By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: Here are three stories about environmental destruction, all featuring “five trillion” as the horrific number. Scary stories. Are they accurate?
To understand a trillion, look at it in cash (an example of giving context)
(1) Five trillion tons of ice has melted!
“5 Trillion Tons of Ice Lost Since 2002” by climate propagandist Phil Plait at Slate.
“…land ice loss is perhaps most important as a political trigger; the sheer amount of land ice being lost every year is immediate, here, now. And the numbers are staggering … From 2002 to mid-November 2014 — less than 13 years — the combined land ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland is more than 5 trillion tons. Five. Trillion. Tons. That’s beyond staggering; that’s almost incomprehensible. It’s a volume of about 5,700 cubic kilometers, a cube of ice nearly 18 kilometers — more than 11 miles — on a side.”
This is vintage propaganda, giving big numbers with no context. Much as the Right does with the Federal deficit (which if converted into pennies could build a bridge to Mars!).
The total mass of Earth’s ice is roughly 33 thousand trillion metric tons (per table 2 of 2013 USGS; other estimates differ). Five trillion metric tons over 13 years is 0.112% per year. At that rate the Earth’s ice will melt in 6,600 86,000 years. What level of technology will we have in a thousand years? Children in the year 3,000 will probably consider conflate burning oil and cow dung, both things done by primitive people in the dark ages.
Also, estimates of Antarctica’s ice loss differ widely. A December 2015 NASA study found that Antarctica gained ice mass from 1992-2008 (see the press release).
(2) Five trillion pieces of plastic choke the oceans
“The Ocean Contains Over Five Trillion Pieces of Plastic Weighing More than 250,000 Tons” by Rachel Nuwer at the Smithsonian — “These frightening figures represent the most robust estimate of marine plastic pollution calculated to date.” Based on a paper by Marcus Eriksen et al in PLOS One, 10 December 2014. Lots of scary articles misrepresenting this useful study.
Again, five trillion — this time it is pieces of plastic. Of course 92% of those are smaller than 4.75mm (0.18″); only 0.17% are larger than 8″. The 250 thousand tons is spread among 1.4 billion tons of water on Earth.
Are we “choking the ocean with plastic”? No. See the origin of this myth. It’s a problem, but a minor one compared to the things we’re doing to wreck the oceans.
(3) We will burn five trillion tons of carbon and scorch the world
“The climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon” by Katarzyna B. Tokarska et al, Nature Climate Change, in press. This produced the usual hysteria. It would “scorch” the Earth. It paints the “Bleakest Picture of Our Future to Date“.
“Burning all known reserves of oil, gas and coal would inject about five trillion tonnes of heat-trapping carbon into the atmosphere … This number — about ten times the 540 billion tonnes of carbon emitted since the start of industrialisation — would be reached near the end of the 22nd century if fossil fuel trends go unchanged, it added. Most of the UN climate science panel’s projections for greenhouse gas emissions do not forecast beyond two trillion tonnes of carbon …” {From Phys.org.}
This study is based on RCP8.5 (worst of the four scenarios in the IPCC’s AR5), like almost all climate nightmare forecasts. It extrapolates the RCP8.5 scenario through 2300. Like most climate nightmare forecasts, it describes RCP8.5 as a “business as usual scenario… in the absence of any climate change mitigation policy”.
This misrepresents the papers creating RCPC8.5 and its use in the IPCC’s AR5. It does not mention RCP8.5’s unlikely assumption that technological progress stagnates (through 2300!). Nor does it mention the likely population crash starting in the late 21st century as the current decline in fertility eventually has effect. See this for more information about RCP8.5.
Conclusions
We are ignorant because we read the news, which overflows with propaganda. Journalists pay for their love of politically appropriate narratives with the loss of their profession’s credibility — contributing to their industry’s loss of revenue — and layoffs (US newsroom jobs down 40% since 2006-2014).
The exaggerated reporting of environmental problems — many of which range from serious to existential — has similarly eroded away the public’s concern about these risks (Gallup’s poll ranking most important concerns, and concerns about specific environmental risks). We pay a high price for the journalists’ lust for clicks.
