Hi Richard! I share your dire forecast for accelerating global temp increases, surface air as well as surface sea temps. However, I hope that you are considering the enormous amount of heat energy being sequestered as latent heat energy in melting ice: 1.2 trillion tons of global melting ice worldwide, so 3.3 billion tons daily, where one pound of ice absorbs 144 BTUs of heat energy as it melts. 6,000 billion tons of Greenland ice have melted over the 22 yrs., 2002-2024. 1 trillion tons of water vapor are evaporating from the earth's surface waters DAILY and ultimately carry excess heat energy into outer space. You cite the heat energy being stored in the 321 million cubic miles of oceans, and the total amounts to 280 ZJ. We are continuing to burn 8.8 billion tons of coal and 100 million barrels of oil DAILY but both are increasing. Many thanks for your work and fine article. HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Understanding the latent heat of fusion of ice to liquid water and what that means in the arctic context once the ice is gone is... hard to describe with words.
I’ve played over 100K hours of countless games. I think Go might be the best, tho I only did a couple hundred hours of it, reaching 2-3 kyu (us amateur rating).
Please excuse a general point which arises due the irrational pushback of deniers here.
The "Net Zero by 2050" agenda, while popular in policy circles, misses the mark because it focuses too much on technology and emissions reductions, without addressing the root causes of climate change. Simply relying on technologies like carbon capture (impossible) or renewable energy (insufficiently capable, mega resource energy intensive) won’t fix the deeper systemic issues: overconsumption, industrial exploitation, excess human populations, and the wealth-driven nature of global capitalism.
Without addressing these underlying problems, such as the excessive industrialization and consumerism that drive carbon emissions-in truth drive massive unsustainable energy demand for no good societal communal purpose, - the push for Net Zero becomes a false solution. We need to move beyond the narrow focus on emissions and look at how we can reduce our overall environmental footprint, especially by addressing the political systems that perpetuate the exploitation of resources - now including RE provision itself backed in by huge Govt compensation - for profit.
The problem is not just about energy or emissions—it's about the political and economic and cultural structures that sustain unsustainable growth and wealth concentration. Large corporations with vested interests in fossil fuels have too much influence over climate policy, and until we challenge that, no amount of emissions cuts will be enough! We need a total political reformation—one that democratizes the economy, reduces consumption, and ensures that the wealthiest, the psychopaths who currently control the future of this planet, do not.
In short, achieving true sustainability requires addressing both the political corruption and the economic systems that continue to fuel environmental degradation. Without this broader shift, the "Net Zero by 2050" goal is just a charade, detached from reality.
This is nice numbers work.. but long-term trends are the only valid approach with this much short period weather variability that is lower than 2 sigma. (high variance)
And trying to match things to models that have shown significant variance to reality may not be able to convince many that what we are looking at is no more than an ongoing 300 year warming period. This has had a constant rate even though CO2 the so-called temperature driver has only increased at a higher rate in the last 50 years.
So, what this shows is natural warming as we come out of a cyclical ice age.
So, it's warming, but it's not anthropogenic, is that what you're saying?
So, how hot will it get in your models, and what will be the effects on agriculture, crop yields, fisheries, frequency of extreme weather events, habitability of key population zones, etc?
Because I don't really care WHY it's warming because I think the "avoiding climate change" ship has sailed even under the anthropogenic model, I just care if the planet's climate is moving outside of the habitable range to sustain the current population and what happens if that population collapses.
I don’t see any collapse for the reason of Climate but I see plenty of other silly things we can do to create our own downfall ..we don’t need any help from the planet to do that.
But if we look at history and long term trends its clear the planet has its own agenda and we are looking at 0.5C per 100 years and that this has happened 4 times before in the last 10,000 years with plenty of data to support this.. and we did better with heat than cold and we can do even better with the adaptive power of fossil fuels and our new technologies such a nuclear power.
Although this wont help the press sell its media we statistically have no past and current issues due to climate change with environmental metrics such as floods, fires, droughts, adverse weather, sea level rise etc etc.. they are all trending less severe or very adaptable.
More CO2 is actually greening the planet and improving the food supply.
I do agree we need to work harder at sustainability in economic, social, and environmental balances, and we have some plans that can work if we stop the NetZero nonsense.
Nigel’s claim about “0.5°C per 100 years” fails to account for the acceleration of warming observed over the past century. Long-term climate data clearly shows that the warming rate since the mid-20th century has increased dramatically, correlating strongly with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. For example:
Pre-industrial warming rates averaged about 0.1°C per century.
Since 1970, the rate of warming has surged to approximately 0.2°C per decade, as documented by NASA, NOAA, and IPCC reports.
Ignoring this acceleration undermines the argument that the current warming is purely “natural.”
Fact check: The "natural warming" narrative misrepresents historical data. While small fluctuations occurred due to orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) and volcanic activity, today’s changes are far outside these natural variations.
2. Fallacy of Equivocation: Natural vs. Anthropogenic Warming
Claiming that “warming is natural because it has happened before” conflates entirely different phenomena. Previous warming episodes:
Occurred over thousands of years, allowing ecosystems to adapt.
Had identifiable natural causes (e.g., solar activity, volcanic eruptions).
Did not involve rapid, simultaneous CO2 increases like today’s. Current atmospheric CO2 levels (420 ppm) are unprecedented in at least 800,000 years.
Counterpoint: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been the dominant forcing factor in recent decades, as proven by isotope studies and radiative forcing analyses.
3. Ignoring Consequences of Warming
Nigel dismisses concerns about extreme weather and sea level rise. However, peer-reviewed studies indicate:
Sea level rise has accelerated from 1.7 mm/year (20th century average) to over 3.7 mm/year in the past few decades.
The frequency of extreme weather events (e.g., heatwaves, hurricanes, wildfires) has increased significantly, as supported by IPCC AR6 reports.
Economic costs of climate impacts have skyrocketed, with damages from extreme events surpassing $300 billion globally in 2022 alone (World Meteorological Organization).
Suggesting that these trends are "statistically insignificant" contradicts overwhelming scientific consensus.
4. Myth of CO2 as a "Plant Fertilizer"
While elevated CO2 can enhance photosynthesis under ideal conditions, its benefits are limited and often outweighed by:
Increased heat stress on crops.
Shifts in precipitation patterns leading to droughts or floods.
Declining nutrient density in plants grown under high CO2 conditions.
Counterpoint: Real-world studies (e.g., FACE experiments) show that CO2’s “greening effect” is not the panacea climate deniers claim.
5. “Warmer is Better” Is Misleading and Dangerous
The argument that humans “did better with heat” ignores:
The destabilizing effects of rapid climate shifts on modern infrastructure, agriculture, and global supply chains.
