From KlimaNachrichten Redakteur

Monthly newsletter from Fritz Vahrenholt

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

As usual, you will receive my monitor on the actual global temperature rise. After that, these are my topics today:

• the heat island effect
• the influence of solar radiation on temperature development
• the further development of CO2 emissions in the G20 countries
• nature’s contribution to stabilising CO2 concentrations

In August 2023, the deviation of global temperature from the 30-year average of satellite-based measurements from the University of Alabama (UAH) continued to increase slightly compared to July. The value is 0.69 degrees Celsius and represents the second highest deviation from the long-term average since 1979. The average temperature increase per decade since 1979 is 0.14 degrees Celsius. A further increase at this level is not a cause for concern, certainly not for panic. The increase in the temperature of the seas was 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade; the increase in temperature on land was 0.19 degrees per decade. Why temperatures rise more sharply on land, we will explain below.

37 scientists from 17 countries report new findings on the causes of global warming

At the end of August, the renowned climate science journal Climate published a paper by 37 scientists from 17 countries on new findings on the causes of global warming on land. The IPCC had blamed 100% of the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as the cause of warming both on land and in the oceans. The 37 scientists come to the different conclusion that there are other causes of the measured temperature increase that are not attributable to the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. I’m proud to announce that I’m one of the 37 scientists who published this.

What did this group of scientists investigate?

In order to identify the main causes of warming from 1850 to 2018, two sources of warming neglected by the IPCC were statistically investigated:

1. The so-called urban heat islands effect, which reflects the influence of growing cities on measurement results and temperature increases.

2. The influence of solar activity as another cause of temperature increases that are not caused by CO2.

To the heat island effect

The heat island effect is that measuring stations that used to be located in purely rural areas are now surrounded by urbanization of populated areas. One example is the measuring station at Frankfurt Airport, which 80 years ago had rural areas as its environment, but is now influenced by heat-storing and heat-emitting runways, motorways, buildings and traffic.

The study concludes that 65% of the measuring stations located in rural areas between 1850 and 1900 are now fully urbanized. Why is this important? The difference in temperature between urban and rural areas is significant; if rural areas are urbanized over time, the respective local measuring stations record the higher temperature of the urbanized environment. Accordingly, the locations of the measuring stations play a more important role in the assessment of global temperature rise than previously thought.

Since the ratio of measuring stations in rural and urban areas has shifted by 65% in favour of cities due to growing cities, this also has an influence on the causes of global temperature development.

Therefore, part of the warming of the last 150 years in Europe, the USA and especially China is due to the change in the environment and not only to the rising CO2 concentration. The study concludes that the effect is 0.34 degrees Celsius per century. This does not exempt CO2, but the degree of warming on land would be almost 40% lower without the heat island effect.

On the influence of solar radiation

The influence of changing solar radiation on global warming is given by the IPCC as close to zero. I had already referred to my publication in the last August newsletter, according to which, especially in the last 20 years, the influence of solar radiation by thinning the clouds has been of greater importance than the so-called greenhouse effect. The study by the 37 scientists also comes to a greater solar influence for the period before that: according to this, up to 70% of the warming is due to solar irradiation conditions.

Why are the results different compared to those of the IPPC? The IPCC relies on data from the Physical-Meteorological Observatory in Davos (PMOD) to reconstruct the solar cycles. The above-mentioned study is based on data from the Californian Institute of Technology (ACRIM) for the reconstruction of the solar cycles. There are good reasons for each of these two satellite measurement systems. The differences in the measurement results appear to be very small. But if one opts for the measurements of the Californian Institute of Technology (ACRIM), the influence of the sun is greater than the influence of CO2 on warming in the reconstruction of the solar cycles of ACRIM.

In any case, the publication shows one thing: the uncertainties in determining the temperature increase not caused by CO2 are much greater than it seems in the public perception. While scientists are “doing their job”, politicians are acting as if CO2 is the sole cause of climate change. Under the narrative of “saving the climate”, politicians pursue their very own socio-political goals, no matter what the cost to society.

Important G20 countries reject CO2 reduction

At the G20 summit in India from September 9-10, 2023, the USA and some European countries tried to persuade other countries such as China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil to agree to a CO2 reduction of 60% by 2035. The attempt failed, as none of the BRICS countries followed the West. If you take the emissions of Western countries (USA, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Canada and Australia) together, you get 27.1% of global emissions. The remaining countries, which account for 73% of global CO2 emissions, are not thinking about reducing their CO2 emissions for economic reasons for the time being.

