Yes, we’ve heard this before, again, and again, and again. Further, I’m not sure this fellow qualifies as a “Top Climate Scientist”.
From some website called GritPost:
Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct if We Don’t Fix Climate Change by 2023
A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.
In a recent speech at the University of Chicago, James Anderson — a professor of atmospheric chemistry at Harvard University — warned that climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch from 33 million BCE, when there was no ice on either pole. Anderson says current pollution levels have already catastrophically depleted atmospheric ozone levels, which absorb 98 percent of ultraviolet rays, to levels not seen in 12 million years.
Anderson’s assessment of humanity’s timeline for action is likely accurate, given that his diagnosis and discovery of Antarctica’s ozone holes led to the Montreal Protocol of 1987. Anderson’s research was recognized by the United Nations in September of 1997. He subsequently received the United Nations Vienna Convention Award for Protection of the Ozone Layer in 2005, and has been recognized by numerous universities and academic bodies for his research.
While some governments have made commitments to reduce carbon emissions (Germany has pledged to cut 95 percent of carbon emissions by 2050), Anderson warned that those measures were insufficient to stop the extinction of humanity by way of a rapidly changing climate. Instead, Anderson is calling for a Marshall Plan-style endeavor in which all of the world takes extreme measures to transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years.
Recovery is all but impossible, he argued, without a World War II-style transformation of industry—an acceleration of the effort to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth’s poles.
This has do[sic] be done, Anderson added, within the next five years.
“The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,” Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years.
Anderson’s prediction of Arctic sea ice disappearing by 2022 may be closer to reality than a lot of us would hope. In 2016, University of Reading professor Ed Hawkins compiled global temperature data dating back to 1850, prior to the Industrial Revolution of the early 20th century and the oil boom, and turning the data into a time-lapse GIF. The most alarming part of the data showed that temperatures began rising exponentially faster at the start of the 21st century and show no signs of slowing down:
Spiralling global temperatures from 1850-2016 (full animation) https://t.co/YETC5HkmTr pic.twitter.com/Ypci717AHq
— Ed Hawkins (@ed_hawkins) May 9, 2016
Yawn…
Full story here if you want to bother with it.
Never mind that! It’s worse than ever imagined. Europe is on the brink of ‘peak beer’! And this time CO2 is (as always) to blame, but now because of shortage: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/beer-rationing-begins-after-a-carbon-dioxide-crisis-hits-europe.html
But maybe (just) we can avoid it:
https://www.nrk.no/norge/leverandor_-skip-med-co_-pa-vei-1.14103110
Only two more working days, and then 3 weeks (!) holiday!!!
Have a great summer everyone (or winter, for you at the other side…. 🙂 )
Very funny!
No it realy isn’t funny.
Fresh water treatment plants, drinking water is dependent on steady supply of CO2 for purification. Soon you must start to boil water at home before it is used. Very few Norwegian are used to it, especially in the capital. The possibility that many may become ill is “great.” Think many will miss such alarming news if it comes.
Are you sure they use CO2 , most countries use chlorine !
Yes ! BUT wouldn’t it be BETTER if they used CO2……..then you
would just have to add the CORDIAL and everything would be
SODA GOOD !
Or UV-radiation.
Try O3, ozone is a powerful sanitant for drinking water, bottled water too.
News flash James EtAl Humans will go extinct regardless though no one alive today will live long enough to see it happen.
Nor will their Kids or Grand kids nor their
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G Grand Kids
More than 250,000,000 generations will pass before we go Extinct. The most that will happen is we loose a minute amount of real estate and make adjustments. Of course the next Ice Age will be a far more devastating event on current society with the loss of northern territories to vast fields of ice.
With the amount of civilizations that have already retreated from and lost buildings to rising waters it is something we are well adapted for. Even Venice holds back the seas.
Spending Thousand$ of Trillion$ up front (through wealth redistribution schemes)so we don’t have to spend Ten$ of Trillion$ later makes very little sense
So, because Europe has jumped on the CAGW / CCC bandwagon, and is doing it’s best (!) to reduce carbon dioxide, Europeans will be deprived of one of life’s necessities. I suggest that you ensure that the leadership (!) in Brussels doesn’t slap any duties on beer imported from America. And, after Europeans have to drink Coors Light and Budweiser (the American version) for a couple years, they’ll finally get their politicians to drop this anti-CO2 warfare.
