Climate Change Will Dominate Energy Politics in 2021
“This year will see non-stop climate change news – from efforts to increase national emissions reduction targets to groundwork studies supporting the next IPCC policies. Battles over fossil fuels’ future will become intense. ”
The arrival of the Biden administration in January brought climate change activism to our government. Multiple climate change events are scheduled for this year, as well as the publication of several key international climate reports. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be quite active with three reports, which set the stage for its April 2022 climate change policy report. The three reports include the April report: The Physical Sciences Basis; the July report: Mitigation of Climate Change; and the October report: Impacts, Adoption and Vulnerability. What the UN will recommend doing with this information awaits the policy prescriptions forthcoming in June 2022, although many people probably think they know what those prescriptions will be, especially since that report is not written by the scientists, but rather by the policy people.
The UN’s Paris Agreement will also play prominently in the climate change news this year. President Biden will host an international climate summit on April 22, which is Earth Day. His hosting of this international event, which will include key world leaders, is designed to polish the Biden administration’s credentials in championing climate change globally. It is expected the United States will unveil its revised carbon emissions reduction target. There is also speculation China may also announce its revised emissions target.
Although the U.K. is overseeing the upcoming COP26 meeting in Glasgow, Scotland in November, the Biden administration, much like the Obama administration, wants to be known as the world leader in brokering whatever negotiations take place between more- versus less-motivated governments in embracing aggressive carbon emissions reduction stances.
This leadership challenge for both the UN and the United States follows the recent UN report showing the latest carbon emissions reduction targets committed to by nations who were parties to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Acknowledging that the global scientific consensus calls for the reduction of emissions from greenhouse gases by nearly half by 2030, the pressure is on to get countries to up their commitments if the world is to have a realistic chance of averting the worst of climate catastrophes. According to officials, the new climate targets submitted to the UN would reduce carbon emissions by less than 1%. As Patricia Espinoza, the head of the UN climate agency, told The New York Times, “current levels of climate ambition are very far from putting us on a pathway that will meet our Paris Agreement goals.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the report “a red alert.” The panic at the UN is because fewer than half of all countries who committed to the Paris Agreement in 2015 have submitted fresh carbon emissions reduction targets. The goal of the Paris Agreement was to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5º Celsius by reducing carbon emissions against 1990 amounts. All countries were urged to submit their reduction targets by the end of 2020. Missing from these UN filings was the United States, which is not surprising given that President Donald Trump withdrew the country from the agreement. Also missing was China. President Xi Jinping earlier said his country has a target of becoming carbon neutral by 2060. That means China will be withdrawing from the atmosphere as much or more carbon than it is emitting. As part of this commitment, China is being allowed to increase its emissions through 2030 before slowing them and eventually bringing them down by 2060.
Some of the largest carbon emitter countries, including Australia, Brazil, and Russia, submitted new plans for 2030 without increasing their ambitions for boosting their reduction targets. Surprisingly, Mexico reduced its climate target, suggesting it is backing away from its earlier commitment. In contrast, 36 countries, including the U.K., Chile, Kenya, Nepal and the 27 countries composing the European Union, raised their climate targets.
The climate debate is being amplified by the recent Texas polar vortex event that saw frigid temperatures extend all the way from the Arctic to the Gulf Coast. Many climate scientists, politicians and the mainstream media believe the polar vortex to be a manifestation of climate change. There is little evidence of this reality, other than to attempt to link unusual weather and temperature patterns.
Exhibit 9. How Rising Sea Level Data Is Presented SOURCE: Paul Homewood
The record cold temperatures experienced in Texas due to the Valentine’s Day storm compared to previous record lows established in the 1890s. Many of those lows were also revisited, and in some cases broken, by storms that descended upon Texas in the winters of 1930 and 1940. Both the 1890s and the pre-World War II record cold temperatures occurred well before scientists established any link to climate change to explain unusual weather. Remember, the polar vortex phenomenon was not even conceived of until 1853, and not proven to exist until 1952.
Another key tenet of the climate change movement is that the melting of the polar ice caps and thermal expansion of seawater, which are directly attributable to a warming planet, are leading to an acceleration in the rise of sea levels. The increases put at risk all low-lying regions of the world and their inhabitants. That belief is being called into question by a recent study of the satellite data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The analysis shows that the two newest weather satellites are collecting data differently than by the earlier two satellites. The result is that when each satellite’s data set is analyzed there are no signs of an acceleration in the sea level rise. However, when the more recent satellite data is linked to the older satellite data, the resulting line appears to show an accelerating rise in the sea level. As pointed out in the latest assessment of the data, the popular chart showing the satellite data from connected fails to show any overlapping data points, potentially a dishonest attempt to influence the public.
Exhibit 10. What Satellite Sea Level Data Actually Shows SOURCE: Paul Homewood
Research reports and media stories fail to acknowledge that data from different satellites is being linked together to show the acceleration. As one commentator put it, “maybe this is why former president Obama, energy czar John Kerry, and climate change promoter Bill Gates, have all purchased seafront homes in the past few years.” Do they know something about the satellite data and its implications for rising sea levels that they were not admitting to the public?
The sea level rise argument has also been used by government heads of some island nations in the South Pacific seeking financial aid for dealing with the impending disasters. In some cases, rather than the islands sinking below the sea, they have been growing. Much of the expansion has been due to the deposit of sediments from the ocean that are overtaking any erosion from rising seas. The loss of these islands was a popular theme during the years of the Obama administration, as it worked hard to promote fear about climate change.
Not all areas subject to flooding are experiencing landmass increases. In areas such as South Florida and coastal South Louisiana, rising tides often bring increased flooding. This is primarily the result of land subsidence due to the withdrawal of freshwater from aquifers for drinking, as well as marsh land that
Exhibit 11. Climate Models Continue To Show Hotter Outcomes SOURCE: objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com, JR Christy
lacks basement sediments for support. The latter situation is particularly acute in South Louisiana that has been created over thousands of years by the deposit of silt carried down the Mississippi River from the Great Plains region. In other areas where rising tides are creating challenges, the subsidence is associated with the movement of the continents as they sit on tectonic plates that shift. The tipping of continents is so gradual that people have no concept of the movement, so they only see the ramifications via pictures of high tides flooding streets.
Another major challenge for the climate change thesis is its reliance on computer models that have a poor record of explaining past temperature trends. A recent report by climate scientist John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and an expert reviewer of the upcoming AR6 IPCC report, shows how the latest climate models are still running “hotter” than the actual global temperature data shows. These new models are slightly better in that they are not predicting as much additional heat as earlier models. However, the temperature difference between the two vintages of models is minimal, calling into question whether the new models are materially better than the older ones. This revelation comes at a time when we were apprised of a 2019 book written by climate scientist Mototaka Nakamura. His book, written in Japanese, now includes commentary in English of his concerns about the reliance on the climate models by scientists and policy analysts. Mr. Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and atmospheric and ocean flows for almost 25 years at world class institutions including NASA (Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory), as well as the Georgia Institute of Technology, Duke and Hawaii Universities, and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science. He also has 20 published climate papers on fluid dynamics to his credit.
In the book, Mr. Nakamura states:
“… my skepticism on the ‘global warming hypothesis’ is targeted on the ‘catastrophic’ part of the hypothesis and not on the ‘global warming’ per se. That is, there is no doubt that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does have some warming effect on the lower troposphere (about 0.5 degrees Kelvin for a doubling from the pre-industrial revolution era, according to true experts), although it has not been proven that the warming effect actually results in a rise in the global mean surface temperature, because of the extremely complex processes operating in the real climate system, many of which are represented in perfunctory manner at best or ignored altogether in climate simulation models. I also want to emphasize that I am not denying the possibility of a major climate change because of the human activity, either catastrophic global warming or a return of severe glacial period (the real climate system that has myriad of physical and biogeochemical processes is highly nonlinear, much more so than the toys used for climate predictions). I am simply pointing out the fact that it is impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy how the climate of this planet will change in the future.
