Claim: Economic collapse will prevent catastrophic global warming

Dinosaur

Composition: T-Rex from Clipartpanda and “Milford Sound and Simbad Gulley -New Zealand-9Jan2009” by archiescat – originally posted to Flickr as Milford Sound 3, NZ. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Christopher Reyer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one of the authors of a 2014 world bank publication “Turning down the heat: Confronting the new Climate Normal”, has claimed in an interview that economic collapse will ensure we never achieve global temperature rises of 6-8c – he expects the global economy to start to falter, after we pass 2c of warming.

According to Reyer (talking about the climate in the year 2100):

I guess it should be between three and four degrees hotter. We used to think that we were headed for +8°C, but that will never happen. We are not even on track for +6°C because economies will be collapsing long before we get there. We know that after +2°C, dangerous things start happening, and we start passing crucial tipping points, like the West Antarctica ice sheet collapse, which has reportedly already begun.

Reyer also has some doom laden predictions for the year 2050:

What will a two degrees warmer world, which we seem likely to inhabit by 2050, look like?

“Two degrees is not a picnic either. Imagine events like the 2003 European heat wave, the 2010 Russian heat wave which had repercussions on the global wheat market, and Hurricane Katrina, all of them happening simultaneously everywhere in the world.”

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/till-bruckner/climate-change-economy-gr_b_7056418.html

There are a few problems with these predictions. For starters, life thrived in Cretaceous period, which was around 4c warmer than today.

CO2 levels were around 1700ppm in the Cretaceous, 4x higher than today.

The Cretaceous lasted for 80 million years, so the 4c warmer, 1700ppm CO2 climate was a stable climate, by any reasonable measure. The ecosystem which gave birth to all those textbook pictures of tropical jungles and dinosaurs tramping about – that simply couldn’t have happened, in a world whose life support systems were on the brink of failure. In fact, the age of the dinosaurs didn’t fall, until a huge meteor struck the earth around 66 million years ago, and killed 3/4 of all living species.

The most productive regions of the world, food wise, are the tropics. Indonesia, with a land area of 1.9 million square kilometres, 1/5 the size of the USA, supports a population of 237 million people – many of whom survive by subsistence agriculture. If the USA had a similar climate to tropical Indonesia, it could potentially support a population of 1.8 billion people – even using the subsistence agriculture employed by many Indonesians.

Suggesting that a 4c warmer world would be a dying world of broken eco-systems and failed nations seems utterly implausible. As the Cretaceous period proves beyond reasonable doubt, as the global experience of tropical agriculture demonstrates, warm climates are incredibly abundant and supportive of living ecosystems, and humans, who evolved in the hottest climate on Earth, are well able to thrive in such environments.

Would returning CO2 to 1700ppm even cause a 4c rise in temperature? This seems doubtful to me, because the geography and geology of the modern world is different to the Cretaceous. The rise of the Himalayas, and the formation of the Antarctic circumpolar current, have consolidated our brutally cold Quaternary climate of frequent glaciations. I suspect it would take a lot more than 1700ppm to overcome these geological disadvantages, and restore a more benevolent climate, than our current ice age prone Quaternary.

Advertisements

176 thoughts on “Claim: Economic collapse will prevent catastrophic global warming

  1. Alarmists are admitted misanthropes. This is exactly what they desire, so they write about it.

    • “A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior … a positive or negative prophecy, strongly held belief, or delusion—declared as truth when it is actually false—may sufficiently influence people so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy” (Wiki).

      • So in other words, they have to kill us to save us. It follows the theme of the Matrix and I-Robot.

    • Well, somebody has just won a rare “daily double”:

      The only academic crowd on the planet with a poorer record of prediction than “climate science” are the economists.

      Congratulations to whoever did this research.

  2. Whoopee!! a hotter World is a good World for the plants and stuff. The surf will be up too, by several 10’s of metres!!

      • With USGS researching all of our recent OK earthquakes and finding all kinds of faults which have been dormant for millions of years… beachfront property in El Reno- oh no!
        (Will we still have chicken fried steak?)

        listening to: “A Hard Rain’s A Fixin’ To Fall”- Bob Drillin’

  3. What the elitists do not understand is should there be a major economic collapse, they would be killed for their food and other resources.

  4. So his guy expects there will be a 2C rise in the average global temperature over the next 35 years.
    Well let’s see how well that one pans out hey!. l mean it all been going according to plan so far this century.

    • Not only the atmosphere either – on the fish and chip thread link I posted, the BBC are pushing scientists quotes saying that the seas, well at least the North Sea, will be up by 2 degrees C in 20 – 30 years.

      Apparently, flat fish are really in for it. I guess they can’t swim fast enough.

  5. 2 more degrees C is going to cause all that? Hasn’t the temperature already gone up by about 1C since 1880? So, we should have already experienced about one-third of the additional catastrophes that we can expect. All those coastal villages of 1880 have long gone underwater. People a century ago never died from heat. Hurricanes were rare and only raised the waves enough to splash over toddler’s knees as they played in the surf. \sarc
    (BTW, years for the five deadliest US Hurricanes: 1893,1893, 1900,1928, 2005)

  6. Eric Worrall says, “There are a few problems with these predictions. For starters, life thrived in Cretaceous period, which was around 4c warmer than today.”

    Cretaceous prosperity, longevity and well-being may not have been solely because of the warmer weather. Perhaps it had something to do with higher intelligence.

  7. Come on now! You all didn’t get the memo, humans are plague on the planet! I have been waiting for the world to end for quite a few years now, I’m sure it’s bound to happen sooner or later. Economic based destruction would do the trick, I’m sure but fire and ice are far more biblical.

