Author Archives: edhoskins

Renewable Energy – Solar and Wind-Power: capital costs and effectiveness compared

A comparison of both the Capital Cost and Energy Producing Effectiveness of the Renewable Energy investments of the USA, Germany and the UK.

The summary diagram below collates the cost and capacity factors of Renewable Energy power sources compared to the cost and output capacity of conventional Gas Fired Electricity generation.

US D UK comp

The associated base data is shown below:

Screen Shot 2014-11-03 at 16.16.32

In summary, these figures show that these three Western nations have spent of the order of at least  ~$0.5trillion in capital costs alone, (conservatively estimated, only accounting for the primary capital costs ), to create Renewable Energy electrical generating capacity.

Nominally, this total nameplate generating capacity at ~153GW should amount to about ~26% of their total electricity generation, were it fully effective.  However, because of there is an inevitable ~20% capacity factor applicable across the board for all renewables, the actual cumulative energy output by from these Renewable sources only results in ~5% of the total electricity generation for these nations.

Across the board overall solar energy is about ~34 times the cost of comparable standard Gas Fired generation and 9 times less effective.

Wind-Power is only ~12 times the comparable cost and about 4 times less effective.

The same total electrical energy output could have been produced using conventional natural gas fired electrical generation for ~$31 billion or ~1/16 of the actual capital costs expended on renewable installations.  Had conventional Gas Fired technology had been used, the full ~31 GW generating capacity would have provided non-intermittent and wholly dispatchable electricity production generated as and when needed.

The following calculations only provide conservative estimates of Renewable Energy installation capital costs.  They discount entirely the major additional costs of:

  • supporting backup generation
  • connection to the grid from remote locations
  • the large differentials in ongoing maintenance costs.

As all Renewable Energy technologies are only viable with the support of costly government subsidies, market intervention and market manipulation, can this be a responsible use of public funds or a good reason for increasing energy costs for individuals or industry in the Western world ?

The following data sources for the USA, Germany and the UK were reviewed:

United States of America: data available 2000 – 2012

Germany: data available from 1990 to 2013

United Kingdom: data available 2008 – 2013

Note:  the Wikipedia sources are used because they normally have a green orientation and are unlikely to be questioned by the advocates of Man-made Global Warming.

These data listed above provide installed “nameplate” capacity measured in Megawatts (MW) and energy output measured across the year in total Gigawatt hours, (GWh). Thus they do not provide directly comparable values as Megawatt nameplate capacity and the actual energy outputs achieved. For this comparative exercise the annual Gigawatt hours values were revised back to equivalent Megawatts, accounting for the 8,760 hours in the year, as indicated by Prof David MacKay in “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air”, page 334.

Although this measure eliminates the unpredictable and variable effects of intermittency and non-dispatchability that characterise Renewable Energy sources, it gives a conservative comparative value of the actual energy output and thus potentially available.

It allows for the calculation of capacity factors in relation to Renewable Energy technologies in each nation. The following graph shows the history of Renewable Energy (Solar and Wind power combined) installations and shows the progress year by year of actual electrical energy generated. Screen Shot 2014-11-03 at 20.09.06 The Energy Information Association provides the capital cost information in US$ for the USA.  These capital costs are used for comparative purposes, but they take no account of currency variations and other local financial factors.

The USA Energy Information Association publishes comprehensive information on the capital costs of alternate electrical generation technologies, in Table 1 of their 2013 report. From that full list these notes consider three technologies:

  • Large Scale Photovoltaic: this is the most economic of the PV technologies at ~$3.8 billion / GW.
  • Combined Wind 80-20: merged onshore 80% and offshore 20% wind at ~$3.0 billion / GW.
  • Natural Gas Advanced Combined Cycle: the costliest technical option at ~$1.0 billion / GW.

Screen Shot 2014-10-30 at 10.19.25

“Overnight Capital Cost”, (just as if an power generating installation has been created overnight), is the standard comparative measure for capital costs used in energy industries. The specific Overnight Capital Costs used include:

  • Civil and structural costs
  • Mechanical equipment supply and installation
  • Electrical and instrumentation and control
  • Project indirect costs
  • Other owners costs: design studies, legal fees, insurance costs, property taxes and local electrical linkages to the Grid.

However for this comparison “Overnight Capital Costs” specifically do not include:

  • Provision of Back-up power supply, “spinning reserve” for times when renewable power is unavailable.
  • Fuel costs for actual generation and the spinning reserve
  • Remote access costs
  • Extended electrical linkages to the Grid
  • Maintenance
  • Financing   etc.

These further costs for Renewable Energy excluded from Overnight Capital Costs mean that its use probably significantly less economic than the comparisons provided in these tables. In addition for these comparisons the Energy Information Association data denominated in US$ is used. These brief results are primarily for comparative purposes and do not purport to give precise actual expenditures in the various nations and by governments. However, they do  clearly indicate the order of magnitude of the capital sums involved.

They also allow for the calculation of comparative figures to be established between renewable energy generation and standard Gas Fired electricity generation. The results for the individual Nations in tabular form using the EIA Overnight Capital Cost data are shown below: Screen Shot 2014-11-03 at 16.15.34 In graphic terms the results for renewable Energy generation in each country is shown below.Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 17.10.58 Solar power is comparatively successful in the USA, because it is mainly installed in Southerly latitudes, but in Germany its very serious renewable investment in Solar amounting to more than 50% of all renewables is twice as expensive and half as effective as in the USA.  Solar energy in the UK is 55 times more expensive and half as effective again as in Germany.  Fortunately the UK only has about 25% solar generation in the Renewable mix. Wind power is about 26% effective in the USA  and about 11 times more costly than Gas Fired generation. In Germany Wind power at less than 50% of its renewable commitment is 50% more expensive and substantially less effective in the USA.  Wind power in the UK is also about 11 times more costly, similar to the USA, and rather more effective than in Germany, because of wind conditions.