Population centers in low-lying coastal areas that are at risk of inundation (e.g., Bangladesh, Florida).
Increased vector-borne diseases (e.g., malaria) in warmer climates.
Historical examples of adaptation to warming were localized and gradual, unlike today’s global and rapid changes.
6. Logical Fallacies and Rhetorical Tricks
False Balance: Presenting fringe sources like the CO2 Coalition as equivalent to IPCC-reviewed science is misleading. The CO2 Coalition is a well-documented climate disinformation group funded by fossil fuel interests.
Appeal to Nature: Claiming that “nature has its own agenda” ignores humanity’s unprecedented role in disrupting the natural balance.
Red Herring: Diversion to “Net Zero nonsense” avoids addressing the actual science of anthropogenic climate change.
7. Conclusion
Nigel’s arguments rely on cherry-picked data, disinformation, and rhetorical tricks rather than credible evidence. For readers interested in understanding the reality of climate change:
Consult peer-reviewed sources such as IPCC reports and NOAA/NASA data.
Avoid misinformation from groups like the CO2 Coalition, whose agenda is driven by vested interests, not science.
Recognize that adaptation is vital, but mitigation remains essential to prevent catastrophic impacts.
Wow… I suggest that its the reverse and the cherry picking is from the need for pressured scientists to find short range data to support the climate emergency narrative to maintain funding in a politically subjugated climate industrial complex.
All the data used by CO2 Coalition is from the peer reviewed sources but not subjected to the narrative treatment.
A review of this fact pollution was undertaken by the CLINTEL organization and has been documented for government legal council.
I have shown the trend lines and in fact the temperature growth rate was higher in the 1700s than now, and in the last 10,000 years it was warmer than now 4 times.
There is no causation that CO2 drives temperature in any records…. it’s the other way around and temperature has always driven CO2.
No question we have added CO2 but its still at the lowest average point of concentration for nearly 50 million years… in fact we have a CO2 deficit on this planet and its been good news for biodiversity to get more and its not a climate emergency.
Plenty of theories that CO2 as a GHG is already saturated and adds nothing to the thermodynamics of the climate system with solar/gamma radiation impact on clouds being far more relevant.
Re-read the IPCC and refer to the excellent book Unsettled by Koonin as he only quotes from the IPCC and his review is clear that if weather regional variations are not used to distort then on all metrics we do not have any significant issues with ecological factors such as floods droughts fires and adverse weather not falling outside the weather variability precedent sigma levels.. In fact many metrics have reduced in severity… such as land falling tornados and hurricanes.
The notion that we cannot adapt to a sea level rise of a foot a century should be addressed to the Dutch that have a technology for that as long as we keep fossil fuels to provide the mechanical muscle as W&S wont have the energy to support that.
Yes… the total cost to the economy of so called climate change (Well Weather) has increased a bit but has reduced significantly when the population growth and economic growth and increased value is factored in. Also, deaths due to climate and weather has been reduced by 95% since the 1900s
We have the data on all this and the statement in the IPCC scientific reports (not the political sections) states that no evidence supports adverse metrics in this regard. Unless you use the model predictions….. that are not fit for purpose.
I suggest that based on the clear facts that NetZero mitigation will be a solution far worse than the alleged problem, that it must be the responsibility of the climate alarmists to convince new government on the facts of a climate emergency… not us climate realists to convince you that we don’t have one.
But the activists have far less historical arguments and a weak predictive capability. This will not play well with new western governments that just wont buy in… and good luck with that based on the facts apparent.
The activists worst enemy is the Media that continues to lie to scare the population and they are now on to it, and will prioritize prosperity first and are now voting in governments that just wont want to listen.
Forget mitigation and lets focus on focused adaption if needed...
No argument we will have many sustainability challenges into the future due to scarcity .. such as fresh water and minerals and more direct forms of pollution…... but that’s a different subject.
Nigel, while you make some broad undefined claims, they largely rely on selective (and mainly incorrect) interpretations of data and assumptions that don't hold up to the broader scientific consensus--being based on real Data, grounded in reality from geology to paleoclimates to modern day weather and climate physics knowledge aka REAL FACTS--not fantasy stories.
CO2 and Temperature Relationship: You argue that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around, but this is a misinterpretation of the actual scientific evidence available today--and about today! Over short timescales, such as the past century, it's clear that human emissions have significantly increased atmospheric CO2 levels, which then enhance the greenhouse effect and contribute to warming. The historical data from ice cores clearly shows that while CO2 and temperature have fluctuated together IN THE PAST FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, human activities ARE NOW WITHOUT ANY DOUBT AT ALL the primary driver of the CURRENT RATE of WARMING, which is much faster than any natural fluctuations in the past.
That you insist on "living in the past" is not an argument for the rest of us 8 billion to imagine life is not different than it was when the dinosaurs lived. Thankfully most people and especially the SCIENTISTS are not that stupid to believe in these fantasy stories like you are promoting here.
CO2 Concentration: While it’s true that CO2 concentrations are still lower than in some distant geological periods, that fact alone doesn’t mean that increased CO2 has no impact on the climate. The Earth’s climate system is incredibly complex, and it’s NOT just about CO2 LEVELS ALONE.
Honest brokers who have informed themselves fully about the climate science, astronomical, and paleo facts KNOW THIS ALREADY. That you do not highlights your gross incompetence to comment on the topic at all--at any level.
The current rapid warming is out of sync with natural climate variability, and the scale of change driven by human activities, including deforestation, agriculture, and fossil fuel consumption, is unprecedented. HAS NEVER HAPPENED LIKE THIS EVER BEFORE in Earth's existence--NEVER!
That you do not know this, cannot accept this proves you incapacity to understand anything about today's AGW and catastrophic climate change upon us now today. You are the typical example of an OSTRICH with it's head buried underground--completely ignorant of reality.
Skepticism of IPCC and Models: You cite the book Unsettled and claim that it undermines climate science, but it’s important to note that the scientific consensus on climate change is built on decades of peer-reviewed research. And NOT on gimmicks or logical fallacies or deceitful sophistry that might easily convince the gullible the uneducated and ignorant not very bright people such as yourself.
The IPCC’s reports represent a vast body of work from experts around the world, and while models may not be perfect--they do not need to be-- they are continually refined to improve accuracy. A pity they are so slow and, in some regards, lax--and more the pity so many of them are egotistical elitists who live their life in ivory towers. Dismissing them entirely without offering a comprehensive alternative is a simplification.
It is also a pity that so many inputted assumptions in the climate models are only GUESSTIMATES by climate scientist modelers and not in fact based on hard data. This is where their 2023-2024 understanding has been found seriously underwhelming--to me and many others like Richard.
