“It’s the most dire prediction yet”!!!
Guest post by David Middleton
Featured image borrowed from here.
In even the bleakest climate change scenarios for the end of this century, science has offered hope that global warming would eventually slow down. But a new study published Monday snuffs out such hope, projecting temperatures that rise lockstep with carbon emissions until the last drops of oil and lumps of coal are used up.
Global temperatures will increase on average by 8 degrees Celsius (14.4 degrees F) over preindustrial levels by 2300 if all of Earth’s fossil fuel resources are burned, adding five trillion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere, according to the research by Canadian scientists published in Nature Climate Change. In the Arctic, average temperatures would rise by 17 degrees C (30.6 degrees F).
Those conclusions are several degrees warmer than previous studies have projected.
If these temperatures do become reality, greenhouse gases would transform Earth into a place where food is scarce, parts of the world are uninhabitable for humans, and many species of animals and plants are wiped out, experts say.
“It would be as unrecognizable to us as a fully glaciated world,” says Myles Allen, head of a climate dynamics group at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. Allen was not involved in the new study, but his research has focused on carbon’s cumulative impacts on climate.
Noting that it took less warming, 6 degrees C (10.8 degrees F), to lift the world out of the Ice Age, Allen said, “That’s the profundity of the change we’re talking about.”
[…]
What croc of schist!
First off, we haven’t been lifted “out of the Ice Age.” Earth has been in an ice age since the Oligocene. We are fortunate enough to be living in an interglacial stage of an ice age.
The current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide doesn’t even break out of the Cenozoic noise level…
This latest bit of nonsense from NatGeo is based on Katarzyna et al., 2016. Here’s the abstract…
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | LETTER
The climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon
Katarzyna B. Tokarska, Nathan P. Gillett, Andrew J. Weaver, Vivek K. Arora & Michael Eby
Nature Climate Change (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate3036 Received 29 July 2015 Accepted 21 April 2016 Published online 23 May 2016
Concrete actions to curtail greenhouse gas emissions have so far been limited on a global scale1, and therefore the ultimate magnitude of climate change in the absence of further mitigation is an important consideration for climate policy2. Estimates of fossil fuel reserves and resources are highly uncertain, and the amount used under a business-as-usual scenario would depend on prevailing economic and technological conditions. In the absence of global mitigation actions, five trillion tonnes of carbon (5 EgC), corresponding to the lower end of the range of estimates of the total fossil fuel resource3, is often cited as an estimate of total cumulative emissions4, 5, 6. An approximately linear relationship between global warming and cumulative CO2 emissions is known to hold up to 2 EgC emissions on decadal to centennial timescales7, 8, 9, 10, 11; however, in some simple climate models the predicted warming at higher cumulative emissions is less than that predicted by such a linear relationship8. Here, using simulations12 from four comprehensive Earth system models13, we demonstrate that CO2-attributable warming continues to increase approximately linearly up to 5 EgC emissions. These models simulate, in response to 5 EgC of CO2 emissions, global mean warming of 6.4–9.5 °C, mean Arctic warming of 14.7–19.5 °C, and mean regional precipitation increases by more than a factor of four. These results indicate that the unregulated exploitation of the fossil fuel resource could ultimately result in considerably more profound climate changes than previously suggested.
We analyze prescribed-concentration simulations from… (CMIP5) driven by the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 Extension scenario (RCP8.5-Ext)…
In summary:
- Make a WAG as to the total fossil fuel resource potential (presumably the authors know the difference between reserves and resources).
- Assume mankind will burn all of it over the next 284 years.
- Apply RCP 8.5 “The stuff nightmares are made from”.
- Issue “most dire prediction yet.”
I will give them “credit” for not using the phrase “business as usual.” However, the following quote from the abstract is just a wordy version of “business as usual.”
In the absence of global mitigation actions, five trillion tonnes of carbon (5 EgC), corresponding to the lower end of the range of estimates of the total fossil fuel resource, is often cited as an estimate of total cumulative emissions.
