German Professor Slams Go-It-Alone Energiewende: “Gigantic Effort, Ridiculously Low Returns”

A commentary by Prof. Dr. Joachim Weimann on Germany’s renewable energies flop appearing in German flagship daily the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) underscores how wind and sun are delivering nothing of what was originally promised.

German economist calls Germany’s Energiewende “an extremely poor result.” Image cropped here, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg.

Hat-tip: Windwahn, Die kalte Sonne.

In it he writes: “Contradictions of German climate policy – high subsidies for green energies and high electricity prices, yet CO2 emissions hardly fall.”

The article summarizes: “Germany’s energy transition is expensive – and rather ineffective.”

Weimann comments on Germany’s skyrocketing electricity prices, which are now among the world’s highest – due especially to the disastrously failed implementation of the Energiewende (transition to renewable energies).

25 billion euros a year for almost nothing

Weimann describes how politicians and proponents like boasting that “much has been accomplished so far”, but points out that CO2 emissions have not fallen in close to a decade, despite the whopping 25 billion euros that are poured in through feed-in tariffs each year.

“An extremely poor result,” Weimann concludes.

1000 citizens protest groups against wind

Moreover, nationwide public acceptance for wind power has shriveled away as more than 1000 citizens initiatives have formed against the erection of wind parks and their environmental destruction.

Only 3% of Germany’s primary energy needs

Weimann calls the claim that one third of the country’s electric power is being supplied by green energies misleading, and reminds readers that wind and sun in fact supply only 3.1 percent of Germany’s primary energy needs, which he characterizes as: “Gigantic effort, ridiculously low returns – that is the reality of German climate policy.”

Completely ineffective with regard to CO2 emissions

He also says because of the EU’s emissions trading scheme, it will ensure that “Germany’s sole efforts in climate policy remain completely ineffective with regard to CO2 emissions.”

Weimann also characterizes Germany’s approach to reducing CO2 as “central planning and subsidy drive” and will end up up costing 1 to 2 trillion euros, according to leading experts at the Technikakademie Acatech .

“That’s an amazing amount.”

An amount, Weimann writes, that “never seemed to concern German climate policymakers”.

Coal plants to shut down next

Weimann also describes that in Germany’s desperation to meet its CO2 reductions target, the country plans to shut its coal power plants. But that too will achieve nothing, he writes, because Germany will only end up importing coal and nuclear generated electricity from neighboring countries – like Poland.

German green nationalism

At the end of the commentary Weimann slams German policymakers, who like claim they are “convinced Europeans”:

But German climate politicians seem to think like nationalists. Thinking beyond the borders of Germany is not their thing. This is perhaps the biggest contradiction in German climate policy.”

===========================================
Prof. Dr. Joachim Weimann holds the Chair of Economic Policy at the University of Magdeburg.

70 responses to “German Professor Slams Go-It-Alone Energiewende: “Gigantic Effort, Ridiculously Low Returns””

  1. SebastianH

    Isn’t Prof. Dr. Joachim Weimann just regurgitating Prof. Sinn talking points in his article?

    He also says because of the EU’s emissions trading scheme, it will ensure that “Germany’s sole efforts in climate policy remain completely ineffective with regard to CO2 emissions.”

    This seems to be the central theme of the article. It assumes that every tonne of CO2 saved in one country will be emitted by another country as long as it’s still within the limits set for all countries by the EU.

    I fail to see why the author thinks companies are responsible for those reductions instead of the general increase in renewables? Unfortunately this emission trading only covers 45% of the emissions generated.

    “Gigantic effort, ridiculously low returns”

    Yes, that is a common theme with “skeptics” too … trying to belittle everything so it looks small. More than 3% of the primary energy consumption is a huge improvement. Yes, we pay for that, but it would be very misleading to claim the next 3% will cost the same as the first 3%. Don’t you think?

    Well, whatever. This professor basically doesn’t want Germany to be a leader in this. Let other countries or private companies deal with reaching the EU emission goals before we try to outperform these goals in any way. Since we are one of the larger contributors to emissions in the EU I’d say this sets a bad example …

    1. Derg

      Leader in what?

      The small amount of warming has been beneficial to plants animals and humans. Honestly, I remain skeptical that today’s temperature is warmer than the 30’s.

      What is strange though, is that the climate change meme has not included hurricanes. Hurricanes have not been impacted by CO2 per NOAA.

    2. spike55

      Two top professors agreeing that Germany’s efforts with wind have been a economic FARCE.

      And seb yaps mindlessly yet again.

      The more you put forced UNRELIABILITY into a system, the more expensive the whole thing becomes.

      Basic common sense, of which seb is TOTALLY LACKING

      “Gigantic effort, ridiculously low returns”

      How TRUE that is.

      Germany can NEVER meet its imaginary emission goals.

      Their whole mindless wind energy approach is more like an OWN GOAL.

      1. SebastianH

        Top professors? 😉

        1. spike55

          Seb, you are NOTHING but a bottom dweller, especially when it comes to economic and science comprehension.

          Those Professors would be MANY magnitudes above you.

          Dig deeper seb, you have nowhere else to go.

          1. Yonason

            YES, TOP PROFESSORS

            <EM"“Because so much money was in the offing for those who played ball, very few boffins or bureaucrats were ready to call the renewables scam for what it is: the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.”
            https://stopthesethings.com/2018/01/27/germanys-wind-solar-power-fail-top-economist-declares-energiewende-delusional/

            So, what’s in it for the “useful idiots” who post anonymously on blogs? Who knows? …Who cares?

          2. SebastianH

            Classy replies you two anonymous commentators …

            A question out of curiosity: is any professor a top professor or are they only top if you agree with their opinions? Because I could drop some names here where you’d surely argue that they are in on the conspiracy and liars, etc … so what is the difference, all knowning Yonason and super intelligent spike55?

          3. spike55

            Poor seb,

            You know that your economic comprehension is that of a 5 year old compared to these professors.

            You CANNOT and never have, had ANYTHING to counter what is put forward.

            MINDLESS BLUSTER and child-minded distractions is all you are capable of..

            .. and the ONLY person that does not see that… IS YOU.

            So sad that your manic ego will not let you realise just how INEPT and INCAPABLE you really are.

    3. spike55

      Seb, the second 3% will cost Germany FAR MORE than the first 3%

      Just because you are INCAPABLE of seeing the damage already done, doesn’t mean its not there.

      Your wilful BLINDNESS to the economic cost of wind and solar come from you brain-hosed AGW tunnel-vision.

      But with subsidies and mandates slowly disappearing and even the far-left German public waking up to the real economic and environmental impacts of wind and solar, ..

      .. it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the next 3% will ever happen anyway.

      1. SebastianH

        Seb, the second 3% will cost Germany FAR MORE than the first 3%

        How so? Feel free to be as specific as possible.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Seb, the second 3% will cost Germany FAR MORE than the first 3%

          How so? Feel free to be as specific as possible.

          This facile question was already answered directly (even specifically addressing Germany’s situation) in a previous NTZ article highlighting a peer-reviewed scientific paper. We’ll assume you probably didn’t read this paper either, but just started commenting. As usual.

          Blazquez et al., 2018
          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117312546
          “However, promoting renewables –in liberalized power markets– creates a paradox in that successful penetration of renewables could fall victim to its own success. With the current market architecture, future deployment of renewable energy will necessarily be more costly and less scalable. Moreover, transition towards a full 100% renewable electricity sector is unattainable. Paradoxically, in order for renewable technologies to continue growing their market share, they need to co-exist with fossil fuel technologies.”

