The reclusive polymath calls it “wishful thinking” and “an impossible task.” Plus, U. of Michigan study says lack of Cu makes electrification of transportation “essentially impossible.”
Thank you for the link to Smil's paper on the 'transition', I'm plodding through it now. One question for the group here - Hydrogen economy, (putting aside the execution difficulties for the moment), where does all that water vapor go? At scale this seems like we would be putting up a potent GHG (water vapor) to replace a weak GHG (CO2)? Kind of like having a Tonga volcano constantly?
I'm not a Physical Scientist; I'm a PhD Economist w considerable expertise in Statistics (Econometrics) and am thus able to evaluate empirical claims. I have indeed read some of the "peer-reviewed" literature you refer to (a bit of a slog) as well as critiques by Physical Scientists. However, I'd like to draw your attention to one particular recent peer-reviewed paper. This one is by Alimonti et al. (Italian Physicists) in the journal SpringerNature entitled: "A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events Trends in Times of Global Warming." The findings of this paper are squarely against the standard Mainstream Climate Science claim that recent trends in extreme events like floods, droughts, rate of sea level rise, rate of glacial melt, heat waves, wildfires, etc are unprecedented, irreversible, catastrophic. Indeed, extreme climate-related events in the 1920s and 30s (heat waves, droughts, Chinese river floods, etc) sometimes killed upwards of a million people a year, while today, annual deaths from such events number in the tens of thousands w a World Population 4 times as big.
The most prolific Climate Catastrophist Scientist in the World today, Prof Michael E Mann became aware of this paper and was, of course, very angered and went to the (very sympathetic) press and mocked Alimonti et al.
Now, if you're a famous "Scientist" like Mann and you see something in the literature you don't like, what do you do? Well, of course, you would prepare a vigorous counter-argument backed up by beaucoup observational data and submit it as a Comment, to which the original authors might be asked to write a Reply, then you do a Rejoinder, etc. Pretty standard stuff for Scientific debates, right? And, since Mann and his colleagues are forever claiming that "The Science Is Settled" and that they have "Mountains of Evidence" to support the Catastrophist position, it ought to have been a Piece of Cake and a Golden Opportunity to destroy Alimonti and his ilk once and for all. Plus the Mainstream Media would surely have publicized the hell out of Mann's response and supported him to the hilt and gleefully joined in the insults directed at Alimonti.
But this is not what Mann did. Instead, not bothering to lift a finger on reasoning and data, Mann hooked up w The Guardian (UK) and Agence France-Presse to get the Alimonti et al. paper retracted. Retracted! This is certainly not the first time this has happened. You will recall that in 2009 a bunch of hacked emails and data files involving Mann and his colleagues showed that they were feverishly at shutting down anything in the literature that would go against the Catastrophist line, threatening journal editors, etc. So it's hardly a surprise that Mainstream Climate Science Literature contains little that goes against the Catastrophist Line.
The Mainstream Climate Science community have basically ditched the Scientific Method--develop a theory and testable hypotheses based on the theory, test hypotheses using observational data, if you fail to reject the Null Hypothesis, go back and revise/test your theory, etc. Instead, they rely on deterministic General Circulation Models, which are given parameters and fed highly implausible Scenarios (e.g., RCP 8.5) to generate Super-Scary forecasts for the Climate. This, of course, is taxpayer-funded and generates thousands and thousands of "Peer-Reviewed" papers (Who, pray tell, are the "Peers?") Crucially, the forecasts are not falsifiable. Nobody w/in the Climate Science community goes back and says: "Hey, those forecasts of Catastrophe by UNEP in 1989 and all subsequent forecasts where enuf time has gone by to check 'em ex post never panned out. What's up? Nope, the Catastrophists like Mann (who dominate Mainstream Climate Science and don't let anybody else in) just keep on pushing back the goalposts and calling anyone they differ w the horrid smear, "Denier!"
Would you trust a scientific field that analyzes time series by calculating an anomality index? It is a total joke of an index. Whenever somebody comes up with an analysis that does not have a 100 % type I error rate, climate scientists go bananas.
Current thinking is that global industrial businesses will replace a complex industrial ecosystem that took more than a century to build. The current system was built with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of energy the world has ever known (oil), in cheap abundant quantities, with easily available credit, and seemingly unlimited mineral resources. This replacement is hoped to be done at a time when there is comparatively very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt, not enough minerals, and an unprecedented world population, embedded in a deteriorating natural environment. Most challenging of all, this has to be done within a few decades. It is the authors opinion that this will not go according to plan. This report has produced new numbers that are quite different to previous studies.”
