👉 Click here to subscribe to the Daily: The top news for utilities, read by 200K+.

Energy Business
Ed Reid
Top Contributor
·Posted in Energy Business

What if ...? (Interesting questions, absent answers.)

Originally published here.

 

The consensed climate science community has created a narrative that anthropogenic emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O are causing additional heat to be retained in the earth’s atmosphere, that this additional heat is increasing the global average temperature, that this increased temperature is changing earth’s climate, that this change in climate is undesirable, and that these anthropogenic emissions must be drastically reduced or eliminated to avoid pushing the planet through a ‘tipping point” from which it cannot recover. The narrative asserts that the climate changes are affecting the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and even wildfires.

But what if the consensus narrative is in error in one or more of a variety of ways?

 

Climate Science

What if


  • CO2 is not the climate “control knob”?
  • natural variation is contributing to recent warming?
  • land use changes are contributing to recent warming?
  • the Urban Heat Island effect has increased measured temperature anomalies?
  • “adjustments” to measured temperatures have increased reported anomalies?
  • climate models do not accurately model the climate?
  • climate models were hindcast against inaccurate temperature anomalies?
  • attribution models don’t model extreme weather events accurately?
  • the CO2 effect in the atmosphere is essentially saturated?
  • the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is causing beneficial global greening?
  • the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing food crop production?

 

Climate Policy

What if


  • recent climate change does not constitute a “crisis” or “existential threat”?
  • the current Social Cost of Carbon is negative?
  • Net Zero GHG emissions are not necessary?
  • driving the fossil fuel industries out of business is unnecessary?
  • intermittent renewable generation increases electric energy costs?
  • electricity storage increases electric energy costs?
  • long-duration electric storage capacity is unavailable?
  • renewable capacity additions lag conventional capacity reductions?
  • “all-electric everything” is unnecessary or undesirable?
  • electric vehicle utility remains limited?
  • renewable capacity additions lag “all-electric everything” expansion?
  • renewable intermittency adversely affects grid stability?
  • renewable intermittency adversely affects grid reliability?
  • there are no replacements for some products made from fossil fuels?
  • there are no replacements for some fossil-fueled processes?

 

Net Zero by 2050 is clearly Goal “A” for the OECD countries, though just as clearly not for the developing nations. However, there appears to be no clear and comprehensive Plan “A” for achieving Goal “A”. There also appears to be no Plan “B” in the event that Goal “A” is unachievable or unnecessary, or the unidentified elements of Plan “A” fail to come together timely.

The ”What if” questions above are not new, but there has been great reluctance on the part of the consensed climate science community, their political allies and the main stream media to attempt to seriously address and resolve these issues. However, electricity prices are increasing, largely as the result of duplication of generating facilities. Grid reliability and resiliency is also being questioned by the Federal Energy regulatory Commission (FERC), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Independent System Operators (ISOs) and Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) which are responsible for regulation and operation of the electric utility grid.