The Government is facing demands to launch an urgent inquiry into the conduct of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), as evidence accumulates that the cost of Net Zero will be trillions of pounds more costly than the Committee has claimed.
The call comes in the wake of comments from Olivier Blanchard, a former chief economist at the IMF, who told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that Net Zero will be “much more expensive than people imagine.” [emphasis, links added]
Mr Blanchard’s remarks are just the latest confirmation that the public has been systematically misled over the cost of Net Zero :
- In 2021, it was revealed that the CCC had used spurious weather data in their modeling, thus enabling them to reduce the capacity of electricity generation and storage equipment required.
-
It was also revealed that the CCC used spurious figures for the cost of electric vehicles, thus reducing the apparent costs.
-
More recently, the CCC admitted that its electricity system modeling is inadequate. The resulting understatement of costs is as much as tens of billions of pounds per year.
-
It has also been revealed that the CCC “waves away” most of the cost problem, simply by assuming extraordinary cost reductions in the future. With current technology, the cost of Net Zero will be hundreds of billions of pounds higher.
And the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Hammond, has said, quite bluntly that the political establishment has been “systematically dishonest” about the cost of Net Zero.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
“There is no longer any doubt that the Climate Change Committee has deceived Parliament and the British people. The only question is whether Rishi Sunak is going to do anything about it.
“He has a simple choice – launch an inquiry into the Climate Change Committee and all the other institutions involved in the deception, or go down in history as a party to the fraud.”
Read more at NZW
Weather predictions from some Screwball who claims it is
going to by stormy every time they drop a 3 lbs. can of Coffee on their Big Toe of either foot
I found Rishi Sunak’s email address, and sent him my paper… he now has no excuse not to investigate CCC’s lies, as the entire underlying premise for ‘Net Zero’ is provably fallacious because the entirety of CAGW is predicated upon mathematical fraudery (so it’s not surprising that CCC would commit lying by omission, hand-wavium and data obfuscation… one cannot push a larger lie with the truth, but only with smaller lies).
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks, a very small percentage of the population can understand your calculations. I know you expect leaders to call in scientists who can understand them. However, they are unlikely to do so because it would give them answers that they don’t want. An effective method might be to add information that can be understood even by technically challenged politicians. One thing I mention often is the poor correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. Examples are at the beginning of this century, early part of the nineteenth century, the Roman and medieval warming periods, and the mini ice age. Seeing information that they can understand, they might be more likely to call in someone who can explain what they can’t understand.
I tried that, early on after I’d done my own investigation of CAGW after a niggling little discrepancy in their narrative came up. My investigation uncovered more and more discrepancies until the whole thing just collapsed in a heap.
So I decided to write a paper definitively disproving the CAGW hypothesis mathematically. Knowing that leftists tend to attack the messenger, I opted to ‘open source’ the paper so anyone who wanted could publish it as their own or change it to make it more easily understood, then publish it as their own… eventually enough people will publish it that the common knowledge in it (it is, after all, just bog-standard thermodynamics, radiative theory, cavity theory, electrical theory, quantum theory and dimensional analysis taken straight from physics tomes) will become “common knowledge”.
As to simplifying it… I’m working on that. I’ve already negated the leftist argument that treating real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects doesn’t matter. They actually claim that q = σ T^4 is functionally identical to q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
But q = σ T^4 assumes emission to 0 K… for them to deny that (and they’ve tried), they’d have to deny simple math:
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
= σ T^4
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
It is that emission to 0 K which artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects, which is where their “backradiation” comes from.
Without fail, they then attempt “But they’ve measured backradiation!”
Yeah, no.
https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html
As Professor Claes Johnson shows in that article on his website, pyrgeometers (the instrument typically used to ‘measure’ backradiation) utilize the same sort of misuse of the S-B equation as the climastrologists use. The bastardized form of the S-B equation used by pyrgeometers [ usually some form of q = (σ T_h^4 – σ T_c^4) or equivalently Ld = U_emf/S + σT_b, as outlined in the documentation for the instrument, with U_emf/S being negative in sign ] apriori assumes a subtraction of ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, which as I have shown, is fallacious.
The correct method of using the S-B equation is via subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient.
The energy density gradient determines radiant exitance of the warmer object… the cooler object will not (cannot) emit toward a warmer object (ie: energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, per 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense).
