Curbing CO2 is futile, according to study

Global climate deal won’t stop dangerous warming – study

Source: Reuters – Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:24 GMT

LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) – Even if governments strike a pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions next year, they will still exceed levels thought necessary to stand a chance of preventing dangerous global warming, a study by Thomson Reuters Point Carbon showed.

But the study published by Point Carbon analysts on Wednesday suggested the temperature goal is out of reach because the build up of heat-trapping emissions already in the atmosphere means far more drastic action is required than governments are planning.

==============================================================

Unfortunately, both the study and the news release are behind paywalls, so I can’t cite them here. – Anthony

What is interesting though is that just a couple of days ago there was this story from real climate Raymond Pierrehumbert that said the exact opposite:

 

New research backs up the growing body of evidence that the only way to limit global warming in the long term is a serious cut in carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

LONDON, 6 July, 2014 − Once again, US scientists have come to the same conclusion: there really is no alternative. The only way to contain climate change and limit global warming, they say, is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

It won’t really help to concentrate on limiting methane emissions, or even potent greenhouse gases such as hydrofluorcarbons, or nitrous oxide, or the soot and black carbon that also contribute to global warming. Containing all or any of them would make a temporary difference, but the only thing that can work in the long run is a serious cut in carbon dioxide emissions.

Raymond Pierrehumbert, a climatologist at the University of Chicago, combined new research and analysis and a review of the scientific literature. He reports in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences that although livestock emissions such as methane are – molecule for molecule – potentially more potent as global warming agents than carbon dioxide, there remains no substitute for reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

Source: http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/07/quick-fixes-wont-solve-co2-danger/

My personal viewpoint is that none of these people seem to have any real understanding of what they’re doing when it comes to carbon dioxide and what we should do or not do about it.

With such diametrically opposed publication in the space of three days, seemed little more than an educated guess flailing.

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Carbon dioxide. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Curbing CO2 is futile, according to study

  1. WillR says:

    He reports in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences that although livestock emissions such as methane are – molecule for molecule – potentially more potent as global warming agents than carbon dioxide, there remains no substitute for reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

    So did millions of buffalo (bison) cause Global Warming?

    Just asking… I get so confused by these points…

  2. Latitude says:

    Climate negotiators may need to reframe their work  the 2 degree goal just doesn’t appear to be achievable, no matter how strong the progress made in Paris next year,” said fellow Point Carbon analyst Ashley Lawson…

    Oh good grief…of course it is….just have Ashley give a call to GISS

  3. M. Nichopolis says:

    Billions of years ago, atmospheric CO2 was in the double digits, and plants thrived. Great forests grew for millions of years, in places (oil fields) like Saudi Arabia, and coal fields, like North America. CO2 was easy pickings, and the biosphere thrived.
    Now, at a fraction of 1% of CO2, times are a little tougher. Everyone should do their part, and free a little carbon again…. For the good of the planet.

  4. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    We know for a fact the the dangerous limit that was set of 2 C or 2,000 Gt of carbon, if I remember it correctly, was a pull it out of your butt number according to the climategate leaked emails from Mann. So why should we believe any of this dribble!

  5. Eustace Cranch says:

    The only way to contain climate change and limit global warming, they say, is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

    Yawn. In direct contradiction to the vast preponderance of evidence, they sing this refrain over and over and over and over and over.

    And over.

  6. davidmhoffer says:

    Well as a community, they’ve backed themselves in to a corner.

    They can’t explain high sensitivity in the context of the current pause without blaming it on some sort of lag. In other words, for sensitivity to be high, then it must be “in the pipe” and just hasn’t gotten to us yet because of the lag. Problem then becomes that if they maintain both high sensitivity and a lag to be true, then by their own math, it is already too late.

    If they go the other way, and reduce their sensitivity estimates, then there’s no problem in the first place.

    I’ve been noticing an increased number of papers that seem to take warming as inevitable and then focus on adaptation, or at least mention it. The message continues to evolve as the facts get in the way of pet theory, and different researchers are simply trying to cover their butts in different ways. The die hard believers are going with the “it’s in the pipe, we’re doomed no matter what” message and those who are starting to figure that the sensitivity estimates are way too high are going the adaptation route.

    The camps will continue to fracture and divide themselves as alarmism slowly comes to grips with the actual physics.

  7. Dave says:

    Arghh!
    There is no proof CO2 drives changing temps. Why does that fact get overlooked? Why doesn’t the target audience for these studies ask for that proof?
    Science…Yeesh.

  8. PMHinSC says:

    tz says:
    July 9, 2014 at 6:29 pm
    Incorporate lithium hydroxide into the cement at the edges or transitions of road to siding. That will “curb” CO2.

    Well I give tz two As; one for originality and another for a sense of humor.

  9. Michael John Elliott says:

    Hello, one can become very confused with all of the different scientists who each in very technical language are putting their own point of view. But as I understand it as CO2′s effect on the temperature is logerithemic. Now if that is so then the more there is , the less the heating effect.

    I would think that rules out CO2 as a major player in this matter of Global Warming, which while it has continued to increase in the atmosphere, the actual temperature recorded by satillite, balloons and sea bouys tell us that since 1997 the tiny increase of only point seven Celsius from about 1880 has stopped, and that from 2002 a tiny decrease in the temperature has been detected.

    Ground weather stations should be ignored as so many these days are subject to the “Heat Island” effect. While we are told that is allowed for, why bother. Today we have a far more accurate way of measuring things. Or is it because the Global warming lobby preferes the very iffy figures from the Ground based weather stations.

    So why are so many “Western” governments still spending billions in apparent fear of Global warming, or its offspring Climate Change ? Is it a case that they are still being fooled by the output of the computers so beloved by the Climate scientists. Remember GIGO, garbage in/garbage out.

    Or does the apparent fear of climate change suit their political agenda, that possibly being to control their populations.

    Michael Elliott.

  10. Dave says:

    They are being fooled but don’t object because it does suit the agenda.

  11. Col Mosby says:

    y experience is that when an otherwise intelligent person makes a huge blunder, the reason
    is almost always not in their logic, but because their assumptions are wrong, and they never
    think to question them. All these folks are totally convinced that “their scientists” are right. Bad assumption. Really, really bad assumption.

  12. World temperatures have not risen or fallen significantly for nearly 18 years, so what are they concerned about. Nothing to see here, folks, please move along.

  13. World temperatures have not risen or fallen significantly for nearly 18 years, so what are they concerned about. Nothing to see here, folks, please move along.

  14. bushbunny says:

    I just remembered? Getting old I suppose LOL. Plants gave oxygen to the atmosphere when there was non. Oh dear – and we are carbon based living organisms, and have to breath in and out CO2 to live. Like plants, but really we are nitrogen junkies as this and water vapor make up the bulk of greenhouse gases. I hope they don’t see N as a dangerous gas or we are stuffed.

  15. Nick Stokes says:

    There is a blog post here which seems to be the press release.

    They aren’t contradicting Pierrehumbert’s contention that a serious cut in CO2 emissions is needed. They are just saying that present plans won’t achieve a target of 2°C.

    “It found that to keep within 2 degrees, global emissions would need to decrease by at least 3 percent year-on-year, well above the 1.9 percent annual rate proposed by the European Union”

  16. Steve Case says:

    CO2 is not a problem.

  17. JimS says:

    What happened to “settled science?” Are peer reviewed papers contradicting themselves?

  18. Red Baker says:

    In the past 150 years CO2 has gone up 50%, from 270 ppm to 400; temp increased 0.7C. A doubling of CO2 from here, assuming that the above is a cause-effect relation, would mean a temp increase of 1.1C. (The CO2 effect is a declining function.) (Thanks, Warren Meyers.)

