Day: May 13, 2024

IPCC Uses Overblown Global Warming Potentials

he Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Table 2.14 of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) show the increase in warming by methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) is 21 and 310 times respectively that of CO2. There has been wide acceptance of these values since publishing in 2007. Nevertheless, they are inaccurate.

Road Sign – Oops!

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

H. Douglas Lightfoot and Gerald Ratzer published their paper Reliable Physics Demand Revision of the IPCC Global Warming Potentials in Environmental Science April 15, 2024.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.  H\T Patrick Moore.

Abstract

The Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Table 2.14 of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) show the increase in warming by methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) is 21 and 310 times respectively that of CO2. There has been wide acceptance of these values since publishing in 2007. Nevertheless, they are inaccurate.

This study uses accurate methods to calculate the impacts of CO2, CH4, and N2O on the warming of the atmosphere. For example, this quantitative analysis from reliable physics shows the contribution of CO2 to warming at Amsterdam is 0.0083°C out of a difference of 26°C. The warming effect of CH4 on the Earth’s atmosphere is 0.408% of that of CO2, and the warming by N2O is 0.085% of that of CO2.

Thus, the warming effects of CO2, CH4, and N2O are too small to measure. The invalidity of the methane and nitrous oxide values indicates the GWPs of the remaining approximately sixty chemicals in the Table 2.14 list are also invalid. A recommendation is that the IPCC consider revising or retracting the GWP values in Table 2.14.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to examine the Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) in Table 2.14 of the Fourth Assessment Report [1] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Figure 1.The Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of methane and nitrous oxide calculated by the IPCC in Table2.14 have profoundly affected the decisions made by elected officials worldwide.

Nitrogen fertilizers have been restricted or banned in several countries because they emit a small amount of nitrous oxide. Nitrogen fertilizers are essential for the growth of plants, and nitrogen is often the limiting nutrient [2]. Restricting their use affects food production adversely and can cause food shortages. The IPCC claims that nitrous oxide has up to 310 times the warming effect of CO2. This value is so significant that we must determine whether or not this value of 310 is valid.

A similar situation occurs with methane, which is claimed to have 21 times the warming effect of CO2. Natural gas is virtually all methane transported widely by pipelines and pumping stations. The claim is that methane leaks from natural gas pipeline systems and processing are warming the Earth. Periodically, a scientist will quote Table 2.14 and raise the alarm about methane and the possibility of significant methane releases from the Arctic Tundra caused by the warming of the Earth [3].

The methodology of this study answers the question: “Of the temperature difference between two weather stations, how many degrees Celsius do CO2, CH4, and N2O contribute?” Four weather stations—Pond Inlet, Amsterdam, Colorado Springs, and Princeton, NJ—were selected to provide the answers. The temperature and relative humidity are recorded within the same.

Calculations for Table 2 Column D

In Row 5, the grams of CO2 per kilogram (kg) of dry air is (0.00041806 x 44 x (1000/29) = 0.630, where 44 and 29 are the molecular weights of CO2 and air, respectively. In Row 9, the grams of CH4 per kg of dry air are (0.000001927 x 16 x (1000/29)) = 0.001063, where 16 is the molecular weight of methane. Similarly, in Row 12, Column E, the grams of N2O per kg of dry air are (0.00000033675 x 44 x (1000/29) = 0.000511, where 44 is the molecular weight of nitrous oxide.There are 0.630/0.00106 = 594 grams of CO2 per gram of methane. Thus, there are (594 x 44)/16) = 1634 molecules of CO2 per methane molecule. Thus, because the molecular weights of CO2 and N2O are the same at 44, there are (0.630/0.000511) = 1235 molecules of CO2 for each molecule of N2O in the Earth’s atmosphere. Thus, in September 2023, CO2 molecules outnumber CH4 molecules by 1634 and N2O molecules by 1235.

Measuring the Contribution of CO2, CH4 and N2O to Temperature in the Earth’s Atmosphere

It is essential to understand that the measured and recorded temperature is the sum of all the factors affecting Earth’s temperature. These include warming caused by radiation from the Sun absorbed by CO2, CH4, N2O, feedback, and other warming or cooling effects. These factors also apply to temperature differences. The recorded temperature is input to the Humidair psychrometric program, which includes these factors in the heat content (enthalpy) and specific volume.

The following method quantifies the contribution of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide to the difference in temperature between three weather stations and Pond Inlet.Table 3 is a summary of the Excel calculations. The file for the Excel calculations is: “Excel calculations for GWP Mar 102024.xlsx.” From the Excel spreadsheet, Column H, the temperatures measured at Pond Inlet, Amsterdam, Colorado Springs, and Princeton on December 30, 2023, were -18°C, 8°C, 3°C, and 4°C, respectively. We set the recorded level of CO2 at 418.06 at the location with the lowest of the four temperatures, i.e., at Pond Inlet. This is because the number of molecules of CO2 per cubic meter falls as the temperature rises.

The grams of CO2 per kg of dry air in the Pond Inlet row of Table 3 are the same as in Column D of Table 2. The temperature contributions of CO2, CH4, and N2O to the difference in temperature in °C between Pond Inlet and the weather stations in Column A are in Columns G, H, and I. The total is in Column J. The upper lines in the titles of the columns are the locations in the Excel spreadsheet calculations. Note that the average CO2 for Table 2 was 418.06 in August 2023, and the level of CO2 during the recording of the values for the Excel spreadsheet was 422.3 ppm. The difference of 4.24 ppm has no significant effect on the results of this study.

As shown in Table 4, the temperature increase caused by CH4 and N2O is a small percentage of the temperature rise caused by CO2.The warming effect of CO2 is too small to measure [9, 10].Thus, the warming effects of CH4 and N2O are also too small. The data in IPCC Table 2.14, showing that CH4 has 21 times the warming effect of CO2 and that N2O has 310 times the warming effect of CO2, are grossly incorrect.

Summary and Conclusions

This study provides evidence that the IPCC Global Warming Potentials are incorrect. It starts with the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) measured as molecules per million molecules of dry air, which is the molar fraction. Then, quantitative results from reliable physics establish the enthalpy and specific volume at four weather stations. Chemistry determines the grams of each gas per kg of dry air. The increase in the temperature bycurrent levels of methane (CH4) and nitrous (N2O) in the Earth’s atmosphere isa small percentage of that of CO2.Conclusions 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 answer, “Of the temperature difference between two weather stations, how many degrees Celsius do CO2, CH4, and N2O contribute?”

