You may have seen that the UK government did take an actual step away from this craziness yesterday. It published new guidance for prospective oil and gas developers which, contrary to industry spin, actually contain a lot of new measures that will make it harder for new North Sea oil and gas fields to get approved.
For example, on carbon removal measures (which is what they call CCS), it rules fantasy future removal being used as a mitigation measures. The relevant paragraph reads:
"Any selected emissions must not be speculative... A developer will be expected to be accountable and responsible for the delivery of any proposed measures and a delivery plan for the measures would need to be provided in the ES... Any removal measures would need to be transparent and easily verifiable at a project level (i.e. can be linked back to the proposed project). Confirmation of the permanence of any selected measures would need to be provided in the ES, including details of robust third-party monitoring, reporting and verification methodologies to ensure the measure is genuine and of high integrity, which may include UK Government removal standards as they are developed." Clearly no project will be able to meet those requirements.
There are similarly sensible rebuttals on all the industry's favourite arguments.
It feels strange for a campaigner to actually congratulate the government, but they have done something right this week and deserve credit for that.
Great to see this. Mirror of US developments in which the fossil fuel industry very forcefully pushed back against having to do any due diligence around removal and storage.
“The rapid phase out of fossil fuels is absolutely central to our efforts to avoid catastrophic climate change. If we do not do this then we are toast.”
It really is that simple isn’t it James.
Sadly, however terrifying the data is, GDP growth still dominates decisions (I know, hard to believe).
I think anyone who pays attention to and understands the science feels angry, frustrated, desperately sad, and many are just giving up.
And I really do get that.
Is it time to accept and adapt?
I simply cannot see data alone motivating the radical change we need, in the time we have, to give our children and future generations any chance of a habitable world.
There's no end to the amount of solutions, and there have been many since the late 1970's.
The people who had/have solutions are defunded and ridiculed. There's no shortage on creativity here, but the creatives are pretty much all starving or blocked out of media access and a few are still hanging in there in academia. But most are not.
Radiative forcing is a version of caloric, bogus concept for bogus theory.
ABSTRACT:
Earth is cooler with atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous RGHE heat balance graphics don't plus violate GAAP and LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a surface BB impossible.
RGHE is bogus & CAGW is a scam!
FACTS & EVIDENCE:
FACT 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory says “288 K w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
FACT 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a BB.
EVIDENCE:
According to TFK_bams09 atmospheric power flux balance, numerous clones and SURFRAD the GHGs must absorb an “extra” 396 BB/333 “back”/63 2nd net W/m^2 LWIR energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a BB. These graphics contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors.
FACT 3: Because of the significant non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a near Black Body.
EVIDENCE:
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
"My plea to the climate centrists is put [the stark climate policy choices] to society. Ditch the delusions around overshoot. Get real about what’s at stake. Let’s have an actual debate about what people value & want to protect rather some n-dimensional game of political chess."
It's the physical realities that the climate movement is trying to warn about. Why is is to hard to understand that in an ever-warming world eventually agricultural production won't keep up with food needs. It's already happening on the margins in Africa. At least skim a free PDF copy from the original publisher of landmark The Limits To Growth: https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/
Great article as always.
You may have seen that the UK government did take an actual step away from this craziness yesterday. It published new guidance for prospective oil and gas developers which, contrary to industry spin, actually contain a lot of new measures that will make it harder for new North Sea oil and gas fields to get approved.
For example, on carbon removal measures (which is what they call CCS), it rules fantasy future removal being used as a mitigation measures. The relevant paragraph reads:
"Any selected emissions must not be speculative... A developer will be expected to be accountable and responsible for the delivery of any proposed measures and a delivery plan for the measures would need to be provided in the ES... Any removal measures would need to be transparent and easily verifiable at a project level (i.e. can be linked back to the proposed project). Confirmation of the permanence of any selected measures would need to be provided in the ES, including details of robust third-party monitoring, reporting and verification methodologies to ensure the measure is genuine and of high integrity, which may include UK Government removal standards as they are developed." Clearly no project will be able to meet those requirements.
There are similarly sensible rebuttals on all the industry's favourite arguments.
It feels strange for a campaigner to actually congratulate the government, but they have done something right this week and deserve credit for that.
See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6853fa3d1203c00468ba2b15/Supplementary_guidance_-_Effects_of_Scope_3_Emissions.pdf
Great to see this. Mirror of US developments in which the fossil fuel industry very forcefully pushed back against having to do any due diligence around removal and storage.
Spot on, every single word of it.
I agree
“The rapid phase out of fossil fuels is absolutely central to our efforts to avoid catastrophic climate change. If we do not do this then we are toast.”
It really is that simple isn’t it James.
Sadly, however terrifying the data is, GDP growth still dominates decisions (I know, hard to believe).
I think anyone who pays attention to and understands the science feels angry, frustrated, desperately sad, and many are just giving up.
And I really do get that.
Is it time to accept and adapt?
I simply cannot see data alone motivating the radical change we need, in the time we have, to give our children and future generations any chance of a habitable world.
Degrowth is the wayy!
There's no end to the amount of solutions, and there have been many since the late 1970's.
The people who had/have solutions are defunded and ridiculed. There's no shortage on creativity here, but the creatives are pretty much all starving or blocked out of media access and a few are still hanging in there in academia. But most are not.
Radiative forcing is a version of caloric, bogus concept for bogus theory.
ABSTRACT:
Earth is cooler with atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous RGHE heat balance graphics don't plus violate GAAP and LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a surface BB impossible.
RGHE is bogus & CAGW is a scam!
FACTS & EVIDENCE:
FACT 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory says “288 K w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
FACT 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a BB.
EVIDENCE:
According to TFK_bams09 atmospheric power flux balance, numerous clones and SURFRAD the GHGs must absorb an “extra” 396 BB/333 “back”/63 2nd net W/m^2 LWIR energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a BB. These graphics contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors.
FACT 3: Because of the significant non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a near Black Body.
EVIDENCE:
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot”
CONCLUSION:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.
BSME CU ‘78
Exactly!:
"My plea to the climate centrists is put [the stark climate policy choices] to society. Ditch the delusions around overshoot. Get real about what’s at stake. Let’s have an actual debate about what people value & want to protect rather some n-dimensional game of political chess."
Couldn't agree more. There's nothing less realistic than political "realism" in the face of actual, physical reality.
It's the physical realities that the climate movement is trying to warn about. Why is is to hard to understand that in an ever-warming world eventually agricultural production won't keep up with food needs. It's already happening on the margins in Africa. At least skim a free PDF copy from the original publisher of landmark The Limits To Growth: https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/