The errors in Model assumptions are NEVER reported openly by the GCM scientists. It is a serious ethical and technical shortcoming of the models--- eg albedo, aerosols, land and ocean sinks, cloud behavior, and much more. But NONE of these shortcomings undermine the proven consensus physics behind AGW and climate changes today. They only make a difference on the margins and in short term AND long-term predictions of what might happen and by when.
Weather Events and Impact: You claim that metrics like floods, droughts, and fires are not outside historical variations, but this overlooks the growing body of evidence that shows climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events--not only extreme but UNPRECEDENTED events and the power involved in them. Remember what Unprecedented means Nigel--Has Never Happened Before--AND not caused by the same drivers as today
For example, we are seeing more intense heatwaves, longer droughts, and more powerful storms, all of which have significant social, economic, and ecological impacts. The LA firestorms in LA now are mirroring what happened in Australia in the July 2019- Nov 2020 fire disasters.
The idea that the impacts of climate change are either negligible or not accelerating is unsupported by the majority of scientific studies on the matter. Such thinking is delusional at face value.
Sea-Level Rise and Adaptation: While you mention the Dutch expertise in flood management, this doesn't address the underlying issue that sea level rise is happening faster than previously predicted, and many coastal cities around the world are unprepared for the long-term impacts. Adaptation is important, but it won’t prevent the widespread disruptions that will come from escalating sea levels, heatwaves, and extreme weather events.
These deadly Catastrophic and Civilization ending impacts have been with us for well over a decade globally now. Widespread famine is guaranteed in the short term and that will only increase in intensity and across multiple regions of the world simultaneously. The death toll will easily be in the billions by around 2040 and beyond.
This is unstoppable and unavoidable already. Why because nothing is being done to stop it or prepare for it. The adoption of RE will do nothing to abate global warming trajectory now. There will be no Carbon and Capture technology programs capable to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. So, you can add hundreds of millions of deaths from years long droughts and across many months at a time excessive wet-bulb temperature heatwaves as well.
Economic Growth vs. Climate Risk: Your argument that economic growth and technological advances will mitigate climate impacts ignores the externalities of environmental degradation, like the loss of biodiversity, water scarcity, and the economic costs of climate-related disasters. Focusing on growth while ignoring the environmental costs is a shortsighted strategy that risks long-term instability.
Never ending economic growth and growth of other key parameters like population and consumption and resource use and the global ecological destruction are the drivers of this catastrophe--not the solution to it. Only fools preach economic growth as the savior of human civilization--instead of its rapidly approaching death knell.
Ultimately, your position relies heavily on a misinterpretation of the evidence and a dismissal of the scientific consensus on climate change. Denial of Reality and the Facts:101.
The climate emergency is not just about the environment—it’s about human survival, geopolitical stability, and the future of ALL advanced mammalian life on Earth.
The problem with your pathetic illogical argument is that it overlooks the profound impacts climate change will have on the NATURAL GEOLOGICAL GEOGRAPHIC & CLIMATE SYSTEMS we depend on for our very existence—everything from food and water security to migration patterns to resource depletion and public health. Dismissing these challenges and pretending that we can continue "business as usual" is a dangerous path to follow.
Your approach is illegitimate; your illogical thinking, the false and fake ideas of others which you rely upon are the manifestation of human idiocy at its worst.
What does "the adaptive power of fossil fuels" mean?
They are needed to fuel the trucks and excavators to adapt our infrastructure and ensure we have the energy density to run our industries to provide the adaptive solutions.. All future electricity generation and can nuclearized. Also, we need Fossil fuels for plastics and other life saving products…. We won’t run out… and the extraction methods will keep the cost down.
Agreed we need to burn less by reducing globalized manufacturing and apply the circular economy and reduce waste of a throw away society.. plenty of sustainability goals but we wont fail to flourish…. We way kill each other but that’s a different conversation.
And aren't fossil fuels running out, or at least the EROI is declining, which will make them more expensive to extract and consume?
NO!... we just learn to use less and replace with Nuclear etc.
What happens to the economy and the people in it when fossil fuel costs double or rise 10x?... wont happen.. we have plenty of coal!!!!! Learn to burn it clean.
I believe there are many serious shortfalls and delusions in the overall responses to climate change by the UNFCCC Paris agreement and all governments. It's lies on lies to me. It is simplistic beyond imagination that fossil fuels can be simply replaced by RE alternatives. Whereas a complete reconfiguration of economic norms, government and civilization is required. eg Net Zero by 2050is a fallacy that must be eradicated from people's imaginations. The UNFCC and the IPCC and the climate modelling all is dysfunctional and myopic--they are all failing. This is my opinion after decades of tracking climate AGW developments closely.
That being said NIGEL and his delusional ilk still has even more serious problems to face:
Response to Nigel Southway
1. The Misconception of “Adaptive Power” of Fossil Fuels
Nigel argues that fossil fuels are necessary to "fuel trucks and excavators" for infrastructure adaptation. While it’s true that fossil fuels currently power much of our industry, the argument ignores the long-term unsustainability of fossil fuel reliance:
Energy Density vs. Sustainability: Fossil fuels have high energy density, but that doesn’t mean they’re a sustainable long-term solution. Their environmental and economic costs are spiraling, with climate change, pollution, and health risks increasing alongside their use.
Renewable Alternatives: While fossil fuels power current infrastructure, the future must rely on renewables (solar, wind, geothermal) for electricity generation and energy storage. These sources provide a far more sustainable long-term energy foundation with decreasing costs and increasing efficiency over time.
Counterpoint: Renewable energy technologies, like solar panels and wind turbines, can provide the energy density needed for industrial processes without the environmental destruction caused by fossil fuels.
2. “We Won’t Run Out of Fossil Fuels” – A Simplistic View
Nigel’s claim that “we won’t run out” is technically true in the short term, but it overlooks key issues:
Declining EROI (Energy Return on Investment): As easily accessible fossil fuel reserves are depleted, extraction becomes more energy-intensive and costly. Shale oil, deepwater drilling, and oil sands are prime examples of where the cost of extraction has risen sharply. According to multiple studies, EROI for conventional oil has declined significantly in the past few decades.
Climate Limits: Even if fossil fuels do not run out, the more pressing issue is that we cannot afford to burn all the remaining reserves without exceeding the carbon budget that would avoid catastrophic climate impacts. This is why the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the IPCC emphasize the need to limit fossil fuel use for climate stabilization.
Counterpoint: The assumption that extraction costs won’t increase is unrealistic in the context of depleting reserves and the rising environmental costs of extraction. Transitioning to renewable and nuclear energy is not only necessary for climate stability, but also to ensure energy security in the long run.