In addition, there is also a very large discrepancy in maintenance costs shown in the Energy Information Association table 1. When compared to a standard Natural Gas plant, maintenance cost comparisons are as follows:

  • Photovoltaics                     times ~1.6
  • Onshore Wind-Power        times ~2.6
  • Offshore Wind Power        times ~4.9
  • Combined Wind  80 – 20    times ~4.0
  • Coal (without CCS)            times ~1.9   (included for reference)
  • Nuclear                              times ~6.1   (included for reference)

There are also significant questions to be answered about the longevity and engineering robustness of the Solar and Wind-Power technologies: this is particularly problematical for off-shore wind farms.

http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/11/spiegel-germanys-large-scale-offshore-windpark-dream-morphs-into-an-engineering-and-cost-nightmare/

In addition a more detailed analysis might well indicate that, in spite of the cost of fuel being essentially free, the development, fabrication and installation of both Solar and Wind-power installations involves the release of substantial amounts of CO2.  The actual savings of CO2 emissions may be hardly exceeded over their installed working life of these Renewable technologies.

http://sunweber.blogspot.fr/2014/11/prove-this-wrong.htm

Intermittancy and Non-dipatchability

However there still remains a further major problem with all Renewable Energy sources. Their electrical output is intermittent and non dispatchable. Their electrical output cannot respond to electricity demand as and when needed. Energy is contributed to the grid in a haphazard manner dependent on the weather.  This effect can seen from German electrical supply in the diagram below, for a week in August 2014, an optimum period for any solar energy input. Power certainly not necessarily available whenever required.

Screen Shot 2014-09-07 at 15.09.47Solar power inevitably varies according to the time of day, the state of the weather and also of course radically with the seasons.  Solar power works most effectively in latitudes nearer the equator and it certainly cannot be seriously effective in Northern Europe. In the example above in August 2014 wind power input varied from 15.5 GW to 0.18 GW and the Solar contribution varied from nil to some 15 GW. Thus this Renewable Energy variability combined with the “Renewables Obligation”, which mandates that the electricity grid has to take energy from renewable sources preferentially, if available, resulted in demands on conventional generation in Germany varying from ~23GW to ~47GW over the period. In Germany, its massive commitment to solar energy can briefly provide up to ~20% of country wide demand for a few hours either side of noon on some fine summer days, but at the time of maximum power demand on winter evenings solar energy input is necessarily nil. But at the same time the output from wind power is equally variable as in the summer months.

Germany has similar insolation and cloudiness characterists as Alaska and the UK being even further North has an even worse solar performance. Electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle, as in the week in July 2014, clearly shown above, where Wind-Power input across Germany was close to zero for several days. Similarly an established high pressure system, with little wind over the whole of Northern Europe is a common occurrence in winter months, when electricity demand is at its highest. Conversely, on occasions Renewable Energy output may be in excess of demand and this has to dumped expensively and unproductively. This is especially so, as there is still no solution to electrical energy storage on a sufficiently large industrial scale. That is the reason that the word “nominally” is used throughout these notes in relation to the name plate capacity outputs from Renewable Energy sources.

Overall these three major nations that have committed massive investments to Renewable Energy.  Conservatively this amounts to at least ~$0.5 trillion or ~2.2% of combined annual GDP.  

This investment has resulted in a “nominal” ~31Gigawatts of generating capacity from an installed Nameplate Capacity of ~150Gigawatts.  This is “nominally” almost a quarter of the total installed nameplate generating capacity.

But this nominal 31GW of Renewable Energy output is ~5.4% of the total installed generating capacity of ~570Gigawatts.  Even that 31GW of Renewable Energy production is not really as useful as one would wish, because of its intermittency and non-dispatchability.

The Significance of Carbon Dioxide CO2

All plant life and thus the whole biosphere is dependent on atmospheric CO2. At 400 ppmv, (400/1,000,000), CO2 is still a trace gas. It is at a very low concentration when compared with the geologic past. A widely accepted diagram of global temperature and CO2 concentration in the geologic past 600 million years is shown below. Screen Shot 2014-09-17 at 13.42.47 Plants evolved about 500 million years ago, when the CO2 levels were much higher. Increased CO2 levels markedly improve plant growth and reduce their water requirements for transpiration, as plants need fewer and smaller, water releasing, stomata to ingest their essential CO2. Plants cannot survive at CO2 levels of less than ~200 ppmv and are stressed by low CO2 levels. Horticulturalists deliberately add extra CO2 to their greenhouses up to a level of some 1200 ppmv to enhance plant growth and fertility. It is estimated that the CO2 increases since 1850 have already enhanced all planetary plant growth and promoted greening of deserts by ~15%. In the past the world has seen much higher CO2 levels that were not necessarily associated with higher temperatures.

Whatever politicians and Global Warming advocates may think, promote with extreme alarm and may be convinced of, atmospheric CO2 is “clean”, essential to life and is anything but “a pollutant”.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/co2_greens_the_deserts/ http://townhall.com/columnists/craigidso/2014/09/23/mr-president-co2-is-not-pollution-its-the-elixir-of-life-n1895157/page/full

So atmospheric CO2 is the essential plant food and is thus fundamental for all life on the planet.

That is the real stuff of life. Global Warming advocates who deny that also negate the ability of the world’s entire biosphere to exist on planet earth.

