Climate threat reduced to extreme: If everyone keeps their promises

Climate-action-trackerClimate alarmists are celebrating in the wake of the US / China emissions agreement, that if everyone does what they promised to do, global temperatures will only rise by 3 degrees by the end of the century.

According to the (Australian) ABC;

“PROJECTED GLOBAL WARMING this century will slow but will still be at a severe rate after promises by China, the United States and the European Union to limit greenhouse gas emissions, a scientific study showed on Monday.

The Climate Action Tracker, produced by an independent group of scientists, said temperatures were set to rise by about three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times by 2100, the lowest since the tracker was set up to monitor promises made by governments in 2009.

The study, issued during United Nations talks on climate change in Lima, said the rate was 0.2 to 0.4°C less than previously projected after pledges by China, the United States and the European Union in recent weeks to rein in emissions.”

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/12/09/4145031.htm

 

All that pain, all that misery, all that unbelievable financial cost, which, even if alarmists are right, is for the sake of a temperature change so small most people couldn’t even detect it, unless they squint really hard at their household thermometer.

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “Climate threat reduced to extreme: If everyone keeps their promises

  1. Love that use of “independent scientists” … they shills are beholden to the source of their funding. Seems like they can’t get their numbers right … 3°C by 2100 would put the sensitivity at +.3°C per decade.

    • No,

      three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times by 2100

      That is, from year 1750 to 2100, 350 years. Anyway, it is goofy to talk about period 1750 – 1950 when even 1970 scientists were scared of glaciation at door. And I’m not talking about a slippery door step.

      • As Dr. Lindzen has pointed out, the whole of climate alarmism is based on being able to detect tiny variations in average temp and promptly freaking out about it. This would necessitate a certain level of fickleness.

      • This is one of the silly things about the climate debate. YES, the earliest signs of industry in a modern sense coud be found in a few places in Britain in 1750, but not until the 1890’s was there a widespread industrial revolution, and even then confined to UK, Germany USA, and to a lesser extent France and Russia.
        1750 can [always] be counted as a starting point, but not concerning industry which in any way could have an impact on global climate.

  2. I hate to point out to these independent scientists that the Chinese have already said they wont allow anyone to check on their emissions “reductions” so go talk to them about it. And while they’re at it, stop claiming that committed PIK scientists and IPCC authors are independent on anything.

  3. What means pre-industrial? 1750, 1800, 1850, 1900 ? Most time series of the global temperatures start in 1880 or 1880, because precise thermometer measurements were too scarce before. The basis of a good forecast is a well-defined definition of the item I want to forecast. I propose a forecast since now, because current temperatures are the best measured.

    • Given the habit current ‘climate scientists’ have of ‘adjusting’ inconvenient temperature readings I’d sooner trust the old values in the Central England Temperature record where the average accuracy from 1722 onward is +- 0.1 C.

    • I want to pick September, 0051. Right in the Roman Warm period when temperatures was at least one degree warmer. Added benefit is that it is ‘pre-industrial age’ and to keep below 2 C warming we will have no problems for 3 more degrees.

    • “What means pre-industrial? 1750, 1800, 1850, 1900 ? Most time series of the global temperatures start in 1880 or 1880, because precise thermometer measurements were too scarce before. ”
      wrong.
      The limitation to 1880 or 1850 is driven entirely by the METHODOLOGY. in CRU ( 1850) a series needs to extend until the 1961 to 1990 period. Thats because they use an ANOMALY method rather than a method that estimates temperature. To illustrate. If you had 100,000 stations in 1800 and they lasted until 1970. the CRU method would throw them out.
      The same goes for the GISS method.
      Thankfully a reader at Climate audit came up with a better method. A method that doesnt rely on long records. a method that uses all the data.
      all temperature records are estimations of the past. Using one one record you can estimate the entire globe. Of course that will have a lot of error. zero records is too scarce, however. What is the minimum
      required? depends on how much uncertainty you can live with. That’s a pragmatic question.
      http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Figures/global-land-TAVG-Counts.pdf
      once you go below 100 or so stations your error starts to get pretty big. However, you can STILL make the estimate. making the estimate is just math. Calculating the uncertainty requires assumptions, like all statistics.

