Bjorn Lomborg writes on Twitter:
Wishful thinking: This graph starkly shows what power the 1.5°C target The black line is CO₂ emission increase last 118 years (last year was highest ever) The blue lines indicate the emissions necessary to ensure the widely politically agreed 1.5°C limit.
Gel Peters, who made the graph, writes:
Where do we want to go? For 1.5°C we need CO₂ emissions to go down much faster than we went up. CO₂ emissions down 50% in a decade, zero by 2050, negative thereafter. We have to start remove CO₂ now, to reach the necessary scale at the end of the century.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All such graphs should show their assumptions about climate sensitivity.
Rich, I’ll hand it to you, The settled science of Carbon’s habit of emitting a photon when another one strikes it at the proper angstrom length is a thimbleful of empiricism which has been diluted with a bushel basket of politically motivated exaggerations and down-right untruth resulting from abuse of proxy data and twisted conclusions.
Pop. Carbon does not emit that photon. It is emitted when a molecular bond C has with another atom changes its energy level. And the absorption–emission energy level is not just one angstrom wide and one photon, but sometimes ten microns or more wide and consists of many discrete energy changes (e.g. in the case of CO2). This character is what causes the very wide CO2 absorption feature in satellite data of outgoing IR.
Some study of molecular spectroscopy would benefit.
Not sure about “that photon” but colour me confused: “Atoms emit a photon when an electron falls from a high-energy state to a low-energy state. The conditions under which this process occurs happen in two ways. According to the Cornell Center for Materials Research, electrons either absorb the energy from a photon and jump to a higher energy level or a photon collides with an electron that is already in an excited state.”
https://www.reference.com/science/under-circumstances-can-atom-emit-photon-d938dc34732015fb
Yes, bonds also do have an emission process.
Also not clear on your definition of “very wide” here. Compared to Methane and Nitrous Oxide perhaps; compared to Water Vapor the correct term would be “narrow”
Source: any radiation transmitted by the atmosphere chart.
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This graph suggests that we have to remove all excess CO2, including the naturally emitted part, and remove all other climate relevant stimuli of nature.
Without knowing the climate sensitivity, this graph doesn’t mean anything.
Exactly. If one assumes 1.3 TCS, one must remove much less than if one assumes 3 or 4.5 TCS.
Of course, that makes the grand assumption that the only thing affecting temperatures is CO2.
And that claim is absolutely delusional, imo. However, there are a good few alarmists who blind themselves to the reality of what nature shows them. They are stuck in their fancy math as if nature gives a flying f about human scribblings.
“…as if nature gives a flying f about human scribblings…”
Nor does nature care a f/f/ about humans at all!
Is humans’ time on earth coming to its end due to imminent lack of CO2?
The sensitivity typically used by alarmists is the ECS range presumed by the IPCC which is a nominal 4.4 +/-2.2 W/m^2 increase in surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing which is equivalently 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2. It’s this bogus ECS that the alarmists consider ‘settled’.
More often than not, the high end of the range is assumed even though trivial physics can preclude the entire range. The trivial physics is that the planet can’t tell the difference between the next Joule and all the other Joules of forcing thus the next one has the same effect as all the others which is 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing corresponding to less than 0.3C per W/m^2 when starting from about 288K and its 390 W/m^2 of required LWIR photon emissions.
Exactly. The climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero or actually negative. The Elephant in the room that the AGW climate scientists ignore is that all their models are of a flat Earth with 24/7 sunlight, no night!!!
They also have adopted the junk science that “greenhouse gases” exist. They claim the CO2 in the upper tropical troposphere is warming Earth’s surface. One problem: it is about -17 deg C in the upper tropical troposphere and 15 deg C at the surface. As the surface is warmer, all energy levels equivalent to -17 deg C are full and any such radiation from above is reflected. A cole object (upper tropical troposphere) cannot warm a warmer object (the surface); basic thermodynamics that is inviolate.
CO2 and water vapor are actually called “radiative gases” that can take heat energy from the atmosphere and convert it to IR radiation. During the day, these gases are saturated, emitting and absorbing constantly, and have no net effect. It is at night that, without any outside solar energy input, these gases actively cool the atmosphere by converting heat to IR which is lost to space; IR directed downward is reflected as the surface is always warmer than the air.
These radiative gases are why the air cools so quickly after sundown and why little breezes kick up so quickly in the moving shadows of clouds on a sunny day with scudding clouds. More CO2 will cool the night-time a bit.
“IR directed downward is reflected as the surface is always warmer than the air”
The boundary layer of air for a few tens of meters above ground is often warmer than surface if a clear night. Am I missing something?
We need Dr. Feynman.
What does it matter when CO2 is only an extra in the movie of climate?
Bingo!
Some have worked hard to put it on top of the Warmageddon movie’s opening credits.
It surely matters to Bjorn Lomborg, to wit:
Bjorn Lomborg writes on Twitter:
Well now, iffen there REALLY was a STEADY anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2, ….. from 20+ giga tons/year in 1958, …. to 45 giga tons/year in 2018, …… why are those yearly increases not reflected in the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements or on the Keeling Curve Graph?
How is it scientifically possible that the 45+ Gt CO2 emissions in 2018 ….. caused the same annual increase in CO2, but caused greater warming of the near-surface temperatures, …. than did the 20+ Gt CO2 emissions in 1958? ….. Can it be blamed on PFM?
The point was never to actually achieve the goals that the alarmists clamor for. The point is to accumulate the power necessary to move towards the goals.
Exactly.
That is why they changed the number from 2.0°C down to 1.5°C. Neither of them are anything other than purely arbitrary numbers pulled from where the sun don’t shine. But they became worried that the higher number might never occur under any circumstances, and thus lowered it to help bolster continuing demands for “action”. It’s a complete fraud from beginning to end.
You nailed it. As the high sensitivity narrative slowly unraveled, they had to reduce the danger limit in order to maintain the alarm.
Shutting off the fossil fuels on the other hand, for say, a week. Then there’s be some REAL alarm.
Yes, coming soon…uh oh, it’s cooling, now what do we say?
Draft EurekAlert! press release:
The wild swings of our destabilized, CO2-poisoned climate currently seem to be cooling things off a bit. While this may seem like good news, unfortunately it won’t be nearly enough to avert disaster. Far from being an all-clear signal that the world can stand down from anti-CO2 mobilization as the fascist climate deniers claim, actually it was always much worse than we thought. Once thought to represent the safe CO2 level, 280 ppm may have been much too high.
A new study by political scientists and activist journalists in Uzbekistan and Bhutan reveals that it was dangerously hot during the period from 1660 to 1850, (commonly referred to as the Little Hot House Age), almost certainly due to rapidly increasing cow flatulence during the period when colonialist genocide was prevalent. (99% certainty)
If we don’t lower CO2 below 80 ppm and eliminate beef consumption within six months, all complex life on earth we be extinguished. The poor will suffer the most. (100% certainty)
# # #
But if is always worse than you thought, that means that your original thought was wrong. Why should I believe your latest thought? It may turn out later that it was better than you thought, in which case, I will have deprived myself of the benefits of fossil fuels for nothing. I suggest you go back and get your thoughts in order. When you can say “it is exactly as we thought”, then I’ll start worrying and take action.
You’re gonna be personally responsible for the eradication of life on earth if you keep denying science, Trebla. We’ve got to get CO2 below 80 ppm!
That’s how science works. First you identify the factor that most enables freedom and therefore detracts from the building of world socialism. For this example, cheap abundant energy.
Then you come up with an impossible hypothesis about how that socialism-retarding factor is destroying all life on earth.
Then you go out and find data to prove your hypothesis.
When the data doesn’t support your hypothesis, you discard the data and get new data, preferably using a very expensive computer where you have much more control over the outcome.
When competitors show data to supposedly falsify your established Law of Nature, you defend Science by proving that there is an overwhelming consensus and the science is settled.
When data beyond your control can no longer be ignored and explained away, you make your theory more vague until it explains any outcome but still requires the elimination of capitalism.
How sad that you deny science. We may have to arrange a toddlers’ march, er crawl, against climate change until you come to your senses. If that doesn’t work we may need to give in to your demands for free euthanasia. What’s that you say? You’re not demanding death with dignity? Oh well, less dignified methods will work equally well.
>>
If we don’t lower CO2 below 80 ppm and eliminate beef consumption within six months, all complex life on earth we be extinguished.
<<
Have you ever looked at CO2 vs. photosynthesis curves? Below 100 ppm/v, C3 plants stop functioning. About 95% of green plants use the C3 pathway. At 80 ppm/v, you would essentially kill most of the plants (if not all) on the Earth.
“If we lower CO2 below 80 ppm and eliminate beef consumption within six months, all complex life on earth will be extinguished.”
There, I fixed your statement for you.
Jim
You’re trying to say that my solution would actually bring about the very harm that I claim it would avoid, Jim?
What’s photosynthesis got to do with it? Look, I am simply applying the linear no-threshold model for a dangerous substance. No amount of CO2 is safe, just like radiation. Ideally we would eliminate all CO2, but it might not be practical in the near term. Getting it down to 80ppm is a good first step. Who needs plants anyway? We’ll just eat more chicken.
Next thing you’re going to tell me that the period from 1660 to 1850 was really called the Little Ice Age or something.
Methinks your sarcasm detector is overdue calibration and adjustment
>>
Methinks your sarcasm detector is overdue calibration and adjustment.
<<
Thanks, I’ll do that. Do you know a good mechanic you can recommend?
Jim
80ppm?! Why so weak kneed? I say we should lower it down to less than zero, maybe to -75ppm!
Jim, we all know that…..get a sense of humour.
>>
. . . get a sense of humour.
<<
You’re right, Mr. Bill. When the Inquisition comes, and we all must atone for our climate denial-ism–a good sense of humor may be our only defense.
How does this grab you?–
“Anything you might say has already been taken down in evidence against you.”
From: “The Squire of Gothos”
Star Trek, TOS
Jim
Also remember that they moved the point from which the 1.5 increase would be measured to around the end of the little ice age meaning we’ve already had 1 degree.
I’m pretty certain the original 2 degree limit was to be timed from some point in the 20th century.
Does that also imply that we will have to accept life like it was during the LIA? Worse, what is going to happen to agriculture when CO2 gets down to 120 or below. Science tells me it will NOT be good.
Bingo!
The graph is based on the assumption that CO2 is the primary regulator of climate change, and that all warming over the last 60 years is entirely due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. There is no evidence whatsoever that either one of these assumptions is accurate. In fact, the history of the Earth’s climate clearly shows that CO2 is not a significant factor in climate change, and that it is more likely that temperature changes from other sources impact CO2 concentrations more than CO2 changes impact temperature.
The graph is similar to a fire breathing dragon in Game of Thrones. It may look scary on your screen, but it is not real now, is it. It is a fiction!
James,
It is far worse than that.
That graph is based on the unproven assumption that the relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and CO2 forcing is well understood and is calculable and determinate out to 80+ years. Such to the point that the IPCC can tell us what level of emission in 2080-2100 we need to hit a certain target. Might as believe in magic too if you accept that.
A cursory examination of estimated historical emissions and the MLO record makes that assumption quite questionable. For instance, we know global emissions declined in 2009-2010 due to decline in industrial output due to the global recession. Do you see that in the MLO record? No.
What you see in the MLO record are ENSO-related speed ups and slows downs in CO2 annual growth rates.
OCO-2 CO2 data was supposed to fill in that area by helping to globally map local and regional sinks and sources on seasonal and annual time scales. OCO-2 data team has gone silent on CO2 mapping. All they’ve talked about in presentations for the last 2 years has been solar induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF), which a secondary objective of the OCO-2 mission.
“OCO-2 data team has gone silent on CO2 mapping. ”
I’ve noticed that too. They’ve basically released NOTHING. It is completely strange. Either they are taking their time building up a big kabang splash or they are seeing something inconvenient. I don’t know which but it does seem kind of fishy.
“The graph is based on the assumption that CO2 is the primary regulator of climate change”
Define “climate change.”
Good point, Gamecock! Not only is the science of climate change filled with assumptions, the language of climate change is also rife with assumptions. Nothing in the alarmist narrative is defined. Yet there is the assumption that we all understand what is being said.
When I hear ‘climate change’, I think of any fluctuation in 30 year averages of temperature and precipitation for a given location, region or hemisphere. The reason for the change is irrelevant. When activist, alarmists and the media use the phrase ‘climate change’ I understand that they are only talking about man-made climate change. The assumption is that all change is man-made, and the time scale is irrelevant. No data is required to support the term. Only a perception of change is needed. Yet, the term is never actually defined by the warmists. Similarly, ‘settled science’, climate change denier’, ‘consensus’, ‘crisis’, ‘extreme weather’, and a host of other buzzwords constantly being thrown at us, are not defined! The language is emotive, not factual. It is not designed to exchange information, but to invoke feelings.
As Linda pointed out below, the word ’emissions’ has an implication and assumption of pollution, creating an emotive reaction for most people that I do not share. The lack of definition in the climate change language makes it possible for people to be absolutely sure they are right, without actually knowing anything at all!
‘C02 emissions’ is a misleading alarmist buzzword – ’emissions’ implies pollution and C02 is NOT pollution. And MORE C02 is better. Why indulge the nonsensical and essentially diabolical AGW narrative?
It is not zeroxygen, mind you. It could be your 0 and O look the same. Mine do not.
It is not worthwhile to pay lip service to CO2 reduction. We achieve far better results by helping plants use scarce water, and feeding them too – both require more CO2, not less. The declining Solar energy output will also be offset accordingly!
I’m still not convinced that CO2 is a driver; that it may well be a follower—and that as temperature increases natural sources emit more CO2.
I’ve seen ‘world coming to an end’ predictions since I was a child. Long ago it was the behaviors of the tribe angering the spirits.
I guess it makes the modern day witch doctors feel important
CO2 is a buffer not a driver.
+100!
You literally have to believe in magic to believe that graph with the chain of assumptions behind it.
But I suppose that’s not too hard for the generations brought up on vampire movies, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones. And now they are being relentlessly told by mindless idiots like Beto Odork and Occasional-Cortex that their future is dark and bleak, and they won’t live as well as their parents because of climate change. Such thinking if allowed to fester will be self-fulfilling.
And the stark reality of carbon budgets from which they are derived.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/01/14/carbonbudget/
Chaamjamal March 22, 2019 at 10:15 pm
Thank you your link is interesting
michael
Quick!
Tell AOC that the sun’s sex life has just been cut short by a coronary mass ejaculation, and we’re ALL GOING TO DIE!
We don’t have to wait patiently for twelve years after all.
I know Lomborg advocates for climate reality, which would put him more in the skeptic camp. But there’s also something about his acknowledgement of CO2 as a problem (that we can’t do anything about) that has really become annoying. Seems like he should know better, so perhaps in his awareness of the political reality he takes a straddle-the-fence approach to avoid any consequences from either side.
There is a line of reasoning in law, assuming arguendo, ie. for the sake of argument.
So, Lomborg seems to be saying, “Even if they are right about CO2 causing climate change, they are still wrong about what we should do about it.” It’s something like, it will cost much less to adapt to global warming than it will to prevent it.
It just occurred to me that the alarmists are catastrophizing. That is pathological.
Perhaps Limburg wants, to use the old expression “Two Bob each way”.
But I enjoy reading his analysis of the costs for and against the various
schemes dreamed up by the followers of the Green Blob.
MJE VK5ELL
People need to remember that the greenhouse impact of CO2 is exponential by powers of two. This means that if you must increase atmospheric CO2 by X in order to get Y amount of increase, you must DOUBLE the amount of CO2 in the air to get the same impact again. This means that each ton of CO2 emitted has LESS impact than the ton before it had. We would need to emit roughly 2 tons of CO2 to have the same greenhouse impact that a ton of CO2 had in the preindustrial era and that assumes CO2 is not removed. It *is* removed. In fact, the more CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the FASTER nature scrubs it out though both biology (CO2 fertilization) and geology (erosion of rock). So you not only have to double the amount of CO2 in the air, it gets harder to double it because nature is working harder removing it.
According to specific heat tables the Cp of CO2 is .846 kj/kg C at 300 K. so 1 kg of CO2 will require .846 kg to increase temperature 1 C at 26.85 C Thermodynamics says the energy can be any kind.
However, climate science says that via the forcing formula I need to add 5.35ln(C/Co) W into the mix. This is about 74 W. The same is true for dry air.
Specific heat is a property and if climate science is correct then the specific heats of CO2 and dry air must be changed. They also must show that internal energy (u), enthalpy (h), Cv, and Cp are not determined by temperature.
.846 kg should read .846 kj.
Additionally, even assuming the absurdly high climate sensitivity claimed by alarmist, it means most of the warming assumed caused by co2 since the pre-industrial era and going forward has already happened. And how much is that? less than 1 degree K
Salute crosspatch!
I was wondering about this logarithmic assumption a few days ago.
Way I understand this, is whenever we double the CO2 from today or yesterday that we will have 1/2 the effect upon the “greenhouse effect”, and all the death and destruction that ensues./sarc
So looks to me that in another doubling or two that we’ll have something we can plan for, as the greenhouse effect won’t be going up nearly as much as the last hundred years.
Gums wonders…
URGENT ALERT FOR ANYONE USING FIREFOX AS THEIR BROUSER.
FIREFOX HAS BEEN HACKED !
OT HAS OF IT’S OWN WISH INTRODUCED NEW SOFTWARE WHICH MAKE IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO USE
IF YOU WANT TO USE FIREFOX, DO NOT ALLOW YOUR FIREFOX BROUSER TO UPGRADE TO THE CURRENT ONE.
OTHERWISE YOU WILL NEED TO USE CHROME WHICH IS WHAT I AM USING RIGHT NOW.
PLEASE COPY & PASTE THIS ELSEWHERE
BILL IN OZ
You may need to turn off the automatic upgrade feature on Firefox. Otherwise you will be locked out of access to roughly 70-80% of all your bookmarks or required tomake them exceptions to Firefox’s deny access policy. using Firefox I have no access to JoNova. So I am now forced to use Chrome.
There are other browsers besides Chrome, e.g., Opera, Pale Moon, etc
If you turn off automatic updates for your brower, then your computer becomes ‘at risk’ from hacking.
Best to move over to Ubuntu: https://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop
Try it out on a spare machine
I’ll have one last go because I think it’s a shame that firefox is being unfairly blamed.
It sounds to me like an SSL certification issue. Usually that’s the case if firefox is asking you to make an exemption to view a site.
I’m on the latest version of firefox, and JoNova works fine for me.
Exactly what did the firefox message say?
If the global warming alarmists genuinely believed CO2 was leading mankind towards an early demise and in 12 years time if you happen to be a Democrat female politician. Why aren’t the anxious AG warmists demanding all electricity (which they seem to think is a benign go to solution to everything) is generated by nuclear power.
Why are the warmists never challenged on why the obvious solution is never advanced by them?
Could it be, the demand from the COGS (constantly offended green socialists) is nothing to do with CO2 per se, but is everything to do with assuming total control of energy and wealth distribution world wide.
Rod, if COGS wanted to assume energy control and world government, they should love nuclear power as it must be huge and government sponsored and supervised. I think the indications are that COGS are simply incapable of doing any calculations or pragmatic assessments. They prefer to believe that piezoelectric tiles on their kitchen floor can power their entire house with their footsteps…..someday…..especially if there is a government vote-buying subsidy for it.
Stop feeding the Hobgoblin!
There is NO mechanism by which adding CO2 into the cold atmosphere can have a significant (or even measurable) impact of global temperature.
The more people agree with the assumptions inherent in the OP graph, the greater the potential manipulation of the proletariat.
You can’t justify reparations and wealth transfers without a substantial failure to meet goals and commitments. And goals are set such that failure is guaranteed.
At some point in the future you will begin to hear, “We have to continue doing everything we’ve done so far, but because we didn’t meet the goals for reduction $XXX Billion per year in transfer payments is justified.”
Co2 is not the concern. It is the abject, simple-minded gullibility of thr world’s leaders. They are deluded not only about Carbon but about renewables and about our ability to control climate.
Everybody remembers the part in Spinal Tap where the numbskull turns his amp up to 11.
I’m going to change the knob on my Oven to read CO2ppm instead of degrees C.
Some instructions like ‘For beef, cook at 670ppm for 30 minutes per pound’
Gel Peters: if you make my world colder than it already is, I am so going to sue your ass.
It used to be much warmer in Canada than it was, only a few thousand years ago. I’ll see you on the other side of the CMIP6 projections where solar wind is considered. Reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will have no beneficial effect on the biosphere. Prove me wrong.
“The widely politically agreed 1.5°C limit”
That is the problem, NOT CO2 concentrations…
Exactly what I thought as soon as I read that phrase!
Where do we want to go? For 1.5°C we need CO₂ emissions to go down much faster than we went up. CO₂ emissions down 50% in a decade, zero by 2050, negative thereafter. We have to start remove CO₂ now, to reach the necessary scale at the end of the century.
No we don’t. What matters is difference in production rates, not the imaginary survival time of CO2.
More plants eat more CO2 and under current conditions we automatically get more plants and more CO2 use by plants & trees, without having to do anything.
Also there is nothing wrong with current temperatures. Even if you believe in this hoax, then surely you understand that the objective would be to stabilize at current levels. No need to go back to significantly lower CO2 levels.
MIT scientist calls out Al Gore and Chuck Schumer, compares Schumer’s legislation to Council of Trent and refers to alarmism to religion and not science.
https://mobile.twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1109126175358509056
Imagine things went the other way in 2016. The cooling since then would be all over the news, with a certain party taking credit, and a nobel prize.