Photosynthesis in plants consists of chemical reactions that use atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O), catalysed by chlorophyll to store the sun’s output as chemical energy, initially in the form of sugars. This chemical reaction then leads onto all the other organic compounds within the biosphere. The Oxygen (O2) essential for animal life is a by-product of photosynthesis and is released into the atmosphere. The following equation summarizes photosynthesis:  

                           sun light                                                           

                                          ↓                  

                          6 CO2 + 6 H2O    =  6 (CH2O) + 6 O2

                                           ↓       

                          sugars, thus leading to all other organic molecules

This amazing, almost miraculous, photosynthetic process has been working for half of the existence of the Earth, about 2.5 billion years. Land plants however have only existed for about a half billion years.

Photosynthesis is quite inefficient. Plants only absorb and convert about ½% to ¼% of the sun’s energy falling on their leaves. Geologic processes have created fossils fuels over many millions of years, and concentrated the energy from that inefficient photosynthetic process and stored it in accessible forms gas, oil, coal, etc.

But it is as if many western politicians, much of the scientific establishment, and all Green Global Warming advocates have all collectively and conveniently forgotten all their elementary school biology about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle. As a result of the failure to appreciate the elementary biology, the Western world has been forced into a massive guilt trip with endless predictions of impending global overheating catastrophes from the over-production of CO2 by mankind.

In reality any added atmospheric CO2 is just essential and increasingly useful food for plants.

Mankind’s use of fossil fuels simply releases the very diffuse and intermittent energy derived from sunlight by plants in previous eons. The release of CO2 back into the biosphere now is to the benefit of all plant life and thus to the livelihood of the planet. With the increase from ~300ppmv to ~400ppmv it has been assessed that planetary plant life has already increased by >10% worldwide. As an aside, this means that:

  • Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS, is a chemically difficult and very costly way to try to trap and to throw away comparatively miniscule quantities of useful plant food.
  • as opposed to taking the simplistic view that the fuel itself is for free, it is not evident that renewable energy technologies (solar or wind power) are necessarily that “clean”, non polluting and produce less CO2 for the equivalent energy output, when compared to fossil fuel use and viewed in the round.

Geophysical Research Letters Volume 40, Issue 12, Article first published online: 19 JUN 2013

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/writev/517/m59.htm

http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

http://junkscience.com/2013/11/12/ethanol-is-stupid-really-stupid-ask-sel-graham/

Graphic presentations of the history of CO2 emissions worldwide

The following calculations and graphics are based on information on national CO2 emission levels worldwide published by BP[i]in June 2014 for the period from 1965 up until 2013. The data is well corroborated by previous similar datasets published by the CDIAC, Guardian [ii] and Google up until 2009 [iii]. These notes and figures provide a short commentary on that CO2 emissions history. The contrast between the developed and developing worlds is stark in terms of their history of CO2 emissions and the likely prognosis for their future CO2 output. Screen Shot 2014-06-22 at 12.20.39 Screen Shot 2014-06-29 at 16.23.31This presentation divides the world nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control: developed

  • United States of America, attempting CO2 emissions control under Obama’s EPA.
  • The European Union, (including the UK), currently believers in action to combat Global Warming.
  • Japan, the former Soviet Union, Canada and Australia are developed nations, rejecting controls on CO2 emissions.

developing

  • South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan: more advanced developing nations, still developing rapidly, (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW).
  • China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly.
  • India: developing rapidly from a low base.
  • Rest of World (~160 Nations): developing rapidly from a low base.

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 14.03.19 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.45.02 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.42.53Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.42.35 Screen Shot 2014-06-23 at 13.01.26 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.44.29 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.45.45 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.46.04
Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.46.26 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.46.47 Screen Shot 2014-09-15 at 11.47.08 [i] http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

[ii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data

[iii] https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1

Growth of Renewable Energy installation in the USA, UK and Germany

In order originally to get a fairly clear idea of the capacity factors for Renewable Energy sources Wind and Solar the data provided on Wikipedia were reviewed.

These data sets provide historic data since 1990 in Germany but only since 2008 in the UK.

These data provide installed nameplate capacity measured in Megawatts and energy output measured across the year in Gigawatt hours. The referenced do not provide directly comparable values as Megawatt input and outputs. The values were revised to Megawatts for comparative purposes, accounting for the 8,760 hours in the year.

A normal fossil fuelled power station can be rated with a nameplate capacity of about 1000 Megawatts or 1 Gigawatt.

The development of the USA, the UK and German renewable energy since the year 2000 is shown below, (note these data do not include additional German offshore wind installations in 2013):

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 17.16.05The graphs below summarise the available data for each country:

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 17.20.49

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 17.21.06

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 17.21.28

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 19.23.29

So the 25 year investment in Germany’s the renewable energy has contributed about the equivalent from windpower of about 6 normal power stations and solar power contributes about 3 normal power stations.

So the UK the contribution from wind is now about 3 normal power stations and only about ¼ of a normal power station is provided by UK solar power.

However there is a problem in the use of renewable energy sources. The output is not dispatchable. It cannot respond to electricity demand as and when needed. For example solar power in Germany might provide up to ~20% of country wide demand for a few hours on fine summer afternoons, but at the time of maximum power demand on winter evenings solar input is virtually nil.

See: http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/456961/reality-check-germany-does-not-get-half-its-energy-solar
Similarly electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle, as shown for this week in July this year below:

See: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/21/germanys-habitually-awol-green-energy-installed-windsolar-often-delivers-less-than-1-of-rated-capacity/

Overall both in the Germany and the UK solar power only produces ~7% of nameplate capacity.

Wind energy in Germany has supplied only about 17% of its installed name plate capacity over the years since 1990, and in the UK the more recent results have been rather more productive at ~23% of nameplate installed capacity since 2008.

The record of recent Man-made CO2 emissions: 1965 -2013

The following calculations and graphics are based on information on national CO2 emission levels worldwide published by BP[1]in June 2014 for the period from 1965 up until the end of 2013.  The data is well corroborated by previous similar datasets published by the CDIAC, Guardian [2] and Google up until 2009 [3].