Also note that scientists are in effect complicit in these misreported stories by their silence.
For More Information
To see the data and forecasts for the various RCP’s go to the RCP Database. See historical data about atmospheric CO2 at the DoE’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.
For more information see The keys to understanding climate change, My posts about climate change, and especially these about the rumored coal-driven climate apocalypse…
- Is our certain fate a coal-burning climate apocalypse? No!
- Manufacturing climate nightmares: misusing science to create horrific predictions.
- Good news! Coal bankruptcies point to a better future for our climate.
- Good news from China about climate change!
- Britain joins the shift from coal, taking us away from the climate nightmare.
- Good news from America about climate change, leading the way to success.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Complaining about 5 trillion tons of ice lost on planet earth is like a billionaire losing a PENNY…
A billionaire would never lose a penny. That’s why they are rich.
G
Their science is mind blowingly complex.
Their motive is simple and as old as humanity.
Massive power and unimaginable wealth right now.
Our other motto!
..Does 5 trillion tons of extra CO2 in the atmosphere mean that the Earth can support 5 trillion extra trees ?
Some people just love scary stories, and do not much care how credible they are. Some of this is part of the reason people buy lottery tickets, despite the odds. They just do not have a feel for the math.
I think you’ll find that the 1.4 billion refers to cubic kilometers of water, not tons.
Just sayin’
Or should refer to….
Which by my reckoning equates to 5.6 lbs of plastic per cubic kilometre….
“Are we “choking the ocean with plastic”? No. See the origin of this myth. It’s a problem, but a minor one compared to the things we’re doing to wreck the oceans.”
Bravo. After reading your two articles that were linked, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Bravo.
Don’t agree with George Carlin on belief in Christ Jesus, but he chimed in well on plastics in one of his live on stage “Saving The Planet” bits…
100 trillion picograms of ice have melted in my drink since I started reading this thread. Pretty scary.
Cold beer needs no ice.
@ur momisugly Pop, and ice in scotch and whisky is a sin ( and add bourbon to that).
“We pay a high price for the journalists’ lust for clicks.” Noop… The journalists (and their employers) pay a high price for those actions. And, it you take a hard look at it, the main stream media (MSM) is starting to rate right up(?) there with Congress, lawyers, news on the internet, and the school systems (including academia). The people here in ‘fly-over country’ are pretty well fed up with those on left coasts trying to tell ’em what to thing and how to act. This next election just might surprise a few people.
Joe,
” Noop… The journalists (and their employers) pay a high price for those actions.”
That’s an odd “noop”, since the very first paragraph in the conclusions says much the same thing, but with more detail. The line you quote is a second effect, and they are mutually exclusive.
Thanks Fab, You are right of course. Probably dyslexia that got me. Guess I didn’t follow the subject jump from us to them in the first two sentences of that paragraph.
Any “scientist” or “journalist” who spews this disinformation ought to be hit with a big, fat snowball right in the teeth–and left outside the igloo during the next glaciation. Ugh!
…Goldrider, as a Northern Canadian that lived in Southern Florida for 10 years as a young snot…I, personally, would not shed a single frozen tear if it never snowed again !! After all, I don’t whine when the ice melts in my glass of beer !!..Oh wait, that was Florida…No need for ice in Canada…because it’s $%#ing cold ! LOL
The bottom graphic x 4 represents the $20 trillion U.S. national debt, which is a bigger threat than too few ice cubes in whatever the Greens are drinking.
I was going to suggest they need to pick a much larger number than 5 trillion, as we are already inured to the reality of the much larger national debt.
That is just the federal debt, add in all debt and the figure is meaningless.
We’ve already passed the red line of 20 trillion with devaluation of capital and labor, progressive wars, impulsive regime changes, mass exodus, selective exclusion (“=”), and several million human lives aborted and cannibalized annually in clinics and Planned Parenthood offices. Thanks in part to human, civil, and environmental activists. Then there are non-renewable, low-density, intermittent, gray technologies offered by a desperate industry, politicians, and their environmental lobbies.
