The stark reality of CO2 emissions reduction, in one graph

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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard Drake
March 22, 2019 9:10 pm

All such graphs should show their assumptions about climate sensitivity.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Richard Drake
March 22, 2019 9:42 pm

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.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 23, 2019 6:17 pm

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.

James Hein
Reply to  donb
March 24, 2019 3:40 pm

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.”

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.

Mary White
Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 25, 2019 10:28 am


Ben Palmer
Reply to  Richard Drake
March 23, 2019 1:26 am

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.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Richard Drake
March 23, 2019 7:03 am

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.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 23, 2019 12:17 pm

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.

Mary White
Reply to  goldminor
March 25, 2019 10:34 am

“…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?

Reply to  Richard Drake
March 23, 2019 7:32 am

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.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Richard Drake
March 23, 2019 11:12 am

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.

Reply to  Charles Higley
March 24, 2019 1:36 pm

“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?

Mary White
Reply to  Charles Higley
March 25, 2019 10:38 am

We need Dr. Feynman.

Pop Piasa
March 22, 2019 9:11 pm

What does it matter when CO2 is only an extra in the movie of climate?

steve case
Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 22, 2019 9:21 pm


Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 23, 2019 5:47 am

Some have worked hard to put it on top of the Warmageddon movie’s opening credits.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 23, 2019 10:07 am

It surely matters to Bjorn Lomborg, to wit:

Bjorn Lomborg‏ writes on Twitter:

The black line is CO₂ emission increase last 118 years (last year was highest ever)

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?

March 22, 2019 9:13 pm

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.

michael hart
Reply to  Kurt
March 22, 2019 10:48 pm


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.

David Hoffer
Reply to  michael hart
March 22, 2019 11:04 pm

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.

Rich Davis
Reply to  michael hart
March 23, 2019 1:37 am

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)
# # #

Reply to  Rich Davis
March 23, 2019 4:11 am

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.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Trebla
March 23, 2019 6:25 am

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.

Reply to  Rich Davis
March 23, 2019 8:26 am

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.


Rich Davis
Reply to  Jim Masterson
March 23, 2019 10:40 am

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.

Reply to  Jim Masterson
March 23, 2019 10:53 am

Methinks your sarcasm detector is overdue calibration and adjustment

Reply to  Jim Masterson
March 23, 2019 11:22 am

Methinks your sarcasm detector is overdue calibration and adjustment.

Thanks, I’ll do that. Do you know a good mechanic you can recommend?


Jason Calley
Reply to  Jim Masterson
March 23, 2019 6:03 pm

80ppm?! Why so weak kneed? I say we should lower it down to less than zero, maybe to -75ppm!

Bemused Bill
Reply to  Jim Masterson
March 23, 2019 10:17 pm

Jim, we all know that…..get a sense of humour.

Reply to  Jim Masterson
March 24, 2019 9:11 am

. . . 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


Reply to  michael hart
March 23, 2019 6:00 am

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.

Reply to  sunderlandsteve
March 23, 2019 8:16 am

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.

steve case
March 22, 2019 9:21 pm


James Clarke
March 22, 2019 9:35 pm

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!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  James Clarke
March 22, 2019 9:59 pm

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.

Lee L
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 22, 2019 11:15 pm

“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.

Reply to  James Clarke
March 23, 2019 6:26 am

“The graph is based on the assumption that CO2 is the primary regulator of climate change”

Define “climate change.”

James Clarke
Reply to  Gamecock
March 23, 2019 7:30 am

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!

Linda Goodman
March 22, 2019 9:36 pm

‘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?

Reply to  Linda Goodman
March 22, 2019 10:51 pm

It is not zeroxygen, mind you. It could be your 0 and O look the same. Mine do not.

March 22, 2019 9:37 pm

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!

M__ S__
March 22, 2019 9:42 pm

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

Reply to  M__ S__
March 23, 2019 10:25 am

CO2 is a buffer not a driver.

J Mac
Reply to  Prjindigo
March 23, 2019 4:12 pm


Joel O'Bryan
March 22, 2019 9:46 pm

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.

March 22, 2019 10:15 pm

And the stark reality of carbon budgets from which they are derived.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Chaamjamal
March 22, 2019 11:53 pm

Chaamjamal March 22, 2019 at 10:15 pm
Thank you your link is interesting


March 22, 2019 10:57 pm

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.

March 22, 2019 11:00 pm

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.

Reply to  MMontgomery
March 23, 2019 12:44 am

There is a line of reasoning in law, assuming arguendo, ie. for the sake of argument.

In this example, the attorney makes a hypothetical assumption that the plaintiff’s argument is right, while still proving that the defendant should win the case anyway.

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.

March 22, 2019 11:53 pm

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.


March 23, 2019 12:36 am

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.

Reply to  crosspatch
March 23, 2019 6:46 am

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.

Reply to  mkelly
March 23, 2019 6:49 am

.846 kg should read .846 kj.

Reply to  crosspatch
March 23, 2019 6:46 am

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

Reply to  crosspatch
March 23, 2019 11:20 am

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…

Bill in Oz
March 23, 2019 12:50 am








Bill in Oz
Reply to  Bill in Oz
March 23, 2019 1:26 am

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.

Reply to  Bill in Oz
March 23, 2019 4:13 am

There are other browsers besides Chrome, e.g., Opera, Pale Moon, etc

Steve Richards
Reply to  Bill in Oz
March 23, 2019 4:42 am

If you turn off automatic updates for your brower, then your computer becomes ‘at risk’ from hacking.

Best to move over to Ubuntu:

Try it out on a spare machine

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Bill in Oz
March 27, 2019 12:53 am

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?

Rod Evans
March 23, 2019 12:50 am

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.

Reply to  Rod Evans
March 23, 2019 7:31 am

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.

March 23, 2019 1:15 am

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.

Steve O
March 23, 2019 1:19 am

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.”

Steve Borodin
March 23, 2019 1:34 am

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.

March 23, 2019 1:44 am

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’

Crispin in Waterloo
March 23, 2019 2:29 am

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.

Dave Ward
March 23, 2019 3:02 am

“The widely politically agreed 1.5°C limit”

That is the problem, NOT CO2 concentrations…

Margaret Smith
Reply to  Dave Ward
March 23, 2019 4:07 am

Exactly what I thought as soon as I read that phrase!

Jaap Titulaer
March 23, 2019 4:24 am

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.

March 23, 2019 5:19 am

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.

March 23, 2019 6:09 am

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.

March 23, 2019 7:06 am

This graph shows (though not very well) the abrupt ~30% emissions increase around 2002. That relatively sudden increase in emissions never showed up in the Mauna Loa CO2 data…something never explained.

So mother nature (or somebody) already did almost a third of the (un)neccessary job.

Now all we need to do to reach emissions goals is the total nuclear annihilation of China and India and Southeast Asia. Nothing else has even the tiniest chance of meeting UN Emissions goals.

I personally don’t think we should nuke half the world, that would be bad for trade and international relations.

Therefore, we should save our $$ so that we can learn to survive in a world that is 1.5 C warmer…like humans did during the Midieval Warming Period when civilization flourished. We need to have historians tell us how humanity ever lived through such a mild climate. That scenario congers up utter horror…the competition for beachfront property is going to be fierce.

Reg Nelson
March 23, 2019 7:35 am

Pretty sure that the blue lines represent what will happen to countries’ economies that adopt Green New Deal policies.

March 23, 2019 8:06 am

Seems that most everything is pretty good now…. Steady as she goes!

March 23, 2019 8:12 am

One source of CO2 that i never read about is the Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents. The magnitude of these were not discovered until around the year 2000. [ I served in the US Navy Submarine service for over 20 years and retired in 2000. During that time I never heard of them. Even served on subs making charts of the ocean floor during that service which were detailed enough to plot them – no mention of their existence. Worse I see no mention of their effect of releasing CO2 or by the plant life around them in any CC discussions, whose magnitude was not fully realized of until 2010 or so.
Is this properly accounted for in the CC models? Could the gravity effect of other planets in our solar system affect the amount of CO2 released? As I recall, there was a rare alignment of the planets a few years ago and hype by the MSM about more earthquakes and the end of the world BS. If the alignment could increase earthquakes wouldn’t it also affect the release rate of these and other known volcanoes?

March 23, 2019 8:50 am

The funny thing with the 1.5°C limit is that according to the RCP modelling we already should have 1.9°C warming. Which brings up a couple of questions..

1. How will you prevent something from happening that already happened, unless you have a time machine?
2. Given that the prophecy did not materialize, would you a) say thank god we have more time, or b) question the prophecy?
3. Since the modelled temperature exceeds the 1.5°C target by 0.4°C, what exactly justifies the unsurmountable efforts to recude a hypothetic temperature in a model by 0.4°C???

March 23, 2019 8:56 am

Allow me to explain a logical position here without referencing data. Is the climate changing? Of course it is, and always has. Few realize it has been far worse millions of years ago. Too many people are living in their little bubble called “a lifetime.” Does human activity have some affect on the weather? Of course it does, as we live here, but with many things like other animals, volcanos, earthquakes etc. Ice caps change, always have. The Antarctic is growing faster than Arctic is shrinking, but we can’t explain. I remember the “coming ice age” theories in the 70s and 80s. Our life spans and even the existence of man on the Earth is a microscopic event in history of the planet. “Global Warming” is now “Climate Change” since the climate doesn’t seem to obey predictions, but who can deny things “change”? Chaos theory is logical proof that predictions against complex systems are useless. Arguments in favor of the “climate change” religion, like all religion, are not falsifiable – and therefore by definition not “scientific”. All resolutions point to political control. Environmental “science” has taken the place of economic socialism/communism as the statist’s wedge of choice. The old models have fallen out of favor. Without state funding there would be no such “climate change” theory. This is state propaganda used to drive more taxes. Same happened with the over-population scare, acid raid and the coming ice age. Heck, the fact that the only people pushing the agenda are politicians tells you it’s suspect. I’m not debating there may be temp increases and decreases in certain places. That’s normal. Change is always happening. But proof of cause (similar to proving gravity exists) and then predicting something bad is going to happen deserves great skepticism.

An experienced, unbiased computer scientist will tell you that the math behind the predictive models practically constitutes fraud. The past does not predict the future, so if there is a rising temperature, there is no evidence it will continue. It’s hard for people to grasp that models (explanations) of chaotic systems cannot project actual system behavior – ever. This is not a limitation in current methods, measurements or processing power. It is an absolute limit that can never be overcome. To truly understand in a manner that is provable one needs an actual proof. If the proof implies a chaotic system, one of the things that the proof can prove is that the system cannot project future outcome of any real system. In narrower aspects of the system (which are not chaotic) one can prove outcomes given a set of assumptions (axioms), but there is no such thing as an absolute (consistent and complete) proof in any complicated system. In other words, the models built by “scientists” are subsets of the chaotic system and don’t represent reality.

Furthermore, few understand that science is not absolute. Science doesn’t have theorems or proofs, it has facts, hypotheses and theories – and theories can never be proven. Math has proofs. Computer science isn’t actually a science, it’s a philosophy/math – with theorems and proofs. So far computer science cannot predict a chaotic system. So don’t believe the doomsday “predictions” based on “models.”

One thing is certain, as there is proof by existence – projections by those who think they have plausible system explanations have failed to a significant degree. While their theories cannot be proven, they can be (and have been) disproven. There is of course the long history of chicken little cults, including “The Coming Ice Age” from the 70’s-80’s, or Armageddon from a little earlier. Overpopulation was another scare that didn’t happen. The motivation is always the same – it’s a con to gain control over people by capturing their vote. Apart from the daily political debate, I don’t observe anything really “happening.” There are always doomsayers, and they have almost always been wrong, whether it is their observation or conclusion.

The reason this is just a hotly debated topic and so many seem to “care” is because of predictions OTHER people make. There is behind all of this some idea that these predictions imply something bad, or at least worse then if we implemented proposed “solutions”. And notice all of the proposed solutions always lead to one place… increasing the power of the state to unprecedented levels. It’s no wonder at all that the “absolute science” comes from from the state (and as explained above, science is not absolute). Many people or groups want to get control of other people, and hence the desire to find a plausible system explanation (including projection/prediction) that can be tied back to a regulatory policy that yields the control. Check out this quote, I’m not worried in the least about climate change (oh and CO2 is pumped into green houses to grow plants better/faster):

“April 22 was the 47th anniversary of the first Earth Day, which occurred in 1970. Since that day, the number of people on Earth has increased from 3.7 billion to 7.5 billion, and average life expectancy for all the world’s people has risen by 11 years, to 67 years old. Likewise, food production has soared and energy production and consumption, mostly thanks to fossil fuels, has increased by more than four times. Since the first Earth Day, the natural environment has improved substantially, through urbanization, and the biosphere and agriculture are more robust. Earth is greener, because of the additional carbon dioxide in the air, as numerous studies now show. Since the first Earth Day, the flawed computer models backed by radical environmentalists have failed continuously, and we now know they can never serve as a reliable tool to make policy judgements governing the future of human life on Earth.”

If you read Tony’s site carefully, you will notice that he has gone back and found the articles that made all sorts of predictions and most didn’t happen (not even close). It’s a political con game and you’re falling for the fear mongering. If the “science” is backed by the state, then be very skeptical. Most who think “climate change” is an issue, don’t understand the basics of how science works. They are just jumping on the political propaganda band wagon. One thing is certain – if there is an issue, there is absolutely no hypothesis that is considered a theory to such a convincing degree like the theory of relativity, gravity or evolution. All those are backed by vast scientific research and support by peer reviewed works. Climate change is a hoax /joke compared to the theory of gravity when put under the test of true science. Tony in this video is an unbiased, credible scientist and engineer. He has no agenda and does great work. I guarantee you, 10 yrs from now there will be no major problems. Al Gore’s predictions were all wrong, and OAC’s will be also. It’s just so obvious to the intellectual, unbiased, critical thinking community.

Reply to  Michael
March 23, 2019 10:29 am

That was an interesting read, how does this factor in if at all or is it no longer considered a thing?

Milankovitch Cycles

Reply to  res
March 23, 2019 12:31 pm

Speaking of that cycle, I can hardly believe how alarmists with a science background can think that just because the Milankovitch cycle has gone barely past the mid point descending that of a sudden the planet is supposed to immediately enter into a cooling phase. Despite the fact that all that means is that it will 11K+ years before the bottom arrives. That shows me that they are clueless in comprehending how nature works. Also doesn’t say much for their logical ability.

They do similar when commenting that we should be cooling because the solar cycle has slightly declined. They must think that it is like an off/on switch, absolutely clueless.

Reply to  Michael
March 23, 2019 11:31 am

So far computer science cannot predict a chaotic system.

A double pendulum is a chaotic system. Yet there are modes that are as predictable as a regular pendulum.

The solar system appears to be chaotic on the order of 1 to 5 million years (i.e., it has a “horizon of predictability” of at least that long). It has been quite predictable during the entire period of human astronomy.


March 23, 2019 9:25 am

We know what s behind the warming.
If You bother to study when the reduction of SO2 started compared to when the warming started You will see.
If CO2 is more potent then Why the cooling during 1950-1980?
Aerosols cools , and less of them does not cool as much.

ferd berple
March 23, 2019 10:11 am

What the graph says is plain. The Paris Agreement is dead in the water.

What would be useful would be to add the Paris Agreement emissions schedule to the graph to show just how ridiculous the Paris Agreement is when compared to IPCC consensus.

This graph shows that it is a fools errand to set 1.5C as a target. It is the equivalent of a manned space mission to the nearest star. We don’t have the technology or the resources to pay for it.

What the graph shows is that since emissions reductions are orders of magnitude outside of our grasp, that we would be much better off to use the money to adapt. If fact, adaptation is our only workable choice outside of killing off 90% of the population.

There is a great deal of land that currently too cold to support any size of population. Canada and Russia for example have vast areas where climate refugees could settle if things get warmer.

The cost of resettlement would be quite low as these areas have vast quantities of untapped natural resources. All that is required are people and a warmer climate.

Stanislav Kneifl
March 23, 2019 10:12 am

There is just one way to bring this graph into reality: global nuclear war.

Jon Salmi
March 23, 2019 10:45 am

Unless and until the Chinese are convinced to begin GHG reduction now, all talk of such reductions is just blather.

David Williams
March 23, 2019 2:01 pm

Since emissions have either flatlined or begun to fall in the West it is very clear that the recent history of increases on the chart is primarily due to China, India and developing nations.

Cambodia is currently having severe water shortages and problems with the power generation capacity due to a heavy reliance on hydro power. When I was there last year I learned they are building 3 coal fired power plants that should hopefully start to address at least the power issue.

The fact is it is still much cheaper to provide power for a developing nation through the use of fossil fuels. Since most developing nations are dirt poor and reliant on the West for some degree of funding they are building coal fired power plants as the same hypocrites who would demand that we give up our fossil fuel energy won’t spring the massive bill for renewables in developing nations.

March 23, 2019 2:11 pm

Re. Michael’s , March 23 , excellent article correctly says , that the
computers can never tell us what the future will be, but we do have
reasonable documentation, especially from China, as to what has happened in the past.

That of course shows that change is normal, and that external factors such as the theory of Cosmic Ray bombardment appear to be a part of the over all weather mix.

Another point, we should keep correcting the misuse of the word “Climate”
instead of weather. Climate is the 30 year average, weather as Mark
Twain said is what you get day by day.


March 23, 2019 3:58 pm

Life has existed on Earth with CO2 from 0.02% to 0.07%. So what is all the dithering except to control our lives, the economy, and our individual existence?

Jean Parisot
March 23, 2019 9:10 pm

Let’s see that graph getting us to 800ppm of carbon by 2100 (or whenever the population reaches 10B).

March 24, 2019 6:29 am

Meanwhile, some nations bought into the fear of CO2, and have crippled themselves attempting to cut their emissions. The Dutch are a prominent example and are now regretting their actions.
“From this point on there are still many different roads into the future. The Dutch example is instructive because we are talking about a wealthy, urban, industrialised country – a self-proclaimed climate leader within the European Union. A country moreover that has decided to phase out the use of “unabated” natural gas for the sake of the climate. Yet its climate policies for cutting greenhouse gas emissions are full of flaws.”

High Treason
March 24, 2019 5:18 pm

How flagrant can it get in terms of moving goalposts. First it was the 3.5 degree maximum, then 2.5 degrees. Now the goalposts have moved again to 1.5 degrees as the maximum. Moving the goalposts is a classic tactic of liars.

Has your BS meter exploded? Does it has to be moved down to .5 degrees and punitive climate taxes based on that figure inducing abject poverty for people to wake up that it is utter BS? Will the dung beetles still swallow the BS even when it gets that absurd? Will policymakers continue to force us to swallow BS to save them from extreme embarrassment-the embarrassment of being found out as liars or total incompetents?

%d bloggers like this: