This note by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley uses methods and data exclusively from mainstream climate science to constrain the interval of 21st-century global warming.
In 2009 the Copenhagen climate summit asserted, on little evidence, that global warming of 2 C° compared with pre-industrial temperature [equivalent to 1.1 C° above today] would be dangerous. The UK Climate Change Committee said in 2015: “If we make no efforts to cut global use of fossil fuels, global warming is likely to reach between 2-7°C this century with further warming beyond.” A Science editorial in July 2015 said:
“Let’s act now, to save the next generations from the consequences of the beyond-two-degree inferno.”
Equilibrium climate sensitivity ΔT to a CO2 doubling is given by (1),
ΔT = λ0 ΔF (1 – λ0 f ) –1, (1)
where the Planck sensitivity parameter λ0 = 0.3125 K W–1 m2 (IPCC AR4, p. 631 fn.); the CO2 forcing ΔF is generally taken as 5.35 ln 2 W m–2 (Myhre et al, 1998; IPCC TAR); and uncertainty in constraining ΔT arises chiefly from the feedback sum f, for which IPCC’s estimates (best estimates are in bold face) were cut from 1.95 [1.55, 2.35] W m–2 K–1 in AR4 to 1.55 [1.00, 2.25] W m–2 K–1 in AR5 (Fig. 9.43(a), detail):
The mainstream climate sensitivity estimates to a CO2 doubling, at 1-8 below, reveal a monotonic decline from SAR to AR5, which readopts the interval in FAR (cf. Charney (1979, p. 4), though AR5 states no central estimate, which should, however, have been given as 2.2 K where f = 1.55 W m–2 K–1 (8 below).
| Est. | Source / basis | Sensitivity |
| 1 | IPCC SAR (17 models: AR4, p. 798, box 10.2) | 3.8 [3.0, 4.6] K |
| 2 | IPCC TAR (15 models: AR4, p. 798, box 10.2) | 3.5 [2.6, 4.4] K |
| 3 | IPCC AR4 (18 models: AR4, p. 798, box 10.2) | 3.3 [2.6, 4.0] K |
| 4 | IPCC AR4 stated interval | 3.0 [2.0, 4.5] K |
| 5 | IPCC AR4 implicit interval from (1), where f falls on 1.95[1.55, 2.35] | 3.0 [2.2, 4.4] K |
| 6 | IPCC FAR stated interval (cf. Charney, 1979, p. 4) | 3.0 [1.5, 4.5] K |
| 7 | IPCC AR5 stated interval | [1.5, 4.5] K |
| 8 | IPCC AR5 implicit interval from (1), where f falls on 1.55[1.00, 2.25] | 2.2 [1.7, 3.9] K |
| Warming to 2100 | ||
| 9 | Only half of equilibrium warming will arise in the century after a forcing | 1.1 [0.9, 2.0] K |
| 10 | Forcings rise linearly so that ~50% of warming will occur by 2100 | 0.6 [0.4, 1.0] K |
IPCC 21st-century warming estimates indicate that it assumes, in line with Roe (2009), that only half of equilibrium warming will occur in the first 100 years after a forcing (9 above). Furthermore, forcing does not arrive as a single pulse but increases over the century, halving the in-century warming (10) and putting the remainder in the following century, by which time fossil fuels will approach exhaustion. Remaining warming to equilibrium at 2.2 K above today would be spread over the subsequent 1000-3000 years (Solomon et al., 2009), allowing plenty of time for adaptation.
Conclusion: No warming has yet arisen this century. Warming may be 0.6 K by 2100, could be as low as 0.4 K and will not exceed 1 K. Allowing for negative aerosol forcings in SAR to AR5, or for net-negative temperature feedbacks (Lindzen & Choi, 2011; Spencer & Braswell, 2011; Monckton of Brenchley, 2015), warming may well not reach these values, but is most unlikely to exceed them.
Climate Policy – the greatest parasitic infection of humans ever. Not just in the minds of the pompous prats running around pretending to be our morally superior betters, but in the destruction of wealth and well-being for ALL of humanity.
In the normal term “the destruction of wealth etc…” is true, but despite claiming to have uber long-term views,
I suspect the CAGW serial publishers and criers have their eyes firmly on next months pay-check and the seemingly unending expense accounts for overseas junkets….as in
“Lake Como looks nice at this time of year”, and “what shall we do with our quality time in gay Pareee my dear?
And lost opportunity costs compound. We have already damaged our descendants with this descent into climate policy madness.
=========
Control of Carbon is the key to control – of us. A socialist wet dream.
Why would you say “carbon”? That’s the propaganda. It’s CO2 they’re talking about.
“Why would you say “carbon”? That’s the propaganda. It’s CO2 they’re talking about.
Exactamundo!
A subtle but pervasive and effective bit player in the overall meme, but important nonetheless.
Do not propagate any part of their spiel.
No one seems to be able to identify what is the “optimal” climate… and for whom. It’s just that any change has to be bad. Well, maybe we might be better off with a 2°C average increase.
“By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth’s great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.”
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
Overall solar output will be the critical factor in the global temperature move towards 2100.
Having in mind the sun’s 100 year output modulation, probability of initial fall and subsequent return to the current levels is the most optimistic outcome. However, if the forthcoming solar minimum turns into Dalton or even Maunder type minimum than prognosis for many is dire.
Happy 4th of July to all US citizens
vukcevic
July 4, 2015 at 11:22 am
Happy 4th of July to all US citizens
———————
THANKS !!!
What about Green Card holders ?
The sun shines on all, just as do drop the gentle mercies of God given rights.
==============
Sun that gives all things birth
Shine on everything on earth!
If that’s too much to demand
Shine at least on this our land
If even that’s too much for thee
Shine at any rate on me
Piet Hein (Danish Poet, 1905-1996)
@Isvalgaard , Piet Hein was a Dutch naval hero. Same guy? Maybe not I guess . I think the Dutch one has a famous Dutch folk song after capturing the Spanish “Silver Fleet ” during the war between Spain and Holland ( One of those wars that lasted for decades.)
Not same guy. My guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Hein_(scientist)
Thanks, Vukcevic! I wish i could understand Croatian, but it looks like a tribute to how things grow with more CO2.
Ah! Song To The Sun! Of course! Thanks Google translator.
Dawtgtomis, correct on both accounts
Sun ce = Sun
Sun, water and CO2 make our beautiful planet habitable and prosper ! !
That region has no industry worth mentioning, however it has the highest concentration of CO2 anywhere in Europe; it all comes from tectonic movements and frequent earthquakes (white dots on the map).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SEE-CO2.jpg
“From my experience in the power generation industry and former coworkers I still am in contact with, mothballed coal units can be brought back to operation within a day’s time…”
Dawtgtomis,
As it seems unlikely this fact is lost on warmistas, we should expect that the regulations that force these plants to become unprofitable or illegal to run (forced decommissioning), will be followed up with forced dismantling of decommissioned plants.
I wonder…
What would be worse: to continue down the current path to insanity, with the resultant deaths caused by green policies, or,
to experience real solar-induced climate change that would immediately force people to reconsider CO2 reduction schemes?
Perhaps the survival instinct would kick in, and with this newly awakened awareness, humanity would embrace reality-based solutions. I think probably less dire for many more.
Glenn
That is not a choice. Whether we like it or not we will experience solar induced climate change. Reducing CO² will likely have NONE or very LITTLE overall effect.
StephenRichards
I hope you are right, and that it happens quickly. I’m afraid of the direction this world is going. And yes I agree with you about the co2 of life…
I’m responding to the fear of freezing to death by a Maunder minimum type of event coupled with the insane anti co2 policies of closing down energy producing plants that I’ve seen people expressing, versus the slow and certain death caused by green policies.
Glenn999, From my experience in the power generation industry and former coworkers I still am in contact with, mothballed coal units can be brought back to operation within a day’s time, as long as the turbine has been kept on turning gear to keep the shaft true (otherwise you must roll and heat the turbine for up to several days until your instrumentation shows the shaft is straight) . Often there are coal mill or burner glitches from moisture, etc. but the operators know how to get those fixed pronto as they sometimes happen anyway.
The need will always be there, for fossil fueled generation, until an equally flexible source of generation is perfected (nuclear and hydro are base load generation and do not provide the ‘peaking ability’ to follow hourly load changes).
This peaking ability is even more necessary when the unpredictable sources of solar and wind introduce a chaotic effect to the grid. You can only shift so much energy to other parts of the grid so fast, and after that you are losing money as the Germans found out. Even mothballed, the company holds them valuable.
“Having in mind the sun’s 100 year output modulation, probability of initial fall and subsequent return to the current levels is the most optimistic outcome”
Cooling is my largest concern as well. I do not know how one might calculate any odds or make any prognostications regarding the amount of such, should it indeed occur.
But it seems clear that significant cooling is far more likely to be detrimental to human society and the biosphere on the whole, than some few degrees of hypothetical warming.
Cold and ice kill nearly everything.
Warmth allows life to flourish and prosper.
Colder means drier, which is likewise a detriment.
Warmer means a more humid atmosphere overall, and is historically correlated very closely with beneficent conditions.
Besides for all of that, a downturn in global temperatures would seem to be the fastest way to erase this meme as a cultural issue and political football, and restore some sanity to both the scientific process and economic policy making.
-2°C or not -2°C, that is the question….
Sticking it down is as unjustified as sticking it up.
Let’s keep calm and look for what we can know.
And happy 4th of July to all US citizens too.
I’m still waiting 2C … not much happening.
“Still waiting for Greenhouse” will grow in respect with the revelations time engenders.
The worst scenario is one where freak climate policies are enforced and when there is no thermagedon (which would never happen anyway) they would say that we have been saved by activists and politicians from certain doom, and something worse would come from them afterwards. Like the 2000 cyber-glitch, which would stop the world in its tracks at december 31th 1999.
The overuse of endtimes rhetoric has led to endtimes for the rhetoric. I expect the foolishness to flourish even more grandiloquently before its inevitable demise. There should be much opportunity for ridicule, and for hope.
===========
We need some new Mother Goose stories to warn children in centuries to come about the foolishness of this century. For example, “The Mann who cried, ‘Stick ’em up!’ ” – and – “Roly Poly sat on some ice…” – and – “Pachauri, Pachauri where have been…” etc. etc.
“where have you been…”
Guillermo,
Ordinarily I would heartily agree that activists will claim that their policies have saved us (witness Obama’s relentless claims of having saved the economy despite this being the most sluggish recovery since FDR), but in the climate realm I can’t quite see that working.
China and India will never agree to limits, and they are already producing most of the increase. Hence, CO2 levels are going to rise regardless of how draconian western regulations become. True, the alarmists might very well destroy the western economies, and they certainly seem eager to achieve that, but I don’t see China and India agreeing to suicide themselves just to please western moral preeners.
How then will activists be able to claim they have saved the planet given that CO2 levels are almost certainly going to continue to go up according to their “worst case” scenario?
The Chinese covered their chagrin at the failure of the shakedown of the developed West at Copenhagen by pretending outrage at the panicked, last minute neo-colonial maneuverings of one Obama.
This one? Why they’re still setting the stage. Stars haven’t got their lines or notes memorized. The choreography? Who’s in charge of that?
It’ll be grand, just you watch, Energy Iggins, just you watch.
======================
“How then will activists be able to claim they have saved the planet given that CO2 levels are almost certainly going to continue to go up according to their “worst case” scenario?”
========================================================================
Obama agreed to China increasing emissions as rapidly as possible until 2030, and proclaimed this a great victory. The “elites” have great faith in their ability to fool the masses. If they want “peer reviewed” scientific papers showing how they saved the world, they will get them. These folk have no moral compass, and they have expertise in creating any rubber ruler they wish, as evidenced by the changes in C.S thus far.
Unfortunately saving the world from them, the poverty they create and the global inharmony that results, will be the challenge.
China and India will never agree to limits
=======================
They will Agree in return for a US promise to pay. The US will make many promises but only make token payments. There will be only token actions in return.
Promises cost nothing. Both sides will make them. These promises will most assuredly be broken, because to keep them will cost money. big money.
Each side will look at the broken promises of the other side as evidence the other side cannot be trusted. The path to war is paved with broken promises. Promises made knowing they would never be honored.
“Son, your ego is writing checks your body can’t cash.”
If you look up figures for world coal production you find China produces 3.5 billion tonnes annually which is about half of the world’s annual production; they also import coal from other countries. Irrespective of what the rest of the world does in terms of carbon abatement it really will not make much difference.
China plays the propaganda game well. Better than the West.
Just this past week they have declared that emissions will peak before 2030 ad decline thereafter.
Whether or not this has any chance of actually occurring is moot, as it is only the words spoken at the present time that have propaganda value.
As noted above, promises mean nothing, rubber rules where made to be bent, and a lot can happen in fifteen years.
At the very least the players will have switched seats.
Who has ever been held to account for vague promises made fifteen years prior?
…2030 and…
…rules were…
They can very well manipulate emissions records which are much less standarized than temperature records(which they already have “corrected”).
They can alter climate change effects as well , just moving issues from the evergrowing list of ACGW to natural causes, and negative effects can be solved by the stroke of a pen. A combination of these and temperature corrections, natural or industrial/human/rancher emissions limits goals or records and catastrophic efffects and they can paint whatever scenario their warped narrative desires, like they do today, to say that x or y policy worked or not.
Combine that with their “right to be forgotten” and their past claims and false assumptions will be blocked from public knowledge.
Lying is what liers do.
liars
[Reposted with edits from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/#comment-1953969%5D
Ah, I had forgotten where the 2C° hand wringing had started from, thanks for the reminder.
One thing that the latest NCDC temperature history has done is to make it look like we’ve had nice, steady warming for a long time. Karl et al says:
Hey, it’s not as bad as we thought – at this rate it will take nearly two centuries from the 1950s to see the dreaded +2C° temperature rise. Dang, I’ll miss it.
A little thought experiment on the “the consequences of the beyond-two-degree inferno.”
Sioux Falls, SD Annual Average Temperature: 45.6°F or 7.6 °C
Lincoln, NE Annual Average Temperature: 51.5°F or 10.8 °C
Iowa City, IA Annual Average Temperature: 51.2°F or 10.7 °C
Sioux Falls to Lincoln is 236 miles by road.
Sorry to hear everyone has died there with this 3 degree average increase.
Although I have heard there may still be people living in KC, but we know Alarmist must be lying at +6 degrees
Kansas City, MO Annual Average temperature: 56.7°F or 13.7 °C
And the devil must now be mayor in the hell town.
San Antonio, TX Annual Average temperature: 68.7°F or 20.4 °C
all data from – http://www.usclimatedata.com/
When Gore and Hansen first began preaching against the sins of global warming, it was not just the warming caused by more CO2 that would be a problem. It was mostly the warming caused by positive feedbacks that would doom us all. The feedbacks, we were told, would eventually cause “runaway global warming” that would “boil” the oceans and turn us into Venus. But evidence of those positive feedbacks has yet to materialize. What steadily increasing CO2 over the past couple of decades, with very little warming, has shown us is that the feedbacks have not been positive. If anything, they are negative because we have not experienced the amount of warming that CO2 alone, without feedbacks, should produce. It was my impression that the main reason 2 degrees of warming would be dangerous was because of the positive feedbacks that would pile on later. So, if those positive feedbacks do not occur, why would another degree or two of warming be a problem?
Yep, pathological liars often forget their web of whoppers. Doofus Trenberth and his gang have yet to come up with a positive feedback effect for warming at the bottom of the oceans.
The history of the entire meme has been a slow smarmy metamorphosis of one lie into another. as various dire warnings fell by the wayside, and others gradually replaced them.
Runaway warming, superstorms and more of them, accelerating ice melt and sea rise, desertification and water shortages due to glaciers shrinking…one can scarcely keep up with the new crap, much less recall all of the old.
Another of the early scare stories was that higher CO2 would allow weeds to grow faster, but food crops to grow slower. Or some such nonsense. This lie had seemed to wither on the vine, but has recently been attempting a resurrection.
Lord Monckton, you may recall my pointing out in your previous post that RSS’s north of 60N TLT 1979 to present shows a linear increase of 0.321C/decade, down from 0.323C/decade last year and that, in fact, since 2006 it has shown <0C/decade – Arctic amplification peaked and is trending down. I note today that for their graph 60S to 70S that in the Antarctic region, their linear trend has steepened from -0.17C/decade to -0.19C/decade, just updated this past week or so. I think the polar amplification "tipping point" is an excellent, sensitive vernier of the global future temp. trend since it represents an exaggeration of global warming in the warming phase. Let us see where Antarctic ice extent goes by Feb/Mar 2016 and Arctic minimum is in Sept this year. Look how the 60/70S graph has dropped off this year:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_northern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
I'm opting for your lower 2100C temperature. Also, perhaps you would consider doing with these two graphs what you do with the global temperature graphs in terms of the 'pause' for your next update.
The estimated peak CO2 concentration is about 630 ppm if we use what I consider a reasonable estimate of fossil fuel reserves. I think running out of fossil fuels is a bigger problem than global warming.
Fernando Leanme July 4, 2015 at 11:48 am
I think running out of fossil fuels is a bigger problem than global warming.
Worth repeating as I don’t think many people understand the consequences of running out of fossil fuels. On the US east coast there is significant opposition from the usual suspects, to offshore exploration for oil and gas. There are alternatives to coal and natural gas, but not oil, primarily used for transportation. Via letters to the editor in local newspapers I have been asking how people think they will get to work, school, the doctor, etc. without gasoline made from oil. City dwellers may have an answer but half of the world does not live in urban areas.
You will have liquid fuel allotment. You may have an electric sheep.
===========
The likelihood of running out of fossil fuels is exceedingly slim, as if and when real scarcity occurs, the price will rise and it will become economically and technologically feasible to recover ever higher proportions of the immense resource base until eventually alternative energy sources become cheaper. The premise that oil can be replaced in transportation today usually rests upon the belief that the entire transportation system can be electrified and that non-fossil fuel-based, non-nuclear sources of electricity generation will be deployed to provide the energy needed. Further, the International Energy Agency, a usually credible source (although not in this case) is advising policy makers that this can be mostly accomplished in the industrialized countries by 2050, a whole 35 years away. Meanwhile, despite government subsidies to purchasers of $7500 per vehicle, there are only about 25,000 electric vehicles on the road in the US, or about 0.1 % of the total. We are also supposed to believe that a breakthrough is low-cost storage of electrical energy is imminent and that the storage systems will be marketed at a speed never previously seen outside the field of computer technology. I think that, given all this, even the city dwellers will be waiting a long, long time before they can meet all of their transportation needs from non-oil-powered sources.
coal to liquid….http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldcoal.org%2Fcoal%2Fuses-of-coal%2Fcoal-to-liquids%2F
Menicholas:
Thankyou for that. I needed it.
Richard
“electric sheep”
A robot’s dream!
Fernando Leanme and pmhinsc:
There is no foreseeable problem of “running out of fossil fuels”.
Sufficient coal exists for at least 600 years and some estimates suggest 1,000 years.
In the nineteenth century it was feared that required future transport needs could not be met because there would be insufficient potential to grow hay for all the horses. But only two centuries later, transport is not limited by availability of hay. Similarly, it cannot be known what – if any – need for fossil fuels will exist in the twentyfourth century.
And there is no foreseeable problem of running out of oil (i.e. the peak oil myth).
Synthetic crude oil (syncrude) can be made from coal: embargoes against oil imports were overcome by use of the Fischer Tropsch Process in WW2 Germany and for decades in apartheid South Africa. Since 1994 the Liquid Solvent Extraction (LSE) Process has enabled syncrude production from coal at a competitive cost with crude and this constrains the true cost of crude.
Richard
There are known reserves of coal of 500 years or more in Australia alone at current consumption rates. So reserves of coal globally are likely to extend well beyond 1000 years. It is indeed time to use it and not leave it in the ground!
Sorry Richard, I did not see your comment until after I posted.
Peak resource is not a myth but a mathematical certainty given a limited resource and an increasing rate of consumption. We haven’t seen any coal to oil production despite sustained high oil prices between 2010-2014. This strongly suggests that it is not economically viable at an oil price that our economy is capable of accepting.
As the oil industry is drastically cutting investment in future oil exploration and development and the global number of oil rigs has decreased drastically, peak oil could be as early as… 2015-16.
Ask yourself why oil price is at $60/b with sluggish global economic performance, when back in 1995-2004 it was at $30/b and we had strong growth. World economic problems are more related to lack of cheap oil than most people are ready to accept.
Javier:
I wonder if you gave any thought before writing this nonsense
At issue is whether exhaustion of fossil fuels is a foreseeable problem; and it is NOT a foreseeable problem. What may or may not be a mathematical certainty is not relevant.
Similarly, it is a certainty that the entire world will exhaust when the Sun becomes a a Red Giant but there are no actions that this certainty now requires.
Your economic ignorance is immense. As I said, since 1994 LSE syncrude production from coal has had a competitive cost with crude and this constrains the true cost of crude.
There has been no investment in syncrude manufacture because crude is sufficiently available for it to be cheap. And that – of itself – is evidence that there is no shortage of crude. Investment in syncrude infrastructure would be stopped by increased production of crude to provide a temporary glut of crude with resulting low price of crude.
Oil producers have an ~40 year planning horizon. When they have less than ~40 years of reserves then they pay for more to be found. When they have ~40 years of reserves then they don’t pay for more reserves to be found and developed.
There is no foreseeable problem of peak oil.
Richard
Friends:
I have often posted my brief explanation of why Malthusianism is nonsensical. However, as this thread demonstrates, ‘peak oil’ believers persist in promoting their irrational belief which is part of the daft idea that the world is overpopulated by people. Therefore, I here again post the explanation.
The fallacy of overpopulation derives from the disproved Malthusian idea which wrongly assumes that humans are constrained like bacteria in a Petri dish: i.e. population expands until available resources are consumed when population collapses. The assumption is wrong because humans do not suffer such constraint: humans find and/or create new and alternative resources when existing resources become scarce.
The obvious example is food.
In the 1970s the Club of Rome predicted that human population would have collapsed from starvation by now. But human population has continued to rise and there are fewer starving people now than in the 1970s; n.b. there are less starving people in total and not merely fewer in percentage.
Now, the most common Malthusian assertion is ‘peak oil’. But humans need energy supply and oil is only one source of energy supply. Adoption of natural gas displaces some requirement for oil, fracking increases available oil supply at acceptable cost; etc..
In the real world, for all practical purposes there are no “physical” limits to natural resources so every natural resource can be considered to be infinite; i.e. the human ‘Petri dish’ can be considered as being unbounded. This a matter of basic economics which I explain as follows.
Humans do not run out of anything although they can suffer local and/or temporary shortages of anything. The usage of a resource may “peak” then decline, but the usage does not peak because of exhaustion of the resource (e.g. flint, antler bone and bronze each “peaked” long ago but still exist in large amounts).
A resource is cheap (in time, money and effort) to obtain when it is in abundant supply. But “low-hanging fruit are picked first”, so the cost of obtaining the resource increases with time. Nobody bothers to seek an alternative to a resource when it is cheap.
But the cost of obtaining an adequate supply of a resource increases with time and, eventually, it becomes worthwhile to look for
(a) alternative sources of the resource
and
(b) alternatives to the resource.
And alternatives to the resource often prove to have advantages.
For example, both (a) and (b) apply in the case of crude oil.
Many alternative sources have been found. These include opening of new oil fields by use of new technologies (e.g. to obtain oil from beneath sea bed) and synthesising crude oil from other substances (e.g. tar sands, natural gas and coal). Indeed, since 1994 it has been possible to provide synthetic crude oil from coal at competitive cost with natural crude oil and this constrains the maximum true cost of crude.
Alternatives to oil as a transport fuel are possible. Oil was the transport fuel of military submarines for decades but uranium is now their fuel of choice.
There is sufficient coal to provide synthetic crude oil for at least the next 300 years. Hay to feed horses was the major transport fuel 300 years ago and ‘peak hay’ was feared in the nineteenth century, but availability of hay is not a significant consideration for transportation today. Nobody can know what – if any – demand for crude oil will exist 300 years in the future.
Indeed, coal also demonstrates an ‘expanding Petri dish’.
Spoil heaps from old coal mines contain much coal that could not be usefully extracted from the spoil when the mines were operational. Now, modern technology enables the extraction from the spoil at a cost which is economic now and would have been economic if it had been available when the spoil was dumped.
These principles not only enable growing human population: they also increase human well-being.
The ingenuity which increases availability of resources also provides additional usefulness to the resources. For example, abundant energy supply and technologies to use it have freed people from the constraints of ‘renewable’ energy and the need for the power of muscles provided by slaves and animals. Malthusians are blind to the obvious truth that human ingenuity has freed humans from the need for slaves to operate treadmills, the oars of galleys, etc..
And these benefits also act to prevent overpopulation because population growth declines with affluence.
There are several reasons for this. Of most importance is that poor people need large families as ‘insurance’ to care for them at times of illness and old age. Affluent people can pay for that ‘insurance’ so do not need the costs of large families.
The result is that the indigenous populations of rich countries decline. But rich countries need to sustain population growth for economic growth so they need to import – and are importing – people from poor countries. Increased affluence in poor countries can be expected to reduce their population growth with resulting lack of people for import by rich countries.
Hence, the real foreseeable problem is population decrease; n.b. not population increase.
All projections and predictions indicate that human population will peak around the middle of this century and decline after that. So, we are confronted by the probability of ‘peak population’ resulting from growth of affluence around the world.
The Malthusian idea is wrong because it ignores basic economics and applies a wrong model; human population is NOT constrained by resources like the population of bacteria in a Petri dish. There is no existing or probable problem of overpopulation of the world by humans.
Richard
“As the oil industry is drastically cutting investment in future oil exploration and development ”
Might this be due to prices being recently halved?
Are rapidly falling prices for a resource a sign of an imminent and permanent shortage?
Has it ever been?
Thanks for the information. My concern was not that we would exhaust all available oil as it was whether those opposed to exploration for oil would prevail and convince society to stop producing oil. Perhaps poorly phrased but the intent was to ask those opposing oil to consider the consequences of their actions. Although I also follow Climate Etc., I get more useful information for commenters at WUWT.
My next door neighbour has been in the oil business for more than two decades, anywhere from Aberdeen to Angola, from Norway to Nigeria, and he says that the jobs on all levels are decimated and investment in research and new technology is the lowest ever.
pmhinsc:
Thanks for your comment that says
I suggest that you look-out for my post in this sub-thread that was posted several hours ago (at July 5, 2015 at 5:36 am) but is still in moderation (I assume because of the present shortage of Moderators). You may find the contents of that post useful when it does appear.
Richard
Mods.:
I now have two posts awaiting appearance and one of them points to the fact that the other has yet to appear. I know you are under much pressure but I would be grateful if my posts could be resurrected from the ‘bin’.
Richard
Patience Mr. Courtney, holiday weekend here. People have lives.
Sometimes I think you think you own this blog, not the other way around.
Mods:
Sincere thanks for your rapid response to my request.