3. “We Can Just Learn to Use Less” – Ignoring the Transition
The claim that we can “learn to use less” and replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy fails to consider the scale and urgency of the energy transition:
Energy Demand: Global energy demand continues to rise due to population growth and increasing industrialization, particularly in developing nations. While energy efficiency improvements and conservation are important, they alone won’t be sufficient to meet future energy needs while also reducing emissions.
Nuclear Energy Challenges: Nuclear energy is often proposed as a “solution,” but it faces significant barriers:
Cost and construction time: New nuclear plants take decades to build and are extremely costly. The Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation (2019) emphasized that nuclear expansion is not a short-term solution.
Waste disposal: Long-term storage of nuclear waste remains an unsolved problem, with toxic waste remaining hazardous for thousands of years.
Safety: Despite advances in reactor technology, nuclear energy still faces the risk of catastrophic accidents, as seen in Fukushima and Chernobyl.
Counterpoint: A transition to nuclear power is not a quick or scalable solution on its own. A diversified approach, including renewables, storage technologies, and energy efficiency, is crucial for meeting global energy needs while reducing carbon emissions.
4. The “Coal Will Save Us” Fallacy
Nigel’s dismissal of fossil fuel costs rising by claiming “we have plenty of coal” ignores several factors:
Coal is becoming economically unviable: The cost of coal is rising, and many countries are moving away from it due to its environmental impact. In fact, global coal demand has stagnated in recent years as countries shift towards cleaner sources of energy.
Health and environmental impacts: Coal is the most polluting fossil fuel, contributing significantly to air pollution, health problems, and environmental degradation. Countries like the UK and Germany are phasing out coal-fired power plants due to these impacts.
Counterpoint: Continuing to rely on coal, especially when cleaner alternatives exist, is economically and socially unsustainable. Countries around the world are increasingly recognizing the need to transition away from coal to protect both public health and the environment.
5. Circular Economy and Sustainability – Real Solutions, Not “Burning Clean”
While Nigel advocates for a circular economy and reduced globalized manufacturing, these are important steps but not a substitute for urgent climate action. Sustainable practices must complement a full transition to renewable energy, not be used as a way to avoid addressing fossil fuel dependence.
Circular economy: Reducing waste, reusing resources, and recycling are essential, but they cannot fully replace the need to decarbonize the energy and manufacturing sectors.
Net Zero Goals: While he dismisses net zero as “nonsense,” the reality is that Net Zero emissions by 2050 is a scientifically backed and necessary target if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Countries like the EU and the US have committed to this, recognizing the need to decarbonize all sectors of the economy.
Counterpoint: A circular economy can reduce waste, but it must be paired with systemic changes in energy production and consumption, with renewables as a central focus.
Conclusion
Nigel’s response oversimplifies the challenges we face and ignores the real science and economics of fossil fuel reliance. While he correctly identifies the need for energy and infrastructure adaptation, his reliance on fossil fuels and dismissal of renewable energy solutions is both outdated and dangerous. The energy transition is not only about addressing climate change but also about ensuring energy security, economic stability, and public health in the face of inevitable environmental constraints.
Gandalf… I am enjoying the discussion, and we may be providing good perspective to others so far….
I guess we agree on the mistakes of the IPCC outlook and that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
And we probably would agree on a future sustainability model.
Lets focus on the huge disagreement we will have on energy plans..
I am a realist and let’s start at the rest and then move to the west
For some of the emerging nations in the world its still wood burning with huge health issues…. A step up is moving to coal that they wont run out of for a long time. And I don’t think your facts on costs are correct.. Its viable without subsides on other more exotic solutions.. Yes, it’s a polluting source of energy but it could be cleaned up and if alternatives are not yet available and capital for other sources is difficult then it’s a good way to go for quite some time to come...holding them back from emerging by insisting they don’t follow this route is a crime.
Natural Gas is better but its not always available in a local economy. But it fits across both industrial and domestic use very well and is affordable when not distorted by subsidies etc.
Nuclear for electricity is the king once we focus on it and get the engineering economies of scale and next generation technologies working for it.
So for those that can do it Nuclear and natural gas is where most realistic western economies are heading. This will support industrial power needs in a reliable clean and high energy density demand. We wont run out of nuclear fuels and it’s the only energy source where the pollutant does not exist into atmosphere.
Now the next up is green hydrogen to support localized industry and reduce the pull on maybe depleted natural gas..
Green hydrogen will be produced in full on 24/7/52 nuclear plants that will support the demand load and make green hydrogen from water when local demand drops so they are always at full load.
Plenty of large scale mobile applications for nuclear being reviewed for rail ships etc.
And GH and its spin offs may work out for smaller mobile applications to substitute our Petroleum demand and other oil based FFs to avoid burning them.
FFs will always be needed not to burn but to support materials for manufacturing all kinds of products from autos to medical products. Life without fossil fuel based products will be a hell.
Now we come to W&S and EVs...
Sorry… but the whole supply chain does not make any sense … its not sustainable.
The pollution both at the start and at the end of the life of these products will be horrendous and far worse than coal in some respects.
Plenty of issues with scaling up such a supply chain and then we still end up with a low reliability solution compared to the others.
There is reason we went away from sailing ships and clothes lines and went with steam and washer/dryers.
It’s called far better reliability … no sun at night and sometimes no wind????
Would you employ someone that only works when they feel like it and another that also only works when they feel like it and will never work on the night shift?
There is a reason Germany is screwed up on its energy price and system compared to France and North America and we In NA better not go there.. The UK is also currently moving toward the W&S clown show.
I will leave you with a few videos to digest and then tell me if you still disagree.
Net Zero emissions by 2050 is a joke of course, but the essential end is an imperative. The way the mainstream scientists IPCC have designed this and other ideas is what is flawed. Global deindustrialization, massive reductions in consumption and extreme constraints on wealth accumulation and wasteful spending consumption are essential future actions needed.
Hi Richard! I share your dire forecast for accelerating global temp increases, surface air as well as surface sea temps. However, I hope that you are considering the enormous amount of heat energy being sequestered as latent heat energy in melting ice: 1.2 trillion tons of global melting ice worldwide, so 3.3 billion tons daily, where one pound of ice absorbs 144 BTUs of heat energy as it melts. 6,000 billion tons of Greenland ice have melted over the 22 yrs., 2002-2024. 1 trillion tons of water vapor are evaporating from the earth's surface waters DAILY and ultimately carry excess heat energy into outer space. You cite the heat energy being stored in the 321 million cubic miles of oceans, and the total amounts to 280 ZJ. We are continuing to burn 8.8 billion tons of coal and 100 million barrels of oil DAILY but both are increasing. Many thanks for your work and fine article. HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Understanding the latent heat of fusion of ice to liquid water and what that means in the arctic context once the ice is gone is... hard to describe with words.
