Matt Ridley: Climate Cure Worse Than Thought

climate_melt1(via the GWPF) Matt Ridley, Financial POst

The IPCC produced two reports last year. One said that the cost of climate change is likely to be less than 2% of GDP by the end of this century. The other said that the cost of decarbonizing the world economy with renewable energy is likely to be 4% of GDP. Why do something that you know will do more harm than good?

The debate over climate change is horribly polarized. From the way it is conducted, you would think that only two positions are possible: that the whole thing is a hoax or that catastrophe is inevitable.

In fact there is room for lots of intermediate positions, including the view I hold, which is that man-made climate change is real but not likely to do much harm, let alone prove to be the greatest crisis facing humankind this century.

After more than 25 years reporting and commenting on this topic for various media organizations, and having started out alarmed, that’s where I have ended up. But it is not just I that hold this view. I share it with a very large international organization, sponsored by the United Nations and supported by virtually all the world’s governments: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself.

The IPCC commissioned four different models of what might happen to the world economy, society and technology in the 21st century and what each would mean for the climate, given a certain assumption about the atmosphere’s “sensitivity” to carbon dioxide. Three of the models show a moderate, slow and mild warming, the hottest of which leaves the planet just 2 degrees Centigrade warmer than today in 2081-2100. The coolest comes out just 0.8 degrees warmer.

Now two degrees is the threshold at which warming starts to turn dangerous, according to the scientific consensus. That is to say, in three of the four scenarios considered by the IPCC, by the time my children’s children are elderly, the earth will still not have experienced any harmful warming, let alone catastrophe.

But what about the fourth scenario? This is known as RCP8.5, and it produces 3.5 degrees of warming in 2081-2100. Curious to know what assumptions lay behind this model, I decided to look up the original papers describing the creation of this scenario. Frankly, I was gobsmacked. It is a world that is very, very implausible.

For a start, this is a world of “continuously increasing global population” so that there are 12 billion on the planet. This is more than a billion more than the United Nations expects, and flies in the face of the fact that the world population growth rate has been falling for 50 years and is on course to reach zero – i.e., stable population – in around 2070. More people mean more emissions.

Second, the world is assumed in the RCP8.5 scenario to be burning an astonishing 10 times as much coal as today, producing 50% of its primary energy from coal, compared with about 30% today. Indeed, because oil is assumed to have become scarce, a lot of liquid fuel would then be derived from coal. Nuclear and renewable technologies contribute little, because of a “slow pace of innovation” and hence “fossil fuel technologies continue to dominate the primary energy portfolio over the entire time horizon of the RCP8.5 scenario.” Energy efficiency has improved very little.

These are highly unlikely assumptions. With abundant natural gas displacing coal on a huge scale in the United States today, with the price of solar power plummeting, with nuclear power experiencing a revival, with gigantic methane-hydrate gas resources being discovered on the seabed, with energy efficiency rocketing upwards, and with population growth rates continuing to fall fast in virtually every country in the world, the one thing we can say about RCP8.5 is that it is very, very implausible.

But there’s an even more startling fact. We now have many different studies of climate sensitivity based on observational data and they all converge on the conclusion that it is much lower than assumed by the IPCC in these models. It has to be, otherwise global temperatures would have risen much faster than they have over the past 50 years.  As Ross McKitrick noted on this page earlier this week, temperatures have not risen at all now for more than 17 years. With these much more realistic estimates of sensitivity (known as “transient climate response”), even RCP8.5 cannot produce dangerous warming. It manages just 2.1C of warming by 2081-2100.

That is to say, even if you pile crazy assumption upon crazy assumption till you have an edifice of vanishingly small probability, you cannot even manage to make climate change cause minor damage in the time of our grandchildren, let alone catastrophe. That’s not me saying this – it’s the IPCC itself.

But what strikes me as truly fascinating about these scenarios is that they tell us that globalization, innovation and economic growth are unambiguously good for the environment. At the other end of the scale from RCP8.5 is a much more cheerful scenario called RCP2.6. In this happy world, climate change is not a problem at all in 2100, because carbon dioxide emissions have plummeted thanks to the rapid development of cheap nuclear and solar, plus a surge in energy efficiency.

Full story here

See also the Ideacity video: A New Perspective on Climate Change By Matt Ridley

About these ads

46 thoughts on “Matt Ridley: Climate Cure Worse Than Thought

  1. There’s an interesting story in NextBigFuture about iron seeding of the ocean off of Canada. An excerpt:

    120 tons of iron sulphate of fertilization into the ocean boosted fish catch by over 100,000 tons – We get a lot of fish and solve the CO2 climate problem

    About 20 months ago, an American businessman conducted a massive ocean fertilisation test, fertilizing around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate off Canada’s coast, it has emerged the Canadian government may have known about the geo-engineering scheme and not stopped it. Satellite images confirmed the claim by Californian Russ George that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometres. Now it appears that the fish catch in the area was boosted by over 100,000 tons.

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/120-tons-of-iron-sulphate-dumped-into.html

    Those at nextbigfuture are looking at this iron seeding as a possible panacea type geo-engineering solution that could start reducing CO2 levels, and lead to a dramatic increases in ocean productivity, all with no side effects. …. Except, I don’t know, I left this comment:

    A couple of points. If you reduced the CO2 level in the atmosphere it would lead to a reduction in agricultural productivity on land. So, that would be a cost. Plus there might be an absolute limit to how much of the seeding we could do, because if CO2 were to just keep on dropping, eventually we’d all be dead, as plants need ~ 180ppm to survive.

  2. @Eric Simpson says:
    June 21, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Thanks for that, Eric! I postulated as much on another WUWT discussion thread (fertilize the oceans not to sequester carbon, but to stimulate fisheries). I’m glad to see some realistic discussion of this.

    Iron fertilization spurs the growth of phytoplankton, which form the base of the food pyramid. Small crustaceans such as copepods graze upon the plankton bloom, and in turn are consumed by larger predators. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/27/ocean-iron-fertilization-experiment-a-blooming-failure/

    American and other commercial fishing fleets badly damaged the cod and groundfish fisheries of the Georges Banks in the 1980s; I was consulting with the industry in Gloucester, Mass. during this era. Stimulating our fisheries would be a good thing, damn the carbon. Cheers, Charles the DrPH

  3. Well, the position that “catastrophe is inevitable” is a hoax. :)
    The models all show temprature increasing with CO2 because that’s programmed in -circular argument. The fact that reality has disagreed for going on eighteen years now, calls all of the model’s assumptions into question.

  4. In fact there is room for lots of intermediate positions…and almost all of them wrong
    So why say something like this?

  5. Some economists called the precursor scenario to RCP 8.5 (A1F1) the “golden age”, because it assumes that all the world’s undeveloped countries follow the path of China – with hundreds of million leaving poverty with the help of abundant cheap fossil fuels.

  6. Note to Anthony and/or MODERATORS: There’s some sort of command typo in the article that’s caused the sentence “Notice, however, that even so, it is not a world of catastrophic pain. The per capita income of the average human being in 2100 is three times what it is now. Poverty would be history. So it’s hardly Armageddon.” to display in a much smaller font than the rest of the article. Just wanted to let you know so you could fix it.

    My best to you all, and thanks for the great work you do!

  7. I’d be awfully leery of unintended consequences from iron fertilizing oceans – typically in biological systems excess iron causes serious inflammatory conditions and other biological problems. Why muck around with nature that way in an attempt to avert something that doesn’t seem very likely to occur anyhow? (e.g., catastrophic global warming) Or at least do some serious study on possible negative consequences first.

  8. The whole idea of “manmade climate change” is a political one. If you want to say that it is real, you have to be able to show it. But, you can’t. All you can do is make noises about it, which is what ipcc does.

  9. Rational Db8 says:
    June 21, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    I’d be awfully leery of unintended consequences from iron fertilizing oceans – typically in biological systems excess iron causes serious inflammatory conditions and other biological problems. Why muck around with nature that way in an attempt to avert something that doesn’t seem very likely to occur anyhow? (e.g., catastrophic global warming) Or at least do some serious study on possible negative consequences first.

    But it should be borne in mind that this fertilization is something that could easily be stopped or reduced if problems emerged–and that nature would soon rebound from them. Especially in areas that are now dead zones for aquatic life, like the portion of the Gulf of Alaska that was seeded in the experiment described above.

