Climate Change and Carbon Emissions – The Case for Business-As-Usual

At the end of last year in what if the world can’t cut its carbon emissions I presented the graph reproduced below, which summarized the then-current position on the world’s attempts to cut its carbon emissions to the levels necessary to keep global warming below the 2 degrees C “dangerous interference” threshold. The world was nowhere close to meeting its target:

Figure 1: Status of efforts to cut global carbon emissions as of December 2014

The lack of progress reflected the inability of the nations of the world to agree on legally-binding reductions large enough to have a measurable impact on global emissions, which had been a recurring problem since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol exempted the developing countries from emissions cuts and placed the entire burden on the developed countries. So in advance of the make-or-break climate conference in Paris this December a new approach is being tried. Instead of committing to legally-binding targets countries are being invited to submit plans that set out what they think they might be able to achieve in the way of emissions cuts by the year 2030 while being under no compulsion to achieve them, with the hope being that this would encourage countries to submit ambitious plans that would at least get the Paris negotiations off to a good start even if they didn’t quite bring the red line down to match the blue line (Figure 1). And so far 36 countries accounting for 64% of 2014 global emissions have submitted quantifiable Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), and here I estimate how these and other yet-to-be-submitted INDCs might change the picture.

My 2030 projections are based on the national CO2 emissions data contained in the BP 2015 Statistical Review, which are shown as tons of CO2 rather than tons of carbon (tons CO2 = tons C times 3.67). They assume no major armed conflicts or global economic downturns between now and 2030.

The table below summarizes the emissions-reduction plans of 36 of the 45 countries that have so far submitted INDCs (data from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions ). These 36 countries, 28 of which are in the European Union, supply enough detail in their INDC submissions to allow 2014-2030 reductions to be quantified. Two others (Mexico and South Korea) tie their proposed emissions cuts to undefined  “business as usual” scenarios, which makes them impossible to quantify (and also largely meaningless) and were excluded for this reason. The remaining seven (Andorra, Ethiopia, Gabon, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Morocco and Serbia) could not be included because their emissions are too small to register on BP’s radar:

(Note how the selection of 1990 as the base year allows Russia to increase its emissions by 7% over 2014 levels and still meet its 25-30% (I assumed 25%) “reduction” target and allows the EU28 to achieve its “at least 40%” (I assumed 45%) target by cutting its emissions only 28% over 2014 levels).

Figure 2 shows actual and projected emissions for China, the USA, the EU28 and Russia, the four largest emitters. I eyeballed a curve that peaks Chinese emissions in 2030 and straight-lined the reductions proposed by the USA, the EU28 and Russia. The same procedures were applied to the countries not shown in the Figure:

Figure 2: Actual and predicted CO2 emissions from countries that have submitted quantifiable INDCs

The projected 8% decrease in total emissions from the 36 countries is encouraging when we remember that they include the USA and Canada, which have been criticized in the past for their inaction on climate change, and China, the major source of global emissions growth since Kyoto. According to Figure 1, however, global carbon emissions must decrease by ~1,500GT/year between 2014 and 2030 if the world is to get back to the blue line, and Table 1 shows a total reduction of only ~500GT/year. (And this number includes some “paper” cuts. Russia assumes “the maximum possible account of absorbing capacity of forests”, Norway plans to meet its target “through a collective delivery with the EU”, Switzerland plans to do so by buying carbon credits and New Zealand’s submission is contingent on the success of its “continuing investment in agricultural research”.)

The key question therefore becomes what the remaining 150-odd participating countries will submit in the way of substantive and quantifiable emissions reduction plans, but it’s unlikely they will amount to anything. Australia may submit an INDC that specifies a quantifiable cut, but maybe not a very large one. What Japan, which has rejected Kyoto and whose emissions reduction plans have been in disarray since Fukushima, will submit is unclear. The rest are developing countries which continue to insist that whatever action they take is paid for by the “rich” countries who allegedly caused global warming – one in fact gets the feeling that many of them are only in it for the money. And then there’s India, now the world’s number 4 emitter after China, the US and the EU, which has consistently stated that it’s going to burn as much fossil fuel as it takes to lift itself out of poverty.  Many of these countries may choose not to submit an INDC at all (there’s no compulsion to do so) and most of those that do will submit plans that are so hedged with qualifications and uncertainties that they really don’t mean anything.

Figure 3 summarizes my best-guess projection of what global emissions will look like after all quantifiable INDCs are added in. Emissions from the 36 countries that have already submitted INDCs are as shown in Figure 2. I have assumed that emissions from “other” countries will keep growing at the historic rate of 2.9%/year:

Figure 3: Actual and predicted emissions from all countries

And superimposing the black line from Figure 3 on Figure 1 gives the orange line shown in Figure 4. The world is still nowhere close to meeting its target:

Figure 4: Status of efforts to cut global carbon emissions as of July 2015

What are we to conclude from this? That as well as not having the technology it needs to cut its emissions to “safe” levels (see the numerous Energy Matters posts on this subject) the world doesn’t even have any real interest in trying. And without the will to cut global emissions there’s no way global emissions will be cut, technology or no technology. Absent a major armed conflict or a full-fledged global depression the world is doomed to watch its carbon emissions continue to grow pretty much indefinitely.

And here’s what I suggest we do about it:

Recognize that we can’t cut global emissions anything like fast enough to stop global warming, so quit wasting time and money trying to cut them. The world has already spent trillions of dollars in fruitless emissions-cutting efforts, and spending trillions more will be equally fruitless. We therefore go back to business-as-usual, or at least to business as it used to be done before emissions started leading everyone around by the nose.

Recognize that at present our only defense against the impacts of global warming, assuming they eventuate, is adaptation. We therefore redirect the billions of dollars we presently spend each year on attempts to cut emissions towards more productive projects, such as sea walls, flood protection, improving crop resilience etc.

Continue to plan for an eventual carbon-free, sustainable future. This remains a desirable goal if only because the fossil fuels that presently power the world will at some point inevitably begin to run out. But put the research money into large-scale technologies that offer potential for such a future, not into those that don’t.

And we could of course always revisit the question of whether the impacts of plus two degrees C of post-industrial warming really are going to be as catastrophic as advertised. An objective reassessment might well lead us to conclude that we are worrying about nothing.

This entry was posted in Climate change, Political commentary and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Climate Change and Carbon Emissions – The Case for Business-As-Usual

  1. Euan Mearns says:

    Recognize that at present our only defense against the impacts of global warming, assuming they eventuate, is adaptation. We therefore redirect the billions of dollars we presently spend each year on attempts to cut emissions towards more productive projects, such as sea walls, flood protection, improving crop resilience etc.