Thanks once again for your insight and excellent writing standard and style.
I find myself hoping aliens will intervene.
What was the last move?
I’ve played over 100K hours of countless games. I think Go might be the best, tho I only did a couple hundred hours of it, reaching 2-3 kyu (us amateur rating).
Problem is, it deserves hours of daily study.
Please excuse a general point which arises due the irrational pushback of deniers here.
The "Net Zero by 2050" agenda, while popular in policy circles, misses the mark because it focuses too much on technology and emissions reductions, without addressing the root causes of climate change. Simply relying on technologies like carbon capture (impossible) or renewable energy (insufficiently capable, mega resource energy intensive) won’t fix the deeper systemic issues: overconsumption, industrial exploitation, excess human populations, and the wealth-driven nature of global capitalism.
Without addressing these underlying problems, such as the excessive industrialization and consumerism that drive carbon emissions-in truth drive massive unsustainable energy demand for no good societal communal purpose, - the push for Net Zero becomes a false solution. We need to move beyond the narrow focus on emissions and look at how we can reduce our overall environmental footprint, especially by addressing the political systems that perpetuate the exploitation of resources - now including RE provision itself backed in by huge Govt compensation - for profit.
The problem is not just about energy or emissions—it's about the political and economic and cultural structures that sustain unsustainable growth and wealth concentration. Large corporations with vested interests in fossil fuels have too much influence over climate policy, and until we challenge that, no amount of emissions cuts will be enough! We need a total political reformation—one that democratizes the economy, reduces consumption, and ensures that the wealthiest, the psychopaths who currently control the future of this planet, do not.
In short, achieving true sustainability requires addressing both the political corruption and the economic systems that continue to fuel environmental degradation. Without this broader shift, the "Net Zero by 2050" goal is just a charade, detached from reality.
A first-rate review of the critical info Richard.
I created a prose summary of your information Richard intended for the less well-informed general public.
The Climate Crisis: A Stark Wake-Up Call in 2025
https://substack.com/home/post/p-154649911
Plus, fwiw - Misleading Climate Arguments: A Call for Reality-Based Science
Reply to Nigel Southway--Take Back Manufacturing
Gandalf Sage Jan 12, 2025
My Reply to @ https://richardcrim.substack.com/p/short-take-05/comment/85711813
LINK - https://substack.com/home/post/p-154654121
Readers can feel free to use any of my text if it helps address issues you are up against. Best regards to everyone who support Richard here.
This is nice numbers work.. but long-term trends are the only valid approach with this much short period weather variability that is lower than 2 sigma. (high variance)
And trying to match things to models that have shown significant variance to reality may not be able to convince many that what we are looking at is no more than an ongoing 300 year warming period. This has had a constant rate even though CO2 the so-called temperature driver has only increased at a higher rate in the last 50 years.
So, what this shows is natural warming as we come out of a cyclical ice age.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/naturally-driven-warming-began-more-than-300-years-ago/
So, it's warming, but it's not anthropogenic, is that what you're saying?
So, how hot will it get in your models, and what will be the effects on agriculture, crop yields, fisheries, frequency of extreme weather events, habitability of key population zones, etc?
Because I don't really care WHY it's warming because I think the "avoiding climate change" ship has sailed even under the anthropogenic model, I just care if the planet's climate is moving outside of the habitable range to sustain the current population and what happens if that population collapses.
I don’t see any collapse for the reason of Climate but I see plenty of other silly things we can do to create our own downfall ..we don’t need any help from the planet to do that.
But if we look at history and long term trends its clear the planet has its own agenda and we are looking at 0.5C per 100 years and that this has happened 4 times before in the last 10,000 years with plenty of data to support this.. and we did better with heat than cold and we can do even better with the adaptive power of fossil fuels and our new technologies such a nuclear power.
Although this wont help the press sell its media we statistically have no past and current issues due to climate change with environmental metrics such as floods, fires, droughts, adverse weather, sea level rise etc etc.. they are all trending less severe or very adaptable.
More CO2 is actually greening the planet and improving the food supply.
I do agree we need to work harder at sustainability in economic, social, and environmental balances, and we have some plans that can work if we stop the NetZero nonsense.
More at ..
https://co2coalition.org/facts/for-human-advancement-warmer-is-better-than-colder/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRfQzMgvfDA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A24fWmNA6lM&t=8s
Response to Nigel Southway
1. Cherry-Picking and Misrepresentation of Data
Nigel’s claim about “0.5°C per 100 years” fails to account for the acceleration of warming observed over the past century. Long-term climate data clearly shows that the warming rate since the mid-20th century has increased dramatically, correlating strongly with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. For example:
Pre-industrial warming rates averaged about 0.1°C per century.
Since 1970, the rate of warming has surged to approximately 0.2°C per decade, as documented by NASA, NOAA, and IPCC reports.
Ignoring this acceleration undermines the argument that the current warming is purely “natural.”
Fact check: The "natural warming" narrative misrepresents historical data. While small fluctuations occurred due to orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) and volcanic activity, today’s changes are far outside these natural variations.
2. Fallacy of Equivocation: Natural vs. Anthropogenic Warming
Claiming that “warming is natural because it has happened before” conflates entirely different phenomena. Previous warming episodes:
Occurred over thousands of years, allowing ecosystems to adapt.
Had identifiable natural causes (e.g., solar activity, volcanic eruptions).
Did not involve rapid, simultaneous CO2 increases like today’s. Current atmospheric CO2 levels (420 ppm) are unprecedented in at least 800,000 years.
Counterpoint: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been the dominant forcing factor in recent decades, as proven by isotope studies and radiative forcing analyses.
3. Ignoring Consequences of Warming
Nigel dismisses concerns about extreme weather and sea level rise. However, peer-reviewed studies indicate:
Sea level rise has accelerated from 1.7 mm/year (20th century average) to over 3.7 mm/year in the past few decades.
The frequency of extreme weather events (e.g., heatwaves, hurricanes, wildfires) has increased significantly, as supported by IPCC AR6 reports.
Economic costs of climate impacts have skyrocketed, with damages from extreme events surpassing $300 billion globally in 2022 alone (World Meteorological Organization).
Suggesting that these trends are "statistically insignificant" contradicts overwhelming scientific consensus.
4. Myth of CO2 as a "Plant Fertilizer"
While elevated CO2 can enhance photosynthesis under ideal conditions, its benefits are limited and often outweighed by:
Increased heat stress on crops.
Shifts in precipitation patterns leading to droughts or floods.