These notes and figures provide a short commentary on that CO2 emissions history.

The contrast between the developed and developing worlds is stark in terms of their history of CO2 emissions and the likely prognosis for their future CO2 output.

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 09.41.32

Since 1980 CO2 emissions from the developed world have shown virtually no increase, whereas the developing world has had a fourfold increase since 1980: that increase is accelerating.
Similarly the CO2 output per head is declining in the developed world whereas it is accelerating the developing world.

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 13.08.02

In October 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions clear: in essence he said[4]:

“the Developing World is not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so.

The failure of worldwide action negates the unilateral action of any individual western Nation”.

Screen Shot 2013-07-11 at 09.30.34

This presentation divides the world nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control:

developed

  • United States of America, attempting CO2 emissions control under Obama’s EPA.
  • The European Union, (including the UK), currently believers in action to combat Global Warming.
  • Japan, the former Soviet Union, Canada and Australia are developed nations, rejecting controls on CO2 emissions.

developing

  • South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan: more advanced developing nations, still developing rapidly, (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW).
  • China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly.
  • India: developing rapidly from a low base.
  • Rest of World (~160 Nations): developing rapidly from a low base.

Screen Shot 2015-04-03 at 14.31.32

Screen Shot 2014-06-23 at 13.01.26These graphs of total CO2 emission history show that up until 2013:

  • there has been a stabilisation or reduction of emissions from developed economies since 1980.
  • the USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its CO2 emissions by some 9.5% since 2005[5]. That alone has already had more CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol[6] [7].
  • CO2 emissions from the developed economies rejecting action on CO2 have hardly grown since 2005.
  • the European Union (27) has reduced its CO2 emissions by ~14% since 2005.

However

  • CO2 emissions from the developing world as a whole overtook the developed world in 2007 and are now a third larger than the developed world’s CO2 emissions.
  • there has been a very rapid escalation of Chinese CO2 emissions since the year 2000[8].
  • China overtook the USA CO2 emissions in 2006, and Chinese emissions are now ~62% greater than the USA, the escalation in Chinese CO2 emissions continues. Chinese emissions have grown by +75% since 2005 and China continues to build coal fired powerstations to supply the bulk of its electricity as demand grows.
  • India has accelerating emissions[9], growing from a low base by +63% since 2005. India too is building coal fired powerstations to increase the supply of electricity as 25% of its population still has no access to electric power.
  • there is inexorable emissions growth from the Rest of the World economies, from a low base, they have grown by +30% since 2005.

So any CO2 emissions reduction achieved by the Developed Nations will be entirely negated by the increases in CO2 emissions from Developing Nations.

However probably more significant than the total CO2 emissions output is the comparison of the emissions/head for the various nation groups.

Screen Shot 2015-04-03 at 15.47.02

  • The EU(27) even with active legal measures have maintained a fairly level CO2 emission rate but have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions/head by ~16% since 2005. Much of the recent downward trend is largely attributed to their declining economies.
  • The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions/head by ~22% since in 2005, mainly arising from the use of shale gas for electricity generation. And now Mr Putin is actively involved in backing anti-fracking campaigns in Europe so as to protect his largest Gasprom market and to have an energy stranglehold on the West, as he has demonstrated recently in the Ukraine[10].
  • Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia have only grown their emissions/head by ~1% since 2005.
  • China’s CO2 emissions/head have increased ~11 fold since 1965. China overtook the world-wide average in 2003 and surpassed the rapidly developing nations in 2006. China’s emissions / head at 7.0 tonnes / head are now approaching the level of the EU(27) nations.
  • India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 4.7 times over the period and are now showing recent modest acceleration. That increasing rate is likely to grow substantially with increased use of coal for electricity generation[11].

When the participating nations particularly EU(27) are compared with Chinese CO2 emissions/head, an interesting picture arises:

Screen Shot 2015-04-03 at 15.53.14

Chinese CO2 emissions at 7.01mt/head for its 1.4 billion population are already ~43% greater than the worldwide average. Those emissions are still growing fast.

At 5.5mt/head, France, with ~80% nuclear electricity generation, has the lowest CO2 emission rates in the developed world and is at only ~12% above the world-wide average.

China’s CO2 emissions/head exceeded France’s CO2 emissions/head in 2009 and are now ~22% higher.

The UK at 7.2mt/head is now only ~48% higher than the world-wide average and only about ~3% higher than China. So China is likely to overtake the UK in the near future.

Germany, one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, has emissions/head ~100% higher than the worldwide average and is still ~49% higher than China. Germany’s emissions/head have increased recently because they are now burning much larger quantities of brown coal to compensate for the “irrational” closure of their nuclear generating capacity.

This must question the logic of Green attitudes in opposing Nuclear power. Following the Fukushima disaster, the German government position of rapidly eliminating nuclear power in a country with no earthquake risk and no chance of tsunamis should not be tenable.

If CO2 emissions really were a concern to arrest Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man-made Climate Change, these results particularly from France show starkly the very real advantage of using Nuclear power for electricity generation.

Professor Fritz Vahrenholt was CEO of RWE Innogy, the major German windpower supplier, he had pioneered Germany’s significant advances in renewable energy, especially in the development of wind power.

Previously Professor Vahrenholt had fully accepted the IPCC reports as the foundation of his understanding of mankind’s effect on climate change. However, with his scientific background as chemist, he re-examined IPCC reports in detail. He found many errors, inconsistencies and unsupported assertions.

Accordingly he has now entirely revised his position.

 

Professor Vahrenholt’s diagram below is from his July 2012 lecture at the Royal Society [12] [13].

It shows the miniscule impact of the enormously costly efforts at decarbonisation in Germany, (die Energiewende), in comparison with the inevitable escalation of CO2 emissions from the rest of the world.