    ———————————

    Fire and Ice

    Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

    -Robert frost

    • This might do it:
      “The global derivatives bubble is now 20 percent bigger than it was just before the last great financial crisis struck in 2008. It is a financial bubble far larger than anything the world has ever seen, and when it finally bursts it is going to be a complete and utter nightmare for the financial system of the planet. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the total notional value of derivatives contracts around the world has ballooned to an astounding 710 trillion dollars ($710,000,000,000,000). Other estimates put the grand total well over a quadrillion dollars.This derivatives bubble is a “sword of Damocles” that is hanging over the global economy by a thread day after day, month after month, year after year. At some point that thread is going to break, the bubble is going to burst, and then all hell is going to break loose.”
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-size-of-the-derivatives-bubble-hanging-over-the-global-economy-hits-a-record-high/5384096

  8. the writer, Till Bruckner, is with Transparify:

    Transprify: Our Team
    We are part of the On Think Tanks Labs, a collection of innovative ventures in policy research
    http://www.transparify.org/our-team/
    from About Our Own Transparency: Our project is funded entirely by the Think Tank Fund of the Open Society Foundations (George Soros), and has a total volume of $39,834.

    not a lot of money, but amusing nonetheless given:

    2014: Washington Free Beacon: Soros-Funded Study Ranks Soros Last in Transparency
    Liberal billionaire George Soros’ foundation is among the most opaque think tanks in the country, according to a study funded by that foundation.
    The study, by a group called Transparify, ranked 35 U.S. think tanks based on the amount of financial information that they make publicly available.
    Soros’ Open Society Foundations rank dead last, earning zero stars out of a possible five.
    http://freebeacon.com/issues/soros-funded-study-ranks-soros-last-in-transparency/

  9. Barack Obama: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

    Economic collapse right there.

    • “…electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”

      And more people dependent on government help. It seems to be a common theme.

    • Yes indeed, and when the present six billion plus population mostly burn wood for warmth, what will that to for both particulates, and CO2?

      • Germany has recently increased its use of coal rather than natural gas due to anti-fracking legislation’s increase in the cost of propane.

    • Looked at your health care costs lately? And it is becoming apparent that is all we have is health insurance in name only. Actually health care is becoming none existent. You have an emergency? We can make an appointment, in 4 months. Think VA, except on a national scale.
      If they are promising higher electric rates, we won’t have electricity. We’ll be back in the stone age. Based on the stunning success of health care. (Success: based on what you want to achieve)

  10. The setbacks that Reyer claims negatively affected the world economy have not prevented the world economy to continue growing. We are all wealthier than a decade ago.

    It is always bizarre to read that, ultimately, the fundamental complain comes down to the lack of perfection of capitalist societies. Critical advances continue to take place yet they are systematically discarded because problems remain to be solved or because the solutions provided are not perfectly fitting.

    The industrial revolution destroyed the environment wherever it took place. Nonetheless, it has resulted in a degree of collective wealth unparalleled in human history which, among other things, has resulted in an environmental restoration that poorer countries can only dream off.

    I would not hesitate for a second to temporarily sacrifice the environment of the poorer nations so that those people can eventually provide themselves with the standard of living we all enjoy in the first world.

    • Well I don’t think I have ever been able to say I was wealthier than I was a decade earlier.

      The government keeps inflating the currency so that money isn’t worth as much any more, yet my total tax rate on a dollar earned has never ever gone down. Right now, at least 65 cents of every raw dollar goes in total taxation by Federal, State, Local, sales, excise etc etc. A good deal of what I earn is taxed at least twice.

      And the inflation has not been inconsequential.

      I can still buy the same meat pies that I used to buy for lunch when I was going to grade school. And they cost more than 100 times the price that I used to pay for the very same construction pie, and size.

      Government tells us there is no inflation; its just that prices keep going up.

      I had a lot more discretionary income when I was younger.

      So no we aren’t all wealthier than we were.

      • Well if you made over a $100,000 in 1967 or after, you didn’t do too bad. But everyone below that gained little or lost ground on income corrected for inflation. Also remember that inflation computation formulas have been adjusted many times since 1980, always in the government’s favor of course, so those at the bottom really haven’t done well at all. Hedonics was added in to adjust the index for “quality” increases, so who knows what your personal inflation rate really is.
        “Hedonics (or Hedonic quality adjustment) is a technique that is employed in the current CPI calculation across nearly all items which have changing product qualities. It is a method of adjusting prices whenever the characteristics of a product change due to innovation, or when a completely new product is introduced. In practice this approach entails decomposing an item into its constituent characteristics, estimating the value of the utility derived from each characteristic, and then using those value estimates to adjust prices.”
        http://www.shadowstats.com/article/consumer_price_index
        http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2000/ref_quality_adj_2742.html
        https://priceillusion.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/manipulating-the-consumer-price-index-hedonic-quality-adjustments/

      • @george e. smith

        Astonishing work of self-delusion.

        Even if you are barely 30 years old, the evolution of urban infrastructure alone would have appeared as a miracle to the child you were then. Add to that developments in telecommunications or bioengineering and science fiction becomes reality.

        If you are 40 years or more, what are you smoking?

    • “The industrial revolution destroyed the environment wherever it took place.”

      Reality says this is nonsense. Countries with high environmental quality also enjoy the most industrialized economies. Examples? The US, the UK, Australia, Canada, and the EU. Prosperous cultures care more and can do more to protect their environment.

      • I just read a presentation by Conoco Phillips on a test project they just completed in Canada. They tested new technology for energy recovery devices that would reduce their drilling costs by 11%. The technology reduced energy usage by 15% and as an unexpected consequence also reduced N0x emissions by 60%.

        New technologies can provide solutions to problems that they weren’t even trying to solve as a byproduct. That particular pollutant is a pretty nasty one in my book and would be glad to see a lot less of it.

      • And that original environment DESERVED to be destroyed. When people think of “Nature” they’re apt to think of pleasant parks with trees and grass., which are artificial, not natural. My birth state of Michigan was full of swamps and mosquitoes before humans “degraded” the environment by putting in drainage ditches eliminating most of those swamps.

      • I saw a picture a few years ago of the border area between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. On the Haitian side, the forest had been stripped bare, the other side it was still thriving.

    • Well said, Brute. Neo-Marxists insist that “free-enterprise” has “failed” because it hasn’t satisfied “all want” as if people “wanting” things is somehow in itself “bad” and supposed to be finite.

    • cool video. I guess all those bang bang westerns where folk hid behind thin wood walls was not realistic.

      What was the impervious material at the end that both hollow point and armor piercing round shattered against?

