How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lets assume $500B gets what you say it does[{It doesn't as the price you quoted is for onshore cost or nearly so by the time you add in all the additional power lines etc}].  Capacity factor ~0.45 for offshore(*its actually 0.5) of ~8900h/year = ~4000hours but I like even numbers.

4k*250GW = 1E6 *1E9 = 1E15Wh = 1000TWh

Double?  No, as energy consumed in UK is many times higher than its current electrical energy consumption.  If UK is like USA(it is), Electrical energy consumed is only ~15%-->20% of energy used. 

+ Energy storage in various forms for when wind does not blow to meet 100% of capacity or close since still going to keep nuclear as one needs that for medical purposes and to maintain nuclear weapons.   So, maybe with double that amount of money one could start on the energy transition. 

This gives a CAPEX cost for £2.37m / MW (so basically $2.9m/ MW) including links to grid  so at those prices $500bn would buy 170GW

At 50% capacity factor thats 745TWh. At 40% 596 TWh 

 

Wind farm costs – Guide to an offshore wind farm

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 

Double?  No, as energy consumed in UK is many times higher than its current electrical energy consumption.  If UK is like USA(it is), Electrical energy consumed is only ~15%-->20% of energy used. 

 

No, two thirds of the fossil fuel energy consumed is lost as waste heat and provides no work. 

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[specinho + 457]

On 5/6/2022 at 10:11 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

 

Then pay attention to the other reports that all found the same thing. No one cares about your silliness.

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 

Once upon a time, there was a document began like this:

"At the beginning of earth….

the atmosphere was filled with carbon dioxide ................"

Blue green algae, the latest suggestive bioweapon by one of the members in this forum,  to let any possible invisible unfriendly on Mars to go extinct with, might be the culprit....

with multicellularity and the evolution of those, mankind started to emerge..............

Might need to include natural events like volcanic eruptions, natural forests fire, and of course human activities......... deforestation, development, large scale agricultural activities, large scale open burning etc

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:23 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

I know you never studied the English language. There are many other studies that found the same thing. 

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

You did not respond to the point, Jay. This is a pre-selected survey, not a random sample, of "climate scientists", defined in a set way. That already biases the sample beyond repair.

Further, less than 1/3 of the invitations were responded to, and most likely those who did not accept anthropogenic caused warming as the predominant cause would not respond, thus irretrievably biasing the sample.

No conclusions can be drawn from this PR exercise planned by a PR organization, other than the desperation of the global warming cause.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:21 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

The SDO data does not show an increase in irradiance that correlates with the increase global temperature. It shows a decrease since 2014.

https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/sdo_eve_ssi_1nm_l3/

Temperature from 2010 to 2022

You missed the point again, you have it backwards, Jay. The cosmic ray data is used as a replacement for the direct measurements data you were linking to earlier, so it is a different set of data with different results. It gives more precise results. 

And the recent years in your own data above would support the thesis of a cooling phase beginning in 2020. Thanks for the supporting data.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

You did not respond to the point, Jay. This is a pre-selected survey, not a random sample, of "climate scientists", defined in a set way. That already biases the sample beyond repair.

Further, less than 1/3 of the invitations were responded to, and most likely those who did not accept anthropogenic caused warming as the predominant cause would not respond, thus irretrievably biasing the sample.

No conclusions can be drawn from this PR exercise planned by a PR organization, other than the desperation of the global warming cause.

So you think a random sample of people on the street would give you useful information?

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So you think a random sample of people on the street would give you useful information?

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

Selecting a particular group of scientists as "climate scientists", which would include social scientists, is not a precise classification. It selects those more likely to support anthropogenic climate change.

So less than one third of the invitations were responded to, and those opposed to the Green dream would be less likely to respond. That biases the sample far beyond the useful point.

Jay, you never studied statistical theory?

Edited May 8, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

You missed the point again, you have it backwards, Jay. The cosmic ray data is used as a replacement for the direct measurements data you were linking to earlier, so it is a different set of data with different results. It gives more precise results. 