The underdeveloped nations are bound to become progressively more industrialised and more intensive users of fossil fuels to power their development and widen their distribution of electricity throughout their populations.

This is the only rational way that those nations can advance their development status.

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 14.12.41

The futility of the expenditure of vast resources on Green activities in Germany becomes clear.

German actions with its increasing risks to energy security and the growing risk to the German economy as its manufacturing industries seek more congenial energy / business environments, could only ever reduce Germany’s CO2 emissions by ~150,000,000 tonnes between 2006 and 2030.

That would only amount to ~1/100 of the concomitant growth in other CO2 emissions from the developing world.

According to Bjorn Lomborg the ~€125billion German investment in solar power alone, not including other renewable investments, can only reduce the onset of Global Warming by a matter of about 37 hours by the year 2100[14].

Screen Shot 2015-04-04 at 11.42.05

This point is re-emphasised above, by cross comparing the annual growth in emissions from China and India with the full annual emissions from key European countries. Chinese CO2 emissions growth in some years can exceed the total UK and French emissions level and even approach the German level on occasions.

Professor Varhenholt is now convinced that it is nature and in particular the behaviour of the sun that is responsible for our continually changing climate, and as he said as the final point of his Royal society lecture:

“This change can only develop first with a revolution of our minds.”

and to paraphrase Bill Clinton

“It’s not mankind creating climate. It’s the sun: stupid.”

Professor Varhenholt and his colleague Sebastian Luening have now published a best seller in Germany “Die Kalte Sonne”, the book now released in English as

“The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe”[15].

[1] http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data

[3] https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1

[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5m6KzDnv7k

[5] http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/07/a-fracking-revolution-us-now-leads-world-in-co2-emission-reductions-.html

[6]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/09/thanks_to_fracking_u_s_carbon_emissions_are_at_the_lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html

[7] http://www.oilandgasonline.com/doc/u-s-fracking-has-carbon-more-whole-world-s-wind-solar-0001

[8] http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2011/steep-increase-in-global-co2-emissions-despite-reductions-by-industrialised-countries

[9] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period-

[10] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10911942/Russia-in-secret-plot-against-fracking-Nato-chief-says.html

[11] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/India-invokes-right-to-grow-to-tell-rich-nations-of-its-stand-on-future-climate-change-negotiations/articleshow/36724848.cms

[12] http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpftv/?tubepress_page=2&tubepress_video=cR434ddtrMI

[13] http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/vahrenholt-2012-annual-gwpf-lecture.pdf

[14] http://www.lomborg.com/content/2013-03-germany-pays-billions-delay-global-warming-37-hours

[15] http://notrickszone.com

Temperature reduction outcomes from de-carbonisation

To quantify what might be achieved by any political action for de-carbonization by Western economies, the comparative tables below show the remaining effectiveness of each 100ppmv tranche up to 1000ppmv, with the total global warming in each of the five diminution assessments.  These estimates depend on the calculations set out in the following associated essay:

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-co2-on-temperature/

The table below shows the likely range of warming arising from these divergent (sceptical and IPCC) views, (without feedbacks, which are questionably either negative or positive: but probably not massively positive as assumed by CAGW alarmists), that would be averted with an increase of CO2 for the full increase from 400 ppmv  up to 1000 ppmv. Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 11.33.54 The results above for countries and country groups show a range for whichever scenario of only a matter of a few thousandths to a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade.

However it is extremely unlikely that the developing world is going to succumb to non-development of their economies on the grounds of reducing CO2 emissions. So it is very likely that the developing world’s CO2 emissions are going to escalate whatever is done by developed nations.

These figures show that whatever the developed world does in terms of decreasing CO2 emissions the outcome is likely to be absolutely immaterial.

The table below assumes that the amount of CO2 released by each of the world’s nations or nation is reduced universally by some 20%: this is a radical reduction level but just about conceivable. Screen Shot 2014-08-07 at 12.40.39

The extreme, economically destructive and immensely costly efforts by participating western nations to reduce temperature by de-carbonization should be seen in context:

  • the changing global temperature patterns, the current standstill and likely impending cooling.
  • the rapidly growing CO2 emissions from the bulk of the world’s most populous nations as they continue their development.
  • the diminishing impact of any extra CO2 emissions on any temperature increase.
  • normal daily temperature variations at any a single location range from 10°C to 20°C.
  • normal annual variations value can be as much as 40°C to 50°C.
  • that participating Europe as a whole only accounts for ~11% of world CO2 emissions.
  • that the UK itself is now only about ~1.5% of world CO2 emissions.

As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the minuscule temperature effects shown above arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions. Thus the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.

The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile[i].

Professor Judith Curry’s Congressional testimony 14/1/2014[ii]:

“Motivated by the precautionary principle to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales.”

Professor Richard Lindzen UK parliament committee testimony 28/1/2014 on IPCC AR5[iii]:

“Whatever the UK decides to do will have no impact on your climate, but will have a profound impact on your economy. (You are) Trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem by taking actions that you know will hurt your economy.”

and paraphrased “doing nothing for fifty years is a much better option than any active political measures to control climate.”

As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling[iv] over the last seventeen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling[v] rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent warming[vi].

[i] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fr/2013/11/lomborg-spain-wastes-hundreds-of.html

[ii] http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275

[iii] http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/28/uk-parliamentary-hearing-on-the-ipcc/

[iv] http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3436241/the-inescapable-apocalypse-has-been-seriously-underestimated.thtml

[v] http://www.iceagenow.com/Triple_Crown_of_global_cooling.htm

[vi] http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/

The diminishing effect of increasing CO2 concentrations on global temperature

Introduction

I hope that these notes follow the lead of Professor David Mackay in as much they attempt to quantify and thus question many of the aspects of the Green dogma and the assertions of the possibility of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change just using some simple mathematics.