Richard
Mr Watts:
I apologise that I failed to phrase my request to the Mods in a manner that did not inform you that I intended to indicate I was intending patience, understanding and politeness.
However, I point out that my thanks to the Mods were minutes before your admonition of me.
Richard
“Humans do not run out of anything although they can suffer local and/or temporary shortages of anything”
Mr. Courtney,
I have to disagree with this part of your statement, as I have long since run out of patience with the warmistas.
I believe birth rates are more closely and precisely correlated with the educational rate and level of women in a a particular society, country, or culture. (excluding, that is, artificial political controls on birth, such as occurred in China in years past.)
Note those places that actively seek to prohibit education of women and when efforts to do such were intensified.
Menicholas:
Thankyou for that. I needed it.
Richard
PS This is a repost because it first appeared in the wrong place.
New paper finds no warming from increased co2 or methane. From Hockeyschtick link. Sounds a bit similar to what Willis Eschenbach was getting to in his cloud theory.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/new-paper-finds-increased-co2-or.html
And then there is this , a critique that this “new” paper may be the third in a line of similar papers by the same author.
http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/khilyuk-and-chilingar.html
Then there are these which also explains and agrees with the first article/link above, but in a separate, individual study.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/why-atmospheric-mass-not-radiation-p1/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/why-atmospheric-mass-not-radiation-p2/
OMG! I love the title!!
Increase of 2 degrees Celsius would be catastrophic for the inhabitants of the high latitudes. Celsius set 0 degrees for the boiling and 100 degrees for the freezing temperature of water.
For 2 degrees Centigrade (J.P. Cristin) it is the reverse.
Of course, it’s a completely artificial line in the sand. There is a continuum, and despite Richard Tol’s pioneering efforts to demonstrate this, and to lower the risks higher, there is no evidence from paleontology that warming ever reaches a limit of net detriment to the biome.
We can’t raise the temperature of the earth enough, or fast enough, to hurt us, and it will also obviously benefit us. The greening is a miracle, long to be remembered, long past when the heating is gone.
===============
“echo” I just got it. Thanks Roy.
michael
In reply to Roy Spencer, Anthony gets the credit for the wonderful headline on this post.
To sea, and not to see?
=========
You see, it is to see or not to see 2C in the sea?
2C is arbitrary. Schellnhuber of Potsdam Institute made it up and it has become gospel. There is no hard science anywhere saying it results in harm or tipping points. Just repeated talking points. Little point to ‘disproving’ a warmunist phantasmagoria, IMO. Better to show that 2C is arbitrary nonsense, because that exposes the weak unscientific underbelly of CAGW. No C.
Chris, if I may – to continue your soliloquy:
2 Deg C, or not 2 Deg C–that is the question:
Whether T is nobler in the hindcast, or suffers
The Slingos and Betts of outrageous fortune-telling,
Or to take warming in a sea of Roubles
And by opposing end them. To lie, to schlep–
No more–and by a schlep to say we tend
To bellyache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. T is a consummation
Devoutly to be wished….et al
I commend you thus, a tragedy.
Or there’s Hamlet’s soliloquy as rewritten by IPCC bureaucrats:
“To be, or the contrary? Whether the former or the latter be preferable would seem to admit of some difference of opinion, the answer in the present case being of an affirmative or of a negative character according as to whether one elects on the one hand mentally to endure the disfavor of fortune, albeit in an extreme degree, or on the other boldly to envisage adverse conditions in the prospect of eventually bringing them to a conclusion. The condition of sleep is similar to, if not indistinguishable from, that of death; and, with the addition of finality, the former might be considered identical with the latter, so that in this connection it might be argued with regard to sleep that, could the addition be effected, a termination would be put to the endurance of a multiplicity of inconveniences incidental to our fallen nature, and thus a consummation achieved of a most gratifying nature.”
I dream of genie with coal carbon hair.
============
http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Jeannie-and-Her-Twin-Sister-i-dream-of-jeannie-6447055-400-313.jpg
Just for a second let’s say: “What if one of the models is correct about global temperature rise correlation with increasing CO2, and somehow we manage to reduce the rate of CO2 accumulation thereby keeping temperature anomaly at 1.9 C by 2100.” Then we are all doomed when? 2120 or so? Ok, so we saved the planet for our children , but not their grandchildren. It is all our fault, and they will hate us as they slowly succumb to wildly fluctuating temperature swings, prolonged severe droughts, prolonged severe floods, rising sea level, uncontrolled spread of new diseases, death of coral reefs, migration of voles to higher altitudes loss of alpine skiing.
Bernie, you are’t looking at this the right way. Actually our sacrifices today will provide a more environmentally comfortable life for the next two generations. Then the following generation will hate them, not us.
Betty, or Veronica, that is the question.
The catastrophe of the migrating voles and thawed wastelands!
Oh, the humanity!
Streuth, did they really say “beyond-two-degree inferno”?
I’m going to file that one next to The Poseidon Adventure.
MH: Or: Towering? Dantes? whatever? [grin]
The key point about this posting is that it uses exclusively mainstream climate science from “official” sources. And yet it shows just 0.6 C warming this century, or 1.0 C at most. It will be intriguing to see whether the usual suspects are able to show that there is anything materially wrong with the argument and, therefore, with the conclusion.
You know they will and I take it personally because observing weather as a Meteorologist for over three decades, it just drives me crazy. That and there are so many processes that contribute to any rise or fall of sea levels and temperatures.
A time constant greater than a century doesn’t make sense either. If the time constant was that long, we wouldn’t be seeing any differences between summer and winter, even at the poles where its dark for half the year. The satellite data tells us that the average ocean temperatures exhibit a seasonal variability of about 4C in the S hemisphere and about 5C in the N hemisphere for a net change of 1C p-p during a year. This indicates ocean time constants on the order of a year or two, but not centuries. The ebb and flow of ice is slower, but if you calculate the effect if all the ice was permanently gone, it would only be enough incremental input power to support about half of the global 3C rise claimed just from doubling CO2. Keep in mind that 2/3 of the ice is covered by clouds and the decrease in surface reflectivity has no effect.
It never ceases to amaze me how once they get an answer they want to see, they can no longer see the errors that led them to the wrong answer.
Just FYI. There is a lot of evidence in peer reviewed papers showing most transient climate effects operate inside a 15 year window, or so. Stuff like albedo from snow or greening/browning. Most of the rest is linked to ocean thermal inertia (basically the difference between TCR and ECS). That depends on ocean thermohaline circulation, which is very roughly ~800 years, and not coincidentally about the same as the deltaT to delta CO2 lag. Take TCR/ECS as about 0.75 and observationally everything starts to fall into a consistent place. From now, TCR takes us to about 2100. Since atmospheric CO2 will not have doubled by 2100, I agree with Lord Monckton’s conclusions but not fully with his reasoning. Alternatively, plug an observational f (sum of feedbacks) into his equation above and you reach his conclusion another way. f~ 0.25-0.3 says water vapor feedback halved, or slightly less than halved, cloud feedback zero or slightly negative. Both directional f estimates have good supporting observational evidence developed elsewhere, discussed in my comments and posts on his his irreducibly simple equation paper. They also foot to the newer century long energy balance approaches to TCR and ECS using only the IPCC estimates, as Lord Monckton has done above. See for example Lewis and Curry 2014, or Lewis 2015.
Yes. I also think cloud feedback is highly variable, and may have thermostatic potential.
===========
Feedback is the most misunderstood aspect of climate science, largely because of an invalid mapping between the climate system and Bode’s control theory that quantifies feedback and gain. The biggest issue is with positive feedback that at 100% assumes infinite amplification, while the COE constraint of passive gain limits the maximum amplification at 100% feedback to just 2. While the apparent feedback is certainly variable, its average value is relatively constant and results in an average gain of about 1.6, where each W/m^2 of input forcing results in an average of 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions and owing to the T^4 dependency between temperature and power, the incremental sensitivity must be less than 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of incremental forcing. Note that the 385 W/m^2 of surface emissions consequential to its average temperature of 287K is the LTE result from 239 W/m^2 of forcing and includes the effects of all apparent feedback positive, negative, known and unknown.
ristavan, the current rate of ocean warming, accepting argo adjusted numbers without error bars, must limit ECS severely as the difference between ocean T and land T must have severe limitations.
“It never ceases to amaze me how once they get an answer they want to see, they can no longer see the errors that led them to the wrong answer.”
That is a pretty good summary of the human condition. It can be argued that the highest level of self awareness is the ability to see ones own errors.
why do you think the Earth’s climate has only one time constant?
Express the climate as Pi = Po + dE/dt, where Pi is the post albedo input power, Po is the power emitted by the planet, E is the energy stored by the planet and dE/dt is the instantaneous difference between Pi and Po (forcing, per the IPCC definition) and the rate of change of E.
Next, arbitrarily define an amount of time, tau, such that all of E can be exhausted in time tau at the rate Po. Rewriting, we get,
Pi = E/tau + dE/dt
This is the exact form of the LTE that describes an RC circuit whose solutions are well known and whose time constant is tau. From its transfer function and the ratio between the p-p variability of Po, relative to the p-p variability of Pi in response to seasonal variability, we can calculate a time constant which is a bit over 1 year for the N hemisphere and somewhat less than 2 years for the S hemisphere, the difference being a consequence of the relative ratio of ocean (longer time constant) to land (shorter time constant).
Pi = Po + dE/dt
http://s281.photobucket.com/user/TigerSharkDude/media/drooling-homer-simpson.jpg.html
I think your range is right. Three reasons. First, stadium wave and Arctic ice cycles both suggest a continuation of natural variation ‘cooling’ into the 2030’s. Too much to catch up thereafter. Second, the solar cycle quiet sun phase we seem to be entering. Third, atmospheric CO2 cannot double from here to 800ppm by 2100. FernandoLeanme is right. Gaia’s Limits contains exhaustive arguments and evidence from many sources. Oil, quite solid. Coal, fairly solid. Natural gas most uncertain, but then NG combustion emits the least CO2. So only some fraction (2/3? 3/4?) of the energy budget 70 year TCR of ~1.3 could happen by 2100, and that not via the linear 1%/year to doubling in 70 years that TCR assumes. So worst obswrvational case is TCR 1.3 times 0.75 CO2 = 0.97C by 2100. Hope these alternative perspectives will strengthen and enrich your conclusion by trianglation from different angles. Regards
Or, if they will, as usual, just ignore it and let the press continue to exaggerate every weather event a smidgen outside of the norm into “evidence” of an anthropogenic climate catastrophe.
Interestingly, I just read a lovely article in National Geographic on the apparently deliberate destruction of the Aral Sea, which (when it was started) was the fourth largest inland sea in the world. Now all that is left is a couple of oversized puddles and a desert that spawns poisonous dust storms whenever the wind blows, which is nearly all the time. This real anthropogenic climate catastrophe was caused by Joseph Stalin, who decreed that cotton farming in a near-desert region entirely unsuitable for it was more important than maintaining the water levels of the Aral sea. Irrigation canals were then built that systematically diverted the rivers that maintained the sea into water-thirsty cotton farms. Every year even now almost the entire surviving population of several ex-SSRs are drafted and forced to pick cotton in what is arguably one of the largest surviving examples of institutionalized slavery in the world.
This is where environmentalists should be spending their time and energy. An eco-disaster almost beyond imagination has been happening over almost 40 years, one large enough to wipe out a geological feature visible from space, and yet nobody has bumper stickers urging people to boycott cotton from the republics that are still draining the river to grow a crop that grows perfectly well in hot, wet climates like North Carolina as well as numerous other places around the world. And to top it off, the Soviets had a biological warfare facility on an island in the middle of the sea. The dust that blows is salt mixed with poisons used in cotton farming mixed with god knows what from this facility, and cancer rates and birth defect rates are 25 times normal in the population still eking out a living in the desert that used to be the shore of the lake.
A nice example of how communism treats environmental issues. Something for the “watermelons” of the world to consider.
rgb
“A nice example of how communism treats environmental issues. Something for the “watermelons” of the world to consider.”
Something for all socialists and all corporatists (fascists) to consider. And we have more of both than anyone realizes.
RGB. Yup. Featured the Aral Sea in the water chapter of my ebook Gaia’s Limits. With pictures over time from space. The agriculture/water discussion needs to eventually center on virtual water, and that becomes an economic question, as illustrated by Egypt now and India in the near future.
Agreed rgb.
For two years I ran an oil project in Kazakstan near Kyzl Orda, on the Syr Darya River – one of the rivers that was diverted to irrigate cotton and rice plantations in the Central Asian Desert, and thus caused the drying-up of the Aral Sea to the west. Poor irrigation practices also caused the destruction by salting-out of plantation fields over large areas. I recall you can see this salination from air and satellite photos.
The USSR’s spaceport at Baikonur was a located a few hundred km to the west and our oilfields were littered with space junk from failed and successful launches.
I was also in East Germany in July 1989 just before the Berlin Wall fell – the East Germans did not even treat their (un)sanitary sewage but just dumped it in the rivers, and their coal-fired power plants had no apparent pollution controls for SOx or particulates.
The Former Soviet Union was and is an environmental disaster.
The watermelons don’t care, because environmentalism was just a false front to gain political power to implement their failed economic programs.
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, provides a history of the rise of eco-extremism, below. Moore says that the far-left political movement effectively annexed the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when pro-Soviet groups were discredited and needed to find a new power base for their far-left political agenda.
The extremists have obviously succeeded. Governments, academia, the media and large corporations are all cowed into submission. Leading scientists have been ousted from their universities for speaking and writing the truth. Only a few tenured or retired professors and the occasional renegade dares to speak out, and many use aliases for fear of retaliation.
I suggest it is time for all those who have been cowed into submission by the bullying of global warming alarmists to grow a pair and stand strong for your convictions.
After all, there has been no global warming for over 18 years!
And after all, it is Independence Day in America!
Regards to all, Allan MacRae
__________________
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
by Patrick Moore (1994)
http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/key-environmental-issues/10-key-environmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
From a discussion on the FaceBook WUWT page involving someone fixated on meltwater being the cause of rising sea levels, I wrote this yesterday:
For example, the Aral Sea per Wikipedia “From 1960 to 1998, the sea’s surface area shrank by about 60%, and its volume by 80%. In 1960, the Aral Sea had been the world’s fourth-largest lake, with an area around 68,000 km^2 (26,000 sq mi) and a volume of 1,100 km^3 (260 cu mi);”
So it lost 880 km^3 (and I imagine a lot of ground water around it).
Wikipedia also says the surface area of the oceans is 3.6×10^8 km^2. That water from the Aral Sea was enough to raise the ocean level, converting to meters, is (880 x 10^9 m^3) / (3.6 x 10^8 x 10^6 m^2 = 224 x 10^-5 m, or 2.24 millimeters.
So that one policy decision ultimately led to a full year’s worth of sea level rise!
Professor Brown is right, as usual. The climate Communists seem to indulge every environmental abuse perpetrated by Communist or ex-Communist countries, but they target the West in the hope of pursuing the tired Communist dream of bringing capitalism down. The destruction of the Aral Sea was a disgrace, and it should be a warning to advocates of “geoengineering”.
Robert. I just love your cogent reposts to these “watermelon” idiots. Many Thanks
Interesting about the Aral sea and cotton. Didn’t know that cotton was that water intensive. Also interesting that California, with all their water issues is in the top ten for largest cotton producing state with ~360,000 acres, and that in addition to over 500,000 acres of rice (although those numbers are probably down because of the drought).
Rice is another strange crop for the central valley of California, which without irrigation would be a desert; my lawn dies as a consequence.
The problem is that it confuses environmentalism wish a secondary social agenda, and this is a real shame. The EPA, for example, is not a pinnacle of evil. It came into being because we desperately needed it, or something like it. The Great Lakes were (and sadly, still are to some extent) being used as a liquid dump for all of the many highly toxic industries on its borders. It is still not safe to eat certain fish from the lakes — anything high on the food chain and all bottom feeders like catfish. As a fisherperson, I resent having to limit myself to one meal of e.g. great lakes salmon a month (the recommended level of consumption) and zero meals of great lakes catfish. In another decade or two, maybe they will have flushed enough that it will be safe to eat fish from them again, but some of the errors of our past have very long half-lives. There are also very clear issues with e.g. dumping PCB’s along highways, contaminating groundwater with gasoline from abandoned filling stations when their tanks rust out, and we’ve had some spectacular failures in the cleanup of mercury in abandoned NC paper mills — true eco-disasters. Even the cleanup of power plant emissions in GOOD ways — reducing sulfur, for example, and scrubbing out soot and particulates — has been the result of the EPA’s GOOD work.
The problem is, and remains, classifying CO_2 as a “pollutant”. This whole thing began with James Hansen, as far as I can tell, singlehandedly generating the scientific argument (amplifying the risk as necessary without much attention being paid to agreement with actual data) and the formation of an unholy alliance with Evironmentalists Without a Cause. But it wasn’t until the creation of the IPCC and its co-opting of this cause as it raison d’etre that it became a watermelon issue, as much about the redistribution of wealth and the excuse for creating a supernational organization with eventual national power. And even then, and now, it has been wholeheartedly embraced by the very demons it was supposed to corral — the energy companies of the world — because anything that raises the cost of energy relative to everything else increases the marginal profit of energy companies because energy demand is almost completely inelastic in the modern world.
I wish I could tattoo that on the forehead of all the people who claim that energy companies are funding skeptics. It is quite the reverse. Governments are subsidizing energy companies as they invest huge amounts in “green” energy that they sell at inflated prices and make excessive profits on, at the same time they are selling their fossil fuel generated energy at 50% higher prices than would ever be justified in a free market. Energy companies have no reason at all to oppose the CAGW scenario. No single group worldwide makes more money off of the scam than they do, by orders of magnitude. They pick up tax money via multiple channels in addition to the straight up amplification of marginal profits by increased gross costs.
So make no mistake. I’m an environmentalist. Many skeptics are. Who wouldn’t be, with examples like the Aral Sea and the Great Lakes and Love Canal and the appalling state of various rivers in Europe and Asia before us? CO_2, however, has an immediate positive effect on the entire biosphere. The only place where it might be worrisome is the rapid alteration of oceanic pH, as far as I can tell, and the jury IMO is very much still out on whether or not this fear is real or exaggerated. Everywhere else, the climate is “proven” stable at much higher CO_2 than we are ever likely to hit. I’m also in agreement with Mr. Monckton that TCS is likely in the range of 1 C.
rg
how communism treats environmental issues
==============
the problem come more from central planning than “ism”. the notion that a few “wise” people can decide the future better than many “average” people.
800 years ago, King John was forced to sign the Magna Charta. This document is why we have a jury system. At the heart of our legal system is the understanding that 12 average people drawn at random can better decide truth than can a single learned expert (the judge).
What is needed is a Magna Charta for politics. The interests of the average person would be much better served by 300 average people selected at random to form a parliament.
Instead we have 300 people best able to win a popularity contest. A contest in which the entry fee is thousands of times greater than the prize money.
Why sort of numskull would enter a popularity contest when the entry fee is so much greater than the prize, unless there was also a hidden prize under the table? Doesn’t this hidden prize attract the most corruptible or the most vain to high office?
RGB at Duke:
Well said as usual, sir.
FerdBerple,
“For the last century, almost all top political appointments [on the planet Earth] had been made by random computer selection from the pool of individuals who had the necessary qualifications. It had taken the human race several thousand years to realize that there were some jobs that should never be given to the people who volunteered for them, especially if they showed too much enthusiasm. As one shrewed political commentator had remarked: “We want a President who has to be carried screaming and kicking into the White House — but will then do the best job he possibly can, so that he’ll get time off for good behavior.”
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2936738-imperial-earth
“No warming has yet arisen this Century”
Hmm…we talking surface or 14,000ft?
“Hmm…we talking surface or 14,000ft?”
If the meme is “global warming”, then why in the world would one choose to concentrate on one thin layer of warming.
And why again would one choose data which is only collected from a relatively few places, many (likely most) of which are contaminated by UHI effects?
So, TLT is an accurate estimate of “global temperature” as Sir Christopher postulates….right?
Paleontology shows no limit to the net benefits of warming and always shows detriment from cooling.
Our pitiful aliquot of anthropogenic CO2 from fossils can only rejuvenate a small portion of the carbon cycle temporarily, to net benefit from mild warming, and great benefit from plant kingdom fertilization.
================
The ice cores show a lag between temperature and CO2 levels which is easily explained as the time it takes for biology to capture enough CO2 in the biosphere to support a larger biomass. A warmer planet means more of the surface is suitable for sustaining biomass, but the limiter on biomass expansion seems to be CO2.
There are two factors in the lag. One is the biosphere, as you point out. But the bigger part IMO is just Henry’s law. Warmer water holds less CO2. As it warms, it will outgas. Basic beerology. Ice cores say the equilibrium process has a lag on order of 800 years. Shakun’s paper to the contrary is statistical dreck. Essay Cause and Effect.
The Beer’s Law effect happens almost instantaneously with changes in average temperature and at the most is a second order effect, the delayed component is purely biological.
Don’t want to start a street fight, but your comment does not consider dissolution processes from depth. A beer glass is not very deep compared to the ocean mixed layer. And that is relatively a tiny beer glass deep compared to full ocean depth–which counts.
The solubility of CO2 in water is a function of the temperature of the water. As the planet’s surface temperature changes, surface waters change temperature, but the deep ocean temperatures are a function of the pressure/temperature/density profile of water, driven by gravity and remain constant. The solid surface of Earth beneath its oceans is about as decoupled from the atmosphere and GHG effects as the solid surface of Venus below its ocean of CO2, which on a mass basis is about the same as our H2O ocean. A failure to recognize this is why some think Venus is a case of the runaway GHG effect, but the COE restrictions on passive ‘gain’ blocks in a feedback system precludes the possibility of a runaway effect.
In the case of Venus, its not the solid surface that’s in direct equilibrium with the Sun, but the surface of cloud tops where the solid surface temperature below is mostly a consequence of the PVT profile of the dense CO2 ocean separating it from the clouds and is warm for the same reason the temperature increases as we get deeper into the atmosphere of a gas giant. Note that Earth clouds are different because they are tightly thermodynamically coupled to the surface (oceans) through evaporation and rain.
The ocean stores energy as a reservoir of cold water in the deep ocean and a reservoir of warm surface water, insulated from each other by the thermocline (think of a capacitor). We don’t think of water as a good insulator and its not, but at a sufficient thickness, it becomes one. Compare the temperature profile of the ocean to what you would expect from an insulated wall separating a cold space from a warn space. They are identical!
The thickness of the thermocline will adapt as the average temperature changes, but that effects only a small amount of water. This is why the evidence shows that the oceans adapt much more quickly to changes in temperature than is promoted by the warmists and widely accepted, even by many skeptics.
Also do not want to start a beer fight – a terrible waste, imo.
In 2008 I wrote that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months. I referred to Jan Veizer’s papers and think Jan was generally on the right track.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
I suggest that the short-term “dCO2/dt vs T” relationship is primarily terrestrial and biological, driven primarily by the larger Northern Hemisphere landmass, with Henry’s Law (“Beer’s Law” of solution and exsolution of CO2 in the oceans) as the lesser component in the short-term response of CO2 to T.
Henry’s Law probably requires hundreds of years for the deep-ocean CO2 to adjust to a significant change in surface temperature, but the long-term relationship must also have a significant biological component.
Regards, Allan
equilibrium process has a lag on order of 800 years.
==============
about the time it takes one full cycle of deep ocean water from the poles to the equator and back to the poles.
I agree. This is arguably one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this list.
I can only conclude that the individual who wrote it has never lived in a country where the temperature regularly exceeds 100/38C in the summertime. I have. Stuff and nonsense. Even if you are in a swimming pool of water at 90+ F you still sweat. You still lose water. Your blood vessels still dilate. You still lose electrolytes. It is also useful to remember that water is often scarce in the hottest of weather in overpopulated cities in the driest of climates like much of summer Pakistan and India outside of the monsoon. The efficiency of evaporative cooling is also highly conditioned by the humidity. You get little cooling no matter how wet your skin is at 95+% humidity and 30C but may feel quite comfortable at 30% humidity and 35C.
The things one needs to survive when the temperature is that high are: robust youth; enough water; wind; dry air; shade, good general health, luck, etc.
If you are very old, very young, very poor, very thirsty, very hungry, even slightly sick, or unfortunate enough to be forced out into the sun during the day by the need to earn your daily bread, you are at serious risk no matter how much water you “swab onto your skin”.
This sort of comment is insulting to the intelligence of the reader and does a disservice to the discussion at hand. The point is that it is stupid to fast and avoid drinking in a heat wave because you think that God wants you to. Religion makes people do stupid things because they read scriptures and imagine a God that wants them to do stupid things, or not to do sensible things. But one thing is very clear.
If all the people who died were in a nice, air conditioned environment, and provided with plenty of clean, fresh, cool water they would not have died. But it takes energy and wealth to provide those things. Our current energy policy makes energy far more expensive and delays the development of adequate energy resources throughout the poorest countries in the world, which in turn perpetuates the 19th century poverty levels in many of those countries.
Hot weather happens. So does cold weather, wet weather, dry weather, windy weather, still weather, and everything in between. In the US we don’t care because we are rich and energy is cheap. We stay indoors and turn on the AC in the summer or the heat in the winter. We wear warm clothes (manufactured with much energy) or drink iced water laced with electrolytes from insulated coolers if we work outdoors in the hot part of the summer (all made or maintained with much energy), with mandated breaks and penalties to the overseers if workers collapse on the job. I assure you none of this is true in Pakistan for the vast majority of the population.
rgb
Thank you RGB for your comments.
I was in Luxor Egypt in July 1998 at a reported temperature of 52C – that’s about 125F and it was a (very) dry heat. We spent a long weekend in Luxor during a trip to Cairo to sign oil concessions.
As tourists unaccustomed to this heat, we started our desert tours at 4am and ended at noon. However, the local men were still able to function outdoors during the day, by wearing light-colored loose clothing and (presumably) drinking lots or water.
Incidentally, this trip occurred about six months after the Luxor Massacre at the Temple of Hatshepsut, which was similar to the two recent massacres of tourists in Tunisia. The objective of the terrorism was to destroy the tourist industry, and it worked for a while.
I recommend Luxor as the single most remarkable archeological location I have visited – the Temples of Luxor, Karnak and others, the Valleys of the Kings, Queens, Nobles and Workmen are remarkable – as is the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, especially the King Tut exhibit.
I would also still recommend Tunisia as a beautiful country with great resorts and beaches and remarkable archeology – it was one of the first Roman colonies and the Carthaginian and Roman antiquities are truly remarkable. The Colosseum at El Jem is reportedly the second-largest in the Roman world, and in much better condition and more accessible than the one in Rome. The Roman town of Dougga [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dougga ] is a delight and a UNESCO World Heritage site. Hadrian’s Aqueduct that fed water to Roman Carthage is 90km long, a remarkable feat of engineering that we would find extremely challenging to build today without modern surveying technology.
Regards to all, Allan
Kim said:
“Paleontology shows no limit to the net benefits of warming and always shows detriment from cooling.”