  10. The US spending to address “climate change” has grown to $21.4 Billion for 2014. It is a rat hole that the government has created to send $$ to their contributors and bundlers as well as a means to bloat the government roles. Every agency of the US government has their hand in your pocket, even the Dept of Defense.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

    Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures (millions of dollars)
    FY 2014 $21,400 Million
    US Global Change Research Program
    $ 2,658
    Clean Energy Technologies
    $ 7,933
    International Assistance
    $ 893
    Natural Resources Adaptation
    $ 110
    Energy Tax Provisions That May Reduce Greenhouse Gases
    $ 5,129
    Energy Payments in Lieu of Tax Provisions
    $ 4,710
    Adjustments for programs included in multiple categories –
    $-23
    Total $ 21,408 Million

    Think anyone did a cost benefit analysis?
    Have we see any significant alternative energy from DOE?
    Over 20 years this will run: $421,000,000,000 not including inflation. Add that to the 17.7 trillion debt.

  11. Rational Db8 says:
    June 21, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    I agree.
    Iron is a heavy metal poison in mammalian systems.
    Give a horse a big shot of iron and it may drop dead.
    There would have to be carefully conducted trials.
    Having said that, it is not unusual to fertilise pastures and croplands.
    We are fertilising the atmosphere to the great benefit of marginal grasslands, so Africa and Australia benefit.
    We are constantly being told that extractive industry destroys arable land, which is true in some cases,and that it is ‘raping the earth’.
    Here we are giving back to the ecosystem.
    That should be the truth and the narrative.
    But first, clinical trials and low dose rates.
    We don’t want to hurt Gaia, or alarm her believers.

  12. “The per capita income of the average human being in 2100 is three times what it is now. Poverty would be history.”

    Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what happens to the cost of living over the same time period.

  13. This blog needs a moderator who will stop the instant hijacking of threads by off-topic material. Climate Audit is all the better for that.

  14. chemman says:
    June 21, 2014 at 4:13 pm

    “The per capita income of the average human being in 2100 is three times what it is now. Poverty would be history.”

    Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what happens to the cost of living over the same time period.

    You don’t understand “per capita” methinks.

    http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/canada/

  15. Anthony Watts wrote:
    “As Ross McKitrick noted on this page earlier this week, temperatures have not risen at all now for more than 17 years.”

    This sounds to me like being according to the RSS dataset, often cited here for claiming complete lack of warming for 17 years. None of the other major global datasets mentioned in woodfortrees.org, surface or satellite, show a non-upward linear trend until now starting before 2001. I think 17 years is a cherrypicking overstatement. Also, I don’t think that a 17-year linear trend with a century-class El Nino near its beginning tells the whole story.

    To me it seems 17 years is overstating the case of a significant recent pause in warming that shows most IPCC-considered models to be flawed. Stating 13 years of complete lack of warming would not get a climate skeptic caught appearing to be cherrypicking or overstating.

  16. chemman says, June 21, 2014 at 4:13 pm:

    ““The per capita income of the average human being in 2100 is three times what it is now. Poverty would be history.””

    “Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what happens to the cost of living over the same time period.”

    Even if this is inflation-adjusted income, I see some issues, especially in longtime-industrialized countries, further especially Western ones. The cost of living has been outpacing inflation, and I think government looks for ways to underreport inflation. For example, adding an item to the “goods basket” shortly after a superinflationary period for that item ended. For a specific example, the Reagan Administration got home mortgage interest added to the “goods basket” shortly after the beginning of a historic downslide of interest rates.

    But there is another reason why the cost of living is outpacing inflation, actually 2 at least in USA:

    The 1st one is that the list of expenses is increasing. Educational requirements for many job types are increasing. The list of required vaccines is increasing. Things that used to not exist are now necessities, and that has been happening faster than old necessities became obsolete. Also, over the past several decades, Westerners became more sedentary and ate worsening diets with more calories and less veggies and fiber, which contributes to an increase of healthcare costs.

    The 2nd one is that, at least in USA, the Consumer Price Index is a measure of what consumers pay out-of-pocket. With healthcare and education paid in part by government, these two superinflationary industries have their impact on the CPI.

  17. Erratum: When I said something about seventeen years, I looked for the name of the poster for attribution. I goofed up there – taking more time looking back shows a statement that what I commented on was by “(via the GWPF) Matt Ridley, Financial POst”.