Very sadly Professor Mackay died prematurely in April 2016.  In spite of the fact that he was a green supporter and was for a period the chief scientific advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, DECC.  He also agreed with a rational / radical de-carbonisation of the Western economies

But at same time he was devoutly rational preferring mathematics to Green religious conjecture.

Accordingly, one of his most recent quotes was that the attempt to try to power the UK economy with weather dependent Renewable Energy was as he said “an appalling delusion”.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/idea-of-renewables-powering-uk-is-an-appalling-delusion-david-mackay

And as he has said it only takes some trivial “back of the envelope” calculations to prove that it is so.  This and my other notes do some of those trivial “back of the envelope” calculations disproove points of Green dogma.

However there is one point where I would entirely disagree with Professor Mackay  i.e. that Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS, is an essential technology to be developed in order to avoid CO2 emissions.

I would rather characterise CCS as “an expensive way of throwing away comparatively small quantities of useful plant food”.

Summary

  • the Greenhouse effect is essential to all life on earth, without that warming effect of ~+33°C the planet would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.
  • the world needs its atmospheric CO2 for the survival and fertilisation of plant life: it thus supports all life on earth.
  • atmospheric CO2, whether Man-made or mostly naturally occurring, is not pollutant.
  • the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas rapidly diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration.
  • although several scientific sources assert that CO2 has no real effect on global temperature, these notes calculate the effects of CO2 as presented in data from climate activists: they find that the impact of rising CO2 concentrations on global warming is even at its greatest extent to be insignificant.
  • a concentration of atmospheric CO2 < 200 ppmv equivalent to ~77% of CO2’s Greenhouse effectiveness is essential to maintain plant life and thus life on earth.
  • at the current level of ~400 ppmv, only ~13% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas remains.
  • so little of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas now remains that there is no possibility of ever attaining the much feared +2°C temperature rise caused by Man-made CO emissions, that is thought to be so catastrophic by alarmists and sadly by convinced Western world politicians.
  • increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can only lead to very limited further warming and certainly not to any catastrophic and dangerous temperature increase.
  • a doubling of CO2 concentration from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv, (climate sensitivity), can only result in a temperature increase of ~0.37°C according to the likely  median case and the worst case can only result in less than +1.0 °C
  • mankind’s attempts to control global temperature by the limitation of CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels can only ever have marginal or immeasurable effects.
  • therefore all de-carbonisation efforts by mankind are misguided and irrelevant.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/20/greenpeace-co-founder-pens-treatise-on-the-positive-effects-of-co2-says-there-is-no-crisis/

  • As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last eighteen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent further warming.

The importance of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere

Photosynthetic plants originally evolved in an environment of atmospheric CO2 at many 1000’s ppmv.  In the horticultural business plant growth is routinely enhanced by adding levels of CO2 in their greenhouses to be three times or more than that of the external atmosphere.

Current CO2 concentrations at 400 ppmv are low when compared with the average atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 300 million or so years which ranged between 1000 ppmv and 1200 ppmv.

So at present levels the earth’s biosphere is still only marginally above a minimal CO2 level for plant and thus planetary survival and any further concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can only have a positive entirely beneficial effect on plant growth.

As at current levels the world is at a comparatively low level of CO2 and plant life is still close to CO2 starvation.  In order to absorb sufficient CO2 for their survival, plants have to have larger stomata in their leaves:  these larger stomata transpire more water vapour.  So higher CO2 concentrations reduce the amount of water that plants need for survival.

Recent publications have  now established that over the past few decades the earth’s vegetation has grown substantially by ~15% globally.  This is attributed simply to the higher levels of atmospheric CO2.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html

In the light of these well known facts, atmospheric CO2, whether Man-made or  naturally occurring, cannot be regarded in any way as pollutant.

Rather atmospheric CO2 should be regarded as the very stuff of life it is on planet Earth.

 

The diminishing effect of CO2 concentration on temperature

The temperature increasing capability of current levels of atmospheric CO2 is thought to be real enough but the effect is minor and very marginal.  Many climatologists and meteorologists consider the effect of atmospheric CO2 to be virtually insignificant amongst the other major causes of climate variation, (the sun, planetary mechanics, ocean circulations, etc.), whereas others, “Climate Alarmists”, assert that CO2 alone is the main driver of climate change and the control knob of global temperature.

These notes quantify the current and likely future Man-made CO2 temperature effects on climate, according to the publications accepted by Global Warming Alarmists.

The influence of CO2 concentration on temperature is known and is widely accepted to diminish progressively as its concentration increases.  This is a crucial fact.  This fact is not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

The physics of CO2’s effect on temperature is not linear, its potency  falls off logarithmically with increasing concentrations.

Both  Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics agree on this.  IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations.  This information is presented in the IPCC reports.  However it is well disguised from any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).

The logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates and Climate Alarmists.  It is nonetheless well understood within the climate science community.   

But the effect is not much discussed nor ever emphasised.

An illustration  of the CO2 diminution effect with increasing concentrations, can be imagined as if one was painting over a window with successive layers of white paint.  The first layer will still be translucent, subsequent layers will progressively reduce the translucency until the window is fully obscured and thereafter further paint layers can make no further difference to the fact that the window is already fully obscured.

Similarly extra concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have ever diminishing effects on temperature, until at about 1000 ppmv they become totally negligible.

Screen Shot 2016-05-20 at 17.36.03.png
The logarithmic diminution effect is the likely reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousand parts per million by volume, (ppmv).

 

The proportional consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations

Using the currently accepted estimates the following simplifying diagram shows the logarithmic diminution effect using tranches of 100 ppmv up to 1000 ppmv and the proportional significance of differing CO2 concentrations on the biosphere.

