Here are CO2 emissions for each of the types of (non-renewable) fuels we use:

We can tell each other we want to stop using fossil fuels all we want–but even if we all agree (and many don’t… at all…) it won’t happen all at once. We have to start somewhere.

And that table makes it screamingly obvious where we should start. Remember that billions of people in the developing world use firewood and kerosene as their primary fuel. These fuels are not only about the worst in terms of CO2 emissions–they are horribly polluting and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths every year. Burning firewood not only emits CO2–it destroys forests which absorb CO2.

Clearly we should target those two fuels for elimination. And frankly, I don’t really care what replaces them. I would love for solar or wind power to magically pop up in villages across the globe (and NGOs and faith-based organizations have been putting solar panels up in villages for more than 40 years–just not enough of them), but if we can’t get pure green solutions I will accept natural gas, oil or even coal–just to get them off firewood and kerosene.

This won’t solve climate change. But it is a first step that just about everybody should agree is good and feasible. And if you want to do something closer to home, here are two suggestions:

1. If you own a home in the northern hemisphere, paint your roof white. This will reflect sunlight back to space and decrease global warming. Not by much… but tell your neighbor.
2. Wash your clothes with cold water. This will reduce fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions. Not by much, but tell your neighbor.

The more I read about climate change and CO2 emissions, the more I became convinced that the discussion was horribly miscast. It was fairly obvious that temperatures were rising, as were our emissions of CO2 and it was pretty logical to look for a link between the two. Indeed, scientists had done that and were fairly convinced the link was there. I saw no reason then to dispute this–nor do I now. Climate change is real and we are a major contributor to the change. It seemed that my study of energy might cast a useful light on the subject.

But in terms of understanding what the impacts would be and what we could do to either prevent further changes or deal with any changes already happening, looking at CO2 emissions was not really helpful.

CO2 emissions, the end culprit for much of the damage we are causing, is itself caused by energy consumption. The world burns a ‘portfolio’ of fuels to power daily life. Some fuels emit more CO2 when consumed than others. Orienting this portfolio away from the more emissive fuels to the lesser (or non) emissive fuels seemed like an easier way of understanding both the problem and any potential solutions.

The worst fuels we can burn are firewood, which is still the primary fuel source for about 2 billion people, kerosene, which serves a similar number of people. Both fuels are dominant in the developing world.

Coal is next and the world uses a lot of it, both in the developed and developing world. Oil follows and is the fuel of choice for transportation and a lot of heating. Natural gas is much cleaner, in terms of CO2 emissions–it puts out about half as much CO2 as oil or coal and is often talked about as a ‘bridge fuel’ to help us clean up our mess while waiting for true renewables to dominate our portfolio.

Zero emission fuels are not exactly equivalent to renewables–hydroelectric power and nuclear power are zero emission, but are not counted as true renewables for various reasons, mostly political. Solar, wind and biofuels are the renewables of choice.

It was clear to me in 2009 that we could switch to a much cleaner portfolio of fuels. My calculations showed that it would take about 50 years and cost about $23 trillion US dollars. (Those figures have held up pretty well, if you adjust for inflation. I’m pretty proud of that.)

The real problem my research identified way back then was that all the big energy monitoring agencies seemed to be wildly underestimating how much energy we were going to be using in 50 years. The US Department of Energy estimated in 2010 (my research was taking quite a long time) that the world would consume about 800 quadrillion BTUs in 2040. My calculations showed a figure of about 965 Quads. My fear was (and still is) that we would not be preparing for a world with much higher fuel use and that would lead us by default into using dirtier fuels, as they are easier to extract and get ready for use. (Turns out that I was pretty close to right–the Department of Energy just updated their forecast for 2040 to 940 Quads.)

But my major point is that by focusing on fuels instead of emissions, we will find it far easier to plan the energy transition, far easier to measure our successes and failures, and far easier to assist the developing world in helping us deal with a problem that they sure as hell didn’t create–but whose help we desperately need in solving the problem.

Happy Wednesday, everybody! We will get there–my calculations also show that we will eventually solve this problem and well before we cause permanent or widespread damage to this planet. More on that later.