    The IPCC economic growth studies predict a huge increase in globe-wide wealth to the year 2100 – from 12X to 20X+. That increase depends on cheap energy – fossil fuels. With that gigantic increase in wealth and the small increase in temps, it would be easy to deal with the tiny adverse effects of warming.

  19. sunsettommy says:

    Dangerous warming trend? what dangerous warming is that? They keep saying it for 26 years now and not a shred of evidence that it is going to happen,has showed up.

  20. Why is it always fossil fuels? Non-fossil hydrocarbon fuels, ethanol, bio-methane, wood, also produce CO2 and please don’t tell me that contemporary foliage knows the difference and quickly completes/renews the cycle.

  21. Arno Arrak says:

    I share your view that “… none of these people seem to have any real understanding of what they’re doing when it comes to carbon dioxide and what we should do or not do about it.” What these types completely ignore is the fact that there has been no warming at all for the last 17 years while carbon dioxide kept increasing. The latter is supposed to cause warming according to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory but nothing is happening. If your theory predicts warming and nothing happens for 17 years you know that this theory is worthless. It belongs in the waste basket of history, along with phlogiston, another wrong theory of warming. The only greenhouse theory that can handle this is MGT (Miskolczi greenhouse theory) and it predicts exactly what we see: addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not warm the atmosphere. They still don’t get it and as the results CMIP5 future warming threads have an [upslope], predicting warming, while the real twenty-first century temperature temperature curve is a horizontal straight line. It is pretty easy to see where that stupidity comes from. Their built-in model code requires that increasing carbon dioxide must create global temperature increase when this in fact is untrue as the experience of the last 17 years demonstrates. Not only are they wrong to predict twenty-first century warming, they are also wrong about AGW. We are talking of the laws of nature here and they cannot be turned on or off. If carbon dioxide has not caused warming during the last 17 years, it never has caused any, and that specifically rules out the existence of anthropogenic global warming or AGW.

  22. Dave Wendt says:

    , What I still find completely aggravating is that because I can’t bring myself to swallow whole this kind of self-contradictory BS(Bad Science), every celebutard and climate charlatan who can manage to get themselves in front of a camera and/or microphone feels entirely justified in claiming that I must be mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, flat-earther moron.

    Granted I have admitted on an uncounted number of occasions, here and elsewhere, that I don’t “know” , or even have much of a clue really, what the climate is doing and even less so why it might be doing it, but I do possess a 2.5 -3 sigma IQ and over the last decade I have spent way more of my rapidly declining time on this planet than I could really afford to waste, rummaging through the continuing deluge of PR “climate science” searching for any hint that anyone else out there was any better situated in that regard than myself. So far the results have been fruitless.

    And although I consider myself to be a fairly serious epistemological hardcase, I don’t “deny” that CAGW might still be a possibility, but the probability, at least of the C part, that it’s something that demands immediate and drastic action seems to be dwindling precipitously, at least IMHO. There are others out there who would disagree with me vehemently on this, but if we were forced into a nose to nose debate of the proposition, none of us would have much in the way of real evidence to support our arguments, at least if you apply the evidentiary standards that used to prevail in science. I suggest I still would be a winner on points because, unlike the fearmongers, I don’t demand that the world enter into a suicide pact with itself in a hopeless attempt to rectify a death spiral “crisis” whose very existence is completely dubious.

  23. ROM says:

    Anthony W. as quoted;
    “With such diametrically opposed publication in the space of three days, seemed little more than an educated guess flailing”.

    “seemed little more than an educated guess “.
    _________

    I think you are being extremely generous to the promoters of those claims with that comment .

  24. Rud Istvan says:

    I have seen this sort of thing in my previous day job in corporations that were beginning to come apart at the seams.
    It might not be too long before we see warmunist circular firing squads executing their own apostates.
    Remember Holdren’s ‘unofficial’ White House opinion that the brutal winter just past was caused by global warming. UK climate expert Dr Viner also said children would not know what snow was.
    Holdren versus Viner at ten paces. Somebody has to to shoot somebody for so gravely embarrassing the Warmunist movement. One way or the other. Best would be both.

