We’ve already posted on how China is moving right along now as the big kahuna of CO2 emissions, now it seems there’s some despair over the inability to miss the imagined 2°C target set by wishful thinkers.
From CSIRO: The widening gap between present emissions and the two-degree target
Carbon dioxide emission reductions required to limit global warming to 2°C are becoming a receding goal based on new figures reported today in the latest Global Carbon Project (GCP) calculations published today in the advanced online edition of Nature Climate Change.
“A shift to a 2°C pathway requires an immediate, large, and sustained global mitigation effort,” GCP executive-director and CSIRO co-author of the paper, Dr Pep Canadell said.
Global CO2 emissions have increased by 58 per cent since 1990, rising 3 per cent in 2011, and 2.6 per cent in 2012. The most recent figure is estimated from a 3.3 per cent growth in global gross domestic product and a 0.7 per cent improvement in the carbon intensity of the economy.
Dr Canadell said the latest carbon dioxide emissions continue to track at the high end of a range of emission scenarios, expanding the gap between current trends and the course of mitigation needed to keep global warming below 2°C.
He said on-going international climate negotiations need to recognise and act upon the growing gap between the current pathway of global greenhouse emissions and the likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
The research, led by Dr Glen Peters from CICERO, Norway, compared recent carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and gas flaring with emission scenarios used to project climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“We need a sustained global CO2 mitigation rate of at least 3 per cent if global emissions are to peak before 2020 and follow an emission pathway that can keep the temperature increase below 2˚C,” Dr Peters said.
“Mitigation requires energy transition led by the largest emitters of China, the US, the European Union and India”.
He said that remaining below a 2°C rise above pre-industrial levels will require a commitment to technological, social and political innovations and an increasing need to rely on net negative emissions in future.
The Global Carbon Project, supported by CSIRO and the Australian Climate Change Science Program, generates annual emission summaries contributing to a process of informing policies and decisions on adaptation, mitigation, and their associated costs. The summaries are linked to long-term emission scenarios based on the degree of action taken to limit emissions.
This all so sad and terrifying isn’t it? /sarc
Meanwhile, the green-politics of many western nations will criple their economies, losing jobs and sending production overseas to Countries further east – who exhibit no such qualms about CO2 emissions.
Nett effect is that the CO2 just moves from (a) to (b) along with health and wealth – is that the type of “redistribution” these people want?
Mother Earth carries on spinning regardless (unless of course NatGeo has a say in it)
Andi
Will some-one tell these guys that the UK Met Office admits there has been no significant increase in temperature for the last SIXTEEN YEARS. i.e. there is a disconnect between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
Let’s review –
US Emissions are flat or dropping.
China’s emissions growth is slowing and WHEN the building boom ends will drop.
China has 790 GW of coal fired plant running at 60% capacity which means about 1,8 Billion tons of coal for electricity generation. The other 2 billion tons of coal they use is for ‘industrial use’, mostly making cement and steel.
Building booms take a lot of cement and steel…but unlike increases in energy consumption, they always come to an end.(epecially in a country with a ‘one child’ policy.
“2˚C” reverse is “CO2”, disregarding subscript and superscript.
“Carbon dioxide emission reductions required to limit global warming to 2°C are a nonsensical goal based on junk science according to me as reported today in this comment.”
And now, back to Dr. Chicken Little and Dr. Peter Wolf of CICERO, for more news on the end of the world with their Mayan climate doom models.
Eventually the ‘greenies’ will realise that moving all the wealth and jobs from the West to China and India will do two things, move CO2 emissions out of their control because the Chinese and Indian governments and people won’t listen to them whine as much as we do, and more important, it will start to impact on their own family and friends economic and social well being. I also bet that there are a lot of scientists worried about bigger and bigger cuts to their funding as the public purse empties and soon enough the green funding will start to suffer as folk realise the truth that we’ve cut CO2 but it doesn’t mean a thing as China and India haven’t, yet we’ve had to economically suffer for it as they keep on growing, at our expense. Of course Al and his cronies will be alright they’ve made their money out of it all, enough for them to retire somewhere nice and warm no doubt, probably by the sea.
Another good cold winter should start the reality ball rolling…
‘“Mitigation requires energy transition led by the largest emitters of China, the US, the European Union and India”.’
So, the word “mitigation” now means reducing CO2 output? I thought there was another word for that. I thought mitigation was taking action against the rising sea levels and all such supposed results of rising CO2.
I wish it was 2C warmer where I live. Instead temperatures have dropped almost 1C in the last 5 years.
ok so figured it out – the 450 ppm scenario = 2 degC scenario requires a global emission of 18 billion tonnes if the models are to be believed. Coincidentally the world emitted this number in 1976 and I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. Currently we are emitting approximately 30 billion tonnes per annum.
The big rider in this is whether any of these numbers – the model, calculations of current emissions etc can be believed.
“A shift to a 2°C pathway requires an immediate, large, and sustained global mitigation effort,” GCP executive-director and CSIRO co-author of the paper, Dr Pep Canadell said.
Demonstrably false.
We are on a 2°C (or less) pathway right now. No assinine mitigation effort necessary. At least, that is what the observations say. No accounting for the fanciful imaginations of the modelers.
Dont worry, when the greenie western economies collapse, so will china, after all whose going to buy all those chinese goods ?.
“Global CO2 emissions have increased by 58 per cent since 1990…”
For any scientist like me who has the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements at hand, it is obvious that the atmospheric CO2 level — which is more pertinent than dubiously estimated “CO2 emissions” — increased by only about 11% since 1990 (from 355 ppm to 393). Why should anyone with that knowledge even read any further than the above irrelevant, and criminally misleading, datum?
Well, the alarmists and carbon-stranglers are losing their battle to kill off our economies, but the globe’s notable lack of warming means that somewhere or other the battle not to warm by two degrees is at least at stalemate, if not starting to create a rout.
And the origin and invention of the catastrophic “Two Degrees” target.