And the recent years in your own data above would support the thesis of a cooling phase beginning in 2020. Thanks for the supporting data.

No cosmic ray data does not give more precise results. You completely misunderstand what that paper is saying.

 Nothing in the temperature data suggests a cooling phase. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Selecting a particular group of scientists as "climate scientists", which would include social scientists, is not a precise classification. It selects those more likely to support anthropogenic climate change.

So less than one third of the invitations were responded to, and those opposed to the Green dream would be less likely to respond. That biases the sample far beyond the useful point.

Jay, you never studied statistical theory?

You clearly never studied the English language because they are listed as geoscientists not climate scientists. There is no reason to believe that those opposed would not vigorously respond. It is far more likely that most thought it is so well established that 97% of scientists agree that it wasn't worth their time to answer the question yet again. I would expect those who disagree to be the ones to speak up.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No cosmic ray data does not give more precise results. You completely misunderstand what that paper is saying.

 Nothing in the temperature data suggests a cooling phase. 

Your own graph suggests a cooling phase in line with the recent solar cycle research. Thanks, Jay.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You clearly never studied the English language because they are listed as geoscientists not climate scientists. There is no reason to believe that those opposed would not vigorously respond. It is far more likely that most thought it is so well established that 97% of scientists agree that it wasn't worth their time to answer the question yet again. I would expect those who disagree to be the ones to speak up.

No, it would be the dissenters who would opt out of the survey.

That biases the survey results beyond any useful inference.

[Michael Sanches + 187]

28% of the charging stations in Bay Area don't work. These are needed by apartment dwellers. EV.s cannot grow very fast without charging stations.

[Michael Sanches + 187]

On 5/5/2022 at 8:53 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

 Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. 

These are the same figures as those scientists who believed that black people were sub human missing links before the civil war. Why do you believe that black people were subhuman before the Civil War and properly traded as property?

[nsdp + 449]

5 hours ago, Michael Sanches said:

These are the same figures as those scientists who believed that black people were sub human missing links before the civil war. Why do you believe that black people were subhuman before the Civil War and properly traded as property?

The results are taken  from two  different samples with no common members so your results and conclusions are garbage. Did you fail set theory?

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

On 4/25/2022 at 9:23 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

It is far worse than that.  There is no "agreement" to come to.  With the sharing, the size capacity of the cable is economized and SHRUNK compared to a single home.  A single apartment will have a main ~70 amp service at most.  A single EV car is going to demand, at slow charging rate, a dedicated 30 amp connection and many of them are going to DUAL 30amp or 40 amp chargers and if you have 2 cars?  God forbid one goes on vacation all at the same day and comes home on the same day and everyones neighbors charges at night at the same time... Nothing happens like that at say.... CHRISTMAS or any other holiday now does it?  Oh yea, and the greenies wish to eliminate the natural gas heating everyone uses too.  That by itself is another dedicated 40amps for heat.  Not done yet, NG water heater has to be converted and that is going to be another 30amp dedicated circuit.   Now in an apartment complex, they might go with zone distributed heating instead and could lower total electrical load. 

End result: 100% of every condo/apartment electrical main distribution etc must be replaced wholesale for EV's even before we talk about elimination of NG.  This is a gargantuan cost as this infrastructure went in first underground.  It also means all the power lines TO the apartment are too small as well along with the transformer etc.  I'll let you figure out that bill.  Ah, do not forget the tax and permit fees. 

And that is why home charging is a fallacy. In (European) cities with lots of housing without drives, everyone already uses dedicated charging points, either somewhere in the street, or at a charging station nearby. Some charge at 22kW, others go as high as 350kW. A 350kW charger recharges your car in minutes. Just enough time to go to the loo.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Jeroen Goudswaard

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

And that is why home charging is a fallacy. In (European) cities with lots of housing without drives, everyone already uses dedicated charging points, either somewhere in the street, or at a charging station nearby. Some charge at 22kW, others go as high as 350kW. A 350kW charger recharges your car in minutes. Just enough time to go to the loo.