    Popcorn futures are rising.

  25. ROM says:

    Centinel2012 says:
    July 9, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    Spiegel on Line
    April 2010.

    Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
    Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target.

    [quoted ]
    Rule of Thumb
    The story of the two-degree target began in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Administration politicians had asked the council for climate protection guidelines, and the scientists under Schellnhuber’s leadership came up with a strikingly simple idea. “We looked at the history of the climate since the rise of homo sapiens,” Schellnhuber recalls. “This showed us that average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution. To be on the safe side, we came up with a rule of thumb stating that it would be better not to depart from this field of experience in human evolution. Otherwise we would be treading on terra incognita.”

    As tempting as it sounds, on closer inspection this approach proves to be nothing but a sleight of hand. That’s because humans are children of an ice age. For many thousands of years, they struggled to survive in a climate that was as least four degrees colder than it is today, and at times even more than eight degrees colder.

    This means that, on balance, mankind has already survived far more severe temperature fluctuations than two degrees. And the cold periods were always the worst periods. Besides, modern civilizations have far more technical means of adapting to climate change than earlier societies had.
    [ much more ]

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html

  26. HGW xx/7 says:

    B-but… Mary [Walcott] of Salem said that we could rid ourselves of sin if we could just burn some more witc–. Whoops. Sorry, I got confused there for a moment. This is a COMPLETELY different idea.

    ‘Cuz, like, science and stuff.

  27. bushbunny says:

    Tell them to stop breathing for an hour,and CO2 will not change. Nor will the weather. Kill all the trees and plants though and we will have less oxygen?

  28. HGW xx/7 says:

    Ooops…climate change made me forget how to spell. That’s Walcott.

    Off to demand climate reparations! :)

  29. Curious George says:

    Once you embrace a false premise, there are no limits to what you can predict – or do.

  30. Dave says:

    Red Baker
    Why do you link CO2 and temp?
    There is no proven link between trace concentrations of CO2 and temp.
    Rinse your mouth before the loo laid gets deeper inside you!

  31. Dave says:

    Koolaid
    Spellcheck

  32. Zeke says:

    LONDON, 6 July, 2014 − Once again, US scientists have come to the same conclusion: there really is no alternative. The only way to contain climate change and limit global warming, they say, is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

    It won’t really help to concentrate on limiting methane emissions, or even potent greenhouse gases such as hydrofluorcarbons, or nitrous oxide, or the soot and black carbon that also contribute to global warming. Containing all or any of them would make a temporary difference, but the only thing that can work in the long run is a serious cut in carbon dioxide emissions.

    Translation: Oh I am not saying we have to eliminate methane from dairy and beef cattle, deeply cut advanced agriculture because of nitrous oxide from crops, make refrigeration and air conditioning practically illegal, set up spy satellites to check for people building fires in their homes in Alaska, and destroy inexpensive shipping by regulating diesel engines out of existence. I am not saying that.**

    **ref: “Apophasis … is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. The device is typically used to distance the speaker from unfair claims, while still bringing them up. For instance, a politician might say, “I don’t even want to talk about the allegations that my opponent is a drunk.” ” wik

  33. rogerthesurf says:

    I cannot believe that these people actually believe the essence of their aims. Any physicist can see that the CO2 reduction aims are futile and any economist can predict accurately on the economic changes that will befall us all should we let these people have their way.

    Therefore, if these people know these things, it stands to reason that they are malevolent and have a hidden agenda.

    I believe that agenda is UN Agenda 21 which makes very few bones about destroying capitalism and sees AGW as an agent to do just that.

    Read my blog at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

    Cheers

    Roger

  34. john robertson says:

    I think they meant resistance is futile.
    The collective rules.. I mean the consensus is …
    To me its just more glibbering climb down.
    CO2 is warming the planet catastrophe comes… no warming…. catastrophe late but still coming… still no warming CO2 way up… never mind, it wouldn’t do any good anyway.
    Esop did this story years ago. The Grapes were green anyway.
    Good thing I could not reach them.