From the German “Spiegel On Line”
“A Superstorm for Global Warming Research”;
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html
Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target
To quote;
Climate models involve some of the most demanding computations of any simulations, and only a handful of institutes worldwide have the necessary supercomputers. The computers must run at full capacity for months to work their way through the jungle of data produced by coupled differential equations.
All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren’t terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets.
For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.
It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with. An amazing success story was about to begin.
‘Clearly a Political Goal’
Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, “life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible.”
But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”
Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.
“Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling. The idea didn’t hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany’s most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief scientific adviser — a position any researcher would envy.
[ more> ]
I hope my, canadian, govt takes note of this and further reduces any funding to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Climate Science branch.
1) I am sure it isn’t coincidence this is released in the same time frame as Doha.
2) It appears the only solution will be adaptation to what ever might happen in the future, since , according to this , the situation is basically hopeless. I am OK with that solution.
3) Is this an attempt to scare the world into action immediately? It has been said insanity is doing the same thing over & over & expecting a different result. Alarmist have tried to scare the world into their point of view, it has failed repeatedly and yet they persist with the same strategy. Insane!
harryw2,
The Chinese emission growth rate may slow down as labor cost goes up and in fact the Chinese projects the energy intensity of their economy will decrease allowing them to make some target. But then it is just the march of the heavy industries from UK and Europe to US, then US to Japan and Korea and recently from Japan to China and India. The next step would be march of those heavy industries to Myanmar, Malaysia, Vietnam. China in the next five years will commission some 273 GW of additional coal fired power plants ( see the Jan 2012 report of the National energy Technology Laboratory of the US department of energy). Cars, bridges, steel bars and other materials used in US and Europe are made in China. They will be made in India, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand soon. China might even start to import. The installed power plant capacity is normally 20 to 30 per cent higher than the average demand to meet the peak load and downtime of the existing power plants for maintenance.
Someone call me when plantlife use some gas other than CO2.
Hey Globalists: The Earf (and it’s driver, the Sun) have it. We will rather likely not ever get close to your little 2°C rise. No wailing or gnashing of teeth required, nor indulgences, nor massive taxes, reductions of liberty and lifestyle either. Relax and have a beer, I’ll gladly buy it for you.
harrywr2, the Chinese have a coming demographic crisis worse than that of Japan, the US, or Europe. They already have a surplus of ~30 mln adult males. By mid century, real population crash, analogous to Russia after the fall of the USSR. For now, people need to worry about what they’ll do with all those excess young men.
This is not a win or loose thing anyway it is simply some unreliable model predictions. I guess if one is prepared to believe in the supernatural as just about any theology imaginable they one is prepared to believe anything that anybody who appears to know what they are talking about says. That applies to a lot of people who haven’t a clue what they are talking about too.
But of course it’s not about 2 degrees C, or CO2. Its about transfer of money (as someone here said some time ago) “from the taxpayers of the first world to the ruling class of the third world,” and of course, power for UN bureaucrats.
If a technological breakthrough ( say cheap fusion power) suddenly made anthropogenic CO2 a non-argument, those assembled in Doha would quickly find a reason to oppose it. CO2 is an excuse for the above named actions, not the reason.
Yes, we may very well miss the 2 degree target. With PDO in the tank followed by AMO and a Sun going into a grand solar minima it is not unlikely that the temperature are going to drop bellow 2 C in coming decades.
I believe that starting up coal plant and burning more coal are not going to make much of a difference.
Dr Canadell said ‘the latest carbon dioxide emissions continue to track at the high end of a range of emission scenarios’ – meanwhile, temperatures continue to track below the LOW end of the range of emission scenarios. Another inconvenient truth for the warmists. Models falsified
But it must be all true, they modelled it!
The Global Carbon Project, supported by CSIRO and the Australian Climate Change Science FICTION Program,generates annual emission summaries contributing to a process of informing policies and decisions on adaptation, mitigation, and their associated costs. The summaries are linked to long-term emission scenarios based on the degree of action taken to limit emissions.
There – fixed that last paragraph
”On losing the 2°C battle”…?!
WHY BOTH CAMPS REFER TO CO2 AS: A ‘’GREENHOUSE GAS?!’’
All normal greenhouses have solid glass roof. Glass is transparent for the sunlight; but ‘’SOLID glass’’ prevents hot air of getting out. On the other hand; CO2 is NOT transparent for the sunlight – intercepts sunlight high up = less comes to the ground.
b] CO2 & water vapor are less than 3% of the atmosphere, the rest is oxygen &nitrogen. Which means: ‘’ if one removes 97% of the roof off a normal greenhouse – that wouldn’t be a greenhouse anymore!’’ When there is a small hole on the roof of a normal greenhouse – farmer instantly plugs the hole – heat not to escape out. Warmist are lying for profit and power / why are the ‘’Skeptics’’ misleading for, by referring CO2 &H2O as ‘’Greenhouse Gases?! Because of ignorance, or b: because they are born losers??
The CSIRO up to it’s usual tricks. Talk about misinformation being fed to the Australian sheeple. Ever since we had a rather warm day just before the start of summer (Dec 1st) and the Doha conference on climate, we’ve been deluged by climate change alamist documentaries, commentaries, news articles, weather reports/forecasts even, it appears, carefully selected TV programs and movies which hint/mention climate change in one way or another. Seriously, I want to chuck (Vomit).
Re plant life: may I recommend:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e900/?pfm=Search&t=photosynthesis%20uv-sensitive%20ladies%27%20shirt
Just bought one for the #2 granddaughter for Christmas. It is great. Love the equation that starts 6CO2!!
k
I vote we ask Robert Brown (rgb) of Duke University to write a letter to Pep Canadell and Glen Peters explaining why they’re talking through their respective hats. Letter to include calculations.
Why, in fact, Robert, why haven’t you published your quantitative skepticism? I, for one, would very much like to see that done.
3 Dec: BBC World Service Business Daily: Germany’s dirty coal
Germany may have said no to nuclear power, but does that mean yes to dirty coal? Steve Evans reports from the Ruhr coalfields on the energy compromises Germany is having to make.