Mirco-brewing and craft beers are booming in Europe. They use the natural gas of fermentation and do not need an external source of CO2.
Any “brewery” that needs to buy in CO2 is probably not even brewing ( ie fermenting ) anything. Anyone venting off CO2 and then buying it in a bottle from somewhere else deserves to have problems. Completely dumb.
Pardon my ignorance, but do they actually add CO2 to beer?!? I thought the fermentation process made more than enough.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=add+c02+to+beer
D J
The breweries that I have visited all claimed that they sell CO2, a by product of making beer.
John
Because many large breweries filter and pasturize their beer it loses any “natural” carbonization. They then must re-add the carbonization back when bottling.
I thought American beer was made without fermentation, by some sort of purely chemical process. They would need to add CO2 after the flavouring was added.
probably explains why american beer tastes like fizzy dish-water.
Monty Python had a skit where aussies compared american beer to making love in a canoe : ”it’s f….ng close to water!” 🙂
CO2 is used to “push” the beer out of the barrels and into your glass. Nitrogen can be used, but primarilly for Irish type beers.
as someone who makes all sorts of alcohol, I’m amazed at the ignorance regarding the process displayed here:
To extremely simplify:
1. sugar + water + yeast +(hops for beer) = wort(beer)/wash(spirits)/must(wine)
2. yeast eats said sugar = alcohol + co2 (co2 by product of digestion by yeast cells) beer
The co2 escapes mostly escapes and fermented wort (beer), however, whatever co2 remains suspended in the final fermented product is preferred to be de-gassed (with wine and mashes)
There is not enough co2 in finished beer to produce fizz, and if there is I have never found it to be noticeable.
flat beer, as you all know….sucks. Yes, the gas is used to push the beer through the lines, but that isn’t the only purpose. Beer needs carbonation to be enjoyable. Cask conditioned beers were hand pumped using neither added nitrogen or carbonation, but the potential for contamination necessitated another delivery method.
you can cask condition or bottle condition (add a very small specific amount of fermentable sugar in the bottle or cask after fermentation is completed, and the remaining dormant yeast will eat it, and, depending on your percentage of sugar will create a specific co2 concentration. )
most breweries I have seen and worked at don’t sequester their co2, they just have massive tubes that funnel down into 5 gallon buckets filled with sanitized water, usually on the floor. co2 is so cheap it is not economically viable to sequester it (to my knowledge), so they just buy it in large quantities and force carbonate, and they have to do this because of volume and distribution. not force carbonating would take way too much time for the product to get to the correct concentration.
now, before someone finds some random example of this not being the case, NOT ALL breweries are created equal and not all breweries follow that same pattern. But I’m quite certain that would be the exception not the rule.
NorwegianSceptic !!!
WHAT A GOOD ONE !!!
THANKS……..I have JUST SENT THIS ALARMIST MESSAGE to
“ALL” ( and there are quite a few ) of MY CAGW-TENDING FRIENDS and
CONTACTS ….with a few additions and variations…….and am awaiting their
various reactions ! SOME WILL LAUGH and SOME WILL “SEND ME TO
COVENTRY” ( until their sense of humour kicks back in ! ) and OTHERS
WILL CHASTISE ME FOR MY BLASPHEMIC and HERETICAL VIEWS !!!
Thanks for the laugh !!
Update: crisis avoided (for now), a ship with the glorious gas has arrived in my home town:
(Norwegian): https://www.nrk.no/telemark/skipet-som-redder-bryggeriene-1.14104038
It has been filling tank trucks all day just a few hundred metres from the office where i work..
They’re just going to have to get in line like everyone else, after NK, Iran, China, Putin, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Putin contractors, Iran puppets, Pakistan, etc. PR jostling is standard stuff for the group so get over it.
A climate of catastrophic anthropogenic planned parenthood.
Oh you comment over here, too? I see your posts on Legal Insurrection all the time! I only lurk there, though. I was never able to get the system to let me in.
How can that be. I died of starvation sometime in the 1970’s (according to Paul Ehrlich). So how can I die again in five years?
Tom Halla
You must atone for your sins against climate alarmism twice.
Standard practice I believe.
If you can vote after you’re dead, you can die after you’re dead.
But you can still vote, right?
yes but the 2nd death means you get a 2nd vote.
multiple times
You must live or be interred in Chicago, home of the cemetery vote.
I really wish I hadn’t started this.
🙂
The only thing that will have gone extinct by 2023 is James Anderson’s credibility.
Relegated to ignominy with the likes of Malthus, Erlich and the rest of the doomsday deplorables.
Hey
Too hard on poor old Malthus, methinks.
Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) re-ignited debate in 1798 with his controversial first book: “An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects The Future Improvement of Society.”
Malthus argued the rate of human population growth would stall progress towards a more “perfectible” society:
“The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the Earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, if unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetic ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.”
For him, this Principle was a law of Nature, divinely imposed to ensure virtuous behavior. The greatest obstacle to social progress and ‘human happiness’ was humankind’s awesome procreative power, its tendency to grow faster than the means of subsistence – or what today could be called a country’s rate of socio-economic development or ‘improvement’.
Such heresy attracted a firestorm of abuse from many of his contemporaries – especially Enlightenment revolutionaries – and continues to this day. The French epithet ‘malthusien’ became one of the worst insults of the time. Karl Marx and his followers were unhappy with him too.
Many still see him at best as an apologist for global social inequality and injustice. Others claim his disciples support coercive state control of population growth.
With two centuries of hindsight, it is clear there were flaws in his Principle. Malthus did not expect science to have such a dramatic impact on agricultural productivity, health and society, or modern birth control. Yet in one important sense he was right. He drew attention to some factors that influence humankind’s rate of growth. With the prospect of a global population of at least 11 billion by 2100 – about 11 times what it was when he wrote his first Essay – perhaps it is time for a revaluation.
Alice
He didn’t say we’d go extinct in 5 years, just that we’d go extinct if we didn’t follow his lead in the next 5 years. He is, of course, right. The human race will go extinct. Just not sure when. And I think it’s pretty inevitable, whether we follow the good professor’s direction or not.
They need new tea leaves.
Good grief.
Never mind. Ta Ta Arctic, can we have the perma frost wastelands of Canada and Russia back, for a return to agriculture, after you’ve gone please.
Oh! And thanks, we can call another ship the Titanic without having gruesome movies made about it.
Oh! OH!……..I almost forgot. Pretty graphic. Is it supposed to scare us, or reassure us that the planet is finally escaping an ice age?
If the Arctic ice disappears, that just means it will be easier to get at all the oil up there.
MarkW
Good point.
Pretty sure I’ve seen that graphic here before Scotty. Funny how it stops at the 2016 super El Nino, just cherry-pickin’ convenient.
Psychotic delusion… Indigenous humans have thrived in every harsh environment without modern technology. I see he is a lead author for AR6. Insanity masking as science forthcoming…
gyan1
Sorry mate. Not possible without a computer model.
The experts have spoken. What can I say ~shrugs~.
Humans will go extinct no matter what…all animals eventually do.
Roscoe Pilsner
That’s a bit of a bummer on a cheery blog like Anthony’s.
Who knows, we might invent an eternal life elixir, discover the font of youth, enjoy resurrection. Who knows again?
Perhaps space travel to transport us off this beastly planet, indeed, just where did the dinosaurs go, leaving us with birds, crocodiles, and sharks? All the good bits, just whisked away. Aliens?
Nope, I’m giggling too much, can’t keep it up.
If we travel through space fast enough we can loop waaaaaaaay out there and back as the Earth ages hundreds of years and we come back only a few years older.
Tom in Florida
Aaaand…everyone else is dead.
Nah, I don’t like that idea.
But then those returning would rule the World!
The font of youth: would that be wingdings?
Andyd
Nope.
I’ll take my chances with four score years and ten.
Frankly, I’m getting bored with the whole thing now. Going to sleep for a few billion years sounds quite attractive.
I wonder how many times an eighty year old would have to wake up to pee if he slept a billion years…
About every 4 hours. I speak from experience…
I’ve been to Scotland a few times, and the elixir in mention exists there already. Shame about Ferintosh though…. 😉
We know what happened to the Dolphins, now, don’t we?
No, not with AI and brain computer chips implants. Of course they may not be consider “humans”.
These are the best types of predictions. Laughable ones. Hold them up and parade them as evidence that the man-made climate cult is insane.
Robert W Turner
I take your point, but I would rather he was right. The ice melts and the only ones to suffer are the Al Gore’s, Leonardo DiCaprio’s, and their ilk who have spent millions on beachside properties despite the inevitability of rising sea levels.
Except of course, that Arctic ice is largely sea ice.
Riiiigggghhhhht…….I’m getting it now. They whip up a scare, cash in on the carbon trading, knock down the price of their beach-side investments and make bundles from dystopia movies the public gobble up as truth cos Al and Leo present it on screen.
Man, that’s clever.
They are sneakily selling land at a premium prices thats destined to be waterside properties after the 50meter sea level rise. Probably you could sell it to the Demsels.
Gary
sorry, but what’s a Demsel?
“The ice melts and the only ones to suffer are the Al Gore’s, Leonardo DiCaprio’s, and their ilk who have spent millions on beachside properties despite the inevitability of rising sea levels.”
Strange, somehow you forgot the 3B people that live in Africa and South Asia.
“…you forgot the 3B people that live in Africa and South Asia.” Well it’s Arctic ice that’s melting, they’re safe.
Arctic ice melting won’t affect Gore or DiCaprio’s house either. But Greenland and Antarctica will. These kinds of joky points are just dumb distractions from the author’s main point, which is that once CO2 levels get to a certain point, it’s game over due to inertia and built in warming in coming years. Not game over in 2023, not game over in 2050, but game over on a long term basis – 100, 200, 300 years out. Maybe no one on WUWT cares about that, but that is the point he is making, not that the world will come to an end in 2023.
Hi Chris.
When do we reach the game-over point? How will we know? What might our technologies be like in 100, 200, or 300 years? Do you think people are just going to stand around and watch the water (slowly) rise?
Catastrophe seems unlikely given current trends. Unless things start cooling down, of course – then we’ll be in big trouble (albeit slowly).
Hi Chuck, there are only 2 conceptual possibilities. One would be a cost effective way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The other would be geoengineering to reflect more solar energy (atmospheric seeding, if you will). The latter is very, very risky. CO2 removal is nice in concept but will be very tough to do at scale and economically.
@chris the “author’s main point”? That 2023 is the break point for “change”? So never mind that 2 decade pause in warming we recently experienced, the next 5.5 years are going to ruin us forever? Lol.
I just don’t see CO2 as the big control knob of Earth’s climate. The same scientist who model 300 years of climate can’t even explain the root cause of ENSO, why not? And even IF CO2 was a dominate driver, Man’s CO2 contribution is minimal compared to Nature. I’d be more concerned about feeding 7.5 billion people if/when the climate goes cold for a decade or so. I’d take displacement over starvation any day.
Man’s contribution to atmospheric is not trivial. Taking it from 280ppm in pre industrial to 410 is an increase of almost 50%. How is that trivial? Tell me, what are the specific mechanisms you see as being possible causes for a decade long cold climate?
Chris
My understanding is that man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is around 2 ppm per year.
Being that the industrial revolution began between 1820 and 1840 (say 1840, 178 years ago) if man was solely responsible for increased atmospheric CO2, we should be around 636 ppm about now.
I also understand CO2 has a life of between 50 and 100 years in the atmosphere, so lets say man is wholly responsible for the 400 ppm we’re at now, in which case, does nature have no say in fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 whatsoever?
I would suggest it does play a considerable part, so taking my thumbnail calculations as read, nature is doing one of two things.
1. It’s contributed to atmospheric CO2 and man’s contribution isn’t as much as we estimate or;
2. Man’s contribution is counteracting natures efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2. In other words, had the industrial revolution not occurred, far from 280 ppm being maintained, we may have been heading towards less than 200 ppm. At which point, things become very scary indeed.
Hot Scot, it hasn’t gone up at 2ppm per year, that is only true in recent times. At the start of the industrial revolution, global CO2 emissions were far, far lower. Global CO2 emissions in 2011 were 150 times higher than they were in 1850.
Chris
First off, the assumption is, CO2 is the mechanism that controls global temperatures, which is preposterous to me, and should be to you.
At 0.04% of the atmosphere, with water vapour at 3%, Tyndall himself stated water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas.
Meanwhile, the entire scientific community agrees, no one understands clouds in the climate change equation. If there was ever a consensus, that’s it; 100% of scientists don’t understand clouds.
So we now have a scientific assumption that CO2 is the culprit of climate change, utterly ignoring that clouds might have an effect, because they don’t know how they work.
That’s like examining every aspect of your car engine whilst completely ignoring that the air filter is blocked, because you don’t understand what an air filter does.
This is such simplistic nonsense I really don’t get why serious scientists are even engaging in the debate.