  11. I doubt that he understand that empiri always wins over models….
    The Alarmist never taken time to study GUS – the Garden Under Sandet – the farm under sand….. if they had, they wouldn’t have tried the ice melt hype at all. They had known from beginning that Empiric data show their so called thesis as wrong as can be – disapproven by facts…. :-)

    ”Most of the Viking expansion took place during what scientist refer to as the dimatic optimum of the Medieval Warm Period dated ca, A.D. 800 to 1200 (Jones 1986: McGovern 1991); a general term for warm periods that reached chere optimum at different times across the North Atlantic (Groves and Switsur 1991). During this time the niean annual temperature for southem Greenland was 1 to 3°C higher than today.” Julie Megan Ross, Paleoethnobotanical Investigation of Garden Under Sandet, a Waterlogged Norse Farm Site. Western Settlement. Greenland (Kaiaallit Nunaata), University of Alberta, Department of Anthropology Edmonton. Alberta Fa11 1997, sid 40

    My own comments in one of my blogg articles is:
    One of the most common pollens found during the excavation of the Garden of Sandet was Cyperaceae, if you read Linnaeus, the virutal Flora on net, Cyperaceae isn’t supposed to have existed at all in such environment. But then neither Bilberry, Sapsella bursa pastorais nor crowberry should have been able to make it. Then birch and willow not mentioned…those trees were common in Greenland during the earliest settling years and also during the later. In between it was even warmer….
    —- from Äntligen efter 671 år blir det, Norah4you 1 december 2012 At last After 671 years…….

      • I was lazy enough to do that! So don’t complain that I hadn’t time to read line by line and translate. Btw there are hugh differences in validity between words mostly used in England and English words used in US and Canada.

        I wrote the lines in Swedish and used Google Translate – I will try not to lean on Google Translate as much as some do.

  12. Well, at least this seems more logical than increased prostitution, restless fish, the earth will spin faster, no more red hair, etc.
    Somehow, I believe the slew of ridiculous claims not only turns the public off, but they also realize it is just BS.

  13. l would have thought that there would be a greater risk of economic collapse if the global temperature fell by 2C. After all the White House was blaming the weaker US economy on the cold winter.

  14. norah4you,
    As an arborist, I wish I could read your articles. Alas, English is my only language.
    Are they translated?

    • “Two degrees is not a picnic either. Imagine events like the 2003 European heat wave, the 2010 Russian heat wave which had repercussions on the global wheat market, and Hurricane Katrina, all of them happening simultaneously everywhere in the world.”

      “simultaneously”,…. 7 years apart.

  15. Christopher Reyer’s sciencey veneer is wearing off and all that is left is a misanthropic hunger for dead and suffering people.

  16. The current IPCC requirements for Carbon Dioxide reduction is already a formula for economic collapse.

    It does not take much imagination to predict what will happen if oil, gas, electricity and coal supplies are cut and their price goes sky high.

    Every thing we need to live above subsistence level is affected by these CO2 producing essentials.

    No need to wait for a non existent rise in global temperature.

    See http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  17. “For starters, life thrived in Cretaceous period, which was around 4c warmer than today.
    CO2 levels were around 1700ppm in the Cretaceous, 4x higher than today.”

    You must of course realize that there were a completely different assortment of species for most of the Cretaceous than now, right? The species that lived in a 2C plus don’t exist now.

    • And your point is? Are you saying that not one species alive today could live with a 2C increase in the AVERAGE temp? The tropics then would be the same temp as the tropics today. The only thing that actually increases in temperature, increasing the average, is shorter milder winters.

      Of course, this is completely ignoring the solar predictions of the next 20-30 years of global cooling as we move into solar cycle 25.

      • And the arctic would be – 38 in the dead of winter rather than – 40. Looks like I could move there to escape British Columbia’s hot and humid winters of the future.
        California is on average about 10 degrees warmer than BC, yet many people vacation there because of the perfect climate.
        We wouldnt even notice a 2 degree increase in average temps where I live, Besides a potentially longer growing season with bumper crops . Sounds more like something to celebrate than to fear.

    • Ah the “We’re changing too fast!” argument.

      Well life seemed to have got through the overnight calamity that wiped out the dinosaurs. Literally overnight if it was a meteorite collision. I’m highly sceptical we’re changing too fast. As was mentioned above, the change is actually to the average, mainly night time and winter minimums. Not exactly “killer” changes and instead changes that IMO would tend to drive natural selection.

      • And how exactly would we know we are changing faster than any time in earth history? There is no way we can know the rate of change over a 100 year span 50 million years ago. It’s pure nonsense to make that claim.

    • Tuatara are reptiles endemic to New Zealand and which, although resembling most lizards, are part of a distinct lineage, the order Rhynchocephalia. The two species of tuatara are the only surviving members of their order, which flourished around 200 million years ago

    • Garbage. Humans live in middle of the Arabian peninsula where it gets to 55 degC regularly, humans live Greenland and northern Canada and Siberia where Temps drop to -40 degC. I reckon humans can adapt to a 2 degC change.

      • I’m a fan of global warming. Humans look better when lightly toasted by Sol. A couple of C warmer would be very welcome at my latitude.

    • The species that lived in a 2C plus don’t exist now

      Duh. Species “exist” where it’s 2C (and alot more) warmer than where I’m at now. And what must happen to all those poor, helpless species that have to tolerate a 10-20C daily temp change?

    • Every species that I know of lives in a range of temperatures nearly an order of magnitude greater than 2C.
      At most, the species ranges will shift a few miles northward (or southward in the southern hemisphere.)

  18. The 2003 and 2010 heatwaves have nothing to do with mean global temperature, it’s just short term solar effects during the event, like the even hotter 1540 European heatwave. I captured the intensity and timing of the 2010 European summer hot bursts in a forecast given in February. Forest fire smoke in Moscow also exacerbated near surface temperatures. (note I no longer consult for WA):
    http://www.phonic.fm/2010/sunny-festival-times-ahead

  19. What these people dont get is that an increase of even 4C of the AVERAGE does not mean TMax is what increases. But that’s what they are basically saying. You can have summers the same as now, but shorter milder winters and get a 4C increase in the average, without additional heat waves. I fail to see how shorter milder winters, a longer growing season, less energy to heat our homes, is a bad thing…

    This is just more failed predictions.

    With world debt the way it’s going, the EU on the brink, the US with it’s 16 Trillion debt, there may indeed be an economic collapse, not caused by warmer climate, but because of failed socialist policies around the world.

    • But the MSM will say the economic collapse was caused by climate change we were warned in 2015.

      • Of course. Socialism never fails, if something goes wrong, it’s because people didnt enact socialism correctly… The mindset of the left is truly amazing… Deluded more like it.

      • I’ve talked to people who still claim that communism has never failed, because it was never tried. Russia, China, whatever, the revolution was usurped by bad men who corrupted the system for their own benefit.
        This time it will work because the right people (meaning themselves) will be in charge.