Plus, science fiction author David Brin talks about the likelihood of extra terrestrial life…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0112t36
also heard roger harrabin on bbc last nite as well, re Doha, bemoaning how there is now only the European Union & AUSTRALIA, representing 12 to 13% of CO2 emissions, committed to reducing emissions, which Reuters refers to below, using “below 15%”:
3 Dec: Reuters: Factbox – Unresolved disputes at U.N. climate talks in Doha
But backers among rich nations – led by the European Union and Australia – represent less than 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Russia, Japan and Canada are pulling out, saying it is meaningless to set new targets when major emerging nations, such as China and India, will have no binding targets. The United States never ratified Kyoto…
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/12/03/climate-talks-disputes-facts-idINDEE8B208120121203
and Australia, the fourth largest coal producer in the world, the largest exporter, with the fourth largest reserves, can export coal to China 24/7, yet is going to close down its own coal mines and is not allowed to build any new coal-fire power plants, because we are sticking with the energy resource-poor, financially bankrupt EU. when will we wake up from this nightmare?
Royal Dutch Shell repeatedly bragging how they are reducing CO2 emissions and how coal must go…after all, coal is part of their competition:
3 Dec: BBC Hardtalk: Peter Voser – Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell
The United States is about to become the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. Quite remarkable for a country that only a few years ago was the world’s largest importer of gas. It’s a turnaround made possible by shale and it comes at a time of rapidly increasing demand from China, India and the Middle East. Peter Voser is the boss of Royal Dutch Shell one of the biggest energy companies in the world. With economies so thirsty for power, producers are being driven to new frontiers -but at what cost?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p529g
——————————————————————————–
Why don’t we just write a check to Al Gore
Making cement is always in the top tier of CO2 emission alarm. The story that is not told here is that 60% of CO2 in cement manufacture comes from calcination of the ingredients and this is reabsorbed by the finished concrete over the life of the structures.
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=Long%20term%20CO2%20reabsorption%20by%20concrete&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
Per Strandberg (@LittleIceAge) says: ”Yes, we may very well miss the 2 degree target. With PDO in the tank followed by AMO and a Sun going into a grand solar minima”
Per Strandberg, next time, when you get your crystal ball out off your butt, wipe it off, first, so you can ”predict” better.. Solar minima / maxima CRAP; doesn’t control the climate; OTHERWISE, Sahara and Brazil would have had SAME climate!!! Water controls the climate, you idiots, open your eyes!!! Why you promote the outdated Pagan believes that: there is one sun for Sahara / another for Brazil. If you don’t know which climate is better, AND WHY; ask the trees. One oak-tree has more knowledge about the climate, than all the ”phony skeptics Flat- Earthers” ,
Imagine a group spending all this money and they are talking about remaking civilization’s technology by 2020. This lack of grip on reality is juvenile and pathetic. 50 years would be a remarkable achievment! We can’t develop a new diamond mine or offshore oil field by 2020.
Remember, the 2C target was based on the temperature in the middle of the 19th century so allegedly, we are half way there. These targets, like 350 ppm CO2 are designed not to be achieved but to create guilt that can be alleviated by buying into some bureaucratic mandated scheme or protocol. In other words, this is much more important to the bureaucrats than it is to life on this planet.
harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says: ”For any scientist like me who has the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements at hand”
No honest scientist would have taken the ”Mauna,Loa carbon measurements” seriously.Direct on the Faulty Line. Amount of CO2 in the air depends; on the amount of rainfall. Rainfall / water, is made by god, to wash things! CO2 increases condensation -> falls down with the rain. More CO2 in the air = more is washed down.
There are submarine volcanoes / hot vents in that area; spewing DIFFERENT amounts of CO2, SO2 gases, every few days. Monitoring is not for science; but the Swindlers in the area to be kept busy and practice brainwashing, from distance. Get yourself a gadget for monitoring CO2; you will see the percentage difference changes from midnight to midday, in 12h. Every Scientists believing in every crap that comes from IPCC; should had his diploma printed on a soft paper; to be of some good use…. . .
But then miraculously we, the world, will be saved.(From the imaginary heat) Of course the numbers will be complete fabrications, like all team climatology.
Menken; Imaginary hobgoblin to stampede the populace.
If Gaea worship is a religion, if nature worshiper=witch, are we about to see another ugly recycle of historical stupidity? As the weather cools and our govts are unprepared.
Or is lying, exaggeration, name-calling, inciting fear & violence now acceptable public discourse?
Climatology, the art of fabricating information out of noise. Known as Garbage In Gospel Out.
Perhaps I and other readers here take ourselves too seriously, yes I was raised to believe in the public good, but when so many people choose to be hysterical about the weather, human nature says we should help them.
By profiting off of their idiocy, depriving them of wealth and prestige.
Its the christian thing to do, they obviously feel guilty for having wealth and comfort and they’re using that wealth and their social positions to destroy our way of life and wealth. Far too many, of the weather fetish people, have govt jobs and in their idiocy are in fact gnawing at the foundations of our society.(there’s a hat tip due here but I forget who)
When we acknowledge our bankruptcy, the mass firing of our “help” will go a long way in restoring sanity to public affairs.
This is one way of democratizing the faith, your faithful can voluntarily become poor and uncomfortable. And the rest of us can feel better for helping them buttress their faith, all the way to the bank. It is our civic duty to take whatever ethical action is necessary to protect our society.
Considering what Joe Bastardi has to say about EU, Asia, etc winters of late and coming soon to your neighborhood, why would anyone in their right mind be worried over CO2 emissions?
I might suggest the focus turn to food production. The folly over emissions may soon be redirected.
http://www.weatherbell.com/videos/encoded/1354400206_2.ogg
The truth of the matter is that if the world is to be carbon equitable and meet the mythical 2 degree target, we can only emit 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person. I am officially calling this the “Cuba Scenario”, since this appears to be the amount emitted by the average person in Cuba. To put this in context; if you have an average vehicle that consumes 10 l per hundred kilometers and you travel an average annual distance of greater than 20,000 kilometers then you have already used up your carbon allocation.
Needless to say all those flunkies in Doha who are there to ensure the “Cuba Scenario” are doing so because they are taking a lend from the poorest pople in the world. In other words they stole without permission the rightful carbon allocation of the people they claim to protect. Little wonder that the World is not making progress towards that scenario.
As for Al Gore and his bunchI have no doubt that they have NOT done the math and don’t even realise that the “Cuba Scenario” allows them no more than 1 flight in their lifetime and that providing you drive a low consumption vehicle and don’t eat (Sorry Al – definitely no cavalcades).
All that said, providing everything is carbon offset you can do what you want.
pat says:
December 3, 2012 at 6:01 pm
“Royal Dutch Shell repeatedly bragging how they are reducing CO2 emissions and how coal must go…after all, coal is part of their competition”
Yes, very important that there is an awareness that our “green” oil producers are funding the “green” propagandistasses to lobby your local “green lettuce absorbing” legislative gurus (enter sucking sound) to abandon coal to be replaced with none other than …methane… aka “natural gas” …the “clean energy” that is more natural than evil CO2 “pollution” by which we will all become blackened pepper steak. Think levity…or levitation… as in lost heat rises…into the darkness of space. 🙂
At least New Zealand has seen some sense. Not going to sign up to Kyoto2. Despite NZ jumping the gun with the CO2 ETS to appease UN Dopenhagen IPCC 2009 Brownie Point scoring.
Now the local Chicken Little AGW/CC Greenie Watermelons are having a meltdown. 🙂
@Theo Goodwin,
“So, the word “mitigation” now means reducing CO2 output? I thought there was another word for that. I thought mitigation was taking action against the rising sea levels and all such supposed results of rising CO2.”
No, taking action against the rising sea levels and all such supposed results of rising CO2 would be adaptation not mitigation.
“””””…..Marian says:
December 3, 2012 at 8:10 pm
At least New Zealand has seen some sense. Not going to sign up to Kyoto2. Despite NZ jumping the gun with the CO2 ETS to appease UN Dopenhagen IPCC 2009 Brownie Point scoring……”””””
Izzat a fact Marian ? or a wish ? A year or two ago, I wrote to PM John Key, and told him that it was downright embarrassing, as a Kiwi Physicist, to read about NZ biting into the apple, and following those Aussie convict degenerates down the carbon rat hole. I suggested he and NZ could become world leaders, by telling the Kyoto Klowns to “Shove it !”, or more succinctly; “Nuts!”, or “Go jump in the Tasman Sea !”, and he could become PM for life.
NZ, like the USA, is a net carbon sink, because of its huge farmed forests, that gobble carbon, like no old growth forest can. John Key sort of gave me the bum’s rush, and shuttled me over to Sir what’s’isname, the Science advisor, who told me politely; excuse me, that’s Very politely, that the apple tasted good, and he was going to eat the whole thing.
It was a big disappointment to discover how little influence I had; but if the PM has seen the light, I should drop him another note, and praise him for doing the sensible thing.
It would be great if he could drag that other species, over there on the Big Island along with him. I have some family and even some real Mates, over in that den of bread loaf robbers, and it would be nice to get them out on parole too. Hey maybe it’s time for the ANZACS to get their revenge !
ROM @ 4.34. Keep posting that article. It will sink into a few of the warmists mind one day.
When you see how these academics such as Dr Canadell get caught up in the myths without doing the basic research into where the figures come from , one has to question the state of teriary education these days.
harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says: ”For any scientist like me who has the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements at hand”
Well said Harry. The last 22 years has increased CO2 levels by 37ppm. From 1968 to 1990 (the previous 22 years) the increase was 31ppm. Hardly 58%.
!968 – 323ppm
1990 – 354ppm
2012 – 391ppm (Oct)
Andi Cockroft says:
Yes that’s what the architects of the co2 bunkum want because they think it will lead to population reduction.
mark says:
Western economies got along just fine in the past, trading amongst just themselves without the rest of the world, so the rest of the world will get along just fine trading amongst themselves without the collapsed western economies.
eo says:
Already happening. The most rapidly growing vehicle brand within Europe is Dacia, a Romanian car company bought by Renault, the right hand drive cars for this brand being imported into the UK are made in India. They are nearly half the price of competing brands, there is a 6 month waiting list.
stefanthedenier says:
Sahara /Brazil, these are local climates within an overall global climate which is what Per Strandberg was talking about. Unless you have another explanation for the Maunder minimum and the LIA. Currently the most widely accepted theory for the LIA and certainly the MM is the pagan belief in the sun god, ie. sunspot minima.
bikermailman says:
Yes it’s an interesting situation, if they can control the fallout then it is what they wanted to achieve if they are to provide western standards of living to their population then they have no choice but to reduce their population.
An excellent (long) read on the subject of China’s coming demographic problems;
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2010/09/china-population-wang
If I understand correctly, CO2 has risen from <320ppm in 1960 to ~394ppm presently. According to the IPCC computer models, what should the global temperature rise have been for this period?
There is probably not a simple answer to this question, but approximately please.
Thanks!
…. We need a sustained global CO2 mitigation rate of at least 3 per cent if global emissions are to peak before 2020 and follow an emission pathway that can keep the temperature increase below 2˚C …
==================================================
That, of course, is completely nonsensical non sequitur.
Before anyone rushes out to buy-up big on low energy light bulbs or cuts their wrists, please be aware that information on the CSIRO website “…. is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice …is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research … may not be accurate, current or complete …. is subject to change without notice … should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something … ” and that ” …You accept all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this site and any information or material available from it …” etc.: http://www.csiro.au/en/Legal-Notice-and-Disclaimer.aspx
Is that a 2°C goal … as in get the climate predictions anywhere within 2°C?
If so, yes, I think it is ambitious. So far they are out by somewhere from 0.2 to 0.9°C, so even if we do not have cooling, within another 15-20years they could well begin to exceed that limit. They certainly will within 5 decades.
bikermailman
‘harrywr2, the Chinese have a coming demographic crisis worse than that of Japan, the US, or Europe. They already have a surplus of ~30 mln adult males. By mid century, real population crash, analogous to Russia after the fall of the USSR. For now, people need to worry about what they’ll do with all those excess young men.’
I find it fascinating that they don’t appear to have foreseen this coming; unbelievably sad for all those baby girls killed at birth 🙁 War anyone?
Mark and two Cats
Pick a number, any number. Don’t tell anyone incase you need to change it.
I’ve worked with and negotiated with Chinese on several occasions, One thing is constant. They NEVER do anything that does not benefit them. So the folks in DOHA will have to deal with that. Which means no ‘buy in’ from China without buckets of money. Now, since we’re presently BORROWING our budget FROM China, it will be mighty hard to convince the Chinese that they can be bought off with their own money if only the lend it to us…
@Beesaman:
Exactly. Right now we’ve got a load of folks demanding about $1.5 Trillion MORE taxation for a promise of “cuts” that never happen (and are only measured against a hypothetical larger future budget anyway, so are not even reductions in any actual expenditure). Why? Because they think that they can keep the economy going with fictional numbers forever. They can’t.
There is a real fundamental underlayment of actual product. More tax means less investment means less product. Less product means less wealth to be spread around. So there just isn’t going to be any payolla. Not in any real way.
The only problem is that the Gov’t Lackies will be the last ones to feel the bite. The first will be the minimum wage folks (via inflation) and then the business folks (who will lay off more workers and move more work to China and India) resulting in ever less tax revenue. Figure it will take about 3 years for the “stuff” to fully hit the fan. THEN the folks feeding at the public trough will start to notice.
Unfortunately, California is already there… San Bernardino has declined to pay a required payment into the Calif. Public Employee Retirement System, since they are bankrupt. CalPERS has sued them. The whole thing is going to court. They are one of 4 Cities (and a couple of counties) who are bankrupt. More on the way. We just voted to raise taxes (on the thesis that “Tax beatings will continue until business morale improves”…) and drive more productivity out of the State. Oh, and we did “Cap and Tax” too, for good measure… So some California Public Employees are going to either lose their pensions, OR be let go (if the city is required to pay CalPERS instead of fund current operations). Either way, one group or the other gets whacked.
California is in worse condition than Greece, in some ways. But at least it’s starting to whack the folks at the public trough… Today, San Bernardino, tomorrow Sacramento? (I’d not be buying any California Muni Bonds any time soon…)
“george e. smith says:
December 3, 2012 at 10:17 pm”
LOL I think the bread robbing reference might be lost on a few colonist at this site! I gave up on NZ polotics when I discovered Helen Clark was a fundamental initiator in the destruction of the health system in the 80’s, when the people who sold Post Bank to ANZ Bank were the same people who setup Kiwi Bank, and then sold that off. When NIWA started to get the Aussie BOM to vet temerature data and so on…
[snip -you’ve been a bit too abusive here take a 72 hour time out – Anthony]
2C max or the world fries or not. The tropical water cycle feed back would see no real increase in that zone. That leaves the temperate and polar regions, 2c in polar regions subtracted from minus 30c would possibly not be noticed even by polar bears. 2c in the temperate zones with the extra CO2 would mean longer growing periods and an increase in land area for food production.
I have a problem in that I can not see the problem of 2C.
To quote Albert Einstein “I fear the day that technology will surpass human interaction, The world will have a generation of idiots”!
Mark and two Cats
You’re right, there is no simple answer to this question . All the computer models assume various levels of ‘feedback’. At current C02 concentrations, from pre-industrial levels up to about 1000 parts per million (ppm), the effect of C02 is ‘logarithmic’. This means that the temperature increase will be the same for a doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm as it will be for a doubling from 400ppm to 800ppm. Note that at low concentrations this logarithmic relationship breaks down (for very low concentrations the effect is linear and at intermediate levels it is a square root function).
Let us take the no-feedback case. The IPCC tell us that all other things being equal, if we just double the concentration of C02 without changing anything else, then a doubling of C02 would lead to a surface warming of 1.2 Deg. Celsius. So we can calculate the change in surface temperature (dTs) for a change from initial concentration (Co) to a higher concentration (C) from the formula
dTs = 1.73 * ln(C/Co)
…You just wanted a simple answer didn’t you, rather than all this maths? But we are nearly there. Putting in your values of an increase from 320ppm to 394ppm gives
dTs = 1.73 * ln(394/320) = 1.73* 0.208 = 0.36
So the temperature rise, due to C02, is 0.36 Deg. Celsius.
The no-feedback case therefore doesn’t present any catastrophic problems for humankind. The current rate of increase in C02 levels is about 2ppm, according to Mauna Loa measurements. At this rate of increase it will take 200 years to double the level of C02 from 400ppm to 800ppm; in which time the oil and gas will have run out and the problem solves itself.
A rise of a fraction of a degree over 200 years is certainly not catastrophic, probably beneficial. It all depends on the ‘feedback’ . This is the ’known unknown’.
I cannot understand how this “stefanthedenier” has not yet been banned / snipped. He has already broken most of the policy rules: vulgarity, insults, off-topic nonsense, trolling, excesive posting… but then, it’s not my call…
“Dr Canadell said the latest carbon dioxide emissions continue to track at the high end of a range of emission scenarios, expanding the gap between current trends and the course of mitigation needed to keep global warming below 2°C.”
While CO2 continue to “track” the high end of IPCC senarios the REAL WORLD temperatures failed to rise even to the levels predicted with the most draconian cut senarios. In fact they failed to rise AT ALL.
Yet Dr Canadell is still crapping on about the “need” to keep global warming down as if he hasn’t even noticed.
Incredible !
Plus, stefanthedenier seems to practice lots of banning in his own blog (which he linked in his last response) with the very few visitors that dare comment, and defends nonsense like most of the ocean’s temperature is below 4ºC, something so easy to demonstrate as absolutely wrong… this guy is the definition of a troll.
… and now I should get a huge facepalm for confusing a few facts… 🙁
eo,
China in the next five years will commission some 273 GW of additional coal fired power plants ( see the Jan 2012 report of the National energy Technology Laboratory of the US department of energy). Cars, bridges, steel bars and other materials used in US and Europe are made in China.
China coal fired construction slowed dramatically in 2012. Wind+Hydro is kicking in big time. The Chinese will build enough coal fired plants to keep up with demand, but no one knows how fast that demand will grow. Surely double digit growth rates don’t last forever.
US Cement Consumption runs around 100 million tons per year. Chinese cement consumption is running at around 2 billion tons per year. If we say they have roughly 4 times the population then per capita they are using 5 times as much cement.
If takes around 1/4 ton of coal to produce 1 ton of cement. So the chinese are burning roughly 500 million tons of coal to produce domestic cement.
US Steel Consumption is about 100 million tons. China’s domestic steel consumption(excluding exports) is around 700 million tons. Works out to roughly 1.75X US per capita steel consumption.
It takes about 3/4 ton of coal to produce a ton of steel. So the Chinese are burning roughly 500 million tons of coal to produce domestic steel.
About the only ‘energy intensive’ building material the Chinese aren’t consuming more of then the average American is aluminum. The last I checked per capita aluminum consumption in China is running at around 70% of US per capita Aluminum consumption. Maybe they are better about recycling beverage cans. I don’t know the reason.
They have had a building boom in the last 10 years beyond any building boom the world has ever seen. They also have had a ‘baby bust’ for 20+ years beyond any baby bust the world has ever seen. The boom will have to stop at some point.
Here is a recent article quoting Chinese Steel Industry executive
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-08/30/content_15719171.htm
“The rapid development of the industry, based on increasing output, has gone. For the next 10 to 15 years, the domestic steel demand will stay at a level of 600 million to 700 million tons a year,”
97% + 2ºC. Almost at 100% BS.
stefanthedenier says:
December 3, 2012 at 6:03 pm
You really don’t mind making a fool of yourself, do you?
Man’s co2 output levels will eventually flatten then decrease and it won’t be because of carbon taxes and other fraudulent schemes. It will be because of technological advances like nuclear fusion, more use of nuclear power, cheaper and more efficient solar power, greater energy efficiency etc. all driven by market forces and not by damaging, artificial scams.
To Nylo:
Supplying facepalm! See link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1wqciODsC8
Whenever I see a nice round number, like 350 PPM or 2ºC, my BS alarm goes off. In my experience, calculated numbers rarely come out neat like that. Plus, why 2ºC? How is that related to the presumed climate impact? Are there fewer Sandys if the temperature is +1.9 and more if it is +2.1? I don’t think the numbers are that fine.
So, they have been picked for political reasons, as usual.
I would like to see something on how , who and where this magical 2 degrees are to be measured’ Or will they be calculated by models??
Sonja
I feel quite comfortable waiting whether that temperature increase will in fact manifest itself. It’s about 40 years too early to spend any money on it.
But the effect CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is ever more marginal with greater concentration
The widely held alarmist policy ambition to constrain Man-made temperature increase to +2.0°C has to be scientific nonsense as it could never be attained, however much more Man-made or natural CO2 was added to the atmosphere. And this could be why!!
The IPCC Published report, (TAR3),
(http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar…),
acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. The information is contained in their last report, but it is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).
The logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2 is the likely reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming in earlier eons, when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.
According to figures published by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, CDIAC in 2010 the total (natural and Man-made) CO2 warming effect at 390 ppmv causes ~1.24°C of the 33°C greenhouse effect and according to the logarithmic diminution process at 390 ppmv this CO2 level has already taken up ~88% of CO2’s effectiveness as a Greenhouse gas. Thus the maximum CO2 warming effect can only be 1.24°C / 88% = ~1.41°C: so only an additional 12% or ~+0.18°C remains.
In the context of normal daily temperature variations at any a single location of 10°C to 20°C and which can usually be as much as 40°C to 50°C over the course of a year and as the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the temperature diminution effects for all the excessive efforts of the Nations committed to CO2 reduction are marginal, immeasurable and irrelevant.
Although the IPCC tacitly acknowledges that this crucial logarithmic diminution effect exists, it certainly does not report or emphasise it. Like the Medieval Warm Period, that the IPCC attempted to eliminate with the Hockey Stick graph in 2001, the panel knows that wide public knowledge of the diminution effect with increasing CO2 concentration would be utterly detrimental to their primary message.
The IPCC certainly does not explain these devastating consequences for the CAGW theory in their Summary for Policy Makers. And thus the IPCC is entirely misleading in its central claim, as they say:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
So any unquestioning, policy maker is irrevocably lead to assume that all increasing CO2 concentrations are progressively more harmful because of their escalating Greenhouse impact. But that is not so.
From the present concentration of atmospheric CO2 at ~390 ppmv, with only ~12% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas remaining. This can only give rise to a maximum rise of a further of ~0.18°C. Thereafter beyond 900+ pmmv the effect of increasing levels of CO2 can only ever be absolutely minimal even if CO2 concentrations were to increase indefinitely.
beesaman says:
December 3, 2012 at 3:54 pm
…. I also bet that there are a lot of scientists worried about bigger and bigger cuts to their funding as the public purse empties and soon enough the green funding will start to suffer as folk realise the truth….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I were a climate scientist or ANY University scientist, I would start really worrying about the crazies if we hit the economic cliff and it is coupled with a major cooling in the climate and resulting food shortages.
Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) have already crossed the line in the sand. They should thank goodness the far right is generally Christian and therefore not as prone towards anti-social behavior as the far left. If the left ever figures out they have been had I would not like to be sitting in a University in a big city.
This was presented on the PBS News Hour, yesterday Dec 3rd. Gwen Eiffel interviewed Coral Davenport, another journalist from the National Journal. Out of this interview come such gems as:
GWEN IFILL: And if we go past it, what happens?
CORAL DAVENPORT: It’s a big point.