It isn't a fallacy in the US. Here there are oceans of single family homes with garages.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It isn't a fallacy in the US. Here there are oceans of single family homes with garages.

I know you’re right on this Jay, but I looked it up - 81% of all US housing stock is detached single family homes, so basically anything but ‘charge your car at your house’ is a special case for the US market.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

10 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

And that is why home charging is a fallacy....or at a charging station nearby. Some charge at 22kW, others go as high as 350kW. A 350kW charger recharges your car in minutes. Just enough time to go to the loo.

Actually your statement is a fallacy even at 350kW.  Why?

1) Charging at high C rate hurts the batteries.  Maybe some new type of battery will come about where this high C rate increases their life expectancy(Toyota claims a solid state battery but with unknown characteristics).  Any battery type using Cobalt/Nickel will be eliminated as there literally is not enough of said material to meet demand in any meaningful manner in the world.  Supposedly graphene lithium battery will also solve this problem, but no one knows how to mass produce graphene reliably and cheaply.  If graphene mass manufacturing is solved the world will change as literally everything can become a battery with structural properties.

2) Range Capacity will increase per vehicle because manufacturers know that humans are LAZY and do not want to charge often.  Humans are naturally lazy.  They will not plug in and charge vehicle every day.  Humans will wait until car battery range capacity gets low.  Thus, amount required to charge is HIGH, not low, extending vehicle times between charges and extending charge times at a centralized charger. 

3) Closest battery type meeting above requirements is LiFePo with its slower charging C rate and will dominate the next decade.  It also has a longer life expectancy than NMC.  It also does not like being charged to 100% capacity.   No patents on this battery type either so EVERYONE can make them making this a MASSIVE solution for Honda/VW/Toyota/GM/BMW etc who have ZERO home grown battery tech other than Toyota. This battery type will completely dominate due to its CHEAP reliable characteristics, but it also charges slower.  This will extend charging times further. 

End result: Your charging stations for mass public are a joke even before we talk about grid stability of everyone charging at the same time or wanting to during/after a holiday. 

[Michael Sanches + 187]

On 5/9/2022 at 11:03 PM, nsdp said:

The results are taken  from two  different samples with no common members so your results and conclusions are garbage. Did you fail set theory?

I was responding to the false idea that whoever has the most scientists on their side is correct. That is not how science works. Science is based on reproducible results.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

1 hour ago, Michael Sanches said:

I was responding to the false idea that whoever has the most scientists on their side is correct. That is not how science works. Science is based on reproducible results.

Hey now, do not bring up the scientific method.  That is Misogynistic surely...  How dare you hold the climate "scientists" accountable to their own predictions which were not even close for the origin of global warming.  Warming over the tropics in the troposphere.  Currently the rate is negative due to data manipulation where the ground temp computer models, which pretend to be data, are rising faster than the air temps in the troposphere..... and heat rises... Oh yea... brilliant.  What is hilarious is they even admitted over 20 years ago this would negate their entire premise.... now they blatantly publish this idiocy in the IPCC reports and do not even blink. 

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

On 5/10/2022 at 12:03 AM, nsdp said:

The results are taken  from two  different samples with no common members so your results and conclusions are garbage. Did you fail set theory?

As usual, you miss the point. The point is that scientific consensus changes with the prevailing political winds.

The scientists in Germany in the 1930's fell into line in support of the political climate of the day.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

Germany is ramping up its availability of natural gas, relying more on fossil fuels going forward.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Economy-Minister-Germany-Can-Survive-Without-Russian-Gas.html

"Germany has plans for four floating liquefied natural gas import terminals, and if two of these get connected to the grid before the start of the next heating season, Germany would be able to get through the winter “to some extent” in case Russia cuts off gas deliveries.

