Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Global warming was not reversed by the year 2000 – yet we are still here.
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 30, 1989UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.
″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.…
Read more: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Link to a PDF copy of the AP article, in case the original is “disappeared”.
What other great examples of failed climate warnings can you remember?
Half a century from Malthusian Paul Ehrlich’s stupefyingly inane “Population Bomb” in 1968, going on ten years from the anonymous “Climategate” publication of chiliastic deviants’ back-story propaganda in November 2009, our 4.5 billion-year old Earth is (once again) due to deliquesce by AD 2030. Indeed, since late Pliocene times about 3.5 million YBP cyclical plate tectonic-driven Ice Ages lasting an average 102 kiloyears have regularly interspersed with median 12,250-year Interglacial Epochs such as the recent Holocene (which ended in AD 1350 with a 500-year Little Ice Age now rebounding over 140 years to c. 2030).
For decades now, crony-socialist Klimat Deviants have pushed “anthropogenic warming” via CO2 as a smog-blanketing “greenhouse gas”, when in attested fact any “warming” represents a 140-year “amplitude compression” rebound from the 500-year Little Ice Age (LIA) that ended 1850/1890. Meantime, CO2 at 425 PPM is a benign trace-gas currently below one-tenth Mesozoic levels prior to Chixculub’s K/T Boundary extinction-event 65-million YBP. For the nonce, as total solar irradiance (TSI) radically diminishes on the threshold of a 70+ year “dead sun” Grand Solar Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715, Luddite sociopaths’ knowing, willful sabotage of global coal, oil, nuclear energy economies in favor of Green Gang grifters’ democidal solar-windfarm junkyards, mega-deaths accompanying Earth’s new Pleistocene Ice Time are all but guaranteed.
For the record, Australian researcher Robert Holmes’ peer-reviewed Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law (pub. December 2017) definitively refutes any possible CO2 connection to climate variations: Where Temperature T = PM/Rp, any planet’s near-surface global Temperature T equates to its Atmospheric Pressure P times Mean Molar Mass M over its Gas Constant R times Atmospheric Density p.
Applying Holmes’ relation to all planets in Earth’s solar system, zero error-margins attest that there is no empirical or mathematical basis for any “forced” carbon-accumulation factor (CO2) affecting Planet Earth. To say that commentators of all stripes have studiously neglected this definitive insight is an extreme understatement: When facts don’t matter, myths sow Cadmus’ dragons-teeth that spring up as armed men.
👍 👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍👍🏼 👍
love the use of them thar $5 words…:)
I teach thermodynamics and heat transfer. On exams, a large group of students will always start solutions by writing down the ideal gas law–whether it pertains to the problem or not. The ideal gas law is among the most useful and basic foundational matters in physics, but it does not apply to solids, liquids, nor to processes in which multiple independent variables, such as speccific volume and pressure, change at the same time. Examples include adiabatic expansion or compression.
The temperature of any parcel of air is the result of the first law of thermodynamics:
Change in internal energy = Heat in – work out.
Holmes does not seem to think the first law has much importance.
Yes, obviously the ideal gas law applies around specific circumstances, but in the case of atmospheric conditions it follows from radiative forcing and other heat inputs. It’s not the driver of these.
Kevin,
While I have not read the Holmes paper, and while I agree that one must consider adiabatic expansion and compression when considering energy transfers in the atmosphere, one also can’t ignore the gas law. All theories trying to explain the temperature of the atmosphere that only consider radiative effects can’t be complete. As far as I can tell, radiative effects have the smallest contribution on the lower atmosphere of the three.
I always like to point out that there is as much CO2 on Mars as their is on Earth and Mars is cold! Yes I know it’s more complex than that but it is a good battering ram against the walls of propaganda built by the mass media.
I also point out that at the height of the atmosphere on Venus where the pressure is the same as the Earth’s, the temperature is roughly the same as well.
There’s actually 8.9 times more CO2 in Mars’ atmosphere than in the Earth’s, and, due to its smaller surface area, 54 times more per unit area than on Earth. There’s so much, in fact, that Mars emits laser radiation naturally – the first instance of that found in nature. And, yes, Mars is quite a bit colder, though it also receives about 1/4 the sunlight per unit area as does Earth because of its distance from the Sun.