Agreed Kim – and not just paleontology.
Globally, cold weather kills many more people every year than hot weather, EVEN IN WARM CLIMATES.
We know this is true from many sources, from modern studies of Excess Winter Mortality to the great die-offs that occurred during the cold Maunder and Dalton Minimums.
Accordingly, it is logical that fewer Excess Winter Deaths would occur in a warmer world, and Excess Winter Deaths would increase in a colder world.
Regards, Allan
Notes:
The numbers are shocking. Excess Winter Deaths now total approximately 10,000 per year in Canada, up to 50,000 per year in the United Kingdom and about 100,000 per year in the USA. I have been writing and researching about Excess Winter Mortality since ~2009 and I am confident that these alarmingly-high numbers are correct. Here is our recent article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/24/winters-not-summers-increase-mortality-and-stress-the-economy/
Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/abstract
I just love the international studies.
…
Especially the ones that say: ” We estimated temperature–mortality associations with a distributed lag non-linear model ”
…
Oh, and there was no data analyzed from Africa or India.
Really Joel?
The Lancet study did get data from Brazil and Thailand and it is credible.
Just try to get credible Mortality data from Africa or India – I tried India recently with a friend who is a leading climate scholar, born in that country – and he has had no success to date.
And the data analyses are fairly simple.
Yes really Alan, in fact, you’ll notice that the study did not get data from the places the in recent weeks have had large numbers of deaths from heat… (India & Pakistan).
..
PS, I don’t remember any news article discussing the hundreds of folks that froze to death during the infamous “polar vortex.”
@joel — At the risk of sounding conspiracy-minded, why would the media print the death toll from a long cold spell when the agenda is to sell how dangerous heat is?
I’ve looked at the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) statistics on mortality from heat and cold, and the cold always has about a 2-for-1 lead on heat. For another example, the UK Daily Mail reported that the Bureau of National Statistics reported a 30% increase in cold-related deaths in 2013, with 31,000 EXTRA deaths.
So Pakistan has 500 people die from a hot spell and it’s news, but 31,000 more people die from “the polar vortex” — just in the UK — and you never hear about it. Funny how that is.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513719/Number-deaths-linked-freezing-winter-increases-30-31-000-temperatures-fell-record-lows.html
More of your BS Joel.
The 700 reported deaths in Pakistan due to a (NOT-record) heat wave were in part due to the celebration of Ramadan – and the rule of NO food OR WATER during daylight hours.
These people died of dehydration and heat stroke and it was entirely avoidable..
About 20 times more people die globally from cold weather than from warm weather.
That is the hard reality.
Your warmist BS costs lives.
Alan, if there was no heat wave, they would not have died.
PS Alan.
..
You don’t need to actually drink the water to cool off, you can wipe yourself down with a wet towel, and not violate your Ramadan fast.
Thank you James for you insightful comment. One point about the article you cited from the Daily Mail – the 31,000 Excess Winter Deaths in winter 2012-13 occurred in in England and Wales only. In fact, the total number of Excess Winter Deaths for the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, was about 50,000 during that winter.
In the USA the current number of Excess Winter Deaths is over 100,000 per year. You could think of this as two 9/11’s every week for 17 weeks every Winter – but with less property damage.
Funny isn’t it – how this vitally important news of ~100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA is seldom reported by the media, whereas every alleged death from a heat wave is reported as if it was the end of the world.
Regards, Allan
Notes:
Here is the Daily Mail article you cited.
Deaths linked to freezing temperatures soared by 30% to 31,000 last winter: 3,000 more staff hired to prevent a repeat this year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513719/Number-deaths-linked-freezing-winter-increases-30-31-000-temperatures-fell-record-lows.html
Daily Mail, 26 November 2013
“Excess winter deaths hit 31,000 last winter, Office for National Statistics”
Here are the total Excess Winter Deaths for the UK during winter 2012-13, from our recent article at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/24/winters-not-summers-increase-mortality-and-stress-the-economy/
“Each year since 1950, the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) has looked at excess winter mortality…
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health2/excess-winter-mortality-in-england-and-wales/2013-14–provisional–and-2012-13–final-/stb.html#tab-Excess-Winter-Mortality–EWM–and-temperature-
Excess winter mortality was 31,100 in England and Wales in 2012/13 – up 29% from the previous year. Figures for Scotland were also released recently showing a much smaller increase in winter deaths, up 4.1% to 19,908. In Northern Ireland meanwhile, the raw numbers were low but the increase was large – a rise of 12.7% to 559 deaths.”
Joel D. Jackson
Did you actually write that?
And that boner?
Exposed for imbecility, you are.
to cool off, you can wipe yourself down with a wet towel
===========================
how about to warm up? can you wipe yourself with a dry towel?
This is why cold is a much bigger killer. All you need to keep cool is a supply of water. But to keep warm you need a supply of energy. And energy costs more than water, so cold is especially dangerous to the poor.
This simple truth is evident all over the earth. At the equator we find billions of people, many of them poor. As we move away from the poles people generally become richer, reflecting the cost of energy to survive outside the equator.
At the poles we find very few people, rich or poor. If warming was a danger, then we should find many less people at the equator than at the poles. If the earth was at the optimal temperature, we should find people spread equally between the equator and the poles.
I have read a lot of stupid things over the years.
“PS Alan.
..
You don’t need to actually drink the water to cool off, you can wipe yourself down with a wet towel, and not violate your Ramadan fast.”
But this may be about the most ridiculous one ever on a long list.
Is the suggestion being made that when people die from heat, that it is due insufficient water being swabbed onto their skin?
Hot weather leads to increased perspiration, which leads to dehydration, which leads to death.
People can run hundreds of miles in the hottest conditions on the planet, and regularly do do so, for sport and excitement.
The only rule they must adhere to is to DRINK sufficient quantities of water.
Heat does not kill by hyperthermia nearly as often as from organ system failure due to dehydration.
Death by hyperthermia in a healthy and well hydrated individual almost never occurs.
Dehydration will kill regardless of temperature.
A sports physiologist you are not. Nor a medical professional…that much is clear.
Memo to all governments planning to attend UNFCCC COP 21 in Paris in December 2015.
Further review of the IPCC’s predictions of catastrophic global warming indicates that the crisis is over. The Paris Conference will therefore be a celebration of our success in saving the planet without any further negotiations to curtail economic growth. We can therefore turn our attention to helping the countries where people are at war and/or living in poverty.
From your lips to the scullery maids of gay Paree!
==============
The headline graph has a title ” Probability of <2 C increase" but the y axis label says "Prbability of exceeding 2C"
So which is it ???
Is no one in climatology capable of getting things the right way up ? Tijander revisited !
I gotta say, that headline is like a honey pot to Pooh Bear. Think I’ll go lie down for a little rest.
==================
2015 may well be remembered as the year that the AGW Cartel ended, as their “Gold Standard” is appearing to definitely be going the wrong way, this time round. LOL
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
“…’tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. … “
Where is the evidence it will warm at all? In the history of the Earth, CO2 has never led temperature.
Except in Shakun’s statistically stupid 2012 proxy paper, deconstructed in essay Cause and Effect.
SJW’s pull arguments out of their backsides. I see little evidence climate scientists do anything more, so arguing about ECS – angels on a pinhead – is little more than entertainment. We don’t know. We have far too crude measurement sticks. The amount is smaller than we can hope to measure (‘confidence’ in the existence of angels aside). All we do know is there is little if nothing to concern ourselves with. Never has. Never will. Can we move on to more serious things now than pointless philosophical arguments with the terms set by those in the pay of setting the parameters of said debate (about angels)? We will never burn – on this earth at least (fair skin expected). I hope we don’t freeze from ignorance.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/06/opinions/sutter-two-degrees-marshall-islands/
The above is a headline from CNN. It says YOU which I take for me and so apparently I have more powers than a super villain; yes it is true I can disappear islands. Soon I will be able to cool the sun and even superman will not be able to help.
Sigh. This is what passes for journalism now a days.
Separating fact from fiction is challenging, but when did journalism not only give up on the challenge but purposely obfuscate fact and opinion. It seems they take a box of facts and a box of opinions, throw them in a blender, put it on high, and then pretend opinions are facts and facts are opinions.
What a coincidence! I too was given god-like powers, many years ago.
I received a threat from some guy who claimed I was responsible for the flooding of Prague.
I pondered this news and replied “OK, I admit it – I flooded the City of Prague. Now p!ss-off or I’ll do it again.”
🙂
LOL!
You are a bounder sir; Prague is a beautiful city, don’t do it again!
Oh Mr Monkton, it is terribly frustrating to continually see people like yourself use the most complex method possible to try and debunk the outrageous future temperature predictions of the alarmists. Were you all troubled by puberty issues when the maths teacher told you about why we simplify and use the most efficient method possible to complete our sums?
The only graph you need is one with Global mean temperature on one axis and CO2 in ppm on the other axis. Simply plot the change in temperature over the observed record from 280ppm to the present 400ppm. Then mention that all the literature states that IR absorbtion is logarithmic in nature and thus future rises in CO2 concentration must result in a slower increase in temperature rise. To eliminate noise in the graph plot only the temperature at 280ppm and 400ppm.
I have stated this on the comment section on here numerous times, but perhaps you and your colleagues ignore it because it appears to be not complex enough to be science. If what I propose finishes the debate, then maybe there will be no use for you either as anyone can use this argument. Is this why you all ignore it?
In your simplified graphic, how do you account for thermal inertia?
Just what thermal inertia are you talking about ??
When the sun goes down in the evening, the cooling rate of the surface is dramatic, and black top surfaces too hot to walk on (barefoot) are cool to the touch long before the real onset of twilight.
And by next morning, there is no remnant of yesterday’s solar warming left to discern.
The region where living organisms reside, exhibits essentially zero thermal inertia beyond the rotation rate of the planet.
So looking for evidence of today’s solar heating, some six months down the road, is a fools errand.
There isn’t any.
g
george e. smith
Rather, the total globally-measurable “thermal lag” is the 6-7 weeks between the longest NH solar exposure on 22 June and the summer highest temperatures in July-August every year. But 6 months later?
The lag is still 6-7 weeks.
You should spend some time at a beach front resort. You’ll see the dramatic effect the ocean has on air temperatures.
What Wickedwenchfan mentions does not, as he hopes, end the debate. It is only possible to end this debate by showing either that the IPCC is wrong or that, using its own arguments, little warming will arise this century. The head posting shows using IPCC data, parameter values and methods that there will be little warming to 2100.
I am encouraged that none of the usual sneering suspects has told me I am wrong. So I shall work up this short brief, done for one of the governments I advise, into a paper for peer review.
What is it wwf, that you seem unable to read the prolog to M of B’s essay.
It says that he is going to bake the cake using nothing but their recipe. No mirrors or smoke screens added.
And he shows that the cake still collapses, when you open the oven door.
Izzat so hard to understand ? Christopher doesn’t say this is a chef’s gold medal cake; but it is what the results are, if you just use their recipe.
g
90 trillion reasons why the CAGW mob aren’t even asking the question, Lord Monckton, & why the public need to keep a close watch on their retirement funds:
2 pages: 8 June: MarketWatch: Paul B. Farrell: Opinion: World Bank forecasts ***$90 trillion new low-carbon stock opportunity
But the reality is, fossil fuels are being pushed aside by a new Age of Sustainable Energy, which is becoming a jackpot of investments in renewable energies, sustainable developments and high-tech opportunities in the rapidly emerging low-carbon world.
Of course the aging fossil fuel industry and its GOP pawns will fight this megatrend to the bitter end, balk at the paradigm shift in the media, and rage against the coming wave of divestitures. But soon, the old fossil industry will be pressured by their own investors — pension funds, bank and trust companies and insurance firms — to jump on the bandwagon and radically depart from old ways that started in Pennsylvania over 150 years ago…
On the other hand, Big Banks don’t share Big Oil’s irrational handicap, an obsession with climate-science denial. As a result, global banks can take a growing lead in allocating the estimated ***$90 trillion being invested in “building this new low-carbon world” by 2035…
At the core of the UNEP message for investors: The “World Bank estimates that investments of more than ***$90 trillion will be needed over the next 15 years to enable the switch to a low-carbon future that would let the world stay within the internationally-agreed limit of a 2°C rise in global temperatures on pre-industrial levels by mid-century,” a goal the myopic fossil-fuel Luddites just keep fighting…
Yes, the ***$90 trillion that will be invested to “build the new low-carbon world” by 2035 is necessary for the survival of Planet Earth. Why? Our population will keep exploding from 7 billion to 10 billion by 2050, one short generation, with every person demanding a higher standard of living, even as natural resources vanish…
The key issue? Pope Francis and allies warn us the planet cannot physically, technologically or morally feed 10 billion…
Smack-dab in the middle of all the action are the Big Banks making all the big deals financing the “new ***$90 trillion low-carbon world,” just like the World Bank predicts, also buying up discounted fossil-fuel paper, and picking up lots of financing fees”…
World Bank and “Big Banks” love “low carbon” investing … you should too…
Bottom line: The global financial system has a total of ***$300 trillion sloshing across 200 sovereign nations worldwide…
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/big-energy-is-dying-as-90-trillion-low-carbon-world-emerges-2015-06-05
LinkedIn: Paul B. Farrell, San Luis Obispo, California
1997-present: Behavioral Economics Columnist, DowJones/MarketWatch.com
1991 – 1993 Executive Director, Crisis Management Group
1973-1978 Vice President, Morgan Stanley Investment Banking
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/paul-b-farrell/43/18b/92a
Paul Farrell is a whacko. I usually read his articles just for a laugh.
Mr Farrell appears not to have noticed that the head posting is entirely mainstream climate science. Nothing is being denied except the unscientific and extremist conclusions of the climate Communists.
And Bjorn Lomborg has shown that $100 invested in “green” stocks in 2004 would have lost $78 by 2012, even after the massive additional losses to the general taxpayer in the form of pointless renewable-energy subsidies.
However, $100 invested in oil and gas in 2004 would have gained another $138 by 2012.
buying up discounted fossil-fuel paper, … World Bank and “Big Banks” love “low carbon” investing
===========
Of course they do. They promote green junk so that you will get out of oil stocks, so they can by them up on the cheap.
Why would bankers be so stupid as to tell you ahead of time which stocks will make money? They are not going to tell you until AFTER they have already bought up the stocks on the cheap.
Which means they need to panic you into selling the future winners at discount prices today. When a banker announces publicly that XYZ is going to tank, they want you to sell XYZ so that the price will drop and they can buy it on the cheap.
Do the opposite of what the bankers are saying publicly, because that is what the smart money does. Like Climate Scientists telling you the oceans are going to rise, to drive down the price of waterfront so they can buy it on the cheap.
To my mind ( completely untutored in economics or accountancy) it seems wrong to say that $78/$100 invested in green stocks was “lost” because unless bundled up in woodchips and fed into Drax’s fiery furnace (which metaphorically it was ) , it has not been lost at all , but has made its way from pension funds of unsuspecting workers into the coffers of financial managers and others of that ilk in the form of fees and kickbacks and to pay off the owners of abandoned green projects. .
It would be interesting if the principal institute concerned with the economics of climate change and renewables , that run by Lord Stern . could track down exactly where the missing $78 out of each $100 actually ended up . I am sure that they have the capability to do that.
Well on the other hand, $100 invested in mid 2014 in Taco Bell “grillers” would be worth twice that at mid 2015 pricing.
And this whopping gain in an era of zero inflation that keeps interest on Government IOUs at near zero rates.
But just don’t believe it if someone tells you, that there has to be some consequence to mandated $15 per hour minimum wage legislation that the California Democrat run State Legislature steam rolled through.
And a MacDonalds senior coffee went from 43 cents to 75 cents.
Yes the “big bang” inflation era had nothing on today’s inflation.
Greece; move over and make room for us too.
g
george e. smith
Oh there is a “consequence” to the Democrat-run state legislature voting for a 15.00 minimum wage.
1. The California democrats get re-elected again by their welfare-illegal-economically-ignorant-democrat voters who are subsidized by the national democrat politicians and their news media fan clubs.
2. Taxpayers, businesses and their honest workers leave CA. But those aren’t the democrat state legislature’s voters.
I would hazard that “No warming has yet arisen this century.” is THE defining statement based on verifiable observations and clear theory that ties together the facts and offers reasonable explanation that is testable.
Since the enactment of the IPCC there is their defining statement #2. The readers here know this statement in detail as I.
So, the question becomes: Why has the UN, the UNFCCC and their IPCC gotten “everything” so desperately wrong?
Why are the UN, the UNFCCC and their IPCC making Homo sapiens sapiens the disease of the Earth in the IPCC’s groupthink psychology and theology reports?
Ah Ha.
The UN, UNFCCC and their beloved IPCC now forsake Science and turn to the Vatican, the Latin Pope, for suffrage in their coming hour of desperation in December, 2015, Paris, “the city of light” and the Paris Meridian, “defining the exact time of Easter on the Gnomon of Saint-Sulpice” as explained by the Priory of Sion in reference to Saint Roseline de Villeneuve: Ref. Wikipedia.
Is it the fait accompli of the UN, UNFCCC and beloved IPCC to re-establish the Zero Meridian to Paris, and far from the … pagan Church … at Greenwich, England!
🙂
It’s what the French have been trying to do for many years. It could be a deal if they push through the 2°C limit and make legally binding emission target
You preach to the converted.
How to convert the masses?
That is the question.
The ultimate question: is there, in our fundamentally dishonest society, a critical mass of real people able to refuse a regular paycheck in the name of the truth as they know it? Human history has balanced on this fulcrum many times.
I am afraid that Stanislav Lem was right, and “humanity has chosen not the most beautiful of its possible futures.”
I believe we will be saved by the selfishness of men and nations. For each will seek to stand tall as a signatory to the saving of the world, while secretly negotiating exceptions and loop holes and delays to circumvent the agreement to their benefit while shifting the burden to those who are more honest about their positions. The dishonest vastly outnumbering the honest, the few that are left will, like Greece, at some point have to face the reality of economic devastation for their folly, and quietly slink away on some new found excuse.
Those that will sign in Paris will be many. Those that do anything substantial will be few, and their efforts short lived.
I think we’re arguing the wrong thing debating 0.5C.
The world grows food for 1 billion people who would starve without extra plant food. Anyone who opposes CO2 should be asked point blank whether they prefer 1 billion deaths to spare themselves 1C.
True Andrew. I tend to focus on the known benefits of CO2,and the failed to manifest C in CAGW. The current article is rebutting the C in CAGW, and that is good.
The battle is on many fronts, but the fact is that the 400 ppm CO2 world of today does grow about 15 percent more food on the same amount of land and water that would feed almost one billion less people in a 280 ppm CO2 world.
Keeping mind that the US will likely not continue to export grain on a vast scale as the apparent solar minimum shrinks the growing season, your estimate of 1 billion people starving seems optimistic. If, as the saying goes, “charity begins at home,” our citizens will demand that we be the last to starve.
Removing the 80 million metric tons of exported US grain, along with supplies from larger production in China and India and somewhat smaller in France, Russia, Australia and Canada will make the Little Ice Age european die-off look trivial.
As long as you keep it impersonal as 1 billion human starving, there are many of the warmists that would approve http://www.teemingbrain.com/2009/05/09/its-official-the-human-race-is-earths-disease/ They consider humanity is a cancer of planet Earth. Indeed, although not willing to volunteer themselves, they believe that humanity should be significantly reduced in numbers. So they would see reduction of CO2 leading to less crops and greatly increased deaths from starvation as a distinct positive reason to reduce use of ‘fossil fuels’.
I don’t understand why Mosher hasn’t commented, err what ever you want to call his scribbles here ??
CO2-AGW is near zero in our thermohaline circulation and biofeedback controlled climate.
The real AGW was from the extra aerosols during Asian industrialisation. It stopped 15 years ago.
The mechanism is reduction of cloud albedo. Sagan got that physics wrong as well as making three other bad mistakes which have led to the IPCC’s fake science.But it was the cold war and the Russkies were the opposition.
So, let’s hope we finally bury our era’s version of phlogiston morphed into a new lysenkoism!
The catholic church believes in responsible parenthood so why should the “earth/world” be needing to feed all these people. The west has zero population growth and is increasing energy efficiency except for many stupid expenditures of energy on wasteful green energy schemes. Fix povery and the population “bomb” will be fixed.
Every Christian church believes that procreation (reproduction, love, having children) is a mortal sin. Every religion promises afterlife; therefore, religious faith is, first of all and above all, a death worship. However priests are trying to hide this basic truth with smoke and mirrors, “responsibility” and “religion” are two things incompatible, because to be truly responsible for your actions you have to be, or at least try hard to be, sane, logical, sober, rational, and capable of facing the blank screen of the unknown.
“Every Christian church believes that procreation (reproduction, love, having children) is a mortal sin. Every religion promises afterlife; therefore, religious faith is, first of all and above all, a death worship.”
You sir, are a bigot and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Do everybody a favor and shut up.
@Javier
I made a general statement about religion, speaking for myself.
You make personal insults, claiming to speak for “everybody.”
By doing so, you demonstrated amazing incivility.
No, sir, I won’t shut up.
I will express my opinions whenever I want.
Alexander Feht
Of course you have as much right to voice your opinions as Javier or anybody else.
However, Javier argues for truth and you spout bigoted falsehood. Hence, he suggests to you that you “Do everybody a favor and shut up” which does seem to be an eminently sensible suggestion.
Richard
I have a question I hope someone can answer: What, exactly, does an increase of 2degreeC in global average temp mean in terms of real temperatures?
As far as I can figure out, the so-called warming (not happening for like 18+ years), would occur at the poles N and S first. (they call it bipolar amplification iirc)
Now seriously, do you know anyone at the higher latitudes who WOULDN’T think that 4C of warming was a GOOD THING. A small amount back to the MWP and a lot further to the Holocene optimum.
Unfortunately, it isn’t happening. ! 🙁
A small amount of warming to the planet would be TOTALLY BENEFICIAL.
A good increase in atmospheric CO2, say to 700ppm+, would also be TOTALLY BENEFICIAL.
They’ll learn.
==========
In answer to “4TimesAYear”, an increase of 2 degrees in global mean surface temperature would mean no increase in tropical temperature, a 2-degree warming in mid-latitudes and a 4-degree warming at the Poles.
but isn’t most of that supposed to be warmer low temperatures?
It could also mean a 1 degree warming in the tropics, two degrees in the mid-latitudes, and a three degree warming at the poles.
The IPCC’s theory is that the tropics will not warm; that the global mean surface temperature obtains at the mid-latitudes; and that the mean anomaly is doubled in high latitudes by polar amplification. In this respect, at any rate, the IPCC is in line with the climatological literature.
The tropics do not warm because, as Willis Eschenbach has shown, tropical afternoon convection merely starts a little earlier than it otherwise would, canceling the warming. Likewise, the extra-tropical baroclinic eddies, in marked contrast to the largely vertical dynamics of the tropics, are dominated by baroclinic eddies which, via various process (such as the Hadley-cell circulation) advect heat poleward from the tropics.
It is perhaps because the tropics do not warm that the tropical mid-troposphere hot-spot predicted by the models has not been observed in reality, either by satellites or by millions of radiosonde measurements.
So, if there were 2 degrees of mean warming, that is the warming rate that would occur in the temperature latitudes; there would be no warming in the tropics; and there would be 4 degrees’ warming at the Poles.
The question is, of course, academic, because the head posting demonstrates – entirely using the IPCC’s own data and methods – that there will be more like 0.6 degrees’ warming this century, which cannot legitimately be spun up into a problem. Not that that will stop the profiteers of doom from trying.
“as Willis Eschenbach has shown???”
…
Sorry Chris, but Willis needs to have his work peer-reviewed.
..
Try something like this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1756/abstract;jsessionid=E521C86F0CB92501F3694653CDB2F19C.f03t03
..
That article references the known warming of the tropics.
..
If that isn’t enough for you, you can then investigate the effects of the tropical warming in this article: http://www.nature.com/articles/nature12915.epdf?referrer_access_token=ViIEa0zI6CI5pQqhsfvQY9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Oh1xbPIZznNCjkcJcZ4Skf3L-qM4TcXXCGJVmFVCP1RReZLOjdnfR3kzm4K-Gyg6pGSDFLMxUq0TzsrHVEz0vLmH4x_yZIWh0e10cEhcNyDGtWmExk6g7iD4UJw14p3xWXT1AIDIcxYStc_mN7hVHOhNY8uM9horHuTBfIOvuTz-JgRb60jNpwSB-kTSEi-iY%3D&tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com
Sorry Chris, but Willis needs to have his work peer-reviewed.
Ah yes, “peer review”. An obsolete remnant of days gone by when information was circulated primarily via printed matter. Welcome to the modern era Joel, where neither theory nor data nor review by the qualified and unqualified alike is constrained by a gatekeeper manning a printing press, virtual or otherwise. The “peer review” of which you speak is not only obsolete, it has become the last refuge of scoundrels. They are like makers of candles taking makers of light bulbs to court for ruining their industry.
Mr Jackson cites a paper by Santer as evidence tht the tropics are warming. It was Santer who, in 1995, was asked by the IPCC to rewrite the final text of the Second Assessment Report single-handed to delete five plain references to the fact that no human influence on global climate had yet been detected, and replace it with a single inaccurate statement that a human influence had been detected. Not the most reliable source.
So I went to the data. UAH keep a tropical dataset. It shows warming of 0.08 C/decade since 1979, which is less than it shows for the globe as a whole and is in statistical terms negligible. From January 1997 to date, the period covered by Fig. 1 of the head posting, UAH shows a cooling in the tropics, again not particularly significant.
The tropical warming in the early part of the record since 1979 coincided with a naturally-occurring reduction in global cloud cover, which persisted from 1983 till 2001 (Pinker et al., 2005) and temporarily affected the tropics. Now the boot is on the other foot and the tropics have been cooling a little for the best part of two decades.
In the long run, the various known homeostatic processes in the climate, of which tropical afternoon convection is known to be one of the most important, will not permit much warming or cooling of the tropics under modern conditions. That’s mainstream climate science. So don’t dismiss Willis Eschenbach’s research too readily. He knows a lot more than you may think.
The point is that by now the world is supposed to be warming at 0.2-0.3 Celsius per decade, and that is rather obviously not happening, in the tropics or anywhere else.
Well a 4 degree warming at the poles would do more good (in the form of higher radiative emittance there) than the same 4 degrees occurring in the tropics, where the maximum radiative emittance can be as high as 1.8 times the global mean .
At the poles (well at least the south pole) the radiative emittance may be as low as one sixth of the global average number.
And by that I mean the global average as postulated by mainstream climate science.
And for the mods; what the heck is it with this brain dead editor, that it doesn’t recognize either of the very common ordinary English language words ; radiative emittance ??
g
You forgot the Jacobean. Bear in mind that:
is the latitude (in radians). If you set a boundary condition of “no warming in the tropics” then you need a lot more than 4 degrees increase at the poles to average out to 2 C, because the area from 60 to 90 (north plus south) is only 13+% of the total, while half of the area is between 30 south and 30 north latitude. That means almost 4x the area of the polar latitudes in the tropics gets no warming to speak of, and has to be balanced by a systematically shrinking area (as a function of latitude) as one moves poleward.
where
A better answer is “we have no idea how a 2 C temperature increase would be distributed” because neither you, nor I, can solve the relevant equations in our heads. Or with paper. Or with computers. There are some good reasons to think that the tropics won’t warm much if at all, but we have no idea how the extra heat nominally delivered there will be redistributed en route to the sky. We have only guesses and mean field estimates neglecting almost all of the multivariate complexity of the problem. The computer models show, if nothing else, just how enormously wide the range of possible responses is as each model run is nominally a possible future. Or would be if one could start the models with anything like the correct initial condition and feed it with the correct future conditions.
rgb
I’ll try again:
And I’ll try a third time (damn you, silly north/south latitude convention!)
Lord Monckton and Joel D. Jackson:
4TimesAYear asked
Lord Monckton replied
and Joel D. Jackson responded
Actually, it does not mean either of those things because the “increase of 2degreeC” is NOT in “global average temp” but is in global average temp anomaly. Both of you are making an ‘apples to oranges’ comparison.
This difference between “global average temp” and global average temp anomaly is very important because the increase is NOT to “real temperatures”.
The correct answer to “4TimesAYear” is as follows.
An “increase of 2degreeC” in global average temp anomaly would have no discernible affect on “real temperatures”. Nobody notices that global average temp rises by 3.8degreeC (i.e. nearly double 2degreeC) over 6 months of each year and falls by 3.8degreeC over the other 6 months of each and every year.
Richard
Lord Monckton, Joel D. Jackson and rgbatduke:
As an addendum to my above post hereI write to say my post is not inconsistent with the above post (and corrigenda) of rgbatduke here.
I say the “increase of 2degreeC” in global average temp anomaly would have no discernible affect on “real temperatures” and rgbatduke says “we have no idea how a 2 C temperature increase would be distributed”.
Natural variability of “real temperatures” is so large at all geographical locations that an unknown change to the maximum of that variation at each location is very unlikely to be discernible using existing knowledge.
And I remind that during each and every year the natural variation of global mean “real temperatures” is nearly double the feared 2 C temperature anomaly increase.
Richard
I was looking for something a little more specific…what kind of temperatures (on a daily basis) would one expect to make for a 2 degree warming or a 4 degree warming? I wouldn’t think it would be noticeable.
4TimesAYear:
You have responded to the various answers to your question by saying
But that concurs with my specific answers to you here and here.
As I said
Richard
This analysis appears to accept the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. All that is being disputed is the magnitude of the increase in temperature caused by a doubling of CO2.
However, there has been no warming for the past 18 years. Meanwhile CO2 has risen from 360ppm to 400ppm. This should have produced about 15% of the temperature increase expected if CO2 doubled.
If the IPCC estimate the climate sensitivity to be 2.2C, 360ppm to 400ppm should produce about 0.33C.
No scientific explanation has been given as to why this 0.33C has not occurred.
What this analysis accepts – in response to Walt D – is that if one is to persuade governments to think twice before setting up an unelected global government one can demonstrate, using what they regard as mainstream climate science, that even if CO2 is the main driver of climate (which it may or may not be) it will not produce much warming in the 21st century.
IMO it can be conclusively shown that CO2 hardly matters at all above a low threshold level, but thereafter is more an effect than cause of climate change.
The cult of CAGW have ignored the fact that there is cyclic climate change in the paleo record which correlates with solar cycle changes. The sun is a serial climate changer.
There are multiple observations, analysis results, and logical arguments that support the assertion that no less than 75% of the recent warming is due to solar cycle changes. (More complicated than how many sunspots are on the sun which there is a cottage industry to adjust along with past and recent temperatures.)
The climate wars will end abruptly when there is: 1) An epiphany that developed countries have run out money to spend on everything, that there is an absolute limit to deficit spending and printing money, and that green scams are astronomically expensive to significantly reduce CO2 emissions or 2) the planet abruptly cools due to the unfolding abrupt change to the sun.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
The Antarctic peninsula is outside of the Antarctic polar vortex and hence records the temperature of the Southern sea. The Antarctic peninsula ice cores shows cyclic warming in the past that matches what we have recently observed. Obviously the past cyclic warming that was in ever case followed by cooling was not caused by atmospheric CO2 changes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: The Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years. There was abrupt cooling 11,900 years ago (Younger Dryas abrupt cooling period when the planet went from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 75% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade and there was abrupt cooling 8200 years ago during the 8200 BP climate ‘event’).
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
the planet abruptly cools due to the unfolding abrupt change to the sun.
There is no such thing. Here is the last 400+ years of solar activity
http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
There is a possible ~100-year cycle and if that is any guide, we have been there before and the evolution of climate does not follow the long-term evolution of the Sun.
Hi doc
Now you mentioned it, I have taken to your new numbers as the proverbial ‘fish to the water’.
I tried to normalise ‘the new’ to ‘the old’, got something like this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.gif
and the actual numbers are here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NEW-SSN-annual.htm
Is there an official alternative ?
Of course not, and there shouldn’t be,
It is like you ask if there is a global temperature record measured in Reaemur (or Reamur) degrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9aumur_scale
Thanks a bunch.
So how are you going to know if you got SC24 Rmax right?
What about all your papers SC Rmax = 0.7 Polar Field max?
What about all the papers proxy calculations of solar activity in the past millennia?
What about … etc … etc ?
Ahh.. well, there are always Vuk’s pseudo-numbers, from now available on his website…(see link above).
Because everything just scales upwards by the inverse of the obsolete factor 0.6 that we removed.
Leif, Is it reasonably well established that the SSN maxima in the decades around 1780 really were as high as the 1957/8 IGY maximum; often stated as ‘ the highest ever ‘.
g
One way to eliminate issues with the sunspot number is to plot F10.7 at maximum against the polar field Dipole Moment DM at the preceding minimum:
http://www.leif.org/research/Observed-F107-and-Polar-Field-DM.png
SC24 is circled, and as you can see it falls precisely on the predicted line.
“Because everything just scales upwards by the inverse of the obsolete factor 0.6 that we removed.”
Linear scaling may not be appropriate since you altered the SSN by different factors throughout series. This is important since past papers may use integration or other ways in assessing the solar influence.
To get comparison of two I used a method referenced to the total average, which as it happens, shows enhancement in the early and reduction in the late numbers, not as obvious with the straight linear scaling you recommend.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN1.gif
Since the prediction paper only dealt with the last few cycles, the simple linear transformation holds.
For the thousands of papers other than the prediction paper they just have to live with progress.
george e. smith July 5, 2015 at 3:16 pm
Leif, Is it reasonably well established that the SSN maxima in the decades around 1780 really were as high as the 1957/8 IGY maximum; often stated as ‘ the highest ever ‘.
Yes it is [within the error bars]. The 14C cosmic ray proxy shows the same thing:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
New and old Sunspot monthly data correction factor
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CF.gif
shows that more than just last few cycles were corrected.
All cycles were corrected, but for the prediction paper that you were so concerned about, only the last three or four cycles matter, and only their maximum values. You can learn more about the corrections here http://www.stce.be/newsletter/newsletter.php
Note that the large spikes at minima are the results of dividing numbers close to zero. Those are, of course, not relevant for the prediction of the maxima.
Any particular reason why period 1850 – 1867 had an extra boost to the sunspot numbers ?
Yes, see Figure 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf
Tnx Dr. Svalgaard.
As it happens the recalculated SSN fits my formula a bit better, so I shall at some time reluctantly change over. If we do have dip in global temperatures then the SSNs will be of more interest. As far as the predictions are concerned, it appears that your old 72+ or –, and my 80 can’t be far off the mark.
see you elsewhere
As it happens the recalculated SSN fits my formula a bit better, so I shall at some time reluctantly change over.
Confirmation bias is the wrong reason for changing. You should change because the new SSN is better, regardless.
Not 2. In fact, not even 1, but more like less than 0.4.
Does anyone believe that we will not have devised new sources of energy by 2100?
Assuming we can survive an “inferno” of +2 degrees, what is the probability that there is even a problem?
We already have it, just needs to be refined. The Molten Salt Reactor will power before 2100 and with it’s very high working temperatures be able to make syngas from all the coal we have at below todays fuel prices. The can run on uranium (our spent fuel rods as well) and Thorium.
“””””…..
Greg White
July 5, 2015 at 11:35 am
We already have it, just needs to be refined……”””””
English translation: ‘ We don’t have it.’
g
Do you mean new sources, in the sense of non solar originated, or non stored chemical energy, or non nuclear fission, or just what “new” sources did you have in mind ??
Remember, a warm planet is a happy planet!
Doesn’t that make Venus the happiest planet going?
“Venus, the red herring.”
Correction:
Venus, the red-hair
http://www.italian-renaissance-art.com/images/Birth_of_Venus_Botticelli.jpg
Venus, the red herring.
Just like me chestnuts!
Too warm, or not too warm? That is the question.
4TimesAYear Asks …
>> What, exactly, does an increase of 2degreeC in global
>> average temp mean in terms of real temperatures?
Let’s be clear about one thing: a ‘mean temperature’ of itself
tells us nothing about minima and maxima. For example:
suppose on Day 1 there was a gradual and even increase
over 24 hours from 10C to 20C, and on Day 2 there was a
gradual and even increase from 12C to 19C According to
current methods Day 1 has the higher maximum temperature,
but Day 2 is the ‘hottest’.
If I look in my climate textbooks , eg “Climate Modelling Primer ” by McGuffie and Henderson- Sellers , I get the impression that the modern interest in modern climate science started in the mid ’70s with seminal works from the likes of James Hansen, etc – ie 40 years ago .
Now when i started to learn atomic and molecular theory at university in the 60s , 40 years would have taken one back to the very start of wave mechanics , and quantum mechanics with deBroglie, Schrodinger , Heisenberg , Born and Pauli . followed quickly by Dirac , Pauling’s valency bond theories , Van Vleck and crystal field theory to explain the colour and magnetic properties of transition metal compounds , and of course the start of band theory of solids and the concept of Brouillon zones to explain the differences between metal , insulators and semiconductors . All that in about 30 years , and the models and theories get more detailed , produce actual commercial, working , materials and devices on which the global economy depends but the basic questions in climate science , such as the forcing sensitivity are still up for debate after 40 years. Quite a contrast. Remember also that that pioneering work in atomic and molecular physics and chemistry was done with chalk and blackboard , or pen and paper, plus of course a good dollop of genius – maybe that is what makes the difference .
I am of course being slightly unfair to the no doubt diligent researchers in the field of climate science . Those rapid advances mentioned above had the assistance of established mathematical techniques such as group theory which can be applied to regular , symmetric , crystalline materials . The progress in understanding the disordered systems of fluids and glasses is less dramatic , but still makes , IMO , climate science seem laggardly compared to atomic and molecular physics and chemistry.
Don’t be too hard on the climate scientists. They’re trying to model a coupled, non-linear, chaotic object, and one cannot get definitive answers for a chaotic object without well-resolved knowledge of its initial conditions (Lorenz 1963, Lighthill 1998, Giorgi 2005).
The well has also been poisoned by enviro-communists playing politics with science. Were it not for them, everyone would be happy to wait and see how much warming our enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 will cause. The longer the world fails to warm at anything like the wildly exaggerated rates they predicted, the less likely it is that climate sensitivity is anything like as high as they have been trying to claim.
The chaotic nature of the climate is characteristic of how it gets from one steady state to another and not what the new steady state will be after some change to the system or stimulus. GCM’s certainly do suffer from the problem of needing to know the precise initial conditions and absolute knowledge of countless physical features of the planet for the simulation to be anything close to accurate, especially after simulating long periods of time. Thermodynamic systems exhibit the property that they must obey physical laws, even at the macroscopic level, thus it’s relative easy to reverse engineer a transfer function for the atmosphere from measurements at its boundaries, express it in terms of properties like transmittance, and predict very accurately what the new steady state will be upon changes to GHG concentrations without ever needing to know the path taken to get there.
This is categorically incorrect. You need to learn about multistable systems and self-organized critical phenomena. You are assuming that the climate has “a” single steady state characteristic of the inputs, and this assumption is, to put it bluntly, almost certainly false. The Earth’s climate system is manifestly multistable with at least two well-known, named climate states (glacial and interglacial) and has historically exhibited meso-scale climate periods long enough and characteristic enough to be named, e.g. Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, even within the Holocene interglacial.
The chaotic nature of chaotic dynamical systems is that they have no steady state.
rgb
Yes, there are meta-stable states, like El-Nino/La-Nino, etc. None the less. they generally come in pairs whose average result is centered around the mean. All we need to know is how the mean varies in response to change and that is what I’m talking about as the LTE response of the system to change that is readily predictable. If there’s some meta-stable transition that will be triggered within the few tenths of a degree warming doubling CO2 will cause, that transition will likely happen anyway and its only a matter of when, not if, moreover; no GCM would be able to predict this with any degree of accuracy. There may be meta-stable state pair with a larger effect, but there is no where near enough information in any GCM to make any kind of prediction of transitions among them, whose existence is still speculative at best.
Here’s the spreadsheet I made for Climate Pete that shows how changes to this mean can be readily predicted and these predictions are consistent with the skeptics.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/corrected.xlxs
Sorry, link was incorrect. It should be
http://www.palisad.com/co2/corrected.xlsx
Thanks, Christopher. Lord Monckton. A good argument for sanity.
Lord Monckton’s Figure 1 -“The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 6 months since January 1997.” The correlation is trend -0.01C (=.03C/century) with RSQ = 0.000. It is the definition of “hiatus.”
