Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
In his recent Forbes article, Tilak Doshi criticizes a landmark ruling by Europe’s highest human rights court, which mandates countries to protect their citizens from the consequences of climate change.
In his recent Forbes article, Tilak Doshi criticizes a landmark ruling by Europe’s highest human rights court, which mandates countries to protect their citizens from the consequences of climate change.
This decision, according to Doshi, exemplifies a growing trend in using legal frameworks to enforce climate policies that lack sufficient scientific substantiation and democratic endorsement. This perspective aligns with a skeptical view of current climate change narratives and the interventions proposed to address these alleged issues.
In the push for “Net Zero” decarbonization policies around the world, rich and powerful foundations have been relentlessly supporting an avalanche of “climate lawfare” initiatives in the West. In early 2020, the UK Court of Appeal’s decision to stop the expansion of Heathrow airport was one outcome of the lawfare waged by climate zealots. As one contemporary commentator put it: “This decision will surely open up a whole new Pandora’s box and allow the likes of Greenpeace to legally challenge any and every project they don’t like in future.”
Doshi’s analysis centers on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) ruling in favor of the KlimaSeniorinnen, a group of elderly Swiss women who claim that their lives are endangered by heatwaves linked to climate change, specifically attributing this to fossil fuel usage. The court’s acceptance of this direct causality without robust debate or conclusive evidence epitomizes the judicial overreach into areas typically reserved for scientific inquiry and legislative discussion.
The ECHR verdict is lawfare gone one step further. Not only is it kosher to stop large infrastructure projects that allegedly affect the climate adversely, but governments now can be compelled, on human rights grounds, to act against normal economic activity that allegedly leads to “climate change” and “extreme weather” events. By requiring European governments to suppress the emission of greenhouse gases on human rights grounds, any economic activity involving the use of fossil fuels – which provide over 80% of total global energy consumption – is now fair game for radical climate policymakers.
The assumption that fossil fuels are the direct cause of specific weather events like heatwaves is not only scientifically debatable but also ignores broader climate dynamics. Such simplifications in judicial decisions risk setting dangerous precedents where policies are shaped not by empirical evidence but by judicial interpretations of contested scientific theories.
The concept of ‘climate lawfare,’ highlighted by Doshi, refers to the strategy of using legal systems to enforce climate policies that fail to secure legislative approval. This approach circumvents the democratic process, allowing unelected entities to impose their environmental agendas on the public. The ECHR’s decision, which effectively bypasses the need for democratically passed legislation, is a stark example of this trend. It shows a concerning shift towards authoritarian-like decisions where the balance of scientific skepticism and public policy is disturbed by the influence of powerful, ideologically driven groups.
Climate lawfare is now a well-established route to avoid the checks and balances of democratic legislation. It subverts the legal system of a country, often with the help of activist judges, to impose the ideological preferences of an elite of the climate industrial complex on wider society. The total number of climate change court cases is growing worldwide and has more than doubled since 2017 according to a 2023 report collating data to December 31st, 2022. The report, published by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, boasts “that climate litigation is becoming an integral part of securing climate action and justice.”
Doshi points out the significant role of elite funding in supporting the legal challenges brought by environmental groups. This infusion of capital from influential figures and organizations into climate lawfare efforts suggests an orchestrated attempt to sway public policy through the courts, rather than through public debate and consensus. Such tactics threaten the foundational principles of democratic governance and risk implementing policies that are not only economically detrimental but also poorly justified scientifically.
To be sure, the KlimaSeniorinnen were not without powerful supporters in their legal quest. The sleuthing journalism of Chris Morrison is revealing. Mr. Morrison suggests that the real plaudits over the legal win belong not to the elderly Swiss ladies but “to the elite billionaire paymasters behind lawfare activists such as Greenpeace and Client Earth” who financed the legal action. Client Earth, for example, is supported by the Sir Christopher Hohn’s Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, Hohn is also one of the funders of Extinction Rebellion activists, known for their vandalism and the blocking of ordinary people going about their business (or, in some cases, rushing to hospital for health emergencies). He is also a big contributor to the European Climate Foundation. Others involved in financing these activist climate groups include the green billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Jeremy Grantham.https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2024/04/21/climate-change-and-the-law-the-lunacy-escalates/?sh=3d180c4842a2
The article rightly questions the proportionality of focusing legal and policy efforts on combating climate change through restrictive measures on fossil fuels, especially when empirical data suggests that cold weather poses a far greater threat to human life than heatwaves. This selective prioritization of risks illustrates a broader issue within climate policy discussions: the tendency to elevate specific agendas without a comprehensive evaluation of their broader impacts or scientific validity.
In UK regions, cold-related mortality currently accounts for more than one order of magnitude more deaths than heat-related mortality (around 61 and 3 deaths per 100,000 population per year, respectively). In Australian cities, approximately 33 and 2 deaths per 100,000 population are associated every year with cold and heat, respectively. Between 2000 and 2010, 3.9% of the total mortality was attributed to cold, and 1.2% to heat.”
In another study of “the global, regional, and national mortality burden associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures” published in The Lancet – Planetary Health, it was found that, “…9.43% of all deaths were cold-related and 0.91% were heat-related.” That is, cold killed more than heat by over a factor of 10. Curiously, the elderly Swiss ladies seem far more afraid of heat than cold, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is the cold that kills far more often.
Tilak Doshi’s article in Forbes provides a valuable critique of the current direction of climate policy and litigation, advocating for a return to more scientifically grounded and democratically legitimate methods of addressing environmental concerns. For those skeptical of the prevailing climate change narratives, the piece reinforces the importance of maintaining rigorous standards of evidence and democratic accountability in environmental policymaking. As climate litigation continues to expand its influence over public policy, a critical and skeptical approach remains essential to ensuring that such policies are truly in the public interest and not merely the product of ideological zeal or elite manipulation.
In the name of supposed efficiency and saving the planet from the fatuous prediction of a 1.5-degree average temperature increase in the next 26 years (give or take), the Biden administration has, from its beginning, declared war on Americans’ household appliances. As with so many other policies in the administration’s global warming arsenal, mandating invariably higher-cost household items is another dagger at Americans’ family budgets.
54350295 – gas and electric ovens and other home related appliance or equipment in the retail store showroom
In the name of supposed efficiency and saving the planet from the fatuous prediction of a 1.5-degree average temperature increase in the next 26 years (give or take), the Biden administration has, from its beginning, declared war on Americans’ household appliances. As with so many other policies in the administration’s global warming arsenal, mandating invariably higher-cost household items is another dagger at Americans’ family budgets.
Last month, the U.S. Department of Energy released final “energy efficiency” requirements for residential washers and dryers that it claims will save consumers $39 billion in the next 30 years and reduce 71 metro tons of “harmful carbon emissions” over the same period, opined Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm. More fantastical than these numbers is her assertion that American households will reap $1 trillion (!) from forcing Americans to scrap all the household appliances in the administration’s crosshairs.
This is the same Secretary Granholm who lied to Congress about holding stocks in companies over which she has federal jurisdiction, and failed to disclose such holdings – yet kept her job. But I digress.
Last year, the Energy Department claimed its proposed energy standards for refrigerators, freezers, and commercial fans and blowers would reduce carbon emissions by 318 metric tons over the next 30 years. I would love to see that computer hodgepodge.
The government that can never accurately project the federal budget deficit six months hence somehow should be taken at face value about predicting lower carbon emissions in three decades? Go figure.
The washer and dryer standards become effective in 2028 and the refrigerator and freezer standards begin in 2029 at which time they are virtually guaranteed to cost more. More likely, these mandated appliances will increase energy usage to ensure clean and dry clothes and dishes since they will have to operate longer, as CFACT and others have long argued.