    .

    Roger, I gather this is the position that Lord Lawson has long advocated. It would be an interesting excercise for the UK government to follow your recommendation and set aside say £50 billion to fortify flood defences. This might focus their minds on the evidence that spending this money is based upon. They would for instance find out that the whole of northern Britain enjoys relative sea level fall.

    • If the UK govt adopted a global perspective they would discover that coastal cities that are in imminent danger of inundation, such as Bangkok and Jakarta, are threatened not by rising sea levels but by land subsidence caused by excessive groundwater pumping. So if we’re going to build sea walls these would be good places to start. Nothing to do with CO2 emissions, though.

      And as you point out it also works the other way round. Sea levels at Skagway, Alaska are presently falling by about six feet a century because of tectonic uplift.

  2. edhoskins says:

    In your figure 1 and 4 “where we need to go” I think you are working on an incorrect premise.

    There is no need to reduce or control man-made CO2 emissions. And it could never control climate. But as you say later.

    “And we could of course always revisit the question of whether the impacts of plus two degrees C of post-industrial warming really are going to be as catastrophic as advertised. An objective reassessment might well lead us to conclude that we are worrying about nothing.”

    Absolutely !!!

    Not only would it not be catastrophic but it could never be attained.

    Even according to the IPCC the effect of atmospheric CO2 on temperature diminishes logarithmically. Increasing levels of CO2 have less and less temperature effect.

    So mankind adding CO2 to the atmosphere could never attain the +2degC level. Even if we were to get to +2degC that would still only bring world temperatures to the congenial level of the Roman warm period 2000 years ago.

    At 400 parts per million there only remains 13% of CO2 effectiveness up to 1000ppm: beyond that level all CO2 additions have negligible temperature effect. And never forget that 77% of the heating effect of CO2 (i.e. 200 ppm) is essential to maintain viable plant life and thus all life on earth.

    see
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-co2-on-temperature/

  3. A C Osborn says:

    There is still no proof that adding CO2 raises temperatures, as you all know the only recent rise in Temperatures are those created by “Adjustments” to the Data.
    Gina McCarthy Head of the EPA in her testimony to Congress had to admit that with all the proposed “Pain” of trying to cut CO2 that the USA would experience (if it were not for Fracked Gas), would if Man Made Global Warming is true, only achieve a 0.01 degree C reduction in Temperature at the cost of 100s of Billions if not Trillions of Dollars.
    See
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/15/epa-chief-admits-obama-regs-have-no-measurable-climate-impact-one-one-hundredth-of-a-degree-epa-chief-mccarthy-defends-regs-as-enormously-beneficial-symbolic-impact/

    Look at her reasoning for doing so “beneficial symbolicimpact” wasting Trillions for “Symboli Impact”, they are bloody INSANE.

    • Javier says:

      Are you serious? The physics is absolutely clear about it. CO2 is a GHG and we do know how much warming it does produce. If we don’t get to measure the expected warming it is because the feedbacks or other factors are masking it. There is absolute proof that adding CO2 produces warming. There is no doubt about it.

      An entirely different issue is if reducing CO2 emissions would be effective to affect climate change. It is most likely not. At least at the level of change that we can realistically achieve.

      Mi personal opinion is that we should do nothing regarding climate change and keep researching it. We should keep an eye on sea levels and try to become resiliant regarding droughts and floods. This whole mess will sort itself given enough time and research. We have a lot more pressing issues like peak resources.

      • A C Osborn says:

        There is absolute proof that adding CO2 produces Cooling. There is no doubt about it.

      • Euan Mearns says:

        AC and Javier, while I value comments from both of you, I can well do without this squabbling.

        For CO2 to cause cooling requires that it gets warmer upwards from its current emission height, i.e. it must emit from the tropopause or higher. I began to look into this months ago and found the topic too large and complex. But it looks like CO2 emits within the upper troposphere.

        Anyway, this is drifting way off topic. Please let this be the last word on this for now.

        E

  4. Phil Chapman says:

    Time is running out for the AGW theory (a.k.a. the Climate Change Codswallop). IMHO, the INDC nonsense and the Paris meeting in December are what is called in American football a Hail Mary Pass – i.e., a desperate attempt to score before the game is over.

    The latest death blow, reported in The Independent today, is strong confirmation by solar physicists that the sun will be as quiet as during the Maunder Minimum for at least the next two cycles.

    You can find many arguments by the Codswallopers that relentless AGW will soon overcome any slight cooling due to the grand solar minimum (now called the Eddy Minimum, after Jack Eddy), which everybody now admits is under way. In every case that I have checked, the basis for these arguments is that the sun does not dim much during low activity. That is quite true – but it does not explain why cold climates coincided with the five grand minima in the last thousand years (the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Minima).

    None of these people even mention the Svensmark theory, which is getting stronger with every observation: weaker solar magnetic fields => more galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) reaching the Earth => more low clouds => higher albedo => a colder climate => more snow and ice => even higher albedo => an even colder climate. Given the dire consequences of severe global cooling, it is not sufficient to dismiss the GCR-climate link as unproven: unless or until it is categorically DISPROVEN – i.e., beyond virtually any doubt — common sense and prudence demand that we consider the possibility that it is true.

    My guess is that the odds are now at least 70:30 that the Eddy Minimum will cause a seriously colder climate for the next few decades. On top of that, the geomagnetic field is collapsing: it is very probable that a geomagnetic excursion has begun. The last time this happened was the Laschamp Event, 40,000 years ago. The GCR flux increased 20% during the Maunder Minimum, but it DOUBLED during that excursion!

    Apart from the Laschamp Event, almost every previous geomagnetic excursion in the current Brunhes chron (i.e., since the last ”permanent” magnetic field reversal, 780,000 years ago) has occurred at the end of an interglacial. It may be that excursions are a symptom of the changes in the chaotic geodynamo that trigger the interglacial/glacial transition.

    Does this mean that the Holocene is ending? Will it just get colder and colder until at last the glaciers come grinding down from the north (as come they will, sooner or later), obliterating everything in their path? Much of Europe and North America will disappear under ice sheets 10,000 feet thick, and all the glories and all the infrastructure of northern civilization will be gone beyond recall. What shall we do when the greenery is gone from the world and Paris and London and New York are ground to dust under the Ice?

    I certainly don’t know that the Ice is coming soon. What I do know is that when the glaciation begins, it will last a thousand centuries. That is a span of time that is simply incomprehensible in human terms. It might as well be forever.

    I’m glad I will not be here to see it.