          “The paradox is that the same market design and renewables policies that led to current success become increasingly less successful in the future as the share of renewables in the energy mix grows. The renewable energy policy paradox results from the interaction between several factors, including: [1] the (almost) zero marginal costs of renewables, [2] the intermittent nature of renewables, [3] the interplay between price volatility and renewable technologies. The first feature above explains why renewables have priority of dispatch. The structure of renewable technologies, which have a high levelized cost of electricity but almost zero marginal cost of production, gives renewable energy priority in the order of dispatch. However, renewable technologies are often not the cheapest in terms of total cost, not marginal cost. This leads to a divergence between the true cost of the system and the evolution of price of electricity in wholesale markets, in markets with high penetration of renewable energy.”

          “To illustrate this point, we performed simple calculations for three European countries using Eurostat data which show a sharp decrease in wholesale prices that concur with high penetration of renewable capacity but also a surge in the final consumer price for the period 2008–2014. In Germany there was a simultaneous increase in the price of electricity to consumers of 41 percent, a decrease of the wholesale price of electricity of 50 percent and renewable penetration increased from 15.1 percent to 28.2 percent.”

          “Depressed and more volatile electricity prices arising from high penetration of renewables are not ingredients for long term growth of these new technologies, unless costs are declining more quickly than the combination of market price drops and financing costs hikes. … In the longer term, investors will not reinvest or recapitalize electricity markets without sufficient guarantees on returns. These additional costs will eventually be borne by taxpayers or consumers. In Germany the feed-in tariff subsidy program has already cost more than $468 billion, and its total cost could exceed $1.3 trillion by the time it expires, according to 2015 estimates. German consumers paid an 18 percent surcharge on their monthly power bills in 2014 to finance renewables. This is more than a fivefold increase since 2009.”

          “Full decarbonization of a power sector that relies on renewable technologies alone, given the current design of these markets, is not possible as conventional technologies provide important price signals. Markets would collapse if the last unit of fossil fuel technologies was phased out. In the extreme (theoretical) case of 100 percent renewables, prices would be at the renewables marginal cost, equal to zero or even negative for long periods. These prices would not be capturing the system’s costs nor would they be useful to signal operation and investment decisions. The result would be a purely administered subsidy, i.e., a non-market outcome. This is already occurring in Germany as Praktiknjo and Erdmann [31] point out and is clearly an unstable outcome. Thus, non-dispatchable technologies need to coexist with fossil fuel technologies. This outcome makes it impossible for renewables policy to reach success, defined as achieving a specified level of deployment at the lowest possible cost. With volatile, low and even negative electricity prices, investors would be discouraged from entering the market and they would require more incentives to continue to operate.”

          1. Yonason

            It’s the same everywhere.
            http://ddears.com/2017/12/01/why-are-we-destroying-our-grid/

            “Ruinable” not “renewable,” as Tom0 is wont to say.

          2. SebastianH

            This facile question was already answered directly (even specifically addressing Germany’s situation) in a previous NTZ article highlighting a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

            So you reply to a question about the next 3% in primary energy consumption switching to renewables with a paper about 100% renewables in the electricity sector that ignores that several countries are close to that already?

            We’ll assume you probably didn’t read this paper either, but just started commenting. As usual.

            I understand this paper, do you? I am assuming you don’t, as usual.

          3. spike55

            No seb, you PRETEND to understand the paper.

            You might even THINK you understand the paper…

            You in reality, YOU HAVEN’T GOT A CLUE,

            you comprehension and understanding is too irrevocably tainted by your ignorance and AGW brain-hosing to let any real comprehension exist.

        2. spike55

          Because the German public won’t be paying for it, idiot !!

          Without those subsidies and feed-in mandates wind and solar are totally unaffordable because of their total and absolute UNRELIABILITY.

          Your comprehension skills and economic understanding are those of a 5 year old, seb.

    4. MattS

      Seb,
      My guess is that the average German is more interested in their quality of life than their country’s leadership in green power generation. There is certainly a limit on what reasonable people will pay in excess of what is paid by others. This is the point. If alternative energy cannot meet this basic test it will fail. So the point is how are the numbers presented wrong, and what do you see is the real situation.

      1. SebastianH

        My guess is that the average German is more interested in their quality of life than their country’s leadership in green power generation.

        That could very well be, but I thought you skeptics believe that we Germans have been indoctrinated or something like that?

        The price of electricity in Germany might be high, but compared to countries like the US the average citizen still pays less for electricity per month here than over there. Guess why!

        So the point is how are the numbers presented wrong, and what do you see is the real situation.

        I re-read my comment and don’t see where I wrote that the numbers presented were wrong. The author is wrong in assuming that because the EU emissions trade exists, renewables had nothing to do with the overall reduction in emissions over the time period.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          That could very well be, but I thought you skeptics believe that we Germans have been indoctrinated or something like that?

          I doubt anyone has written that every single German buys into the claims your side makes.

          On the other hand, even though Germans are BY FAR the most worried about climate change of any citizenry of 18 European countries studied, less than half (44%) of German citizens are even “somewhat worried” about climate change. So you, SebastianH, are actually a minority in your own country.

          https://www.carbonbrief.org/germans-worried-climate-change-analysis-shows

          1. SebastianH

            It’s not like climate change is the biggest problem countries like Germany are facing. That’s a rather long term project to cope with, we have far greater “short term” problems that are of more concern.

          2. spike55

            What “climate change™”, seb?

            Q1… In what way has the climate changed in GERMANY in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2… Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            Come on seb !!!!

            You surly can’t remain TOTALLY EMPTY OF ANY EVIDENCE for ever. !!!

            CUE.. more headless chook evasion of providing one tiny bit of real evidence.

  2. Yonason

    FYI

    Pierre, your “citizens initiatives” should be “citizens’ initiatives.”

    And, if it were just one “initiative,” one would then write “citizens’ initiative.” (Wouldn’t be much of an “initiative,” if backed by only one “citizen.”)

  3. Bitter&twisted

    Colour me not surprised on two accounts.
    1) Green energy is an expensive flop and has done little to reduce CO2 emissions.
    2) Our deranged troll finds these simple facts impossible to comprehend.

  4. Yonason

    PRIORITY FAIL

    “… – high subsidies for green energies and high electricity prices, yet CO2 emissions hardly fall.” – Dr. Joachim Weimann

    Oh, dear. So, if CO2 emissions fell, then outrageous subsidies and electricity prices would be OK? Seriously?!

    The very same failure to define a sensible objective (affordable products and services unburdened by ideological nitwittery) is on display in the article I commented to here.
    http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/01/german-public-television-report-electric-cars-a-swindle-rolling-climate-killers/#comment-1267556

    Unless they can decouple their economic goals from the ideological environmental insanity that CO2 is a “climate killer,” they have no hope of getting anything correct. Well, at least not without a lot of the angst that Germans can’t ever seem to do without.

  5. Walter Schneider

    “… – high subsidies for green energies and high electricity prices, yet CO2 emissions hardly fall.” – Dr. Joachim Weimann

    Well, it all makes perfect sense. The higher the subsidies, the higher the capital investment and operating costs, the higher the electricity prices. Electric energy is only a relatively small part of energy comsumed.

    All energy must be made more expensive, to permit the government to rake in enormously increased tax revenues. The more ubiquitous, the more expensive, the higher and more copious the tax revenues.

    Convince the masses that it is all done for a noble cause, to save the planet, and the governments as well as the corporations facilitating the scam and feeding on it have themselves a virtually inexhaustible source of wonderful, massive revenues. It is a revenue and tax generating scheme that flies under the radar of legislative review, critique and approval. Tax rate increases always draw opposition, tax increases that are the result of constructing measures to save the planet will always get the full support of the masses, especially when the latter are being appropriately indoctrinated.

    The intention was all along to create more revenues, just as all along the rationale was to get the masses to believe in and to sacrifice for the saving of the planet. The reality of that is, of course, that even if the planet were thereby truly to be saved, that would not be a good thing, as it would remove the sense of urgency that drives the acceptance of and the blind devotion to the scam.

    More: ‘Why renewable energy increases tax revenues’ http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2017/07/10/renewable-energy/#why

    1. Yonason

      Interesting new (to me) information.

      More evidence that politicians work for themselves by appeasing those who can benefit them most. Constituents – please take a number and wait for H*** to freeze over.

      Thanks

  6. Steve

    I am getting really tired of SebH even though he does come up with some good points on occasion. I am not a fan of the ugliness of wind farms.The same can be said for a Coal fired plant. I am OK with solar. No one talks about Hydro ??

    However there should be no subsidies for ‘alternative energies’ which is a stupid misnomer.
    At the end of the day we all need consistent energy supply and politicians and bureaucratic boffins of all persuasions should should have nothing to do with it.
    As far as I am concerned CO2 is harmless.

    1. SebastianH

      am getting really tired of SebH

      Oh great, will you post more or less as a consequence? I really enjoy your grumpy comments directed at me but written/posted to a general audience. Keep it up!

      Do you think the energy supply is not consistent in Germany? Rolling blackouts all over the country?

      As far as I am concerned CO2 is harmless.

      CO2 is harmless, the effect it has on the energy budgets is not when we aim to get higher and higher CO2 concentrations.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        CO2 is harmless, the effect it has on the energy budgets is not when we aim to get higher and higher CO2 concentrations.

        In what way are higher and higher CO2 concentrations “not harmless”? What harm has come, and what harm will come? Be specific.

        1. SebastianH

          I’ll forward you to the endless list of studies about the impacts of further global warming. I’m sure you know about them all, right? Or is this something you ignore because our CO2 emissions don’t cause a global warming? Because, you know, it’s supposed to be cooling in many regions 😉

          Really should finally do that Kenneth-FAQ to shorten the replies to your repetitive questions.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            I’ll forward you to the endless list of studies about the impacts of further global warming.

            Oh, are these the modeled impacts, such as the 30,000 species extinctions per year that you believe in?

            Considering (1) there is more land area above sea level today than in the 1980s, that (2) the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have contributed a combined total of 1.5 cm meltwater equivalent to sea level rise, that (3) an anthropogenic contribution to glacier melt has yet to even be detectable, that (4) there has been only one confirmed species extinction since 2000, that (5) the Earth’s land area has been greening, not browning, since the 1980s, that (6) hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events have not risen (and have in some cases declined) in recent decades, that (7) crop yields have risen dramatically, that (8) 800,000 citizens from China have risen out of abject poverty since the 1980s alone, mostly on the backs of cheap fossil fuel energy generation…can you identify even one significantly detrimental impact of the 100 ppm rise of atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1940s? Or is all you have are modeled projections of future doom based on alarmist surmises?

            I’m sure you know about them all, right? Or is this something you ignore

            No, I don’t know about the negative impacts of CO2 rise, as shown above. Of course, using computer modeling, your people can point to future catastrophes that can be conjured up. But observations of what’s happened since the 1950s do not match: more warmth and higher CO2 have shown themselves to be beneficial if going by observational evidence. So it’s hard to “ignore” the baddies you think have happened if I don’t even know what it is I’m supposed to be wringing my hands about.

            Really should finally do that Kenneth-FAQ to shorten the replies to your repetitive questions.

            You’ve never really answered this. Every time I ask you point to modeled projections. Identify why it’s ever-so important to reduce our CO2 emissions.

          2. spike55

            “I’ll forward you to the endless list of studies”

            HILARIOUS. 🙂

            You have been given MANY opportunities to present EVEN ONE that shows by empirical measurement that CO2 cuases warming or effects climate in any way

            You have been an ABJECT FAILURE at producing any evidence AT ALL.

            You have NOTHING. !!

            “Or is this something you ignore because our CO2 emissions don’t cause a global warming? “

            Do you have ANY SCIENTIFIC PROOF that they do ?????????

            or will you remain , as always..

            .. ZERO-EVIDENCE seb.

          3. Yonason

            THE ENDLESS NEVER ENDING STUDIES STORY”

            “Global Warming Be Bad” – Al Gore

            Repeat ad nauseam
            ————————–

            Welcome to the echo chamber world of loopy climate alarmists, and their many zombie surrogates.

          4. SebastianH

            Considering […]

            Thanks for listing the pillars of your belief system. That’s what convinces you that the future is so uncertain that you don’t have a problem with continuing on this path?

            can you identify even one significantly detrimental impact of the 100 ppm rise of atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1940s? Or is all you have are modeled projections of future doom based on alarmist surmises?

            Seriously, you sound like someone who thinks today’s situation is all that will ever come out from this man made climate change. From now on everything will be stable, right? As it has been in your eyes (probably) for the past 20 years, right? *sigh*

            And of course predictions are based on models derived from observations. Do you think predictions otherwise arise from knowledge about the future? Or do you think predictions are generally flawed because we don’t know enough? Probably that one, right? For you it might be already a miracle if the Sun comes up the next day, because who knows if that model of the rotating Earth is a correct one …

            https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ (although you probably have a paper in your list that “contradicts” anything that’s written there … you won’t accept anything like that ever, right?)

            So it’s hard to “ignore” the baddies you think have happened if I don’t even know what it is I’m supposed to be wringing my hands about.

            We aren’t talking about what already happened, it’s about what is going to happen. We are just at the beginning. And if you honestly believe that this was it, I don’t know … that seems to be what denialists would do, don’t you think? Blame models all you want, everything is based on models. Without models there is no data …

            You’ve never really answered this. Every time I ask you point to modeled projections. Identify why it’s ever-so important to reduce our CO2 emissions.

            I’ll instead point to my projections based on knowledge about the future because I am a time-traveller? Is it that what you want to hear?

            You constantly look at the past and when you recognize a change you use very long periods to convince yourself that the change is small and acceleration has been neglible … or worst, that everything is stable and within natural variation limits. Part of this behaviour comes from not understanding exponential growth and other concepts like the mechanisms involved in the ocean as a source and sink for CO2.

            Anyway, if I google lists of consequences of climate change or post my own list, your mind will not accept anything from it. So what is the point. Everything is alright, live on in peace … nothing bad will happen in your lifetime anyway, right? The cooling Sun will fix everything.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            can you identify even one significantly detrimental impact of the 100 ppm rise of atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1940s? Or is all you have are modeled projections of future doom based on alarmist surmises?

            Seriously, you sound like someone who thinks today’s situation is all that will ever come out from this man made climate change.

            So, no, you cannot name a single detrimental impact of the 100 ppm rise in CO2 since the mid-1940s.

            From now on everything will be stable, right?

            Not only did I not write this, I don’t even know what it means. What’s the “everything” that you are falsely claiming I’ve written will be stable? What are you talking about?

            As it has been in your eyes (probably) for the past 20 years, right? *sigh*

            In the last 20 years, hurricane frequencies have been declining, land area above sea level has been growing, 800,000 Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty (with India’s citizens next, fortunately), wildfires and burned area has been declining on a global scale, the Earth has been greening, crop yields have been rising…. So no, these things have not been stable in the last 20 years. Or did you have something else in mind that you wish to complain and wring your hands about? Oh. CO2 has been rising? So what? What has the detrimental consequence of that been? I’m still waiting for you to answer this question…and you’ll continue to dodge it. If you can’t even identify what +100 ppm CO2 has done to the planet in the last 75 years that’s detrimental, why are we supposed to join you in your worrying?

            And of course predictions are based on models derived from observations.

            What observations are the models based on that lead you to believe that 30,000 species are/will be going extinct every year…since only 1 confirmed extinction has occurred in total since 2000?

          6. Kenneth Richard

            Do you think predictions otherwise arise from knowledge about the future?

            Um, no. We don’t know the future. Therefore, we lack knowledge about the future. Wow. Did I really need to answer this question for you?

            Or do you think predictions are generally flawed because we don’t know enough?

            When it comes to weather and especially with climate, yes, we don’t know enough. That’s why the IPCC once concluded: “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” — IPCC TAR (2001) Section 14.2.2.2 Page 774

            For you it might be already a miracle if the Sun comes up the next day

            If you’re going to concoct another of your straw man arguments in an attempt to “counter” what I’ve written, please do try to come up with something a little less ridiculous and hackneyed.

            We aren’t talking about what already happened, it’s about what is going to happen.

            But we don’t know what’s going to happen. We’re expected to believe that, someday, CO2 emissions will cause 30,000 species to go extinct every year. How? We don’t know. That’s what the computer models say will happen. So people like you believe it and call people names like “denier” if we don’t share your belief in catastrophism. We’re skeptics. We need observational evidence, physical measurements, real-world data. You’re a believer. So you just need models, and that’s enough.

          7. Kenneth Richard

            And if you honestly believe that this was it, I don’t know … that seems to be what denialists would do, don’t you think?

            So “denialists” deny what will happen in the future…even though we don’t know what will happen in the future and the observations of the last 75 years aren’t indicative of what will happen in the future. In other words, we’re called “denialists” because we don’t just believe.

            I’ll instead point to my projections based on knowledge about the future because I am a time-traveller? Is it that what you want to hear?

            Debating with you — if that’s what this exchange can even be called — is like trying to have a serious conversation with a comedian solely interested in making the audience laugh. And on the occasion the audience members do laugh, he misinterprets it as a consequence of his brilliant humor.

            Yes, SebastianH. I really did think you are a time-traveler.

            Anyway, if I google lists of consequences of climate change or post my own list, your mind will not accept anything from it.

            Could that be because, as you yourself have acknowledged, there has yet to be a clearly detrimental consequence of having CO2 concentrations rise by 100 ppm?

          8. SebastianH

            In the last 20 years, hurricane frequencies have been declining

            https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes
            “The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.”

            land area above sea level has been growing

            Not because the sea level decreased. You know the reasons … among many are: lakes drying up and artificial islands. Yeah, land area grows …

            800,000 Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty (with India’s citizens next, fortunately)

            I hope you mean 3 orders of magnitude more. So? We went from using analog landlines to fiber optic high speed internet. Are you saying that the warming caused those improvements? Or that the warming didn’t impede these developments?

            wildfires and burned area has been declining on a global scale

            Only if you imagine that measurements (in the US) in the early 20th century were correct 😉 seems like you are not skeptical when the statistic says that a very large area of a state burned.

            https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html
            “The National Interagency Coordination Center at NIFC compiles annual wildland fire statistics for federal and state agencies. This information is provided through Situation Reports, which have been in use for several decades. Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.

            the Earth has been greening, crop yields have been rising

            You are probably referring to this study, right?
            https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22030

            Well … https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html

            Oh. CO2 has been rising? So what? What has the detrimental consequence of that been?

            Ocean ecology already changed, wildfires, sea level rise, ice melting, migration (plants as well as people) and so on. Those things will continue and some changes will accelerate.

            What observations are the models based on that lead you to believe that 30,000 species are/will be going extinct every year…since only 1 confirmed extinction has occurred in total since 2000?

            Did you read where this figure comes from? It’s an estimate based on what we know. Confirmed extinctions are different … I hope you know that.

            Um, no. We don’t know the future. Therefore, we lack knowledge about the future. Wow. Did I really need to answer this question for you?

            Nope, you didn’t need to. That was not the question at all. Since you are opposed to predictions from models, I asked you if you think predictions can be based on something else, like actual knowledge of the future, in your world.

            That’s why the IPCC once concluded […]

            Yes and it appears you don’t understand this one either. This quote deals with chaotic changes that can always happen and nobody could have foreseen. As an extreme there could be a massive volcanic erruption or an asteroid impact or the Sun suddenly halfing its output or the reptiloids release a powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere on top of our emissions. Who knows …

            Those predictions are about what we know and how one can predict future development based on that. An energy imbalance means that heat content will accumulate further. Whether that causes your hometown to warm or “just” the entire volume of the oceans by a few degrees … that is up to debate. But the general direction things are taking is pretty predictable.

            If you’re going to concoct another of your straw man arguments in an attempt to “counter” what I’ve written, please do try to come up with something a little less ridiculous and hackneyed.

            Ok? So you agree that the model of Earth revolving around itself and the Sun is correct and that it can indeed be used to predict the future of Earth’s location in space. What other models do you not have a problem with? How Cristy and Spencer arrive at the values for their UAH temperature index?

            But we don’t know what’s going to happen</blockquote
            Oh yes we do. We also do know that the Sun will some day inflate, that the Moon will someday very far away and Earth's rotation will slow down further. We know emitting CO2 will increase the concentration further, we know what an imbalance causes. I know what you are going to reply to anything I write. And so on …

            So people like you believe it and call people names like “denier” if we don’t share your belief in catastrophism.

            Nope, you are a denier because you believe that somehow the laws of physics don’t apply when it comes to climate science. Or maybe you don’t understand the mechanisms and you are just ignorant. I don’t know …

            We’re skeptics. We need observational evidence, physical measurements, real-world data. You’re a believer. So you just need models, and that’s enough.

            So being a skeptic means that you can’t accept anything that has not been measured? So if someone fires a cannon ball you’ll not accept predictions of where it will hit, because that hasn’t been measured yet and is based on models? That’s weird.

            Yes, I need models. Models are everywhere. If you think that you don’t need models, please explain how you measure temperature without one. Thank you.

            So “denialists” deny what will happen in the future…even though we don’t know what will happen in the future and the observations of the last 75 years aren’t indicative of what will happen in the future. In other words, we’re called “denialists” because we don’t just believe.

            Hmm, so the past isn’t indicative of what will happen in the future. Why is it that I remember you posting a paper that tried to use AI to predict the future from past temperature curves? Or all those curve fitting papers you posted? *sigh*

            Again, no … you are denialists because you ignore the obvious and try to imagine a world where the future can’t be known. If a throw a rock at you that is going to hit you, who knows if it will actually hit you. Perhaps it will just evaporate before impact … “we don’t know”.