Declining nutrient density in plants grown under high CO2 conditions.
Counterpoint: Real-world studies (e.g., FACE experiments) show that CO2’s “greening effect” is not the panacea climate deniers claim.
5. “Warmer is Better” Is Misleading and Dangerous
The argument that humans “did better with heat” ignores:
The destabilizing effects of rapid climate shifts on modern infrastructure, agriculture, and global supply chains.
Population centers in low-lying coastal areas that are at risk of inundation (e.g., Bangladesh, Florida).
Increased vector-borne diseases (e.g., malaria) in warmer climates.
Historical examples of adaptation to warming were localized and gradual, unlike today’s global and rapid changes.
6. Logical Fallacies and Rhetorical Tricks
False Balance: Presenting fringe sources like the CO2 Coalition as equivalent to IPCC-reviewed science is misleading. The CO2 Coalition is a well-documented climate disinformation group funded by fossil fuel interests.
Appeal to Nature: Claiming that “nature has its own agenda” ignores humanity’s unprecedented role in disrupting the natural balance.
Red Herring: Diversion to “Net Zero nonsense” avoids addressing the actual science of anthropogenic climate change.
7. Conclusion
Nigel’s arguments rely on cherry-picked data, disinformation, and rhetorical tricks rather than credible evidence. For readers interested in understanding the reality of climate change:
Consult peer-reviewed sources such as IPCC reports and NOAA/NASA data.
Avoid misinformation from groups like the CO2 Coalition, whose agenda is driven by vested interests, not science.
Recognize that adaptation is vital, but mitigation remains essential to prevent catastrophic impacts.
Wow… I suggest that its the reverse and the cherry picking is from the need for pressured scientists to find short range data to support the climate emergency narrative to maintain funding in a politically subjugated climate industrial complex.
All the data used by CO2 Coalition is from the peer reviewed sources but not subjected to the narrative treatment.
A review of this fact pollution was undertaken by the CLINTEL organization and has been documented for government legal council.
I have shown the trend lines and in fact the temperature growth rate was higher in the 1700s than now, and in the last 10,000 years it was warmer than now 4 times.
There is no causation that CO2 drives temperature in any records…. it’s the other way around and temperature has always driven CO2.
No question we have added CO2 but its still at the lowest average point of concentration for nearly 50 million years… in fact we have a CO2 deficit on this planet and its been good news for biodiversity to get more and its not a climate emergency.
Plenty of theories that CO2 as a GHG is already saturated and adds nothing to the thermodynamics of the climate system with solar/gamma radiation impact on clouds being far more relevant.
Re-read the IPCC and refer to the excellent book Unsettled by Koonin as he only quotes from the IPCC and his review is clear that if weather regional variations are not used to distort then on all metrics we do not have any significant issues with ecological factors such as floods droughts fires and adverse weather not falling outside the weather variability precedent sigma levels.. In fact many metrics have reduced in severity… such as land falling tornados and hurricanes.
The notion that we cannot adapt to a sea level rise of a foot a century should be addressed to the Dutch that have a technology for that as long as we keep fossil fuels to provide the mechanical muscle as W&S wont have the energy to support that.
Yes… the total cost to the economy of so called climate change (Well Weather) has increased a bit but has reduced significantly when the population growth and economic growth and increased value is factored in. Also, deaths due to climate and weather has been reduced by 95% since the 1900s
We have the data on all this and the statement in the IPCC scientific reports (not the political sections) states that no evidence supports adverse metrics in this regard. Unless you use the model predictions….. that are not fit for purpose.
I suggest that based on the clear facts that NetZero mitigation will be a solution far worse than the alleged problem, that it must be the responsibility of the climate alarmists to convince new government on the facts of a climate emergency… not us climate realists to convince you that we don’t have one.
But the activists have far less historical arguments and a weak predictive capability. This will not play well with new western governments that just wont buy in… and good luck with that based on the facts apparent.
The activists worst enemy is the Media that continues to lie to scare the population and they are now on to it, and will prioritize prosperity first and are now voting in governments that just wont want to listen.
Forget mitigation and lets focus on focused adaption if needed...
No argument we will have many sustainability challenges into the future due to scarcity .. such as fresh water and minerals and more direct forms of pollution…... but that’s a different subject.
Nigel, while you make some broad undefined claims, they largely rely on selective (and mainly incorrect) interpretations of data and assumptions that don't hold up to the broader scientific consensus--being based on real Data, grounded in reality from geology to paleoclimates to modern day weather and climate physics knowledge aka REAL FACTS--not fantasy stories.
CO2 and Temperature Relationship: You argue that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around, but this is a misinterpretation of the actual scientific evidence available today--and about today! Over short timescales, such as the past century, it's clear that human emissions have significantly increased atmospheric CO2 levels, which then enhance the greenhouse effect and contribute to warming. The historical data from ice cores clearly shows that while CO2 and temperature have fluctuated together IN THE PAST FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, human activities ARE NOW WITHOUT ANY DOUBT AT ALL the primary driver of the CURRENT RATE of WARMING, which is much faster than any natural fluctuations in the past.
That you insist on "living in the past" is not an argument for the rest of us 8 billion to imagine life is not different than it was when the dinosaurs lived. Thankfully most people and especially the SCIENTISTS are not that stupid to believe in these fantasy stories like you are promoting here.
CO2 Concentration: While it’s true that CO2 concentrations are still lower than in some distant geological periods, that fact alone doesn’t mean that increased CO2 has no impact on the climate. The Earth’s climate system is incredibly complex, and it’s NOT just about CO2 LEVELS ALONE.
Honest brokers who have informed themselves fully about the climate science, astronomical, and paleo facts KNOW THIS ALREADY. That you do not highlights your gross incompetence to comment on the topic at all--at any level.
The current rapid warming is out of sync with natural climate variability, and the scale of change driven by human activities, including deforestation, agriculture, and fossil fuel consumption, is unprecedented. HAS NEVER HAPPENED LIKE THIS EVER BEFORE in Earth's existence--NEVER!
That you do not know this, cannot accept this proves you incapacity to understand anything about today's AGW and catastrophic climate change upon us now today. You are the typical example of an OSTRICH with it's head buried underground--completely ignorant of reality.
Skepticism of IPCC and Models: You cite the book Unsettled and claim that it undermines climate science, but it’s important to note that the scientific consensus on climate change is built on decades of peer-reviewed research. And NOT on gimmicks or logical fallacies or deceitful sophistry that might easily convince the gullible the uneducated and ignorant not very bright people such as yourself.
The IPCC’s reports represent a vast body of work from experts around the world, and while models may not be perfect--they do not need to be-- they are continually refined to improve accuracy. A pity they are so slow and, in some regards, lax--and more the pity so many of them are egotistical elitists who live their life in ivory towers. Dismissing them entirely without offering a comprehensive alternative is a simplification.
It is also a pity that so many inputted assumptions in the climate models are only GUESSTIMATES by climate scientist modelers and not in fact based on hard data. This is where their 2023-2024 understanding has been found seriously underwhelming--to me and many others like Richard.
The errors in Model assumptions are NEVER reported openly by the GCM scientists. It is a serious ethical and technical shortcoming of the models--- eg albedo, aerosols, land and ocean sinks, cloud behavior, and much more. But NONE of these shortcomings undermine the proven consensus physics behind AGW and climate changes today. They only make a difference on the margins and in short term AND long-term predictions of what might happen and by when.
Weather Events and Impact: You claim that metrics like floods, droughts, and fires are not outside historical variations, but this overlooks the growing body of evidence that shows climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events--not only extreme but UNPRECEDENTED events and the power involved in them. Remember what Unprecedented means Nigel--Has Never Happened Before--AND not caused by the same drivers as today
For example, we are seeing more intense heatwaves, longer droughts, and more powerful storms, all of which have significant social, economic, and ecological impacts. The LA firestorms in LA now are mirroring what happened in Australia in the July 2019- Nov 2020 fire disasters.
The idea that the impacts of climate change are either negligible or not accelerating is unsupported by the majority of scientific studies on the matter. Such thinking is delusional at face value.
Sea-Level Rise and Adaptation: While you mention the Dutch expertise in flood management, this doesn't address the underlying issue that sea level rise is happening faster than previously predicted, and many coastal cities around the world are unprepared for the long-term impacts. Adaptation is important, but it won’t prevent the widespread disruptions that will come from escalating sea levels, heatwaves, and extreme weather events.
These deadly Catastrophic and Civilization ending impacts have been with us for well over a decade globally now. Widespread famine is guaranteed in the short term and that will only increase in intensity and across multiple regions of the world simultaneously. The death toll will easily be in the billions by around 2040 and beyond.
This is unstoppable and unavoidable already. Why because nothing is being done to stop it or prepare for it. The adoption of RE will do nothing to abate global warming trajectory now. There will be no Carbon and Capture technology programs capable to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. So, you can add hundreds of millions of deaths from years long droughts and across many months at a time excessive wet-bulb temperature heatwaves as well.
Economic Growth vs. Climate Risk: Your argument that economic growth and technological advances will mitigate climate impacts ignores the externalities of environmental degradation, like the loss of biodiversity, water scarcity, and the economic costs of climate-related disasters. Focusing on growth while ignoring the environmental costs is a shortsighted strategy that risks long-term instability.
Never ending economic growth and growth of other key parameters like population and consumption and resource use and the global ecological destruction are the drivers of this catastrophe--not the solution to it. Only fools preach economic growth as the savior of human civilization--instead of its rapidly approaching death knell.
Ultimately, your position relies heavily on a misinterpretation of the evidence and a dismissal of the scientific consensus on climate change. Denial of Reality and the Facts:101.
The climate emergency is not just about the environment—it’s about human survival, geopolitical stability, and the future of ALL advanced mammalian life on Earth.
The problem with your pathetic illogical argument is that it overlooks the profound impacts climate change will have on the NATURAL GEOLOGICAL GEOGRAPHIC & CLIMATE SYSTEMS we depend on for our very existence—everything from food and water security to migration patterns to resource depletion and public health. Dismissing these challenges and pretending that we can continue "business as usual" is a dangerous path to follow.
Your approach is illegitimate; your illogical thinking, the false and fake ideas of others which you rely upon are the manifestation of human idiocy at its worst.
What does "the adaptive power of fossil fuels" mean?
And aren't fossil fuels running out, or at least the EROI is declining, which will make them more expensive to extract and consume?
What happens to the economy and the people in it when fossil fuel costs double or rise 10x?
Response…
What does "the adaptive power of fossil fuels" mean?
They are needed to fuel the trucks and excavators to adapt our infrastructure and ensure we have the energy density to run our industries to provide the adaptive solutions.. All future electricity generation and can nuclearized. Also, we need Fossil fuels for plastics and other life saving products…. We won’t run out… and the extraction methods will keep the cost down.
Agreed we need to burn less by reducing globalized manufacturing and apply the circular economy and reduce waste of a throw away society.. plenty of sustainability goals but we wont fail to flourish…. We way kill each other but that’s a different conversation.
And aren't fossil fuels running out, or at least the EROI is declining, which will make them more expensive to extract and consume?
NO!... we just learn to use less and replace with Nuclear etc.
What happens to the economy and the people in it when fossil fuel costs double or rise 10x?... wont happen.. we have plenty of coal!!!!! Learn to burn it clean.
I believe there are many serious shortfalls and delusions in the overall responses to climate change by the UNFCCC Paris agreement and all governments. It's lies on lies to me. It is simplistic beyond imagination that fossil fuels can be simply replaced by RE alternatives. Whereas a complete reconfiguration of economic norms, government and civilization is required. eg Net Zero by 2050is a fallacy that must be eradicated from people's imaginations. The UNFCC and the IPCC and the climate modelling all is dysfunctional and myopic--they are all failing. This is my opinion after decades of tracking climate AGW developments closely.
That being said NIGEL and his delusional ilk still has even more serious problems to face:
Response to Nigel Southway
1. The Misconception of “Adaptive Power” of Fossil Fuels
Nigel argues that fossil fuels are necessary to "fuel trucks and excavators" for infrastructure adaptation. While it’s true that fossil fuels currently power much of our industry, the argument ignores the long-term unsustainability of fossil fuel reliance:
Energy Density vs. Sustainability: Fossil fuels have high energy density, but that doesn’t mean they’re a sustainable long-term solution. Their environmental and economic costs are spiraling, with climate change, pollution, and health risks increasing alongside their use.
Renewable Alternatives: While fossil fuels power current infrastructure, the future must rely on renewables (solar, wind, geothermal) for electricity generation and energy storage. These sources provide a far more sustainable long-term energy foundation with decreasing costs and increasing efficiency over time.
Counterpoint: Renewable energy technologies, like solar panels and wind turbines, can provide the energy density needed for industrial processes without the environmental destruction caused by fossil fuels.
2. “We Won’t Run Out of Fossil Fuels” – A Simplistic View
Nigel’s claim that “we won’t run out” is technically true in the short term, but it overlooks key issues:
Declining EROI (Energy Return on Investment): As easily accessible fossil fuel reserves are depleted, extraction becomes more energy-intensive and costly. Shale oil, deepwater drilling, and oil sands are prime examples of where the cost of extraction has risen sharply. According to multiple studies, EROI for conventional oil has declined significantly in the past few decades.