Germany is the biggest importer of Russian natural gas, which puts it in a challenging position when it comes to diversifying gas sources. Because of the readiness of the U.S. to supply Europe with LNG, Germany has started building import terminals urgently, and it has also sought to negotiate deliveries from Qatar."

Edited May 12, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Germany is ramping up its availability of natural gas, relying more on fossil fuels going forward.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Economy-Minister-Germany-Can-Survive-Without-Russian-Gas.html

"Germany has plans for four floating liquefied natural gas import terminals, and if two of these get connected to the grid before the start of the next heating season, Germany would be able to get through the winter “to some extent” in case Russia cuts off gas deliveries.

Germany is the biggest importer of Russian natural gas, which puts it in a challenging position when it comes to diversifying gas sources. Because of the readiness of the U.S. to supply Europe with LNG, Germany has started building import terminals urgently, and it has also sought to negotiate deliveries from Qatar."

They are changing supplier not increasing consumption.

Germany boosts renewables with “biggest energy policy reform in decades”

Renewables Renewable Energy Act | EEG Policy

 

 

 

 

 

The German government has increased renewables targets again - solar PV capacity is to grow by 22 GW annually as of 2026. Photo: Wettengel/CLEW.

Germany wants to fight the climate crisis and its heavy dependence on fossil fuel imports by speeding up the rollout of renewables with a massive overhaul of key energy legislation. In the “biggest energy policy reform in decades,” the coalition of Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and Free Democrats (FDP) proposes to lift the rollout of wind and solar power “to a completely new level” in a draft law amounting to more than 500 pages. It aims to free up new land for green power production, speed up permit procedures, and massively increase wind and solar additions to achieve a nearly 100-percent renewable power supply by 2035. The energy industry welcomed the package as a good starting point for the necessary faster roll-out of wind and solar energy in Germany.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

https://www.statista.com/chart/27430/electricity-generation-using-russian-natural-gas-and-forecast-renewable-generation-growth/

[Ron Wagner + 702]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html

 

People enjoy the sunshine as they walk along the beach in Blackpool, Lancashire, United Kingdom on March 16, 2021. (Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images)

INTERNATIONAL

Study Finds Sun—Not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming

New peer-reviewed paper finds evidence of systemic bias in UN IPCC's data selection to support climate-change narrative

By Alex Newman

 

August 16, 2021 Updated: August 28, 2021

 

biggersmaller 

Print

The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.

The new study was released just as the UN released its sixth “Assessment Report,” known as AR6, that once again argued in favor of the view that man-kind’s emissions of CO2 were to blame for global warming. The report said human responsibility was “unequivocal.”

But the new study casts serious doubt on the hypothesis.

Calling the blaming of CO2 by the IPCC “premature,” the climate scientists and solar physicists argued in the new paper that the UN IPCC’s conclusions blaming human emissions were based on “narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total irradiance.”

Indeed, the global climate body appears to display deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies, and data are included in its influential reports, multiple authors told The Epoch Times in a series of phone and video interviews.

“Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview.

“In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” he added.

The implications, from a policy perspective, are enormous, especially in this field where trillions of dollars are at stake and a dramatic re-organization of the global economy is being proposed.

Wind turbines stand behind a solar power park near Werder, Germany on Oct. 30, 2013. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Paper Examines Sun Vs. CO2

Using publicly available data sets from the U.S. government and other sources, it is easy to explain all of the warming observed in recent decades using nothing but changes in solar energy arriving on Earth, according to the new paper.

Indeed, while it agrees that using the data sets chosen by the UN would imply humans are largely to blame, the study includes multiples graphs showing that simply choosing different data sets not used by the UN upends the IPCC’s conclusion.

If confirmed, the study, published in the international scientific journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA) by experts from over a dozen countries, would represent a devastating blow to the UN IPCC and its conclusion that man’s emissions of CO2 are the sole or even primary driver of warming.

While the paper calls for further research to resolve differences between conflicting data sets and studies, the authors show conclusively that, depending on the data sets being used, it is entirely possible that most or even all of the warming has nothing to do with man.