  18. Anyone who holds the view that two degree C is dangerous, or harmful has to show proof of that fact. I believe this belief is unfounded and would add that 3 degrees as well over the next century could easily be accomidated. The vast benefits of additional areas of usable productive land and habitat would overwhelm the problem of the slow rise in sea level. Mans best ability is to adapt and after all we have been there befor and refer to it as climate optimum periods. The alarmist are self loathes and should be ignored. We have been there before and thrived, but perhaps my Dutch background prejudices me on this subject.

  19. Matt Ridley says:

    “…there is room for lots of intermediate positions, including the view I hold, which is that man-made climate change is real but not likely to do much harm, let alone prove to be the greatest crisis facing humankind this century. After more than 25 years reporting and commenting on this topic for various media organizations, and having started out alarmed, that’s where I have ended up.”

    Let’s stop with “…man-made climate change is real…” You are not a scientist, Matt, you are a victim of pseudo-scientific propaganda. 25 years means nothing if you still believe that perhaps there is something real behind the global warming doctrine. There is nothing at all. It is just a Potyomkin village. First of all, the warming in question they speak of is greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide. IPCC was established after Hansen claimed that he had detected greenhouse warming in 1988. Turns out that he did not do this at all because he cheated and used non-greenhouse warming as part of an alleged 100 year run of greenhouse warming. There is no doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and this is sufficient to the warmists to make the connection with global warming. Unfortunately the greenhouse theory they use goes back to Arrhenius and leads to false scientific conclusions. Arrhenius noticed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and gets warm. He jumped to the conclusion that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide, which in nature absorbs ambient radiation, will warm the air and change the climate in the process. That is completely wrong because he was dealing with only one of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not carbon dioxide but water vapor. There is 25 times more water vapor in the atmosphere on the average than there is of carbon dioxide. But the Arrhenius theory cannot handle any other greenhouse gas but carbon dioxide. The only greenhouse theory that can actually handle more than one GHG at a time is not the Arrhenius theory but the Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT). MGT has been known since 2007 but has been marginalized by the propaganda machine of the IPCC because they do not like its predictions. According to the MGT, carbon dioxde and water vapor establish a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared band which they control. Its IR optical thickness is 1.87, a value calculated by Ferenc Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb, just like Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is re-established. As a result, no warming takes place despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide that has occurred. This is the situation we are in now – warming has ceased despite a constantly increasing carbon dioxide content. It is simply an empirical observation of nature and cannot be argued with. The laws of nature direct the absorption of radiation by the atmosphere and this is how it plays out. There is no greenhouse warming now and there has been none for the last 17 years. But for the last 17 years the Arrhenius greenhouse theory has been predicting warming and for 17 years nothing has happened. If your theory predicts warming and for 17 years nothing happens, using the scientific method will tell you that the theory is wrong and belongs in the waste basket of history. Thus goes down the Arrhenius theory and with it the claim that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere causes greenhouse warming. You might be justified in calling this a paradigm shift. It is clear that any reports of previous greenhouse warming are nothing more than misidentification of natural warming by eager-beaver “climate” scientists wishing to prove the existence of their magical greenhouse warming. But the most important consequence of the demise of Arrhenius is the fact that there can be no such thing as an anthropogenic global warming. Belief in the existence of AGW is therefore an illusion, a pseudo-scientific fantasy of scientific illiterates.

  20. “Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have recognized that ‘the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow with the advance of science.’ Unfortunately, the popular effect of this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by many scientists, that the range of our ignorance is steadily diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehensive and deliberate control of all human activities. It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom.”

    Friedrich A. Hayek (1899-1992) Austrian Economist

  21. Humans can affect local weather but climate, which is regional, NO. Climate is solar driven because the sun is the only energy source available with enough energy to do this.

  22. It is not the scientific paper that is the cause for gobsmacking. That merely lays out a series of assumptions and extrapolates them to what one hopes are, within the boundaries of those assumptions being true, realistic conclusions.

    What is gobsmacking is that the Press does not report on the assumptions behind the work, blithely implying to the non-expert layperson that the assumptions are reasonable, rather than highly unlikely and wacky.

    The correct Press reporting on this should be: ‘in the highly unlikely scenario of these postulates being accurate, we have something to worry about’.

    To me, the current reporting standards are rather like saying to parents: ‘a small minority of children are born with genetic defects, therefore none of you should have children’.

    Absolutely ridiculous advice, isn’t it??