Screen Shot 2016-05-01 at 12.49.28.png

  • Up to ~200 ppmv, is the equivalent to about ~77% of the temperature increasing effectiveness of CO2.

This level of atmospheric CO2 concentration is absolutely essential to sustain photosynthesis in plants and thereby to maintain the viability of all life on earth.  The CO2 level can diminish significantly in glacial ice ages and as a result life on on earth has often been close to real extinction.

  • ~300 ppmv was an approximate agreed level prior to any industrialisation, this atmospheric CO2 made the continuing survival of the biosphere possible, but it is only causing a further 5.9% of the CO2 Greenhouse warming effect.
  • Following that a further 100 ppmv, (now accepted by the IPCC both a natural effect and to be only ~50% man-made), it adds ~4.2% of the CO2 effectiveness brings the current level ~400 ppmv.

CO2 concentration  at 400 ppmv is already committed and immutable.  So CO2 has already reached about ~87% of its potential warming effect in the atmosphere.  Adding Man-made or naturally derived CO2 in increasing amounts can only have the minor effects as shown below in 100 ppmv tranches.

Thereafter the following 100 ppmv tranches will give the following  percentage increase in CO2 effectiveness as a Greenhouse gas:

Screen Shot 2016-05-20 at 17.37.05.png

Up to 400 ppmv is committed and immutable, as shown shaded above.  At 400 ppmv only ~13% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas now remains even up to the level of  ~1000 ppmv.  And beyond that  ~1000 ppmv level higher concentrations can have virtually no further warming effect.

This means that a doubling the CO2 concentration, (Climate sensitivity), from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv can only add about 10% to the current effectiveness of CO2 as a heat retaining Greenhouse gas.

 

Alternate views of the significance of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas

Skeptical scientists and the IPCC publish alternate views of the reducing effect on temperature of the importance of CO2 concentration.  These alternates are proportionally equivalent but vary in the degree of warming attributable to increasing CO2 concentrations.

The IPCC publishes the following three views of the total effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas up to ~1200 ppmv.  In total they range in temperature from +6.5°C to +14.8°C and could give future additional warming between the current ~400 ppmv level and the 1000 ppmv However when the values between 400 ppmv and 1000 ppmv are scaled of the IPCC chart the range for level of in the range of +~0.49°C and +~0.85°C.

Screen Shot 2016-05-20 at 12.12.13.png

However other views have also been asserted both by skeptical scientists and CDIAC,

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre and Murry Salby recently asserted that CO2 only contributes ~2% too the overall Greenhouse effect.

“The vast majority of that [greenhouse] warming is contributed by water vapor. Together with cloud, it accounts for 98% of the greenhouse effect.”  

http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/13/salby-sees-little-co2-driving-mechanism-skeptical-view-of-co2-science-is-in-fact-textbook-science/#sthash.GhRhHoVk.dpbs

What all these different analyses show is the amount of future warming that might be attributed to additional atmospheric CO2 in excess of the current level of ~400 ppmv is going to be between marginal and non-existent.

Looking to the future in excess of the current 400 ppmv, wide variation exists between the different warming estimates up to 1000 ppmv.  So the range of the CO2 element of the +33°C GreenHouse effect ranges from ~2% to ~21%.

A proportional comparison between these estimates are set out below in the context of the overall ~+33°C total Greenhouse Effect.  The temperature increase figures shown here in orange are for the increase in CO2 concentration from 400 – 1000 ppmv.

Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 09.43.15.png

Five postulates are shown here, which have been provided by sceptic sources and the IPCC.  The graph shows in orange the remaining temperature effect of CO2 that could be affected by radical worldwide global de-carbonisation policies, maintaining CO2 levels at the current 400 ppmv.  The warming that might result by raising the CO2 level from 400 ppmv up to 1000 ppmv, according to each of these postulates.

The range of alternate postulates shows CO2 affecting in the range of ~2% – ~20%.  Of these a median value of ~10% is agreed between Lindzen, (as published by the IPCC) and other sceptic academics such as Plimer, Carter, Ball and Archibald.  Even lower values are quotes down to ~2% (Salby), whereas other IPCC quoted values give CO2 a significance of  up to ~21%.

In alarmist terms of course, a CO2 concentration reaching 1000 ppmv would be considered as beyond catastrophic even though at a maximum it might only give rise to a temperature increase of ~0.49°C according to the median case.

The concomitant effect of the higher levels of warming from atmospheric CO2 that have been postulated is that the proportion of the total ~33°C then attributable the water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere is displaced so as to be unrealistically even down to 79%.

It is simply not plausible that CO2, still a minor trace gas in the atmosphere, currently at the level of ~400 ppmv, or 0.04%, achieves such radical control of Global temperature, when compared to the substantial and powerful Greenhouse Effect of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere?

There are the clearly divergent views of the amount of warming that can result from additional CO2 in future.  But even in a worst case scenario of maximum CO2 effectiveness, whatever change that may happen can now only ever have a marginal future effect on global temperature and it certainly cannot lead to a catastrophic and dangerous temperature increase.

Whatever political efforts are made to de-carbonize economies or to reduce Man-made CO2 emissions, (and to be effective at temperature control those efforts would have to be universal and worldwide), those efforts can only now affect at most ~13% of the future warming potential of CO2 even up to the unthinkably high level of 1000 ppmv.

To quantify directly what might be achieved, the comparative table below show the remaining effectiveness of each 100 ppmv tranche up to 1000 ppmv, with the total global warming in each of the five logarithmic diminution assessments.  The table shows the likely range of warming arising from these divergent (Skeptical and IPCC views), that would be averted with an increase of CO2 for the full increase from 400 ppmv  up to 1000 ppmv.  In addition in pink the table shows the temperature effect of doubling CO2 concentration to 800 ppmv, (assessed Climate sensitivity, (shown in pink)).

