, and subsequently being part of the scientific and public story of climate change in the 1990s and 2000s[4], I was easily convinced that the growing human influence on the world’s climate would be a reality that all nations would increasingly need to confront, a reality to which their interests would necessarily be subservient and that would be decisive for shaping their development pathways. For more than half of these 40 or so years, it seemed to me self-evident that relations between nations would forcibly be re-shaped by the exigencies of a changing climate.

But now, in the mid-2020s, I can see that I got this the wrong way round. And I can also see why this was so. Rather than geopolitics having to bend to the realities of a changing climate, the opposite has happened. The unyielding force of political realism—the pursuit of the changing and unpredictable interests of nations and great powers—means that the framing, significance, and responses to climate change need continually to adapt to shifting geopolitical realities. Except that too often they haven’t. Whilst the world’s climate has undoubtedly changed over these 40 years, the geopolitics, demography, and culture of the world has changed even more.[5] Too often the language, rhetoric, and campaigning around climate change remains wedded to a world that no longer exists. (continue reading)

From Idealism to Realism

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties 21 (COP21) in Paris, France produced the Paris Accords, a non-binding agreement under which the participating nations agreed to take actions necessary to achieve a goal of Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050. The developed nations of the world have undertaken various efforts to proceed toward that goal and have reduced their CO2 emissions with varying levels of success over the past 9 years. However, global annual CO2 emissions have continued to increase, largely due to rapid growth in fossil fuel consumption in the developing nations, led by China, India and Indonesia among others.

The continuing increases in global CO2 emissions have made it obvious that the globe is not going to achieve Net Zero by 2050. However, the developed nations are now beginning to realize that they are not going to achieve Net Zero by 2050 either. Their efforts so far have increased government debt, increased electricity prices, spread energy poverty, threatened the reliability of their electric grids, encouraged de-industrialization and left them flailing around seeking workable solutions.

It has become increasingly clear that, while the developed nations adopted the Net Zero by 2050 goal, none of them have developed a detailed plan to achieve the goal, nor have any of them analyzed in detail the cost of achieving the goal. Also, none of them has demonstrated that the transition to renewable generation they are pursuing would lead to a stable, reliable and economical energy economy. In spending hundreds of billions of dollars in pursuit of the goal without a plan or a demonstration, they have clearly “put the cart before the horse”.

Several individuals and organizations have suggested demonstration programs to no avail. More recently it has been suggested that rigorous engineering planning efforts might substitute for demonstration programs. Such engineering plans would begin with an analysis of the projected load on each grid in 2050 after an all-electric transition, with an allowance for market growth and economic development. The planning teams would then analyze the current grid and the generation which serves it and would be replaced, identifying areas where new generation capacity could be installed and the transmission enhancements necessary to move the output of the new generation to market. The planners would then determine the technology mix and capacity of the new generation assets to be installed.

The generation technologies evaluated would include intermittent renewable generators such as solar and wind, as well as dispatchable generators such as nuclear, hydro and geothermal. The intermittent generation capacity would require procurement and installation of storage capacity sufficient to render the intermittent generation dispatchable or installation of additional dispatchable capacity sufficient to replace the output of the intermittent generators when they were unavailable.

Storage technologies to be evaluated would include short-duration, medium-duration and long-duration battery storage, pumped hydro and Green Hydrogen. This component of the planning process would be greatly complicated by the fact that medium-duration and long-duration battery storage systems are not currently available, that pumped hydro systems are very location specific and subject to significant local resistance, and that no plan for the production, transmission, storage and utilization of Green Hydrogen currently exists.

The planning process would then prepare a detailed schedule for the transition. Each new generation site would be identified, the generation technologies to be sited there determined, their capacity established, the transmission interconnection designed and the cost of the installed and interconnected capacity calculated. An installation schedule which replaced the existing generation and kept pace with demand and consumption growth resulting from the all-electric transition would be prepared. Transmission and distribution system enhancements to accommodate the new generation and storage capacity installations and the anticipated load growth would be scheduled and costed.
I believe that such detailed plans, developed by corporations experienced with utility construction projects would determine that achieving Net Zero by 2050 reliably and economically in the developed nations would be as implausible as it is unnecessary.