    • A C Osborn says:

      What we do is reverse it. We have Satellites in orbit with mirrors beaming sunlight on to the Glaciers, Ice Fields and the oceans 24 hours a day, we also have some converting solar to microwave and beam that down as well.
      Mankind has the Knowledge and tools, what it does not have is enough Scientists to overcome the current AGW Crap to get the money invested where it is going to be needed, in space.
      The same applies to the possibility of a large Asteroid strike.
      Nero Fiddling in reverse.

      • roberto says:

        “We have Satellites in orbit with mirrors beaming sunlight on to the Glaciers, Ice Fields and the oceans 24 hours a day, we also have some converting solar to microwave and beam that down as well.”

        At 25k$/kg cost to lift payloads into low-earth orbit (double it, at least, for GEO) this technique would bankrupt the world even more than the useless intermittent renewables, I’m afraid…

        • A C Osborn says:

          Reflective Mylar does not weigh very much.
          Just divert all of the money currently going to Climate Science and Renewable Energy and there will be plenty of cash.
          The alternative will be far more expensive.

          Do you really think that there will be no reduction in payload costs with re-usable space craft?

          • roberto says:

            “Reflective Mylar does not weigh very much.”

            True, but reflective mylar without a rigifd frame won’t be able to beam the microwaves parallel to earth… from 36thousand km away even a 10 km radius receiving station covers only a very tiny angular aperture.
            On a GEO orbit there would be no way to collect/reflect the light to earth all the time, as for a large chuck of the orbit the sun would be behind the mirror, and only for a tiny fraction of the time the full surface of the reflector would be able to work efficiently, it’s just a matter of trigonometry, if you think about it.

            “Do you really think that there will be no reduction in payload costs with re-usable space craft?”

            Minimal, I’ve discussed this very same subject recently on another blog, and found a couple of papers by NASA… doesn’t bode well at all. If I find them I’ll post the links.

            Also, one would need to put this monster mirrors in a geostationary position, or else they would not be stationary above the receiving station on the ground… not to mention the necessity to improve by large margins the efficiency of the microwave transmission and conversion from space to earth, and the fact that on a GEO orbit there is NO possibility of fixing /maintaining even the slightest problem, and nobody can even think of making a 100% fault-free system of that kind, in such a harsh environment.

            A different situation could be in case PV panels are put in space, because they could be oriented the same way the International Space Station does… but in that case the weight is a killer, several kilos per square meter, and one would need hundred of thousands of square meters in order to make a multi-MW power source. What I calculated based on the literature I read was a cost of several TENS of billion Euros for a 500 MW system… where the 500 MW are in space, and then one would need to factor in the (at present technology) huge transmission/conversion losses.

            Cheers.

          • A C Osborn says:

            Sorry, you misunderstand, there is no receiving station.
            It is just to increase the amount of sunlight, or use micro waves instead.

        • Phil Chapman says:

          I don’t know where you get your figures, Roberto, but they are ridiculous. The present cost of launch to LEO is around $5k/kg. not $25k. Given sufficient traffic, there is no doubt that we can reduce those costs to <$500/kg, and $250/kg is entirely possible. Transfer to GEO using an electric tug adds about 10% for launching the necessary propellant.

          I do agree however that Solettas (reflectors in space) are not a promising way to prevent glaciation. Increasing the overall solar input to the Earth by a significant fraction requires reflectors with total area a similar fraction of the Earth's cross-section, which is 128,000,000 sq km. The only possibility is to use solettas to stop the southward creep of the summer snowline in the northern hemisphere (i.e., to prevent positive snow-albedo feedback).

          Because of the angular diameter of the sun and the range from GEO, a soletta with a diameter of at least 100 km is needed to provide a significant increase in the insolation at 65N, and we would need 70 of them to cover the snowline in Canada, Europe and Asia. This is perhaps not impossible, but it is a very large proposition.

          The time over target is too short for solettas in sun-synchronous sunset orbits.

          The best bet is probably an elliptic Molniya orbit (inclination 63.4 degrees) with a semimajor axis chosen so that the period is a sub-multiple of a day. I haven’t explored this option, but I don’t have high expectations for it.

          I am not in favor of solettas, but there may be better ways to prevent the glacial transition. See the next post.

    • Javier says:

      It is just too bad that we have to fight those that believe that the world is going to plunge into a CO2-induced heat armageddon, to have also to deal with those that believe that the world is going to plunge into a quiet sun-induced cold armageddon.

      The sun is very stable over relevant timescales (a few millennia). Over the past 3 centuries the level of sun activity has been fairly similar yet the climate has changed significantly. For example solar cycle 24 is a reply of cycle 14 (1900-1910), yet the climate is warmer.

      A lot of people has been trying to find a significant connection between sun variability and climate for decades, yet they have failed to find convincing evidence. See for example https://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

      Svensmark theory is interesting, yet observations have failed to confirm it. So far there is no convincing evidence that cloud cover is determined in any significant way by cosmic rays. It is an unproven theory that lacks support from data outside the laboratory.

      Your guess about the Eddy minimum being a big cooling factor is a wild guess. Most solar experts completely disagree with you. Your guess about the likelihood of a geomagnetic field collapse is equally wild. These are pretty rare events. We have about the same chance of being hit by a large asteroid, but hey, you can freak out about anything you want.

      My take is that the climate is the least of our worries and that we have been very lucky to live through a warm period and most probably we will all be long dead before it ends. Yet a lot of people like to worry about things that are totally out of their control and that they really don’t know that much about them.

      • Phil Chapman says:

        There is no longer any rational doubt that a grand solar minimum is under way. The only “solar experts” who deny that It may cause a protracted cold spell like the Maunder Minimum are those who insist that variations in the brightness of the sun are the only solar phenomena that could possibly affect the terrestrial climate, and their position is untenable. The Eddy Minimum will probably cost lives and dollars but it will be survivable. It might even be worth it, if it finally kills the global warming scam.

        That is not however the issue. The likelihood of a geomagnetic field collapse is not a guess, wild or not. This is an unexpected but indisputably real geophysical phenomenon. It is happening now. It is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt by the Swarm satellites and by the sudden acceleration in the drift of the geomagnetic poles, which are now moving just as fast as they did during the Laschamp Event. Of course it could stop and return to normal, but relying on that happening is idiotic. There were many such events in the geologic past, but never in recorded history, so our civilization is facing a challenge without precedent.

        Losing the protection of the geomagnetic field will certainly have seriously deleterious effects, including exposure to increased radiation (especially for aircrew, frequent fliers and astronauts) and to geomagnetic storms that can disrupt the electric grid as well as sensitive electronics. Whether or not it will affect the climate (perhaps including the end of the Holocene) depends on whether or not there is in fact a link with galactic cosmic rays. That has become a question whose answer may determine the future of civilization.