RCP 8.5 is bad science fiction…
Based on a real world “business as usual” emissions scenario, with natural gas displacing oil at its current pace and no carbon tax, I come up with a CO2 right about inline with RCP 6.0, “a mitigation scenario, meaning it includes explicit steps to combat greenhouse gas emissions (in this case, through a carbon tax)“.
Then I took my real world “business as usual” relative concentration pathway and applied three reasonable climate sensitivities to it: 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2, starting at 280 ppmv (TCR 0.5, TCR 1.5 and TCR 2.5). HadCRUT4, referenced to 1850-1879 is clearly tracking very close to TCR 1.5…
Since it is generally assumed that at least half of the warming since 1850 was natural, the actual climate sensitivity would have to be significantly lower than 1.5 °C per doubling. Therefore, RCP 8.5 should never be described as “business as usual,” “expected” or a “baseline case.” Since its assumptions are mind mindbogglingly unrealistic, it shouldn’t be used in any serious publication. It is bad science fiction.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh.
An 8 deg. C increase in global temperature would according to Wentz et al, increase the rates of evaporation and precipitation by 56% and also increase the total water content of the atmosphere by 56%.
It is also likely that would increase the total global cloud cover by 56%, from 60% now, up to 93.6% then.
So the total clear skies would be reduced from 40% to just 6.4%, which would cut ground level solar insolation by a factor of 6.25.
I dare say, it would be pretty damn cold on the ground, if that happened.
Do we even have enough total fossil fuel to raise the Temperature by 8 deg. C if we burnt it all at once.
G
PS Although Wentz et al found 7% water increase for a 1 deg. C rise in global temperature, they did not address the consequences of an absurd 8 deg. C rise.
Now, now. You know all of this is done using a hypothetical partial differential equation solution holding everything else constant. And here you go insisting that partial of T wrt partial CO2 is effected by the values of other variables and that those will not remain constant. Gosh, do you want to turn the entire world into a state of chaos?
If I were teaching a class in meteorology, physics, or mathematics, the escathological cargo cult of the cagw adherents would get a solid Fail.
93% cloud cover would really ruin the day for users of solar panels.
So you see if the Temperature gose up enough, it is going to get really cold on earth.
In the mean time, I predict a Nobel Physics Prize for the climate scientist who finally discovers that the input terminal of the climate feedback amplifier, is NOT the atmospheric CO2 abundance, but is actually the TSI, which is relatively constant, apart from its ellipticity factor. So if you connect the cloud feedback signal to the solar input rather than to the atmospheric CO2, you will see why it can’t go up 8 deg. C.
Meanwhile the climate continues to refuse to follow the CO2 increase, which we know tracks perfectly with world human (only) population.
G
I continue to amaze myself, with what I say, without putting any of it into words.
So NOwhere in my post did I even mention CO2, let alone assert any differential equation relating Temperature to CO2; which clearly from the data of the last 150 years are not related in any way.
And I don’t think I mentioned holding anything stationary, anywhere in my post.
Wentz et all MEASURED the global mean Temperature (and its change) and they MEASURED the global total evaporation rate, AND the total global precipitation rate, and they MEASURED the total global atmospheric water content, so they did not grab a hold of any other climate variable and manipulate it, including holding it constant.
So they directly measured the results they reported on; nothing was modeled and nothing was referred to CO2, which was aloud to do whatever it wanted to do, of course to no avail, since we know from the data that CO2 doesn’t really have anything to do with the climate.
At the North pole CO2 can drop 18-20 ppmm in less than five months.
And anybody who plots 40 years of measured data, and the APPENDS 85 years of extrapolated baloney beyond that, needs to be tarred and feathered, and held up to public ridicule.