    The sane reality is that the medical profession recognises that small numbers of abnormalities is the price of sexual reproduction and therefore, monitoring developing foetuses and newborns is the appropriate way to deal with it.

    One does have to ask where the 5th scenario is, namely: ‘the Sun goes into a Maunder-style minimum from 2030 onwards, causing a loss of northern corn belts due to shortening of the growing season and an adapational need for an alteration of the latitudinal patterns of agriculture. Insulation technologies allied to solar capture technologies reduce net carbon emissions outside heavy industry by 50% and areas of subtropical desert return to green cover, further reducing carbon outputs due to greater global foliage cover. Humanity overcomes the multinational dependency generation culture, leading to nations, continents becoming self-sustaining in agricultural, population and energy generation terms.’

    Doesn’t sound very likely does it??

    But probably as likely as the scenario you have analysed.

    I wonder whether net cooling would occur by 2100 on my scenario description??

    And if so, why is that not included in the scenario planning models??

  23. Arno Arrack: I haven’t heard any mention of Ferenc Miskolczi for years. I wish I knew enough about thermodynamics to really understand his theory. The idea that additional GHG causes an equivalent amount of water vapour to rain out of the atmosphere has always seemed overly-convenient to me, except that we have what may be a real-life example on hand. The 1998 El Nino increased humidity and raised temperatures all over the world, causing the famous 1998 “spike”. It was followed by world-wide rainstorms, which purged the water vapour and brought everything back to normal.

    Miscolczi never showed sign of being a world-class genius before, and his equations fit on a single sheet of paper. Much of the climate alarmism of the past 30 years has had an air of “deliberate mistake” about it, as if the people involved knew something obvious that invalidated what they were saying, but expected to get away with it so long as they didn’t say too much. I wonder if Miskolczi’s principle could be what they were keeping quiet about…

  24. Regarding an earlier comment to the effect that “even the military has their hands in our pockets for green energy!”-

    I don’t mind the DOD investigating alternative energies. Seems one of the few areas where it might be quite useful & have a good return. I remember reading that when you factor in all the costs of transport and defense of supply chain, gas at the battlefront runs something like $100 per gallon. More efficient heating/cooling/ & miserly fuel use would actually have pretty good bang for the buck from the military perspective (and hence from the prospective of the tax paying public). Plus, I’m generally in favor of efficiency and alternative energy research and deployment, provided it makes fiscal sense and isn’t wasteful. If the above numbers are correct, I think the military SHOULD be very interested in these matters, regardless of the probability of dangerous global warming.

  25. (p.s. Not to mention all the soldiers and contractors who die or are injured transporting fuel for the troops. If you could get super reliable hybrid vehicles up to 60-100 MPG, you could directly save lives and money. I’m sure this has occurred to the .mil….and once again, wouldn’t it be great to have that technology available if it improved to the point that it became cost effective for the general public?)

  26. johnmarshall:

    At June 22, 2014 at 1:22 am you say in total

    Humans can affect local weather but climate, which is regional, NO. Climate is solar driven because the sun is the only energy source available with enough energy to do this.

    Sorry, but no additional energy is needed to alter both regional and global climates.

    Regional and global temperatures would both alter substantially if there were an alteration to the rate of transfer of energy polewards from the tropics. Whether human activities could affect such an alteration is mute, but there is no reason to suppose that only solar activity could do it.

    Richard

  27. Why continue to play that game and say there is some component of warming caused by humans? There is still zero verifiable evidence. Sure we make some local climate impacts. But you lose the debTe once you even admit 0.01 degree change attributed to man

  28. From the article:

    “The IPCC commissioned four different models of what might happen to the world economy, society and technology in the 21st century and what each would mean for the climate, given a certain assumption about the atmosphere’s “sensitivity” to carbon dioxide. Three of the models show a moderate, slow and mild warming, the hottest of which leaves the planet just 2 degrees Centigrade warmer than today in 2081-2100. The coolest comes out just 0.8 degrees warmer.”

    I was wondering . . . does anybody know where this comes from? I presume IPCC AR5? Chapter, verse?

    Thanks!

  29. “The debate over climate change is horribly polarized. From the way it is conducted, you would think that only two positions are possible: that the whole thing is a hoax or that catastrophe is inevitable. In fact there is room for lots of intermediate positions…” says Matt Ridley

    This confuses two issues. “Catastrophe is inevitable” is a scientific hypothesis. The “hoax” argument is about the politics of climate change. How dangerous global warming really is is completely independent from whether or not the IPCC lead authors make stuff up.