The two-degree mark is the point at which the polar ice sheets will melt, leading to rapid sea level rise. It’s also a point at which many areas of the world will no longer be able to grow food.
So, it’s likely that we could see price spikes, food shortages. These are the kinds of things that will set off a lot of other rapid and potentially catastrophic chain reactions.
Full interview at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/july-dec12/climate_12-03.html
This is the degree of rabid alamism that is being presented as ‘fact’, on the PBS News Hour – Ugh!
Please, Please! Do Not Contribute Money to PBS!
MtK
bikermailman says:
December 3, 2012 at 4:54 pm
harrywr2, the Chinese have a coming demographic crisis worse than that of Japan, the US, or Europe. They already have a surplus of ~30 mln adult males. By mid century, real population crash, analogous to Russia after the fall of the USSR. For now, people need to worry about what they’ll do with all those excess young men.
_________________________________
My husband just mentioned a Prof. of demographics at Boston University many years ago said an excess of young men almost always devolves into revolution.
A recent article How Testosterone Drives History
“A new book by a German researcher explores the role that the hormone, which is more present in males, plays not just in mindless aggression, but also the kinds of real-life revolutions that change history”
We can hear a lot of talk about rising CO2 levels coming out of Doha, but very little reporting of the 16 year pause in temperature rises worldwide. There is also a lot of talk about the danger of a projected 2 degree temperature rise. I wonder how long we will have to wait to hear a comment on actual temperatures worldwide coming out of them. The fact that CO2 levels and worldwide temperature seem to be wholly independent, seems to escape the party-goers at Doha.
stefanthedenier says:
December 3, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Per Strandberg (@LittleIceAge) says: ”Yes, we may very well miss the 2 degree target. With PDO in the tank followed by AMO and a Sun going into a grand solar minima”
Per Strandberg, next time, when you get your crystal ball out off your butt, wipe it off, first, so you can ”predict” better.. Solar minima / maxima CRAP; doesn’t control the climate; OTHERWISE, Sahara and Brazil would have had SAME climate!!! Water controls the climate, you idiots, open your eyes!!! Why you promote the outdated Pagan believes that: there is one sun for Sahara / another for Brazil. If you don’t know which climate is better,….
____________________________________
Yes H2O in all its manifestations is a more likely candidate than CO2. However you are missing the Solar-Ocean connection.
Graphs of solar – ocean
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
Absorption at various ocean depths: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
Ocean heat content: http://www.klimaatfraude.info/flitspost/images/2011-05-30_021050.jpg
Sun’s variability NASA: (keep in mind what wavelengths penetrate the ocean)
Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/
Sources of Energy for the Earth’s Atmosphere Note the table in the middle of the article
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/Solar%20Irradiance.html
EVE: Measuring the Sun’s Hidden Variability
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/sdo_eve.html
Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/
Other information
a new paper published yesterday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters from NASA GISS/Columbia University and Brown University titled: Hydroclimate of the northeastern United States is highly sensitive to solar forcing
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/29/giss-finally-concedes-a-significant-role-for-the-sun-in-climate/
From POPTECH http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
You can go there to find the links
These are some of the Climate – Solar influence papers
Solar Variability as a Factor in the Fluctuations of Climate during Geological Time
(Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, Volume 31, pp. 295-315, 1949)
– H. C. Willett
Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp.273, January 1961)
– M. Stuiver
Solar-Climate Relationships in the Post-Pleistocene
(Science, Volume 171, Number 3977, pp. 1242-1243, March 1971)
– J. Roger Bray
Solar Magnetic Sector Structure: Relation to Circulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere
(Science, Volume 180, Number 4082, pp. 185-186, April 1973)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
Solar Radiation Changes and the Weather
(Nature, Volume 245, Number 5426, pp. 443-446, October 1973)
– J. W. King
Influence of Solar Magnetic Sector Structure on Terrestrial Atmospheric Vorticity
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp. 581–588, March 1974)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
Sun-weather relationships
(Astronautics and Aeronautics, Volume 13, pp. 10-19, April 1975)
– J. W. King
Seasonal variation and magnitude of the solar sector structure–atmospheric vorticity effect
(Nature, Volume 255, Number 5509, pp. 539-540, June 1975)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
On the reality of a sun-weather effect (solar magnetic structure effect on vorticity)
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 33, pp. 1113-1116, June 1976)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
(Science, Volume 194, Number 4270, pp. 1121-1132, December 1976)
– J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton
Climate and the changing sun
(Climatic Change, Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 173-190, June 1977)
– John A. Eddy
Variations in sunspot structure and climate
(Climatic Change, Volume 2, Number 1, pp. 79-92, March 1979)
– Douglas V. Hoyt
Intensity of tropospheric circulation associated with solar magnetic sector boundary transits
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp. 657-659, June 1979)
– John M. Wilcox et al.
