IPCC Report Again

14 Oct 2018

At https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/14/ipcc-achieves-net-zero-credibility/ ... is a guest essay by Barry Brill. We are told that between 2032 and 2050 there will be species extinctions, weather extremes, and food shortages etc (more of the same old CAGW doom mongering). The good news is we have another twelve years before the crunch. In other words, the disciples of CAGW have pushed back the date - after their previous dates for the end of the world proved to be too optimistic (having passed by without incident). This is somewhat reminiscent of a book written by Patrick Moore, the BBC 'Sky at Night' presenter (some years ago). He wrote a potted history of several apocalyptic end of the worlders (in Europe and North America) and several of them moved the goal posts on a number of occasions - completely unfazed by their doom and gloom failing to materialise. Nobody of course took them seriously after awhile - but for an unfathomable reason many people seem to take the CAGW moving goalposts literally and seriously. The latest is a UK minister seriously saying that we should achieve zero emissions by 2050. For that reason it is informative to read what Barry Brill has to say. We are told we need to cut co2 emissions by 45% from 2010 levels - by 2030 (reaching net zero by 2050). Ths UK minister seems to have taken this as a serious estimate of how much time we have prior to Armageddon. It takes all sorts I suppose. Brill points out that in 2015 half of all emissions came from China, the US, and India. Both China and India have no intention of cutting their emissions - pleading they need to catch up with the developed world (and improve the lives of their citizens). They will continue to build coal fired power stations. The US, on the other hand, has pulled out of the Paris agreement and has no ambition of cutting emissions in the immediate near future. In one of life's paradoxes, US emissions have continued to go down - as a result of fracking for natural gas (and various other factors such as increased forest growth etc). Gemany, on the other hand, with its renewable industry (and huge swathes of turbines) has seen its emissions increase (as a result of abandoning nuclear and expanding coal power generation to subsidise the renewables when the wind doesn't blow and the sun is obscured by clouds). Brill then says this means the other 195 members of the UN climate signatories will have to come up with achieving the required amount of emissions. Unfortunately, they would fall far short of what is actually required. The IPCC gobal reduction target of 45% is impossible to achieve he adds (as China and India have no intention of reducing their emissions). Coal forms 37% of world energy and it would have to be eliminated entirely over the next 12 years - but other research such as the WEO2017b report claim coal will still form 20% of power station fuel over the next 20 years (and this is a conservative estimate). The IPCC report concentrates on reducing emissions on cars and lorries (trucks), buses and coaches, aeroplanes and ocean going ships etc but an IEA report a few days ago said petrochemicals are rapdily becoming the major driver of global oil consumption and will, in effect, continue to rise to one third of oil consumption by 2030. Petrochemical use far outweighs that of transport. The IPCC of course rely on models for all their assumptions - which explains why petrochemicals are not on their radar as they do not seem to be part of the models. As we learnt a few days ago, on the audit of HADCrut climate data (see earlier post), environmentalists are sloppy researchers and their models are full of errors and gaps. If a scientist had written the IPCC report we should expect at least a bit of proper research - but no, the research is buried in the body of the report and not in the press release for consumption by global media and politicos. For instance, they suggest $2.4 trillion dollars must be invested in clean energy (aka renewables) every year to 2035 (which is a seven fold increase inlevals of renewable expenditure in 2017). That amounts to an aggregate investment of $48 trillion dollars. The interest bill alone is $200 billion dollars a month (yes, a month) which is wasted investment as the banks are the only ones to benefit (and of course those billionaire renewable chaps too). This monthly bill is more than the whole world spends on educating children and environmental protection as of this moment in time. One wonders why any politico would want to spend such eye watering sums for something which may never happen and if the last 50 years are anything to go by, the increase in temperatures has been beneficial rather than apocalyptic.

However, in a riposte to Barry Brill see the comment by Scute October 14th at 8.23am (UK time). He has seriously researched this whole issue over a long period of time, wading through dense documents and heaps of data, and shows quite clearly that the IPCC alarmism suits the CAGW song sheet of apocalyptic alarmism - yet at the same time suits the sceptics too (as it gives them something positive to criticise and attack). See also the comment by Michel at 2.05am.