            Debating with you — if that’s what this exchange can even be called — is like trying to have a serious conversation with a comedian solely interested in making the audience laugh. And on the occasion the audience members do laugh, he misinterprets it as a consequence of his brilliant humor.

            Let’s bring that analogy to a field I’m more familiar with. Debating with you is like trying to do a software startup with someone who has no idea about software development at all. He has the most interesting ideas about how things would work and thinks all the software experts have no clue. When his ideas don’t work in reality it suddenly becomes my fault for not explaining it thoroughly enough for him. But he has those blogs and stackexchange posts that he keeps bringing up to tell me that we surely can use this code in production to solve the problem …

            This is how it feels. With the other commentators here it’s more like conversing with the janitor about how his son/doughter managed to write an app for school and how that makes him/her a software developer/engineer now.

            Could that be because, as you yourself have acknowledged, there has yet to be a clearly detrimental consequence of having CO2 concentrations rise by 100 ppm?

            I am guessing people like you will only ever be convinced that what climate science is saying/predicting is possible/true if you experience it yourself. You need that measurement in the future to determine that it was a bad idea to stay on fossil fuels now and that we should begin to do something to become more sustainable. So time-travel is the only thing that will solve this …

            I hope the model of how temperatures are derived from measurements can be trusted though.

          9. Kenneth Richard

            In the last 20 years, hurricane frequencies have been declining

            SebastianH provides a single link to an article that says North Atlantic hurricanes have increased since the 1980s.

            Perrie et al., 2010
            “The impact of climate change is seen in slightly decreased intensities in landfalling cyclones.”

            Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015
            [T]he global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant downward trend [1990-2014].”

            Zhang et al., 2012
            “The various SST measures only have a weak influence on TMLGP [tropical cyclones making landfall, South China] intensities. Despite the long-term warming trend in SST in the WNP, no long-term trend is observed in either the frequency or intensities of TMLGP [tropical cyclones making landfall, South China].”

            Landsea et al., 1996
            A long-term (five decade) downward trend continues to be evident primarily in the frequency of intense hurricanes. In addition, the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change.”

            Hsu et al., 2014
            All of the counts, lifespans, and accumulated cyclone energy of the late-season typhoons during the 1995–2011 epoch decreased significantly, compared with typhoons that occurred during the 1979–94 epoch.”

            Hoarau et al., 2012
            There has been no trend towards an increase in the number of categories 3–5 cyclones over the last 30 years.”

            Wu et al., 2006
            [D]ata show a decrease in the proportion of category 4-5 typhoons from 18% to 8% between the two periods of 1977-1989 and 1990-2004 (Table 1; intensity estimates in terms of sustained maximum winds first became available in RSMC-Tokyo best track data in 1977).”

            Chan and Liu, 2004
            “No significant correlation was found between the typhoon activity parameters and local SST [during 1960-2003]. In other words, an increase in local SST [sea surface temperatures] does not lead to a significant change of the number of intense TCs [tropical cyclones] in the NWP, which is contrary to the results produced by many of the numerical climate models.”

            Zarzycki, 2016
            “Multi-member ensembles show that the overall number of TCs [tropical cyclones] generated by the model is reduced by 5-9% when allowing for two-way air-sea interactions. TC [tropical cyclones] intensity is greatly impacted; the strongest 1% of all TCs are 20-30 hPa (4-8 m s−1) weaker and the number of simulated Category 4 and 5 TCs [tropical cyclones] are reduced by 65% in slab ocean configurations. Reductions in [tropical cyclone] intensity are in line with published thermodynamic theory.”

            Blake and Landsea, 2011
            [D]uring the 40-year period 1961-2000 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply. Based on 1901-1960 statistics, the expected number of hurricanes and major hurricanes during the period 1961-2000 would have been 77 and 30, respectively. However, only 55 (or 71%) of the expected number of hurricanes struck the U.S. with only 19 major hurricanes (or 63% of that expected number).”

            Sanchez and Cavazos, 2014
            [D]uring 1970−2010 … SST in the MDR [along Mexican coasts] showed a statistically significant increase of 0.57°C over the whole period, but the frequency of HUR4−5 [intense hurricanes, Category 4 and 5] did not show a significant trend, while the frequency of HUR1−5 [weak and intense hurricanes] significantly decreased (−0.95% yr−1).”

            Chang et al., 2016
            “Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America. Climate models project a decrease in summer cyclone activity, but the observed decreasing rate is near the fastest projected.”

            Kelly, 2016
            “It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change.”

            Boos and Sterelvmo, 2016
            Neither a physically correct theoretical model nor a comprehensive climate model support the idea that seasonal mean monsoons will undergo abrupt, nonlinear shifts in response to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol emissions, or land surface albedo.”

          10. Kenneth Richard

            land area above sea level has been growing

            Not because the sea level decreased.

            No, it’s because sea level rise has been so insignificant that it has failed to keep up with the pace of geological movement (uplift, subsidence). Educational opportunity:

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/

            800,000 Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty (with India’s citizens next, fortunately)

            I hope you mean 3 orders of magnitude more. So?

            So? As in So what? How consistent of you to care so little about the world’s poor. The primary non-political driver of the 800,000 Chinese citizens being lifted out of poverty between the 1980s and 2000s? The availability of cheap, reliable energy in the form of fossil fuels.

            wildfires and burned area has been declining on a global scale

            Only if you imagine that measurements (in the US) in the early 20th century were correct

            I didn’t write about the US only. I wrote that wildfire and burned area has been declining on a global scale, including in the 21st century. We just went over this…and your “rebuttal” was just as weak (The US! Measurements don’t count before 1983!) back then too.

            Ward et al., 2018
            “Globally, fires are a major source of carbon from the terrestrial biosphere to the atmosphere, occurring on a seasonal cycle and with substantial interannual variability. To understand past trends and variability in sources and sinks of terrestrial carbon, we need quantitative estimates of global fire distributions. … Global fire emissions of carbon increase by about 10% between 1700 and 1900, reaching a maximum of 3.4 Pg C yr−1 in the 1910s, followed by a decrease to about 5% below year 1700 levels by 2010.”

            Earl and Simmonds, 2018
            We find that there is a strong statistically significant decline in 2001–2016 active fires globally linked to an increase in net primary productivity observed in northern Africa, along with global agricultural expansion and intensification, which generally reduces fire activity.”

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Fire-Frequency-Declining-2001-2016-Earl-and-Simmonds-2018.jpg

            Doerr and Santín, 2016
            “However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.”

            “Analysis of charcoal records in sediments [Marlon et al., 2008] and isotope-ratio records in ice cores [Wang et al., 2010] suggest that global biomass burning during the past century has been lower than at any time in the past 2000 years.”

          11. Kenneth Richard

            the Earth has been greening, crop yields have been rising

            You are probably referring to this study, right?

            Um, I’m referring to several dozens of studies published within the last few years alone, not one single study.

            Mao et al., 2016
            Significant land greening in the northern extratropical latitudes (NEL) has been documented through satellite observations during the past three decades. Our findings reveal that the observed greening record is consistent with an assumption of anthropogenic forcings, where greenhouse gases play a dominant role, but is not consistent with simulations that include only natural forcings and internal climate variability. These results provide the first clear evidence of a discernible human fingerprint on physiological vegetation changes other than phenology and range shifts.”