Dealing with Leftist bullies…(understanding your enemy is the first step to moving forward)
https://youtu.be/V1iPVlEDck4
Now do the math and determine how many $Trillions need to be spent on wind turbines, Solar, Hydro,Transmission lines & Smart meters to achieve the environmentalists goal of 90 – 100% Renewables? Don`t forget the needed backup fossil power & the elimination of all nuclear in the calculatio & power storage, I.e., batteries, pumped storage & dead weight electric trains on an.incline.
It will be around $5 Trillion – for just the USA!
“This study is based on RCP8.5 (worst of the four scenarios in the IPCC’s AR5)”
I see no evidence of that. There is nothing about that in the article. It’s simply based on burning 5000 Gtons C. They did their own calculations.
But it is a sobering thought. We’ve had modest warming and associated effects so far. But ten times more? OK, some reduction for logarithmic effect, but also enhancement for the “pipeline” effect of current CO2.
And… (why you left this part out is anyone’s guess) reduced CO2 due to massive herbage increase.
Feed me Seymour.
Ps And herbivores. And Limestone.
Nick,
“I see no evidence of that. There is nothing about that in the article.”
Even for you that is strange. Here is the opening paragraph of the paper:
Editor,
OK, you’re right, apologies. But there was nothing in the article to say that.
BREAKING NEWS
In a historical first Nick Stokes says someone else is right , inferring that he was incorrect about something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I know the world is coming to an end
Nick takes a lot of Stick deserved by his Trick…s
Nick,
Let’s run the tape.
My post says: “This study is based on RCP8.5 (worst of the four scenarios in the IPCC’s AR5)”
You say: “I see no evidence of that. There is nothing about that in the article.”
I point to the very first paragraph in this study which states that it uses RCP8.5.
You reply: “But there was nothing in the article to say that.”
It’s explicitly said in both my post and in the study.
As usual, your rebuttals make little sense. I show that you’re wrong, then you come back with something else that is wrong — a pattern which in the past you’ve repeated again, and again.
Here is the Phys.org article that you cited and quoted from. It says nothing about RCP8.5.
Nor indeed does the abstract. The Journal article is behind a paywall.
Sorry Editor… Nick is completely right here, and that’s not the first time he is.
Moreover, feel free to compare the quality of his comments with that many many others writing their little nonsense, and who evidently don’t even have 1/1000th of Nick’s knowledge concerning climate.
Nick,
I said what was in the paper. If you don’t have access to the paper, don’t accuse me of incorrectly describing the paper. That’s low, but quite typical for you.
If you question what I wrote, then you should have asked for a quote from the paper to support my statement (which in fact I provided in response to your malicious and incorrect accusation).
“Here is the Phys.org article that you cited and quoted from. It says nothing about RCP8.5.”
What other sources failed to say about the paper is not relevant. It’s a daft basis to criticize.
Also, referring to “the article” without specifying which article is deliberate misdirection. Again, typical for you.
Bindidon ,
Of course you support Nick’s absurd comments. Judging from your unjustified criticism above — which you failed to support, culminating in gibberish — you are a troll. Trolls flock together.
NEWS BREAK
Correction to a our previous news break, Nick Stokes has once again back tracked and tried to cover his mistakes.
Whew that was close, I was sure the world was doomed but all is back to normal.
paywall? that stops you? ja ja ja
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nclimate3036
No evidence of any warming beyond recovery from the LIA, which may be ending. CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes, IAC.
“We’ve had modest warming and associated effects so far”
Most of which was caused by things not called CO2.
“Burning all known reserves of oil, gas and coal would inject about five trillion tonnes of heat-trapping carbon into the atmosphere … This number — about ten times the 540 billion tonnes of carbon emitted since the start of industrialization…”
Wait, we still have nine times as much fossil fuel as we’ve already burned? Aren’t we supposed to be running out? /sarc
What they don’t mention is that it will take 100’s of years at current burn rates to convert the known reserves into CO2. During which time nature will be quite happily removing CO2 from the atmosphere as fast as it can.