The recent Department actions on washers, dryers, refrigerators, and freezers follow similar proposals by the Biden administration to crack down on gas stoves and water heaters to fully electrify American homes and businesses. This, all in the name of fighting “dangerous carbon emissions” – you know, the same CO2 that makes the planet Earth livable for humans, animals, and plants.
Even Time magazine, a chief mouthpiece for climate fanaticism, acknowledges that these mandated appliances on washers and dryers “can cost more up front,” yet still parrots the Department’s assurances that they will save—wait for it—a whopping $425 in electric and water bills over the life of the appliance (unless your home uses well water, which means “saving” even less).
But that modest amount is still dubious. The American Gas Association (AGA) and Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) pushed back on the government’s claims about consumer savings as only “cents per month,” in energy use while facing higher installation costs, not to mention the cost of acquisition.
The federal government currently offers income tax credits to lower the price of some energy efficient home appliances and equipment, similar to what it does for purchasing an electric vehicle. This is one acknowledgment of the high price of these big-ticket items while it spreads the cost to all taxpayers to subsidize their purchase.
The Energy Department’s latest rules on washers and dryers came about after litigation from several states that the administration lacked congressional authority to impose such standards after it first attempted to repeal, in 2022, the more reasonable Trump administration efficiency regulations. AHAM then agreed, with a proverbial happy face, to the revised Biden efficiency standards, in conjunction with “consumer, climate and energy and water efficiency advocates” back in September.
In other words, the appliance industry caved to the heavy hand of the Biden administration to stave off more draconian, impractical mandates. Who can blame them?
The backdrop of this war on American appliances has zero to do with the sardonic claim of saving energy and water expenses, as it likely would do neither. Instead, the appliance mandates are another sacrament in the climate change religion.
Even if you stipulate that carbon emissions will drop by some outlandish guesswork of metric tons from using less energy, neither Jennifer Granholm nor anyone else riding the climate gravy train can scientifically assert global temperature will correspondingly decline three decades from now. But that won’t stop them from saying so.
Last February Kip Hansen wrote about the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) proposed Amendments to Part 490, Projected Sea Level Rise in a post here entitled New York State Sea Level Rise: Fantasy as Law. A few days later Anthony Watts responded to a New York Post article by Carl Campanile with the headline: Sea levels around NYC could surge up to 13 inches in 2030s due to climate change: state study.
Last February Kip Hansen wrote about the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) proposed Amendments to Part 490, Projected Sea Level Rise in a post here entitled New York State Sea Level Rise: Fantasy as Law. A few days later Anthony Watts responded to a New York Post article by Carl Campanile with the headline: Sea levels around NYC could surge up to 13 inches in 2030s due to climate change: state study. Comments on the regulations related to those arricles are due on April 29. This post describes my comments on the proposed amendment and requests that New Yorkers who read this before April 29 submit comments.
The proposed amendments revise the projections of future sea-level rise required by New York regulations. Kip, Anthony, and I agree that the projections are flawed because the methodology estimates an unrealistically high projected sea-level dependent upon an impossible climate model scenario known as RCP8.5, which has been debunked by actual climate scientists as Anthony reported here and here. This article provides my suggested comments and explains how the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for this proceeding justified using those RCP8.5 projections.
Part 490 Projected Sea-Level Rise Overview
The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for this proceeding describes the regulation’s statutory authority and legislative objectives, the proposed changes, needs and benefits, and costs. It explains:
On September 22, 2014, the Community Risk and Resiliency Act, Chapter 355 of the Laws of 2014 (CRRA), was signed into law. CRRA, among other things, established Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) § 3-0319. ECL § 3-0319 requires the Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) to adopt regulations establishing science-based sea level rise projections for New York State and to update them no less than every five years. The Department established a new Part 490 of Title 6 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (6 NYCRR), “Projected Sea-level Rise” (Part 490) in February 2017 and is updating the regulation through the current rulemaking.
The goal of the proposed amendments is to provide up-to-date science-based projections of future sea level rise. Part 490 does not create a mandate on local governments. Part 490 does not impose any compliance obligations on any entity.
While technically and legally correct, the excuse not to include costs and the argument that there are no compliance obligations or mandates on local governments has significant ramifications.
As originally enacted, the CRRA required applicants for permits or funding in a number of specified programs to demonstrate that future physical climate risk due to sea-level rise, storm surge and flooding had been considered in project design, and that Department consider incorporating these factors into certain facility-siting regulations. The CLCPA amended the CRRA to include all permits subject to the Uniform Procedures Act. The CLCPA also expanded the scope of the CRRA to require consideration of all climate hazards, not only sea-level rise, storm surge and flooding, in these permit programs.
Part 490 is intended to give permitting authorities information on the full range of potential sea-level rise. The CRRA design considerations that use the sea-level rise projections focus on the highest values. New York State Flood Risk Management Guidance for Implementation of the Community Risk and Resiliency Act states that “Applicants and programs are also encouraged to consider the following during project siting, design and review” states:
Applicants for projects involving new or replacement critical infrastructure should consider the full range of projected flooding, including the highest adopted projections of sea-level rise, during the expected service life of the project. Where adherence to the highest guideline is not feasible, due to practicality, costs, risk tolerance, and/or environmental effects, applicants should carefully describe and justify designs not adhering to the most restrictive guideline.
Comments
I am going to submit detailed comments that justify the following brief comments that I ask that New Yorkers submit. I will provide some of the justifications for these comments below.
The Regulatory Impact Statement inappropriately uses a “high-end storyline” approach for regulatory guidance. This approach led to the inclusion of projected sea-level rise that is associated with a high emissions scenario that is almost impossible. Furthermore, the Part 490 Proposed Amendments are intended to support Community Risk and Resiliency Act (CRRA) infrastructure applications that are supposed to consider sea-level rise. This means that the likelihood of occurrence of the low-confidence, high-impact projections must be considered in the context of the life expectancy of CRRA infrastructure applications, and the Regulatory Impact Statement does not do that. The Regulatory Impact Statement also improperly excludes the cost comparison between the proposed alternative and alternatives that incorporate observed sea-level rise which is necessary to determine the impact of the “high-end storyline” approach.
I recommend that the scenarios that use the implausible high emissions scenarios be excluded from the sea-level rise projection recommendations. The “high-end storyline” approach is inappropriate for the intended purpose of Part 490 because the lifetime of CRRA infrastructure complying with the proposed sea-level recommendations is shorter than when the high impact sea-level rise could occur. Using inappropriate projections of sea-level rise will needlessly increase costs. The pledge and review approach should be used to address concerns about 6modeling uncertainties.
Justification
I recommended that ”the scenarios that use the implausible high emissions scenarios be excluded from the sea-level rise projection recommendations.” Both Kip and Anthony documented reasons why the RCP/SSP5-8.5 emissions scenarios should not be used. My detailed comments contain more documentation which I had submitted in a pre-proposal draft of the proposed amendments last May. In response to the issues I raised at that time, the RIS admits that those emission scenarios are implausible:
The Department acknowledges that current GHG emissions policies would result in actual emissions lower than projected by SSP5-8.5. Thus, the inclusion of higher projections of sea level rise, especially those based on SSP5-8.5, could lead to consideration of conditions that are unlikely to occur, at least in the more immediate future.
