Blueprint’s author didn’t ask about the weather, by William Kininmonth.
“Blueprint for the Future”, Chief Scientist Alan Finkel’s report into the future security of the National Electricity Market, claims four key outcomes: increased security, future reliability, rewarding consumers and lower emissions.
The central theme is Australia’s continuing commitment to the Paris Accord. This commitment requires a cut in greenhouse gas emissions (that is, carbon dioxide) of 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. Surprisingly, and without policy direction, Finkel extends the target to zero emissions by the second half of the century.
The blueprint does not address the appropriateness of the Paris Accord as a policy objective (too hard? — politically incorrect?). There is no acknowledgment that global temperatures have failed to match the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenario of anthropogenic global warming and [some] scientists don’t know why.
The need for the blueprint is that the electricity market is becoming increasingly distorted as governments pursue policies aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The distortion is manifest as a reduction in security and reliability of the infrastructure and higher prices.
Previously, Australia’s electricity generation and distribution systems were world class. They were based on readily available and cheap fossil fuels. The systems employed best available technology to minimise atmospheric pollution, were reliable and provided relatively cheap energy for industry and the community. Australia was internationally competitive.
The IPCC is out to lunch when it comes to facts:
The Paris Accord relies on the UN’s IPCC as its authority. The IPCC claims anthropogenic emissions will raise Earth’s temperature to dangerous levels unless constrained. …
The IPCC warming scenarios rely on projections of computer models that have consistently indicated a temperature increase (or sensitivity) of between 2C and 4.5C for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration, with a best estimate of about 3C.
Real-world observations over the period of satellite monitoring (since 1980) do not support these projections. The IPCC scenario is for warming of between 0.7C and 1.6C. The actual warming over the 3½ decades of satellite monitoring has been barely 0.3C, or half the lower model estimate. Recent climate history suggests models exaggerate sensitivity to carbon dioxide and concerns over anthropogenic emissions are misplaced.
Alternative methodologies for estimating climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide also exist. These latter are underpinned either by physics of surface energy exchanges or correlation of historical data. Mostly these alternative methods suggest that the real sensitivity is less than 1C for a doubling of concentration. The alternative methodologies are ignored by the IPCC and proponents of the dangerous anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
A sensitivity of less than 1C makes attempts to regulate climate through atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations fraught, even futile.
It’s less than 0.6C. No cause for alarm.