    The debate is not “horribly” polarized. It is quite rightly polarized. Climategate showed the lead authors advancing their careers by undermining peer review, massaging data, covering up contrary evidence, and conspiring to destroy the evidence that they had done so. They oppose the scientific method. One’s attitude to these hoaxers should be as polarized as a polar bear.

  30. Don’t forget Lord Monckton’s video at Idea City, Toronto

    18th June 2014
    4:36PM – Global Warming is a Hoax – Lord Christopher Monckton

    http://www.ideacityonline.com/video/global-warming-hoax-lord-christopher-monckton/

    This Radio Podcast is also worth hearing :
    British Lord Christopher Monckton, a guest at Idea City,
    comes to “Goldhawk Fights Back” to share his views on
    global warming, or more accurately, a lack of global warming.

    http://www.goldhawk.com/2014/06/20/lord-christopher-monckton/

  31. The other [IPCC report] said that the cost of decarbonizing the world economy with renewable energy is likely to be 4% of GDP.

    Try 100%. The world economy simply will not run on “renewable energy”.

  32. Wasn’t there an iron fertilization experiment in the South Pacific – one which failed miserably? What made Alaska different?

  33. Uncle Gus says on June 22, 2014 at 6:55 am:

    “Arno Arrack: I haven’t heard any mention of Ferenc Miskolczi for years. I wish I knew enough about thermodynamics to really understand his theory. The idea that additional GHG causes an equivalent amount of water vapour to rain out of the atmosphere has always seemed overly-convenient to me, except that we have what may be a real-life example on hand. The 1998 El Nino increased humidity and raised temperatures all over the world, causing the famous 1998 “spike”. It was followed by world-wide rainstorms, which purged the water vapour and brought everything back to normal.”

    You are absolutely right Unc to look at the real world happenings because these warmists distort what science has to say. Among the real world observations most directly relevant is the warming pause I discussed because their theory utterly fails to account for it while Miskolczi correctly predicts it. As to his equations fitting on a single sheet of paper, I have trouble with that. I do have a draft paper on his work which is more than one page long and which is not published yet. If you are interested I can send you an advance copy. In a blog comment you can’t really document everything but there is one reference you ought to look up. It appeared in E&E volume 21, issue 4, pp. 243-262 (2010). What Miskolczi did there was to use a NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948 to study the absorption of IR by the real atmosphere, over time. What he found was that absorption had been constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time increased by 21.6 percent. This is an exact parallel to the pause-hiatus or whatchamacallit, the cessation of warming we have today. He further subdivided the data into seven subgroups and analyzed these groups separately. His results were presented to the EGU meeting in Vienna in 2011. These subdivisions all showed an optical depth extremely close to the theoretical value his theory predicted. The present cessation of warming has lasted 17 years by now but what is completely off the radar is that a similar standstill took place in the eighties and nineties. There was an eighteen year pause just before the super El Nino arrived. You don’t see it because of fake warming shown there by all major ground-based temperature sources. You can see it yourself by comparing their output with UAH or RSS satellite data. I determined it while doing research for my book “What Warming?” and even put a warning about it into the preface. Some of them quietly retracted it but I don’t see the new version in most publications. During this pause in the eighties and nineties ENSO was active and produced five El Nino peaks there but the mean temperature remained a straight horizontal line. One of these El Nino peaks corresponded to Hansen’s 1988 high temperature peak. I guess it would have been embarrassing to point out that what to him was a high temperature peak was one of five near-identical peaks in a row. The super El Nino and its accompanying step warming are wedged in between this warming standstill and the 21st century warming standstill. This of course means absence of any greenhouse warming since 1979 and makes a strong case that it does not even exist, quite independently of what MGT has to say about it. As you may recall, the IPCC got started when Hansen reported that he had actually observed the greenhouse effect. This was such a sacrosanct event in 1988 that nobody has dared to question it. But if you go and study the Congressional Record for that day you find out what he actually did. What he did was to show a rising temperature curve that went from a low in 1880 to a high in 1988. There was only a one percent probability that its high point could have happened by pure chance, he said. And since it could not be chance, it had to be the end product of the 100 years of warming that preceded it. And this is what proved that the greenhouse effect is real. Unfortunately his own graph shows that included in his 100 years of warming was a non-greenhouse warming that lasted from 1910 to 1940. You cannot use a non-greenhouse warming to prove that the greenhouse effect exists, and that is the point overlooked by all who babble about Hansen having discovered the greenhouse effect. He has been getting away with this for 26 years by now. All the IPCC claims about anthropogenic global warming can be traced back to this one claim by Hansen which is not true. As a result, there is no experimental proof today that the greenhouse effect even exists. Their only argument for the existence of greenhouse warming now is the greenhouse theory of Arrhenius which I have already shown to be false. I agree with your observation that much of the climate alarmism of the past 30 years has had an air of “deliberate mistake” about it, as if the people involved knew something obvious that invalidated what they were saying, but expected to get away with it. Miskolczi could well have been their hidden danger, even more so now that his work is being experimentally verified.