  20. This fellow is, I presume, of significant intelligence to be at the Potsdam Institute. So what mysterious (chemical?) agent has made him lose his mind and utter such drivel? I see a conspiracy here. (sarc)

      • spaatch,

        Who fabricated that bogus chart? The same alarmist blog you got it from?

        That blog says that sea levels are gonna get us! Rising fast! Polar ice is melting! And so on.

        I love charts. I have thousands of climate charts saved. I can certainly spot a bogus chart like that.

        You don’t even need a chart. By all accounts, both sides of the debate — probably 97% of everyone — agrees that global temperatures have fluctuated only around 0.7ºC over the past century ( your bogus chart claims 2º+).

        Does 0.7º scare you? If so, what is it you want, exactly? A 0.00ºC change over the next century? Tell us: what is the best temperature for Planet Earth?

        After seeing the Chicken Little chart you posted, I think you must know the answer to that question. So tell us the ideal temperature. I’ll wait, while you consider your answer…

    • Ain’t nuffin bogus about my chart dbstealy BTW it’s from a Greenland icecore so comparing it to Global temps is meaningless.

      • Wow! Look at that Hokey Stick on the end of that graph. Everywhere I look nowadays I see Hokey Sticks. It’ll just be a matter of time before the World Bank begins using one as their new logo.

      • That chart has the instrumental record grafted onto it, and as such is utterly meaningless. The ice core records would not show short term fluctuations in temperatures. If they did, your hockey stick would be completely lost in the ‘noise’. Does this make sense to you?

    • spaatch

      The GISP2 ice core has a temporal resolution of several decades (the IPCC says 83 years).

      You have stitched a different data set with a temporal resolution of 1 year onto the end of the GISP2 data set. THAT IS “BOGUS”.

      The stitching is known as “Mike’s Nature Trick” after Michael Mann who was the originator of this anti-scientific practice which only has the purpose of misleading about what data indicates.

      Richard

      • Martin

        spaatch posted ant-scientific nonsense and I explained that for onlookers who may not know about ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’.

        I saw – and see – no reason to “pull up Latitude for his claim above”, and you state no such reason. So, I am at a loss to understand why you have “noted” that I did not do it.

        Richard

      • I understand the 83 years applies to the most recent years. The resolution for most of the chart is much coarser.

      • David A:

        Yes, I know, but that adds to and does not distract from my point which – as you say – is understated for data most distant in the past.

        Richard

      • This dispute could be settled quickly if spaatch provided the raw spreadsheet data entries up to 2010, or the links to said.

    • One only has to see what happened in Russia when the USSR collapsed. It wasnt a pretty sight. Not one tree in Petersburg was left standing. Abandoned buildings were stripped of anything that could burn. Alcohol abuse was rampant, and the population numbers started to fall (a lot of suicides, crime, etc)

  21. I think we need to fund a study to examine the question: Why do 97% of climatologists appear to suffer from [trimmed]?

    • Wow, seriously? The d-word (the one associated with urgent and frequent visits to the bathroom) has been banned now? What’s up with that?

      When they came for my words…

  22. The most dire predictions one can make with a logical extension of the basic information given for the CO2 contribution to the overall claimed greenhouse effect is a logarithmic decreasing progression that falls below the 0.8C increase of temperature correlated to the 120ppm rise in CO2 observed in the last century and a half.
    This is not rocket science, but simple arithmetic that any bonehead scientist should be unable to counter.
    The contribution of CO2 to the 33C claimed natural greenhouse effect is given as “between 9% to 26%” of it. Taking the 9% figure (as it predicts the highest rise in temperature in the range from today) we get 2.97C contribution of the 33C at a pre industrial level of 280ppm. This is equivalent to 0.01061C per 1ppm of CO2. The 0.8C observed increase in temperature for the extra 120ppm gives a value of 0.00667C per ppm which is roughly 63% less. So the maximum increase in temperature for the next 120ppm would be 63% of 0.8C or roughly 0.5C
    Draw a graph, even expert scientists who need overly complicated and convoluted gobbledegook to keep their status can’t fail to ignore this simple proof that their Pre-conceived Hypothesis Disorders are not required!

  23. Economic collapse … and global thermonuclear war … will ensure that we have global cooling.

  24. The UN has already stated their goal is the collapse of Capitalism. Agenda 21 spells it out. The IPCC has also stated it’s not really about temperature but instead about facilitating the take down of Capitalism by eliminating fossil fuel use. I doubt the world will allow that to occur. Forests disappearing as people burn them to create energy will be the first unintended consequence. Think Haiti. I’m probably too old to see what becomes of this well orchestrated attempt at ideology implementation but I’m confidant the people will figure it out.

  25. I am always amused by stories like this. Scientists seems to be able to construct models that replicate physical processes so as to project climate into the future. I know, I know, just let that last statement ride. My point is, using these models in a economic or ecological context seem to assume some sort of steady state. That we as human beings or animals in the wild are not going to adapt, but migrate, crawl into a ball and give up. Humans and nature are resilient. We will adapt. We collectively made it out of the last ice age didn’t we? Butterflies and fish for example. They will (as we are told) be forced to move looking for smaller and smaller acceptable habitats, eventually to go extinct. Sorry, I don’t buy that. Some species may move, some will go extinct as they do already. They will be replaced by other species better suited to the niche made available. But others will stay put and adapt.

    Even in the face of an economic collapse, climate induced or not, we will adapt and rebuild.

    To paraphrase: Life in the most tightly controlled environment of light, temperature, pressure, etc, will do as it damn well pleases.

  26. So what’s it gonna be? Catastrophic global warming causes economic collapse, or economic collapse prevents catastrophic global warming? How about: False predictions cause economic collapse followed by catastrophic global cooling?

      • All I can cite on the above is my experience that the weather here in Illinois hillbilly country is about the same as it was in the 60’s when I was young (and knew much more than I apparently do now). My humble knowledge as a concerned farmer only brings me to ask questions and air my perceptions to test their validity in his forum. I too, am concerned for my progeny’s welfare and the condition of this planet, but I suspect that the inconvenient truth we are being sold is all too convenient for the megalomaniacs who posit it.

      • Dawtgtomis,

        All I can cite on the above is my experience that the weather here in Illinois hillbilly country is about the same as it was in the 60’s when I was young (and knew much more than I apparently do now).