6.1.In this study, the difference in temperature between Pond Inlet and Amsterdam is 26°C. The contribution of CO2 to this difference is 0.0083°C, but this amount is too small to measure.

6.2.The contribution of CH4 to the 26°C difference between Pond Inlet and Amsterdam is 0.0000338°C.This current level of methane in the atmosphere increases the temperature by 0.408% of that of CO2. It does not have 21 times the warming of CO2 as claimed by the IPCC.

6.3.N2O’s contribution to the 26°C difference between Pond Inlet and Amsterdam is 0.00000705oC. This is 0.085% of that of CO2. It does not have 310 times the warming of CO2, as claimed by the IPCC

6.4.The total contribution of all three gases to the 26°C difference between Pond Inlet and Amsterdam is 0.00833oC. This is a typical result; this difference is too small to measure.

6.5.The warming of the Earth’s atmosphere by CH4 and N2O is 0.408% and 0.085% respectively of that of CO2.

6.6.The warming by CH4 and N2O is so tiny in the Earth’s atmosphere that the IPCC estimates of warming by GWP over several years are irrelevant.

6.7.It is reasonable for the IPCC to consider revising or withdrawing Table 2.14 in the Fourth Assessment Report

Footnote:  

If like me you are new to the term “psychrometrics”, it refers to an engineering method for assessing the thermodynamic properties of moist air.  From Understanding The Psychrometric Chart

The psychrometric chart is a tool commonly used in the field of engineering to understand and analyze the properties of air. This chart provides valuable information about the thermodynamic properties of moist air, which is crucial for various applications such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. By understanding the psychrometric chart, engineers can make more informed decisions and optimize their designs for enhanced efficiency and comfort.

In addition to temperature, the psychrometric chart also includes other properties such as humidity ratio, enthalpy, and specific volume. The humidity ratio represents the mass of moisture present in the air per unit mass of dry air, while enthalpy is the total heat content of the air including both sensible and latent heat. Specific volume, on the other hand, is the volume occupied by a unit mass of air. Together, these properties provide a comprehensive understanding of the thermodynamic behavior of moist air.

Even Stupider Than The Stupidest Litigation In The Country

I have had several posts on a collection of related cases that I have called “The Stupidest Litigations In The Country.” These are cases where climate hysterics have sued oil and gas producing companies, or the federal government, or both, seeking various extreme punishments ranging from massive damages up to and including an order to end all production of fossil fuels. The asserted grounds vary somewhat from case to case, but a central theme is a claimed constitutional right to a “clean and healthy environment.”

From Manhattan Contrarian

From Francis Menton

I have had several posts on a collection of related cases that I have called “The Stupidest Litigations In The Country.” These are cases where climate hysterics have sued oil and gas producing companies, or the federal government, or both, seeking various extreme punishments ranging from massive damages up to and including an order to end all production of fossil fuels. The asserted grounds vary somewhat from case to case, but a central theme is a claimed constitutional right to a “clean and healthy environment.”

My last update on these cases was a post on April 9. A main subject there was the lawsuit of Juliana v. United States, which is one of the cases where the federal government is the defendant and the goal is to require it to force an end to the production of fossil fuels. The occasion for the post was that, nine years into the litigation, the federal defendant had just launched its third effort to get the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to end the case on the ground of “non-justiciability” — that is, to get the court to rule that such an issue of society-wide energy policy is not a proper subject to be decided by a court. Instead, the Department of Justice was arguing, this sort of question must be left to the political branches of government, that is, legislatures and executives. (On May 1, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in fact ordered that the Juliana case be dismissed. We’ll see if that sticks. The plaintiffs still have a few litigation options left, including seeking “en banc” review from the full Ninth Circuit, and seeking review from the Supreme Court.)

Meanwhile, be careful what you wish for. If the decision to blame energy-producing companies for everything wrong with the environment is to be left to the political branches, what’s to stop those political branches from jumping into this act?

In the last few days, the legislature in the state of Vermont has done just that. NBC News has the story on May 7, with the headline “Vermont passes bill to charge fossil fuel companies for damage from climate change.”

It looks like little Vermont (population about 650,000) is going to step up to save the planet where all the big players like the federal government and California have failed. The idea here is that the state will force the fossil fuel producers to pay damages to compensate for any losses attributable to “climate change.” If you believe that all extreme weather is the fault of “climate change” (and it appears that they do believe that), then this could add up to some enormous sums. From NBC:

Vermont lawmakers passed a bill this week that is designed to make big fossil fuel companies pay for damage from weather disasters fueled by climate change.

Here is a link to the state legislature’s website for the text of the bill. As of now, the bill appears to have passed both houses of the legislature, and is awaiting the signature of the Governor. The Governor — Phil Scott, a Republican — may well balk. However, the bill passed with very few dissenting votes, so even if Scott vetoes it, there are likely to be plenty of votes of override.

My comment is that this legislation is even stupider than the stupidest litigations. It’s so stupid that even California hasn’t tried it.

Here is NBC’s summary of how the new law will work:

Vermont’s bill, referred to as its Climate Superfund Act, would . . . mandate that big oil companies and others with high emissions pay for damage caused by global warming. The amounts owed would be determined based on calculations of the degree to which climate change contributed to extreme weather in Vermont, and how much money those weather disasters cost the state. From there, companies’ shares of the total would depend on how many metric tons of carbon dioxide each released into the atmosphere from 1995 to 2024.

So what exactly is the game plan? I don’t think that they have thought this one through, to put it mildly. Isn’t every citizen of Vermont a user of fossil fuels? How about the state itself? Exxon may have produced a bunch of gasoline by pumping crude oil and refining it down in Texas, but the state of Vermont is the one that made all those emissions by running a fleet of cars and trucks and heating all its buildings. Is the state prepared to restrict at all the use of fossil fuels in its territory, or is it just going to pretend that nobody but the fuel producers has any role in making emissions?

I can’t wait to see how the litigation back-and-forth plays out. Many possibilities suggest themselves. One likelihood is that the producers could raise prices to their Vermont distributors to recoup whatever extra costs Vermont imposes on them, thus effectively passing any damage claims right back to the Vermont consumers. Or potentially the oil companies could join into the litigation as third-party defendants all the citizens of Vermont and the state itself. That would be fun.

There is likely to be a huge issue of Vermont getting jurisdiction over all or even a few of the fossil fuel producers. Everybody can name about five gigantic oil companies, and most people have the impression that those five companies are responsible for most emissions. But in fact there are hundreds of companies that produce oil, natural gas and coal, and far and away most emissions come from fuels both produced and consumed outside the U.S. Most production of fossil fuels occurs in places like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India. Even as to U.S. producers that sell products in Vermont, I believe that under recent Supreme Court law (Daimler v. Bauman), Vermont does not have the ability to force producers to respond to claims in Vermont courts unless the company is either incorporated in Vermont or has its headquarters in Vermont. That’s probably none of them. Will Vermont launch dozens of claims around the country, most in states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc.) that are friendly to fossil fuel producers?

At the Pirate’s Cove, the Pirate has this comment:

What happens if the fossil fuels companies decide to leave? How does the government itself operate without fossil fuels? How do many heat their homes? Get to work? Operate their boats? Do visitors want to deal with high costs, or, just go elsewhere? How do truck bring goods in if there are no gas stations? How do planes get fuels?

Well, the companies can’t get together and all agree to leave. That would be a violation of the antitrust laws. But they can go to the legislature and dare it to ban them all from selling anything in the state. That’s what I would propose they do.

Somehow, the Vermont legislature cannot see how ridiculous it looks blaming fossil fuel producers for carbon emissions when in fact all of the people of Vermont, as well as the state itself, are the ones buying and burning the fuels. Why don’t they just stop if it’s such a bad thing?

Faking It: Why ‘Cheap’ Wind & Solar Power Claims Never Stack Up

Well and truly captured by wind and solar rent seekers, part of their brief is to put up fictional accounts of the (always understated) costs and (always overstated) benefits of wind and solar: its GenCost report sits somewhere between Science Fiction and rubbery accounting, as Nick Cater explains below.

From STOP THESE THINGS

Like any ideological cult, wind and solar acolytes bury troublesome facts and replace them with oodles of helpful fiction. Start with the supposed cost of the electricity occasionally generated by wind turbines and solar panels.

The usual trick is to invent some model said to capture the unique benefits of running on sunshine and breezes. The model ignores critical variables (such as sunshine and wind and wear and tear on turbines and deterioration of panels) thereby overstating output and understating the actual cost of generation.

Once upon a time Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) was renowned for advancing science and technology using objective and critical analysis, and all for the benefit of the Country. These days. Not so much.

CSIRO is just another government institution overrun by ideological crones obsessed with the conceit that they alone can change the weather 50 years from now and that if we don’t ‘act’ now the world will incinerate some time later next week.

Well and truly captured by wind and solar rent seekers, part of their brief is to put up fictional accounts of the (always understated) costs and (always overstated) benefits of wind and solar: its GenCost report sits somewhere between Science Fiction and rubbery accounting, as Nick Cater explains below.

We now know Labor’s renewables dream is based on economic modelling that isn’t as ‘unimpeachable’ as Chris Bowen claims it to be
Sky News
Nick Cater
4 May 2024

A scan of Chris Bowen’s media archives on his ministerial website shows that he has claimed that the cheapest electricity comes from renewable energy at least once a week for the last two years.

“Facts are facts,” he told ABC’s Sabra Lane last December.

He cited economic modelling by the CSIRO describing it as “unimpeachable and very, very clear”.

If the Energy Minister is beginning to sound screechy, it is probably because he’s losing the argument.

An Essential poll for the Guardian last month found that 40 per cent of Australians think renewable energy is the most expensive form of energy, up from 38 per cent last October.

Only 36 per cent said nuclear was the most expensive, and 24 per cent picked fossil fuels.

For the first time in an Essential poll, a clear majority supported nuclear energy, 52 per cent in favour compared to 31 per cent against.

The findings should trouble not just the government but the CSIRO.

It has suffered self-inflicted repetitional damage by venturing outside its area of scientific expertise into the complex microeconomic world of energy pricing.

Despite Bowen’s insistence, most Australians know that computer modelling of future prices are not facts but predictions that must be truth tested against observations made on the ground. Observations of the upward trend in household electricity bills, for example.

This week, the Centre for Independent Studies published a devastating critique of the CSIRO’s modelling which shows it to be unworthy of the paper it’s printed upon.

The CIS’ conclusions confirm that our peak scientific body has been wading out of its depth, cherry-picking data and making rookie calculation errors.

Significant costs attached to renewable energy are conveniently ignored in the CSIRO GenCost analysis.

The cost of storage and associated transmission lines incurred before 2030 are treated as sunk costs, even though investors will expect a return over the asset’s life.

The Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan – Bowen’s roadmap of the transition to renewables – requires considerable rooftop solar and home battery investment.

Householders and businesses bear this cost, but it is not included in the GenCost analysis.

The cost of decommissioning turbines, solar panels and batteries at the end of their life is also excluded.

In estimating the carbon emissions savings that are said to come by adopting renewals, AEMO’S roadmap excludes emissions from the manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and the other paraphernalia required by intermittent renewable energy, making them seem cleaner than they are.

CSIRO’s method of evaluating individual projects doesn’t consider the energy system as a whole but as separate parts.

This approach allows financially unviable projects to get approval, leading to costs being transferred to consumers.

Most egregiously of all, the CSIRO cherry pick the data to make other forms of electricity generation appear more expensive.

It bases its cost estimate for Small Modular Reactors for example on the cost of a failed project in Utah, which faced peculiar cost overruns, technical challenges and regulatory hurdles.

It includes the finance costs for SMRs but not for wind and solar, where the assumption is that money is borrowed for free.

The GenCost report would likely have found nuclear was considerably cheaper if it had examined a mass-produced reactor like GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, which is about to start production in Canada for installation at Darlington Point in Ontario.

Previous nuclear reactors have been one-off projects.

SMRs like the BWRX-300 will be made on production lines similar to those used to manufacture aircraft.

GenCost uses unrealistic assumptions about the construction costs of new coal plants, making them appear more expensive than renewables.

The ISP selectively chooses specific future years in its cost-benefit analysis to justify transmission projects and ignores years where reliability breaches are likely to occur.

In its determination to stack the cards against fossil fuel generation, the CSIRO assumes that the current price spikes for coal and gas caused by the Ukrainian war will remain constant throughout the lifespan of new plants.

In reality, world gas prices have already returned to levels close to those before Russia’s invasion.

The complete list of errors and biases in the CSIRO GenCost is extensive.

The CIS report is available online.

The CSIRO’s errors are forgivable in part.

The organisation’s expertise is in scientific research and innovation, not microeconomics.

It is hard to fault its work on insect control, fine wool processing, radio astronomy, WiFi protocols or polymer banknotes.

Yet its work on energy pricing is not just economically naive but a departure from the established scientific method.

It commits the most egregious error in the scientist’s rulebook: a priori reasoning, the formation of conclusions based on deductive logic or pre-existing knowledge in which the search for empirical evidence becomes superfluous.

The CSIRO researchers knew what the answer should be and proceeded to torture the evidence until it made a false confession.

A priori reasoning can be helpful in mathematics and logic, but it should never be applied to empirical questions or phenomena in the natural or social sciences.

It leads to confirmation bias, where investigators selectively interpret evidence to support their preconceived notions.

It encourages logical falsehoods and oversimplification, where conclusions are drawn from established principles and ignores the complex, dynamic systems that operate in the natural world or human behaviour.

It cannot cope with complexity or uncertainty, is inherently speculative and runs a high risk of error.

It leads to the delusion that computers are intelligent and that the ability to compile a spreadsheet is the path to omnipotence.

These are increasingly common symptoms in the laptop class.

It’s a condition that might be called Excel syndrome, the delusion that the ability to put a spreadsheet together is a substitute for knowing what you’re talking about.
Sky News

And check out Nick’s interview with Alexandra Nicol on the extortionate costs of wind and solar subsidies:

‘The stakes could not be higher’: world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns

Should we nominate a special day – crying climate scientist day?

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Should we nominate a special day – crying climate scientist day?

‘The stakes could not be higher’: world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns

Damian Carrington Environment editorFri 10 May 2024 00.00 AEST

The world is on the verge of a climate abyss, the UN has warned, in response to a Guardian survey that found that hundreds of the world’s foremost climate experts expect global heating to soar past the international target of 1.5C.

A series of leading climate figures have reacted to the findings, saying the deep despair voiced by the scientists must be a renewed wake-up call for urgent and radical action to stop burning fossil fuels and save millions of lives and livelihoods. Some said the 1.5C target was hanging by a thread, but it was not yet inevitable that it would be passed, if an extraordinary change in the pace of climate action could be achieved.

The Guardian got the views of almost 400 senior authors of reports by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Almost 80% expected a rise of at least 2.5C above preindustrial levels, a catastrophic level of heating, while only 6% thought it would stay within the 1.5C limit. Many expressed their personal anguish at the lack of climate action.

“The goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C is hanging by a thread,” said the official spokesperson for António Guterres, the UN secretary general. “The battle to keep 1.5C alive will be won or lost in the 2020s – under the watch of political and industry leaders today. They need to realise we are on the verge of the abyss. The science is clear and so are the world’s scientists: the stakes for all humanity could not be higher.”

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/09/world-is-on-verge-of-climate-abyss-un-warns

I clicked the link to the personal reactions link, see if there was anything interesting. I didn’t bother reading all of it, because most of it seemed to be the usual rehashed tedium. They’re all sad and depressed because we are not doing what the scientists tell us to do. Not one word about nuclear energy, the zero carbon energy source which actually works. From what the Guardian wrote they want us to embrace climate communism (restricted choices, social change) and renewables.

I tried finding the UN source of the climate abyss comment, but all I saw were previous UN “climate abyss” warnings. Or maybe it’s the same warning, but the abyss is still really close but at the same time many years away.

World on the verge of climate ‘abyss’, as temperature rise continues: UN chief

19 April 2021 Climate and Environment

The Earth’s temperature continues to rise unabated, with 2020 being one of the three warmest years on record, as extreme weather events combine with the COVID-19 pandemic, impacting millions. 

According to the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) flagship State of the Global Climate report, the global average temperature in 2020 was about 1.2-degree Celsius above pre-industrial level.

That figure is “dangerously close” to the 1.5-degree Celsius limit advocated by scientists to stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

The six years since 2015, have been the warmest on record, and the decade beginning up to this year, was the warmest ever.

“We are on the verge of the abyss”, Secretary-General António Guterres said at a press conference announcing the findings.

…Read more: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/04/1090072

Of course, as always, there is still time to avert the climate abyss – providing we embrace climate communism and renewables.

Lest we forget, this entire tedious, repetitive clown show is being funded by your tax dollars.

Next time you come up short trying to pay inflated green energy bills, take a moment to write to your congress critter and see where they stand on this nonsense. If your representative doesn’t promptly point out a long track record of trying to pull the plug on climate funding, primary them and find someone who will. Because as long as politicians don’t make ending all this a priority, the climate clown show will continue, and your tax dollars will continue to inflate your energy bills, enrich left wing donors, and pay for the tearful public performances of the crying climate scientist industry.

A Geophysicist Explains Geoclimate Change

The extra carbon atom makes CO2 more massive than air and
at 0.042% that concentration is critically low for photosynthesis.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Image courtesy of Mars: Dry Ice and Dunes – NASA Science

John Bruyn writes at Quora answering the question: What does carbon dioxide have to do with climate change?  He is a retired geophysicist with a background in exploration geology, geophysics, seismology, and in remote sensing by satellite. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The surface of Mars shows that CO2 is transparent to radiation in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum until it becomes reflective as dry ice at temperatures below its -78.5 C (109.3 F) freezing point. A black body radiating at such temperatures does so at wavelengths close to 15 µm (microns), i.e., very low energy at the far end of the far infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Energy is a function of frequency and should therefore be plotted on the x-axis (top of this figure) and units of watts should not be included on the y-axis. The colored lines show the spectral radiance predicted by Planck’s law for black bodies with different absolute temperatures. The energy of radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide is near 0.08 electron volts while the UV-B energy that reaches Earth when the ozone layer is depleted is near 4 electron volts, 48 times larger.

Such radiation is inconsequential on Earth where the much higher global mean surface temperature of about 15 C (59 F) makes that impossible and irrelevant in that it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The exception would have to be mid-winter on central Antarctica where the temperatures can get as low as -90 C (-130 F) but where the roughly 0.042% (420 ppm) CO2 concentration leaves the partial pressure too low for dry ice to form. As that minimum temperature shows, any infrared radiation disappears quickly into space at close to the speed of light.

The extra carbon atom makes CO2 more massive than air and
at 0.042% that concentration is critically low for photosynthesis.

Any CO2 we can contribute only serves to improve on that. The reason for that very low concentration is the very much greater abundance of the lighter than air H2O molecules bonding with CO2 inversely proportional to temperature to suspend it temporarily. However, that is restricted to the troposphere with 99% of the Earth’s atmospheric H2O that relies on the bonding with enough CO2 molecules to be able to precipitate and fill water bodies on land and the ocean, currently taking up almost 71% of the global surface. Helping H2O precipitate makes CO2 a cooling agent, including by supporting photosynthesis and ozone formation in the stratosphere.

It follows that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is controlled by the amount of water vapour in the air and that its concentration rises and falls with the variations in insolation and from variations in the speed of the Earth’s rotation. Together they drive the evaporation of H2O from global surface, as well as the CO2 emissions from the ocean in the tropics. Cooling and the declining speed of the Earth’s rotation toward higher latitudes cause evaporation and the ocean’s CO2 emissions to decline with latitude and to reverse that process, as well as making the ocean the world’s primary carbon sink.

The Milankovic cycles have been concentrating insolation in the tropics with the declining obliquity of the Earth’s spin axis for the last 10 millennia. Perihelion has been adding to that by moving north since the mid-13th century. The declining eccentricity of the Earth’s orbits has been adding to that by increasing the already supersonic speed of the Earth’s rotation and will continue to do so for about another 30,000 years. The increasing the centrifugal force (inertia) has been causing the atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase. However, as sea levels continue to decline at the highest latitudes (see Post-glacial rebound – Wikipedia) and will cause the shallow seas in the tropics to start running dry in about 5 millennia from now, CO2 emissions will start to decline accordingly.

This plot shows the day length (LOD) variations from Wikipedia and how these have been shortening by milliseconds as a result of the increasing speed of the Earth’s rotation from the declining eccentricity of the Earth’s orbits.

The oscillations match the the variations in the sun’s barycentric motions caused by the gravity and orbits of the 4 outermost planets (JSUN) with 99.6% of the planetary mass that control the ~11-year solar cycle, as well as the sun’s ~22-year magnetic cycle due to the vertical motion of Jupiter and Saturn with respect to the plane of the solar equator caused by the inclinations of their orbits with respect to that plane and controlled by the orientation of the gravity of the Milky Way galaxy.

These are the solar orbits around the barycentre of the solar system from 1970–2022 as generated with the Solar Simulator 2 (can be downloaded free of charge, no strings attached). As can be seen from the prior LOD image, the SS2 shows that when the solar motion is small, day lengths increase and when the solar orbits are large, day lengths reduce. This makes it highly probable that the minute changes in the global mean temperatures by fractions of a degree that may be picked up with climate models are from the annual variations in day lengths instead of CO2 increases.

This graph (own work, based on NASA JPL Horizons ephemerides) shows that the changes in the Earth’s climate have been happening as a result of the changing shapes of the JSUN orbits for the last 2 millennia (and before that) and their always changing perihelion distances. They show the real reasons for climate change with a 973-year millennial cycle, as well as the roughly 60-year cycle of the phasing of the orbits and great conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn according to the 5:2 ratio of their orbital periods of 12 years and 29.5 years respectively.

The ~60-year great conjunction cycle of Jupiter and Saturn has long been recognised by ancient astronomers and in the Chinese calendar. The cycle peaked in 2019 and the vertical motion of all 4 of the outermost planets, Jupiter (318 E-mass), Saturn (95 E-mass), Uranus 14.5 E-mass), and Neptune 17.1 E-mass) to a total of 99.6% of the planetary mass all converged well south of the plane of the solar equator in 2022, pulling the Earth with just 0.22% of the planetary mass a bit further south too and exposing more of the northern hemisphere to the sun. And that’s just one of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW)/climate change tricks, cherry picking the hemispheres and the poles at certain times.

This image (own work) of the vertical motion of the 4 outermost planets (JSUN) with 99.6% of the planetary mass shows that according to the NASA JPL Horizons ephemerides their orbits put all 4 of them well below the plane of the solar equator with the effect of forcing the Earth orbits a bit further south too and exposing the Arctic to more insolation.

At the temperatures of the troposphere are above the freezing point of CO2 it is transparent to electromagnetic radiation., but not when frozen as dry ice in the lower stratosphere with sub-100 C temperatures. In the troposphere, the up to 100 times higher concentration of the lighter than air H2O molecules suspend the CO2 molecules and prevent these from forming a dense high pressure high temperature surface layer as they do on Venus where 1 day takes longer than a year.

It follows that driving the best and the largest evaporative cooling and air-conditioning system on Earth is the centrifugal force (inertia) of the supersonic roughly 1,677 km/h (1,042 mph) equatorial speed of the Earth’s rotation and mountain ranges that spins CO2 out into the upper atmosphere. On the way back down, CO2 loses its energy in the lower stratosphere and freezing when reaching -78.5 C to become reflective as dry ice but that radiation, where and when it happens is too weak to have any effect on a much warmer troposphere where CO2 gets defrosted by bonding with H2O molecules and helping these condense, form clouds, and precipitate as slightly acid rain, pH of 5.6 or less but increasing inversely proportional to latitude. The reason for that upward pH gradient toward the poles is from H2O requiring fewer CO2 molecules to precipitate as temperatures decline and the centrifugal force (inertia) of the Earth’s 24-hour rotation period goes to zero. The Earth’s oblateness also causes gravity to increase to its maximum by bringing the surface at the poles closer to the Earth’s core.

So, the simple proposition is that in the tropics, where the intensity of solar radiation is the greatest, where humidity and cloud cover are the highest, and where the surface temperatures are high, water in the atmosphere does more reflecting while transporting solar energy to higher latitudes to precipitate and where opposite conditions make water in the atmosphere do more reflecting of surface energy as infrared radiation. However, as we well know, water does not reflect all of the surface energy but lets a lot of that through to still leave a substantial cooling effect, as can be noticed from snow and ice accumulation. It means that what shade cloth is to solar radiation in warmer climates, moisture in the air is to surface radiation in colder climates. And, deserts show that where moisture is low, the temperatures plummet overnight.

Simply put, we cannot have any control over Earth’s global mean temperatures without significantly increasing the supply of solar energy or changing the distribution of insolation, to melt some of the snow and ice in the Arctic or on Antarctica and raising sea levels. Doing so artificially would reduce the impacts of the impending ice age to some extent (not to be advised from an evolution point of view) by maintaining higher sea levels and keeping the continental shelves covered by water instead of drying out as they are known to have done during the last few ice ages and on the last occasion permitted our early-ancestors to leave Africa and migrate to other continents.

It follows, that as a ‘greenhouse gas’ CO2 is irrelevant by doing the opposite of what is claimed in support of the climate change hoax and Ponzi scheme, aimed at making us change over to alternatives energy sources to fossil fuels to prevent these from running out during the further cooling of this millennium, as well as making some people a hell of a lot of money. Not the least in that are Elon Musk and the oil, gas, and coal companies that love the higher energy prices from Saudi Arabia cutting back oil production but most tragically also fuelling past and present oil wars including the current wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

And in the Longer Term, Geoclimatic forces will continue to operate:

So Remember This . . .