Those most alarmed by the prospect of future warming naturally incline to the belief that sensitivity is high—that our climate will react quickly to changes and the addition of massive quantities of CO2 will cause the creation of yet more greenhouse gases, principally in the form of water vapor. This will set off a chain reaction that leads to skyrocketing temperatures—many of those most concerned talk frequently about temperature rises in this century of 6 degrees Celsius, or 11 degrees Fahrenheit. They arrive at these numbers by assuming that atmospheric sensitivity is even higher than the 4.5C that is at the high end of the IPCC projections. As human emissions of CO2 are certain to increase, the feedback loop will be mutually reinforcing—more CO2 leads to more heat and more water vapor creating even more heat.

Skeptics believe sensitivity is low—many believe it is below 1C. If they’re right then global warming this century will be about the same as in the 20th Century, which was not extreme and did not pose much of a problem.

Today we’re diving deep into the world of climate modeling – specifically, the CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) and its poster child, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS).

For years, CMIP models have been the darlings of the climate establishment, trotted out to paint a picture of runaway warming driven by CO2 emissions. But are these models all they’re cracked up to be? Let’s take a critical look and see if the numbers truly stack up.

Why CMIP Models Even Exist

First, a little background. CMIP models are essentially elaborate computer simulations designed to mimic the Earth’s climate system. They factor in atmospheric, oceanic, and land-based processes, all in an effort to predict future climate scenarios.

The idea behind CMIP is to have a standardized framework for these simulations. This allows for “apples-to-apples” comparisons between models developed by different research groups. In theory, this should lead to a more robust understanding of future climate.

The Cracks Start to Show: Problems with CMIP Models

But here’s the rub: These models are far from perfect. Here are some key issues to consider:

• Complexity vs. Accuracy: CMIP models are undeniably complex, but complexity doesn’t equal perfect accuracy. They rely on a myriad of assumptions and simplifications to represent the Earth’s climate system. These simplifications can introduce errors and uncertainties into the final projections.
• Resolution Limitations: Computational power restricts the models’ spatial resolution. This means they might struggle to capture regional climate variations or small-scale phenomena that could influence global trends.
• Natural Variability vs. Human Influence: The Earth’s climate naturally fluctuates. Separating this inherent variability from the long-term warming trend caused by human activity is a challenge. Short-term observational data might not fully capture this variability, potentially leading to skewed projections.
• Feedback Loops: Climate change can trigger feedback loops, where changes in one aspect of the system influence others. Modeling these feedback loops accurately remains a challenge for CMIP models. If a crucial feedback mechanism is missing, it can significantly impact the model’s sensitivity to CO2 increases.
• Data Gaps: CMIP models rely on observational data to parameterize processes and validate simulations. Gaps or limitations in this data can introduce uncertainties into the projections.

The Ensemble Fallacy: Averaging Out the Answer?

Now let’s talk about how CMIP utilizes ensembles, collections of multiple models. While ensembles seem like a good idea on the surface, there are potential dangers associated with using them:

• Averaging Out the Truth: Imagine throwing darts blindfolded at a dartboard. Some might hit the bullseye, some might miss entirely. Averaging the landing points wouldn’t tell you where the true center is. Similarly, averaging the results of CMIP models with potentially flawed assumptions can mask the “true” answer, especially if some models are significantly off-base.
• Garbage In, Garbage Out: If all the models in the ensemble share fundamental flaws in their underlying physics or data, the ensemble results will still be flawed, regardless of the number of models included. An ensemble is only as strong as its weakest member.
• Difficult Interpretation: Ensembles can produce a wide range of projections, which can be difficult for policymakers and the public to interpret. Focusing solely on the average value might downplay the potential for more extreme scenarios projected by some models.

The latest CMIP6 models project a higher ECS value compared to previous iterations. This suggests that the Earth might be more sensitive to CO2 increases than previously thought.

However, some highly respected scientists, like Sherwood et al. (2020), argue that these high-sensitivity models might be overestimating the true effect. They point to discrepancies between model projections and observational data.

The scientific community is still grappling with this issue. While the vast majority agree on human-caused climate change, the exact degree of sensitivity remains a point of debate.

So where do Lukewarmers stand on this issue? Enthusiasts for both extremes have very wrongly claimed the issue has been settled in their favor. This has not helped anyone. We don’t know what atmospheric sensitivity is. We don’t even know if there is one and one only value for atmospheric sensitivity. We are not likely to know for sure for 30 or more years, according to climate scientist Judith Curry, among others.