        That perspective doesn’t work well for me mainly because I’d lived in three different states, very different climates by the time I was 10, and never more than 10 years at a stretch since I was 18. Where I live now (Berkeley, CA) is where I began, and the locals who have been here the whole time that the morning fog burns off earlier than it did when I was born. I tease them about their confirmation bias, but it turns out there’s some literature support for their anecdotal observations. Yet, whether CO2 is wot dunnit is not something I’d personally conclude with confidence.

        In sum, my anecdotal experience is that I can’t trust ’em, so I don’t.

        My humble knowledge as a concerned farmer only brings me to ask questions and air my perceptions to test their validity in his forum. I too, am concerned for my progeny’s welfare and the condition of this planet, but I suspect that the inconvenient truth we are being sold is all too convenient for the megalomaniacs who posit it.

        Something which grates on me in this debate in general is that my POV is often seen as “save the planet”, as that’s the stereotypical leftist greenie battle cry. As the citations in the head post attest, the science is quite clear that “the planet” has had “worse”. My concern is first and foremost myself, then family, friends, neighbours, fellow citizens, fellow humans — in short, my own species. To the extent that we rely on the biosphere and the other species it supports, our job as apex predator is to ensure that it can continue to support enough stuff for us to eat.

        Megalomaniacs don’t go as far down the concern chain as I do, they stop at self with maybe some concern for family. I imagine the very well-heeled ones don’t worry about progeny, that’s why God created trust funds after all. Thing is, I find rich and powerful self-centereds on both sides of the debate. Out of that I get a zero-sum argument.

        Tiebreaker for me is literature. What it says is:

        1) Even without CO2, global cooling is not in our near future. A la Milankovitch theory we’re actually a few hundred years away from a very gradual natural warming, and hundreds of thousands of years from the point where another ice age would set in.

        2) Humans are influencing climate; since 1950 well over half of the observed global temperature trend has been attributed to us. Estimates vary widely, debate even amongst consensus researchers can be contentious — no more so than when it comes to what the future holds.

        I’m fairly confident in (1), almost absolutely. (2) I’m very much uneasy about because of the future uncertainty. My position is that we know what’s in the present and the rear-view mirror better than anything, prudence suggests that pushing our luck with the uncertain future isn’t in our collective best interests.

        Not being one who is prone to panic, I don’t call for wrecking the present economy to save the future economy. Only panicky herd followers would propose something so logically ridiculous; unfortunately that particular contingent seems to have an outsized voice which the opposition is all too happy to further amplify by way of ridicule — rightfully so, IMO.

        Problem is that process also runs in reverse, and we get an angry, stressful stalemate. That frustrates the hell out of me.

  27. What a freaking idiot. Typical leftist a-hole. A dry lake lowers all boats. I’ve never seen group of people so imprisoned by a mindset that they only see poverty as salvation. Unbelievable!!

  28. First of all, the physics and empirical evidence now show a doubling of CO2 will only generate a total of 0.5C~1.0C of CO2 induced warming by 2100 (plus or minus whatever the Sun and natural variability decide to do over the next 85 years)…

    Second, the Medieval Warming Period is estimated to have been 2C warmer than now (Rosenthal et al 2013). During the MWP, the European population doubled and crop yields set records for the time. When the Medieval climate started to cool during the Wolf Grand Solar Minimum (1280~1350), famines were common and brutal winters wiped out 15% of the European population, which was followed by the Bubonic Plague (1346~52), which wiped out another 30~50% of Europe’s population…

    It’s cold that kills. Not life giving warmth..

    Warmer temperatures generate: extend growing seasons, increase arable land in Northern latitudes, increase precipitation, less severe winters, increased plant CO2 fertilization from ocean CO2 outgassing, and less severe weather from reduced latitudinal temperature variance.

    For you history aficionados, the cooling climate following the MWP was partially responsible for ending the feudal system in Europe. The depopulation caused by the cold climate and the Bubonic plague forced huge migrations of farmers to depopulated regions, thus nullifying the feudal laws which prohibited farmers from moving off their Lord’s lands.

    In a similar manner, I think the collapse of the CAGW hypothesis will be partially responsible for ending the Big Government system, as it will expose the inherent dangers when Big Government policies based on flawed agendas go awry.

  29. Even IF (big IF) pCO2 continued its 2 ppm/yr increase, we are 650 years away from 1700 ppm. By then (if as some posters here are correct), the sun may be in another Maunder-like minimum. We would need all the warmth we could muster to prevent 50% of the world’s population from dying off.

    Of course that 5 billion human die-off is what the Agenda 21 eco-terrorists want.

  30. Eric Worrall,

    There are a few problems with these predictions. For starters, life thrived in Cretaceous period, which was around 4c warmer than today.

    That’s one of them there open secrets in literature, innit.

    CO2 levels were around 1700ppm in the Cretaceous, 4x higher than today.

    Those silly paleoclimatologists, always undermining their own arguments being so honest about stuff they find poking around in ice cores and benthic ocean sediments. I say fire the lot of them for daring to do good science!

    The Cretaceous lasted for 80 million years, so the 4c warmer, 1700ppm CO2 climate was a stable climate, by any reasonable measure. The ecosystem which gave birth to all those textbook pictures of tropical jungles and dinosaurs tramping about – that simply couldn’t have happened, in a world whose life support systems were on the brink of failure. In fact, the age of the dinosaurs didn’t fall, until a huge meteor struck the earth around 66 million years ago, and killed 3/4 of all living species.

    Mmm. Well in freshman biology, our prof taught us some evolution. One key concept there is that it takes awhile, and that when environmental changes happen relatively rapidly — big volcano goes off or a huge hunk of rock smacks into the planet — that lots of things die, not just from the initial trauma of the event, but because the “normal” bounds of the previous equilibrium exceed so many organisms’ ability to cope with new conditions AND evolutionary processes aren’t fast enough to adapt to them.

    In sophomore biology, our prof — different guy this time — taught us even more evolution. One thing he had us do was go out and by the old Maxis game SimLife for DOS and fiddle with it, then write an essay about what we learned. One option in the game was “Natural Disasters” — forest fires, tsunamis, earthquakes, the aforementioned meteors and volcanoes … and Man.

    Always gives me a chuckle when I think on it. At any rate, it’s not just the scalar values of these parameters which matter. However, if you insist we go there note that surface dwelling fauna during the Cretaceous was dominated by reptilian and amphibian species, many quite large. Most mammal species were relatively quite small, and also quite rare. Fast-forward to now and ponder that the mix is quite a bit different, and consider where it is we find most of the large reptilian and amphibian species vs. where mammals tend to do best.

