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.
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.
Where do the 900 go for their holidays? Has any of them ever chosen to go somewhere at least 2 degrees warmer than the Netherlands?
“… 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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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???
Sorry to blow your theory to pieces. Look at Australia. It takes people with guts to make an infertile place fertile.
I thought it took rabbits and women.
jlurtz
Both are a pest but we put up with the rabbits
Poor countries also have fertile soils.
So it isn’t just the soil. Sorry to burst your bubble.
2 degrees and a bit more CO2 would
produce an absolute plant paradise.
After the World Bank imposed the ban on clean water projects for developing countries, localsseem somewhat non-plussed about “2 Degrees”….
‘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 ?
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.
Can be summed up thusly, Imagine, Estimate, Exaggerate, Extrapolate. Otherwise known as the Bedwetters Proof of CAGW.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Gary Pearse,
I said “If the average temperature goes up by 4C”.
Why?
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.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Bellcurve2.jpg