"And yet two years later, I think my post still holds up. These two years have seen small battery-powered drones utterly change the way wars are fought. They have seen battery storage become a common complement to solar, solving almost all of solar’s intermittency problem and drawing huge amounts of investment worldwide. Batteries have powered the sudden meteoric rise of China’s car industry, which went from an also-ran to a juggernaut that suddenly threatens to dominate the entire global auto market. AI is certainly magical and holds incredible potential, but in just a couple of years, batteries have begun to transform human energy supply, war, transportation, and geopolitical dominance."?
The elites know all about this type of thing, even if they're not talking about it publicly. That's why they want fewer people, and less energy use per capita of those that survive (I mean remain). It's also probably one reason why they want to confine the inmates (I mean survivors) into 15 minute cities. The better to watch over you, my dear.
The main issue I have with this article is that it is correct. We cannot reach net zero if we continue to live as we are - replacing today's cars with electric cars, continue to subsidize air travel and assume we have the right to fly, continue to use damaging forms of agriculture, continue to use vast areas of land (more than inhabited and arable land put together) to farm cattle and sheep. It's not like we have a choice. Or we do but it's not a good one. Either we decarbonise and try to prevent excessive warning (limiting the extent of destructive storms, flooding, food shortages, drought) or continue as we are and gave sure consequences, worse for our children. The human race has embraced changes very rapidly historically - the second world war, COVID amongst others. We can do it now.
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. – those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . . That system has been on the life-support of quantitative easing and near zero interest rates ever since. Indeed, so perilous a state has the system been in since 2008, it was essential that the people who claim to be our leaders avoid doing anything so foolish as to lockdown the economy or launch an undeclared economic war on one of the world’s biggest commodity exporters . . . And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders – at least within the western empire – have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
In saying I was an Economist, I didn't mean to imply I was Mainstream. And it's my experience as a (sort of) Economic Contrarian that at least partially guides me today. Back in the "Early Days" (late '60s/early '70s), Mainstream Economics in US, Canada and UK was full of Keynesians and their large scale, unbelievably complex National or Global Econometric Computer Models, which had parameters assigned based on Keynesian Theory and always produced output that favored massive Gov't intervention ("Stimulus"). This "enterprise" (it was Super Big Bucks w Gov't and Corp clients) came a cropper w the Stagflation of the early-mid '70s and really never recovered. Then there was the conviction among probably a majority of Mainstream Economists that the Socialism/Communism of places like The Soviet Union was both economically and morally superior to the Private Property/Market Economy system of the West. CIA produced report after report on the superior Soviet Economy. Paul Samuelson agreed. They kept saying this right up 'til the point that, all of a sudden in 1989-90 the Soviet Economy went poof. This bunch of Economic Fallacies was bolstered again in the late '60s/early '70s by the quasi-economics Club of Rome w their Limits to Growth and Running-Out-of-Everything hysteria. This was ALSO (of course!) based on the incredibly complex deterministic Systems Dynamics computer Models, mostly those of MIT's Jay Forrester. This, too, eventually came a cropper but not before causing Gov't-impelled misallocations of resources.
So all this that's going on w Mainstream Climate Science is very reminiscent of some pretty big whoppers from decades past, to say nothing of past failures of Super Respectable Science, like Eugenics/Racism, Phrenology, hostile brutal denial and suppression of the theory of Continental Drift -- "How can you support the Theory of Continental Drift? All the World's Most Respected Scientists are dead-set against it and keeping Wegener and other proponents out of Respectable Academia!" Sound familiar?
Where’s your evidence that all this horrible stuff is increasing? It’s not, and if you bothered to look at real observational data, you’d that it’s not. Please take some time to gather this info. The regular posts by Bjorn Lomborg would be a good place to start. For Heaven’s sake, don’t just take what Al Gore, Michael Mann, Joe Biden et al. tell you as Gospel, not to be questioned. Ask them for evidence of imminent, unprecedented, irreversible, catastrophic man-made climate change and ask for the evidence in the form of observational models, not deterministic computer models w super-scary scenarios embedded guaranteed to produce super-scary results. Ask ‘em what forecasts they’ve made since 1988 (when the climate hysteria started) that have panned out. Please do this.
"Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. "?
I’ve seen all of these. Some have some validity, but all the rest are Outright False, True but Trivial or Irrelevant, or Of Unknown Origin. Plus, there’s nothing that addresses the main criticism of Climate Change Catastrophism; i.e., no observational data, only output of deterministic models. And based on THIS, you’re concluding we’re all doomed and it’s all our fault?! Sheesh!
All peer reviewed science states this is man made warming and that even at 1.5 degrees warmer we will face more drought, increased intensity storms etc. His article isn't saying this isn't happening, it's saying we can't get to net zero. I'm saying he's correct unless we fundamentally change his we live. I'm a scientist and I don't care or believe what politicians say. I ask you to find peer reviewed data that says this warning is not created by human behaviour and they this will not increase unless we drastically decrease carbon emissions.
Pretty much all so-called “peer-reviewed science” is from the echo chamber Climate Science Community. These people rely on deterministic General Circulation Models, which are assigned parameters by the Modelers and fed Insanely Pessimistic scenarios (e.g., RCP 8.5) and, quite naturally produce all sorts of dire forecasts which don’t pan out. This whole Enterprise (and it’s a might big Enterprise, costing taxpayers $Billions for the modeling and “research” alone) generates thousands and thousands of “peer-reviewed” papers, each one w one dire forecast or another. But, dammit, this isn’t even Science. It’s pure computer jockery, which always produces the desired result. There’s no Scientific Method involved, no real hypothesis testing. Then, if a paper w a contrary position somehow makes it thru the peer-review process, the paper is quickly spiked via pressure from Michael E Mann or some other top guy in the Climate Science establishment. See, for example, the recent peer-reviewed paper by Alimo to et al. In SpringerNature. It was an empirical study that claimed. contrary to mainstream climate “science,” that extreme events were not increasing and increases did not appear to be in the offing. Well, I might have offered this paper in response to your request, but it was RETRACTED by SpringerNature, under pressure, mainly from Michael E Mann, Mr Hockey Stick himself. If Mann was a real scientist, he would’ve challenged Alimonti et al. in the usual way—submitting a comment, then getting a reply from Alimonti, then doing a rejoinder, etc. But no, The Public must not be allowed to see such contrary information. Faced w this blockage, people like Bjorn Lomborg (who was almost fired from his job 2decades ago for similar contrarianism) found other venues outside the insular climate science community to produce peer-reviewed empirical studies that refute pretty much all of the scary Catastrophist claims. Do a Google search on Bjorn Lomborg and, amid all the baseless hysterical criticism of him by the climate “science” establishment, you’ll find all the up-to-date observational data you need. Do it now! You’ll sleep a lot better.
Do you think climate change is man-made? If it is, do ordinary people like us cause it, just by being alive and going about our business, or is it the elites who are driving it, by using haarp, cloud-seeding, or any other modality at their disposal?
Yes it's man made and yes it is the West who are driving it, mainly at the expense of the southern nations and mainly through burning fossil fuels. Don't take my word for it but I challenge you to find any peer reviewed scientific papers that suggests this isn't the case
Could it be that TPTB know that oil, as a finite energy source, is nearing the end of its useful life, and want to conserve it on into the future for use by themselves, and have concocted this phony climate change idea as a ruse to confuse people and get them to go along with their (TPTPB's) plans for energy use (or non-use to be more precise)?
Maybe just look at the data. Peer review in a corrupt universe of activists with PHd's who call themselves scientists is not helpful. Refute the data in the post, don't rely on pal review where models are used to manipulate data to achieve a pre-determined desired outcome.
In my experience anything written by or for the Fraser Institute has to be taken apart and looks at carefully - they are far to political right of the spectrum. There is truth in what he writes ... but the article notes “Smil also exposes the insane cost of net zero” and there I pause. Of course it is insanely expensive and far from easy but the alternative is to never try to get a grip on climate change and that is so often the case for people like him. The costs of untrammelled climate change for our and future generations is far, far more expensive - not only in terms of hard cash but in quality of life and public safety, to say nothing of the loss of biodiversity.
The Stern report, which has been updated, states it will be so much more expensive later on if we don't address these issues now. I agree with you Richard.
It is not the messenger, but the quality of the content, that is decisive.
Personally, I am of the opinion that we find truths and insights as well as grave misunderstandings over the whole political spectrum. Both the "Left" and the "Right" have their blind spots.
It may be that the Fraser Institute is to the right of the political spectrum. But does that mean that they are wrong in each and every assessment?
It is tragic indeed that the organizations and politicians who are more leftist, are in denial of some of the realities of the world. That is a problem.
Maybe the Fraser institute does get it right on occasion, but their output needs careful examination. It is heavily business and oil industry oriented. As for blind spots - any organization , regardless of orientation, that ignores climate change as THE major problem of the day is dangerous.
I absolutely agree that careful examination is necessary. Always. There are no exceptions.
Regarding climate change:
Unfortunately, the world is not only confronted by man-made climate change. The world is also confronted by man-made degradation, destruction and loss of natural environments and ecosystems, and this is independent of climate change.
- Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, planet Earth has lost approximately 87% of its original wetlands and swamps and their unique ecosystems.
- Since 1970, planet Earth has lost 68% of its original biomass of vertebrates.
- Every year, approximately 200 000 square kilometers with forests are lost by human deforestation.
- The Eartḧ́'s largest rainforest, the Amazonas rainforest, has been reduced by 20% of its original extent.
All this and more has happened independent of climate change, and of course aggravates the effect of climate change since reduced ecosystems become less resilient.
We therefore need to stop the use of energy forms that use vast amounts of natural areas, as land-based with power does. There is a widespread belief that wind power is inherently "green" even when it is built in natural environments, but that is dangerously false. The wind industry has its own big business and companies, and in Norway where I live the former Statoil (Equinor) wants to invest heavily in wind power.
Business is business, profit is profit. There are more than one villain on the energy market.
By the way, the article is written by Vaclav Smil.
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K (390 W/m^2) is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR with a 30% albedo not a GHE. Without the “GHE” there is no 30% albedo and the equilibrium OLR becomes 278 K (342 W/m^2) 23 C warmer than the 30% case and w 30% more Q 288 K GMST would also rise by 23 C to 311 K. (Q=UA(Thot-Tcold)
The Earth is 23 C cooler (278-255, 311-288) with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
396 upwelling LWIR is the theoretical “What if?” BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic: 63/396=0.16. SURFRAD & USCRN also do this wrong.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and lower radiation and less kinetic action produces higher temperatures and higher radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
The exchange from energy dense to material dense forms of energy production is easy if you don’t understand just how much mining is necessary. 😂. About the only conceivable way of realizing such a plan without destroying the earth is to mine the moon or asteroids. The asteroid Psyche is estimated to have 100 million tons of gold, would love to know the estimated amount of copper, so there then remains the problem of extraction, retrieval from such a remote source. 😝.
We will know in 2029 more about Psyche once NASAs probe arrives.
Others also made the math and reached the conclusion that:
"In conclusion, this report suggests that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the entire global human population. There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today. Inevitably, this leads to the conclusion that the existing renewable energy sectors and the EV
technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution. It is recommended that some thought be given to this and what that something else might be."
source: Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems
to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels - Geological Survey of Finland - 20.8.2021
One thing we, modern moron slaves, always tend to forget is that all this is not ment to be used by the majority of us!
The Plans of the SRF & Billionaires don't include the majority of us...
There's no substitute for oil; the so-called alternatives, such as wind and solar, aren't energy dense enough. That's why there's no substitute for depopulation.
Great analysis, but net zero can absolutely be achieved by 2050 because by then so many processes will be defined as "net zero" that the term will no meaning at all! Burning wood is already considered net zero (because you have to grow the trees back obviously!) And net zero diesel startups are already on the drawing board. Importantly, carbon neutral diesel is indistinguishable from fossil diesel, how convenient! For everything else there's carbon credits which are of course endlessly negotiable.
All ignores the pointlessness of “decarbonization.” CO2 is not a driver of increased temperature change. The gas has a finite capacity to trap heat, adding more makes no difference. Just as white paint reflects light having ten coats instead of three makes no increase. Temperature change is being driven by exothermic events in the core and mantle, and sun variation. The source of rapid temperature change in the Atlantic in 2023 was from vents in the earth’s crust. The amount of energy needed to make that temperature change was 2.5 billion Hiroshima sized bombs. Physically impossible to be from the sun. I recommend The Ethical Skeptic for a broader understanding.
The current establishment is shitting themselves over the middle east and Russian fossil fuel reserves, most of which have known since the 70s. However, it has become more salient in geopolitical terms where middle eastern oil is undermining Western democracies, and corporate HQs don't give one fk as they are transnational chameleons that can land at any point on the globe that gives them distance from any harm they create. They are underestimating the popular will of democracies that are currently pushing back on their nonsense, it won't be long before nation-states, activate national corporations, and the R&D that will inevitably lead to making their power inert.
Thank you for the link to Smil's paper on the 'transition', I'm plodding through it now. One question for the group here - Hydrogen economy, (putting aside the execution difficulties for the moment), where does all that water vapor go? At scale this seems like we would be putting up a potent GHG (water vapor) to replace a weak GHG (CO2)? Kind of like having a Tonga volcano constantly?
Another outstanding article. Thank you!
I'm not a Physical Scientist; I'm a PhD Economist w considerable expertise in Statistics (Econometrics) and am thus able to evaluate empirical claims. I have indeed read some of the "peer-reviewed" literature you refer to (a bit of a slog) as well as critiques by Physical Scientists. However, I'd like to draw your attention to one particular recent peer-reviewed paper. This one is by Alimonti et al. (Italian Physicists) in the journal SpringerNature entitled: "A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events Trends in Times of Global Warming." The findings of this paper are squarely against the standard Mainstream Climate Science claim that recent trends in extreme events like floods, droughts, rate of sea level rise, rate of glacial melt, heat waves, wildfires, etc are unprecedented, irreversible, catastrophic. Indeed, extreme climate-related events in the 1920s and 30s (heat waves, droughts, Chinese river floods, etc) sometimes killed upwards of a million people a year, while today, annual deaths from such events number in the tens of thousands w a World Population 4 times as big.
The most prolific Climate Catastrophist Scientist in the World today, Prof Michael E Mann became aware of this paper and was, of course, very angered and went to the (very sympathetic) press and mocked Alimonti et al.
Now, if you're a famous "Scientist" like Mann and you see something in the literature you don't like, what do you do? Well, of course, you would prepare a vigorous counter-argument backed up by beaucoup observational data and submit it as a Comment, to which the original authors might be asked to write a Reply, then you do a Rejoinder, etc. Pretty standard stuff for Scientific debates, right? And, since Mann and his colleagues are forever claiming that "The Science Is Settled" and that they have "Mountains of Evidence" to support the Catastrophist position, it ought to have been a Piece of Cake and a Golden Opportunity to destroy Alimonti and his ilk once and for all. Plus the Mainstream Media would surely have publicized the hell out of Mann's response and supported him to the hilt and gleefully joined in the insults directed at Alimonti.
But this is not what Mann did. Instead, not bothering to lift a finger on reasoning and data, Mann hooked up w The Guardian (UK) and Agence France-Presse to get the Alimonti et al. paper retracted. Retracted! This is certainly not the first time this has happened. You will recall that in 2009 a bunch of hacked emails and data files involving Mann and his colleagues showed that they were feverishly at shutting down anything in the literature that would go against the Catastrophist line, threatening journal editors, etc. So it's hardly a surprise that Mainstream Climate Science Literature contains little that goes against the Catastrophist Line.
The Mainstream Climate Science community have basically ditched the Scientific Method--develop a theory and testable hypotheses based on the theory, test hypotheses using observational data, if you fail to reject the Null Hypothesis, go back and revise/test your theory, etc. Instead, they rely on deterministic General Circulation Models, which are given parameters and fed highly implausible Scenarios (e.g., RCP 8.5) to generate Super-Scary forecasts for the Climate. This, of course, is taxpayer-funded and generates thousands and thousands of "Peer-Reviewed" papers (Who, pray tell, are the "Peers?") Crucially, the forecasts are not falsifiable. Nobody w/in the Climate Science community goes back and says: "Hey, those forecasts of Catastrophe by UNEP in 1989 and all subsequent forecasts where enuf time has gone by to check 'em ex post never panned out. What's up? Nope, the Catastrophists like Mann (who dominate Mainstream Climate Science and don't let anybody else in) just keep on pushing back the goalposts and calling anyone they differ w the horrid smear, "Denier!"
Would you trust a scientific field that analyzes time series by calculating an anomality index? It is a total joke of an index. Whenever somebody comes up with an analysis that does not have a 100 % type I error rate, climate scientists go bananas.
‘Evidence’ that ‘renewables’ will not save ‘us’?
“27.8 Final summary
Current thinking is that global industrial businesses will replace a complex industrial ecosystem that took more than a century to build. The current system was built with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of energy the world has ever known (oil), in cheap abundant quantities, with easily available credit, and seemingly unlimited mineral resources. This replacement is hoped to be done at a time when there is comparatively very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt, not enough minerals, and an unprecedented world population, embedded in a deteriorating natural environment. Most challenging of all, this has to be done within a few decades. It is the authors opinion that this will not go according to plan. This report has produced new numbers that are quite different to previous studies.”
https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
Copper?
'Someone' is more 'optimistic'?
“Ugo BardiMay 17, 2023 at 7:09 PM
It is well known. For this reason, we'll go local, so we'll need less copper. And we'll use aluminum, which is very abundant.”?
https://www.senecaeffect.com/2023/05/renewables-are-not-cleaner-caterpillar.html
'Someone' is optimistic?
"And yet two years later, I think my post still holds up. These two years have seen small battery-powered drones utterly change the way wars are fought. They have seen battery storage become a common complement to solar, solving almost all of solar’s intermittency problem and drawing huge amounts of investment worldwide. Batteries have powered the sudden meteoric rise of China’s car industry, which went from an also-ran to a juggernaut that suddenly threatens to dominate the entire global auto market. AI is certainly magical and holds incredible potential, but in just a couple of years, batteries have begun to transform human energy supply, war, transportation, and geopolitical dominance."?
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/decade-of-the-battery-334?publication_id=35345&post_id=145431253&isFreemail=true&r=27daj&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The elites know all about this type of thing, even if they're not talking about it publicly. That's why they want fewer people, and less energy use per capita of those that survive (I mean remain). It's also probably one reason why they want to confine the inmates (I mean survivors) into 15 minute cities. The better to watch over you, my dear.
The main issue I have with this article is that it is correct. We cannot reach net zero if we continue to live as we are - replacing today's cars with electric cars, continue to subsidize air travel and assume we have the right to fly, continue to use damaging forms of agriculture, continue to use vast areas of land (more than inhabited and arable land put together) to farm cattle and sheep. It's not like we have a choice. Or we do but it's not a good one. Either we decarbonise and try to prevent excessive warning (limiting the extent of destructive storms, flooding, food shortages, drought) or continue as we are and gave sure consequences, worse for our children. The human race has embraced changes very rapidly historically - the second world war, COVID amongst others. We can do it now.
No ‘BAU’?
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. – those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . . That system has been on the life-support of quantitative easing and near zero interest rates ever since. Indeed, so perilous a state has the system been in since 2008, it was essential that the people who claim to be our leaders avoid doing anything so foolish as to lockdown the economy or launch an undeclared economic war on one of the world’s biggest commodity exporters . . . And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders – at least within the western empire – have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2022/07/01/bigger-than-you-can-imagine/ https://www.facebook.com/cosheep
In saying I was an Economist, I didn't mean to imply I was Mainstream. And it's my experience as a (sort of) Economic Contrarian that at least partially guides me today. Back in the "Early Days" (late '60s/early '70s), Mainstream Economics in US, Canada and UK was full of Keynesians and their large scale, unbelievably complex National or Global Econometric Computer Models, which had parameters assigned based on Keynesian Theory and always produced output that favored massive Gov't intervention ("Stimulus"). This "enterprise" (it was Super Big Bucks w Gov't and Corp clients) came a cropper w the Stagflation of the early-mid '70s and really never recovered. Then there was the conviction among probably a majority of Mainstream Economists that the Socialism/Communism of places like The Soviet Union was both economically and morally superior to the Private Property/Market Economy system of the West. CIA produced report after report on the superior Soviet Economy. Paul Samuelson agreed. They kept saying this right up 'til the point that, all of a sudden in 1989-90 the Soviet Economy went poof. This bunch of Economic Fallacies was bolstered again in the late '60s/early '70s by the quasi-economics Club of Rome w their Limits to Growth and Running-Out-of-Everything hysteria. This was ALSO (of course!) based on the incredibly complex deterministic Systems Dynamics computer Models, mostly those of MIT's Jay Forrester. This, too, eventually came a cropper but not before causing Gov't-impelled misallocations of resources.
So all this that's going on w Mainstream Climate Science is very reminiscent of some pretty big whoppers from decades past, to say nothing of past failures of Super Respectable Science, like Eugenics/Racism, Phrenology, hostile brutal denial and suppression of the theory of Continental Drift -- "How can you support the Theory of Continental Drift? All the World's Most Respected Scientists are dead-set against it and keeping Wegener and other proponents out of Respectable Academia!" Sound familiar?
Where’s your evidence that all this horrible stuff is increasing? It’s not, and if you bothered to look at real observational data, you’d that it’s not. Please take some time to gather this info. The regular posts by Bjorn Lomborg would be a good place to start. For Heaven’s sake, don’t just take what Al Gore, Michael Mann, Joe Biden et al. tell you as Gospel, not to be questioned. Ask them for evidence of imminent, unprecedented, irreversible, catastrophic man-made climate change and ask for the evidence in the form of observational models, not deterministic computer models w super-scary scenarios embedded guaranteed to produce super-scary results. Ask ‘em what forecasts they’ve made since 1988 (when the climate hysteria started) that have panned out. Please do this.
"Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. "?
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
IF you are so sure that you are 'right' then go https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
and explain to them where they are 'wrong'.
I won't hold my breath!
I’ve seen all of these. Some have some validity, but all the rest are Outright False, True but Trivial or Irrelevant, or Of Unknown Origin. Plus, there’s nothing that addresses the main criticism of Climate Change Catastrophism; i.e., no observational data, only output of deterministic models. And based on THIS, you’re concluding we’re all doomed and it’s all our fault?! Sheesh!
I won't hold my breath!
All peer reviewed science states this is man made warming and that even at 1.5 degrees warmer we will face more drought, increased intensity storms etc. His article isn't saying this isn't happening, it's saying we can't get to net zero. I'm saying he's correct unless we fundamentally change his we live. I'm a scientist and I don't care or believe what politicians say. I ask you to find peer reviewed data that says this warning is not created by human behaviour and they this will not increase unless we drastically decrease carbon emissions.
Pretty much all so-called “peer-reviewed science” is from the echo chamber Climate Science Community. These people rely on deterministic General Circulation Models, which are assigned parameters by the Modelers and fed Insanely Pessimistic scenarios (e.g., RCP 8.5) and, quite naturally produce all sorts of dire forecasts which don’t pan out. This whole Enterprise (and it’s a might big Enterprise, costing taxpayers $Billions for the modeling and “research” alone) generates thousands and thousands of “peer-reviewed” papers, each one w one dire forecast or another. But, dammit, this isn’t even Science. It’s pure computer jockery, which always produces the desired result. There’s no Scientific Method involved, no real hypothesis testing. Then, if a paper w a contrary position somehow makes it thru the peer-review process, the paper is quickly spiked via pressure from Michael E Mann or some other top guy in the Climate Science establishment. See, for example, the recent peer-reviewed paper by Alimo to et al. In SpringerNature. It was an empirical study that claimed. contrary to mainstream climate “science,” that extreme events were not increasing and increases did not appear to be in the offing. Well, I might have offered this paper in response to your request, but it was RETRACTED by SpringerNature, under pressure, mainly from Michael E Mann, Mr Hockey Stick himself. If Mann was a real scientist, he would’ve challenged Alimonti et al. in the usual way—submitting a comment, then getting a reply from Alimonti, then doing a rejoinder, etc. But no, The Public must not be allowed to see such contrary information. Faced w this blockage, people like Bjorn Lomborg (who was almost fired from his job 2decades ago for similar contrarianism) found other venues outside the insular climate science community to produce peer-reviewed empirical studies that refute pretty much all of the scary Catastrophist claims. Do a Google search on Bjorn Lomborg and, amid all the baseless hysterical criticism of him by the climate “science” establishment, you’ll find all the up-to-date observational data you need. Do it now! You’ll sleep a lot better.
Do you think climate change is man-made? If it is, do ordinary people like us cause it, just by being alive and going about our business, or is it the elites who are driving it, by using haarp, cloud-seeding, or any other modality at their disposal?
Yes it's man made and yes it is the West who are driving it, mainly at the expense of the southern nations and mainly through burning fossil fuels. Don't take my word for it but I challenge you to find any peer reviewed scientific papers that suggests this isn't the case
Could it be that TPTB know that oil, as a finite energy source, is nearing the end of its useful life, and want to conserve it on into the future for use by themselves, and have concocted this phony climate change idea as a ruse to confuse people and get them to go along with their (TPTPB's) plans for energy use (or non-use to be more precise)?
No
Well, let's look at the data. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
Read peer reviewed papers
Maybe just look at the data. Peer review in a corrupt universe of activists with PHd's who call themselves scientists is not helpful. Refute the data in the post, don't rely on pal review where models are used to manipulate data to achieve a pre-determined desired outcome.
Ok. This conversation is going nowhere. I'm out
In my experience anything written by or for the Fraser Institute has to be taken apart and looks at carefully - they are far to political right of the spectrum. There is truth in what he writes ... but the article notes “Smil also exposes the insane cost of net zero” and there I pause. Of course it is insanely expensive and far from easy but the alternative is to never try to get a grip on climate change and that is so often the case for people like him. The costs of untrammelled climate change for our and future generations is far, far more expensive - not only in terms of hard cash but in quality of life and public safety, to say nothing of the loss of biodiversity.
The Stern report, which has been updated, states it will be so much more expensive later on if we don't address these issues now. I agree with you Richard.
It is not the messenger, but the quality of the content, that is decisive.
Personally, I am of the opinion that we find truths and insights as well as grave misunderstandings over the whole political spectrum. Both the "Left" and the "Right" have their blind spots.
It may be that the Fraser Institute is to the right of the political spectrum. But does that mean that they are wrong in each and every assessment?
It is tragic indeed that the organizations and politicians who are more leftist, are in denial of some of the realities of the world. That is a problem.
Maybe the Fraser institute does get it right on occasion, but their output needs careful examination. It is heavily business and oil industry oriented. As for blind spots - any organization , regardless of orientation, that ignores climate change as THE major problem of the day is dangerous.
I absolutely agree that careful examination is necessary. Always. There are no exceptions.
Regarding climate change:
Unfortunately, the world is not only confronted by man-made climate change. The world is also confronted by man-made degradation, destruction and loss of natural environments and ecosystems, and this is independent of climate change.
- Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, planet Earth has lost approximately 87% of its original wetlands and swamps and their unique ecosystems.
- Since 1970, planet Earth has lost 68% of its original biomass of vertebrates.
- Every year, approximately 200 000 square kilometers with forests are lost by human deforestation.
- The Eartḧ́'s largest rainforest, the Amazonas rainforest, has been reduced by 20% of its original extent.
All this and more has happened independent of climate change, and of course aggravates the effect of climate change since reduced ecosystems become less resilient.
We therefore need to stop the use of energy forms that use vast amounts of natural areas, as land-based with power does. There is a widespread belief that wind power is inherently "green" even when it is built in natural environments, but that is dangerously false. The wind industry has its own big business and companies, and in Norway where I live the former Statoil (Equinor) wants to invest heavily in wind power.
Business is business, profit is profit. There are more than one villain on the energy market.
By the way, the article is written by Vaclav Smil.
“the Inconvenient Skeptic”
John Kehr
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K (390 W/m^2) is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR with a 30% albedo not a GHE. Without the “GHE” there is no 30% albedo and the equilibrium OLR becomes 278 K (342 W/m^2) 23 C warmer than the 30% case and w 30% more Q 288 K GMST would also rise by 23 C to 311 K. (Q=UA(Thot-Tcold)
The Earth is 23 C cooler (278-255, 311-288) with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
396 upwelling LWIR is the theoretical “What if?” BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic: 63/396=0.16. SURFRAD & USCRN also do this wrong.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and lower radiation and less kinetic action produces higher temperatures and higher radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
There is no GHE, no GHG warming and no CAGW.
The exchange from energy dense to material dense forms of energy production is easy if you don’t understand just how much mining is necessary. 😂. About the only conceivable way of realizing such a plan without destroying the earth is to mine the moon or asteroids. The asteroid Psyche is estimated to have 100 million tons of gold, would love to know the estimated amount of copper, so there then remains the problem of extraction, retrieval from such a remote source. 😝.
We will know in 2029 more about Psyche once NASAs probe arrives.
If the problem was only with COPPER!
Others also made the math and reached the conclusion that:
"In conclusion, this report suggests that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the entire global human population. There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today. Inevitably, this leads to the conclusion that the existing renewable energy sectors and the EV
technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution. It is recommended that some thought be given to this and what that something else might be."
source: Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems
to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels - Geological Survey of Finland - 20.8.2021
One thing we, modern moron slaves, always tend to forget is that all this is not ment to be used by the majority of us!
The Plans of the SRF & Billionaires don't include the majority of us...
There's no substitute for oil; the so-called alternatives, such as wind and solar, aren't energy dense enough. That's why there's no substitute for depopulation.
Great analysis, but net zero can absolutely be achieved by 2050 because by then so many processes will be defined as "net zero" that the term will no meaning at all! Burning wood is already considered net zero (because you have to grow the trees back obviously!) And net zero diesel startups are already on the drawing board. Importantly, carbon neutral diesel is indistinguishable from fossil diesel, how convenient! For everything else there's carbon credits which are of course endlessly negotiable.
All ignores the pointlessness of “decarbonization.” CO2 is not a driver of increased temperature change. The gas has a finite capacity to trap heat, adding more makes no difference. Just as white paint reflects light having ten coats instead of three makes no increase. Temperature change is being driven by exothermic events in the core and mantle, and sun variation. The source of rapid temperature change in the Atlantic in 2023 was from vents in the earth’s crust. The amount of energy needed to make that temperature change was 2.5 billion Hiroshima sized bombs. Physically impossible to be from the sun. I recommend The Ethical Skeptic for a broader understanding.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/
The current establishment is shitting themselves over the middle east and Russian fossil fuel reserves, most of which have known since the 70s. However, it has become more salient in geopolitical terms where middle eastern oil is undermining Western democracies, and corporate HQs don't give one fk as they are transnational chameleons that can land at any point on the globe that gives them distance from any harm they create. They are underestimating the popular will of democracies that are currently pushing back on their nonsense, it won't be long before nation-states, activate national corporations, and the R&D that will inevitably lead to making their power inert.
The mother of invention is being stifled by the owners of FINCAP, if they can't control energy, they can't control anything else.