    Oh, and sea levels were quite a bit higher as there was little to no polar ice to speak of:

    Not the best direct comparison because obviously the continents weren’t in the same configuration as they are today. It might occur to those of us reading from the US that corn, wheat, potatoes and soybeans probably wouldn’t grow so well under a few tens of meters of salt water. But that’s more a one- to five-thousand year problem … and you’re right, we’ll probably all have woken up and figured out how to lick this by then.

    Well, assuming of course that we figure out how to replace fossil fuels when we do eventually run out of them, which, uh, seems to be the largest perceived existential threat here. Maybe folks half a millennium from now will be smarter than we are today, but from where I’m sitting I’m ain’t quite sure about that. Really pissed off seems at least as likely.

    • Quite right Brandon. I sit around all day thinking about how my forebears screwed up the world for me. If you’re worried about the opinion of your future generations 5 centuries from now then don’t breed. It might improve the human stock.

      • It helps that our ancestors didn’t have access to nuclear weapons. If those don’t get us, I can certainly see widespread conventional warfare still making a pretty big dent, and frankly that’s the biggest risk I see in my crystal ball, AGW or no.

        I don’t have kids, don’t plan on having them but I am a professional uncle. And yes, if you really must know, a large part of that decision is based on my genetics. By my reckoning, my ethical circuits work as well as any, maybe better than most (it’s hard to tell) and because of that I wouldn’t wish some of the other ones on my worst enemy.

    • You move from CO2 the demon gas to future generations running out of fossil fuel and cursing us. Then you go on about nuclear weapons and conventional warfare. Then you top it off with your medical problems.
      Cheer up Brandon, there is light at the end of the tunnel and it’s not an oncoming train.

      • Alex,

        You move from CO2 the demon gas to future generations running out of fossil fuel and cursing us.

        Noooo, there I was musing about why you seem to think it is your great-great-great-great-great grandkids will be any more intellectually suited to figure out how to replace fossil fuels with something else than you presently are. Especially in an economy with even greater demand and ever-dwindling supply.

        Then you go on about nuclear weapons and conventional warfare.

        If you don’t think we’re our own worst existential threat, perhaps you should read more history.

        Then you top it off with your medical problems.

        Here’s a clue, genius: if you don’t want me to talk about my personal life, don’t bring it up to begin with.

        Cheer up Brandon, there is light at the end of the tunnel and it’s not an oncoming train.

        Dare I even ask?

      • Brandon, I am curious. You criticisms of the post here are, IMV, labored and lacking direction.

        The claims about which the author of the post writes are clearly ludicrous. Do you support them?

      • Brandon
        Disappointed not to hear from you. Afraid I will call you out about your ‘medical condition’? I suggest you don’t use the line ‘professional uncle’ – sounds creepy.

        ‘Here’s a clue, genius: if you don’t want me to talk about my personal life, don’t bring it up to begin with.’

        You’ve used that line before. Time to get a new script writer. It’s a little lame when you ‘cut and paste’ your old stuff.
        Happy baiting in the future. One day you may become a ‘master baiter’.

      • David A,

        You criticisms of the post here are, IMV, labored and lacking direction.

        “Labored” is a matter of personal opinion, not much I can do for you there. This post is my main thesis: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/14/claim-economic-collapse-will-prevent-catastrophic-global-warming/#comment-1907311

        What specific points do you find muddled or otherwise invalid? With which, if any, do you agree?

        The claims about which the author of the post writes are clearly ludicrous. Do you support them?

        I don’t accept your sweeping a priori that Christopher Reyer’s claims are “clearly ludicrous”. I think it’s ludicrous that you’d say such a thing.

        Here’s a specific: We know that after +2°C, dangerous things start happening, and we start passing crucial tipping points, like the West Antarctica ice sheet collapse, which has reportedly already begun.

        Call me dubious on that one, with prejudice. I think it’s a bad statement:

        1) We don’t “know” what will happen, all we can do is estimate.
        2) +2°C is a policy-drawn line in the sand, not a magical physical threshold.
        3) Have we passed the WAIS critical tipping point or not? It’s ambiguous as stated, isn’t it?

        My short answer to your yes/no question is: not implausible, needs to be tightened up.

      • Alex,

        Disappointed not to hear from you.

        Disappointed there wasn’t much to respond to.

        Afraid I will call you out about your ‘medical condition’?

        lol, no. I do find it somewhat amusing that you apparently can’t decide whether we should talk about my personal life or not.

        I suggest you don’t use the line ‘professional uncle’ – sounds creepy.

        My nephews’ parents rather like it.

        ‘Here’s a clue, genius: if you don’t want me to talk about my personal life, don’t bring it up to begin with.’

        You’ve used that line before. Time to get a new script writer. It’s a little lame when you ‘cut and paste’ your old stuff.

        We could always talk about that light at the end of the tunnel you mentioned a few posts back, and thereby spare you the boredom of me describing my belly button lint.

      • Alex,

        Whoops, missed one:

        Happy baiting in the future. One day you may become a ‘master baiter’.

        “Stepping stone to master debater” is too obvious … my scriptwriter informs me the best response is:

        Quid pro quo

        Ta.

  31. “We know that after +2°C, dangerous things start happening, and we start passing crucial tipping points, like the West Antarctica ice sheet collapse, which has reportedly already begun.”

    Jeez, we know NOTHING like he is claiming, tipping points do not exist or we would have tipped long ago, as the Medieval Warm Period was that much warmer and all the Warm Periods before that. And the West Antacrtic ice sheet is not collapsing—it is doing nothing unusual. Wow, was a total eggplant.

  32. “the Medieval Warm Period was that much warmer and all the Warm Periods before that” Bzzzzt – Wrong!!, the MWP was not 2°C warmer than now.

  33. Wouldn’t genocide be justified given the dire situation the planet is in?

    What do we call the anti-human zealots?

    Humaphobes?

  34. World Bank also published in 2013 June “Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional impacts and case for Resilience” warns that by the 2040s, India will see a significant reduction in crop yields because of extreme heat. This story was published by a Daily Newspaper “Deccan Chronicle” from Hyderabad, India on 20th June 2013. Along with this published my counter to the article of World Bank “Too much heat over global warming” by saying Andhra Pradesh [a state in India] receives rainfall in two monsoons. So far, there is no change in monsoon onset pattern or monsoon rainfall pattern.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  35. Not to be disagreeable but the Cretaceous was far from an idyllic 80my flat line interlude from the vagaries of paleoclimate.