            Zhu et al., 2016
            “Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.”

            Lu et al., 2016
            Elevated CO2 as a driver of global dryland greening

            Pau et al., 2017
            Long-term increases in tropical flowering activity across growth forms in response to rising CO2 and climate change … We show that a multidecadal increase in flower activity is most strongly associated with rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations using yearly aggregated data. Compared to significant climatic factors, CO2 had on average an approximately three-, four-, or fivefold stronger effect than rainfall, solar radiation, and the Multivariate ENSO Index, respectively. Peaks in flower activity were associated with greater solar radiation and lower rainfall during El Niño years.”

            Szoboszlay et al., 2017
            “The effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration [CO2 ] on the diversity and composition of the prokaryotic community inhabiting the rhizosphere of winter barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) was investigated in a field experiment, using open-top chambers. … Above-ground plant biomass was not affected by elevated [CO2 ] at anthesis, but plants exposed to elevated [CO2 ] had significantly higher grain yield.”

            Yadav, 2017
            “A significant (F= 9.800; P<0.02) change was noticed in the post-harvest index of rice. However, there no change was noticed in the post-harvest percentage of maize. Leaf area of rice (P<0.01) and maize (P<0.005) increased significantly at flowering stage of plants under enriched CO2 environment over the ambient. Under elevated CO2 condition, biological yields of rice and maize were improved by 14.3% and 17.2% respectively. Carbon dioxide enrichment exposure improved the grain yield by 16.2% (P<0.02) and 13.8% ( P<0.02) for rice and maize respectively.”

            Pandey et al., 2017
            “Impact of elevated CO2 (free air CO2 enrichment) was studied on wheat (Triticum aestivum L. var Kundan) growth, yield and proteome. Elevated CO2 significantly impacted both underground (+24%) and aboveground (+15%) biomass. Grain weight/plant and harvest index were increased by 35% and 11.4%, respectively under high CO2.”

            Karthykeyan, 2017
            “The rooted stem cuttings of C. equisetifolia inoculated with Frankia showed a higher number of nodules under 900 ppm of CO2 and cuttings without Frankia inoculation exhibited poor growth. Tissue Nitrogen (N) content was also higher under 900 ppm of CO2 than ambient control and 600 ppm levels. The photosynthetic rate was higher (17.8 μ mol CO2 m−2 s−1) in 900 ppm of CO2than in 600 ppm (13.2 μ mol CO2 m−2 s−1) and ambient control (8.3 μ mol CO2 m−2 s−1). This study showed that Frankia can improve growth, N fixation and photosynthesis of C. equietifoliarooted stem cuttings under extreme elevated CO2 level conditions (900 ppm).”

            Verhage et al., 2017
            “Carbon dioxide fertilization offsets negative impacts of climate change on Arabica coffee yield in Brazil … The model projects that yield losses due to high air temperatures and water deficit will increase, while losses due to frost will decrease. Nevertheless, extra losses are offset by the CO2 fertilization effect, resulting in a small net increase of the average Brazilian Arabica coffee yield of 0.8% to 1.48 t ha−1 in 2040–2070, assuming growing locations and irrigation remain unchanged. … A major failure of nearly all climate change impact studies of future crop yields rests in their poor construct and design, where they near-unanimously fail to incorporate the beneficial effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth. As a result, yield projections in such studies are almost always shown to decline as a result of anticipated future temperature- and moisture-related stresses.

            Bourgault et al., 2017
            “Atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) are predicted to increase from current levels of about 400 ppm to reach 550 ppm by 2050. Elevated [CO2] increased lentil yields by approximately 0.5 t ha−1 [18% to 168%]. The greatest response of grain yield to elevated [CO2] was during a terminal drought. Biomass accumulation post-flowering was increased considerably by elevated [CO2].”

            Thinh et al., 2017
            “In summer experiment, yam vine length, leaf area, leaf dry weight (DW), and total DW were significantly higher under elevated [CO2] than ambient [CO2] in both temperature regimes. Additionally, number of leaves, vine DW, and root DW were significantly higher under elevated [CO2] than under ambient [CO2] in the low-temperature regime. In autumn experiment, tuber DW was significantly higher under elevated [CO2] than under ambient [CO2] in the high-temperature regime. These results demonstrate that yam shows positive growth responses to elevated [CO2].”

            Bastos et al., 2017
            The sustained increasing vegetation activity trend (greening) in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) has been a prominent feature in satellite observations since the 1980s and is consistently simulated by models. The trend in vegetation greenness has been linked to increasing growing season length at high latitudes and enhancemed terrestrial CO2 uptake in northern ecosystems. The greening pace has been associated with asymmetric effects of climate trends in vegetation activity or variations in the climate forcing. It has also been shown that regional greening trends are further attributed to land use change, land management, CO2 fertilization, and nitrogen deposition”

            Li et al., 2017
            “[M]aternal CO2 environment modulated the response of wheat plants to drought stress in terms of biomass production, [such that] plants reared from seeds harvested from the e[levated][CO2] maternal growth environment eliminated the negative impact of drought stress on DM [dry biomass]. … [T]ransgenerational exposure to e[CO2] also attenuated the negative impact of drought on evapotranspiration in wheat plants. … [T]ransgenerational exposure of wheat plants to e[CO2] [elevated CO2] could attenuate the negative impact of drought stress in terms of DM and WUE [water use efficiency].”

            Brandt et al., 2017
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0081
            “Here we used a passive microwave Earth observation data set to document two different trends in land area with woody cover for 1992–2011: 36% of the land area (6,870,000 km2) had an increase in woody cover largely in drylands, and 11% had a decrease (2,150,000 km2), mostly in humid zones. Increases in woody cover were associated with low population growth, and were driven by increases in CO2 in the humid zones and by increases in precipitation in drylands, whereas decreases in woody cover were associated with high population growth.”

            http://sciencenordic.com/africa-has-become-greener-last-20-years
            Africa has become greener in the last 20 years[M]ore CO2 in the atmosphere together with a wetter, warmer planet, provides conditions that help trees and bushes to grow.

            Nakano et al., 2017
            “[T]he improvement of source activity by increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations can lead to enhanced grain yield in rice lines that have a large sink capacity. Therefore, introducing alleles that increase sink capacity into conventional varieties represents a strategy that can be used to develop high-yielding varieties under increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, such as those predicted in the near future.”

          12. Kenneth Richard

            CO2 has been rising? So what? What has the detrimental consequence of that been?

            Ocean ecology already changed,

            Please identify the physical, scientifically-established causal link between the CO2 concentration change and detrimental changes in ocean ecology.

            Keep in mind…

            According to McElhany, 2017, there are no studies that directly demonstrate modern day effects of OA [ocean acidification] on marine species.”

            wildfires,

            Have decreased in frequency on a global scale both in recent decades and since the 20th century began.

            sea level rise,

            Which hasn’t been rising fast enough to keep pace with geological changes, which has resulted in coastal land area expanding rather than declining in the last 30 years.

            ice melting,

            Have you demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 is what causally drives polar ice melt, especially since CO2 forcing is “weak” to negligible (even negative) at the poles?

            A 2015 Scientific Paper Affirms CO2 Forcing Is ‘Weak’ To Negligible At The Poles

            migration (plants as well as people) and so on.