        Widespread alarm is not justified, but the Svensmark theory cannot be dismissed just because “observations have failed to confirm it. So far there is no convincing evidence that cloud cover is determined in any significant way by cosmic rays. It is an unproven theory…” Given the appalling potential consequences, rejecting the theory on those grounds is grotesquely irresponsible. We MUST take the theory seriously, undertaking the research needed to confirm or disprove it beyond doubt.

        • Javier says:

          Why should we take seriously a theory published 18 years ago (Henrik Svensmark 1998. “Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate”. Physical Review Letters 81. 22: 5027–5030) that has failed so far to find observational support?

          The day that evidence is found supporting the theory I will start taking it more seriously, until then it is just one of the hundreds of interesting hypothesis that nature refuses to support.

          There’s a lot more support for the CO2 induced global warming that you reject. I just have problems with the feedbacks and climate sensitivity which I think are much lower than estimated by IPCC.

          Most solar scientists estimate that the cooling from the Eddy minimum could be in the order of -0.2° C. I see no data suggesting otherwise, so I see no reason to freak out.

          Your arguments sound a lot like the arguments from IPCC. “Failure to act now is irresponsible” To me what it is irresponsible is acting based on beliefs instead of evidence. And of course research is being done to investigate Svensmark’s theories. CERN has the CLOUD experiment that has been doing just that for almost 10 years. Although it has advanced our knowledge, so far it has not found support for the theory.

          • roberto says:

            On Svensmarsk’s theory and experiment…

            http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/cern-experiment-finds-key-ingredient-for-cloud-droplets/

            … interesting, I think.

          • Euan Mearns says:

            I just have problems with the feedbacks and climate sensitivity which I think are much lower than estimated by IPCC.

            You need to recall that the IPCC range is 1.5 to 4.5˚C. My own preference is towards the bottom of that range, probably closer to 1. The problem with the IPCC is that they have not managed to reduce that range in 30 years of research and billions of $ spent.

            The other problem is that the anti capitalists simply latch onto the upper end of that range and cast their doom shadow, bleating about science and demanding that the global economy and human race gets shut down.

          • Euan Mearns says:

            Most solar scientists estimate that the cooling from the Eddy minimum could be in the order of -0.2° C. I see no data suggesting otherwise, so I see no reason to freak out.

            .

            Rest assured that most solar scientists will only have looked at the impact of dTSI.

            If we are to return to conditions that resemble the LIA then there is every reason to freak out – certainly here in Scotland.

            If you think about “an event” that causes cooling on Earth, what can it be? 1) a change in cloud cover, 2) a change in the convection rate 3) a change in ocean circulation 4) a change in TSA 5) a change in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth – orbital or inter-planetary dust.

            Anything else?

          • Javier says:

            Rest assured that most solar scientists will only have looked at the impact of dTSI.

            Since magnetic changes, UV changes, ozone changes, cosmic ray changes and sunspot changes are all pretty much synchronised, scientists get to check them all at the same time. There is no 11-year signature in the climate and the correlation between past climate and solar activity of any kind is pretty weak. We just went through a deep solar activity minimum in 2009 and noticed… nothing.

            Of course another LIA would be really bad news, but as you and I discussed previously, according to cycle analysis by Ole Humlum et al (2011), another LIA is not likely before 200 years at the very least. Solar minima like the expected one are very common during Holocene. For example:

            “According to the results obtained using Φ10Be, the Sun spent ∼27% of its time in a grand minimum state and ∼16% of its time in a grand maximum state during the last 8250 years. As for Φ14 C , these numbers are ∼28% and ∼16%, respectively”.
            Inceoglu et al. 2015. Grand solar minima and maxima deduced from 10Be and 14C: magnetic dynamo configuration and polarity reversal. Astronomy & Astrophysics 577 http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2015/05/aa24212-14/aa24212-14.html

            Why should we worry about something that the sun does above 1/4 of the time?

            Events that cause cooling? By far the most common is a volcanic eruption. Your list can also have meteorite impacts, planetary orbital cycles, and discharges of big freshwater reservoirs to the sea, like lake Agassiz. We may miss some more.

          • Euan Mearns says:

            We just went through a deep solar activity minimum in 2009 and noticed… nothing.

            Well I think it was 2011 and we had the hardest winter here for several decades. There are time lags in the system. Where I am this evening, at my cottage in Perthshire, the field opposite had hundreds of swans because all the lochs (lakes) were frozen. The swans kept flying into the power lines and we had many power cuts. They came here because we are beside a large river. This was an extreme event in the context of several decades. Caused by a frozen and meandering jet stream.

            There are a number of things here. I agree that a LIA intensity event is probably a couple of centuries away. The Bond / Gleissberg cycle is 1000 to 1500 years and we’re just 500 years since the last minimum.

            I think one psychology thing here that I believe affects Phil and it certainly affects me is a burning desire to see a series of cold winters that drives a dagger through the heart of this “Climate Science” community. Not very scientific I know, but this is empirical science that should be determined by the data gathered. This is the same as the warmest wet dream about record temperatures. Hey, I’m only human.

            Finally, the fact that the encroaching state of the Sun may be quite normal needs to be placed alongside the fact that industrial society is 150 years old. Our infrastructure, population, means of survival etc is forged on the climatic conditions of the last 150 years. A significant departure from that may cause great hardship.

            You are right to guide us away from doomerism. But where I live I do have concerns about being kept warm by windmills when its -20˚C out for weeks on end.

        • Javier says:

          You know about statistics Euan. Most people don’t. Just because there was a solar minimum associated to a cold period during the Little Ice Age does not imply that solar minima cause dangerous cooling.

          I just went through the 32 solar minima identified by Inceoglu et al. 2015 since 6600 BC to 1650 AD and made an analysis locating them with respect to GISP2 Greenland temperatures normalized to approximate anomaly temperatures.

          The 32 solar minima were accompanied or immediately followed by:

          12 – Deep cooling > -0.25° C
          7 – Mild cooling < -0.25° C
          3 – No change
          6 – Mild warming +0.25° C

          The fact that 31% of solar minima are associated to warming indicates that solar sunspot number and associated phenomena are not a primary driver of climate change.

          The distribution is skewed towards cooling, as 60% of the minima are associated to cooling. This suggests that solar minima are a secondary driver of climate change that produces cooling. Most solar scientists believe that a solar minimum could produce a cooling of about 0.2° C. This is congruent with Holocene solar activity and temperatures proxy records.

          I can send you the graphical analysis if you want to post it.

          Our infrastructure, population, means of survival etc is forged on the climatic conditions of the last 150 years. A significant departure from that may cause great hardship.