    This graphic goes all the way back to the beginning of the Permian. The Cretaceous temperatures were a sine wave, or thereabouts. Sea level followed, but lest we get on our thermosteric high horse a somewhat more impressive heat wave in the Permian was accompanied by a sea level drop.

    The arrogance of the Potsdam followers of the one true path astonishes yet again.

    What we actually know, really ain’t that much.

  36. Economic Collapse is a specialty of the World Bank. They know all about it. Where ever its prescription is applied, economic performance subsides and poverty grows.

  37. Note that Reyer is a geographer who specializes in modelling trees. He has never written about the economic impact of climate change, and seems unaware that his remarks are at odds with the most pessimistic estimates published in the peer-reviewed literature.

  38. ” …we start passing crucial tipping points, like the West Antarctica ice sheet collapse, which has reportedly already begun….”
    ==============================================
    Reyer displays his “iggerrance.”

    Fire up a volcano under an ice sheet and guess what happens?
    The volcano goes out? … No.
    The ice starts melting ? … Yes.
    The ice melts fast? … Yes
    Glacier flow rate increases? … Yes.

    Until the volcano goes out.

    The West Antarctic ice sheet in question (Thwaites Glacier, Pine Bay etc)l sits on top of an active volcanic field, which is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire. If it melts, it melts. That melting has absolutely nothing to do with CO2, or AGW and no `tipping point’ prevention can possibly work. It’s like whipping a dead horse to make it get up and work.

  39. Christopher Reyer would like to publish all his tax returns online.
    Before he wants to inflict unnecessary hardship on all of humanity.

    Perhaps Mr Reyer would be happier living under Tyranny in war torn Iraq and Syria under the Islamic State or just try and survive in the slums of Mumbai or Rio or Johannesburg or Detroit or perhaps he,s just anti human without empathy.

  40. “Plenty to eat where she lived”
    ==============================
    “She” most likely didn’t live in Milford Sound. Much of its present geography and formation is as a result of glacial action over the last 2 million years during the current Ice Age. Milford Sound is not actually a `Sound’ but a fiord. Its on the Western side of the South Island of New Zealand about three quarters of the way down.

    “She” not only died out in the Big Extinction 66 million years ago, “she” probably didn’t live in New Zealand, at all, ever but there is little evidence for that either way. Fossil finds are rare in NZ.

    Tyrannosaurus lived throughout what is now western North America, which then was an island continent named Laramidia. I understand something was recently found in Mongolia which may have extended their range. Carnivorous Theropod dinosaurs were present in NZ way back when, but probably not T-Rex.

    Still, it’s a good looking picture! And Milford Sound is a “Must See” place if you do visit NZ.

    T-Rex lived in

    • Yeah I know… :-) And the grass is a bit dodgy as well – though there is some debate about the age of grass. But it made a nice composite when I stuck the pics together…

      • If you had used alpine tussock, it would have looked more interesting and, maybe, even more authentic! :-)

  41. You want to reduce population and destroy prosperity, production and technology? Ok you can start by killing your own children or not having kids while throwing away your phone, tv, car and even your petroleum-based plastic products, you can’t live in a house with modern materials or travel by any vehicle unless it’s a horse and cart, but since you’re against domestication of animals and they fart evil methane anyway that’s probably a no-go.

    What?….it only applies to OTHER people…ooooooooooooohhhhhhhh I see…OK.

  42. Yesterday there was court case by a group of 900 people against the state of the Netherlands. One of their complaints was the “”2 oC temperature rise”” and stated that is a crime against humanity.
    It’s becoming a hard battle because the MSM is on the side of the warmists, critical remarks are not welcome.

  43. “… We know that after +2°C, dangerous things start happening, and we start passing crucial tipping points, like the West Antarctica ice sheet collapse, which has reportedly already begun.”

    How do we know this? It has been 2 degrees C warmer than now many times in the past. In fact, just seasonal variations swamp these tiny changes in average temperature. I have read that it may already be approximately 1 degree C warmer now than in 1870 and I could see 2 more degrees being very nice. Perhaps that means a few Yankees would stay home and not come to Florida for winter vacation — but we will survive.

    This story in the post is that of just one more idiot with an advanced degree peddling heifer dust. The whole scenario ignores the adaptability of all life forms on earth and human adaptability in particular. (plus the fact that more CO2 will not lead to warming anyway)

  44. Not everyone remembers Robbie the Robot, but I do. And I remember the circuitry inside his head used to arc up, and his little antennae used to whirl like egg beaters when you asked him a question to which there was no answer.

    Try this on a Green friend sometime and let the fun begin.
    Q. Do you believe in CO2 Global Warming?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Do you believe that we are about to ‘run out’ of fossil fuels?
    A. Yes.

    Light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance!

    • Robbie the Robot was in ‘Forbidden Planet’. They reused him in ‘Lost in Space’. I loved Dr Smith, so evil, so self centred, so human.

  45. The title of this post reminded me of this quote from Maurice Strong, Interview 1992, concerning the plot of a book he would like to write

    What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

    • This little Canadian communist actually created this whole scam. He created the UNFCC(?) which spawned the IPCC and put this dream into motion. Looking for man-made causes of climate change was his invention. He is a cynic. He knew that if festooned with cash, the university and scientific institutes could be bought and harnessed for fulfillment of this dream. He new that NGOs were a made-in-heaven existing structure filled already with people like himself. He knew governments could be enjoined in the project because it was through them that the “rich nations” would be empoverished and brought down through destruction of their industries (shut down of cheap energy). He knew that the world was full of useful fools – really nice caring gullible folks who were easily sold on the utopia that was to follow. He’s in his 80s now and living quietly in China – a place he has admired since Mao’s days.

      A corollary of this story is that the witless 97% Cook is not far from correct. Sceptics unfortunately number probably around 3-5%. Think of Soviet dissidents and Chinese dissidents, these are a tiny fraction of 1% of a population that are the super brave contingent of sceptics.

      Here in Canada, we have a federal government that doesn’t buy into the hype and understands what is behind it. However, just the other day, Ontario and Quebec premiers (governors of provinces) have joined forces provincially with British Columbia. Quebec has a carbon cap and trade treaty with California and soon they all will be trading credits in a common market. It ain’t federal but it is 62% of the Canadian population and of the remaining provinces, all but perhaps oil rich Alberta, can be bought. I’m considering retiring to India to live out my days in a sensible, no-nonsense country that cares about its people first.