      • Has anyone proven that CO 2 increase will cause measurable warming? I didn’t think so….
        And if they do that I want proof that warming will cause any problem.
        Until then I will continue using my wood stove and happly expand my carbon foot print in an attempt to catch up with Al Gore.

      • 70% of the globe are oceans. I think the 100 000 stations are weather stations on land. The problem is the measurement of the temperature of the oceans, the arctica and the antarctica. The surface of the globe has no holes.

  4. A model of a model tracking modelled promises. A model of morals driven by modelled alarm. Pretty good, I’d say. Done by scientists. Now that’s gotta lend credibility, much more than if it was done by horny bonobos throwing sticks.

  5. The series Mote in God’s Eye goes on to describe an improvement to the Motie’s shielding system which didn’t work in the Langston point within the red supergiant star but was none-the-less effective in combat.
    The shield would increase its diameter to increase the surface area available to dissipate heat. (The shields converted all incoming energy into heat that would then radiate from all around instead of just trying to block force at a single point.)
    Back in 2003 the Earth’s atmosphere had expanded so much that the space station was being exposed to levels of drag which REQUIRED ships to push it back into orbit. It isn’t happening now, the atmosphere has been constricting since about 2008. Why is the atmosphere getting smaller? Earth has less heat to get rid of.
    Where’s all the hidden heat? In the expanding and contracting atmosphere. The more heat we put in it, the bigger it gets and the more it dissipates into space as IR radiation.
    How does this all work?
    The law of thermodynamics. Temperature, Pressure, and Volume all relate to each other.
    NO IPCC models include the Law of Thermodynamics because they don’t model reality, they model a fabricated Luddite political line.
    It is this very expansion and contraction that creates the weather itself.

  6. These are the ‘independent experts’, they all look like snouts-in-the-trough/card carrying climate alarmists to me.
    Dr. Bill Hare
    Director, Climate Analytics
    Dr. Bill Hare is a Physicist and Environmental Scientist with more twenty five years experience in relation to the science, impacts and policy responses to climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion. Dr. Hare was a Lead Author for the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007 Assessment and is a visiting scientist in the Earth System department at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
    Dr. Niklas Höhne
    Founding Partner, NewClimate Institute
    Dr. Niklas Höhne is lead author at the IPCC and developed, together with Dr. Michel den Elzen from MNP, the table in the IPCC report that is the basis for the reduction range of -25% to -40% below 1990 levels by 2020 that is currently being discussed for Annex I countries.
    The team at NewClimate Institute includes: Hanna Fekete and Markus Hagemann.
    Prof. Kornelis Blok
    Director of Science, Ecofys
    Prof. Kornelis Blok has over forty years of experience in physics, technology and sustainability. He has held professorships at Utrecht and Delft Universities and is a founder of Ecofys, where he is now Director of Science. Prof. Blok was a lead author for the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    The team at Ecofys includes Dr. Yvonne Deng, Karlien Wouters and others.
    Dr. Louise Jeffrey and Dr. Johannes Gütschow
    Research Associates, PIK
    Dr. Louise Jeffrey and Dr. Johannes Gütschow work on the PRIMAP model (www.primap.org) at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (PIK) to quantify the impact of policy proposals on emission levels.
    .
    Dr. Michiel Schaeffer
    Co-Director and Senior Scientist, Climate Analytics
    Dr. Michiel Schaeffer is a biophysicist and received his PhD in Dynamic Meteorology at University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. He focuses on bringing together the scientific assessments with the policy applications.
    The team at Climate Analytics includes: Dr Marcia Rocha, Kirsten Macey and others.