  35. Brute says:

    I can handle it. I grown used having contradictory yet absolute truths being constantly shouted at me.

  36. Eve says:

    Curbing C02 is futile but for a different reason. Either way, we agree that curbing C02 is futile. Consensus!

    Eve, with the heat on in southern Ontario. Because it is 10C, feels like 9 C and that is way too cold for me.

  37. bushbunny says:

    I like that analogy John R, keep them coming.

  38. bushbunny says:

    Well it is 5C in Armidale, NSW, we had a quick shower of sago snow, but the suns shining. Is it 10C in Ontario now, your summer?

  39. Joel O'Bryan says:

    we definitely need regulations and taxes on the most important GHG of all… water vapor. It is the other “pollutant” from hydrocarbon fuel combustion. Water capture and sequestration from returning to the hydrologic cycle has the potential of saving the Earth from a Venus-like hell. Is there a water vapor Keeling Curve that can be pointed to as evidence of mans damaging dumping of water vapor into the atmospere? /sarc/

  40. bushbunny says:

    Joel, LOL.

  41. norah4you says:

    Had the so called experts, learnt all the coal-circle as well as a minor facts re energy due to Earth’s natural forces, they would have stopped their political nonsense.
    So called experts in my book is any “expert” showing lack of Theories of Science criteria as well as lack of knowledge of what it takes to present a valid argument with all needed premises for the argument to be true, and to prove that valid argument with true not corrected figures all way up to a solid conclusion.

    Instead the same so called experts tries to invent the wheel once again blaming humans for Natural forces which changed this Earth more than once with higher CO2 with and without warmer “climate” (as comments above shown) The alarmists are working with theories BEFORE tectonical plates were known let alone accepted.

    As was printed in Science 2010:
    Slowing climate change requires overcoming inertia in political, technological, and geophysical systems. Of these, only geophysical warming commitment has been quantified. We estimated the commitment to future emissions and warming represented by existing carbon dioxide–emitting devices. We calculated cumulative future emissions of 496 (282 to 701 in lower- and upper-bounding scenarios) gigatonnes of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels by existing infrastructure between 2010 and 2060, forcing mean warming of 1.3°C (1.1° to 1.4°C) above the pre-industrial era and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 less than 430 parts per million. Because these conditions would likely avoid many key impacts of climate change, we conclude that sources of the most threatening emissions have yet to be built. However, CO2-emitting infrastructure will expand unless extraordinary efforts are undertaken to develop alternatives.Future CO2 Emissions and Climate Change from Existing Energy Infrastructure, Steven J. Davis,Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.Ken Caldeira Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA, H. Damon Matthews Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West; Science 10 September 2010: Vol. 329. no. 5997, pp. 1330 – 1333.

    But all warmists theories has one and the same origin for their theories. Might not know it but the roots of their theory was presented long ago. By a Swedish scholar btw….

    Arrhenius Svante, Naturens värmehushållning : Föredrag, Stockholm Norstedts 1896
    Arrhenius Svante, Les atmosphères des planèts. : Conférence faite le 8 mars 1911.; Paris 1911
    Arrhenius Svante, Klimatets växlingar i historisk tid, Stockholm 1915
    Arrhenius Svante, Uber den Einfluss des atmosphärischen Kohlensäure-gehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche. Stockholm, 1896. Bihang till K. Sv.Vet. akad. handl. Bd. 22: Afd.1: no 1.
    Arrhenius Svante, Uber die Wärmaebsorption durch Kohlensäuer und ihren Einfluss auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche. Stockholm 1901 Vet. Akad. K. Sv., Öfversigt af förhandlingar. 58(1901): No 1: [4].
    Arrhenius Svante, Die Chemi und das moderne Leben / von Svante Arrhenius ; Autorisierte deutsche Ausgabe von B. Finkelstein. Mit 20 Abbildingen im Text. Leipzig : Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1922

    The only thing proven is that Arrhenius theories been disproven
    and
    that so called experts of today tend to lean to Fallacies in argumentation instead of Theories of Science

  42. Mike Smith says:

    So can anyone tell me which of these two conflicting studies are endorsed by that 97% consensus of climate scientists?

  43. Alan Robertson says:

    Doomed, I tell you, self- annihilation, the only solution.
    The horror, the horror.

  44. Eve says:

    Hi Bushbunny, 10C was the projected night low but I see that it is now 9C. It is always 2 degrees lower were I live so here it is 7C. Yes, this is summer now in Ontario, with no coal plants and with a new bill to come, outlawing them forever. Because we have to protect the environment.! I will be so happy in Nov to go back to the Bahamas.

  45. bushbunny says:

    Hi Eve I have a friend in Ontario, but it is 5C today, goes down minus at night. But during the day, most of our daytime WINTER temps go up to 20 C, but in Sydney, not where I live I’m 3500 absl on the Northern Tablelands, which is a temperate region and high plateau. But 10C during summer, I bet the tomatoes don’t fruit!

  46. pat says:

    never mind, China still isn’t playing ball!

    10 July: South China Morning Post: China and the US still far apart on climate responsibilities
    by Li Jing and Kwong Man-ki in Beijing
    China and the United States laid bare their core differences in drafting a new global treaty on combating climate change yesterday as they renewed pledges to fight global warming by signing partnership pacts on cutting emissions.
    China’s chief climate official, Xie Zhenhua and his US counterpart Todd Stern spelled out the disagreements between the world’s top two carbon emitters on how to contribute to emissions reductions after 2020.
    The pair were briefing journalists separately in Beijing on the sidelines of the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.
    Xie, vice-chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said responsibilities should differ from rich to poor countries, while Stern, the US special climate envoy, said Washington favoured each country deciding what it was capable of doing.
    “We have different historical responsibilities. We are in different development stages, and we have different capacities,” Xie said.
    Stern said the US was not against the idea of responsibilities being based on each country’s capabilities, but that the “bifurcated two categories” of developing and developed nations set in 1992 was unacceptable.
    ***”I’m seeing Xie many times every year, and we understand each other’s position very well … It’s one of those conversations that just goes on and on, doesn’t stop,” Stern said.
    The issue has become one of the major stumbling blocks to negotiating a new global climate treaty involving more than 190 nations next year in Paris.
    Despite their differences, China and the US signed eight new pacts on tackling climate change on Tuesday including agreements on projects demonstrating clean coal technologies such as gasification, and recovering oil from captured carbon…
    (ANONYMOUS) A senior climate adviser to the Chinese government said Beijing was considering setting an absolute cap on carbon emissions between 2016 and 2020.
    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1550595/china-and-us-still-far-apart-climate-responsibilities

  47. pat says:

    let’s call the whole thing off! here’s what Reuters had behind the paywall:

    9 July: Reuters: Global climate deal won’t stop dangerous warming – study
    The study mapped possible Paris outcomes against the maximum amount of the gases that a U.N. panel of scientists this year said the world could emit and still have a two-thirds chance of keeping to 2 degrees.
    It found that to keep within 2 degrees, global emissions would need to decrease by at least 3 percent year-on-year, well above the 1.9 percent annual rate proposed by the European Union.
    “That kind of commitment is just not on the table right now,” said Point Carbon analyst Frank Melum.
    “Climate negotiators may need to reframe their work  the 2 degree goal just doesn’t appear to be achievable, no matter how strong the progress made in Paris next year,” said fellow Point Carbon analyst Ashley Lawson. (Reporting by Ben Garside, editing by William Hardy)
    http://www.trust.org/item/20140709151937-40up2

  48. Richard111 says:

    I wonder what they are putting in the water these days. I believe it was the lead water pipes that did for the Romans. If people do not have access to gas and electricity they will burn wood, coal, anything they can find, which will create serious trouble.

  49. Village Idiot says:

    If it’s looked at in an objective way, it really isn’t that difficult to square the circle you’ve attempted to sketch, Tony.

    Pierrehumbert says: ‘The only way to contain climate change and limit global warming, they say, is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.’

    Will these cuts be deep enough to ‘contain climate change and limit global warming?’

    No. The pact will not reduce carbon emissions sufficiently.

    Study by Thomson Reuters Point Carbon: ‘Even if governments strike a pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions next year, they will still exceed levels thought necessary to stand a chance of preventing dangerous global warming’

    I might be an idiot, but I’m not stupid ;-)

  50. goldminor says:

    john robertson says:
    July 9, 2014 at 8:21 pm
    ==================================
    Aesop?

  51. richard verney says:

    Red Baker says:
    July 9, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    In the past 150 years CO2 has gone up 50%, from 270 ppm to 400; temp increased 0.7C. A doubling of CO2 from here, assuming that the above is a cause-effect relation, would mean a temp increase of 1.1C. (The CO2 effect is a declining function.) (Thanks, Warren Meyers.)
    /////////////////////////

    But nearly half of that 0.7 deg rise happened before there was a significant rise in manmade CO2 emissions. The substantial rise in manmade CO2 emissions began around 1940.

    I have not checked whether there is any hard data of the level of CO2 back in 1940 but it may well be about 300ppm (Mauna Loa suggests it was about 315ppm in 1959 and if the annual rise is about 1.5ppm per annum, that would suggest a figure of around 290ppm to 300ppm in 1940).

    So what we have is a temperature rise of about 0.35 degC with a rise in CO2 from about 300ppm to 400ppm. That of course is provided that the temperature rise is real.

    Is the globe really hotter than it was at the end of the 1930s. I suggest that we do not know, as the recent articles on the constant adjustment and readjustment of temperature records has shown. But if the US record is anything to go by, (ie., it is representative of the global trend not simply the Continental US), the answer may well be that the globally, there has in fact been little change in temps despite an increase in CO2 levels of about one third (ie., up 100ppm from about 300ppm to 400ppm)

    The sensitivity to CO2 (if any) looks to be very low once one takes out natural cycles.

    Personlly, I think that the observation by davidmhoffer (says: July 9, 2014 at 6:33 pm) is material.

    Climate Scientists are not fully thinking through the implications that the pause brings. Last year in a conference Julia Slingo (one of the chief scientists at the UK Met Office) said that ‘we are not yet out of the water since there may be no return to warming before 2030′ Her language was that of a typical activist, not a scientist (why talk about not being out of the water as if the pause was causing some sort of problem for them?), but if she is correct that the pause will continue through to 2030 (and I have no confidence in what the UK Met Office may predict), the implications are significant. There will have been no warming for more than 40 years!!! During that time may be about 60% of all manmade CO2 emissions will have taken place!! This will suggest that sensitivity to CO2 is what? Very small!!

  52. xyzzy11 says:

    Dave says:
    July 9, 2014 at 8:06 pm
    Red Baker
    Why do you link CO2 and temp?
    There is no proven link between trace concentrations of CO2 and temp.
    Rinse your mouth before the loo laid gets deeper inside you!

    Well actually, there is! CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if it didn’t cause warming, we’d be living on a snowball. Check out Roy Spencer’s blog (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/misunderstood-basic-concepts-and-the-greenhouse-effect/)- has has a great explanation of why.

  53. Sharpshooter says:

    How much of annual CO2 gain in the atmosphere is human caused, and how much is from natural causes?

    Anybody?

  54. Greg Goodman says:

    Mike Smith says:
    So can anyone tell me which of these two conflicting studies are endorsed by that 97% consensus of climate scientists?

    ===
    Indeed, both. The 97% consensus is that CO2 is a GHG and that temperatures have risen. There are very few, even in sceptic circles that would not agree with those points. It’s a false dilemma.

  55. cedarhill says:

    And they are the Borg.

  56. Kate Forney says:

    With such diametrically opposed publication in the space of three days, seemed little more than an educated guess flailing.
    ===================
    For some definition of “educated”, I suppose. Your use of the term seems a little generous to me.

  57. poker123 says:

    I believe that’s called a SWAG.
    The question is “Do 97% of the scientists believe it’s too late to stop CAGW or they believe we need to continue negotiations to stop CAGW or do they believe hard enough that Tinkerbell will come back?”
    This belief thingy must be hard on 97% of the CAGWers.
    cn

  58. TomRude says:

    Let’s never forget that Thomson Reuters is judge and party in this debate (Sir Crispin Tickell “the snake” according to Wigley’s climategate emails anyone?), always presents the most alarmist Op-Eds in the Globe and Mail their flagship newspaper, including by Thomas Homer-Dixon, thedirector of CIGI an political institute funded by Balsillie, Rockefellers and Soros, Suzuki, former Greenpeace Tseporah Berman, supports puppet Justin Trudeau and his call for carbon tax in Canada, supports the Ontario Liberals imposing green energy wind turbines, gas plant cancellation at huge taxpayer cost, lined with Tides through propaganding during the robocall affair, defended Tides when Krause’s tax return analysis showed how Tides was involved in green lobbying in Canada etc…
    Of course, the Woodbridge company, their private $17 billion investment company does not divulge the Thomsons green interests…

  59. M Simon says:

    Limiting H2O emissions is the only way to solve the problem. We must drill a hole in the ground and pump all the oceans in it.

  60. Tom O says:

    ” Or does the apparent fear of climate change suit their political agenda, that possibly being to control their populations.

    Michael Elliott.”
    Micheal, I award you an A+ for this observation. In a cooling world, which is what the data says, if you take and convert tillable land from food production and turn it over to biofuel production, and if you take “cheap and dependable” coal, petroleum, and gas based energy and replace it with something that is neither cheap nor dependable, you have positioned the world to eliminate untold numbers of “poor” people through starvation, since they won’t be able to financially compete for the available food, and freezing, since they won’t be able to pay the heating bills to keep even one room warm enough to ward off hypothermia. Then you will be able to turn the land back into food production and fire up those dependable coal generators again because untold millions of “useless eaters” will no longer be generating carbon dioxide, since dead people don’t breathe.

  61. TeeJaw says:

    CO2 is a sacrement in the religion of global warming. The skepticism of non-believers only strengthens the resolve of the believers. What is needed is strong resistance to prevent them from forcing their religious views on everyone else.

  62. richard verney says:

    xyzzy11 says:
    July 10, 2014 at 2:53 am

    /////////////////////

    We do not know what conditions were prevailing in the early stages of planet earth. and the early stages of the sun and its solar system.

    We do not know whther there was ever a snow ball earth, and if so how and what caused the snow/ice to form and/or to melt.

    The reality is that all of this is just speculation. We might have a better understanding in 30 or so years time, but don’t count on it.

  63. Ann Banisher says:

    Go to the International Carbon Bank’s CO2 Reduction Calculator
    http://www.icbe.com/carbondatabase/reductions.asp
    to see what a waste of money the idea is.
    They do all the math. This calculator estimates the time and cost required to phase out CO2 production with renewable energy and carbon sinks. It tells you what each system costs, its lifespan, and how much CO2 you will save, and the tells you how much it costs per ton.
    To give some perspective, the US alone produces 5.2 GT of carbon/year. If you want to play with math, find the cheapest method to reduce US consumption by 50% and see if you can do it for less that a quadrillion dollars. Seriously.
    The crazy part is these are supporters of the CO2 reduction crowd.
    Why does no one ever talk about the real cost of carbon reduction?.

  64. The problem I see is their somewhat idiotic focus on a solution to a postulated problem. At best these “scientists” whose brainpower seems to be somewhat misguided should explain there’s an overall problem, and leave the solution sets for the adults. I realize I’m being g a bit short tempered but I’m getting a bit tired of the pontificating by individuals who can’t tell a cart from a horse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s