      • Canada’s Environment Minister is a warmer. I forgot her name or cant pronounce it. Sounds very Eskimo.

  46. Well, my solution is nice and simple:
    Anyone who believes in global warming, must immediately hand over all their belongings and take up a hunter gatherer lifestyle, living in either mud huts or under a lean to in the bush. The money gained from them will be given to all those poor climate refugees to combat global warming/cooling/change/hiatus in their own countries.

  47. Take this one away and chew it over….

    Why are The Rich Countries on this planet, typically located where The Rich (read=fertile) soil is located?

    Is that really just some happy co-incidence???

  48. After the World Bank imposed the ban on clean water projects for developing countries, localsseem somewhat non-plussed about “2 Degrees”….

  49. ‘Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,’ so if CAGW turns out to be rubbish this is organisation and those whose careers depend on it , better or worse off ?
    Having answered that question can you finger out what type of claims, and never mind the facts , they are going to make ?

  50. Climate doom-mongers seem to revel in their doom-mongery and gleefully display their total ignorance of both climate and economics. Their “predictions” are total fantasies loosely based on pseudoscience, not unlike movies like The Day After Tomorrow.
    Their intent is clear, though, and that is simply to spread fear in the feeble minds of those susceptible to their blatherings.

  51. Can be summed up thusly, Imagine, Estimate, Exaggerate, Extrapolate. Otherwise known as the Bedwetters Proof of CAGW.

  52. Chris Hanley
    April 14, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    ““A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior …””

    Fifty years ago, as a geologist with the Geological Survey of Niigeria, I learned to speak functional Hausa – a derivative of Arabic and was charmed by the beautiful proverbs that decorate the language, written and spoken. “Da kaza kallon mafi kyau a akaifunsa” A chicken looks best in its feathers. The culture was venerable and complex – Hausaland (covers parts of several countries) maintained an embassy in Constantinople in the 11th Century and was responsible for trading across the Sahara => Gold Coast gold, slaves captured in the equatorial forests, ivory, etc.

    An example of a fine self-fulfilling prophecy is to be found in their belief (at that time, at least) that if a pregnant woman looked upon a chameleon, her child would be a social misfit and trouble to the family. It was invariably true because the child was not loved because of this expectation.

  53. If the warmest are right they don’t have to worry about anything. The catastrophes will reduce the human population to a point where climate and population reaches equilibrium. Any economist can tell you this.

  54. Colorado River water irrigates the Imperial Valley.

    In 1905 the Salton Depression was accidentally filled with water due to a Colorado aqueduct levee breach. This created the Salton Sea. All irrigated land must be flushed to prevent salt build-up. The “agricultural run-off” is the flushing of the irrigated lands. The run-off replenishes the evaporated water from the Salton Sea.

    Due to the reduced amount of water stored in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the US Gov. and California Gov. have reduced the amount of water for the Imperial Valley. This has reduced the amount of agricultural run-off and the Salton Sea is shrinking {evaporating}. This has made the Salton Sea saltier than the Pacific Ocean {this took from 1905 until 2015}. To make up for the loss of agricultural run-off, fresh Colorado River water {from the All American Aqueduct} is being diverted directly into the Salton Sea! This is being done in the hope that tilapia, the only fish that can live in the saltier waters, will survive.

    Therefore, I don’t see anything wrong with the author’s logic and/or other future actions!!!

    • jlurtz

      Colorado River water irrigates the Imperial Valley.

      In 1905 the Salton Depression was accidentally filled with water due to a Colorado aqueduct levee breach. This created the Salton Sea. All irrigated land must be flushed to prevent salt build-up. The “agricultural run-off” is the flushing of the irrigated lands. The run-off replenishes the evaporated water from the Salton Sea.

      A more important problem with the Hoover Dam/California water diversion started due to the rain fall changes between 1910 and 1920 (coincidental with the change in global average temperatures trend in 1915-1916 or not is subject to debate). The Colorado River flow measurements that were used to set water allotments in 1930-32 for the dam financing in 1933-36 and the state-to-state water negotiations that we use today (1936-2015) were – to be blunt – dead wrong.

      There NEVER was as much average water flow as was recorded during the extreme snowfall and extreme rains and flood seasons of 1915 and 1916. But, that assumed volume has been “sold” (for money to the US government through power production of the hyrdo generators – and – more importantly) for irrigation and Los Angeles people/grass/swimming pools/golf courses between the 8 states that hold the 1932 Hoover Dam water contracts.

      But there never was as much water as they have “sold” and have been assuming that be replaced “next year” when “normal rains and snowfalls resume.

  55. If the average temperature goes up by 4C, the extremes will go up much more than that. It is a mathematical consequence of the Bell curve. Cold days will become less frequent, and hot days will become more frequent.

    • Pretty elementary contribution Harry AND incorrect. First, it was +0.7C since about 1890 and it’s been zero since 1997 to 2015 (1/6th of a century). Let’s generously give you double the last century’s heat and we have 1.4C by 2100 and that would be a rapid heating when a sixth of the century has already gone by without warming. No, the climate models are demonstrably wrong even using the added temperature “adjustments” of those hoping for the world to go up in smoke. Now lets look at your bell curve: the equatorial zone (20 degrees either side of the equator) which gets most of the suns energy, shows little or no warming over long periods (Lagos, Nigeria is the same temperature now that it was when I first went there in the mid 1960s). It transports its heat both in ocean currents and in convection cells (Hadley cells) rising up from the equatorial zone and transporting it poleward. The IPCC scientists and skeptic scientists agree that warming is concentrated more in polar regions (polar enhancement) which can go up several degrees. But Harrry, we are talking about warming the arctic and antarctica (which doesn’t even seem to be happening there yet) by several degrees, i.e. from 50 below to 45 below. The global average might be 0.7 to 1.4C more with little change in the tropical zone.

      • Why? Temperature probability distributions follow a Bell curve, the probability of a cold extreme to the left, the average is the peak in the middle, the probability of a hot extreme to the right. So if you shift the average 4C to the right, the probability of a hot extreme get shifted to the right as well.

        If you live in an area prone to heat waves (like I do), it is not something to look forward to. I have been in a 48C heat wave and the roads started to melt.

Comments are closed.