“A goal without a plan is just a wish.”, Antoine de St. Exupery

From: edmhdotme

By: Ed Hoskins

Date: January 15, 2025

Negligible future warming from: CO2 – CH4 – N2O

At the current concentration of atmospheric CO2 at ~420 ppmv, (parts per million by volume), is at a low level in comparison with levels in past eons when plants evolved. At this concentration Co2 is already ~85%+ saturated.  

The Global warming potential of any added atmospheric CO2, whether natural or Man-made, is already virtually exhausted.

At its current concentration atmospheric CO2 at ~420 ppmv even doubling to 840 ppm would cause little additional warming, amounting approximately to a ~1% effect applied to ~33°C total Greenhouse effect or ~0.33°C.

The added level of CO2 increase would be a huge benefit to the biosphere and agriculture.

All attempts by Mankind to limit further CO2 emissions or other Greenhouse gasses will have no further controlling effect on Global temperature.

Any further actions by any minority of Western Nations to avoid a supposed Global Overheating Catastrophe by reducing their emissions of Greenhouse Gas are simply self-harming and pointless.

These facts entirely negate the obsessive need to pursue Net Zero policies at all.

(continue reading)

Negligible future warming from: CO2 – CH4 – N2O

The US and most of the developed nations have set various energy and climate goals, either in legislation or by executive action. These goals are typically intended to achieve Net Zero by 2050. Goals were set for specific sectors of their economies. In the US, these included achieving net zero emissions in the electric sector by 2035 and banning the sale of fossil fueled vehicles and residential and commercial appliances and equipment by 2035. Oil and gas lease sales were cancelled or delayed, restrictions were placed on oil and gas exploration and production on oil and gas pipelines were denied approval.

The common approach was to replace fossil fuel electric generation with wind and solar generation. Some governments also chose to eliminate nuclear generation and replace it with wind and solar. This approach deprived electric utilities and their regulators of the freedom to select the mix of generation technologies which best supported the demand and consumption characteristics of their markets.

Massive subsidies and incentives were offered to encourage investment in wind and solar generation, largely to the exclusion of the investments in storage necessary for intermittent renewable generation to replace fossil generation in a stable and reliable electric grid, rather than merely displace a portion of the output of the fossil generators. The failure to invest in sufficient storage deprived the utilities of the freedom to retire the fossil generators, since they were needed to back up the intermittent renewables. This also resulted in significant increases in electricity costs.

The goals for elimination of fossil fueled vehicles were intended to deprive vehicle manufacturers of the freedom to produce the vehicles their customers preferred and to deprive customers of the freedom to purchase the vehicles they preferred. Significant incentives were offered to manufacturers to produce electric vehicles and to customers to purchase them. Significant funding was also committed to incentivize and support the installation of public electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The goals for elimination of fossil fueled appliances and equipment were intended to deprive purchasers of the freedom to select the appliances and equipment which best suited their needs. Significant incentives were offered in some nations for the replacement of gas boilers with electric heat pumps. However, the incentives proved insufficient to offset the much higher installed cost of the heat pumps and the higher operating costs resulting from electric rate increases. There were also pilot programs proposed to convert existing natural gas distribution systems and end use appliances and equipment to operate on Hydrogen. Those pilot programs were abandoned after strong consumer resistance.

The new US Administration appears poised to terminate the range of programs put in place in support of the Net Zero goal and to restore the freedoms they threatened. The Administration proposals are not intended deprive utilities of the freedom to choose renewable generation or to deprive consumers of the freedom to choose electric vehicles, electric heat pumps or other electric appliances and equipment. However, it is likely that the subsidies and incentives which had been offered will disappear or be dramatically reduced.

While the energy and climate goals have had significant impacts on the economies of the developed nations which have adopted them and would continue to have massive further impacts on those economies, it has become clear that there are no plans in place to achieve the goals. Several recent non-government planning exercises suggest that achievement of the goals which have been established is implausible, especially in the timeframes which have been established for their achievement.

From: Conflicted - Substack

By: Jessica Weinkle

Date: January 9, 2025

Bias
Undisclosed conflicts of interest are a serious problem in the climate change literature

A flurry of commentary on bias indicates the depths of the conflicts of interest problem in climate change research.

Yesterday, Patrick Brown at The Breakthrough Institute had a great write up walking us through a cascade of bias in extreme weather attribution studies, the body of literature supporting it, and the media reporting on it.

Patrick names the following biases: Occurrence Bias, Choice Bias, Publication Bias, and Media Coverage Bias.

Patrick’s work comes on the heals of an essay series “Weather Attribution Alchemy” by Roger Pielke Jr. at The Honest Broker. In his most recent post to the series, Roger names: Selection bias, Misrepresentation of the statistics, and the Fallacy of begging the question.

Bias is a distortion of science that results in unreliable knowledge. Distorted science is socially, economically, and politically costly to society.

Here, I will situate these findings of bias in the extreme weather event attribution literature under the broader heading of researcher conflicts of interest (COI), a major topic of concern for research ethics.

Bias as an outcome of researcher conflicts of interest is relevant here for two reasons.

First the methods, organizations, and researchers that advance extreme weather event attribution are inherently tied to litigation and advocacy.

Second, the situation is symptomatic of a far deeper and widespread problem of poor author conflicts of interest disclosure practices throughout the climate change science literature.

Let’s take this in pieces. (continue reading)

Bias
Undisclosed conflicts of interest are a serious problem in the climate change literature

Government funded climate research has had a heavy focus on “tactical research” intended to support a government narrative or justify climate policies. This research has produced a “veritable plethora” (HT: Howard Cosell) of scary potential future climate change scenarios. This research has relied upon ”adjusted” global temperature measurements, extreme Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP 8.5), high climate sensitivities, positive climate feedbacks and unvalidated and unverified climate models. The intent of this research has been to scare the public regarding the potential future effects of climate change and to encourage the public to accept and comply with government climate policies.

Regrettably, this approach to government funded climate science, while useful in producing media headlines, has diverted attention from research necessary to improve our understanding of climate and weather. Much remains unsettled regarding the “settled science” of climate and climate change. It would be prudent to understand climate before committing $ trillions to remaking our energy economy.

The fundamental concerns regarding climate change are increasing near-surface temperatures and sea level rise. Significant uncertainties persist regarding both.

Near surface temperatures are measured at a large number so locations using a variety of instruments and instrument enclosures. A recent survey in the US suggests that approximately 96% of US measuring stations are producing erroneous measurements as the result of location, instrument calibration or instrument housing deterioration. It is reasonable to assume that the measuring stations in other countries are similarly affected. Some areas still remain unmeasured.

The US Climate Reference Network (CRN) uses three identical sets of carefully sited and installed measuring equipment at each site to provide accurate, UHI-free temperature measurements. However, this system has not been adopted globally, so a high percentage of temperature measurements are “adjusted’ using various methods of uncertain provenance. Recent studies suggest that approximately 40% of the calculated US temperature anomaly is attributable to UHI. Other global measuring sites are likely similarly affected.

Climate science currently uses a range of climate sensitivities to greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere because the actual sensitivity value is unknown. Climate science also uses a range of values for climate feedbacks because the actual values are also unknown. Finally, analyses are conducted with numerous climate models, none of which has demonstrated that it actually models the climate. Research to identify the actual values of these parameters and to validate a single climate model which actually models the real climate is clearly necessary.

Government places great significance on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), which is a very malleable estimate of the future damage which might be caused by climate change. However, government apparently ignores the social benefits of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Several studies suggest that the SCC is currently negative and would likely remain so for the foreseeable future.

There also remain several natural phenomena which affect weather and climate which remain inadequately understood and justify further research including the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, ENSO and other elements of the global water cycle. Further research is also warranted on the effects of sub-oceanic vents and volcanoes. This research might also assist in understanding the many factors which affect the development, frequency, intensity and path of tropical cyclones.

Sea level rise has been occurring since the trough of the Little Ice Age. Since the implementation of tide gauges to measure sea level, there has been a relatively continuous rise in sea level, with no indication of acceleration associated with global warming. Sea level is now also measured by satellites and the satellite data is believed to show some modest acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. There remains a significant and unresolved difference in the rates of sea level measured by the tide gauges and the satellites, which is also a subject for further research.

It is clearly past time to shift from tactical climate studies to serious climate research.

From: ZeroHedge

By: Tyler Durden

Date: January 8, 2025

People Are Catching On To The Truth

Authored by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com,

Is Biden Trying To Destroy The US’s Energy Future?
Energy is THE master resource.  Have that and everything is possible.  Without it, nothing is possible.

The level of sheer petulance on display by the Biden administration on their way our to door is staggering.  They’ve tried and failed, thankfully, to kick of WW III by lobbing long-range missiles into Russia.  They treated the Western North Carolina hurricane victims so horribly, and continue to do so, that it’s a miracle that hasn’t erupted into violence.  They ran an extremely poorly conducted drones-over-Jersey PsyOp.

Then Biden pardoned some of the worst possible people on the planet, including a judge that shanghaied kids into a prison-for-profit program for infuriatingly stingy kickbacks given the fact that some of the kids committed suicide as a result, and lives were derailed and ruined in all cases.

The two terror incidents were immediately utilized as weapons-grade PsyOps by who knows which over-funded “intelligence” agencies to distract and divide and divert civilian attention while they dialed-for-dollars in a new political landscape where their relevance may have suddenly come into question.

But all of that pales in comparison to the truly stunning attempts by the Biden administration (which we still have no idea who or what we’re really speaking of when we type that out) to hamstring American’s access to affordable, reliable energy and efficient equipment.

The headlines begin with Biden invoking the 1952 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, meaning Trump would need Congressional involvement to reverse this action:(continue reading)

People Are Catching On To The Truth

Current US climate policy is aligned with the UN climate objectives embodied in the 2015 Paris Accords. It is focused on Net Zero by 2050, “All-electric Everything” by 2050, ending the use of fossil fuels, transitioning to an electric grid powered by wind and solar and a transportation system reliant on electric vehicles. Current policies provide substantial incentives for wind and solar generation, electricity storage, electric vehicles and electric heat pumps. Fundamental to these policies is the 2007 Supreme Court finding that CO2 is a pollutant and the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding regarding CO2.

The incoming Trump Administration is not supportive of the UN climate objectives. It has several climate and energy policy revision priorities it intends to pursue rapidly and aggressively. Its first action is likely to be withdrawal from the Paris Accords and cessation of funding of the UN Green Climate Fund. The Administration is being encouraged to submit the Paris Accords to the Senate as a treaty, which the Senate would almost certainly fail to approve.

The Administration is also likely to seek reversal of the EPA Endangerment Finding which is not in compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act under which it was issued. The CAA requires EPA to rely on its own research (not the IPCC) and to issue a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO2, which has not been done in the 15 years since the Finding. The Administration might also seek to reverse the Supreme Court finding in the wake of the Court’s Chevron Deference position. The Administration will also seek withdrawal of the EPA Powerplant Rule which would require installation of CCS systems on coal and natural gas electric generators or their retirement.

The Trump Administration will seek to eliminate or drastically reduce incentives for electric grid conversion to renewable generation, for electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, and for natural gas and propane appliance and equipment replacement with electric appliances and equipment. These incentives are currently being debt funded, adding to current government deficits and the national debt. The incentives for parallel electric grid infrastructure and for parallel vehicle charging infrastructure add to inflation as they unnecessarily duplicate existing infrastructure without increasing utility. These incentives also distort markets, placing existing businesses in competition with government incentivized businesses.

The Trump Administration will also seek to get government out of the way of US fossil energy exploration and production activities. It will resume the legally required oil and gas lease sales on federal land and offshore. The Administration will also attempt to reverse the recent Biden ban on offshore oil and gas exploration and production  It will likely support oil and gas pipeline construction, including the Keystone XL pipeline, and end the current moratorium on LNG sales.

The previous Trump Administration ended the practice of “sue and settle” used by US EPA to resolve issues in its favor in cooperation with environmental advocacy groups. The practice was resumed under the current Administration and has metastasized to other agencies. Trump will again end the practice and might attempt to have it banned by law to prevent its readoption in the future.

The new Department of Government Efficiency will likely seek to make significant impacts on US EPA and US DOE, as well as on NOAA and NASA GISS, regarding their involvement in climate and energy policy.

From: Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues - Substack

By: John Droz Jr.

Date: January 6, 2025

Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

When I wrote the original version of this last year, some attentive readers said that although my list of ten costs were spot-on, I should have added more. My original list was intended to be a summary, not all inclusive. That said I believe that several of their suggested additions are not trivial, so I am reposting this commentary which now has fifteen typically ignored costs of industrial wind energy…

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Periodically I get asked: what is the TRUE cost of industrial wind energy?

It seems like that should be a relatively straightforward answer, but it is anything but.

To appreciate what is going on, we need to understand the Big Picture regarding wind energy. (FYI, the same applies to solar.) The system is setup to grease the skids for wind energy developers — not ratepayers. When it comes to wind energy, we are dealing with 21st century snake oil salespeople. They have a sophisticated multi-part strategy to profit at the public’s expense…

Their FIRST major strategy is to sell politicians on the bogus concept that our electrical Grid should be inclusive — i.e., include ALL electrical energy sources (whether they are good or bad. An all of the above policy makes no technical or economic or environmental sense. (For a discussion of this, see here.) My alternative motto is that our electrical grid should include all of the sensible.

Their SECOND major strategy is to sell politicians on the false belief that we need enormous amounts of industrial wind energy to “save the planet from pending climate catastrophe.” Ignoring the accuracy of the Climate Change fear-mongering aspect, the reality is that there has never been a genuine scientific study that has concluded that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2! In fact, there have been multiple scientific studies that have concluded that wind energy can make Climate Change WORSE! (See here for some examples.)

Their THIRD major strategy is to sell politicians and the public on the illusion that industrial wind energy is inexpensive — so we should do it anyway (irrespective of points #1 and #2 above). So what is the true cost of industrial wind energy? (continue reading)

Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

Today marks the changing of the guard for the government of the United States. The new Administration promises many changes to programs and priorities throughout government. However, few areas will experience changes of the magnitude of the changes which will affect energy and climate, which expect to experience an almost complete reversal.

The ”War on Fossil Fuels” is over at the federal level, at least for the next 4 years, though it will still persist in some states. The federal government will return to regular oil and gas lease sales and will cease “slow walking” exploration and production permits. The LNG export “pause” will be un-paused and new LNG export terminal construction will again be determined by market demand and project economics. Pipeline expansion and new construction will not be banned by federal executive action.

Federal goals for utility-scale renewable generation installations, including offshore wind installations, will be terminated, as will the federal subsidies and incentives for their installation. Wind and solar are mature technologies which should compete for market share with fossil and nuclear generation. Grid scale batteries (2-4 hour) are also mature technology and should compete in the market as well. Offshore wind is already far more expensive than any of the alternatives, even with subsidies, and interest in future projects will likely diminish as the interest in currently proposed offshore wind projects has already done.

The EPA “mandate” for electric vehicles will be un-mandated, though individual state mandates will likely persist. Federal government incentives for the production and sale of EVs will be dramatically reduced or eliminated. Federal support for EV and EV battery manufacturing facilities will cease. Federal promotion and incentivization of EV transit and school buses will cease. The federal program to install fast charging facilities for EVs will be dramatically scaled back.

Program planning and development in support of the DOE “Decarbonize the Building Sector” blueprint will be deferred because the decarbonization goal has been abandoned and the federal funding required to incentivize the required investments will not be available. Federal incentives for building solar installations will also be reduced.

These changes do not mean that utilities and other investors cannot proceed with economically viable wind, solar and electricity storage projects. However, they do mean that utilities and investors will have the choice of developing fossil and nuclear generation capacity if they are the economical and/or operational choice and are not constrained by state Renewable Portfolio Standards. Utilities would also have the freedom to insist that new renewable facilities connected to their grids be dispatchable, which would significantly increase their value to the grid but also their cost.

These changes do not mean that individual customers or fleets cannot choose EVs, or that transit operators and school districts cannot choose EV buses.

These changes do not mean that homeowners and commercial establishments cannot choose to improve their buildings’ energy efficiency, install solar and battery storage or purchase electric heat pumps, water heaters, cooking and laundry appliances and equipment. Rather, it means that they can continue to make free choices based on preferences and economics.

For the next 4 years at least, the US federal government will allow markets to function without undue government interference or pressure.

From: The Washington Times

By: Matthew Daly

Date: January 6, 2025

Biden, in 11th hour action, bans new offshore oil and gas drilling in most federal waters

WASHINGTON — President Biden is moving to ban new offshore oil and gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters, a last-minute effort to block possible action by the incoming Trump administration to expand offshore drilling.

Biden, whose term expires in two weeks, said he is using authority under the federal Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to protect offshore areas along the East and West coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and portions of Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea from future oil and natural gas leasing.

“My decision reflects what coastal communities, businesses and beachgoers have known for a long time: that drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation’s energy needs,” Biden said in a statement.

“As the climate crisis continues to threaten communities across the country and we are transitioning to a clean energy economy, now is the time to protect these coasts for our children and grandchildren,” he said.

Biden’s orders would not affect large swaths of the Gulf of Mexico, where most U.S. offshore drilling occurs, but it would protect coastlines along California, Florida and other states from future drilling.

Biden’s actions, which protect more than 625 million acres of federal waters, could be difficult for President-elect Donald Trump to unwind, since they would likely require an act of Congress to repeal. Trump himself has a complicated history on offshore drilling. He signed a memorandum in 2020 directing the Interior secretary to prohibit drilling in the waters off both Florida coasts, and off the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina until 2032. (continue reading)

Biden, in 11th hour action, bans new offshore oil and gas drilling in most federal waters

The US federal government is supposed to conduct cost / benefit analyses of proposed programs to establish their cost effectiveness. In practice, the costs are often grossly underestimated and the benefits grossly overestimated.

Much has been written about the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), which is shorthand for the social cost of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. SCC is a computer model generated estimate of the potential future societal damage which might be caused by continued CO2 emissions, typically through 2100. SCC, as it has been practiced by our government and others is an extremely malleable estimate. Pick a computer model, pick an estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2, pick an estimate of climate feedbacks, pick an estimated discount rate, push the button and “viola!”, there’s your estimate of the SCC. Current SCC estimates range from $0 up to $5500 per ton of CO2. The higher estimates can be used to justify almost any CO2 emissions reduction program.

While a search of the term “social cost of carbon” produces more than 19 million “hits’, a search of the term “social benefit of carbon” produces “crickets”. It would appear that the benefits portion of the government cost / benefit analysis is “missing in action”. However, the benefits are real, current and documented, while the costs are uncertain, future and computer model projected.

The most dramatic benefit is global greening, which has been documented by NASA  and NOAA  satellites. Studies attribute ~70% of the measured greening to the availability of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The increased CO2 not only acts as a fertilizer, but also increases the efficiency with which plants and trees use available moisture, This has manifested in a decrease in the global desert area as plants and trees have advanced across the desert perimeters.

