Link: https://fakta360.no/2024/03/klimamalene-er-politiske-pafunn/
Please see the text above for the source text.
Climate goals are political inventions
Huge
costs, no climate impact
Erik Bye
March 27, 2024
At the moment, there is great pressure on the Norwegian economy. This is due to the green shift. It is based on the fact that fossil CO2 emissions lead to man-made climate change. To remedy this, new renewable energy should be invested in oil and gas production should be reduced and gradually phased out. In this context, the enormous costs are particularly related to the fact that we should electrify the shelf, so that we appear as a supplier of some of the cleanest petroleum products delivered. And the Norwegian authorities are happy with this falsification. Falsification, because the gas we do not burn on the shelf here at home is sold to the neighbor, who must account for the emissions. This is not a climate measure, just embellishment and artificially exaggerated quality.
By: Erik Bye – The article is an external post and expresses the writer's opinions.
Pointless climate measures
● The green shift in general
● Electrification of the shelf
● Electrification of all transport
● Production of green hydrogen
● Production of blue hydrogen
● Production of green ammonia
● Production of green fertilizer
● Battery production
● Establishment of offshore and onshore wind
● CCS – Carbon Capture and Storage
Uncontrollable costs
The costs of implementing the green shift are currently beyond anyone's control. So, what is the reason for all this, that we have to invest in new renewable energy? And what determines the extent of this? What governs and determines that we have achieved what we so-called have to?
Forced emission reductions
To reduce or avoid catastrophic results of climate change, fossil CO2 emissions must be reduced. In this way, the IPCC assumes that global warming will be kept under control. And global warming must at least comply with +2˚C by 2100, and preferably be below +1.5˚C.
The 2-degree target
For many years, the 2-degree target was the goal, a goal to be exceeded by 2100. The whole world worked intensely to comply with this requirement, including setting requirements for reduced emissions of fossil CO2. However, this target is simply a political invention, a value taken straight out of thin air without scientific basis, and pushed through by politicians during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen in 2009:
https://www.klimarealistene.com/wp-content/uploads/Klimanytt75.pdf
This sounds completely absurd, a political invention, think of a number. But this was acknowledged by Professor (em) Eystein Jansen, former director of the Bjerknes Center (UiB), in an interview with NRK:
https://www.nrk.no/viten/ -gamblar-om-framtida-1.11541817
This goal caused a lot of unrest, not least because there was no documentation that could justify this climate goal. It caused so much commotion that climate scientists called it the Two Degrees Scam:
Two-degree snoring
https://forskning.no/partner-klima-universitetet-i-oslo/togradersgnalet/5 28288
When asked directly, the researchers replied that it was better to have such an unscientific goal than no goal at all. That's it!
The 1.5-degree goal
This climate goal was approved by the entire UN family at the Paris meeting in 2015, at the same time as a desire was expressed to be able to comply with an even lower value, +1.5˚C at the same time, in 2100. Everything was supposed to be identical to before, it all involved implementing emission reductions.
Those who could increase emissions
This meeting was later seen as a pure hallelujah meeting, with great joy over the new climate target and considerable joy over the requirements for reduction targets that the various nations were to report to the UN. What was not talked about much were all the major emitting countries that were given permission to continue increasing emissions until 2030. China was among the lucky ones, and the emission quantities in this "permit" may well become a headache in time. Here is a review of the treatment of the work on emission requirements and the climate target:
https://forskning.no/miljopolitikk-naturvern-klima/fns-klimarapport-om15-gradersmalet–det-er-viktig-a-ha-et-mal-selv-om-svaert-fa-tror-at-det-er -mulig-a-na-det/1247278
Here is a list of how much these countries could increase by:
https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/dette-er-klima-og-co2-tallene-som-sje lden-blir-snakket-om/s/12-95-3423903610
Emission targets and not temperature targets
After the Paris meeting (2016) and up until the COP28 meeting in xxx, it became clear that the climate goals changed from the 1.5-degree goal to the emission reductions that the UN countries set as goals. Now it is no longer about the 1.5-degree goal, only the reductions in CO2 emissions. And here Norway has announced a 55% reduction by 2030, so far we have managed 4.7% since 1990. Here things are getting out of hand.
What are the prospects for meeting this goal here at home and in general for the other UN countries? The nearly 200 member countries are all fighting to meet these goals. And climate scientists are warning that this may be difficult. And what is at stake is how much reduction in emissions they achieve:
https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/merker-vaeromslagene-lettere-na/ 15453209/
Scientists don't think we will reach the goals:
https://forskning.no/klima-miljoovervakning-miljopolitikk/klimatoppmot et-forskere-tror-ikke-vi-klarer-a-na-malene-i-parisavtalen/2110085
https://forskning.no/klima-ntb-vaer-og-vind/norsk-klimaforsker-er-ikke-o verrasket-over-varmerekorder-i-januar/2134520
Arendal Week 2023
An interesting interlude from Arendalsuka in 2023. During the party leadership debate, the question was asked. Who thought we would achieve our goals, a 55% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030? Only Gahr Støre raised his hand, a slightly hesitant one at first. Not even Zrefgjeringskolkegsen Slagsvod Vedum (Sp) believed in any goal achievement. E
Fønvind from Africa, Bjørn Samset talks about extreme climate. Norway doesn't notice it much; it's probably the regional phenomenon that saves us from the global danger:
There are several ways to assess the possibilities here. Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH) operates with a trend of 0.13˚C/decade. According to the IPCC, as of 2019 we have a global temperature that is 1.07˚C higher than pre-industrial times. Based on Spencer's trend, we end up at 2˚C in 2100. We hit the first target, but end up 0.5˚C above the most desired target. The global temperature has leveled off several times after the year 2000. The first time was in the period 2000-2018, the so-called hiatus. It is mentioned in AR6, certainly to the irritation of climate scientists who have long denied that the global temperature rose as a result of natural cooling. Among these was Bjørn Samset, CICERO. He believed that it was most likely that the heat disappeared into the deep ocean, through cooler water layers! This was proposed in all seriousness, without observations as support or reasonable mechanisms for explanation. He gave up when the IPCC itself referred to it as The Hiatus.