Using 16 different estimates on the amount of solar energy, dubbed “Total Solar Irradiance,” the review compares that data with over 25 estimates of temperatures in the Northern hemisphere stretching back to the 1800s.

When solar data from NASA’s “ACRIM” sun-monitoring satellites are compared to reliable temperature data, for example, virtually all of the warming would be explained by the sun, with almost no role at all for human emissions.

And yet, for reasons that the study authors say are murky at best, the UN chooses to ignore the NASA ACRIM data and other data sets in favor of those that support the hypothesis of human responsibility for climate change.

The UN IPCC reports, including the recently released 6th Assessment Report, have consistently blamed human activities such as the emission of so-called “greenhouse gases” for the observed changes. Many studies in the scientific literature have agreed with the UN IPCC position.

However, the new study, titled “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate,” cites dozens of other studies that have pointed to the sun—not human activity—as the primary driver of climate changes.

According to the study authors, these dissenting scientific views have been deliberately suppressed by the IPCC and have not been reflected in the UN IPCC reports, for reasons that have not been adequately explained.

A spokesman for the IPCC denied wrongdoing by the UN body in comments to The Epoch Times and said the new study had been accepted for publication after the deadline for consideration.

The paper in RAA agrees that the planet has warmed somewhat since the late 19th century, when reliable data collection began in the northern hemisphere.

However, in another challenge to the UN’s influential report, even the temperature data sets used by the IPCC are subjected to criticism in the new paper and others.

Among other concerns, the study highlighted apparent flaws in the approach used by the IPCC for estimating global temperature changes using data from both urban and rural locations.

According to the study’s authors, including urban data sets results in an artificial upward skewing of temperatures due to the well-known “urban heat island” effect that must be taken into account.

Basically, cities tend to be warmer than the countryside due to human activity and structures, so temperature stations that had cities grow up around them will show artificial temperature increases caused by the urbanization rather than global warming.

The IPCC has rejected those concerns, arguing that urbanization only played a very minor role in the estimate temperature increase.

Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. (courtesy Ronan Connolly)

Why the Apparent Bias?

Asked why these views have been ignored and even suppressed, lead study author Connolly suggested “confirmation bias” was at work. This is when individuals only consider information that supports their bias, something Connolly said affects all scientists.

While this may be at work in the IPCC’s selection of data sets and studies to consider and include, it is hard to know for sure, he said, expressing concern that the UN IPCC was only considering data sets and studies that “support the chosen narrative.”

“Whether they were deliberately doing it or whether it was simply confirmation bias is difficult to say, but it is clear that data sets are being selected that support the IPCC view while data contradicting it have been excluded,” added Connolly, who has a doctorate in Computational Chemistry and is affiliated with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES).

Connolly also said that the IPCC ignored key recent papers contradicting its conclusions, even denying that any such new papers existed despite leading IPCC scientists having cited those same papers in their own work.

For instance, a related 2015 paper published in the prestigious Earth-Science Reviews journal titled “Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century” was cited favorably by IPCC Working Group 1 Co-Chair Panmao Zhai of China. That paper argued, among other points, that the urban heat effect is not being properly addressed.

And yet, in the latest IPCC Assessment Report, the UN body claims that “No recent literature has emerged” that would cause an altering of its conclusion that the urbanization issue explains less than 10 percent of the apparent rise in global land temperatures.

Asked why the 2015 study in a major journal cited by one of its own leaders, among other key papers, was not mentioned in its latest report, a spokesman for the IPCC told The Epoch Times after consulting with IPCC Working Group 1 Co-Chair Zhai that “decisions on citations are up to the chapter team authors not the co-chairs.”

A spokesman for the UN body told The Epoch Times that he asked Zhai for an answer but that any potential response would not likely be forthcoming prior to publication.