G
The 7% water increase for a 1 deg. C rise in global temperature is the increase in saturated vapor pressure of water, tabulated in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. This 7% rise would also be true if all water vapor pressures were at 50% relative humidity, not 100% (saturated). The Handbook also tabulates values for 8 deg. C rise, or much more, allowing one to calculate boiling points at various external pressures. Because vapor pressure is roughly an exponential function of temperature, this 7% rise is roughly true for any relevant starting temperature, from -10 to 40 Celsius. This is so because exp[K(T+1)] = exp(KT).exp(K) = constant.exp(KT) for any T, since K and therefore exp(K) are constants. For a 0.6 degree climate sensitivity (which I estimate to be the best value not including water vapor and cloud feedbacks), the water vapor increase is only 4%, so that even giving water vapor a weighting factor of 2 (to account for the fact that water vapor is twice as powerful as CO2 in absorbing infrared emitted from the Earth’s surface), the positive feedback due to increased water vapor is likely only 8%, not 200%, so the literature uses a massively unrealistic value of 1+2 = 3 degree for climate sensitivity. Since the net cloud feedback is strongly negative, the likely true climate sensitivity will be less than 0.6 degrees on doubling CO2.
For a reference to the exponential 7% increase in water vapor pressure for a 1 degree C rise in temperature, see near the end of the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius-Clapeyron_relation .
[snip – pejorative, policy violation -mod]
“Nature Climate Change” has long since jumped the shark.
My money is on the bear.
Your tax dollars certainly are.
Mine should have been on the [Leicester] Foxes.
5000-1 at the start of the season . . . .
Auto, suffering severe hindsight problems.
PS – England Premiership Soccer [and they won by ten point out of about eighty=one!!!
Shocker for pundits.
Auto
Well I’m sure that it is getting to be not Kosher to be using the name of Foxes in vain, or any other blood sport. Izzat Association Football or just Rugger. Maybe they should change their name to the Leicester Larches of something less controversial.
Is Leicestershire pronunciated the same way Worcestershire is, more or less ??
Are they cleaning up or have they stalled ??
g
NatGeo is simply proselytizing for the new climate religion of the Leftist movement. No science involved.
Desperate people must put into effect outrageous scenarios for attention. It does work, obviously.
I like this one: “…where…parts of the world are uninhabitable by humans…” Ummmm….aren’t parts of the world now uninhabitable by humans? *sigh*
I wonder what the odds of a devastating Solar flare are in the next 284 years. Or asteroid impact. Or….
Yeah and the ice sheets are well known for their high primary productivity and booming human populations.
…And an Alien attack !! Same odds as Glo.Bull Warming !
Like Detroit?
or a massive volcano. My money is on the volcano. Hope to check out before then….
Well just think of all of the ocean depths that are now inhabited by humans, mostly Jack Cousteau offspring, busily teasing sharks into feeding frenzies, for their violent movies that they use to con gullible people into funding their world trips.
And then there are all the folks in outer space, living hand to mouth with life support from the Russians.
Come to think of it, there is damn little of planet earth that is inhabitable even now. Fortunately for us, very little of the inhabitable parts of the planet, are actually inhabited now. You can put everybody in Texas, and give each person their own personal 150 square feet.
So don’t sweat it Mates; she’ll be right; it will all come out in the wash !
G
~7 billion people / 269,000 sq miles = 26,000 people per sq. mi.
27,878,400 sq feet per sq mile / 26,000 people per sq mi = 1072 sq ft per person.
Maybe you meant square meters rather than feet, as 1072 sq ft = ~100 sq meters.
The 269,000 sq mi might include water.
Well Gabro the rest of that thou-seventy two is taken up by all the lawyers, and the politicians; maybe golf courses, leaving just 150 for the peons.
And thanx for doing the math, so we know how uncrowded it really is.
G
“You can put everybody in Texas,”
Is that a threat?
Climate pseudo-science has crossed into the science fiction realm.
That happened years ago.
Isn’t that what pseudo-science is, by definition? Fiction?