  7. The Australian ABC is a biased disgrace to balanced journalism. I am an Aussie and whenever I post on the ABC asking for an alternative interpretation or opinion, listing just a benefit or 2 of the increased CO2, my post is quickly deleted by the “abuse” voting system.
    I was hoping for much larger budget cuts so that some of the alarmists would be on their way – Climate Refugees!!
    Don’t both with anything this waste of taxpayers money has to say.

    • True, and I would add that the correct identification should not be “Australian ABC” but “Their ALPBC”. A complete bunch of leftardulent foamers with no redeeming features.

  8. Its what I call the inverted Swan scenario. The Swan scenario is the one where the swan moves serenely along but all the activity is happening under the water. The inverted Swan scenario is where the feet are stuck up in the air for all to see and there is plenty of apparent activity, but the Swan is not moving through the water at all. Chances are given a little more time the Swan will die.

  9. “said temperatures were set to rise by about three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times by 2100, “
    Doesn’t “pre-industrial” mean late 17th century? The Little Ice Age? I mean are we not already at least more than one degree above that now?
    Does this mean that all that is expected is another 1.5 Deg C?
    Why cant these people speak straight?
    Cheers
    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • No, they can’t.
      Thinking what happened 150 years ago when climate was cooler and my great-grandfather met famine, I think what happened between LIA and 1950 was a Good Thing.

  10. During the cold war, didn’t they have a “doomsday clock” that seemed to be stuck at 5 minutes to midnight?
    Now they have a “doomsday thermometer” that seems to be just as bogus.

    • Truthseeker wrote: “During the cold war, didn’t they have a “doomsday clock” that seemed to be stuck at 5 minutes to midnight?”
      Yep, we watched that thing for 60 years, and the dire predictions never changed, and the promised catastrophe never happened. It was all political scaremongering, used for political purposes. But old frauds never die; they just change their focus groups and live on to befuddle new generations.
      I looked up the Wiki stub on The Doomsday Clock, and was surprised (NOT!) to see this description:
      “The Doomsday Clock is a universally-recognized symbolic clock face, representing a countdown to possible political related global catastrophe (nuclear war or climate change).”
      “And Jesus wept.”

  11. “global temperatures will only rise by 3 degrees by the end of the century”
    Weren’t we told that Armageddon began at 2 degrees C?
    Given that we are about to enter 2015 – 3 degrees C would need a temperature increase of 0.35 degrees C per decade for the rest of the remaining 85 years. Given that the last 2 decades have seen very little warming, why do we have alarmists continuing to talk about this nonsense.

    • Given the observed warming over the last 18 years, it is absurd to link anthro-induced warming to any recently observed trends in nature. The flood of these claims however, keeps increasing with each passing year, keeping the public mesmerized with species they didn’t know existed being threatened by our sinful pollution of modern living.

  12. Under the “Have Cake and Eat it Too” scenario, it was determined that the Argus Array was far cheaper to deploy than the alternate scenarios.
    The Argus Array is a large mirror array on tracks that moves east after the sun goes down, then moves west while the sun is up, thereby reflecting large quantities of sunlight back into space. We get to keep our plant food in the form of CO2 with this scenario, hence the Cake and eat it too reference.
    Note, I make all this up, and stole the Argus Array name from an Star Trek reference:
    http://www.startrek.com/database_article/argus-array-ship

    • Spock to Captain… It would seem more logical to construct a single large array in space blocking direct solar radiation to the mid-day zone below and hold it’s position using impulse engines. Of course it will need shields to block proton storms and CMEs, Mr. Scott.
      Spock out.

    • All levity aside, it appears that nature may have it’s own “Argus Array” in the form of the water cycle and more specifically high cloud generation. There seems to be a lot left to be learned.

    • Absolutely.. which, of course, is why warm periods are called “optimums” and the most advances in civilization came about during those times.

    • In this case yes. They promised to keep increasing their emissions for two decades, and then to think about it. They will do this. The fact that they do not want anyone inspecting (Chinese pride and independence from any other power) what they are actually doing is simply not relevant.

  13. THIS is the declaration I’ve been waiting over a decade to hear.
    We all knew it was coming… that at some point they would declare that their alarm and expensive actions were working. The gullible, which is sadly the majority, will just be forced to believe it. Just like the Ozone layer, where “we saved the planet” with the Montreal Protocol, something I STILL hear people claiming with complete certainty, as if it’s a proven fact.
    News flash: It’s NOT a proven fact that “we” caused any harm to the Ozone layer.

    • Seems pretty foolproof to predict a rise of that magnitude when you know we’re living during an interglacial epoch. You just have to hope that the ‘average Joe’ doesn’t think about that and connect the dots, just like people don’t see the (dis)connection of the ozone layer having had a hole when discovered. You just hope the interglacial period doesn’t end or pause before this prediction comes true.

  14. averages of temps are funny things, we could end up with much hotter summers and much colder winters but only have an average 3 degree rise by the end of the century.

  15. But I thought that the increased CO2-caused heating increase was logarithmic, so how can the forecast increase be 3C? Surely the rate of increase in temperature “caused” by increased CO2 must be getting smaller and smaller, always supposing CO2 has much effect in the first place.

  16. Love the mis-direction there. It used to be “a further 4C” now it’s “3C above INDUSTRIAL LEVELS”. So just 2C higher than today. Still alarmist but the 4C and 3C rises are now laughable so they revised down to 2C. But 2C doesn’t sound very scary so let’s say 3C higher than it was 160 years ago.
    Give it another decade of failed models and they’ll be warning of 4C above pre interglacial temperatures by 2100!

  17. Love the mis-direction there. It used to be “a further 4C” now it’s “3C above INDUSTRIAL LEVELS”. So just 2C higher than today. Still alarmist but the 4C and 3C rises are now laughable so they revised down to 2C. But 2C doesn’t sound very scary so let’s say 3C higher than it was 160 years ago.
    Give it another decade of failed models and they’ll be warning of 4C above pre interglacial temperatures by 2100!

  18. I do not believe one part of this report. With the planed and accepted increase in China and India, and other developing nations, CO2 emissions will rise as fast as any scenario used in the climate models.
    Likewise, there is no reduction from Hansen’s business as usual emission scenario.

  19. The “Climate Action Tracker” is an impressive layering of bogosity based on pseudoscience and lies. The intent is clear, though; it is a carrot-and-stick approach of encouragement to the troops that they are “winning” but that “much more is needed”, as well as the idea that promises made need to be kept. They are laying the groundwork for next years’ United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, with high hopes of a legally binding agreement getting signed.

  20. Peter Millar above @ 1236 am— great links and thank you.
    You and more of Anthony’s enquiring minds might benefit from a visit to the estimable Pierre Gosseling ( no he is not a young Christmas turkey) over at http://www.notrickszone.com.
    He does a wonderful expose of the crazies at the Potsdam Institute.
    This would all be MontyPhytonesque if these lunatics did not have the ear of the Union of Soviet Socilists in Brussels.

    • I checked that link to the -notrickszone- and the news about the power supply situation in Germany was appalling (If you are a German or if you are trying to sell to the population there that has seen electricity prices double since the push for renewables).
      Even worse is the report that already hundreds of thousands of households, and potentially millions , have had power cut off. I have noticed nothing about this on the BBC or in the papers – which, if they bother to mention the most powerful nation in EU at all , only refer to arguements over ECB and QE or to Merkel’s regular whip lashing of Cameron for some tentative criticism of Brussels.

  21. Who will be the next Martin Luther? As before, the pointed protest must come from within the learned elite and not the common rabble that pays the price for all of it.

    • Maybe a list of theses describing the atrocities of science and policies born of them nailed to the Capitol Building door?

  22. This claim appears to based solely on the forcing of CO2 emissions, so it seems naive to use it to construe future temperature trends, even to a lay observer.

  23. Just to show you how stupid the alarmists are. Instead of denying “the pause” they should be crediting their backwardassed policies for it. When it comes to propaganda, it’s amateur hour for alarmists.

  24. If true, in 6 years we could expect a 0.15C rise in average global temps IF the eco-green accept that the current temp is normal, i.e. their prior values for the radiative forcing of CO2 were too high. If they continue to say a natural but negative force has temporarily kept temps down and id ending, then in 5 teard we should expect a rise of perhaps 0.22C.
    Very noticeable.
    If only they could be held accountable for their claims and projections.

  25. I am kind of amused by the uncertainty range of 1.3°C, it leads to an interesting possibility.
    Using their graphic, and uncertainty being what it is, if we do nothing it is possible temperatures will rise by 2.5°C but if we turn world economies upside down could rise to 3.8°C.
    I know they want us to think that uncertainties in both scenarios run in tandem, but we are talking about uncertainties and an uncertainty range that is pretty large, so I’ll I’ll take my chances with doing nothing.

  26. As a Meteorologist of 30 years, I would like to say that these prognosticators will be long dead by the time their assertions come about. If they are aiming for a legacy, they probably have it because no matter what way they go, they claim victory. Just as with every cold and warm snap the rhetoric heats up…lol

  27. Come off it :
    An elementary order-of-magnitude calculation – relying on the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics – shows that, even when allowing the IPCC calculation of man-mad global warming by 2100 reputedly caused by CO2, it’s so trivial when compared to solar input variability alone, as to be totally irrelevant to ‘climate’: http://cleanenergypundit.blogs

  28. What a joke. Even if their predictions meant anything, they are counting on countries keeping promises for 85 years. How many promises made by countries 85 years ago are still being kept? Does it even matter?

  29. Sounds to me like the alarmists have realised their predictions were much too high and have now decided that it’s better to claim that the lower temperatures are a result of their actions. It’s rubbish of course but it protects status and funding.

  30. I always find it sort of odd when folks claim the CO2 problem started with something called the industrial period sometime after 1700. (See 2nd comment by Hugh)
    Here is a line from an old text: “So Hiram gave Solomon cedar trees and fir trees according to all his desire.
    It seems that Solomon’s desire involved quite a few trees along with much stone. It is reported that ten thousand men worked for months to meet the need for trees and great stones. Next to go –the trees of southern Europe, then northern and western Europe, then peatlands. In North America, wood was required to heat homes and as Boston grew the source of that wood became more distant, requiring a canal to transport it.
    Some references claim Solomon’s Temple was constructed about 2500 years before the industrial revolution.
    Should the Climate Action Tracker and others use temple-building-time for the base period?

  31. Listening to the ABC this morning, I detected a new tack in the language. They have, as we know, long moved on from “global warming” to “climate change”. Well, now they are moving on further to “extreme weather”. Perhaps they’re hoping people forget the old “weather isn’t climate” mantra, and that they only need repeat the new theme often enough. Given that any number of extreme weather events happen in a given country every year, it’s far easier to argue in the face of embarrassing pauses or growing ice sheets. In any event, it will be interesting to see whether this CO2-causes-more-extreme-weather-without-warming test balloon gains traction amongst the warmistas and an increasingly skeptical general public.
    Transcript is here: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s4145650.htm

  32. If temperatures don’t rise because CO2 sensitivity is much lower than estimated, or because there are negative feedbacks that counter global-warming gasses, I can guess what the warmists will say. They will still claim it was due to this agreement, even if nobody keeps it. But they will never admit to being wrong about global warming.

  33. Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    The really sad thing is that there is no man made global warming its a natural process that has been going on for close to 4000 years now. The effect from CO2 is minor and not really an issue as most current scientific paper show. since the rate of increase has gone from 3.0 to about 1.0 in the last 20 years. At a level of 1.0 degrees C per doubling this is no problem

Comments are closed.