So how did the Department justify the continued use of SSP5-8.5? The RIS goes to considerable lengths with statements like the following: “Unfortunately, current literature does not provide a basis for assessment of the emissions levels at which ice shelf and marine ice cliff instability, important factors in sea level rise in high emissions scenarios, such as SSP5-8.5, become significant.” All this can be traced back to the ultimate source of projection numbers – the New York Research & Development Authority (NYSEDA) New York State Climate Impacts Assessment. The description of the NYSDERDA Assessment Steering Committee states “The assessment has been guided by a Steering Committee of climate scientists, assessment experts, and representatives from nonprofit organizations and state and municipal government agencies.” I am very critical of the review process because I know that there is immense pressure to adhere to the narrative within NYSERDA and I am sure no one skeptical of the extreme impact narrative was allowed anywhere near the Steering Committee. As a result, the Impact Assessment and the sea-level rise projections support the “existential threat” narrative rather try to include an unbiased estimate of future sea-level rise.
I made the comment that the approach used was inappropriate:
The Regulatory Impact Statement inappropriately uses a “high-end storyline” approach for regulatory guidance. This approach led to the inclusion of projected sea-level rise that is associated with a high emissions scenario that is almost impossible.
In my detailed comments I explained the likelihood of occurrence projections are necessary because they will be used for CRRA infrastructure project flood risk management where timing is important. The RIS argues that even if the high emissions scenarios are wrong that there is still a risk: “Unfortunately, current literature does not provide a basis for assessment of the emissions levels at which ice shelf and marine ice cliff instability, important factors in sea level rise in high emissions scenarios, such as SSP5-8.5, become significant.” This statement does not acknowledge the point that the analyses that claim ice shelf and marine ice cliff instability rely on projections that use the SSP5-8.5 scenario. Projections do not project the high risks unless the implausible scenarios are used, especially during the expected lifetime of CRRA infrastructure. My comments addressed this:
Furthermore, the Part 490 Proposed Amendments are intended to support Community Risk and Resiliency Act (CRRA) infrastructure applications that are supposed to consider sea-level rise. This means that the likelihood of occurrence of the low-confidence, high-impact projections must be considered in the context of the life expectancy of CRRA infrastructure applications, and the Regulatory Impact Statement does not do that.
I recommended not using the projected sea-level rise projections based on SSP5-8.5 scenarios because the “high-end storyline” approach incorrectly ignores project lifetimes.
I recommend that the scenarios that use the implausible high emissions scenarios be excluded from the sea-level rise projection recommendations. The “high-end storyline” approach is inappropriate for the intended purpose of Part 490 because the lifetime of CRRA infrastructure complying with the proposed sea-level recommendations is shorter than when the high impact sea-level rise could occur. Using inappropriate projections of sea-level rise will needlessly increase costs.
My biggest concern is the effect of these sea-level rise projections on costs. The RIS description of costs states
Part 490 will not impose any costs on any entity because the regulation consists only of sea level rise projections and does not impose any standards or compliance obligations. In other words, while Part 490 will provide a common source of sea level rise projections for consideration within programs specified by CRRA, as well as for consideration by planners and decisionmakers in other contexts, it will not impose any requirements on any entity. Therefore, no costs are associated with Part 490. Likewise, the regulation will also not impose any additional costs on the Department or local government entities.
As noted previously, because the sea-level rise projections are used in guidance for a wide range of permitting applications this argument might be technically true, but the reality is that the choice of the “high-end storyline” projections relative to other alternatives is a pertinent cost issue. I commented on this:
The Regulatory Impact Statement also improperly excludes the cost comparison between the proposed alternative and alternatives that incorporate observed sea-level rise which is necessary to determine the impact of the “high-end storyline” approach.
The RIS justifies their “high-end storyline” approach because of uncertainties. Kip, Anthony, and I all agree that the least uncertain projection of sea-level rise, at least in the life expectancies of CRRA infrastructure, would be to extrapolate the observed trends of sea-level rise. I could accept the use of projections that use SSP2-4.5 emissions because these sea level rise projections are associated with the most likely conservative estimates of potential emissions and the numbers are more consistent with observed sea-level rise. I included this recommendation in my detailed comments.
In my comments I argued that an approach that could address uncertainty was most appropriate because we simply don’t know what is going to happen: “The pledge and review approach should be used to address concerns about 6modeling uncertainties.” . The comments recommend that Part 490 implementation adapt the “pledge and review” approach suggested by Otto et al that were described in detail in comments submitted by the Environmental Energy Alliance of New York in 2016 for the previous Part 490 projections The pledge and review approach avoids having to resolve the scientific projection in order to establish policy approaches to accommodate sea level rise. Instead, the “pledge and review” approach establishes policy requirements subject to observable criteria. In short, an index is chosen as the review standard. In this case a good parameter to use would be the observed sea-level rise itself or, probably better, sea-level rise acceleration. Recommended policy response levels or pledges are defined. I would recommend using sea-level rise projections based on SSP2-4.5 emissions as a suitable conservative choice. In five years when the next Part 490 amendments are due the observed sea-level rise accelerations would be compared to those projections. If there are indications that the sea-level rise is accelerating outside the range covered by the pledge, then the pledge is adjusted. If not they remain in place. The comments recommended:
Discussion
The ultimate issue is that there is a disconnect between the proposed sea-level projections and the intended use. The likelihood of occurrence is needed for flood risk management and the proposed amendment does not address this. The “high-end storyline” approach just gives the highest values without consideration of impacts on the way they are used. The result is that development near the tidal shoreline is planning for extremely high projected sea-level rise. A New York City project to increase a park to handle 8 to 10 feet of sea-level rise is include in “a $1.45 billion flood protection project that backers say befits the nation’s largest city, a massive project that will include the construction of a 2.4-mile system of walls and gates along the East River”. That is only a fraction of the harbor front in New York City, so it makes sense to use more reasonable estimates of sea-level rise given the need to protect the entire harbor of New York. Sadly, it is easier for the Department to just recommend the biggest number to “be safe”.
The Department rulemaking process requires staff to read the public comments and prepare a response to comments received document. In 2017 the response to comment document responded to the suggestion for the recommended pledge and review approach:
While the Department has not yet determined the precise review process it will use, the Department has concerns with the pledge and review approach suggested. The first is its reliance on a limited number of tide gauges. As can be seen from the table provided in the comments, which includes the Battery and Montauk Point, local factors can affect sea-level change at individual stations so that significantly different, even opposite, trends are indicated, even from proximate stations. Secondly, the pledge and review approach would yield planning values based only on historical trends in rise or rates of rise, whereas CRRA requires consideration of future climate risk. As described in the RIS, the rate of sea-level rise is not projected to be constant based on historical values, but is instead projected to accelerate with increased warming. Projections based solely on the pledge and review approach could be easily skewed by short-term, localized phenomena, and the approach would fail to account for acceleration of sea-level rise that would occur with projected warming.
In my detailed comments I addressed this response. The uncertainty of concern is rapid ice melt which of course is additive to the total sea-level rise. If this happens, then all tidal regions in New York will see this increase in the trend so the first objection is pointless. The second objection ignores the potential to use a pledge based on a more realistic projection of sea-level that considers “future climate risk”. The argument that sea-level rise will accelerate is not valid because there has been no acceleration since the projections were made. Kip Hansen explains sea-level rise is slow and long-term – it is not nothing, but it doesn’t suddenly jump from steady state (as shown in tide gauges all over the world (when correct by CGPS) to sky-rocketing.
How To Provide Written Comments
I encourage New York readers to submit written comments by the 5:00 PM April 29, 2024 deadline. I have prepared a detailed explanation of the process at this link. The link also includes the comment described above.
Copy the comment text in the link into the body of your email.
Submit it
Conclusion
I have submitted comments for countless proceedings over the last 40 years. Sadly, over the years all decisions by New York State agencies are more and more politically driven to the point now that all rulemaking policy decisions are ultimately decided by the Administration regardless of the science. In this instance the science has been perverted to follow the Administration’s narrative. I am not optimistic that there will be any substantive changes to the Proposed Amendments. The only solace is that comments in the record will show that the State was warned that their policies were ill-advised when the proposed sea-level recommendations fall far below the observed rise.