Can someone please explain to these “scientists” that plants like CO2?
..You would think that “Vegetarians” would welcome more CO2 ??
When vegetarians, discover that plants have a soul, and feelings, and that they don’t like their offspring being ripped from them and devoured right in front of their leaves, then the vegans will have to start making food the old fashioned way, like Mother Gaia does; out of rocks and water.
They probably could take some CO2 out of the air to use for cooking up their stone soup food.
g
Oh! Don’t do that! Giant man killing triffids stalking the Earth!
Remember these guys were raised on lefty ‘mankind is doomed and good riddance’ stories ! Unfortunately lacking any scientific education, they never understood that these were works of impossible fiction.
..It is so sad to see that such a great learning tool in my childhood has become a simple mouth piece for the Anti-Human crowd !
It’s worse than we thought.
The report states that certain areas of the earth will become uninhabitable. To the best of my knowledge certain areas of the earth are presently uninhabitable. I’m referiring to the north and south polar regions. The area in the far north of the Northern Hemishere, the tundra, is virtually uninhabitable. All we would be doing in essence is exchanging uninhabitable regions. Remember, the earth has gone through many climatic changes in its long history and most occurred before mankind was ever on the scene.
For some crazy reason people come to Florida to retire. When it gets too hot here, there will be a new-Florida that arises somewheres north of here. If you can figure out that particular geographic spot before anyone else, there will be massive financial potential. Start buying those upland lots in flyover country and planning the next big retirement destination. Must be sure to accurately calculate the sea level rise and temp; it’s gotta be 90s and seaside. Some enterprising AGWers out there should jump on this!
The climate kooks are not trying very hard any more.
I’m happy. Ive been hammering at RCP8.5 since I saw the AR5 draft report. I’m still seeing about 630 ppm peak CO2. Oil exploration results in 2015 seem to confirm the amount of oil left to find is fairly small, and the light oil from tight rock resource plays aren’t yielding any upsides.
Crocodiles can’t even make it in middle GA. The world would have to warm up at least 30C to enable crocodiles to survive in the Arctic.
Well, they’ve been digging up 71 million-year-old dinosaur fossils during Antarctic expedition recently.
I guess it must have been fairly warm at some stage.
It was. It was also further north back in the Mesozoic.
You have to factor in how a different distribution of the continents back then affected the distribution of heat around the planet.
Also the fact that the Antarctic wasn’t as far south back then.
PS: Dinosaurs and crocodiles are two entirely different evolutionary lines. They don’t have a lot in common.
Most dinosaurs had a form of feathers for covering to help them keep warm. Crocodiles never did.
Crocodilians and their relatives did indeed live above the Arctic Circle in the past, during the Cretaceous Period (last of the Mesozoic Era) and the first two epochs of the following Paleogene Period (first of the present Cenozoic Era).
Cretaceous climate was equable, that is, it showed less drastic temperature variation from the equator to the poles. Ocean currents ran around the planet, carrying warm water to high latitudes. Antarctica was still connected to South America and Australia, or separated by shallow seas. The Arctic Ocean wasn’t as isolated as now, then later was fed by a warm current.
Crocodiles are more closely related to birds (and other dinosaurs) than to lizards and snakes. Their ancestors were probably warm-blooded, since like birds, they have four-chambered hearts. In modern crocs, these have been derated by the evolution of a hole, to adapt them to their now semi-aquatic lifestyle.
It’s not clear that all Arctic and Antarctic Mesozoic dinosaurs had feathers. The most common herbivores in those environments were ornithischians, which might have had spiky protofeathers on some parts of their bodies, but otherwise no insulation. Their fossil skin impressions show a pebbly kind of scale. Some at least of the predatory dinosaurs (theropods) there were however feathered for part or all of their lives.
Not just higher GHGs but high volcanic activity as the continents were drifting apart kept sea level high and SST warm. In fact, remarkably hot in the tropics. Skies were also less cloudy.
Not just croc-like champsosaurs but turtles lived in the Arctic, plus temperate and tropical vegetation.
http://qbit.cc/when-crocodiles-roamed-the-arctic/
Even in the Pliocene Epoch (5.333 to 2.58 million years BP), the Arctic Ocean was still ringed by pine and spruce forests.
The key period of Arctic warmth was the Cretaceous. The middle of North America was flooded and it appears that the Gulf Stream itself, would have actually flowed up this channel all the way to the Arctic ocean. Sea level was 265 metres at the time which was probably just enough to allow a full Gulf Stream flow. Besides that, this was a shallow sea which meant it would have been warm with no deep cold ocean to keep it cold.
Crocodiles follow the inland sea north which also contained giant Mosasaurus reptiles. No CO2 needs to be involved in this explanation.
http://cpgeosystems.com/images/NAM_key-85Ma_LateK-sm.jpg
Bill Illis
May 24, 2016 at 11:51 am
All true, although CO2 was a lot higher both during the Cretaceous and the early Cenozoic.
Even after the inland sea receded in the Maastrichtian Age at the end of the Cretaceous, however, dinosaurs, croc-relatives and turtles still lived in or at least visited the Arctic. Of course they still do, in the form of birds.
It’s interesting that some species of these same animals have very long life spans – at least compared to the life span of humans.
Yes, the giant sauropods could live a long time, like whales today.
It used to be thought that Arctic dinosaurs must have migrated, and maybe they did a bit, like caribou. But now there’s good evidence that they stayed in high latitudes year-round, being physiological incapable of long-distance migration. Not even today’s land mammals migrate the distances that would have been required to avoid the months of darkness at their paleolatitude. There is other evidence as well.
Arctic and Antarctic dinosaurs often had large eyes to help them see during the long nights.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest, that the genome of the long-lived bowhead whale of the Arctic has recently been studied for genetic clues to its longevity (over 200 years):
http://repository.liv.ac.uk/2011091/
Gabro,
“Even after the inland sea receded in the Maastrichtian Age at the end of the Cretaceous, however, dinosaurs, croc-relatives and turtles still lived in or at least visited the Arctic. Of course they still do, in the form of birds.”
Birds are obviously not dinosaurs, anymore than they (and all the creatures you listed there) are fish, simply because someone thinks they evolved from dinosaurs. Calling everything thought to have evolved from creature type X, creature type X, is just plain silly, to me.
“Calling everything thought to have evolved from creature type X, creature type X, is just plain silly, to me.”
That’s what I think about Americans who call themselves “Irish” just because they have an Irish ancestor or two.
Though with better punctuation, of course.
This is Ellesmere island. Coniferouss forest ~50 million y.a.
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic41-4-314.pdf
There were actually alligators (which are incidentally the most cold-tolerant crocodiles) in the arctic (Ellesmera land) once. Briefly. During the Eocene temperature peak 50 million years ago.
But the tropics don’t seem to have been much warmer than now, though probably quite a bit wetter.
And there wasn’t any mass extinctions. Contrariwise most important groups of birds and mammals originated and dispersed during that warm peak.
And the fraction of the Earth’s land surface that is uninhabitable to humans and other complex life forms during the present glacial epoch is almost certainly the largest for at least 250 millon years.
As the sc@m falls apart, they alarmists have to keep making more and more bizarre claims in order to get attention.
I think I can see those five islands that just disappeared under sea level rise, just up there to the NW of Greenland.
g
You cannot burn resources. You can only burn techincally recoverable reserves. Ignorant nonsense from the gitgo. RCP8.5 is logically flawed and physically impossible, let alone extrapolating it to 2300. Pure science fiction.
Yep. You have to convert the resources into reserves by drilling wells and digging mines. Then you have to convert the proven undeveloped reserves (PUD) into proved developed producing reserves (PDP). Then you can sell it to the consumers who actually burn the fossil fuels.
Not unusual for Andrew Weaver – Green Party Member in the British Columbia Legislature, long time CAGW activist from the University of Victoria, BC, attended Cambridge, University of New South Wales in Australia, contributor to the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Very well schooled. His name immediately throws cold water on any “climate” article in which his name appears but that shows my bias. Still, why do so many of these folks have such similar educations and backgrounds? There is an interesting “social engineering” study for someone.
Interestingly, his work on ocean circulation (without the drama of CAGW) is likely very important. Too bad alarmism takes precedence.
People who are essentially intellectual “specialists” (highly knowledgeable in one field) think that makes all their opinions about anything whatsoever pure gold. Give such people a title and a university position and that’s “confirmation” of their superiority. They “know” exactly how to run the world (and your lives). This is why you get such silly nonsense out of our universities. Our universities are populated by “idiot savants”.(Well, since socialism has taken over at our universities, maybe mostly idiots and few savants.)
Eugene WR Gallun
PS — As all well know it is poets who are “the unacknowledged legislators of the world”. That was said by Percy Bysshe Shelley and rightly proclaims poets as our only true universal geniuses. Sadly for humanity Shelly was drowned when, despite dark clouds and lightning he choose to go sailing in a small boat on Lake Geneva.
Wayne , Weaver might be well educated and as Eugene said might think everything he says is gospel, it still embarrasses me to know that he is a Canadian.
Hey, don’t feel too bad. He attended University of New South Wales in Australia after all.
Crikey, we have Tim Flannery; an ‘expert’ in dead wombats . . and we built half a dozen desalination plants on his say-so that rainfall would never be the same again.
I think we use the one in Western Australia but, for the others, we pay $millions a year just to keep their mothballs fresh.
Labor’s desal plant is costing Melbourne households about $1.8m a day for 27 years
It’s a generalization of the old saw; “The blind leading the blind”, or in other words; “monkey see, monkey do.”
Very simple.
Remember when we used to teach Latin in schools, to ensure a continuous future supply of Latin teachers.
g
1) There’s not a chance in heck that we could burn through all of the earth’s coal in a mere 284 years.
2) Since all recent studies point to a CO2 residency time in the atmosphere much shorter than is assumed by these “studies”, that would make CO2 levels at any point in the future lower than the amount assumed.
3) There is nothing reasonable about a TCR of 2.5.
TCR estimates above 2.0 °C are totally unsupported by anything other than pure alarmism. Almost all estimates based on actual instrumental era observations put it in the range of 0.5 to 1.8 °C.
David, nicely stomped on, cheers.
Mark
Correct. I doubt that humanity will be able to double CO2 to 800 ppm, but most plants would thank us if we could.
Such a doubling might raise average planetary temperature by a degree C, which would also be a good thing.
I believe NatGeo TV had a special in December 2012 about when, not if, the earth stops spinning. To say they are scientific imbeciles would be an insults to all imbeciles everywhere.
I don’t remember that one, but I do remember one about “what if there were no moon”.
I started watching hoping to see some discussion about how lack of a moon would have affected the development of life on the planet.
Instead they gave us a cheap disaster flick. They had the moon just vanishing, instantaneously. Massive flooding from the collapsing tidal bulge and other nonsense.
Ah, yes.. The Geographic Fiction channel.
Well just remember that when the earth stops spinning, there will in fact be no moon anywhere hereabouts.
We are watching a slow movie of the conservation of angular momentum, as the earth’s rotation is being converted into the moon’s orbital radius from earth.
Physics in the raw.
G
We burn all the fossil fuels. I didn’t see a time frame for this or assumptions on carbon dioxide uptake by the environment.
Especially when some are claiming the oceans have “eaten half of all emissions”, the deep oceans are hungry, Heidi Cullen’s homework and the heat from the pause didn’t satisfy them
NatGeo, heck might as well read the green peace weekly.
“……An approximately linear relationship between global warming and cumulative CO2 emissions is known to hold up to 2 EgC emissions on decadal to centennial timescales7, 8, 9, 10, 11; however, in some simple climate models the predicted warming at higher cumulative emissions is less than that predicted by such a linear relationship8. Here, using simulations12 from four comprehensive Earth system models13, we demonstrate that CO2-attributable warming continues to increase approximately linearly up to 5 EgC emissions…….”
I’m not a scientist (just an amateur trying to understand), so forgive me my lack of understanding here.
I thought the relationship between CO2 and temperature was only linear up to about 200 PPM and was logorithmic beyond that. Why are they talking about a linear relationship between the two going into the future when we are already at 400 PPM?
Thanks in advance to all here who reply and clear up the cobwebs.
This is from one of their references…
The actual science and observations say that the relationship is logarithmic. The relationship is linear in climate models (simulations of historical and future climate).
Since we all know that models are superior to observations and empiricism …
The relationship is very approximately NEGATIVE logarithmic. As usual they have it upside down. Increases in atmospheric CO2 diminish in radiative effect incrementally. They prefer to reduce the negative logarithm to a linear function. The result is that the models produce a positive logarithmic curve.
By using the word “known” in conjunction with climate science’s claims they reveal themselves to be either charlatans or idiots.
No such thing is “known”, it may be (as the IPCC puts it) that: “Multiple lines of evidence indicate a strong, consistent, almost linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and projected global temperature change to the year 2100 in both the RCPs and the wider set of mitigation scenarios analysed in WGIII (Figure SPM.5b).”
Multiple lines of evidence indicating something projects a certain way doesn’t make it known.
When I was a kid there were multiple lines of evidence that Santa visits on Xmas mornings would keep me in toys for the rest of my life.
LMAO! Yep. Consilience clearly pointed to the existence of Santa Claus back in the day.
There IS a linear relationship (near nuff) between global CO2 and mean global Temperature.
Over the last 16 years or more, global CO2 has climbed catastrophically by more than 25 ppmm about linearly, and over the same time, global mean Temperature has climbed statistically by about 0.0 deg. C also more or less linearly so the relation is linear with a constant of proportionality that is about 0.0
Fairly simple observation really.
G
It’s too late…
…crocs have already migrated to Florida
Nile crocodiles identified in South Florida
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/21/us/nile-crocodiles-florida-irpt/
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150805133111-nile-crocodile-exlarge-169.jpg
Let’s hope they like the taste of Burmese pythons. Ummm, vice versa would work too.
I’d rather have the Nile crocs than the Burmese pythons, if you don’t mind. One of them is controllable; the other one is totally out of control.
G
National Who? I dumped my gift subscription to that preaching tool.
6oc to lift the world out of an ice age??
I think not. The interglacial warming was 12oc as measured at the poles, but only 3.5oc as measured in the tropics. So where does their 8oc warming apply to – tropics or poles? It makes a big difference.
R
The lying fools forecast +17 degrees C for the Arctic.
The global Average is 8 but what the heck is “oc” ??
g
I’m guessing degrees C.
That is the problem with superscripts. I would write 8 C or 80 C, depending on whether I wanted 8 or 80. But a lower case o was obviously meant to be a superscripted degree symbol that did not end up being superscripted. So I would say 8oc should have been written as 8 C.
I just cut & paste the degree symbol from a Wikipedia page… °
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_symbol
That’s your problem right thar.
& deg ;
without the spaces = °
>>The global Average is 8 but what the heck is “oc” ??
Degrees centigrade. I can do the superscript on a laptop, but not on my iPad.
As to 8 oc, that figure is meaningless. The very cold poles skew the temperature down way too much. The average temp decrease for the habitable tropical and extratropical regions was only 3.5 oc. Look at the PMIPS charts online.
R
So now the policy cost assessment is for geologic time scale change. Good try