The availability of increased CO2 has also contributed to growing crop yields for a large number of plant species, including many of the cereal crops essential to the food chain. These crops also use available moisture more efficiently, reducing the need for crop irrigation. The increased CO2 also contributes to the growth of the grasses which feed ruminant animals including domesticated animals such as cattle, sheep and goats as well as wild ruminant animals including deer and antelope.

Crop science suggests that current atmospheric CO2 levels are still well below the ideal levels for plant growth. The CO2 levels maintained in commercial greenhouses are approximately 5 times the current atmospheric level. It appears that many crops would continue to benefit from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, though the effects would not be constant or universal.

Most government focus has been on the potential future costs of increased atmospheric CO2, in support of the climate “crisis” narrative and climate policies intended to reduce, halt and reverse the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, increased atmospheric CO2 has contributed to substantial societal benefits which should be recognized and valued. Reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations would reduce those benefits and increase the strains on global food production.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Russ Schussler

Date: December 5, 2024

Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid

In October of 2024, the isolated small city of  Broken Hill in New South Wales, Australia with a 36 MW load (including the large nearby mines) could not be reliably served by 200 MW of wind, a 53 MW solar array, significant residential solar, and a large 50 MW battery all supplemented by diesel generators.

Many people falsely believe that wind, solar and batteries have been demonstrated to provide grid support and deliver energy independently in large real word applications. Few people realize that we are a long way away from having wind, solar and batteries support a large power system without significant amounts of conventional spinning generation (nuclear, gas, coal, hydro, geothermal) on-line to support the grid.

Broken Hill Outage – Wind, Solar and Battery Can Not Support the Grid

The recent outages occurring in Broken Hill help illustrate the inability of wind, solar and batteries to support electric grids without significant help from machines rotating in synchronism with the grid. (Note – wind power is produced by rotation but not in synchronism with the grid).

Around 20,000 people live in the Broken Hill area. Over $650 million in investment made Broken Hill home to a 200 MW wind plant, a 53 MW solar array, and a large battery that could provide 50 MW of power for 100 MWh through advanced grid forming inverters. Broken Hill is home to over 6,000 small-scale solar systems providing a per capita energy small solar production level almost twice the Australian average.  The area also contains two poorly maintained diesel-powered gas turbine generators in the area, one which was off-line for maintenance.

Broken Hill became renewable energy industry’s Potemkin Village:

 In 2018, Broken Hill City Council announced its goal to become Australia’s first carbon-free city by 2030. Three years ago, then mayor Darriea Turley welcomed the announcement that AGL was proceeding with plans to build a grid-scale battery, which the company claimed would be a reliable backup power source for 10,000 homes. “This is a great opportunity for Broken Hill and renewable energies,” Turley told the ABC. “What they will see is when there is an outage, the battery would click into operation.” (continue reading)

Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid

Misinformation: incorrect or misleading information
Disinformation: false information often deliberately or covertly spread
Malinformation: information which is based on fact, but removed from its original context in order to mislead, harm, or manipulate

UN’s new mission: ‘Fight the climate-related disinformation running rampant on social media’ – ‘Debunk myths & put an end to the narratives of denialism’ – ‘Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change’

The United Nations, through its General Secretariat, and the IPCC, through its Summary for Policymakers, are primary sources of climate and climate change mis/dis/mal-information.  They are principally responsible for the “climate crisis”, “existential threat“ and “climate emergency” narrative running rampant in the main stream media, which is not supported by the science reported by IPCC Working Group I. The UN Secretary General is famous for such hyperbole as “the era of global boiling has arrived” and  “on the highway to climate hell” among others.

The Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change is not focused on the honesty (integrity) of the information, but rather on keeping the “crisis” narrative whole and undivided (integrity), to maximize its effectiveness in convincing the public to support government climate change policies. This is becoming increasingly important as those policies result in higher electricity prices, growing energy poverty, reduced electric grid reliability, industrial uncompetitiveness and job losses
It is not clear what constitutes the “narratives of denialism” the UN intends to “put an end to”.  It is not clear what “denialism” denies. It is certainly not the existence of a climate, or the fact that climate changes, or even the fact that humans can affect climate. Certainly skeptics question the UN “crisis” narrative, which constitutes misinformation, based on the IPCC science.