This article is based on analysis of trends in solar radiation with time and location over the globe. Particular emphasis is placed on Net radiation absorption and release, which involves internal heat transfer as well as where heat is being retained and lost. The thermal responses of different regions are analysed as a means to understand why spatial and temporal changes in ToA solar EMR drive temperature trends.
This article is based on analysis of trends in solar radiation with time and location over the globe. Particular emphasis is placed on Net radiation absorption and release, which involves internal heat transfer as well as where heat is being retained and lost. The thermal responses of different regions are analysed as a means to understand why spatial and temporal changes in ToA solar EMR drive temperature trends.
Solar Electro-Magnetic Radiation (EMR)
The vast majority of energy in Earth’s climate system has been and is being sourced from the sun. The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Project was established to accurately measure the output of the sun using satellite based sensors. Chart 1 exhibits the principal results of the project that operated for 16 years producing daily determinations for solar EMR.
Top of the Atmosphere (ToA) solar EMR has a distinctive annual cycle with slight changes from year-to-year. The lowest recorded was 1315.872W/m^2 on July 4 2005 while the highest was 1408.573W/m^2 on January 9 2015 or an annual range up to 92W/m^2. The average over the recording period was 1361.1W/m^2. The monthly anomaly over the project period has a range of less than 2W/m^2. The orbital changes from year-to-year contribute a significant portion of the monthly anomaly. The remainder of the anomaly is due to the variation in the solar “constant”, which was determined to range from a low of 1357.019W/m^2 on October 3 2003 to 1362.278W/m^2 on February 7 2015 at constant distance of one astronomical unit. Most of the change in the solar constant is short duration spikes and troughs.
The SORCE Project confirmed the consistency of the so-called solar “constant” and the relatively large annual variation in ToA solar intensity due to Earth’s annual orbit of the sun. The variation in the solar constant contributes approximately 1W/m^2 to the monthly solar anomaly in an annual range of 92W/m^2. Hence the variation in solar constant is of the order of 1.1% of the annual variation in ToA solar intensity due to the orbital variation.
Earth’s ever changing orbit around the sun and daily rotation means there will never be any place on Earth that experiences identical orientation to the sun as it has in the past. That means the energy input to the climate system is always changing. Hence climate has always changed and always will.
It is possible to calculate the ToA solar intensity anywhere over the globe using orbital ephemerides, planetary geometry and a selected value for the solar constant, which is not quite constant but changes less than 0.2% whereas the annual variation in ToA intensity is almost 7% range of the average. Chart 2 is based on a solar constant of 1362W/m^2 for the 2022 orbit.
December is still the month of highest average solar intensity while June is the month of lowest. The ToA solar range is greatest at the poles with South Pole currently experiencing a range of 551W/m^2, which is somewhat greater than the 517W/m^2 at the North Pole. Over the course of the next 9,000 years, this will reverse. The equator receives the highest annual average solar EMR of 407W/m^2 but the lowest annual range. The South Pole has a current annual average of 180W/m^2 while the North Pole annual average is 166W/m^2: the lowest average for any location.
Net Radiation Energy
Not all of the solar EMR available at the top of the atmosphere is thermalised within the climate system. Some surfaces such as the polar snow covered land ice and sea ice as well as high level clouds are highly reflective. These surfaces reflect some of the available ToA solar EMR so it is not thermalised thereby giving rise to short-wave reflected radiation (SWR). Most of the solar EMR that is thermalised within the climate system is emitted back to space as long wave radiation commonly referred to as outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR). The Net radiation is determined by subtracting the OLR and SWR from the available solar EMR.
The Cloud and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project has been producing high resolution global ToA radiation data since 2001 using satellite based instruments. The monthly average Net radiation ranges from typically minus 208W/m^2 up to 190W/m^2. Image 1 provides a spatial perspective of the annual range for Net radiation in W/m^2 between the maximum and minimum for both hemispheres.
Net radiation is well correlated with the solar EMR across the regions but the dependence changes with the type of surface. For example, regions with permanent ice cover such as Antarctica and Greenland have considerably lower range in Net radiation when compared with adjacent land or ocean. The variation in Net radiation at the equator is very low indicative of the near constant solar EMR over the equator..
Ocean Heat Content
The Argo project has been producing relatively high resolution and consistent ocean temperature data from the surface to a depth of 2000m since 2005. Image 2 depicts how the average temperature in Centigrade degrees of the top 2000m of the global oceans has changed from the start of the Argo project in 2005 to the end of 2023.
The range in temperature is quite wide from minus 5.3C up to 6.2C with an average of 0.0897C. The average temperature increase corresponds to additional heat of 243ZJ (ZettaJoules, 1E21) over the 19 year period or average annual increase of 12.9ZJ. To put that in perspective, it corresponds 0.2% of the 5415ZJ of the ToA solar EMR available annually.
The change in ocean heat content (OHC) as displayed spatially in Image 2 does not have any particularly notable features. Looking closely, it is apparent that the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean Sea have retained more heat. There are hot spots in the region of the Ferrel Cells in both hemispheres with the band of interspersed warmer and cooler regions across the Southern Hemisphere (SH) being more evident than across the Northern Hemisphere (NH).
It is worth noting that the Argo OHC data between 2005 and 2015 was used as a basis to calibrate the CERES radiation data because the radiation instruments and associated analysis lack the inherent accuracy to measure, in absolute terms, the small changes occurring in the global ToA radiation budget. The retained heat in the oceans corresponds to a Net absorption of 0.8W/m^2.
Chart 3 compares the accumulated Net radiation and OHC by latitude for oceans in the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere for the concurrent interval with the Argo measurements from December 2005 to December 2023.
The Net radiation peaks at 160ZJ/degree at the Equator; drops to zero at 37N and 37S then reaches minimums at 55S of minus 2ZJ/degree and at 72N at minus 1.2ZJ/degree.
The OHC has a peak at the Equator and distinct peaks in the region of the Ferrel Cells in both hemispheres. Peak heat retention of 5ZJ/degree occurs at 45S and 3.8ZJ/degree at 37N. These peaks in retained heat were not so obvious in Image 2 because the warmer zones are interspersed with cooler zones. The Ferrel Cells are net condensing regions where increasing precipitation steepens the thermocline thereby retaining more heat in the deep ocean. It is ocean heat retention in regions of increased precipitation rather than surface heat uptake across the entire ocean surface.
Chart 4 provides a temporal perspective on cumulative heat for the overlapping period of Argo and CERES data.
Over the 19 years of concurrent data, the oceans of the NH and the atmosphere above have absorbed 1337ZJ and retained 106ZJ or 7.9% of the absorbed radiation. The SH has absorbed 618ZJ and retained 146ZJ or 23.6%.
Land & Ocean Response to Solar EMR
Both land surfaces and ocean surface exhibit positive response to ToA solar EMR but there are noteworthy differences. Land responds faster and with greater range than the ocean. The NH land mass reaches its maximum temperature in July and minimum temperature in January. The SH land mass is the reverse. Image 3 displays the maximum to minimum range of temperature for the land surface over an annual cycle based on the Global Historic Climatology Network (GHCN) for global 2m air temperature over land (LST). Note that GHCN does not provide coverage for Antarctica.
It is apparent that most of the land surface experiences a range greater than 15C. The exception is the relatively small proportion in the tropics that has an annual range of less than 3C.