But remember that the very definition of Lukewarmer is one who believes that atmospheric sensitivity is lower than claimed by the Alarmists–I for one think it is around 2.1C or a bit lower. Why on earth, if I say it cannot be determined with accuracy at this point, am I willing to ‘bet the planet’ on my belief/intuition/opinion/prayer/limited understanding of incomplete science that it is low? Alarmists are actually more upset with Lukewarmers than with skeptics for this very reason.

Well, for starters, remember that the range of potential sensitivity values given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) includes low values as well as high. They estimate that the value of sensitivity could fall anywhere between 1.5C and 4.5C. So my ‘preference’ of 2.1C is well within the accepted range of possibility.

So, climate models are not ‘evidence.’ They are simulations. Neither our lukewarm guess (hope?) of below 3C nor CMIP models’ extension of the upper range of possible sensitivities to 6C are evidence, or even really have evidence for or against.

So in my next piece we will look at observations to see if they indicate something that the models cannot.

My thesis will be that we Lukewarmers decisively won the debate about most elements of the climate conversation–that our acceptance of the basic physics explaining anthropogenic contributions to climate change was appropriate. That our identifying a number of actors that were over-hyping the climate ‘threat’ as existential and demanding of our utmost efforts was useful and that our criticism of these actors was proper–indeed, necessary.

But most of all the Lukewarmers’ win needs to look hard at atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2. After all, this was Steve Mosher’s stake in the ground–that given an over/under bet on sensitivity of 3C, he would take the under. That’s really all it takes to be a Lukewarmer, but it’s kind of a big thing.

Our next post will look at the estimates of sensitivity generated by CMIP6 models and the criticism those models have received.

Ooh, it’s nice to be back!

What’s in it for you?

• You have a chance on winning a $20 gift card of Amazon;
• You will get a sneak preview of the preliminary results;
• You will contribute to research on climate change blogs.

Participation is anonymous, and your answers will be handled confidentially. The data is only used for research purposes.

Your input is highly valued! Please fill out the survey by following this link.

So, The Green New Deal was put forward without an explanation of how to implement it. I have started a weblog to try and show ways in which the principal elements of The Green New Deal could actually work. It is here: https://thegreennewwave.com/

Here is a sample: If all elements of the Green New Deal were successfully put in place, what would America look like?

Umm, Norway, maybe? They currently have an unemployment rate of 3.9%, similar to our current level in the U.S. They were the first country to provide universal health coverage with a single payer system, way back in 1902. College is basically free there, and more than a third of the population has a degree. 99% of their electricity comes from renewable resources. Energy efficiency of homes and buildings in Norway has improved by more than 30% since 2000.

If we adopt the Green New Deal, that’s pretty much what we would see in America.

So how does having those elements of the GND affect the lives of Norwegians?

Well, life expectancy is 84.3 years for women and 80.9 years for men, compared to 78.6 for adults in the U.S. Norway has the second highest score in the Happiness Index, 7.59. The US is 18th on the list, with a score of 6.89.

Rao writes, “Precedents in public health, civil engineering, epidemiology, and public safety offer clearer examples of technocrat-led revolutions. But those transitions were far simpler, technologically, than a retooling of global energy infrastructure.

Properly qualified, there is only one successful precedent for the kind of technological mobilization we are contemplating: the mobilization of American industry during World War II.

The proposed climate change war—and no other term is suitable given the scale, complexity, and speed of the task—requires a level of trust in academic and energy-sector public institutions (including international ones) comparable to the trust placed in military institutions during times of war.
The significant political difference is that climate change offers up no conveniently terrifying dictator, against whom to rally the troops and general population. Without a sufficiently charismatic narrative, casualties will go largely unacknowledged, like the victims of the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 (which caused about twice as many deaths as World War I, but is barely remembered today outside of public-health circles).”

To which I respond, if you are correct we are doomed. Not because of climate change–but because of your solution.

War has been declared on cancer, poverty, drugs and almost every other ill imaginable. I hate to break the news to Mr. Rao, but we lost them all.

War is what happens when reason fails. War is what happens when it’s root hog or die. War is always evidence of failure at the highest level of government.

Bringing that mindset to climate change will do just as much good as it has done to marijuana. None to speak of.