Perhaps the greatest climate “myth” in circulation, though not associated with “denialism”, is the myth that “the science is settled”, which is clearly disinformation. This is simply another aspect of the effort to protect the integrity (wholeness) of the UN climate narrative.

Skeptics question the assertion that climate change is worsening extreme weather events, such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, floods and droughts, which is clearly disinformation based on historical data. Skeptics also question the focus on current extreme weather events in the absence of the historical perspective, which frequently constitutes malinformation.

Skeptics also question assertions that climate models provide accurate projections of future climate, both because there are still multiple climate models which produce differing projections and because the model projections do not agree with observations. That means that the outputs of the climate models are misinformation.

Skeptics also question studies which lead to the development of “scary scenarios” using climate models and unrealistic Representative Concentration Pathways, such as RCP 8.5. These studies are yet another form of misinformation.

The UN continues to aspire to a role in “global governance”, or more precisely to the role as the global government. It has discovered, as have many current national governments, that mis/dis/mal-information is easiest to “govern” if they are the sources of the mis/dis/mal-information. The UN clearly seeks a monopoly on climate mis/dis/mal-information and has no tolerance for “competitors”, real or imagined.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Rupert Darwall

Date: December 13, 2024

Stern’s Climate Lesson for the Trump Administration

“The 2015 Paris climate should take its place as one of the great triumphs in history,” Jonathan Chait wrote two days after it was concluded. Todd Stern, America’s climate envoy for all but eight months of Barack Obama’s presidency, was indispensable in making the Paris agreement happen. With his new book, Landing the Paris Climate Agreement: How It Happened, Why It Matters, and What Comes Next (MIT Press, October 2024), Stern has written an indispensable history of the genesis, the whys, and the wherefores of the Paris agreement, indispensable both to supporters and critics and therefore for members of the incoming Trump administration as they consider, for a second time, future American participation in the agreement.

Stern’s account starts with the run-up to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference. Stern knew what needed to be done. The firewall in the original United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, had to be erased and a treaty text produced that wouldn’t be sent to the United States Senate for its advice and consent.

Stern had witnessed the Senate’s preemptive rejection of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol because the UN firewall protected China and other major developing countries from future treaty requirements to cap their emissions. This goal was initially opposed by the Europeans, who wanted to bounce the U.S. into a legally binding climate treaty that he knew would fail and premised on the delusory belief that developing countries would follow if the developed world led by example.

Stern had an ally in the Danish conference hosts, who wanted a short, legally nonbinding agreement. The longtime British climate negotiator, Pete Betts, had also suggested that countries should submit their own national plans as part of a new agreement, rather than negotiating emissions targets and inking them into a treaty. But a quartet of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa moved to block any agreement that set a goal for agreeing to a legally binding treaty. “They were not prepared to take the risk that a legally binding agreement would bind them,” Stern writes.

The Copenhagen conference of the parties (COP) is usually portrayed as a disaster. It ended in near-chaos, when a handful of South American countries blocked the conference from adopting the two-and-a-half-page Copenhagen Accord and only just succeeded in “taking note” of it. Stern challenges this assessment. The U.S. side never saw Copenhagen as a failure, he says. “We knew that the accord was an important document that it began an essential pivot away from the old firewall paradigm and was a potentially significant step forward.”

The next COP was in Cancún. “If Copenhagen was cold and gray with wet snow … Cancún was the opposite. The air was soft and warm, the sky was blue, the Gulf of Mexico lapped the edges of the beach,” Stern recalls. Stern’s aim was to embed the Copenhagen Accord in the process, while China did its best to kill it. A European colleague summed up the dilemma: the U.S. would not accept the firewall between developed and developing countries, but China and its allies would not give it up.(continue reading)

Stern’s Climate Lesson for the Trump Administration