Ocean surfaces respond slower and over a smaller range than land; exhibiting widest range from February to August, thus lagging the peak range in solar EMR by two months. Image 4 displays the spatial temperature range for the oceans using Reynolds OI sea surface temperature (SST).
It is apparent that the ocean adjacent to the NH land mass undergo a much wider temperature range than any region of the oceans in the SH. Chart 5 presents the same data as the two Images 3 and 4 above but with temperature range plotted against latitude.
Land comprises 68% of the total surface area between 60N to 70N so the combined area averaged temperature response between those latitudes is dominated by the land response. Antarctica aside, most land in the SH is in the lower latitudes but is only a small proportion of the total surface area. Accordingly the temperature response of the SH is dominated by the response of the oceans, which has a narrower range than the land.
Temperature Trends Satellite Era
The satellite era improved the global coverage of surface temperature measurement particularly for the oceans. The Reynolds (SST) combines satellite measurements over the oceans with surface measurements to produce accurate, high spatial resolution data. Image 5 depicts the change in SST from August 1982 to August 2022. Global SST has exhibited the largest monthly increase in August so Image 5 shows where the oceans are warming the most.
The average SST has increased by 0.474C over the period but some regions are up to 3.8C cooler with some areas along the coastline of the Arctic Ocean up to 13.1C warmer.
Global land has experienced the greatest monthly increase in January. Image 6 displays how the LST has changed from January 1982 to January 2022 based on the GHCN LST data, which excludes Antarctica.
The average increase is 1.8C with some regions cooler by 6.4C and some warmer by 17.4C. The average increase in LST is 3.8 times the average increase in SST.
Chart 6 examines the monthly temperature anomaly trends relative to latitude for surface measurements based on the Berkeley LST; the lower troposphere using UAH TLT and the Argo deep ocean temperature.
The three different sets have significantly different rates of change but there are similarities in the profiles. All three data sets exhibit an increasing trend relative to latitude with the high northern latitudes having the greatest increase and high southern latitudes reaching negative trends south of 60S. All three data sets exhibit distinctive humps in the region of the Ferrel Cells in both hemispheres. The equatorial zone shows little to no increase.
Heat Transfer Ocean to Land
Oceans and their atmospheres are net absorbers of radiant heat on average while land and its atmosphere release heat back to space on average. From 2001 to 2023, the total heat absorbed by the oceans was 2432ZJ while the land released 1903ZJ. The heat transfer is primarily associated with transfer of atmospheric water from the oceans to land. Solar EMR thermalised in the ocean and atmosphere above result in water evaporation from the ocean surface and then transported by air currents to the land where radiative cooling causes the water vapour to condense then precipitate as rain, snow or hail.
The water transfer from ocean to land can be assessed by monitoring the runoff of water from land being returned to the ocean. The Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC) has been compiling runoff data for over a century and has global coverage at very high resolution. Image 7 provides a snapshot of the data for May 2019. May is the month of highest runoff typically averaging 1mm/day for the entire land mass totalling 1.47E14m^2 where runoff occurs. The data does not include glacier calving or ice shelf loss.
The May runoff is relatively high in the mid to high northern latitudes following the annual melt. There is also high runoff from land on and near the Equator, which is less seasonal. For the 20 years to December 2019, the annual runoff averaged 292mm; equivalent to 43Gt of water per year.
Chart 7 plots the Net heat absorbed for land and ocean as well as the calculated heat release from atmospheric water condensing to produce runoff; all for 2019.
Both ocean and land absorb heat in the tropics and both release heat at higher latitudes. The ocean and its atmosphere have peak absorption of 8.5ZJ/degree at the Equator. Land and its atmosphere absorb almost 2ZJ/degree at the Equator. The heat release through water vapour solidifying peaks at 3.5ZJ/degree also at the Equator. The heat release to produce the runoff is based on the heat of solidification for water. Using that value results in heat loss associated with runoff of 119ZJ. Some of the accumulation feeding the 2019 runoff would have occurred in 2018, so is not directly associated with the 108ZJ net absorption of the oceans and 81.8ZJ net release from land. Most land along the Equator sustains enough moisture to establish powerful convective cells that are mid-level convergent zones but high level divergent zones that are net radiation absorbers due to atmospheric absorption and then sensible heat advection. The tropical land and atmosphere above from 20S to 20N absorbed 50.5ZJ Net radiation in 2019.
Changing Regional Solar EMR
Earth’s rotation and orbit of the sun are obvious drivers of daily and seasonal weather changes. The ever changing orbit is also responsible for longer term trends observed as climate change. The sun is a relatively stable source of radiation energy reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere as outlined in the opening section.
Chart 8 shows how ToA solar EMR over NH land has changed for the months of highest and lowest solar EMR relative to the corresponding monthly average from 1502 to 1533. The accumulation of the anomaly for the two months is also displayed on the right-hand axis. The asymmetry of the changes for the high and low month is a result of the distribution of land over the globe resulting in the average of the monthly accumulations being positive and totalling 20ZJ from 1500 to 2100.
The reference period for the anomaly was chosen because it coincided with the NH having experienced the lowest solar intensity in the current 23,000 year precession cycle. In July 2022, Earth was some 40,000km closer to the sun than in 1509. The orbit was at aphelion on July 4 in 2022 compared with June 17 in 1509. In other words, compared with 1509, Earth was closer to the sun at its maximum distance from the sun in 2022 but 17 days later in the year due to a combination of orbital eccentricity and precession. There are other less significant variables in the ephemerides such as obliquity of the axis which will change from 23.50327 degrees in 1501 to 23.4266 degrees in 2100. The moon orbit of Earth also causes nutation of Earth’s axis over an 18 year cycle that can be observed in good temperature records but it is a very small change compared with the three larger changes in orbit.
The accumulation of energy over land is not simply a notional change. There are observable consequences. For example, 16ZJ from 1501 to present time going into melting land ice would result in a sea level rise of 120mm over 500 years or a change of 8ZJ in the past 100 years adding 0.6mm/year to sea level. The resulting reduction of permanent ice reduces the albedo of the land so the land warms due to both loss of ice and increased solar absorption. Alternatively 16ZJ could add 64Gt of biomass. The presence of biomass will moderate temperature extremes by retaining surface moisture. Observations over the past 500 years indicate that both permanent land ice has reduced and biomass has increased. So these changes are, indeed, cumulative.
From a spatial perspective, the range in solar EMR over land is increasing in the NH but reducing in the SH. Chart 9 displays the anomaly for highest and lowest month as well as the average over all land surface by latitude.
The observed latitudinal temperature trends shown in Chart 6 above are similar to the trend in solar EMR of Chart 9 but it is notable that land south of the Equator has been experiencing reducing sunlight range but still warming. The reason becomes apparent once atmospheric water is considered per Image 8 using RSS total precipitable water (TPW) data.
The mean increase of 0.4mm/decade is significant because the average level in 1988 was 27mm. So over the 35 years of the record, the average has increased by 5%. The increase is more significant in the NH and there is already large regions in the SH with no trend or negative trend.
The increasing average solar intensity over the NH land will continue to drive the upward trend in TPW in the NH. The area of NH ocean reaching the regulating limit of 30C is increasing at 2.5%/decade. Ocean warm pools now cover 10% of the NH oceans in September and, on present trend, will reach 50% by 2200. Chart 10 shows how SWR and OLR have changed across the latitudes from 2001 to 2023.