          I would argue the opposite. The 1696 LIA-associated famine that killed 1/3 of the population in Finland and was part of the “Ill years” that ended Scottish independence, would not have been such a tragedy in today’s world where food can be shipped globally at a moment’s notice. We have a lot of resources and technology to relief natural catastrophes.

          • Javier says:

            There was a problem with the copy paste. The numbers for the analysis are:

            12 – Deep cooling more than -0.25° C
            7 – Mild cooling less than -0.25° C
            3 – No change
            6 – Mild warming less than 0.25° C
            4 – Deep warming more than 0.25° C

      • Euan Mearns says:

        Phil, its about a year ago that you first told us about the Laschamp Event. Google this now and my post shows up number 3 on the list 🙂

        http://euanmearns.com/the-laschamp-event-and-earths-wandering-magnetic-field/

        I was wondering if you had any new data on the wandering of the N magnetic pole? I have also wondered if it is possible for Earth’s magnetic field strength and stability to be linked to that of the Sun’s?

        I agree that Svensmarks theory about cosmic rays should not be disregarded. And if both the Sun and Earth magnetic field strength are down at the same time we could be in for some bombardment. But it remains the case that quantitative understanding of the links between Earth’s climate and Solar magnetic field strength is lacking.

        I am more drawn to the theory that it is variations in spectrum that is responsible for climate change. In this regard variance in spectrum may correlate with variance in magnetic field strength and both are linked to convective patterns within the Sun. New satellite data show that shifts in spectrum are much larger than previously understood. Spectral shifts determine where the energy is captured by our atmosphere, UV tending to be caught in the Stratosphere and higher. It has been shown that this can influence the geometry of the jet stream and hence atmospheric circulation.

        We have been experiencing increasingly the impact of meandering and frozen sub-polar jet. This can give rise to cold weather if you are on the N side (where I am sitting now, mid summer and 12˚C). Or warm weather if you are to the S. In this regard I believe that the type of climate change experienced during the LIA may NOT be accompanied by substantial change in global average temperature. In short, if the pattern of atmospheric circulation changes from zonal to meridional, this may change climate “everywhere” without significant change to global mean temperature. So it may be inaccurate to claim that its going to get colder. More accurate to say that the climate is going to change.

        We also need to be cautious about the interpretation of NW European climate during the LIA and other cold events since there may also be a link to Icelandic volcanic eruptions. If i was going to rank the catastrophes that may befall us here in Scotland, Iceland is top of the list. With a probability of 1, the only question is when will a major Icelandic eruption render much of Europe uninhabitable.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki

        But I’m with Javier. We need to be cautious about replacing CAGW with CNGC (catastrophic natural global cooling).

  5. Roy Hagen says:

    I don’t know where you guys are getting your climate science from. Over 90% of global warming goes into the ocean and and there are now 3500 ARGO float monitors monitoring ocean temperatures down to 2000 meters. When you look at graphs of the measured heat content of oceans, air and land over the last five four decades, there is no slowdown in global warming. The PIOMAS measures of Arctic ice volume show that about 75% of the September volume of the ice cap has been lost. The GRACE gravity monitoring satellite shows that ice loss from both Greenland and Western Antarctica is doubling every few years. All of those are actual measurements — not climate model predictions.

    Despite the antagonism of government and the fossil fuel industry and death threats from conservative ideologues, multiple surveys of the most qualified climate scientists (those doing research and publishing in peer reviewed journals) show that 97+% believe that the climate is warming and man is a major cause, 2% are fence sitters and only 1% do not believe that man is causing global warming. And that 1% generally has significantly weaker credentials that the 97%.

    The basic physics of C02 as a greenhouse gas was worked out in the mid-1800s and strongly confirmed in the 1950s when the American military was developing heat seeking missiles. For the last 800,000 years (and probably the last 2.5 million years), C02 has fluctuated between 180 and 290ppm. Now it just peaked out at 404 in the last couple of months. Add in the other greenhouse gases we’ve added, and we’re up to 482m equivalent. You can’t do that without causing global warming.

    Where are you guys getting your climate science?

    Roy Hagen, Forester

    • roberto says:

      “Despite the antagonism of government and the fossil fuel industry and death threats from conservative ideologues, multiple surveys of the most qualified climate scientists (those doing research and publishing in peer reviewed journals) show that 97+% believe that the climate is warming and man is a major cause, 2% are fence sitters and only 1% do not believe that man is causing global warming. And that 1% generally has significantly weaker credentials that the 97%.”

      Where are you getting your propaganda leaflets?

      R.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Over 90% of global warming goes into the ocean and and there are now 3500 ARGO float monitors monitoring ocean temperatures down to 2000 meters. When you look at graphs of the measured heat content of oceans, air and land over the last five four decades, there is no slowdown in global warming.

      ARGO deployment began around 2000. Far too short to draw any conclusions about ocean warming. Expressing this as ocean heat content merely serves to mask the fact that the temperature variance in the ocean to produce that heat is so tiny as to be impossible to measure. So I have to conclude that this is simply made up, or more likely inferred from sea level rise.

      most qualified climate scientists (those doing research and publishing in peer reviewed journals) show that 97+% believe that the climate is warming and man is a major cause,

      Well I believe that CO2 is responsible for some of the observed warming so will fall into your 97%. But I also believe that a significant portion, maybe 50% or more, is down to natural cyclical change. This is a perfectly respectable scientific position to hold consistent with the IPCC position. My own evaluation of the data points to climate sensitivity at the lower end of IPCC estimates, i.e. close to 1.5˚C and at that level Earth’s climate is likely to be quite tolerant of as much CO2 as we can throw at it. The IPCC have a range of climate sensitivities from 1.5 to 4.5˚C. This has basically not changed since climate science was born. This has to be one of the greatest scientific failures of all time. And it is scientifically indefensible to argue for the same remedy for a CS of 1.5 compared with 4.5.

      The basic physics of C02 as a greenhouse gas was worked out in the mid-1800s

      Well my understanding is that the greenhouse effect as originally conceived by Arrhenius was quite wrong. The actual way this works by radiative transfer upwards through the troposphere to eventually emit to space close to the tropopause was only worked out recently and confirmed by satellite data.

      Add in the other greenhouse gases we’ve added, and we’re up to 482ppm equivalent.

      Actually closer to 50,000 ppm in the parts of the troposphere that matters.

      FYI there is one Apollo astronaut and at least one CERN physicist commenting on this thread. We have vast accumulated knowledge. If you believe you know something we don’t know already by all means educate us.