How will we know when we’ve won? When the climate no longer changes?

Why don’t we treat climate change as a long-term policy issue of the same magnitude as eradicating malaria or ending poverty worldwide? I’ll be that would work a lot better.

My advice to Mr. Rao–do as we did in Vietnam. Declare victory and go home. Worked for this guy:

You can visit it here. It has a brief bio and an ordering form if you want to get the hard copy, which I believe will be out on October  7th. It is doing quite well on Kindle and I’m curious to see how many people will want the hard copy.

I am hoping that it will make my promotional efforts less burdensome on visitors to this site. I will still mention it occasionally, but there’s enough going on in the climate world that I prefer to focus on it.

But here’s the cover again–I like it.

We didn’t sell as many copies on our first day with the new book, but we are now a very respectable #8 in books about weather on Kindle and #17 on books about ecology there. Still waiting for our first review, though, which isn’t good.

Here’s a teaser from the book:

As I have said throughout this book, I believe global warming is occurring and that we need to both address the causes and the effects. I’m also aware that the process of species loss occurs in slow motion, as well. Which is why it’s clear that anthropogenic climate change to date cannot be held responsible for large scale loss of species, because global warming is so recent in its inception. Scientists date the beginning of human-caused climate change to around 1945.

Meanwhile, the abandonment of scientific perspective by some Alarmists in order to join the crusade to climate Jerusalem gives tacit permission to continue to those who are causing the real damage via habitat loss, pollution, lax procedures that allow invasive species to be introduced inappropriately, and over-hunting.

Anthropogenic contributions to climate change are recent. Anthropogenic pressures on biodiversity have been going on for millenia. I have no doubt that we can chart many species already feeling additional pressure because of climate change. That’s a given, because that’s a constant. The climate always changes and it always puts pressure on vulnerable species. Anthropogenic climate change will do the same.

Global warming will have a negative effect on some species, perhaps many. Species loss is currently a real problem. The two facts don’t have much to do with each other.

My thoughts about preserving the biodiversity remaining on this planet are fairly simple:

1. Policy that encourages urbanization density. Right now, over half the people on this planet live in cities that cover 3% of the land surface. This should be considered a good beginning, especially as most projected population growth is expected to be absorbed by the cities. However, given that only 2% of the population is required for modern agriculture, there should be room for improvement. Policies that make 3rd world cities more liveable, safe and sanitary can decrease pressure on the land.
2. It is time to renegotiate the law of the sea. Let’s appoint conservators for individual fish species that have czar-like abilities to establish fishing regulations that keep the health of the fish paramount. Establish a multinational compensation fund that helps countries wean themselves off of their over-supplied and over-mechanized fishing fleets and just put them out of business slowly.
3. Focus some element of scientific research on creating best practices and standards for sustainable fish farms. Create sustainable certification standards and labeling. Focus more on rewarding winners than punishing losers–many bad fish farm practices are the result of poverty more than anything else.
4. Introduce best of breed agricultural practices to insure that needed agricultural product comes from better practices, not more land coming under the plough. Start at the geographic margins and work inwards, as it is at the margins that expansion of farms into new territory happens. Refine the food distribution system to reduce wastage, introduce GMOs liberally, etc.

If you want to protect other species, you must start by removing the need to harm them by improving the lot of the species that is threatening them. That would be us.

This Lukewarmer believes greenhouse gases may help cause temperatures to be about 2 degrees C warmer than otherwise would be the case, which will cause damage in many regions around the world. As it’s an average, some regions will be affected more than others.

Although this will not be a civilization buster (especially for the U.S.), we will be spending money–either to prepare for and so minimize some of the effects beforehand, or to fix some of the damage afterwards. The first of these two is easier and cheaper than the second.

Whatever you call Sandy, whether hurricane or tropical storm, you can look at it as something we will see more of in a warmer world. I don’t think Sandy was caused or strengthened much by current warming, but I think it’s currently an outlier that may look more normal in the future.

How close to the shore should we build? What offshore structures should we erect to soften storms’ impacts? How much cheaper are seawalls than extensive infrastructure repair? How does our current insurance system interact with public wishes and natural disasters to guide rebuilding?

We also might visit other societies impacted by storms at sea, from Japan to the Netherlands, to see if we can benchmark best practice.