SWR has reduced at all latitudes, on average by 2.4W/m^2, apart from the region of the South Pole and from the Equator to 7N. OLR has increased, on average by 1.3W/m^2, at all latitudes apart from the two regions where SWR reduced. The region just north of the equator is the same location where TPW is rising the most and where more ocean surface is reaching the 30C regulating limit. The increase in brightness and reduction in OLR are associated with the convective instability that sets the sustainable temperature limit to 30C. Once the atmosphere is in cyclic equilibrium with the surface at 30C the increase in SWR is twice the reduction in OLR so a very powerful negative feedback. The inverse relationship is evident in Chart 10 but the magnitude is not evident because no region sustains the 30C limit over an annual cycle.
The Energy Intensity of Forming Snow
Snow falling on land is an energy intensive process. The energy requirement is far greater than just the latent heat of water vaporisation. Table 1 provides the energy inherent in two atmospheric columns at conditions related to ocean warm pools and conditions conducive to forming snow over land.
Water liberated from the ocean surface requires latent heat to vaporise but also requires sensible heat to expand the atmospheric column as the lower density water gas elevates the column. For a 30C warm pool, the average enthalpy change in the column associated with increasing precipitable water is 6.26E6J/m^2/mm. Note here that the enthalpy associated with the water vapour at the cooler conditions is almost twice that of the warm pool. So evaporation at the higher temperature has lower sensible heat associated with it. From a process perspective, the least energy cost to get water into the atmosphere is at the highest possible temperature, which is 30C.
Air diverging at altitude from a warm pool and moving over land will lose moisture as it cools. The water that ends up on land could precipitate and evaporate many times before it eventually reaches land that is below freezing. The warm pool has TPW of 89.6mm for the typical conditions that has to be reduced to 6.7mm before the air reaches freezing land. Each mm of water equivalent snow has an energy cost in the range 1.14E7 to 8.37E7J/m^2. Accordingly, it would take from 4.2ZJ up to 31ZJ to lower the oceans by 1mm to produce 4mm of permanent ice on land north of 40N. At the higher value, there would need to be considerable runoff associated with the initial water transfer from the ocean. However, it is noted that runoff is trending down but precipitation over land is trending up. Advection of water from ocean to land is reducing as the land warms up but the water cycle over land is speeding up due to increased atmospheric moisture.
Temporal Trends & Thermal Inertia
Historical records reveal that climate change is not something that started last century. The central England temperature (CET) record is the longest continuous instrumented temperature record available. Chart 11 provides the anomalous record relative to the first 33 years of the record with three 100 year trends and the last 70 years. Each 100 year interval has a positive trend, albeit the second 100 years just positive, with last 70 years higher than any of the 100 year trends; indicating acceleration similar to the average of the highest and lowest accumulated solar EMR over land in Chart 8 above..
Earth’s climate system has thermal inertia. Measured and visible changes lag the changing solar EMR. Surface temperature over land has a phase shift of 4 weeks relative to the ToA solar EMR. The NH oceans lag by 8 weeks and the SH oceans lag by 10 weeks. Once the phase shifts are made, the thermal responses of the respective surfaces are highly correlated to the available ToA solar EMR over the particular surface as shown in Chart 12 for period 1982 to 2022.
The different slopes of the correlation curves indicate the relative response to solar EMR for the different surface. The thermal response of global land is 8.7 times the response of the SH oceans.
Ocean surface circulations have periods of decades. The meridional overturning of oceans is in the range of 300 to 400 years and the abyssal ventilation can take up to 2,000 years. However these changes are relatively short compared with ice perched on land. The Greenland ice sheet has ice as old as 400,000 years while the Antarctic ice cores have been dated as far back as 2.7Ma.
Greenland has retained most of its ice during the Holocene and it is now advancing again as displayed in Chart 13 based on Rutgers Snow Lab measurements. The trend is toward 100% permanent cover before 2100.
Peak solar intensity has been increasing in the Northern Hemisphere for 500 years.
The mid to high latitudes in the NH are dominated by land, which has a much higher response to solar intensity than oceans.
The minimum monthly solar intensity in the NH is declining but is low to zero in high latitudes so the decline is much smaller than the increase in the peak meaning the average is increasing. The minimum from 67N is always zero so cannot decline.
The increase in average solar intensity has cumulative and compounding effects such as land ice melting reducing albedo and increase in woody biomass that increases thermal inertia.
The high temperature in the NH has a corresponding increase in TPW, particularly in September, giving rise to increasing snowfall.
Additional points below are:
Permafrost is continuing to retreat apart from Greenland where there is now an established upward trend in permanent cover.
Glaciation is an energy intensive process. The cooling comes after the ice becomes permanent.
Milankovitch was fundamentally correct about the cause of climate trends in his analysis of Earth’s orbit early last century but the data was not readily available to appreciate the details of key processes. The process of glaciation in the NH is dominated by the precession cycle and the distribution of land over the globe. Also glaciation is an energy intensive process. For example, the Antarctic ice sheet would take 185,000 years to build from nothing to present level if the current annual ocean heat retention went entirely into evaporating water to produce snow over Antarctica. Further, summer solstice solar intensity over the South Pole peaked at 566W/m^2 2,600 years ago but was not sufficient to melt the ice. Once ice sheets form, they are difficult to melt due to the combination of albedo of the fresh snow; the low angle of incident sunlight at high latitudes and atmospheric temperature lapse rate maintaining frigid air over them.
The current increasing trend in NH peak solar intensity commenced around 500 years ago. The Viking colonisation of Greenland failed around the time of lowest summer solstice sunshine in the NH. Since the lowest peak intensity, the temperature of the NH has been trending upward with some cumulative thermal response being observed such as permanent ice loss and increased biomass as well as a corresponding increase in atmospheric water. There is now a clear upward trend in early season snowfall per Chart 14 and a lesser upward trend in maximum extent normally set in December. The permanent snow cover extent over NH land is still declining with most permafrost measurements showing permafrost still melting.
The NH land and oceans will continue to have a warming trend until the permafrost advances southward again. Greenland provides the early indicator for advancing permanent ice due to its proximity to warming ocean water. Permafrost will advance southward from the Arctic Ocean coastline and down from elevated ground; initially on north facing slopes. The average temperature of the NH land will decline as the permanent ice advances but the oceans will remain warm. The increase in elevation of the ice covered ground and reducing level of the oceans will create a greater temperature differential between ocean and land surfaces due to the lapse rate. This will also accelerate snowfall and the ice advance.
The precession cycle has a typical period of 23,000 years. Recent glacial episodes in the NH terminated after three or four precession cycles when the land reaches its limit of ice carrying capacity with glacier calving slowing down the water cycle. During glaciation, each upswing in the NH peak solar intensity aligns with the sea level decline until the glacier calving slows down the water cycle. The calving accelerates as sea level rises once the peak solar intensity in the NH is increasing. Glacier calving becomes the switch that changes the rising sunlight from land ice accumulation to ice loss.
During the Holocene, the maximum surface temperature, based on proxies, was achieved not long after the NH summer solstice solar EMR peaked and sea level was close to present level. The last peak at 45N reached 526W/m^2 11,200 years ago. The minimum of 483W/m^2 occurred 500 years ago. The next peak of 505W/m^2 will be in 9,000 years. By then, based on sea level reconstructions, the sea level will be 20m to 40m lower than present.
In the last two decades the Net radiation absorbed by the NH oceans and atmosphere has shown a strong upward trend per Chart 15.
The proportion being retained in the NH oceans is only 7.9% since 2005 and is declining as a proportion. So the ocean heat input that drives the water cycle in the NH has a sustained upward trend. This means the NH water cycle over land and ocean is increasing; consistent with strong upward trend in TPW in the northern latitudes; reaching 0.8mm/decade between 3N and 15N. The global water runoff has declined over recent decades apart from the May runoff trending upward. The overall decline in runoff means there is lower heat advection from ocean to land. However precipitation has increased over most of the land in the NH consistent with increased water cycle over land.