            With the advent and availability of air conditioning, people are increasingly migrating to warmer climates and away from cooler climates. Or is this not what you meant? Because this isn’t detrimental either. Air conditioning requires much less energy use than heating does, which means that the more people move to warmer climates, the less emissions there are.

          13. SebastianH

            SebastianH provides a single link to an article that says North Atlantic hurricanes have increased since the 1980s.

            Then a link to a paper maybe:
            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00262.1

            Or two:
            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2006GL028836

            Or three:
            https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07234

            No, it’s because sea level rise has been so insignificant that it has failed to keep up with the pace of geological movement (uplift, subsidence). Educational opportunity:

            Maybe an opportunity for you … key phrase: “We’re were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.” I see you were already a fan of Mörner in 2016.

            So? As in So what? How consistent of you to care so little about the world’s poor. The primary non-political driver of the 800,000 Chinese citizens being lifted out of poverty between the 1980s and 2000s? The availability of cheap, reliable energy in the form of fossil fuels.

            How nice of you to pull this out of context again. 1) Only 800000 Chinese citizens? Don’t you mean 800 million? 2) How is this an argument for good things that happened because of more CO2? Because it was fossil fuels that burned? Come on!

            Please note, we normal people are not saying that the bad stuff caused by climate change will set us back to pre-industrial times negating every progress we’ve made. It will just cost trillions and probably cause some disturbances. We are not talking about end of the world scenarios here that you seem to imagine when you think about what climate scientists predict.

            I didn’t write about the US only. I wrote that wildfire and burned area has been declining on a global scale, including in the 21st century. We just went over this…and your “rebuttal” was just as weak (The US! Measurements don’t count before 1983!) back then too.

            You are right, I misread that and thought you were again referring to just 2% of the worlds surface. And you consider what the National Interagency Fire Center writes about it’s own data to be a weak rebuttal … I see.

            Um, I’m referring to several dozens of studies published within the last few years alone, not one single study.

            … and ignore what the author of such a paper has to say about certain people celebrating this greening as a win for the fossil fuel industry?

            According to McElhany, 2017, “there are no studies that directly demonstrate modern day effects of OA [ocean acidification] on marine species.”

            Oh dear … we had this discussion before. I don’t like to go down that road again. There really needs to be a Kenneth FAQ for these instances.

            Have you demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 is what causally drives polar ice melt, especially since CO2 forcing is “weak” to negligible (even negative) at the poles?

            Oh dear #2 … that’s also one for the FAQ. You still use this argument? So the reason you think CO2 forcing is not the cause for ice to melt is that the local CO2 effect is weak? Really?

            With the advent and availability of air conditioning, people are increasingly migrating to warmer climates and away from cooler climates. Or is this not what you meant? Because this isn’t detrimental either.

            Yeah, of course I meant air conditioning migration … wth?

            Air conditioning requires much less energy use than heating does, which means that the more people move to warmer climates, the less emissions there are.

            Your imagination is fantastic! I am sure you have a list of papers supporting this theory of yours? 😉

            Nope, what I meant is migration by plants. But I am sure you will come up with some vineyards from the past to counter this or something like that, right?

            But of course there are also people migrating … and of course towards us because we have air conditioning #facepalm

          14. spike55

            Poor seb, after attempting a couple of modelled farce papers, then getting totally trounced by a myriad of papers and actual data and scientific observations, continues down the evidence free ranting.

            Hurricanes are NOT increasing,

            No indication of any human influence of sea level rise

            Zero proof of any ocean neutralisation.

            Sea Ice behaviour linked to AMO with ZERO evidence of any effect from human CO2

            No warming in 40 years except from ocean releases of solar charged energy at EL Nino events.

            ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can be scientifically put down to human CO2, which is only a small part of the highly beneficial rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

            All you have is IMAGINARY links to natural occurrences.

            YOU HAVE NOTHING except mindless evidence free ranting left, seb… with your regular faceplanting as you show how monumentally ignorant you are of basically any sort of reality..

            The world your warped mind sees.. DOES NOT EXIST

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          15. SebastianH

            Keep chanting these mantras over and over again if it helps you to stay ignorant (we all know ignorance is bliss).

            YOU HAVE NOTHING except mindless evidence free ranting left, seb

            I see … and this actual rant of yours contains evidence? Where? #facepalm

            P.S.: You really need to do some anger management when you act like this every time your fantasy is challenged. Or is this still just posting to please my “attention seeking” and to amuse me about the state of pseudoskepticism?

      2. spike55

        ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime, seb

        Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

        Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        cue another headless chook EVASION of these questions by seb.

      3. spike55

        “I really enjoy your grumpy comments “

        Yep, seb just LUVS the attention

        Its really his only reason for being here.

        What a sad, lonely, pathetic non-individual he truly is.

        1. SebastianH

          Yep, seb just LUVS the attention

          Its really his only reason for being here.

          Yes, and thank you for providing it all the time, most loyal fan! How sad is the person that follows someone he thinks is sad, lonely and a pathetic non-individual (I really like this one, that’s a new one!)?

          1. spike55

            Totally FREE of any evidence.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            Let’s see just one bit of empirical science from your little google searches, seb.

            STILL WAITING !!!

      4. Steve

        ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

        I can hardly keep my eyes open.

        I have asked this before.
        Who is paying you to write such folly?
        Or do you do it because you are a fanatic and you want to get on some sort of bandwagon where you can try and big note yourself.
        I note that you are the only contributor here who believes in AGW
        You need to get a life. Get out and smell the roses.

    2. Yonason

      “I am getting really tired of SebH…” – Steve 21. August 2018 at 10:56 PM

      Who isn’t?! But that is what he’s here for, to wear us out if he can.

      I mostly ignore him (it’s very refreshing 🙂 ), and usually only respond to him indirectly via responses to him by people I think are credible. I’ve found that if I don’t read his nonsense, except what relates to posts by those who I think make sense, I find myself a lot less annoyed by the garbage he spews. If you try it, let me know how it works out for you.

      Remember, he can’t annoy you, if he can’t get to you.

      Best Regards.

      1. spike55

        Only time I’ve been annoyed by seb is when I had a bruised rib and I had to laugh at his manic ineptitude and his childish headless-chook “run-away” routine.

        ouch !!

        How can one be annoyed at such a pitiful, lonely, needy little seb. All those sad, EMPTY, seb posts.

        He desperately seeks attention, so I try to help him out as much as I can.

      2. SebastianH

        You two (three) deserve each other. I find it funny how similar we seem to be when it comes to perceiving ones “opponent”, Yonason.

        I try to ignore you except when the nonsense can’t be ignores. I do think you spew garbage and we all know which people and publications you find credible. One of us is right about the other since the positions seem to be so extreme. I wonder if you would hold up in a discussion about climate in the real world instead of in this little blog bubble / echo chamber. How long will you then stick to your conspiracy theories, worship of tabloids and imagination that all facts that contradict your worldview are fake anyway?

        He desperately seeks attention, so I try to help him out as much as I can.

        That’s a good one. This is how you justify your annoying, insult ridden replies?

        1. spike55

          Again seb the headless chook rants.
          Let’s test YOUR credibility , yet again, seb.

          So far it sits somewhere is the far distant negative.

          It went backwards through “non-existent” AGES ago.

          Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

          Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          CUE.. yet more seb desperate and hilarious evasion tactics. 🙂

  7. SebastianH

    if CO2 emissions fell, then outrageous subsidies and electricity prices would be OK? Seriously?!

    Yes of course and they did fall. Unfortunately, we are also transitioning out of nuclear power in Germany. Some people – including you and this professor – don’t seem to realize that this somewhat compensated the massive increase in renewables and the lower CO2 emissions resulting from them.

    Want to claim – again – that CO2 emissions didn’t increase much from the use of renewables in Germany because coal power plants keep running on standby as a backup? 😉

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Want to claim – again – that CO2 emissions didn’t increase much from the use of renewables in Germany because coal power plants keep running on standby as a backup?

      https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/fig10-germany-energy-mix-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-2017.png?itok=q-8udpLh

      Wind and solar accounted for 4.1% of Germany’s energy consumption in 2017. In what way did this paltry percentage serve to decrease CO2 emissions?

      1. SebastianH

        Wind and solar accounted for 4.1% of Germany’s energy consumption in 2017.

        Oh thank you for showing us that the Professor doesn’t seem to be up to date. I almost missed that one … thank’s for reminding me that we are 4.1% now. A 1% point increase from 2016 to 2017 … that’s remarkable, don’t you think?

        In what way did this paltry percentage serve to decrease CO2 emissions?

        Imagine all the electricity that got produced by renewables would have been produced by coal or gas power plants. How much more emissions would that have caused? Do you honestly think that’s an amount close to zero? We are talking about more than 1100 TWh from 2002 up until today:
        https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all

        1. Kenneth Richard

          A 1% point increase from 2016 to 2017 … that’s remarkable, don’t you think?

          Yes, it’s truly remarkable. Do you find it equally remarkable that natural gas consumption rose from 22.0% in 2016 to 23.7% in 2017? Or that oil rose from 34.5% in 2016 to 35.6% in 2017?

          Imagine all the electricity that got produced by renewables would have been produced by coal or gas power plants. How much more emissions would that have caused?

          Well, considering biomass burning — which accounts for well over half of “renewable” energy consumed in Germany — is a net contributor to CO2 emissions, generating more CO2 per kWh than coal

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Biomass-Burning-65-Percent-More-Emissions-Than-Coal-Fanous-Moomaw-2018.jpg

          … I’m not sure that Germany is “gaining” when it comes to CO2 emissions net reductions by increasing their reliance on biomass burning relative to coal burning.

          1. Yonason

            @Kenneth

            ” How much more emissions would that have caused? ” – SebH asks

            Plants love it. It’s good for the environment. I’m with spike on this. The more CO2 in the environment, the better.

            But, as we saw from past NTZ posts that I’ve linked to above, there has been no reduction in emissions, or at least their estimation of same – not that I trust their math all that much. Why should I? They can’t even balance the earth radiation budget.
            https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2018/06/using-heat-transport-powers-of-nasa.html

          2. SebastianH

            Yes, it’s truly remarkable. Do you find it equally remarkable that natural gas consumption rose from 22.0% in 2016 to 23.7% in 2017? Or that oil rose from 34.5% in 2016 to 35.6% in 2017?

            Nope, not that remarkable. Is this another “but the absolute numbers for fossil fuels are increasing faster” reply?

            Well, considering biomass burning — which accounts for well over half of “renewable” energy consumed in Germany — is a net contributor to CO2 emissions, generating more CO2 per kWh than coal…

            This again …

            … I’m not sure that Germany is “gaining” when it comes to CO2 emissions net reductions by increasing their reliance on biomass burning relative to coal burning.

            I am not sure you aren’t leaving out half of the equation again. But we had that discussion and it let to nowhere, so … if you want to believe that, go ahead and believe that.

          3. SebastianH

            @Yonason:

            not that I trust their math all that much. Why should I? They can’t even balance the earth radiation budget.
            https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2018/06/using-heat-transport-powers-of-nasa.html

            This is funny. Those budgets are perfectly balanced. Why not post that link you once posted where someone put the word “magic” into these graphs? Just to illustrate how far gone you are 😉

      2. Yonason

        But, Kenneth – emissions did fall. The chatbot says so himself. See here for proof.
        http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/06/germanys-failure-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-set-to-extend-to-9-years/

        http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/22/germany-will-miss-its-own-2020-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reduction-targets-by-a-long-shot/

        No, no. You aren’t looking at those graphs correctly. Stand on your head, and it will become as clear as global warming.

        1. SebastianH

          Well, Kenneth somehow started with this and you continue with the theme … but this article and what I wrote was about the electricity grid and the high prices of electricty “without” reduction in emissions. Please stay on topic.

          1. spike55

            NO, you are WRONG AGAIN.

            K was talking about total energy use.

            You seem to be having your child-like reading and comprehension issues, as always, little seb.

      3. Yonason

        @Kenneth

        I think what the troll means is that we have to account for the increase in the use of fossil fuel plants to compensate for the loss of Nuclear power, which would presumably be more substantial. (depends on how much nuke power was lost)

        Of course that doesn’t help, because it doesn’t explain how any sane person could have possibly expected that 4.1% to reduce CO2 emissions noticeably in the first place.

        It doesn’t matter how you slice it, it’s still a pile of garbage. And SebH’s objections are just smoke and broken mirrors.

        1. SebastianH

          One question, Yonason. Let’s see if you can answer it.

          Assume you are a small country with 1000 TWh (100%) fossil fuel primary power consumption and about 300 TWh end energy usage. Now let’s assume you add renewables like wind and solar to that mix. The end energy usage stays the same, but 30 TWh now comes from this source.

          What is the percentage of renewables in primary power consumption and what will the total primary power consumption be in this case?

          Just want to see if you understand the difference.

          1. spike55

            Poor seb’s fantasy maths.. “let’s assume, let’s IMAGINE”, yet again

            SO FUNNY. ! 🙂

    2. spike55

      “that CO2 emissions didn’t increase much from the use of renewables in Germany because coal power plants keep running on standby as a backup?”

      Basically ZERO reduction in Germany’s CO2 reduction seb.

      FACE FACTS for one in your life.

  8. edmh

    A billion here, a billion there, suddenly you’re talking real money

    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/a-billion-here-a-billion-there-suddenly-youre-talking-real-money/

    This post estimates of the additional costs being incurred over Gas-firing for electricity generation that are being spent and will continue long-term to support installations of Weather Dependent Renewables in Western economies.

    Thus these calculations estimate a significant part of the capital and future costs of “Green Virtue Signalling” to the West.

    Weather Dependent Renewables are both more expensive to install and to run long-term than using Gas-firing, so this calculation estimates the overspend needed for Renewables to input the same amount of power to the grid: these overspends show the impact of the low capacity factors achieved by Wind Power and Solar PV as well as the additional costs of installing Renewables.

  9. Yonason

    It’s pretty much all ‘down side’, except maybe for a few investors at the top of the pyramid.

    “Solar Power Harms Taxpayers and Consumers and Endangers the Reliability of the Grid

    http://algresearch.org/2018/08/solar-power-harms-taxpayers-and-consumers-and-endangers-the-reliability-of-the-grid/

  10. Dags för energirealism - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

    […] deras omskrutna Energiewende har varit blir nu uppenbart för alltfler.  Ekonomiprofessorn Joachim Weimann karaktäriserade den förda politiken som en ”gigantisk ansträngning, löjligt låg utdelning […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close