Screen Shot 2016-05-15 at 20.47.28.png

These calculations discount any feedbacks.  Alarmist climate modellers assume significant positive feedbacks caused by a slight increase in temperatures resulting in greater water evaporation that then increase the postulated amount of water vapour in the atmosphere so as to exaggerate the amount of warming that might arise from increased Man-made or Natural CO2 increases.

However such temperature feedbacks are questionable and could well be either negative or positive.  In any event they are probably not massively positive as assumed and relied on by Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists.

As shown below, the recent past, (last ~20 Years), shows a significant divergence between models and observed reality, with a marked lack of warming compared with averaged model results.  Over this 20 year period Man-made CO2 emissions, that have escalated by some ~+60% since 1996 and atmospheric CO2 once concentration has risen by ~+10%, (360 ppmv – 400 ppmv).

Screen Shot 2016-05-12 at 14.46.40.png

In the past Global Warming advocates have always asserted that all increases in the concentration of CO2 are solely Man-made.  However the biosphere and long term slightly warming oceans will also outgas CO2 over the long term, century by century.  And the recent IPCC report now asserts that only ~50% of the current increase in CO2 is Man-made.  The historic record shows that CO2 concentrations lag behind any temperature increase, rather than being a consequence of it.  The delay period is about 800 years.

Importantly as the future temperature effect of increasing CO2 emissions can only be so minor, there is no possibility of ever attaining the much vaunted political danger zone target of +2.0°C by the control of mankind’s CO2 emissions 

De-carbonisation Outcomes

It is extremely unlikely that the Developing world is going to succumb to the restriction and non-development of their economies on the grounds of reducing CO2 emissions.

So the Developing world’s CO2 emissions will continue to escalate whatever is done by Developed nations.  These figures show that whatever the Developed world does in terms of decreasing CO2 emissions the outcome is likely to be absolutely immaterial, both for the increase of CO2 for the next 100 ppmv and even for doubling the current CO2 level up to 800 ppmv.

These results for countries and country groups show a range for whichever scenario of only a matter of a few thousandths to a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fr/2013/11/lomborg-spain-wastes-hundreds-of.html

The table below is based on BP data on CO2 emissions by country.

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

and the aggregation of that data into nation groups.

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2015/

It assumes that the amount of CO2 released by each of the world’s nations or region is eliminated and this table shows the likely warming effects that might be averted both from the point of view of the next 100 ppmv  and then as if the the current CO2 level is doubled to ~800 ppmv.
Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 14.58.50.png

The impact of any action taken by Man-kind to try to control climate by CO2 reduction can only have such minimal effect as to be unnoticeable within the inevitable noise in the climate system and is thus absolutely irrelevant.

The extreme, economically destructive and immensely costly efforts by participating Western nations to reduce temperature by their own de-carbonization should be seen in context:

  • the changing global temperature patterns, the current 18 year+ standstill and likely impending cooling.
  • the rapidly growing CO2 emissions from the bulk of the world’s most populous nations as they continue their development.
  • that Europe as a whole now only accounts for ~10% of world CO2 emissions and is likely to drop to ~7% by 2030.
  • that the UK itself is now only about ~1.3% of world CO2 emissions and is likely to drop to ~0.9% by 2030.
  • the minimal temperature reduction that might be achieved by de-carbonistion actions in the Developed world
  • the diminishing impact of any extra CO2 emissions on any temperature increase.
  • normal daily temperature variations at any a single location range from 10°C to 20°C.normal annual variations value can be as much as 40°C to 50°C.

As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, so the minuscule temperature effects shown here would only arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating Developed nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions.

Thus the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.

Conclusions

It is likely that any current global warming, if it is now continuing at all and increasing CO2 is:

  • largely a natural process
  • within normal limits
  • definitely  beneficial.

It could be not be significantly influenced by any remedial de-carbonisation action, however drastic, taken by mankind.

And it is impossible that the actions of mankind could ever achieve anything like as much as +2°C by arising from its CO2 emissions

In a rational, non-political, world that prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy.  If that were so:

  • all concern over CO2 as a man-made “pollutant” can be entirely discounted.
  • it is not essential to disrupt the economies of the Western world to no purpose.
  • the commitment of costs to the Europe so far over a 60 year period is estimated to be of the order of €3.1 trillion 

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/lifetime-costs-for-renewable-energy-in-europe/

  • this does not include the diversion of employment and industries to other nations, where concern over Global Warming is not a priority.
  • this is deliberate economic self-harm that can be avoided, if the concept of Man-made global warming from CO2 emissions is refuted.  Those simple calculations are set out here.
  • these vast resources could be spent for much more worthwhile endeavours.
  • were warming happening, naturally or enhanced by  mankind, it would provide a more benign, productive and supportive climate for the biosphere and mankind.
  • any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
  • if warming is occurring at all, a warmer climate would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development, especially so for the third world.
  • the Nations committed to take action on Green thinking by decarbonisation, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature.  
  • it is clear that all effectively minor but extremely expensive attempts the by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile.

Professor Judith Curry’s Congressional testimony 14/1/2014.

Motivated by the precautionary principle to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales.”

Professor Richard Lindzen UK parliament committee testimony 28/1/2014 on IPCC AR5.

Whatever the UK decides to do will have no impact on your climate, but will have a profound impact on your economy. (You are) Trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem by taking actions that you know will hurt your economy.” 

These quotes could be paraphrased as:

“doing nothing for fifty years is a much better option than any active political measures attempting to control climate.”

As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling

http://www.iceagenow.com/Triple_Crown_of_global_cooling.htm

 over the last eighteen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, previously beneficial or now non-existent warming.

http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/