Terrestrial, Solar and Galactic Origin of the Earth’s Geophysical Variables (PDF)
(Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, Volume 66, Number 1/2, pp. 1-9, 1984)
– Nils-Axel Morner
Sunspots, the QBO, and the stratospheric temperature in the north polar region
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 14, Number 5, pp. 535-537, May 1987)
– Karin Labitzke
Influence of solar variability on global sea surface temperatures
(Nature, Volume 329, Number 6135, pp. 142-143, September 1987)
– George C. Reid
Solar rotation, impulses of the torque in the Sun’s motion, and climatic variation
(Climatic Change, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 265-295, June 1988)
– Theodor Landscheidt
A generalized theory of sun-climate/weather link and climatic change (PDF)
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 12, Number 5, pp. 597-611, September 1989)
– Ernest C. Njau
Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars
(Nature, Volume 348, Number 6301, pp. 520-523, December 1990)
– Sallie Baliunas, Robert Jastrow
Sun-controlled spatial and time-dependent cycles in the climatic/weather system
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 17-23, January 1991)
– Ernest C. Njau
Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, Number D2, pp. 2835–2844, February 1991)
– George C. Reid
Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate (PDF)
(Science, Volume 254, Number 5032, pp. 698-700, November 1991)
– Eigil Friis-Christensen, K. Lassen
Relationships between relative sunspot numbers and air temperature
(Meteorologische Zeitschrift. Volume 2, Number 3, pp. 121-126, June 1993)
– Werner Mende, Rita Stellmacher
A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700-1992 (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 98, Number A11, pp. 18,895-18,906, November 1993)
– Douglas V. Hoyt, Kenneth H. Schatten
Evidence on the climate impact of solar variations
(Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1285-1295, December 1993)
– Sallie Baliunas, Robert Jastrow
Solar activity variations and global temperature
(Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1273-1284, December 1993)
– Eigil Friis-Christensen
Maximum and minimum temperatures at armagh observatory, 1844-1992, and the length of the sunspot cycle (PDF)
(Solar Physics, Volume 152, Number 1, pp. 35-42, June 1994)
– C. J. Butler
The link between the solar dynamo and climate – The evidence from a long mean air temperature series from Northern Ireland
(Irish Astronomical Journal, Volume 21, Number 3-4, pp. 251-254, September 1994)
– C. J. Butler, D. J. Johnston
Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 57, Issue 8, pp. 835-845, July 1995)
– K. Lassen, Eigil Friis-Christensen
On solar forcing of Holocene climate: evidence from Scandinavia
(The Holocene, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 359-365, 1996)
– Wibjorn Karlen, Johan Kuylenstierna
Comparison of proxy records of climate change and solar forcing
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 23, Number 4, pp. 359-362, February 1996)
– Thomas J. Crowley et al.
Inference of Solar Irradiance Variability from Terrestrial Temperature Changes, 1880–1993: an Astrophysical Application of the Sun-Climate Connection (PDF)
(The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 472, pp. 891, December 1996)
– Willie H. Soon, Eric S. Posmentier, Sallie L. Baliunas
The signal of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the upper troposphere-lower stratosphere
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 80, Numbers 3-4, pp. 393-410, May 1997)
– K. Labitzke, H. van Loon
What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 20, Issue 4-5, pp. 913-921, September 1997)
– Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark
Solar Forcing of Global Climate Change Since The Mid-17th Century
(Climatic Change, Volume 37, Number 2, pp. 391-405, October 1997)
– George C. Reid
Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 25, Number 7, pp. 1035-1038, January 1998)
– E. W. Cliver et al.
Orbital Controls on the El Nino/Southern Oscillation and the Tropical Climate
(Paleoceanography, Volume 14, Number 4, pp. 441–456, 1999)
– A. C. Clement et al.
Palaeoenvironmental evidence for solar forcing of Holocene climate: linkages to solar science
(Progress in Physical Geography, Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 181-204, 1999)
– Frank M. Chambers et al.
Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate
(Science, Volume 284, Number 5412, pp. 305-308, April 1999)
– Drew Shindell et al.
A doubling of the Sun’s coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years
(Nature, Volume 399, Number 6735, pp. 437-439, June 1999)
– Mike Lockwood et al.
Some new relationships between temperature variations and sunspot cycles—1. Long-period variations
(Renewable Energy, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp. 25–33, September 1999)
– Ernest C. Njau
Connection between the Solar Cycle and the QBO: The Missing Link (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp. 328-338, January 2000)
– Murry Salby, Patrick Callaghan
Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998: astronomical forcings of change in earth’s climate?
(New Astronomy, Volume 4, Issue 8, pp. 563-579, January 2000)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L Baliunas, Eric S. Posmentier, P. Okeke
Climate hypersensitivity to solar forcing? (PDF)
(Annales Geophysicae, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 583-588, May 2000)
– Willie H. Soon, Eric S. Posmentier, Sallie L Baliunas
Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 97, Number 23, pp. 12433-12438, November 2000)
– Charles A. Perry, Kenneth J. Hsu
Solar Variability and the Earth’s Climate: Introduction and Overview
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 94, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-11, November 2000)
– George C. Reid
RossP says:
December 3, 2012 at 10:28 pm
….When you see how these academics such as Dr Canadell get caught up in the myths without doing the basic research into where the figures come from , one has to question the state of teriary education these days.
_____________________________________
Perhaps he and a lot of the others used this guy
Makes you wonder about just how genuine those degrees are doesn’t it?
wayne Job says:
December 4, 2012 at 2:08 am
…. I have a problem in that I can not see the problem of 2C.
___________________________________
There isn’t any. Just ask the Vikings… O wait the temperature plummeted and they starved.
edmh says:
December 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm
This figure of 1.24°C seems extremely low and I cannot find it in the reference you give. Do have a more pinpoint reference?
This doesn’t make sense. Is this a calculation you have performed yourself? There would be no limit if you could keep doubling the C02 concentration whilst the relationship remained logarithmic.
I have enjoyed WUWT for a good few years now. one of the most entertaining and enlightening parts is the discourse that goes on in the comments section. I can’t, offhand, recall anyone as rude and brusque as ‘stepahnthedenier’ has been here.
I accept that this is not a very generous thing to say and will be construed as an ad hominem attack but notwithstanding some of the ludicrous reasoning he is using, his behaviour and abuse of people he wishes to debate with is showing all the signs of an unstable individual of the ‘conspiracy theory’ variety.
And apart from that he’s clearly circumnavigated the 72 hour ban he was handed. Very disappointing to see in what is usually the most well-mannered of blogs regardless of which position you take.
[Reply: I had missed Anthony’s 1:47 am ban. Thank you for pointing it out. All stefanthedenier comments following the ban are now deleted. — Mod.]
Anthropogenic Denial.
Man cannot affect the CO2 levels. (Controlled, with long lags, by ocean temperature).
CO2 cannot affect the climate (H2O feedback and processes rapidly compensate and overcompensate for any minor tweaking CO2 does.)
I.e.: Fortunately, nothing we do to get energy from burning carbon will affect the climate.
BUT–
Making energy in wasteful and costly non-CO2 generating ways impoverishes and kills many millions.
.
@Nylo;
The max density at 4°C applies only to freshwater. Sea water increases “all the way down”. So no lab demo is gonna work the way you think it will.