In another case, the IPCC misrepresented a 2019 study that Connolly was involved in on snow cover, falsely implying that it showed less snow in all four seasons. In reality, the study showed more snow cover in fall and winter and that current climate models get all four seasons wrong.

Part of the problem is that the IPCC is mandated to find a scientific consensus, according to Connolly.

“This may have seemed like a good idea at the beginning, but where the scientific community has dissenting opinions, trying to force a premature consensus unfortunately hinders scientific progress—it is unhelpful and leads to an unjustified confidence in the conclusions,” Connolly told The Epoch Times in an interview.

Attempting to explain the absence of various published scientific viewpoints in the UN’s reports, the study cited researchers and papers to suggest that “scientific results that might potentially interfere with political goals are unwelcome.”

In this handout from NASA, a solar eruption rises above the surface of the sun in space on Dec. 31, 2012. (NASA/SDO via Getty Images)

Systemic Bias … or Deliberate Fraud?

Another study author, Willie Soon, Ph.D. echoed those concerns and argued that ignoring the sun’s activity is the equivalent of ignoring the elephant in the room.

Blasting the IPCC as “cartoon science rather than science,” the astrophysicist from CERES essentially accuses the UN body of deliberate fraud.

“I think the latest IPCC report will continue to mislead most of the unsuspecting public on how their works will be a fair and objective review of all relevant scientific works published over the past 8 years,” he told The Epoch Times in one of a series of interviews on the subject.

Soon, who has been researching the relationship between the sun and the Earth’s climate at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for three decades, blasted the IPCC’s “Summary For Policymakers” (SPM) as well.

“It is no wonder that the draft SPM report has sold everyone yet another blatant untruth, that it is all about the CO2 that has driven all the temperature change on Earth, while they continue to hide the fact that our new and comprehensive research paper concludes that all these conclusions are not only premature but factually misleading and confusing,” he said.

“Our scientific review shows that the changes in the Sun’s irradiance are a plausible and important factor that can explain most of the observed changes in the thermometer data,” added Soon. “So now why is IPCC still playing this childish hide-and-seek game while thinking that we can all be permanently hoodwinked by their one-trick agenda?”

Soon said he hopes the systematic review of the relationship between the sun and the climate can help the scientific community return to a “more realistic approach” to understanding changes in the planet’s climate systems.

“It is time for this abuse of science by the IPCC to be stopped,” he concluded.

Incidentally, Soon believes global temperatures may decline in the coming decades, also due to changes in solar activity.

Chinese workers commute as smoke billows from a coal fired power plant in Shanxi, China on Nov. 25, 2015. (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

What is Climate Change?

Study co-author Professor László Szarka, a geophysicist and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, told The Epoch Times that the new review represented a “crucial milestone” in restoring the scientific definition of “climate change.”

Asserting that the definition has become distorted over the last 30 years, Szarka argued that the scientific community must remember that science is not based on authority or consensus, but on the pursuit of truth.

“The definition of climate change was distorted in 1992 in a way that is incompatible with science,” the geophysicist explained, pointing to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its exclusion of natural causes from the definition of climate change.

In reality, the term climate change used to—and must again—include not just changes wrought by man, but also natural changes in temperature, rainfall, wind patterns, and other factors that occur over decades or longer time periods.

“The obscuration of the classical definition of climate change has paved the way for any change in the climate to be attributed and accounted to anthropogenic emission,” Szarka explained to The Epoch Times in highlighting the significance of the study.

But it does not have to be that way. He suggested that even non-scientist laymen could and should work to discover the truth.

“Regular people are able to decide who is fishing in troubled waters, if they systematically ask politicians, decision makers, and journalists what they mean by the term climate change,” he said.

Rain from Tropical Storm Elsa covers the Empire State Building in New York City on July 8, 2012. (Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images)

Outside Opinions

Even some UN IPCC reviewers have expressed skepticism of the dominant narrative and support for the work of Soon and others.

When contacted by The Epoch Times, accredited UN IPCC reviewer Howard Brady, Ph.D. of Australia praised the work of Soon and other authors behind the study as “probably the best around.”