In particular, the host of the G20 summit, India, stood in the way and had its energy minister Singh declare: “If the economy grows by 7%, electricity generation from coal will also grow”. The inconvenient truth is that renewables are not a realistic alternative to fossil fuels. He also emphasized that the need for backup for wind and solar batteries increases costs almost fivefold. In addition, the cost of lithium batteries rose by 2022% for the first time since 7 due to higher raw material prices. We have been trying to convey this insight to our federal government for some time – so far without success.

A few weeks earlier, the U.S. government’s climate envoy, John Kerry, had to realize during his visit to China that China has now even said goodbye to its own CO2 reduction targets. As recently as 2015, China had declared that it wanted to reach its CO2030 emission maximum in 2. President Xi has now declared that China will not replace coal-fired power plants with renewable energies as long as it is not economical. In addition, China will build more coal-fired power plants.

In 2022, 106 GW (gigawatts = 1000 megawatts) of coal-fired power plants were approved in China. A coal-fired power plant has an average capacity of 1 GW. In the first half of 2023, additional coal-fired power plants with a total capacity of 52 GW were approved in China. That’s 2 power plants per week. Coal-fired power plants with a total capacity of 136 GW are under construction in China. This increase alone corresponds to 4 times the capacity of all German coal-fired power plants (35 GW), which are supposed to be zeroed out by 2038 at the latest.

What does China’s expansion of coal-fired power plants mean?

The 136 GW of new coal-fired power plants will emit an additional 700 million tonnes of CO2. This corresponds to about 70 times the CO2 savings that the German government wants to achieve through the Heat Pump Act. This law is expected to save around 2030.10 million tonnes of CO4 in 2. The cost of this is expected to be around €130 billion. This corresponds to public and private expenditure of around €12,500 per tonne of CO2 saved.

This makes this law probably one of the most expensive CO2 reduction measures in the world – without even bringing about an effective, global CO2 reduction. Obviously, our federal government does not make any cost-benefit considerations for your “climate protection measures”. As a result, it has completely lost sight of the proportionality of its policy.

Is it bad if China and India rely on coal? 

The UN target of net zero CO2 in 2050 has finally disappeared into smoke and mirrors after the G20 summit. After all, the power plants that are now being built around the world will certainly still be connected to the grid. Much would be achieved if emissions could be almost halved by 2050. The good news is that this reduction would be enough to stop an increase in CO2 concentrations. Already today, 29% of emissions are absorbed by plants and 26% by the oceans, i.e. a total of 55% of all CO2 emissions worldwide. Prof. Ganteför from Konstanz has now joined this position and refers – like me – to the long version of the IPCC (Working Group 1, FAQ 5.3, p.32).

Why is a 2% reduction in CO45 emissions enough? Plants and oceans are unaware of CO2 emissions from chimneys. They absorb the CO2 from the air depending on the CO2 concentration in the surrounding air. If you halve the emission, plants and oceans still absorb the same amount of CO2 that corresponds to the emission. The increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is stopped.

The effect of halving CO2 is based on the IPCC’s computational models. If one also takes into account the results of the above-mentioned study by the 37 scientists, the effect of CO2 on temperature development is even lower: then it would not even be necessary to halve the CO2.

But even if we only strive to halve CO2 emissions, we can do without the biggest nonsense of the energy transition: heat pumps in old houses, a ban on diesel and gasoline engines, burdening industry with CO2 costs that drive it out of the country. Deindustrialization could be stopped and millions of citizens would not have to endure a destructive destruction of the value of their property as a retirement provision.

But why do politicians take the suicidal course to the bitter end without consideration, so that even foreign newspapers such as the British Telegraph headline : How Olaf Scholz turned Germany into the sick man of the world. Why do politicians oppose the continued operation of coal-fired power plants with CO2 capture, renounce nuclear energy or shale gas production without need? She believes that this “government is the last one that can still actively influence the climate crisis” (Baerbock). It will not be able to sustain this religious war against its own citizens, companies and employees.

Reason will prevail.

With best wishes
,
Fritz Vahrenholt