“I want to emphasize here that climate simulation models are fine tools to study the climate system, so long as the users are aware of the limitations of the models and exercise caution in designing experiments and interpreting their output. In this sense, experiments to study the response of simplified climate systems, such as those generated by the “state-of-the-art” climate simulation models, to major increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases are also interesting and meaningful academic projects that are certainly worth pursuing. So long as the results of such projects are presented with disclaimers that unambiguously state the extent to which the results can be compared with the real world, I would not have any problem with such projects. The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse, in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) only when they are used for climate forecasting.”
The concerns about the models and their use are based on Mr. Nakamura’s recognition of two important points based on physical aspects of the climate. These are:
1. A fatally serious flaw in the oceanic component of the models.
2. Grossly oversimplified and problematic representations of the atmospheric water vapor.
Without delving into the details of each issue, suffice it to note that each aspect is critical to the functioning of the climate and the output from the models. Whether it is the distribution of heat and the absorption of carbon emissions, or the disruption of solar forces by clouds, these issues lack adequate modeling. Each issue is a function of data limitations – either insufficient historical data on temperatures or the lack of minute detail that enables the computer models to capture the feedback mechanisms existing in the earth’s climate. Steps taken by forecasters to overcome these critical data shortages, while enabling the models to still work, often produce results that require caution about climate model conclusions. These data limitations often are never acknowledged, just as the model’s forecasts are never qualified due to these problems.
It was this frustration, given the certitude with which forecasts are made, that prompted Mr. Nakamura to write his book. As he wrote:
“For better or worse, I have more-or-less lost interest in the climate science and am not thrilled to spend so much of my time and energy in this kind of writing beyond the point that satisfies my own sense of obligation to the US and Japanese taxpayers who financially supported my higher education and spontaneous and free research activity. So, please expect this to be the only writing of this sort coming from me. I am confident that some honest and courageous true climate scientists will continue to publicly point out the fraudulent claims made by the ‘mainstream climate science community’…”
It is seldom that one finds such honesty in research writing. I am sure that Mr. Nakamura understands the career risk his book has created, as we have seen other climate “skeptics” who work in the scientific research that have suffered such fates. In this case, it was not long after the book was published that the attacks were launched. We went back and read some of the attacks on social media. There were numerous questions about who Mr. Nakamura was, but that did not stop commentators without any knowledge from assailing him. One theme sprang from a reader referencing a paper from 2013 in which he suggested it was possible, based on his analysis of Atlantic Ocean currents, that the northern hemisphere might be heading into a cooling period. The critics pounced on this academic article and declared that he “had predicted” global cooling, which did not happen, so he must be a failed scientist and one never to be acknowledged. It seemed that only one person read his paper (we have) and pointed out that Mr. Nakamura stated that there was a possibility of cooling happening, assuming the continuation of the conditions he identified. He never predicted that the cooling would happen. That did not keep the honest commentator from being attacked by other commentators.
Exhibit 12. How The Atlantic Ocean Current Works SOURCE: The Guardian
We also noted that Mr. Nakamura’s climate model failures had supposedly been “debunked” on the website debunked.com. When we went to the site, the comment had been deleted, but without an explanation. This supports our view that speaking against the mainstream narrative, even with well-reasoned arguments and/or specific contrary analysis is dangerous for your health if you are “thin-skinned.”
Another recent paper published in Nature Geoscience that is receiving attention in the media deals with the weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the Atlantic Ocean circulation that underpins the Gulfstream that brings warm and mild weather to Europe. It is reportedly at its weakest in over a millennium due to the breakdown of the climate. The authors of the study say that a weakening AMOC would increase the number and severity of storms hitting the U.S. and bring more heatwaves to Europe.
The AMOC is one of the world’s largest ocean circulation systems. It carries warm surface water from the Gulf of Mexico towards the north Atlantic, where it cools, becomes saltier and eventually sinks somewhere north of Iceland. As that water sinks and begins to move south, it pulls more warm water from the Caribbean. The circulation pattern is accompanied by winds that help bring mild and wet weather to Ireland, the U.K., and other parts of western Europe.
According to the study, the AMOC had already slowed by about 15%. In 20-30 years, the expectation is that the circulation may weaken further, influencing the weather and increasing sea levels on the east coast of the U.S. The authors predict that AMOC will weaken further if global warming continues, thereby reducing its speed by 34% to 45% by 2100, which could bring a possible “tipping point” at which the system would become irrevocably unstable, with potentially disastrous consequences.
The problem with the study is that data about the AMOC has only been collected since 2004. Therefore, the study’s authors relied on 11 other indicators including tree rings, ocean sediment, coral and ice cores, to create a long history. All these indicators are only suggestive of climate and cannot provide actual temperatures that influence AMOC.
This study seems to be an attempt to counter a more detailed study published February 15, 2021, showing exactly the opposite conclusion. That study, “A 30-year reconstruction of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation shows no decline,” published in Ocean Science, constructed a history of AMOC from 1981 to 2016. The purpose of the study was to examine the challenge of modeling AMOC by only relying on surface temperatures. The study’s authors believe that water temperatures need to be measured at all depths, especially the deep water. Earlier studies had found that temperatures could vary significantly in different water depth strata as shown in a schematic of water depths and the ocean floor.
Exhibit 13. Why AMOC Needs Better Data SOURCE: Nakamura
According to the authors, their approach to the study has resulted in the creation of an AMOC time series extending over three decades including, for the first time, deep density anomalies. The key conclusion was that:
“Our model has not revealed an AMOC decline indicative of anthropogenic climate change (Stocker et al., 2013) nor the long-term decline reported in sea-surface-temperature-based reconstructions of the AMOC (Caesar et al., 2018). It has accurately reproduced the variability observed in the RAPID data, showing that the downturn between 2008 and 2012 (McCarthy et al., 2012) marked not only the weakest AMOC of the RAPID era but the weakest AMOC since the mid-1980s. Since this minimum, the strength of the AMOC has recovered in line with observations from the RAPID array (Moat et al., 2020). In fact, according to our model, southward flowing LNADW has regained a vigor not seen since the 1980s. Recent cold and fresh anomalies in the surface of the North Atlantic subpolar gyre seemed to indicate a return to a cool Atlantic phase associated with a weak AMOC (Frajka-Williams et al., 2017). However, a weakened AMOC was not the primary cause of these anomalies (Josey et al., 2018; Holliday et al., 2020). Whether a restrengthened AMOC will ultimately have a strong impact on Atlantic climate such as was believed to have occurred in the 1990s (Robson et al., 2012) remains to be seen.”
Thus, the Ocean Science study concludes the exact opposite of the Nature Geoscience paper. Relying on alternative temperature measures weakens the conclusions from the paper calling for a slowing of the AMOC. It was manipulation of tree ring data that led to the hockey-stick temperature chart that was debunked by serious statistical analysis.
As we head into 2021, there is little doubt that climate change will dominate much of the debate and government policy proposals in Washington. Government policy under the Biden administration has targeted the fossil fuel industry, making it a villain that needs to be destroyed, regardless of the cost and/or unintended consequences of such action. Crippling the fossil fuel industry is to be done in the spirit of promoting climate change needs, often at the expense of humanitarian gains.
As the Texas blackouts demonstrated, managing the electricity grid is a complex task. Yet, it is critical to everyday existence and the welfare of society. Many of the climate change policies being promoted will boost energy prices while diminishing energy supply security, particularly electricity. This puts people at significant risk. Having lived through two major Northeast blackouts, and now the 2021 Texas blackout, we appreciate the challenge of securing adequate electricity 24/7. Regulators and politicians who fail to grasp that responsibility should be dismissed. Blindly pursuing climate change policies without examining the expense and social impacts they may create is dangerous. This year will be a test of our willingness to rationalize environmental policies. Failing to do so will harm more people than it will help.