Welcome to the 52nd week of this correspondence. When I look back I see a few evolutions in how we've organized the material and the process has been very clarifying.
This week's post includes a dozen links, but check out the second one in the Science category, where three eminent scientists present a remarkably lucid short summary of the scientific case against climate alarmism.
SCIENCE
• Infrared Radiative Effects of Increasing CO2 and CH4 on the Atmosphere in Antarctica Compared to the Arctic
• Papering over dissent
• ClimateMovie Fact Check: Exaggerated warming in the Northern Hemisphere land record
INVESTMENT/ECONOMICS
• The fossil fuel industry should defend itself against Congressional smears
• EV range anxiety? Gas vehicles dwarf EVs on the average number of miles driven. Electric vehicles are also more expensive to drive than other fuel types.
• Cooking the Books - Exposing the lunacy of the Green New Math™
• The call to abandon ESG is a plea for indigenous prosperity
• What The Media Won’t Tell You About The Energy Transition
• ESG discussions with clients lacking, research suggests
• Renewables provided 30% of energy in 2023, but data disputes claims of an overall energy transition
• The (Anti) Social Cost Of Carbon
ABSURDITIES
• Electric vehicle mandates mean misery all round
SCIENCE
Infrared Radiative Effects of Increasing CO2 and CH4 on the Atmosphere in Antarctica Compared to the Arctic (2024)
"In 2015 we have initiated a discussion on a fundamental property of the radiation in the atmosphere over Antarctica: The negative greenhouse effect (Schmithüsen et al., 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066749). A negative greenhouse effect means, the atmosphere emits more radiation to space than it receives from the surface. This results in a cooling somewhere in the Antarctic atmosphere during some months of the year, when increasing CO2. We now simulate how the Antarctic atmospheric temperature responds in all altitude levels to CO2 and CH4 increases, and show this is different from the temperature response in the Arctic. We show for example, that an increase in CH4 cools nearly the whole troposphere, although the response for CH4 is much lower in amplitude than for CO2. We find that the amount of water is the main driver for the differences between both polar regions. Since the amount of water vapor strongly depends on temperature, the colder Antarctic atmosphere responds differently to the Arctic when greenhouse gases increase. Our studies could be one important factor when understanding the lack of warming in Antarctica throughout the last decades."
Our take: This study explains how the negative greenhouse effect of water vapor – Earth’s main greenhouse gas – dominates over CO2 with regard to climate impacts in polar regions. First of all, how many readers have even heard of the negative greenhouse effect of water vapour, never mind have read about the various feedback mechanisms in the Earth's climate system. Do you think alarmists will now reduce their claims the poles are melting? Me neither, because they don't actually care about finding the truth.
Papering over dissent A
new paper by three eminent scientists presents a remarkably lucid short summary of the scientific case against climate alarmism. They are Will Happer, distinguished Princeton professor emeritus of physics, Steven Koonin, Professor of both Business and Engineering at NYU and former senior Obama Administration scientist with a PhD in theoretical physics, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT with a PhD in applied mathematics and former lead author with the IPCC. Among, in all cases, many other things. The paper does not break new ground, but summarizes the grounds for skepticism about the real impact of climate policy, the credibility of the IPCC, the reliability of climate computer models and claims that CO2 has made the weather worse and will only continue to do so.
Our take: it is shocking how many people advocating for overturning the relatively free market economies of the world in the name of carbon dioxide policy salvation have not read and do not understand the scientific basics relating to CO2 and the climate. For example, we don't think any investment manager who is not conversant in the scientific principles in the document has any business providing any advice related to ESG, "sustainable investing", or "responsible investing" since they could not have done a proper due diligence.
ClimateMovie Fact Check: Exaggerated warming in the Northern Hemisphere land record "Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph says: You look at the weather balloon records, the satellite records, the rural records, the ocean records don’t warm nearly as much as land. All these indications show that the big warming pulse in the records is the northern hemisphere land record, and that’s also where most of the data contamination is happening."
Our take: this alone is sufficient to be very skeptical of claims of global warming claims.
INVESTMENT/ECONOMICS
The fossil fuel industry should defend itself against Congressional smears "A new 65-page Congressional report uses one fallacy over and over: showing that some internal opinion at a company conflicts with its public opinions or actions, then accusing the company of dishonesty. But such conflicts are inevitable when you employ thousands of people!"
It can be determined that policy analysis of this entire “report” is garbage by its omission of three essential considerations:
- The overall benefits of fossil fuels
- The climate-related benefits of fossil fuels
- The fact that we’re safer from climate than ever
Our take: full-context analysis has never been a driver of climate alarmism policies. It's high time it did.
EV range anxiety? Gas vehicles dwarf EVs on the average number of miles driven. Electric vehicles are also more expensive to drive than other fuel types. "Lower average mileage and more expensive purchase prices for EVs mean a higher cost-per-mile, making them the most expensive to drive over a 1,000-mile cycle. The average cost for an EV to travel that distance was $5,108, dwarfing the costs to drive any other fuel type. With their costs spread over a much larger number of miles, gas cars were the cheapest at $3,123 per 1,000 miles. Hybrids cost $3,056 to operate, and PHEVs $4,351.
Our take: full-context analysis is always important, especially concerning claims that call for massive use government force against the marketplace.