I found it useful to look at global mean temperature and CO2 trends on the same plot over the same period AND in an XY cross plot of global mean temperature against CO2 – which makes the case even stronger… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/12/a-look-at-carbon-dioxide-vs-global-temperature/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/a-statistical-definition-of-the-hiatus-in-global-warming-using-nasa-giss-and-mlo-data/ [NASA GISS global mean temperature and Mauna Loa / Keeling CO2).
The temperature – CO2 cross plot produces similar conclusions as Monckton’s Figure 1, near zero slope and RSQ of 0.03. The cross plot is a shotgun scattergram. This says nothing at all about a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature – and that is the point. Unsurprising since there is no relationship at all. No significant statistical correlation at all is an important fact / data-based conclusion. And RSQ of near zero says that any variation in the data set during the period (a shotgun) is due to “not CO2” causes.
Lord Monckton,
I beg your pardon but I haven’t completely understood your step 9.
Relative to which time do you count the increase of 1.1 K (9)?
In your post you’re talking about the Kopenhagen assertion that an increase of 2 degrees compared with pre-industrial temperature would be dangerous. What is that starting time? 1850? 1900? 1950?
Is the observed increase of ~0.8 K since ~1880 part of the 1.1 K (here multi decadal variations with periods of ~60 years almost level out)?
The observed time intervall up to 2100 is larger than one century. So which total temperature increase relative to now could be expected (ignoring all natural influences)?
I really enjoy your articles making many things much clearer to me. Thank you very much!
In answer to Herr Kohl, the starting-point for the industrial era is 1750. I should have made this clear in the head posting: so sorry. Thus, the 2 K since 1750 target is equivalent to 1.1 K warming by 2100 compared with today. So we have 85 years to go, and no warming this century so far.
I’m doing further work on this line of argument, using the IPCC’s data for forcings and feedbacks, and hope to report again when the work is complete.
Many thanks for your kind words. My aim is to give the reader an elementary understanding of the central equations and parameters that govern the question of how much warming we may cause, so that everyone can see for himself that it is not very likely we shall face a large manmade warming this century – or at all.
Lord Monckton,
thank you very much!
“The longer the world fails to warm at anything like the wildly exaggerated rates they predicted, the less likely it is that climate sensitivity is anything like as high as they have been trying to claim.” Lord MoB.
***************
That’s about it in a nutshell, surely?
Rising CO2 levels + lack of significant warming + lack of accelerated warming + lack of runaway positive feedbacks = climate Kryptonite for high climate sensitivity = RIP runaway global warming theory = we’re all still going to die anyway so what’s all the ***** fuss about?
If only we got some real climate change, then at least we’d die warm.
@ Bob Lyman
Just the Volt and Leaf = 150,000 on road electric vehicles, add in the Tesla and others, well:
— your 25,000 EV number is off by an order of magnitude
— Two OoM when you add in the ~3 Million hybrids
Lord Monckton:
Technically, I would argue that (at best) all predictions/projections of future global average temperature anomalies are better made with a temperature change and a probability. Your first paragraphs almost do that, but you neglected the very real chance that today’s 2000-2015 “plateau” was actually a 60 year short-cycle peak near (or at!) the maximum of the 1000 year long cycle. Instead, you began by assuming that the minimum temperature chance between today and 2100 is +1 deg C.
Thus, future temperatures (longer than 85-170 years) may go down from today’s Modern WP.
Or, more likely, future natural cycle temperatures may “try” to go down measurably from today’s 2000-2015 plateau, but are balanced by increases in CO2 and thus global average anomalies may stay near the same as today’s Modern WP.
Every future temperature range is thus a probability:
0 to -1 deg C change => 5-10 % chance
0 to +1 deg C change => 10 – 20 % chance
1 to +2 deg C change => 10 – 20 % chance
2 to +3 deg C change => 10 – 20 % chance
3 to +4 deg C change => 10 – 20 % chance
> +4 deg C change => less than 5% chance of occurring.
Read the head posting, which demonstrates that the maxiumum, not the minimum, anthropogenic warming of the 20th century will be 1 C. The posting also makes it plain that there could be as little as 0.4 C on the mainstream estimates, and even less if feedbacks are net-negative or aerosol negative forcing persists throughout the century.
Probability distributions in the face of as many unknowns as there are in the climate are by no means easy. Essentially, this is a problem in probabilistic combinatorics – a technique in which I have some experience. But there is insufficient information for a meaningful probability distribution, which is why I prefer the logical technique of accepting the premises of the usual suspects and demonstrating what the conclusions ought logically to be. That leaves far less wriggle-room.
Predictions of variables and future probability distributions when there are missing variables are not very meaningful unless there is some accounting and confidence re the missing variables. Predicting is a weather problem not a long range climate – global temperature prediction problems. If long term cycles are important talking one might be able to speak intelligently about long term trends. The problem is system complexity, insufficient understanding and (therefore) too many degrees of freedom to model predictions.
Thank you.
Thank you RACook, PE
With respect, I suggest climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 (ECS) is so low that it will have an insignificant effect on future Earth temperatures, even IF CO2 continues to increase (and CO2 may even decrease if cooling is strong enough).
I wrote this in 2012 or earlier, and it is still “good enough”, imo.
I do think that global cooling will probably be measurable by 2020 or sooner, but we typically have to look back a few years before we can clearly see a new trend.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/#more-56210
[excerpts]
Allan MacRae says: February 9, 2012 at 12:36 am
In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.
How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?
___________________________________________
I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections) ? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
Hope I am wrong.
Given my reasoning below and my check list for items that may influence the direction of the climate if the climate does not cool going forward I will reconsider all of my positions.
First my check off list for the climate trend going forward.
Solar Variability – favorable for strong cooling and increasing as the maximum of solar cycle 24 comes to an end.
Geo Magnetic Field – in a weakening mode which should enhance solar effects and contribute to a cooling trend.
Milankovitch Cycles- in contrast to 8000 years ago more favorable for cooling. N.H. summers now corresponding to aphelion.
Land/Ocean Arrangements- very favorable for cooling.
Ice Dynamic- neutral.
PDO/AMO/ENSO phase going forward should feature the cold phase with more La Nina’s.
Finally the secondary effects associated with very low solar activity from an increase in geological activity, to a more meridional atmospheric circulation to more clouds as some examples will favor cooling.
Let me try to approach it in this manner. The shortfall when it comes to climate is many are unable to intergrade all the various factors that are involved when it comes to the climate that will not result in a given item (the sun) changing in a given way resulting in an x climate outcome. Somehow this opinion prevails that an x change in solar variability has to immediately translate to an x change climatic response. In addition lag times need to be incorporated into the equation of the climate.
I will add, climate regime change, and natural variation of the climate within a climatic regime are entirely two different things. What throws many off is the natural climatic variations within a particular climatic regime. This is what obscures the solar climate connection.
In addition I will go so far to say the climate can not change into another climatic regime without the aid of solar variability but that does not mean it can not fluctuate within a given climate regime.
Here are the four factors (Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability ,Geo Magnetic Field Strength ,Land/Ocean Arrangements/Ice Dynamic ) which govern the climate of the earth and give it a beat of 1500 years or so but never in an exact regular cycle.
The factors that govern the big picture when it comes to the climate are Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability, and these last three, the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the Earth , Land /Ocean Arrangements/ Ice Dynamic those last three (geo magnetic field, land/ocean arrangements/ice dynamic) determining how effective Milankovitch Cycles and Solar Variability will be when it comes to impacting the climate.
This explains why the 1470 year climate cycle is there but it varies so much over time.
In addition the evidence is mounting that the climate changes in sync in both hemispheres which eliminates a redistribution of energy within the climatic system for the reason why the climate changes ,which is on weak grounds to begin with ,and strengthens the fact that it is only changes in the total energy coming into the climatic system that can change it enough to bring it into another climate regime.
Further I maintain that all Intrinsic Earth Bound climatic factors are limited as to how much they can change the climate due to the total amount of energy in the climatic system they have to work with. Hence, they have the ability to change the climate within a climate regime( maybe plus or minus 1c) but they can not bring the climate from one regime to another regime. They refine the climate.
Then finally the rogue asteroid impact or maybe super nova explosion some where off in space that at times had a big impact on the climate system which would further obscure or even eliminate the 1470 year semi cyclic cycle.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
This article is speculation, about speculation, about the average temperature well in the future.
.
Speculation about speculation is mental masturbation, not science.
.
The future can not be predicted.
.
It may be warmer in 2100, or cooler.
.
No one knows.
The most important climate fact is the amount of CO2 in the air has never correlated with average temperature, so is not the primary driver of climate.
.
The second most important fact is that climate proxy studies have consistently shown natural climate variations, and there is no reason to assume they stopped in 1940 (and CO2 magically became the only driver of climate change)
.
The +2 C. number was pulled out of a hat (or from a lower location) — it’s primary purpose is political: To boost the fading strength of the climate change boogeyman, by being more specific.
.
It’s secondary purpose is to deflect debate away from whether CO2 is an important climate driver (it is not) and whether climate models are accurate predictors of the future (they are not) … toward debating about the +2 degree C. wild guess theory, a goal the author of this article has fallen for.
.
The author of this article wastes his obviously great intelligence on the +2 degree C. non-science (nonsense) theory by discussing it, when it should be ridiculed as the nonsense it is.
.
Based on climate proxy studies:
I think it’s safe to guess the climate in the past has varied by more than +/- 2 degrees C. between the ice ages.
.
If that is true, the 1850 Modern Warming is likely to reach +2 degrees C., or more before it ends, assuming it did not already end in 1998 — and that +2 degrees C. or more warming would be a natural climate variation … consistent with roughly estimated natural climate variations in the past using climate proxies (warming and cooling most likely caused by minor solar energy variations, in my opinion).
.
My climate blog for the average guy,
which includes a climate centerfold:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
Mr Greene has missed the point of the head posting, which is that using mainstream IPCC methods and data one can show that there will be not more than 1 K manmade warming this century. I do not say how much there is or is not going to be: I merely say that if one relies on IPCC arguments one cannot make out a case for the very large 21st century warming they suggest.
Since the future climate can not be predicted, the IPCCs wild guesses are meaningless speculation.
.
Their models have no predictive ability even for the first ten years of their 100-year forecasts.
The models are not real science, because models are not real data — their “predictions” are nothing more than the personal opinions of the people who programmed the computers
Your “criticism” of the IPCC wild guesses is not particularly useful.
.
The correct answer to questions about the average temperature of Earth in 2100 is: NO ONE KNOWS if it will be warmer or cooler, much less how many degrees warmer or cooler.
.
Your post has a conclusion about the climate in 2100, yet you (and everyone else) have no idea about the climate in 2100.
The IPCC provides a range of wild guesses.
Based on climate proxy studies, the +2 degrees C. lower end of the range seems possible, while the +7 degrees C. upper end of the range seems crazy (and you are implying the +7 degrees C. upper range is so crazy it is not even be supported by anything in the IPCC back-up volumes.)
.
The important thing to remember is that the average temperature of earth in 2100 may be +2 degrees C., or even +7 degrees C., warmer (or colder) than today — no one knows that now.
.
But there is a lot of evidence available today to believe that an increase of CO2 from 400 to 500 ppmv, or even from 400 ppmv to 600 ppmv, will have no more than a minor effect on the average temperature
.
It is not human nature to ever want to say “I don’t know”
.
However, for questions about the future climate, the only logical answer is “I don’t know”.
Most important points to make in any “denier” article on the climate:
.
(1) Earth’s climate is always changing, and the future climate is always unknown.
(2) CO2 levels do not correlate with average temperature
(3) IPCC models are expensive, inaccurate wild guesses
(4) More CO2 in the air accelerates green plant growth = good news,
(5) The one or two degree F. warming in the past 135 years is perfectly normal for our planet, and nothing to worry about.
Mr Greene still misunderstands the actually quite simple head posting. The conclusion is predicated on the IPCC’s methods and data. If those methods and data are correct, then the conclusion follows, and the IPCC’s exaggerations have no basis in reality.
I have applied to their argument the first of Karl Popper’s four tests for acceptance that a hypothesis constitutes a defensible scientific statement – is its logic internally self-consistent?
The answer is No. Therefore, the IPCC’s argument for considerable warming by 2100 is unsound and no conclusion can be drawn from it except that which I have drawn: if it’s premises – notably the very substantial reduction in the feedback sum – are correct, then its conclusion that there will be substantial anthropogenic warming this century is false and the warming will be 1 K or less.
For the reasons given in our Chinese Academy paper at scibull.com (click “most read articles”), we consider it likely that the feedback sum is at most weakly positive. In that event, there will be little manmade warming even as a result of the combustion of all recoverable fossil fuels.
Such scientific conclusions may be of no interest to Mr Greene, but the quite substantial number of comments here suggest others are intrigued. This is a blog about science. It discusses scientific questions. If Mr Greene is not interested in such questions, that is his right. Let him suffer the loss of freedom and the savage taxes and regulations that the world government to be established at Copenhagen will bring.
To conclude that the ratio of two quantities (e.g., the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 Stock Index) is a constant is generally illogical for there are counter-examples. Why then should one believe that the ratio of the change in Earth’s global surface temperature at equilibrium to the change in the logarithm of the CO2 concentration, aka “the equilibrium climate change” (TECS) is a constant? So far as I have been able to determine, there is no reason for this belief. Somebody made it up.
Thus, the claim that the magnitude of TECS is around 3 Celsius per CO2 doubling should be disregarded. So should the claim that the magnitude is lower or higher. The hoopla over the “pause” is misguided.
I erred. In my post of July 10 please change “the equilibrium climate change” to “the equilibrium climate sensitivity.”