As for the numerical fluctuations, or increase in atmospheric CO2, seriously, ignore the symptom, get to the cause, which appears to be clouds. At the very least, eliminate them as a factor in the equation before blaming a trace gas.
I wasn’t aware that 3 Billion people in Africa and S Asia lived under 5 meters above sea level.
~¿~
There are things called heat waves and droughts.
Chris
No evidence of them being any worse than in the past.
Too funny….and way too sad
Reminds me of when they figured out the Arctic wouldn’t really be “ice free”….so they concocted some story that I million km/sq would be ice free…
…That’s the size of Egypt….Egypt is 1 million km/sq…or like saying no one in Africa would miss Egypt if it disappeared
That is only part of the definition of “Nearly Ice Free Arctic” that was put forth in the IPCC AR4, 2005. The other part was ‘for 5 consecutive Septembers in a row’. For that report, the ‘Likely’ period was before mid-century, IF RPC8.5 was used, and it was of ‘medium confidence’.
So, if the condition requires 5-consecutive years, 2022 is not gonna be “Near Ice Free Arctic” unless THIS year is, which is looking highly unlikely at the moment. It is, though, as testable hypothesis, and fairly close-in at that.
I wonder what the extinction mechanism is? Guess I will have to read the paper.
“I wonder what the extinction mechanism is?”
The extinction method will be exploding heads because by 2023 it will be obvious that their “projections” won’t come true and nobody will be listening to them anymore. Of course, only the heads of part of the human population will have exploded but since they are the important part, the human species will be declared to be extinct leaving the rest of us to get on with our lives.
He said free of permanent, long term ice, not ice free all year long.
““The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,”
Wait, isn’t the chance that there has never been any “permanent” ice in the Arctic pretty much 100%?
And what will happen with my 15 year mortgage?
Dunno – are you “under water” now?
Urederra
If there was ever a stupid question, on the planet of stupid questions, this is it.
You’ll have to pay it off, there will be a clause in your mortgage for it.
Duh!
🙂
If there was ever a stupid answer, on the planet of stupid answers, this is it.
If we all die, who is going to foreclose on the property if he doesn’t make the mortgage payment?
🙂
Tom in Florida
The greens of course, they’re slimy little critters, they’ll just crawl out the primordial soup and invoke their divine right of retribution, and poor old Urederra will be summoned by God to cough up what he owes.
Imagine that, in the land of paradise, and in debt, again!
Honestly, Tom, haven’t you learned anything by now?
Silly Billy.
🙂
Out of respect for the future return of Arctic ice, lenders will freeze interest rates at 0%, until Arctic ice returns. This will be in protest of human failure to take needed action to prevent a 2 C rise in globull temperature, and to give home buyers a break during this dreadful, catastrophic time, where we need to muster all the hope we can.
And, as Tom in Florida noted, if we are all going to die, who is going to foreclose? Maybe a better idea is just stop paying it and enjoy the free ride to doom.
But the reality is that you have hit the nail directly on the head as to why the government is claiming Apophis will miss the Earth in 2036 when they know there is a good change it will hit.
Robert Kernodle
It’ll be a cold day in hell before the lenders freeze their rates at 0%.
Yes, you’re right, and this would be done to celebrate the coming ice age that causes warmistas’ heads to explode. (^_^)
Yes Robert ! NOT WHILE I HAVE CAVES and CLUBS to sell THEY WON’T !!
Get your Cave now……there is NO ICE to build IGLOOS……….or even IG’s
( an IG is one without a toilet ! )
And YES …American Beer is like making love in a canoe !!
Where are the specifics? WHY are humans going to become extinct?
Do you really want to live in a world without ice for your bourbon?
Hancock drank his whiskey straight out of the bottle, no ice needed. But then he was an a destructive individual wasn’t he.
John Who :
We’ll all just use “DRY-ICE” which will be in abundance….apparently !
Either that…..or get on YOUR TARDIS….and go and get some !!
Simple – We will be too busy with all that beautiful warm sunny weather to bother procreating. That’s something you do on those freezing long winter nights when there is no other entertainment.
My version of the spiral graph provides more context…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/04/the-sinkhole-our-descent-into-the-next-ice-age/
Eric
Seriously good.
I just discovered that Loch Lomond was populated 7,000 years ago. It seems it was much warmer then.
The Vikings invaded Scotland (well, arguably, some say it was mostly peaceful) and that’s something, considering we kicked out the English and the Romans.
The Vikings also occupies parts of Greenland I believe, when it was warmer. So I guess warm isn’t bad.
Onward, to Valhalla!
The English left in search of vegetables, the Romans were eaten by midges.
Flake news
No shortage of vegetables in Scotland, they’re called the SNP.
“I just discovered that Loch Lomond was populated 7,000 years ago. It seems it was much warmer then.”
May well have been. It was called the Holocene Optimum. …. Because of greater solar energy incoming northern climes, due favourable orbital mechanics.
From Eric’s link ….
“On a 10,000 year timescale the spiral graph does emphasise how cold modern temperatures are, compared to the rest of the Holocene – at least with regard to temperatures on the Greenland Ice Sheet.”
Again very probably … for the above reason.
Cant control how the the Earth orbits however.
Mead and roasted porc! (How’s that for political uncorectedness….)
Anderson is correct, all of the world needs to take extreme measures to transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years or all humanity will be wiped out (become extinct). Of course, if we do or don’t transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years or all humanity will be wiped out eventually anyways sometime in the next few million years or so.
MJPenny
M J Penny :
Question 1 : Surely NOT “The Miss MoneyPenny” of James Bond fame !!??
Question 2 : Why have you not decimalised ? ………It makes “cents” !!??
Question 3 : Why not use the English word “from”
instead of the ugly grunt “off of” !!
( which is OK if you are PREVENTING making love in a canoe on the water !! )
Question 4 : Or do you just love the “f” words ??? (e.g.” off of fossil fuels ).
I guess the guy who said he was time traveller was lying then?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/04/climate-alarmist-time-traveller-from-the-year-6491-passes-a-lie-detector-test/
Must be even worse than we thought.
Or we do fix the climate by 2023
Maybe the time travellers rescue their ancestors by transporting them forward in time until after the Earth’s climate has settled…
Eric
According to our betters, the greens, the planet is hell bent on self destruction. So transportation to the future would achieve nothing.
There will be too much atmospheric CO2 which will ruin the planet, not that it did before, it’s heating effect will ruin the planet, not that it did before, and life itself will die off, not that it did before.
Oh! OK, I take your point.
End of the world cultism at its worst. I wonder, is Anderson completely off fossil fuels now?
He’s off his rocker. Does that count?
He’s off or on something.
Off the boring pills, on the fun ones.
What a pile of shite!
when shoveling BS it is important to shovel it high and shovel it fast!!! 🙂
warned that climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch from 33 million BCE, when there was no ice on either pole.
————
This is the most silly claim, especially when considering the evidence….about and in regard of “no ice on either pole”…completely silly, as far as I can tell.
cheers
“climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch from 33 million BCE, when there was no ice on either pole. ”
Sigh. He can’t even get the simplest things right. 33 million years ago was Early Oligocene, not the Eocene and the Earth was in the grip of the first major glaciation (Oi-1) which covered almost the entire Antarctic continent. As a matter of fact there was more ice there than there is now.
Not that the Eocene was ice-free at both (or either) poles either. There were tidewater glaciers both in East Greenland and East Antarctica.
However it definitely was a lot warmer in the Eocene than now. And life flourished on Earth like it has never done since.
I agree with one thing though, humans will go extinct someday. All species do.
Well, the plot thickens, too.
The text of the article with ‘Author’ Scott Alden, is remarkably similar to one published in Forbes the month before, by Jeff McMahon, a ‘contributor’ to Forbes. He works at the U of Chicago, and is also involved in the podcasts of the ‘Energy Policy Institute of Chicago’.
The link to Jeff’s article is at, the following link, for comparison.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/#57682279963e
Anyone remember On The Beach – Gregs Peck Ava Gardner? Tragic and touching. End of the world. Greg looked at the sky, shut down the conning tower hatch and took his boat below crushing depth.
Ah yes, that was when we weer all gonna die from nuclear radiation.
Dontcha miss those cold war times?
When all we had to fear was Russians – and fear itself?
Hi Coeur,
Indeed, one of the great movies, albeit a bit morose.
Not to nit-pick with you (I had it on VHS for a long time, and watched it about once a year, along with “Dr. Strangelove”), but the book and the movie differed very slightly in their ending: viz
In the book, the crew elected to ‘end it all’ there in Australia, scuttling the sub off the coast;
In the movie, the crew voted to head back to a U.S. port, and spend the few days before radiation poisoning would cause them to succumb, on their ‘home’ turf. Ava is standing on the shore, as the sub sails out towards open waters; presumably, after that, she goes and gets her dose of the pill that causes, ” … euphoria, then … … … nothing … … “.
What was always most interesting to me is that the sub used in the portrayal of the “nuclear-powered” sub was actually a diesel-electric (watch the opening scene, where the sub is heading into the Australian port — — behind it you can easily see the faint smoke trail of the diesels as it comes towards the camera).
And, while we’re on the subject, I bet everyone has noticed this little tid-bit on Dr. Strangelove:
The “bomber” (a B-52D or E, I believe) is blue-screened against a background, supposedly showing it flying at very low-level (“tree-top”), but if you look at the background, you can see the shadow of the classic outline of a B-17 that actually did the filming of the “low-level” flying sequences. Even as a kid, in the ’60’s, I noticed these things; at the time, they made me laugh, and today they are even more hilarious.
And, yes, I have actually experienced a low-level overflight by a -52. Back in the days of the OB missions (originally called “Oil Burners”, then morphed into “Olive Branch”), I was directly under a -52 when it came over on a practice/training mission, at “sage-brush” level. This was near Bill, Wyoming, in the Powder River Basin. Yes, the hot exhaust gasses of the engines could be felt (lasted barely a second). If you ever want to be totally impressed with the U.S. military, get a -52 to fly over you. It is an awesome experience, and one I’ll never forget (unlike making love in a canoe … … … )
Vlad
I went to an air show at the old Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth back in 1981. B-52’s were still based there at the time. While the Thunderbirds were between shows, they did an in-flight refueling demo with a KC-130 hooking up to a B-52 in low level flight across the runway. After the planes flew out of sight, the KC-130 came back, made a tight turn over the runway and demonstrated a short landing… like they might have done at Khe Sanh in 1968. A couple of minutes later, there was this loud roar as the B-52 came back and performed a somewhat similar maneuver. The turn wasn’t nearly as tight as the KC-130, but watching a plane that huge maneuver like that was really awesome.
Don’t forget the book “On the beach” was written by Nevil Shute, otherwise Nevil Shute Norway, who was Barnes Wallis’s assistant on the design team of the R101 airship (the private enterprise competitor to the R100 which tragically crashed at Beauvais). He was a fine novelist, very knowledgeable about aviation, and his book “No Highway” was based on the then-new phenomenon of metal fatigue.
As to the end of permanent ice in the Arctic, that seems to me to be a rather odd way of putting it. Does Anderson mean an ice-free summer Arctic? If so, we’ve been here before with Hansen. Anyway, 2022, or rather 2023, isn’t so far off, so there is a fair chance I shall be around to see this one proved wrong, although I suppose Ken Rice will be popping up to say he didn’t really mean it…..
It was actually R101 that was the guv’mint airship that crashed at Beauvais. The R100 was a much superior design, but was scrapped after R101 crashed.
Impossible to initiate, plan and complete a project 1% this size in ten yrs. And guess what the main factor is to do this particular one in 10 times this amount of time. Energy for production of steel aluminum, glass… and fabrication and installation at ~25 kWh/kg and at present only coal, nuclear, hydro, natural gas and petroleum could do the job. Were talking 100s of billions of tons of fossil fuels burnt to achieve it.
These energy installations alone take more than 5 years per to build and the mines more than 5 yrs to build and the ore more than 5 yrs to mine it. Then the nanufacturing plants for renewables more than 5 years to build and the manufacture more than 5yrs to fabricate and installation multi decades.
For an engineer, this is the most profoundly stewpid proposal I have ever read. Climate Scientists not only have to upgrade their statistics skills a couple of hundred percent (or, horrors consult a real statistician). They need to also reinstitute courses in logic at a very basic level (actually anyone needing this upgrade should consider a non- scientific pursuit) and they should consult an engineer on whats possible in their speculations (although a middle range highschool kid could have advised our Dr Anderson to throw in the towel and let the planet go if all we got is 5 yrs!)
The question is a) what meds has he been on, and has apparently stopped taking, and 2) should the doseage be increased?
I bet he drives a car, and flies, and heats, and cools, and consumes, and is a hypocrite.
Any of you ecowackadoodles care to make a bet as to whether homosapiens will still be here in 2023?