Cooking the Books - Exposing the lunacy of the Green New Math™ "By government decree, burning wood no longer produces more CO2 than burning coal. It apparently produces no CO2 whatsoever, at least according to the carbon counters in Brussels and London—surprisingly convenient for those in the burning business instructed to care about CO2 emissions. Not actual CO2 emissions, of course, just the ones the government has decided to count, which seems to us like a fine example of the difference between science and “the science.”
"To properly contextualize the absurdity of this entire affair, we close by returning to our theoretical chalkboard. If we wanted to compare the energy density of carbon-based fuels with those used in the nuclear industry it would be quite difficult, as Uranium-235 contains somewhere between two to three million times more energy per unit of mass. If the average chalkboard is three feet tall, a stacked tower of them measuring more than 1,000 miles in height would be needed to draw a comparison."
Our take: if energy density, zero CO2 emissions, low land use, and high reliability were actually important to environmentalists they would not have been opposing nuclear power since it was introduced.
"While Indigenous groups and communities have become increasingly engaged in ESG investing, particularly drawn by the potential profits from renewable energy projects, a significant issue has emerged. Indigenous organizations that have thoroughly examined ESG investing have discovered that most ESG metrics and assessments have significant flaws in their implementation. A fundamental flaw is that the environmental component of ESG often conflicts directly with the economic self-determination of Indigenous energy-producing communities."
Our take: ESG is a mass of contradictions, including being anti-reason, anti-rights, and anti-development, including by indigenous communities.
What The Media Won’t Tell You About The Energy Transition - The hype, and the reality, about the energy transition in 10 charts. "I’ve said it before, but I’ll repeat it: the concept of the energy transition is essentially a Western conceit. The U.S. and Western European countries are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on programs like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Energiewende to fund buildouts of solar, wind, batteries, and tutti-fruity-colored hydrogen, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the world will do the same. There is no evidence that China and India are going through an energy transition. Instead, the numbers show those two countries are building staggering amounts of new coal-fired capacity."
Our take: alarmists believe that if they keep using the same language over and over it will somehow come true. What is really does is destroy people's ability to think clearly about such issues by changing commonly accepted definitions to their opposite, inverting reason and morality.
Our take: we'd like to say that financial advisors have seen through the charade of ESG and its ilk, but likely they are just ignoring it or do not understand it well.
"While the report takes the 30% record as proof of the coming demise of fossil fuels, a closer look at the data over the last 30 years suggests it could be over five centuries at the current rate of reduction before use of fossil fuels reaches zero, unless the rate of decline increases sharply."
"Wind and solar accounted for 13.3% of the 30%. Hydroelectric produced 14%, and the rest is bioenergy, geothermal, and tidal energy. While included in renewable energy sources, bioenergy, which is burning of wood and other plant matter, produces more carbon dioxide emissions than coal."
"David Blackmon, energy writer analyst, told Just The News that the growth of wind and solar isn’t even enough to meet increases in electricity demand. “That's why studies like this feel the need to include wood … as a renewable, in order to artificially inflate the numbers,” Blackmon said."
"“The concept of the energy transition is essentially a Western conceit,” Bryce wrote. From 2004 to 2022, global spending on wind and solar totaled $4.1 trillion dollars, according to data from BloombergNEF and the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy. In that time, total energy from fossil fuels increased 3.4 times faster than wind and solar."
Our take: odd that we don't hear more from the mainstream media about how fossil fuel growth dwarfs wind and solar.
The (Anti) Social Cost Of Carbon "Today, another mystical number, the so-called social cost of carbon (SSC), is providing the excuse for the Environmental Protection Agency and green-energy-enamored state regulators to enact crippling energy policies."
"The SCC is the thumb on the scale that can justify virtually any policy aimed at eliminating fossil fuels. When the EPA first proposed its rule to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, the agency’s cost-benefit analysis determined the benefits would be minuscule. Any putative benefits, it turns out, would come instead from reductions in carbon emissions and, here’s the key, based on a calculated value for the SCC. The same was true for the EPA’s earlier attempt at carbon regulation via a “Clean Power Plan,” which was shut down by the Supreme Court. But here we are again with the agency’s newest rules trying to force coal plants to further reduce mercury emissions and to force both coal and natural gas-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions. The technology to accomplish this doesn’t exist and EPA Administrator Michael Regan admitted the rule will force the closure of fossil-fuel power plants."
Our take: regulation based on imaginary numbers is nothing new. Once the power to regulate exists it is bound to become worse and worse, absent sharp limits on government powers.
ABSURDITIES
Electric vehicle mandates mean misery all round - A crunch is coming as Ottawa keeps pushing its 2035 ban on gas-powered cars even as the demand for EVs begins to sag. "News of slowing demand for electric vehicles highlights the hazards of the federal government’s Soviet-style mandate that 100 per cent of new light-duty vehicles sold must be electric or plug-in hybrid by 2035 (with interim targets of 20 per cent by 2026 and 60 per cent by 2030 and steep penalties for dealers missing these targets)."
"The targets were wild to begin with. As Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark P. Mills observed, Canadian-style bans on conventional vehicles and mandated switches to electric mean “consumers will need to adopt EVs at a scale and velocity 10 times greater and faster than the introduction of any new model of car in history.”"
Our take: the day will never come when the massive use of government force to push the market in the way it wants, against the will of the people, actually produces a net gain for society. The use of such force can only have a corrupting effect, breeding more such force.
Comments
Post a Comment