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
∴ q = ε σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
∴ q = (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object.
∴ q = σ / a * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3
For graybody objects, it is the radiation energy density differential between warmer object and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance. The climate alarmists misinterpret the S-B radiant exitance equation for graybody objects. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower radiation energy density gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) lowers radiant exitance of the warmer object (as compared to its radiant exitance if it were emitting to 0 K). The radiation energy density differential between objects manifests a radiation energy density gradient, each surface’s radiation energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.
It’s not easy simplifying that. Hopefully someone else has some ideas of how to do so, which is why I ‘open-sourced’ my writings.
I will say, though, that whereas before I would get booted from StackExchange for even hinting about any divergence from the CAGW narrative, my latest post utilizing the above not only didn’t get taken down, but won me a “Teacher” badge.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/801054
That’s progress.
The one person attempting to claim I was wrong got shut down pretty quickly when he showed he didn’t even understand the difference between ‘energy density’ and ‘energy density gradient’.
Just had a realization… I hadn’t fully simplified the S-B equation.
I wrote above:
The correct method of using the S-B equation is via subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient.
The energy density gradient determines radiant exitance of the warmer object… the cooler object will not (cannot) emit toward a warmer object (ie: energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, per 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense).
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
∴ q = ε σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
∴ q = (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object.
∴ q = σ / a * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3
And here’s the addition to the above:
You will note that σ = a * c… the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant equals Stefan’s Constant multiplied by the speed of light in vacua.
∴ q = ε_h * ((a * c) / a) * Δe
= ε_h * c * Δe
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = m sec-1 * ΔJ m-3
So radiant exitance at its most simple (and thus the S-B equation at its most simple) is just the emissivity of the warmer object (because emissivity only applies to objects which are emitting, and only the warmer object will be emitting… the colder object will be unable to emit in the direction of the warmer object because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient) multiplied by the speed of light in vacua, multiplied by the energy density differential.
That not only definitively proves that radiant exitance as calculated via the S-B equation is all about the energy density gradient, but it further solidifies the fact that the climastrologists are grossly violating many fundamental physical laws in pushing CAGW.
Mheh… math error.
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
[1] ∴ q = ε_h σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
[2] ∴ q = (ε_h c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object.
[3] ∴ q = (ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe) / 4
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = ((W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3) / 4
You will note that σ = a * c… the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant equals Stefan’s Constant multiplied by the speed of light in vacua.
[4] ∴ q = (ε_h * ((a * c) / a) * Δe) / 4
= (ε_h * c * Δe) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 * ΔJ m-3) / 4
Note that [2] and [4] are identical, arrived at via two different avenues.
So radiant exitance at its most simple (and thus the S-B equation at its most simple) is just the emissivity of the warmer object (because emissivity only applies to objects which are emitting, and only the warmer object will be emitting… the colder object will be unable to emit in the direction of the warmer object because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient) multiplied by the speed of light in vacua, multiplied by the energy density differential, all divided by 4.
For graybody objects, it is the radiation energy density differential between warmer object and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance. The climate alarmists misinterpret the S-B radiant exitance equation for graybody objects. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower radiation energy density gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) lowers radiant exitance of the warmer object (as compared to its radiant exitance if it were emitting to 0 K). The radiation energy density differential between objects manifests a radiation energy density gradient, each surface’s radiation energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.
Who’s ugly mug is being projected in light on the front of that Building?
It is very typical of liberals to lie about the cost of their projects. All one has to do is look at mass transit projects in the US. BART in the San Francisco area the ratio of what voters approved and the actually cost was 100:1. Climate change is loaded with lies from the assertion that a problem exists to the feasible of the solutions to the false problem. The lies from the Climate Change Committee are so extreme perhaps they have violated the law in some way.
The whole Climate Change Commitee should all be stranded in the Yukon with just the clothes on their backs for a month or more
What’s wrong with this picture:
On a carbon based planet, with carbon based plants and animals, carbon based humans are attempting to reduce a carbon based trace gas that benefits earth and all inhabitants. Why, because some humans mistakenly believe that trace gas is a pollutant causing earth to over-heat!
Net Zero will never happen. Its correct name is Genocide! Why is it genocide, because attaining net zero will destroy farming, livestock raising, all energy supplies resulting in starvation and death.
HEAR! HEAR!