Acknowledging a lack of expertise regarding the sun specifically, Brady slammed the IPCC and its models.

Among other concerns, he noted that they “still predict more storms even though they are declining,” and “they still report accelerating sea level [rise] when that does not exist.”

Over the years, numerous IPCC scientists have dissented from the views advanced by their colleagues.

For instance, the late Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, who served as an IPCC reviewer on sea-level, frequently accused the UN body of getting it wrong—most likely for political rather than scientific reasons.

Another outside expert contacted by The Epoch Times for insight into the new study and the latest IPCC report also expressed major concerns.

Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, distinguished professor of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, noted that “the IPCC report indicates high confidence in model simulations while at the same time noting in the main body of the report how the models poorly represent the real atmosphere.”

The IPCC claims its models accurately portray the impact of all the forces that affect the climate and that nothing else could have caused the warming over the last 40 years except human emissions, he explained.

“This indicates a bit of hubris and lack of imagination,” said Christy, who also serves as the director of the Earth System Science Center.

Acknowledging that he had not had time to read the new paper or carefully review the latest IPCC report, the world-renowned climatologist told The Epoch Times that the UN’s models cannot even reproduce the natural variations of the last 150 years, such as the natural warming during the first half of the 20th century.

“They also overdo the warming of the last 40 years, again, not matching the real world,” he said.

“So, if they can’t reproduce natural variations with sufficient skill and they overheat the atmosphere over the last 40 years, how are they then endowed with the ability to tell us ‘why’ changes are happening with such ‘unequivocal’ confidence?” he asked.

Dr. Christy was blunt in his conclusions, saying “the models certainly don’t agree with each other regarding the future.”

That limits their results “to the realm of speculative hypotheses, not policy-determining tools.”

Willie Soon, Ph.D. speaks at the 39th annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness in Tucson, Ariz. on July 31, 2021. (Courtesy of Willie Soon)

Response from NASA and IPCC

When contacted about the new paper, Gavin Schmidt, who serves as acting senior advisor on climate at NASA and the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was also blunt.

“This is total nonsense that no one sensible should waste any time on,” he told The Epoch Times.

He did not respond to a follow-up request for specific errors of fact or reasoning in the new RAA paper.

However, even Schmidt, a leading proponent of the man-made warming hypothesis, has conceded that the IPCC’s models have been inaccurate.

“You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary—and wrong,” Schmidt was quoted as saying by the journal Science.

By contrast, IPCC Communications chief Jonathan Lynn told The Epoch Times that the UN body remained very confident in its conclusions.

Asked about the new paper and its authors’ assertions that the IPCC was inaccurately blaming human emissions, Lynn responded: “The IPCC doesn’t seek to blame anyone or anything for anything. We do try to attribute climate change to explain its causes.”

Pointing to Chapter 3 of the new IPCC report, Lynn echoed the UN body’s assessment that the more than 14,000 papers it examined demonstrate that warming has been driven by human emissions.

“The new 2021 paper may well challenge the underlying IPCC conclusion that CO2 and human emissions are behind the warming of recent decades,” Lynn added in a follow-up statement to The Epoch Times. “But if it is included in the next assessment, it’s unlikely to completely overturn that conclusion which is based on thousands of other pieces of research.”

The next IPCC assessment is expected more than five years from now.

One of the authors of the new IPCC report, Jim Kossin, celebrated that people were “starting to get scared” about climate changes due to the body’s findings.

“I think that’ll help to change people’s attitudes,” he said. “And hopefully that’ll affect the way they vote.”

On the hottest day of the year a couple enjoy the sunshine on Brighton Palace Pier in Brighton, England on July 23, 2019. (Mike Hewitt/Getty Images)

 

Alex Newman

 

Follow

Alex Newman is a freelance contributor. Newman is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He is the executive director of Public School Exit, serves as CEO of Liberty Sentinel Media, and writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad.