Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Global Warming - not so much of a problem after all

Climate Scientists and Environmentalists - still as much of a problem:
An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.
Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
OK, so the good news first: a newly published (peer-reviewed) article in Nature Geoscience says that warming has not been as fast as predicted.

Now the bad news: we've known this for a long time, so it's very strange to see Science™ only now catching up:
So a full half of the historical record of the most reliable global temperature data set [satellites - Borepatch] shows zero warming, despite enormous increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.  None of the climate models have predicted this, which is a layman's way of saying that the scientific predictions from the models has been falsified. 
Now the worse news: there is simply no data to suggest that the 'unexpected "revolution" in affordable renewable energy' has anything at all to do with the situation:
Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.... 
So the significantly lower warming is due to a "revolution" that supplies less than a percent of the global energy output?  I'd sure love to see any sort of data to back that up.   But let's look at that "revolution" and what it means in the Paris Accord context:
Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours. 
If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s. 
At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs. [My emphasis - Borepatch]
What's the environmental impact of covering Russia with wind farms?  I'd love to see some data on that, too.  But wait, we're not done with the "revolution" in "renewable" energy.  What does that do to electricity rates?

The countries that have been most aggressive in their "renewable" energy targets have electricity prices two to three times the price we pay in the USA.  Who pays that?  The citizens, of course.  This is a particularly regressive tax on the poor and lower middle class to fund upper missile class prestige "Green" projects.  It's so bad that there's a term for the social damage done by these programs -"fuel poverty":
European Carbon emission agreements combined with an unsustainable "sustainable" power initiative have led to energy prices increasing 150% in the last decade.  Now the Brit.Gov is shutting generating plants, reducing excess capacity (read: "emergency capacity") from 15% to under 5%.

Next up, winter:
Spiralling energy bills contributed to 24,000 deaths last winter, as many elderly people cut back on their heating.
The shocking toll will increase fears that the number will be even higher this year because of further increases in energy bills and warnings of a particularly cold winter.
The figures for ‘excess winter deaths’, published yesterday by the Office for National Statistics, reveal the majority of victims were over 75.
And now let's look at what I consider to be the worst part of the whole situation.  All the poverty, all the deaths, the lack of any sort of real results (less than 1% of the world's energy budget), what's the justification?  How can anyone recommend the death and misery?

Because the computer models predicted a high rate of increase in the temperature.  A rate that we aren't seeing, according to Nature Geoscience.  What do we call a scientific prediction that is not backed by experimental observation?

Generally to be considered "scientific", something has to be falsifiable - where anyone can try to duplicate your observations or results. If there's no way that this can be done, then the thing cannot be held to be scientific.
When after-the-fact justifications are frequently made to explain why your prediction did not pan out, that is a huge, huge warning sign.  And that's exactly what we are seeing - the heat is being absorbed by the oceans or some such thing.  No data are presented to back this up, of course.  The problem is that a lot of people (including your humble host) have been saying for years and years that the Science doesn't hold water.

Bad science leading to disastrous public policy that kills and impoverishes without achieving its own stated goals, there's your modern environmental movement.


SiGraybeard said...

Given the day we celebrate, here's an extremely scientific plot showing global warming is caused by a decrease in the number of pirates.

Serious content:

It's hard to pick out the most stupid thing a climate scientist has ever said, but one of the finalists for Most Stupid Climate Statement is the one from Australian Climate Scientist Sophie Lewis who said climate science doesn't have to be falsifiable to be valid.

We use the models because we have confidence in them even though we know they're wrong? We fine tune the model to "hind cast" the past and since we put in a bunch of finagling factors, it can model the past and we automatically assume it can predict the future without ever testing the predictions?

I don't know, man, this lady give me a headache.

Old NFO said...

They keep trying to 'force' the data to fit their models... sigh... I dealt with this before, and they (the PhDs) cannot admit they could be wrong... sigh

Ken said...

"Bad science leading to disastrous public policy that kills and impoverishes without achieving its own stated goals, there's your modern environmental movement."

Hey, dieoffs don't just happen, you know.

Richard said...

Disastrous public policy also leads to bad science. The resulting feedback loop creates a perpetual motion machine.

Ted said...

So as I understand it. The Paris Climate Accord is a voluntary agreement to degrade our various economies to 1850's levels because poorly done research based on previously decided conclusions says we should do it. And all the signers had no intention of following these regs in vthe first place because there are no enforcement penalties.

Except of course the US who will be expected to comply....., because it was all negotiated by that great team of Kerry & Obama