The Author
Richard Willoughby is a retired electrical engineer having worked in the Australian mining and mineral processing industry for 30 years with roles in large scale operations, corporate R&D and mine development. A further ten years was spent in the global insurance industry as an engineering risk consultant where he developed an enduring interest in natural catastrophes and changing climate.
A warmer world lengthens human life, whereas a cooling world may result in “orders of magnitude” higher excess death rates.
A 2022 Lancet study reported 791 heat-related excess deaths and 60,753 cold-related excess deaths in England and Wales each year during the years spanning 2000-2019. That’s an excess death ratio of about 85 to 1 for cold vs. hot temperatures.
Adjusted as deaths per 100,000 person-years, the annual ratio is 1.57 heat-related deaths vs. 122.34 cold-related excess deaths throughout the 21st century.
“Our analysis indicates that the excess in mortality attributable to cold was almost two orders of magnitude higher than the excess in mortality attributable to heat.”
And now a new study reports that, due to warmer urban temperatures, the number of premature cold-related excess deaths avoided averaged 447 per year from 1976-2019 in the city of London alone.
The annual lives saved by warmer winter temperatures rose to 639 during the winter of 2018-2019, which is the equivalent of 70.1 lives saved by “climate change” per million Londoners.
“Since 1976, we estimate 447 (95% confidence interval 5 330, 559) annual cold-related all-cause deaths have been avoided because of milder temperatures associated with climate change.”
“In the most recent winter in our dataset (winter 2018–2019), we estimate 639 fewer cold-related deaths in London associated with counterfactual temperature, amounting to 70.1 wintertime deaths per million people in the population avoided because of climate change.”
Across the world the cold-death vs. heat-death ratio is less stark than it is in the UK. Still, since the 1980s, cold weather has killed 20 times as many people as hot weather has (Gasparrini et al., 2015).
The stated goal of “net zero” emissions is to reduce warming. And yet warming can be shown to save far more lives than it harms.
As residents of Ontario, Canada, look forward to the arrival of summer after months of sub-zero temperatures, they are advised to think carefully about when to fire up the barbeque.
As residents of Ontario, Canada, look forward to the arrival of summer after months of sub-zero temperatures, they are advised to think carefully about when to fire up the barbeque.
Between the hours of 11am and 5pm on any given weekday, energy prices are more than double what they are overnight and considerably higher than in the early morning or late afternoon, according to guidance from the Ontario Energy Board, the province’s energy regulator.
When the nation’s most populous province switched over millions of households to dynamic pricing for energy in 2010 – underpinned by a rapidly completed smart meter rollout – officials believed consumers would alter their behaviour accordingly and benefit from cheaper bills.
Every ratepayer was forced to subscribe to one of three time of use (TOU) tariffs which use dynamic prices that are linked to how busy the energy grid is. Smart meters are mandatory so suppliers will always know how much energy a household is using and when.
Only the province’s “tiered” system offers anything resembling a fixed rate deal. Households are allotted a chunk of cheap energy, but when this has been used up, a more expensive rate automatically comes into effect. The third option offers very cheap overnight prices for nighttime workers and electric vehicle (EV) drivers.
But just years after the move, energy prices in Ontario were far higher and consumers had hardly changed the way they consumed energy at all.
Now a similar system could soon be widespread in Britain. Ofgem, the energy regulator, said last month that it was considering reforming the energy price cap to a dynamic model that is linked with real-time wholesale energy costs.
The regulator suggested in a report that Canadian-style TOU tariffs had already benefited consumers in the UK by allowing them to use energy when it was cheaper.
It said: “These tariffs help customers to reduce their bills by avoiding consuming electricity during peak periods, while also reducing suppliers’ wholesale costs.”
However, it remains to be seen whether reforming the energy price cap to become more like these tariffs would succeed in incentivising millions of British consumers to use energy at different times of day when it is cheaper.
Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering at the University of Cambridge, said that Ontario’s system proved to be a “mad idea” that failed to change behaviour en masse.
“People were not prepared to change their electricity consumption to save a few pence. This was always a mad idea that was never ever going to work. People just didn’t care and it didn’t move the needle at all,” he said.
In 2014, four years after TOU was introduced in Ontario, a major review of the project by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario found that it had failed to significantly bring down household energy consumption during times of day when the energy grid was historically busy.
It compared ratepayers who were moved to TOU with some 77,000 households which kept paying fixed-rate deals already agreed with suppliers, where the per kilowatt hour price of energy remains the same all the time.
“Consumption patterns of retail [fixed] and TOU ratepayers were about the same, suggesting that TOU pricing provided no more incentive to change usage behaviour than retail [fixed] contracts,” it said.
The report concluded that the dynamically priced tariffs had only had a “minor” impact on reducing demand for energy.
Consumers were also said to have complained of increased bills under TOU, while suppliers reported that many had had “limited or no ability to change electricity consumption”, especially small businesses and people who were at home during most of the day.
Even as Ontario raced towards net zero, with almost all of its energy coming from renewable sources by 2019, energy prices leapt.
Customers who paid for hydroelectric power from suppliers saw bills become so expensive that the province’s government was forced to step in and subsidise costs in 2017. TOU pricing was blamed at the time for contributing to increasing costs.
Overall, energy consumption at these times had fallen just 0.7pc despite the government saying it would drop by six times as much, a report by the province’s environmental commissioner found.
Today, the system remains in place. While prices for energy in Ontario were below national average last year, according to StatsCan, Canada’s official statistics agency, the move failed to substantially alter how households consume energy.
As the Canadian experts have deduced, people simply are not going to alter their lives, just to save a few pence on their energy bills, no matter what the apologists for the renewable industry might say.
Smart meters were always intended for energy rationing, whether via punitive pricing or cutting off supply.
As the Telegraph reminds us, previous government assurances about smart meters have proved to be lies:
In the 1970s and 1980s, energy security meant assuring a stable supply of affordable oil and reduced vulnerability to the threat of embargos and price manipulations by exporters. Many of the measures introduced were aimed at reducing oil imports and exports, diversifying the sources of energy (and specifically oil) supply, increasing energy efficiency, establishing strategic oil reserves and imposing controls on the price of oil.
In the 1970s and 1980s, energy security meant assuring a stable supply of affordable oil and reduced vulnerability to the threat of embargos and price manipulations by exporters. Many of the measures introduced were aimed at reducing oil imports and exports, diversifying the sources of energy (and specifically oil) supply, increasing energy efficiency, establishing strategic oil reserves and imposing controls on the price of oil.
For most of the post-2000 period, the governments of the world have abandoned their energy security concerns as they shifted focus towards attaining the goals of climate policy. Most OECD governments are now voluntarily committed to work towards the so-called “net-zero” emissions goal by 2050.
A new set of security concerns is arising as a result. One of the central features of global efforts to reduce GHG emissions is their reliance on accelerating the production and deployment of five critical technologies: solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity, industrial wind turbines, batteries to store electricity in bulk, electrolysers for the production of hydrogen, and heat pumps. The International Energy Agency now reports frequently on the trends with respect to these technologies and advocates for policies that will increase their production and use. In 2023, the IEA published an Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) Special Briefing intended to provide policy makers with “strategic insights” in this area.
Manufacturing operations are highly geographically concentrated: currently, four countries and the European Union account for 80-90% of global manufacturing capacity for the five clean technologies examined in this briefing. China alone accounts for 40-80% across these technologies. If all announced projects were to be realized, these shares would shift to 70-95% and 30-80% respectively.