Climate Limits: Even if fossil fuels do not run out, the more pressing issue is that we cannot afford to burn all the remaining reserves without exceeding the carbon budget that would avoid catastrophic climate impacts. This is why the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the IPCC emphasize the need to limit fossil fuel use for climate stabilization.
Counterpoint: The assumption that extraction costs won’t increase is unrealistic in the context of depleting reserves and the rising environmental costs of extraction. Transitioning to renewable and nuclear energy is not only necessary for climate stability, but also to ensure energy security in the long run.
3. “We Can Just Learn to Use Less” – Ignoring the Transition
The claim that we can “learn to use less” and replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy fails to consider the scale and urgency of the energy transition:
Energy Demand: Global energy demand continues to rise due to population growth and increasing industrialization, particularly in developing nations. While energy efficiency improvements and conservation are important, they alone won’t be sufficient to meet future energy needs while also reducing emissions.
Nuclear Energy Challenges: Nuclear energy is often proposed as a “solution,” but it faces significant barriers:
Cost and construction time: New nuclear plants take decades to build and are extremely costly. The Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation (2019) emphasized that nuclear expansion is not a short-term solution.
Waste disposal: Long-term storage of nuclear waste remains an unsolved problem, with toxic waste remaining hazardous for thousands of years.
Safety: Despite advances in reactor technology, nuclear energy still faces the risk of catastrophic accidents, as seen in Fukushima and Chernobyl.
Counterpoint: A transition to nuclear power is not a quick or scalable solution on its own. A diversified approach, including renewables, storage technologies, and energy efficiency, is crucial for meeting global energy needs while reducing carbon emissions.
4. The “Coal Will Save Us” Fallacy
Nigel’s dismissal of fossil fuel costs rising by claiming “we have plenty of coal” ignores several factors:
Coal is becoming economically unviable: The cost of coal is rising, and many countries are moving away from it due to its environmental impact. In fact, global coal demand has stagnated in recent years as countries shift towards cleaner sources of energy.
Health and environmental impacts: Coal is the most polluting fossil fuel, contributing significantly to air pollution, health problems, and environmental degradation. Countries like the UK and Germany are phasing out coal-fired power plants due to these impacts.
Counterpoint: Continuing to rely on coal, especially when cleaner alternatives exist, is economically and socially unsustainable. Countries around the world are increasingly recognizing the need to transition away from coal to protect both public health and the environment.
5. Circular Economy and Sustainability – Real Solutions, Not “Burning Clean”
While Nigel advocates for a circular economy and reduced globalized manufacturing, these are important steps but not a substitute for urgent climate action. Sustainable practices must complement a full transition to renewable energy, not be used as a way to avoid addressing fossil fuel dependence.
Circular economy: Reducing waste, reusing resources, and recycling are essential, but they cannot fully replace the need to decarbonize the energy and manufacturing sectors.
Net Zero Goals: While he dismisses net zero as “nonsense,” the reality is that Net Zero emissions by 2050 is a scientifically backed and necessary target if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Countries like the EU and the US have committed to this, recognizing the need to decarbonize all sectors of the economy.
Counterpoint: A circular economy can reduce waste, but it must be paired with systemic changes in energy production and consumption, with renewables as a central focus.
Conclusion
Nigel’s response oversimplifies the challenges we face and ignores the real science and economics of fossil fuel reliance. While he correctly identifies the need for energy and infrastructure adaptation, his reliance on fossil fuels and dismissal of renewable energy solutions is both outdated and dangerous. The energy transition is not only about addressing climate change but also about ensuring energy security, economic stability, and public health in the face of inevitable environmental constraints.
Gandalf… I am enjoying the discussion, and we may be providing good perspective to others so far….
I guess we agree on the mistakes of the IPCC outlook and that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
And we probably would agree on a future sustainability model.
Lets focus on the huge disagreement we will have on energy plans..
I am a realist and let’s start at the rest and then move to the west
For some of the emerging nations in the world its still wood burning with huge health issues…. A step up is moving to coal that they wont run out of for a long time. And I don’t think your facts on costs are correct.. Its viable without subsides on other more exotic solutions.. Yes, it’s a polluting source of energy but it could be cleaned up and if alternatives are not yet available and capital for other sources is difficult then it’s a good way to go for quite some time to come...holding them back from emerging by insisting they don’t follow this route is a crime.
Natural Gas is better but its not always available in a local economy. But it fits across both industrial and domestic use very well and is affordable when not distorted by subsidies etc.
Nuclear for electricity is the king once we focus on it and get the engineering economies of scale and next generation technologies working for it.
So for those that can do it Nuclear and natural gas is where most realistic western economies are heading. This will support industrial power needs in a reliable clean and high energy density demand. We wont run out of nuclear fuels and it’s the only energy source where the pollutant does not exist into atmosphere.
Now the next up is green hydrogen to support localized industry and reduce the pull on maybe depleted natural gas..
Green hydrogen will be produced in full on 24/7/52 nuclear plants that will support the demand load and make green hydrogen from water when local demand drops so they are always at full load.
Plenty of large scale mobile applications for nuclear being reviewed for rail ships etc.
And GH and its spin offs may work out for smaller mobile applications to substitute our Petroleum demand and other oil based FFs to avoid burning them.
FFs will always be needed not to burn but to support materials for manufacturing all kinds of products from autos to medical products. Life without fossil fuel based products will be a hell.
Now we come to W&S and EVs...
Sorry… but the whole supply chain does not make any sense … its not sustainable.
The pollution both at the start and at the end of the life of these products will be horrendous and far worse than coal in some respects.
Plenty of issues with scaling up such a supply chain and then we still end up with a low reliability solution compared to the others.
There is reason we went away from sailing ships and clothes lines and went with steam and washer/dryers.
It’s called far better reliability … no sun at night and sometimes no wind????
Would you employ someone that only works when they feel like it and another that also only works when they feel like it and will never work on the night shift?
There is a reason Germany is screwed up on its energy price and system compared to France and North America and we In NA better not go there.. The UK is also currently moving toward the W&S clown show.
I will leave you with a few videos to digest and then tell me if you still disagree.
Nuclear versus W&S
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w&t=909s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
The supply chain issues…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNdJAZ75h4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA1hqIPbVr8
My position on the whole journey…
.https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism
Net Zero emissions by 2050 is a joke of course, but the essential end is an imperative. The way the mainstream scientists IPCC have designed this and other ideas is what is flawed. Global deindustrialization, massive reductions in consumption and extreme constraints on wealth accumulation and wasteful spending consumption are essential future actions needed.