  34. Patrick Moore is absolutely right when he says that climate changes have no scientific basis to today’s claims that the changes are based on the consequences of human action and some kind of models that can spruce up the computers at will. The computer made films that were “revived” the dinosaurs.
    It is rare that there is someone who uses his awareness when he wants to know the true causes of an event. All run to their computer to do such people without individual consciousness believe his “pet” more than all the things of which they are incurred but not yet aware of who they are and how else can create anything. The biggest fallacy to argue that the climate is changing, depending on what people are doing. There are many logical and influential factor that causes climate change and all the phenomena of the sun. Sunspot cycle of about 11.2 years (the average), the main indicator of change, but not the cause. There are a lot of cycles and sub-cycles generated by the interaction of celestial bodies in the solar system. The solution to this issue is the biggest challenge of science at all times. Why then there is no seriousness to invite those that offer a logical solution. I know from my previous offer, that many of you wonder how a stranger like me can give such explanations. Because I have a true indication of the solution of the enigma, and many do not believe that it is a matter of today’s level of consciousness of the majority, who only want to earn money on deception. This is politics, and even modern science.
    To check all who read this, I ask: Does anyone on the planet knows that prove the true cause of the spin of the planet. I know one, and it seems that I am. Do you want to learn, provide a fair correspondence.
    I will give a solution of 1% of the sum of 21,400 billion.

  35. c1ue says:
    June 22, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Wasn’t there an iron fertilization experiment in the South Pacific – one which failed miserably? What made Alaska different?

    IIRC (I should google), the anticipated take-up along the food chain didn’t occur, or the “wrong” algae grew, in the failed experiment. It’s not too surprising that different results should occur in different environments.

  36. I’ve been following the population debate for decades. In my opinion the UN is way to catastrophist in their projections. It is more likely that the world’s population will peak in the 2030’s or 2040’s.

  37. @ Matt Ridley

    Table 3: Global warming up to the late twenty-first century
    _________________________________________________________
    Scenario Warming in 2081–2100 based on: Ratio of CMIP5-
    CMIP5 models TCR of 1.35◦C to TCR-based
    ◦C ◦C ◦C ◦C warming
    _________________________________________________________
    Baseline 1850–1900 2012* 1850–1900* 2012 2012
    _________________________________________________________
    RCP2.6 1.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 3.4×
    RCP4.5 2.4 1.6 1.6 0.8 2.0×
    RCP6.0 2.8 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.7×
    RCP8.5 4.3 3.5 2.9 2.1 1.7×
    _________________________________________________________

    *To minimise rounding discrepancies, 0.8◦C has been deducted from the CMIP5 global
    mean surface temperature projected warming from 1850–1900 (taken as representing
    preindustrial conditions) to obtain warming from 2012, and 0.8◦C added to the warming
    based on TCR from 2012 to obtain warming from 1850–1900. But the unrounded 0.76◦C
    temperature rise from 1850–1900 to 2012 per HadCRUT4 has been used to compute the
    ratios of CMIP5 model to TCR-based warming.

  38. oops, well that “table” didn’t work then, though I did spend ages arranging it all into colums, the wordpress has stipped out all the blank spaces and has created an indecipherable mess, sorry about that. I tried various ways to embed images in teh past that didn’t work on wordpress based blogs, and nothing has worked for me so far on wordpress dot com websites like this.

    Still I did capture the table as an image and I proffer it here and you can see it at the link.

Comments are closed.