China also has a major role in the production of some critical minerals that are used in the renewable energy sector and in batteries. It is the dominant player in global mineral processing, and its upstream control over raw commodities is also increasing. It refines 68% of the world’s nickel, 40% of the copper, 59% of lithium, and 73% of cobalt. As for minerals, it produces over 60% of the world’s vanadium and graphite, and 40% of the world’s molybdenum, aluminum, and lead. Rare earth elements over which China has a substantial hold over mining activity include 17 metallic elements, four of which – neodymium, dysprosium, praseodymium, and terbium -are of particular importance to “clean” energy technologies.
This is not an accident. China has achieved this manufacturing and market dominance as a result of clear and sustained policy signals and deployment targets in its Five-Year-Plans.
China’s state-owned and controlled companies are directed by the government (i.e. the Chinese Communist Party) to operate in ways differently than the privately-owned and operated firms in most OECD countries. China engages in trade that is based not solely or even principally on markets but on government protection and mercantilism. Mercantilism is a nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade. Their objective in trade is often to drive their higher cost competitors out of business, gain a near monopoly on supply, and then raise prices. They also can serve the broader strategic interests of the Chinese state.
Due to their climate policies, OECD countries are increasing their dependence on a single country for their future energy supplies. The concentration of supply capabilities in one country far exceeds what OPEC had in 1973. The fact that China is continually challenging western countries for geopolitical supremacy adds to the risks that it might use its domination of supply capability in future to unilaterally determine the supply and price conditions. In effect, OECD countries are endangering their own people. They are making China great again.
First published JoNova; If you fell for the government propaganda that renewables are the cheapest form of energy, the Guardian will help set you straight.
Here’s the truth: energy transition is hard. Not everyone gets a pony
Jobs will change, communities will be affected, but we have a shot at rising to the challenge of global heating
The climate crisis has long been defined by its lies: From the original sin of science denial, to Tony Abbott’s confected carbon tax panic, to the latest yellowcake straw man. But the most damaging porky of all might bethat the transition to renewable energywill be easy.
Government messaging has propagated this myth, vacillating between the torpid technocracy of targets, acronyms and megawatt hours and the sunny spin that promises “a cheaper, cleaner energy future!”.
When asked to rank energy sources in order of cost, renewables are rated the most expensive. Fossil fuels are seen as a cheaper solution, while nuclear is preferred by those who don’t support the transition anyway.
These findings are hardly surprising, the result of higher electricity bills as global prices for fossil fuels soar. Energy companies, like all big corporations, clip the inflation ticket and roof-top solar incentives are phased out.
…
When US president JFK announced the project to reach the moon within a decade in 1962, he famously proclaimed he was doing things “not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.
There has been a lot of commentary about how to measure the cost of renewables – but much of it misses the point
If you’ve been reading or watching any rightwing media of late, you will have heard some extraordinary claims being made about the cost of renewable energy and the transition away from fossil fuels.
The opposition’s energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, suggested the Labor government could be “wilfully lying” about the “true cost” of the energy transition, while others have questioned the evidence that solar and wind are the cheapest forms of power.
In the Australian, two columns claimed to have uncovered a fatal flaw in how the cost of solar and wind gets compared with coal, gas and the currently-illegal nuclear.
There is a lot to unpick – but not because any true scandal has been uncovered.
…
The LCOE metric shows clearly that solar and onshore wind are easily the cheapest forms of electricity right now. But Lehmann, and critics she quotes, say it’s misleading because it does not account for the cost of adding transmission lines and storage to the grid that enable those renewables.
A little humility, a mea culpa, I mean I would have accepted an apology from The Guardian for sometimes unintentionally misleading readers.
But I doubt we’ll get any of that from The Guardian. They seem to be set on sailing straight from singing the praises of “the cheapest reliable energy system”, to blaming misconceptions about the cost of renewables on lying politicians.
And that talk of moonshots – that certainly doesn’t sound like the cheapest option.
I wonder how green politicians feel about being thrown under a bus by journalists?
We’re never going to find out, because at the rate this political transformation is going, pretty soon it’s going to be difficult to find any politician who admits they supported renewable energy. Renewables will turn out to be a ghastly mistake, which nobody was responsible for.
On episode 107 of The Climate Realism Show, we look Earth Day 2024 and how it has been holding up as the poster holiday for the environmental left.
On episode 107 of The Climate Realism Show, we look Earth Day 2024 and how it has been holding up as the poster holiday for the environmental left.
Since it was first started in 1970, dozens of predictions have been announced each Earth Day. For example, April 1970, Population Bomb author Paul Erlich was quoted as saying “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
Or, this gem. On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press said in an ominous article, “Rising Seas Could Obliterate Nations,” containing a jaw-dropping opener: “A senior UN environmental official (Noel Brown) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Special guest Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com has been following these predictions for years, and will join us to provide his always interesting color commentary.
Join host Anthony Watts, Marc Marono, and The Heartland Institute’s usual climate crew of H. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken, to talk about these failured predictions and also the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET (12 p.m. CT) for the kind of climate realism you can’t find anywhere else, and join the chat to get your questions answered, too.
President Joe Biden was out on the stump making an Earth Day speech in Virginia on April 22, and as Fox News reports he was blaming humans for climate change, and the “devastating toll,” he claimed it was wreaking across the nation. He also said anyone who denies this is endangering peoples’ lives. Biden is wrong.
President Joe Biden was out on the stump making an Earth Day speech in Virginia on April 22, and as Fox News reports he was blaming humans for climate change, and the “devastating toll,” he claimed it was wreaking across the nation. He also said anyone who denies this is endangering peoples’ lives. Biden is wrong. Data refutes claims that the weather extremes are worsening amid the modest warming of the past half century. Also those who “believe the science,” as Democrats constantly admonish people to do, know this fact and are trying to prevent climate policies that pose a bigger threat to human welfare than climate change itself.
But folks, despite the overwhelming devastation in red and blue states, there’s still those who deny climate is in crisis. My MAGA Republican friends don’t seem to think it’s a crisis ….I’m not going to go into it now, but I’m not making it up. It’s real. Just listen to what they say. Anyone in or out of government who willfully denies the impacts of climate change is condemning the American people to a very dangerous future, and the world, I might add.
Biden’s mistargeted harangue came shortly after he went through a litany of recent damaging extreme-weather events which he blamed on climate change, including recent wildfires, hurricanes, and floods.
However, a single year’s weather is not climate, which is defined by the World Meteorological Organization as a 30-year trend in weather for a location. And, as discussed in numerous Climate Realism posts, data shows no increasing trend of hurricanes, wildfires, or floods. Nor is there evidence that any of these three types of natural disasters have become more severe or stronger amid the recent slight warming. In fact, what the data for hurricanes shows that there has been a modest decline in tropical cyclone frequency during the recent period of warming and significant decline in global wildfires. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent assessment report confirms these facts. That’s the science. Biden should believe it.
The President evidently fails to grasp the fact that because climate change isn’t making severe weather more frequent or more powerful, it can’t be causing more harm to people.
Indeed, the data clearly show that fewer people are dying as a result of extreme weather events or extreme temperatures than at any time in history—deaths have declined dramatically even as the Earth has modestly warmed.
While the harm from climate change is declining, by comparison Biden’s climate policies are wreaking havoc with the U.S. economy and peoples lives, jacking up food and energy prices and making it hard for average American’s to get by.
Biden’s pointing his finger at climate realists, who try to publicize these facts, shows him to be nothing more than a befuddled shill for his misguided, tremendously expensive climate policies, pandering to the radical progressive wing of his party, who want to end capitalism and America’s constitutional republic in favor of an oligarchy or kleptocracy, run by political elites. If Biden can’t speak accurately concerning what the science actually shows about climate change, perhaps he should, in the words of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, “remain silent.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.