      • Roger Andrews says:

        Over 90% of global warming goes into the ocean

        Downwelling longwave (IR) radiation penetrates only a few nanometers into the ocean. UV penetrates a hundred meters or more.

        • Not entirely sure whether you’re agreeing that the sun heats water, or not…? if you’re suggesting it doesn’t, then how do the Med and the Caribbean oceans get warm? And if you are indeed agreeing then don’t understand your point! Global ocean warming is to do with a shallower temperature gradient at the surface, leading to less heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere as the atmosphere warms. Is that what you’re disputing?

          • Euan Mearns says:

            Not entirely sure whether you’re agreeing that the sun heats water, or not…? if you’re suggesting it doesn’t, then how do the Med and the Caribbean oceans get warm?

            Kit, you probably don’t realise but statements like this are highly insulting. Behaviour like this may be applauded at the University of Edinburgh, but its simply not acceptable here.

            I approved your comment because it touches on an interesting point for discussion. Your argument is that the oceans are warming because of a reduction in the rate of heat loss caused by the overlying air getting warmer. (lets avoid the discussion about he validity of this physics for the time being). An extension of your argument is that oceans will continue to warm for so long as the atmosphere continues to warm and according to GW “theory” will continue to absorb “excess” heat – not that I believe a word of it, but if true it has to be a good thing that we have this enormous heat sink. The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.15*10^18 kgs. The mass of the oceans is 1.4*10^21 kgs. The oceans are about 272 times more massive.

            Elsewhere on this thread Javier claims that the average temp of the oceans is 3.9˚C – I’ve not checked but have no reason to doubt this. Can you please tell us what the increase in ocean temperature has been and how this has been measured.

            To conclude, an extension of your argument is that the oceans will only begin to cool when the atmosphere begins to cool. “All that heat coming out again” will only happen when we have turned the corner of the modern warm period and are heading back into the next cold period – sounds good to me!

            PS – what about convection rate?

          • Well, there was no intention to insult, it was a genuine question since it appeared that Roger was questioning whether sunlight warms the oceans (or that’s how I read it).

            Not that I’m going to apologise, however. Your blog is filled with insults, insinuations and mocking of professional scientists, and climate science. Not only that, but you allow commentators here to post – unchallenged – conspiracy theories and attacks on scientists. If you think my behaviour doesn’t reflect well on Edinburgh Uni, then you really shine a poor light on Aberdeen. You might consider yourself a ‘lukewarmer’ but, frankly, I think Obama got it right.

          • Euan Mearns says:

            I no-longer have an affiliation with the UoAberdeen. I need to change my bio etc. Since letting it lapse I have felt more free to say exactly what I think is correct.

            You had an opportunity to answer some specific technical questions but you have chosen not to do so. That speaks volumes.

            You owe it to everyone here to answer those questions. Where is the chart that shows how the average temperature of the oceans has changed with time and how was it compiled. Don’t waste my or anyone else’s time here with a chart of ocean heat. I want to see a 4D series of plots of ocean temperature upon which all this science is based.

            Now is your chance to prove your metal.

          • I would have thought that the implication of my comment was obvious, but since I’m clearly going to have to spell in out, here it is. The sun heats the oceans; CO2 doesn’t.

    • roger in florida says:

      Mr. Hagen,
      It is not really a question of where we get our climate science, it is more understanding the political science. The point of the article is that the measures necessary to reduce atmospheric CO2 and (perhaps) mitigate climate change are NOT going to be taken. We must face this reality. What is absolutely clear is that humankind is going to hugely increase its energy consumption and as things stand now that will happen by the burning of fossil fuels of one type or another. The only sensible response to this inevitable increase in energy demand is to develop new methods of nuclear fission that will safely produce energy for less than the cost of coal based generation. This is not a pipe dream, it is within our grasp now that we are able to generate unlimited quantities of energy from a fuel source (Thorium) that we will never exhaust. Incidentally if there is a cooling period energy demand is going to increase even more.
      I don’t know what is going to happen and neither do you, but we had better be able to adapt.

      • Euan Mearns says:

        now that we are able to generate unlimited quantities of energy from a fuel source (Thorium) that we will never exhaust

        Roger IF, I agree with the pro-nuclear stance but this quote is way, way off target. Big post on this topic next week.

        • ristvan says:

          Euan and RIF, essay Going Nuclear covers this waterfront and may be of some background utility for,your upcoming post.

        • roger in florida says:

          I look forward to reading the post. I understand that we do not actually have an LFTR reactor in production yet and there are undoubtedly many scientific and engineering issues to be worked out, but I don’t think it matters. There are many uranium reactor designs out there that are safe and reliable that we could use now instead of wasting our money and vandalizing the planet with nonsensical wind and solar schemes.

    • ristvan says:

      RH, you are obviously getting yours from the media rather than by studying the various papers and reading the actual details in the IPCC reports. Except for the fact first shown by Tyndal in 1859 that CO2 is a GHG, every single thing you have asserted is wrong. Arctic ice has a roughly 70 year peak to peak cycle and the trough was about 2007. It is now in the recovery phase. Essay Northwest Passage. Grace does not have the ice mass loss precision you assert, and other methods (e.g.ICESat) give other results. Essay Tipping Points. Trenberth’s Missing heat in the oceans is an obvious canard; Argo shows no such thing. So Trenberth claimed it was below 2000 meters depth, where Argo does not go. No thermodyamic mechanism. Essay Missing Heat. And the sea level rise closure problem shows that there is less ice loss and/or less thermosteric rise than AGW alleges. essay PseudoPrecision. Cook’s 97% consensus paper was debunked methodologically by Tol (2014) and quantitatively by Legates (2013). Essay Climatatrosophistry.

      Do yourself a favor- read those essays, and also the more technical ones on the important issues of feedbacks, sensitivity, and the problems with climate models that get those things wrong. Plus others showing how IPCC has misled and deceived. Essays like Cloudy Clouds, Hiding the Hiatus, Himalayan Glaciers, and No Bodies. I spent 3 years reseaching and writing Blowing Smoke: essays in Energy and Climate. The foreword is from Judith Curry, a leading climate scientist and former chair of the Earth Sciences department at Georgia Tech. It it written, illustrated, and footnoted for people just like yourself.
      It is evident where you got your ‘climate science’. Now, go get the true science. You will find Al Gore got it all wrong in his Inconvemient Truth. Essays Cause and Effect, Snows of Kilimanjaro, Polar Bears. And that there has been academic misconduct in climate science. Essays A High Stick Foul (hockey sticks), Shell Games (ocean acidification), By Land or by Sea (abrupt sea level rise from ice sheet collapse).