“It does not mention RCP8.5’s unlikely assumption that technological progress stagnates (through 2300!). Nor does it mention the likely population crash starting in the late 21st century as the current decline in fertility eventually has effect. See this for more information about RCP8.5 …”.
===========================================
From Riahi, Rao, Krey et al. 2011:
“The primary energy mix of RCP8.5 is dominated by fossil fuels, leading to the extraction of large amounts of unconventional hydrocarbon resources well beyond presently extractable reserves. GHG emissions grow thus by about a factor of three over the course of the century, mainly as a result of both high demand and high fossil-intensity of the energy sector as well as increasing population and associated high demand for food …”
Apart from the assumed population projections which are probably overestimated, the current obsession with dead-end useless technologies forestalling a concerted development of nuclear together with the boom in fracking, RCP8.5 is still ‘business as usual’.
You either accept the IPCC ‘business as usual’ model predictions based on strong water vapour feedbacks leading to high sensitivity for which there is no empirical evidence or you don’t.
I see no reason to let the IPCC modellers off the hook.
Christopher,
(1) The IPCC AR5 WGI report does not describe RCP8.5 as a “business as usual scenario.”
(2) The papers using models are cited by the IPCC, but the IPCC does not do models. There are no “IPCC modelers”.
(3) “You either accept the IPCC ‘business as usual’ model predictions based on strong water vapour feedbacks leading to high sensitivity for which there is no empirical evidence or you don’t.”
That has nothing to do with my quote that you cite. The RCP8.5 scenario describes a path (not a unique path) to a specific GHG levels. It an is unlikely due to its assumptions of high population growth and technological stagnation.
The accuracy of the GCMs — for which the RCPs are inputs — is an entirely distinct issue. If the RCP input is wrong, the GCM’s output prediction will prove to be wrong — no matter how the model handles water feedbacks.
“The IPCC AR5 WGI report does not describe RCP8.5 as a “business as usual scenario …”.
================================
Maybe not but you do.
Christopher,
“Maybe not but you do.”
That too is false. Here is the only such mention in my post. I say the opposite of what you allege.
My apologies I misread the paragraph.
My point was and still is that,, the RCP8.5 is junk because it assumes high climate sensitivity due to an increase in GHG forcing which includes a strong water vapour (a GHG) and other positive feedbacks, not because of presumed faulty population or future technology assumptions:
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/IPCC-AR5-Fig-12.5.png
Christopher,
“the RCP8.5 is junk because it assumes high climate sensitivity due to an increase in GHG forcing which includes a strong water vapour (a GHG)”
RCP’s make no assumptions about climate sensitivity. You confuse the models which convert socio-economic factors into scenarios with specific forcings, and the GCM’s which convert those scenarios into temperatures (aka GCMs).
“You confuse the models which convert socio-economic factors into scenarios with specific forcings, and the GCM’s which convert those scenarios into temperatures (aka GCMs) …”.
============================================
I’m not at all confused, how else do you think they can predict ~3.5C rise as a result of an approximate doubling of CO2 alone by 2100?
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/sites/default/files/AR5_SYR_Figure_2.8.png
Christopher,
“I’m not at all confused, how else do you think they can predict ~3.5C rise as a result of an approximate doubling of CO2 alone by 2100?”
They do so using GCMs. RCPs have nothing to do with the internal workings of these models (e.g., water feedback); RCPs are inputs to these models .
Your statements about RCP8.5 & climate sensitivity are just wrong. I can’t understand why you find this difficult to understand.
‘Your statements about RCP8.5 & climate sensitivity are just wrong. I can’t understand why you find this difficult to understand …”.
====================================
Well could you simply answer my question so maybe I can understand better, I’ll repeat it: how else do you think they can predict ~3.5C rise as a result of an approximate of doubling of CO2 alone by 2100 as indicated on the diagrams above?
Is five trillion the new 97%?
“the combined land ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland is more than 5 trillion tons. Five. Trillion. Tons. That’s beyond staggering; that’s almost incomprehensible. ”
If you find this difficult to understand, then the complexities of climate science must be well beyond your comprehension.
Proud SKeptic,
I suspect that Plait — a professional astronomer — understands these magnitudes quite well. He just does not want his readers to do so.
The first picture is the best – that is how many dollars the Green Mafia is planning to defraud the world of. (Actually, a bit more, by some estimates…)
Of course, you have to stack even that one five times higher.
Anthony OK?
Now for the bad news — the important context
These stories — unquestioned by journalists, climate scientists, and the millions who read them — show that the alarmists are winning. Every day yields its crop of skillfully written alarmist propaganda. The people reading this at WUWT are already convinced (one way or another).
Slow and steady wins the race for public support. The already control the key institutions — the climate agencies, academia, the NGOs, the relevant government agencies. They’ve build the infrastructure of coordinated experts, publishing through countless websites and the general media.
Now they need only some spectacular extreme weather events to scare the public into compliance. Time will probably provide that.
Larry,
“The already control the key institutions — the climate agencies, academia, the NGOs, the relevant government agencies. They’ve build the infrastructure of coordinated experts, publishing through countless websites and the general media.”
It seems to me that the critical control aspect, is the media. With that “hammer” in place, climate alarm skeptics are pounded into “science deniers”, in the minds of those who still think the TV talking heads are just “free press”. And, those who oppose open borders are pounded into racist xenophobes, or, men in the women’s restrooms/lockerooms into sexist homophobes, etc, etc. … and I think one of the most insidious impressions generated by those “presstitutes, is that a sizable majority of people still think the TV talking heads are just “free press”.
Without that hammer raining down blows on anyone who opposes/questions the narratives the mass media presents as if edicts from some godlike super humans, I seriously doubt any of them would even be taken seriously by most people. But, to disarm the crazy hammer wielder on high, one must confront what to me is it’s greatest charade; the (to me) ridiculously silly idea that people with great wealth and/or power, would never ever conspire against the common folk.
You come pretty close to confronting that charade here, it seems to me, and for that I commend you.
If you read his blog you’ll realise that he’s a science communicator with good standing in the skeptical community.
He touches on climate very occasionally, and when he does, he does it in exactly the same way he touches on all the topics he posts about: from a scientific basis.
You’re turning people off calling a general science communicator a “climate propagandist” from a blog that deals in climate solely, and always with articles that only recommend inaction on reducing emissions.
Reason,
When you refer to ‘the skeptical community’, you’re not referring to a community of scientific skeptics. That community is here.
Reason,
“If you read his blog you’ll realise that he’s a science communicator …”
I have. See five examples of Phil Plait’s exaggerations and misrepresentations. In fact most of his climate articles are more propaganda than “communication”. Note all of his articles mocking the “pause” — while scores of peer-reviewed papers were being published discussing its nature and possible causes (oddly, readers of Plait never learned of this literature).
“with good standing in the skeptical community.”
Can you provide some evidence of this?
You need to be careful with your throwaway lines. There is a difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt (mentioned above by other commenters). Why bring it up in this context? The debt is what the Government owes to its creditors. These are individuals, businesses, other governments, and organizations that own federal debt securities. The government pays the creditors with money collected through taxes, fees, and other sources (including issuing more debt securities). As long as we have annual deficits (i.e., spending exceeds revenue with the difference made up through borrowing), the debt will continue to increase. Eventually the debt will be disavowed when some future generation understands that the debt was run up by past generations who are dead and gone and that the living have no moral obligation to pay it (or at least most of it). The creditors will discover that they made bad loans. Knowing that nothing (except the universe) can expand forever, does anyone know how the debt can be paid off to avoid the default that I predict? (Inflating the currency is another option sometimes suggested, but I think that is just default by another name.) If you are thinking raise taxes and reduce spending (including benefits and entitlements) to generate annual surpluses, how likely do you think that is?
Incidentally, if no-one is using that trillion dollars in the graphic, could I borrow it for a while?