Giant heat pumps could turn retirement haven into nightmare

Utter insanity in the name of saving the planet!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

Utter insanity in the name of saving the planet!

Giant heat pumps powering a district heating network could turn the retirement resort of Worthing, West Sussex into one of the UK’s greenest towns under government plans.

The £500m plan will see heat extracted from the atmosphere and then pumped first to public buildings and eventually to households in the area.

Worthing is one of the UK’s most gas-reliant towns with boilers installed in 77pc of its homes, and has an ageing housing stock that generally has below-average levels of insulation, according to constituency data.

The work will be led by Hemiko, a company specialising in district heating, which will invest £40m in the scheme along with £7m from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Lord Callanan, minister for energy efficiency and green finance, said: “We hope this will benefit the whole town by delivering cheaper energy bills and lower carbon emissions.”

The Worthing heat network will initially use three large air source heat pumps in an energy centre by a car park in the town centre.

At first they will heat large public buildings, including the town hall and local hospital. Homes will be connected later, with plans for the entire town to be hooked up by 2050.

Worthing has one of Britain’s oldest populations, with around 35pc of its 113,000-strong population over the age of 60, compared with 25pc nationally.

Sophie Cox, Worthing’s cabinet member for climate emergency, said the town planned to be a carbon neutral council by 2030 and a net zero borough by 2045.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/10/town-warmed-giant-shared-heat-pumps-first-uk-project

A spend  of £500 million works out at £4462 for every man, woman and child in Worthing. I wonder how many residents have that sort of money to spare? And that does include running costs, which we know are higher than gas boilers.

As for the potty heat network idea, it can work within very small areas, but to pipe hot water all around the town would entail a huge heat loss.

I somehow don’t see Worthing’s old aged pensioners being very warm in winter!

Of course, this is the sort of nonsense you get when you have a Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency.

NOAA’s Latest Temperature Climate Data Establishes There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY

NOAA has updated its Contiguous U.S. National Temperature Index Temperature Anomaly data and its National, Statewide, County and City Time Series temperature data (as well as other climate data parameters) through the April 2024 period.

NOAA’s National Time Series USCRN maximum temperature anomaly dataset for the Contiguous U.S. is shown below with the data updated through April 2024.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

NOAA has updated its Contiguous U.S. National Temperature Index Temperature Anomaly data and its National, Statewide, County and City Time Series temperature data (as well as other climate data parameters) through the April 2024 period.

NOAA’s National Time Series USCRN maximum temperature anomaly dataset for the Contiguous U.S. is shown below with the data updated through April 2024. 

This NOAA data clearly establishes that there is no upward trending anomaly signature for the Contiguous U.S. monthly maximum temperature anomalies for the period commencing in January 2005 through April 2024. 

NOAA’s USCRN April 2024 maximum temperature anomaly value is 1.91 degrees F (highlighted in red above) with the highest measured April USCRN value occurring in April 2006 at 3.62 degrees F.

Furthermore, the April 2024 maximum anomaly value is only the 3rd highest measured April maximum temperature anomaly during the January 2005 through April 2024 period.

NOAA’s latest Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature anomaly data clearly refutes politically contrived exaggerated climate alarmist hype that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.

NOAA’s National Time Series Contiguous U.S. April maximum absolute temperatures from 1895 through April 2024 are shown below clearly establishing that there is nothing remarkable about the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red. 

April 2024 is only the 116th highest April maximum temperature out of 130 Contiguous U.S. maximum April temperature months since 1895 as shown below with maximum temperatures in prior years 1895, 1910, 1915, 1925, 1930, 1934, 1946, 1954, 1977, 1981, 1985, 1987, 2006 (highest value) and 2012 exceeding the year 2024 value.

NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum April temperatures between 1895 and 2024 clearly refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.

NOAA’s National Time Series Contiguous U.S. maximum January through April temperatures from 1895 through April 2024 are shown below again showing nothing remarkable regarding the 2024 January through April result that is highlighted below in red.

The January through April 2024 maximum temperature is the 123rd highest of 130 Contiguous U.S. measurements with prior year outcomes from years 1946, 1986, 1990, 2000, 2006, 2012 (highest value), 2016 and 2017 exceeding the 2024 value as shown below.

NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum January through April temperatures between 1895 and 2024 clearly refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.

NOAA’s National Time Series Contiguous U.S. maximum absolute temperatures for all months from 1895 through April 2024 are shown below again showing nothing remarkable regarding the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red.

April 2024 is only the 808th highest month out of 1552 highest months measured since 1895 as shown below.

NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature data for all months since 1895 refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.

NOAA’s Statewide Time Series data for California’s maximum temperature for the month of April between 1895 and 2024 are displayed below and again show nothing remarkable regarding the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red. 

April 2024 is only the 86th highest April maximum temperature out of 130 highest April measured temperatures since April 1895 as shown below.

NOAA’s California Statewide Time Series maximum temperature data for April months between 1895 and 2024 refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.

Additionally, this NOAA database also establishes that none of the 48 Contiguous U.S. states experienced a record high April maximum temperature month in year 2024.

This same outcome is also true for Alaska as shown below where the April 2024 result was only the 80th highest maximum temperature out of 100 highest April months.

NOAA’s Statewide Time Series for California’s maximum temperature for all months between 1895 and 2024  are shown below again showing nothing remarkable regarding the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red. 

April 2024 is only the 745th highest maximum temperature out of 1552 highest measured monthly temperatures since 1895 as shown below.

NOAA’s California Statewide Time Series maximum temperature data for all months between 1895 and 2024 refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.

NOAA’s City Time Series for Los Angeles, California maximum temperature data for the month of April 2024 are shown below for the period starting in 1945 and again show nothing remarkable regarding the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red. 

April 2024 is only the 49th highest April maximum temperature out of 80 highest measured April monthly temperatures since 1945 as shown below.

NOAA’s City Time Series for Los Angeles, California maximum temperature data for April months between 1945 and 2024 refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.

NOAA’s City Time Series for Los Angeles, California maximum temperatures for all months in the period starting in 1944 through 2024 and again show nothing remarkable regarding the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red.

April 2024 is only the 359th highest maximum temperature out of 957 highest measured monthly temperatures since August 1944 as shown below.

NOAA’s City Time Series for Los Angeles, California maximum temperature data for all months between August 1944 and April 2024 refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.

NOAA recently issued its report “Assessing the U.S. Climate in April 2024” (shown below) which failed to provide detailed temperature data as addressed in this essay (using NOAA’s own extensive data records) and instead used nebulous “color” charts and generalized statements that concealed what their own data shows regarding the measured temperature outcomes that clearly do not support that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”  as discussed in detail above. 

One of the charts is shown below which portrays the “Mean Temperature Departures from Average” for the Contiguous U.S. but provides no specific temperature data that allows any perspective to be obtained regarding the large natural variations of measured temperature outcomes that occur over time as provided in this essay using NOAA’s data.   

A similar chart (shown below) is also provided that portrays “Mean Temperature Departures from Average” for the January through April 2024 period but again has no specific temperature measurement data that provide any useful perspectives regarding the patterns and extent of natural occurring temperature behaviors over time as provided in this essay using NOAA’s data.  

What is particularly concerning is that this NOAA report failed to provide its clearest temperature anomaly data regarding Contiguous U.S. temperature anomalies (shown below and addressed in the essay above) that clearly establish there is no “climate emergency.”

NOAA’s temperature data as addressed in detail in this essay do not support and clearly refute climate alarmist hype that we are experiencing a “climate emergency.”

Eagles, bats, whales, and others need protection from wind turbines

Eagles, bats, whales, and multiple other species are suffering and dying from wind turbine blades, pilings, and cables – and more. Surely, they want to stop the slaughter. We do.

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

Eagles, bats, whales, and multiple other species are suffering and dying from wind turbine blades, pilings, and cables – and more. Surely, they want to stop the slaughter. We do.

Chinese Uighurs, too, would likely love to vote in the November U.S. elections. Like many Congolese children, they, too, are suffering and dying to satisfy the egos and half-truths of the climate cabal. The children, of course, are way too young to vote.

Much has been written about the downsides of offshore and onshore wind turbines, from noise pollution to the major problem of disposing of used turbine blades. But nothing has shaken the determination of the Biden Administration – and the wind industry – to continue to subsidize and fast-track their permitting despite rising opposition.

One might ask why.

And yet, the answer must be obvious. The windbags have committed to wind at any price (they get others to pay) and cannot back away now without losing their investments in both wind and wind politics.

The chief federal proponent of offshore wind is the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), created in 2010 by Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the physicist who won a Nobel Prize in 1997 for his research into the cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light.

One of Chu’s bright ideas is a “global glucose economy,” in which glucose and cellulose from tropical plants would be turned into biofuels and bioplastics. The theory is that glucose fuels would burn clean and produce few chemical byproducts, while glucose bioplastics would be eco-friendly – unlike today’s plastics, which end up in landfills.

Very little of the United States is amenable to growing “tropical plants,” hence such an economy would be built either via neocolonialist seizure of massive acreages or the repurposing of even more land now used for growing food for the world’s seven billion people. This land would likely be in sub-Saharan Africa, southeast Asia, and Central and South America (the Amazon?).

Such an economy might save the lives of whales, bats, and eagles – and it might not even require the massive subsidies that have “fueled” the wind and, solar and electric vehicle industries. One writer suggests that a combination of biological processes, computer-assisted design, and human intelligence (aided by artificial intelligence?) could trigger a revolution in manufacturing and construction.

Wind turbines, by contrast, are built with steel, concrete, and (well) today’s plastics. They also have a fairly short lifespan (far shorter than that of oil rigs), as do solar panels (which, as many recently learned, are subject to damage from hail and other forces of nature). Electric vehicle batteries are massive and today depend on intensive mining operations conducted by virtual slaves and actual children.

The BOEM itself is a twin offspring of the old Minerals Management Service, with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) as its mirror image.

One might think that the BSEE, “America’s lead agency charged with advancing safety, environmental protection, and conserving natural resources related to energy development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf,” would find objectionable the near-extinction of right whales and the deaths of many humpback whales.

One might think that the massive concrete foundations and the disturbance of the ocean floor all the way to the surface during construction would violate the principles of “environmental protection,” or at least of “conserving” the natural resources upon which fishermen, lobstermen, and other seafaring industries rely for their livelihoods and those who eat fish and seafood.

One might even think that the agency concerned with “safety” might even find that offshore giant turbines could pose safety issues for mariners and marine life as well.

But who’s kidding? Whales, fishermen, lobstermen, recreational boaters, and even oceangoing vessels do not have the deep (subsidized) pockets of those giant corporations investing in offshore wind. And the Biden Administration, via the misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” is prioritizing offshore wind leasing despite local and conservationist opposition.

The Biden commitment to giant wind is such that it granted a waiver on development fees for the 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project offshore Massachusetts, the first in the U.S. to deliver electricity to the grid. According to uncovered internal documents, Vineyard would likely have not been completed had not the BOEM waived the fees intended to protect taxpayers.

The waiver means that Vineyard has 15 years after startup of operations to begin paying the development fee – sans 15 years of accrued interest. This is despite a federal statute that mandates developers pay these hefty fees (though not nearly as high as those for nuclear projects) prior to construction. The fees are designed to guarantee that the property is returned to its original state after a lessee departs its lease – for example, should Vineyard Wind prove unprofitable.

Does anyone remember the $600 million boondoggle that was Solyndra?

The Biden windbag juggernaut suffered a body blow in January when Equinor and BP announced the cancellation of a contract for the proposed Empire Wind 2 project. The companies and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority agreed on the termination of the project. Equinor and BP blamed inflation, interest rates, and supply chain disruptions for making the project no longer viable.

While the smaller Empire Wind 1, hailed as a success of “Bidenomics,” was approved last November, its own viability may be questionable given the demise of its big sister. The Danish energy company Ørsted had just weeks earlier canceled its Ocean Wind 1 and 2 twin projects, planned for offshore New Jersey, also because of “negative economic conditions,” specifically, inflation, interest rates, and supply chain disruptions.

Fancy that! Inflation Reduction Act projects being canceled because of inflation!

Despite these giant wind collapses, Dominion Energy is preparing to place and drive 178 monopiles into the Atlantic Ocean for a huge offshore wind facility offshore Virginia Beach while challenging a lawsuit filed on behalf of right whales to stop the habitat destruction.

The plaintiffs won a brief reprieve based on evidence that Dominion lacked authorization from the National Marine Fisheries Service to allow its dynamic positioning thrusters to exceed NOAA’s harassment threshold established under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Dominion had already been granted NMFS authorization to “harass” up to 80,000 marine animals while conducting pile driving and sonar surveys.

The chicanery was even worse in the Great Lakes, where the developer of the proposed Icebreaker wind project reportedly failed to present a reasonable proposal to protect wildlife or the quality of lake water from lubricating oils.

True environmental non-protection!

Another report says the oft-vaunted Swedish wind industry is facing a total financial collapse, with company losses from 19% to 90% of turnover “because the industry cannot produce electricity at a cost below the market price despite extensive subsidies.”

Yet the Biden Administration plows ahead, unfazed by economic realities.

Odd, is it not, that the same administration that has blocked multiple onshore mining permits, revoked oil and gas leases, and demanded protection for not-so-endangered species is so bent on wind energy projects that it is willing for the right whale to join the passenger pigeon in extinction?

With neither energy nor environmental protection as legitimate rationales, one has to wonder about the true motives for pushing offshore wind.

A version of this article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

As Europe Deindustrializes: Is it Undergoing Economic Suicide

In an illuminating piece by Tilak Doshi on Forbes, the economic trajectory of Europe under the weight of its environmental policies is critically analyzed. Doshi paints a stark picture of what he describes as a self-inflicted wound to Europe’s industrial base, driven by stringent regulations and a shift away from reliable energy sources.

From Watts Up With That?

In an illuminating piece by Tilak Doshi on Forbes, the economic trajectory of Europe under the weight of its environmental policies is critically analyzed. Doshi paints a stark picture of what he describes as a self-inflicted wound to Europe’s industrial base, driven by stringent regulations and a shift away from reliable energy sources.

“Voltaire famously said that ‘common sense is not so common.’ Nowhere is this adage more relevant than in the field of energy policies in the European Union. These policies are most vigorously pursued in Germany—Europe’s industrial powerhouse—since it adopted the Energiewende legislation in 2010. The ‘green’ regulations and mandates adopted are simultaneously hostile to fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Energiewende (German for ‘energy turnaround’) refers to the ongoing energy transition to an imagined future of low carbon, environmentally sound, reliable, and affordable energy supply”​​.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2024/05/09/as-europe-deindustrializes-can-economic-suicide-be-avoided/?sh=2c2c6f663dfa

Doshi’s analysis starts with Germany, the hub of Europe’s industrial might, which has seen a significant decline in its industrial production since 2017. This decline is attributed to the Energiewende, a policy initiative aimed at transitioning to renewable energy sources but which has resulted in high energy costs and reduced competitiveness in the global market.

“Germany’s industrial production peaked in November of 2017, and by the end of last year had fallen to a level last seen in 2006 outside of the global financial recession and Covid-19 years. Its industrial sector contracted by almost 14% in the 6 years ending December 2023.
…
Energy-intensive trade-oriented industries, involving both among small and medium-sized firms as well as behemoths like BASF, have been worst hit, as high energy prices make vast swathes of Germany’s manufacturing sector uncompetitive. The self-inflicted economic meltdown in the pursuit of ‘net zero’ policy goals goes beyond Germany. Industrial capacity is being decimated across Europe”​​.https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2024/05/09/as-europe-deindustrializes-can-economic-suicide-be-avoided/?sh=2c2c6f663dfa

Furthermore, Doshi points out that these economic policies have not just been problematic for industry, but also have broader socio-political repercussions. A growing discontent among European citizens is manifesting, particularly among those most impacted like farmers and small business owners, who are increasingly protesting against what they perceive as burdensome and unrealistic regulatory frameworks.

“Since the summer of 2023, Europe’s Green Deal has been on regulatory pause, as EU governments face a ‘greenlash’ against environmental policies. In the face of energy and cost of living crises, farmers, consumers and trade groups are starting to resent the burdensome costs of sprawling environmental regulations across the continent. Nowhere is this sense of grievance more apparent than in the great European farmer’s revolt, as farmers’ protests escalated across the continent since they first started in the Netherlands in October 2019″​​.

Doshi does not stand alone in his criticism. He cites other commentators who suggest a rethinking of energy policies could be on the horizon in Europe, influenced perhaps by economic necessity rather than environmental idealism.

“The heavy costs of suppressing the use of fossil fuels while promoting intermittent, weather-dependent renewable energy technologies over the past decade has been disguised and diffused by hidden costs and fiscal transfers to powerful constituencies. But over time, ‘net zero’ climate policies have become increasingly unbearable for ordinary people as they reach beyond the power sector to cover agriculture, transport, homes, and buildings”​​.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2024/05/09/as-europe-deindustrializes-can-economic-suicide-be-avoided/?sh=2c2c6f663dfa

This reflection on Europe’s industrial and economic decline under the weight of green policies serves as a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of well-meaning but poorly implemented government policies. The rigorous enforcement of these policies, without adequate consideration for economic realities and the basic energy needs of a developed economy, may well lead to what Doshi refers to as economic suicide. His article urges a balance—a recalibration of environmental goals with the practical needs of economic stability and growth, reflecting a sentiment that perhaps, the pendulum of environmental policy has swung too far.

Eco-friendly brake cables eaten by foxes after switch to soy insulation

The animals are attracted to the green material which insulates cables and other car parts, causing hundreds of pounds of damage.

The animals are attracted to the green material which insulates cables and other car parts, causing hundreds of pounds of damage.

Eco-friendly brake cables are being eaten by foxes, after manufacturers switched from petroleum-based insulation to soy, forcing owners to wrap their cars in tarpaulins. The Telegraph has the story.

Recent photos show multiple cars covered in blue plastic for protection after a spate of attacks in Worthing, West Sussex, with locals claiming at least 20 vehicles were targeted by foxes.

Jack Cousens, the AA’s head of roads policy, said the animals may be attracted to the soy-based insulation on brake wires.

Since 2000, peanut and soy-based oils and waxes have been used on car parts including gearbox insulation, primer bulbs and diesel injector wires, instead of petroleum-based coverings.

“There are two reasons why foxes attack cars in this way,” Mr Cousens told The Telegraph. “The first is that some cables can be soy-based and therefore they get attracted to the taste of that.

“Secondly, within brake fluid there is something called glycol, which is a sweet-tasting alcoholic fluid, and they get a little bit attracted to that too. But they would only get attracted to it if they chew so far through the cable and uncover it.”

Eddie Mitchell, who lives on Broadwater Green in Worthing, the latest target for hungry foxes, said: “Everyone around us has been affected. There’s been at least 20 attacks by foxes on the brakes system under cars.”

Read the full story here.