    • Javier says:

      Roy,

      The average temperature for the Earth’s ocean is just 3.9° C. It is incredibly cold to be sandwiched between a crust that is transmitting heat from the mantle, and the lower atmosphere that has an average temperature of 14° C. The answer to that riddle is that the ocean temperature is a relic from the glacial period that has had no time to equilibrate to the interglacial temperatures due to its slow speed of mixing.

      The ocean has been warming through the entire Holocene and that is just what it is doing. The warming is so slow as to be completely irrelevant for XXI century climate. It is an inane argument that speaks more of the desperation that the warming stasis has caused in some climatologists that have built a reputation based on a continuous warming for as long as the CO2 keeps raising.

      Warmalarmists keep dodging the ball. Nature is refusing to play along with their pet theory. It is time to change the theory. Since early 2000s the only ones being successful at predicting global average temperature change are those that have incorporated the 60 year cycle that is evident in the historic data, a natural variability that has nothing to do with CO2. The projection from that cycle is even a moderate cooling from 2017 until around 2030. Current most favored climate theory will not be able to survive to that.

  6. Alan Poirier says:

    I think it is safe to assume from your analysis that politicians do not have their hearts in gutting our economies. They may really just be playing for time, waiting for the inevitable downturn in temperatures and the end to CAGW and even AGW.

    • Roger Andrews says:

      Like Euan I don’t see an “inevitable downturn in temperatures”, but the costs of unbridled renewables expansion are already beginning to make themselves felt in the EU. Spain and Italy have rolled back subsidies and recently the UK did too. Street protests recently caused Germany to back off on its “coal levy”, and while Germans generally support expanding wind and solar they are beginning to object to the power lines that go with it.

      Obama’s grandiose green plans also probably won’t survive the next Republican administration. The US Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol and would do the same to any successor agreement that committed only the developed countries to emissions cuts.

      And as for China, well, China will act in its own best interests, as it always has. Whether it really will peak its CO2 emissions by 2030 is anyone’s guess.

      • Euan Mearns says:

        Roger, an interesting approach to modelling China’s (and other countries’) emissions is to do this on a per capita basis. Make some assumption about where per capita consumption will settle in China and use the UN population projections to cast this into the future.

        • A key consideration is growth in the number of motor vehicles in China, and there are some frightening projections out there:

          What China really proposes to do, and probably will be able to achieve in the long run, is reduce its carbon intensity, i.e. generate more wealth per ton of CO2 emitted. I like this approach because wealth is ultimately what will give the world the ability to right all the wrongs that the greens are presently beating their breasts and gnashing their teeth about, and also to adapt to the impacts of global warming, if any.

          • roger in florida says:

            Mr. Andrews
            The projections for India and other Asian nations will be similar even if not in the same time frame. These vehicles will almost certainly be powered by internal combustion engines, which means that even if we went all nuclear for electrical generation all the oil and coal available will eventually be burned for vehicle fuel. CO2 levels are going to rise and whatever is going to happen as a result of that will happen.

          • In the green sustainable world of the future these vehicles will all be EVs powered by clean, renewable wind and solar electricity. And when the wind stops blowing and the sun quits shining they will simply discharge their batteries back into the grid. No problem. 😉

          • roberto says:

            @Roger Andrews

            “No problem. :-)”

            … just ask Mark!

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-power-the-world/

            “Mark Jacobson says he can run the planet solely on wind, water and solar energy.”

            … and related to this, an interesting debate:
            http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy/transcript

            … and I love the “Renewistan” label of Stewart Brand… see transcript at 5:22… ahahahah!

            Talking about Mark “can do it alone” Jacobson, here is how he started his TED talk…

            “Mark Jacobson: Thank you. (Applause) So my premise here is that nuclear energy puts out more carbon dioxide, puts out more air pollutants, enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up than real renewable energy systems, namely wind, solar, geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power.”

            … where did he get his data to back up this? It’s utter nonsense!

            R.

  7. Fred says:

    Some years back I came to the realisation that there was basically no chance that any serious action was going to be taken on climate change. Politicians were incapable of even understanding the large scale system issues of structures they themselves created, let alone climate; and were singularly unable to agree worthwhile action that might result in them not gaining reelection. A combination of loopy climate denier junk science and careful choice of epochs allowed them to give the semblance of action, whilst actually doing nothing.

    It’s been 25 years since we’ve known action was needed, and one look at the global CO2 production shows, we have done bugger all over that time. It’s insane to think we will do anything significant over the next 25 years. We are going over the cliff in natural feedback territory at roughly the same time as we finally hear the sucking sound from the global oil wells. We’ve locked in hundreds of millions of deaths, and are well on our way to locking in billions.

    So what do we do?

    Well, first off, we don’t follow the above recipe. The idea of wasted money is a misnomer in the global economy, particularly if that redirection of resources can diversify energy sources and slow the speed with which we go roadrunnering off the cliff. Solar panels on roofs, wind turbines, tidal power, nukes – its all good and worthwhile investment. Particularly if we emphasise distribution at the same time as diversification.

    I would say we also need to be putting much more money into population control, particularly in Asia and Africa. It’s at the root of many problems and, frankly, its one less baby corpse as the combination of no glaciers to melt, more violent storms and famine does it’s thing.

    We also need the research on batteries and zero carbon sources – since about the only practical way of dealing with the above blue line we have left is via making FFs uneconomic. Research is cheap, and there’s plenty of room to do better.

    However, as far as adaptation is concerned, I’m not convinced the society we have can cope with a future world of changed climate and no fossil fuels. It seems predicated on a consumerism/capitalism/growth model that aren’t going to be workable much longer. Thus I’d suggest what we are going to need are alternatives, and what that needs are prototypes. We need areas the size of cities (with attendant farming, resources, etc.) to aggressively do their own thing and explore the solution space. Not just BAU, but approaches that cast off some of the old certainties – with limited interference. In fact we shouldn’t be having BAU as an option (since its obviously not).

    And in the end the avenues which should be explored come down to an answer to a key question – what’s the meaning of life? What are we, as a human race, for? We’ve never really come up with a good answer to that one, but it’s probably going to be the determinate for success in the non-BAU world we’ve been creating the environment for.

    Oh, and as for the climate deniers who are steadily claiming more and more outlandish things to try and bolster their religious faith that there is no warming – consign them to the idiot bin of history and give them no further thought. They have had at least 25 years to stand up their wild theories with some actual evidence (and decent testable hypothesises) and they have singularly failed. File with the flat earthers under ‘n’ for nutter.