The CO2 increase and Arrhenius
Currently, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, without changing the temperature. The CO2 increase follows a quadratic equation:
This equation has been observed and modeled by a fellow student, with data from NOAA and Excel. (Referred to among friends as Gunnar's equation). If this level increase continues as it is now, we will reach 690 ppmv in 2100. Here we can use climate sensitivity to calculate what this CO2 level will correspond to. Climate sensitivity says how much the temperature will rise if the CO2 level doubles. Now we have 420 ppmv, a doubling corresponds to 840 ppmv. If we assume that the parameters change linearly, a climate sensitivity of 2˚C will lead to +2.35˚C in 2100. This is the climate sensitivity that the IPCC states in AR6. However, there is great disagreement about the value of this variable.
Climate sensitivity
Arrhenius is falsified (2007) so. With that, the CO2 hypothesis disappeared, i.e., should disappear. The alarmists cling to it, anyway! Considerable work has been done to determine the climate sensitivity. That value should determine how much the global temperature rose when CO2 was doubled. This value has not been determined. The researchers have reduced the extimer5 value from 2-3˚C and down to 0.2˚C. But it turns out that the climate sensitivity is EB fictitious atmospheric quantity, and the work of Clark in 2015 shows that the value can be estimated to 0˚C:
https://climatecite.com/wp-content/uploads/nullco2.pdf
Temperature trend since 1979
There are calculations ranging from 0.1 to 2˚C for climate sensitivity. If we take a small reservation and consider a sensitivity of 0.25˚C as a reasonable estimate, we end up with +1.22˚C, with a good margin for the desired climate target of +1.5˚C. At the moment, the big question is how the temperature will develop. According to the satellite measurements at UAH MSU, there has been a cooling La Nina (cooling) over a longer period. According to the graph for December, an almost microscopic El Niño (warming) has already finished, and a new La Nina is developing. This may mean that an unchanged temperature will continue. Værstat. has recently reported that the temperature has not changed in the last eight years. This means that it is likely to at least reach the 2-degree target, with the possibility of a somewhat smaller increase. As usual, there is only scaremongering when climate scientists and other "climate experts" scare with an increase of 3-5˚C.
https://cicero.oslo.no/no/artikler/hva-skjer-etter-1-5
There is no scientific justification for existential natural damage and unmanageable climate change if the temperature rises a few degrees. Climate targets are just political inventions, and we may have to adapt to natural changes, be prepared for them.
Now the battle will be about the misuse of the enormous sums that we are now beginning to see the contours of. If the temperature drops several times, and climate sensitivity ends at 0˚C, then the battle and the matter are over. Nature can report: "Mission done." Many will be satisfied, but not all.
The climate goal can be achieved easily
The paradox is that, unlike the reduction target, the temperature target is easy to achieve. It will be reached in 2030 without further ado, we do not need to remove a single CO2 molecule from the atmosphere. How? Simply because the temperature is increasing less than what is predicted and feared. It is a simple calculation, which climate scientists and responsible politicians will not do, due to fear or other refusal.
In 2019, the IPCC reported that temperatures had risen by 1.07˚C since pre-industrial times (FIT). According to Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH), the temperature trend is 0.15˚C/decade, which it has been since 1979. There is no sign of this changing. From 2019 to 2030, temperatures will rise by 0.15˚C and we will end up at 1.22˚C in 2030. Simsalabim. Don't worry, we will end up at 1.52˚C in 2050, so we will also meet that target. How can we be sure of that?
First, there is no sign of a change in the linear increase. Furthermore, CO2 levels change with temperature, so CO2 gas is not a driver of temperature. CO2 levels will not affect temperature, even if they increase more than the quadratic increase we have had since 1950. Furthermore, the Arrhenius warming theory has been thoroughly falsified (2007), and the CO2 hypothesis should have been rejected, loud and clear.
So, the climate goals are political inventions without any scientific justification. There is no scientific coverage for the risk of catastrophic effects on the planet due to 1.5-2 degrees of warming. So, in principle, the green shift is completely unnecessary to save the planet, the climate goals are political inventions and the climate hysteria should be called off immediately. But, no one has the power, will or desire to do that. So, that's how things are now.
Two good rules of thumb:
"A teacher from his mistakes, today I learned a lot." and
"A teacher, as long as you have students," a professor once said.