    • A C Osborn says:

      Thankyou for that insulting diatribe against the people who have not been suckered by the Catastrophic part of Global Warming. CO2 & warming are the best things, apart from industrialisation ever to happen to Humanity.
      I can assure you, you would not like to still be living in the last Ice Age.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Fred, I’ve been trying hard to allow a free scientific debate here. But I’m afraid I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that the Green / Warmist side of the debate has absolutely zero to offer by way of worthy scientific and technical input that advances understanding. You make many assertions here that many of the rest of us are mystefied by. Its like we may be occupying different planets.

      We are going over the cliff in natural feedback territory at roughly the same time as we finally hear the sucking sound from the global oil wells.

      Well you need to provide some supporting evidence for both of these statements. What feedbacks? And oil production is at an all time high. Your connection to reality is at best tenuous.

      I would say we also need to be putting much more money into population control, particularly in Asia and Africa. It’s at the root of many problems and, frankly, its one less baby corpse as the combination of no glaciers to melt, more violent storms and famine does it’s thing.

      I’m afraid this makes you sound like some fascist Green supremacist and all that you have to say must be judged in that light.

      However, as far as adaptation is concerned, I’m not convinced the society we have can cope with a future world of changed climate and no fossil fuels.

      Just as well that we seem to have enough FF and nuclear, and that climate change has for most been imperceptible thus far.

      Oh, and as for the climate deniers who are steadily claiming more and more outlandish things to try and bolster their religious faith that there is no warming – consign them to the idiot bin of history and give them no further thought. They have had at least 25 years to stand up their wild theories with some actual evidence (and decent testable hypothesises) and they have singularly failed. File with the flat earthers under ‘n’ for nutter.

      I’m not sure who you are referring to here. Most “rational” sceptics fall into the luke warm category within the spectrum of IPCC research. I assure you that it is the extreme warmists that are the flat Earthers. They live in an imaginary world where Earth’s climate does not change, everything is constant and hence every blip that deviates from that imaginary constance (the hokey stick) is attributed to Man. It is true that little progress has been made in understanding the causes of natural climate cycles and that is because nothing has been spent on it. The reason for that is obvious. The flat Earth warmists that run the show do not believe in natural climate change so why would they want to explore its mysteries.

      I’ve been asked to delete your comment but am letting it stand as a testimony to the credibility of the Green menace that has somehow seized control of global energy policy. I’ve also put you on the comment moderation list. Reasonable and technically sound comments get approved, but as already mentioned, Green extremists don’t really seem to have anything to contribute to the debate. If you want to respond, choose your words carefully.

      • Fred says:

        I’m sorry Euan, but you are way off the deep end here. You have progressively got worse with spurious claims that both climate change is minor to unimportant, that we shouldn’t worry about reducing carbon pollution, and that we both can and should use fossil fuels into the future.

        And now you have the gall to say it’s I that don’t have a credible position?

        Take a stop and a serious look at yourself. You’ve created a little cabal of climate deniers with the unspoken belief that it’s not they that are incorrect, but all the climate scientists that are somehow ‘extremists’ and wedded to a false view that can’t be changed.

        The reality is that description is true of you, and that if you could stand up a credible argument there would not only be large amounts of Koch money in it for you, there would be a Nobel prize and the grateful acknowledgement of the world’s politicians who could totally ignore climate change into the future. You would be knocking at an open door.

        The reality is the heating continues, particularly in the arctic and deep ocean, and there is virtually no serious doubt about it. Neither is there doubt that carbon and methane sinks and stores can turn into reservoirs with temperature – creating runaway effects.

        I can see that you want to close yourself off, stop listening to people telling you you are trying to ignore the science and delude yourself. But in the hope that you might still be able to see reason – try writing a paper, justifying scientifically that climate change is not real and not a threat, and then get it published in a reputable peer reviewed journal.

        And if you can’t, at least consider that it’s not because of them, it’s because of you. I’m sure you’d still find a ready audience and money from the Kochs of this world, so it wouldn’t be nugatory effort.

        And if you did manage to prove it, nobody would be cheering louder than me.

        PS I’m not about to ‘chose my words carefully’ as you attempt to threaten. I’ll chose them truthfully and realistically instead. You don’t want to hear? I won’t return.

  8. Pingback: Your Weekly Doom | Bad Futurist

  9. edhoskins says:

    The talk here may be of a coming mini ice age in the near future, that is very probable, with diminishing solar activity. Nonetheless it will still be only be noise in the longer term system.

    There is much too much concentration on immediate / short term of temperature changes. The longer term picture is more informative and for mankind much more disconcerting.

    Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.

    The usual lengths of past interglacial periods are 10,000 – 11,000 years, so the Holocene epoch could well be drawing to its close. A climate reversion to a full, encroaching, glaciation is therefore foreseeable, if not overdue, in this century, the next century, or this millennium. This is an inevitable effect of planetary mechanics.

    Using ice core records and looking at climate change from a century by century or on a millennial perspective the overall millennial difference during the Holocene since ~8000BC has in total been a cooling of ~-1.8°C.

    The data shows the early Holocene encompassing the “Climate Optimum” of ~ 7000BC and lasting for about 7000 years was relatively constant with a temperature loss of only about -0.05 °C per millennium

    However since 1000BC up to the present day the temperature drop was at about 10 times that rate at ~0.5°C / millennium.

    The last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the Holocene overall. Most of the Holocene temperature loss, ~-1.5°C, has been in the last 3 millennia since 1000BC.

    The scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions, the much vaunted and much feared “fatal” tipping point of +2°C would only bring Global temperatures back to the level of the very congenial climate of “the Roman warm period”.

    If it were possible to reach the “potentially horrendous” level of +6°C postulated by Warmists, that extreme level would still only bring temperatures to about the level of the previous Eemian maximum. The world has been there before and survived.

    Current Modern warming does not even bring temperatures back to those of the Medieval warm period.

    Already the most recent 3 millennia which have experienced accelerated cooling, a continued natural climate change towards a colder climate would now appear to be more, rather than less, likely. This makes the late 20th century warming look congenial but pretty insignificant and nothing to get distressed about. Now that the warming of the last 25 years seems to have tailed off the world can now only expect to revert to cooling again in line with the millennial trends. The predicted mini iceage will just be part of that trend.

    Warming alarmists expect the man-made effect to reverse the climate trend of the last three millennia within this century.

    That is just not plausible !!

    In other words, viewed in historical context, all policy decisions to curtail warming are facing in exactly the wrong direction.

    see
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

    • A C Osborn says:

      I totally agree. Mankind should be expanding in to Space to harness as much energy & raw materials as possible to face that future.
      Instead due to the corruption of Science and Racial Squabbling the world waste billions, if not trillions.
      That is the real “Travesty”.

Comments are closed.