That sounds awfully like the Nikolev Zeller principle, also confirmed here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/02/modelling-the-climate-of-noonworld-a-new-look-at-venus/#comment-2714696
Point #9.
You got it, Lloyd; I couldn’t have said it better myself. Through my geologist career I became familiar enough with the last 1.8 billion years of the planet’s history that I can walk up to an outcrop of it and place it reliably in that 1.8 billion years of history; rocks do ‘look their age;’ just like me, and they record climate. And I don’t think that any puny creature like man is going to affect the next 4.5 billion years one tiny bit, it will unfold as the laws of the universe (like PV=nRT, not to mention solar cycles–and I mean the BIG ones leading to the Red Giant phase, not little magnetic perturbations) decide. And as said before, if I can survive from -110F (with wind chill) and +110 (without), damned if the ‘maybe’, ‘could be’, ‘might be’ of +1.5C in the next 80 years is going to make me crap my drawers.
LMH,
How delicious is your phrase “… due to deliquesce by AD 2030.”
It takes me back to fun-filled undergrad Chemistry years that imprinted quite a number of Science terms that even today, 50 years later, separate sheep from goats. Those who had to resort to the dictionary can be taken as a first approximation, to be less valuable commentators on Science.
Times change. Right now, society is under attack by hordes of advertisers who are trying to reverse the irreversible. Thus, we have a plethora of phrases like “Gamble responsibly” and “Absolutely unique” and “Unequivocally attributed to Climate Change”. Geoff S
Too many to count. Apparently these guys don’t care how stupid they sound because their kind never go back and check. All they do is keep up the chicken little songs. And the media never call them on it.
No one is claiming that Marxists are intelligent – they clearly are not. The leftist leadership are sociopaths who seize any notion that will disrupt peaceful society, create poverty and chaos and thus give them total control. Their minions will follow anything that moves and sounds good – they are the lower ~third of human intellect – people who are too stupid to vote – but they do.
Marxists (aka Progressives) are insane – they want to repeat the horrors of the 20th Century, with over 200 million innocent lives destroyed by the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao, and lesser psychos like Pol Pot and other Tin Pot leftist dictators in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America – most recently Chávez and successors in Venezuela.
In fact, the radical greens have already destroyed the lives of almost as many people as their 20th Century counterparts. Most of their victims are children. This green slaughter is described in my essay “Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/
Radical greens are a reboot of the old Marxists, the “useful idiots” in the West who used to support the failed Soviet Union – they think it will all go better this time – it won’t.
Those advocating socialist solutions don’t seem to realize that socialism requires centralized control of everything by faceless bureaucrats responding to collective political bodies, all as overseen by a strong, charismatic leader. Such a system cannot maintain the idealist fervor of its founders; it will degenerate into authoritarianism propped up by a politically dependent military.
Such a system will not give one the social and economic benefits originally envisioned. It is inevitably: “One man – One vote – Once.” The thugs are in power forever; the documented fate of every socialist country.
Good comments , thank you Dave.
Almost 90% of the countries in the world fit your description. ” One man – One vote – Once. The thugs are in power forever; the documented fate of every socialist country.”
Only about 10% of the countries in the world have any real form of Democracy and Rule of Law, and we are under attack by the same extremists who ruined the ~90% that have fallen into Marxist dictatorship, poverty and misery.
Meanwhile, dim bulbs leftists in the USA and Canada tell us it will be different this time. It won’t.
ALLAN MACRAE: Thanks for the link. Somehow I missed your article from 4-14-19. Quite interesting. I suspected much of it, and appreciate the documentation.
Thank you secryn.
Here is my latest paper, which briefly covers climate and energy.
I think it is pretty good, but then, I’m biased. 🙂
Best, Allan
“CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY”, June 2019
pdf:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final-.pdf
Excel spreadsheet:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final.xlsx
The media is the least qualified to check technical facts. Liberal arts degree – – – science correspondent. Try a one – on – one with any of them and note the glazed, fixed eyes. If you find a live one you might get the usual rant regurgitated in your face.
So true. Yet so much of the world listens to and believes these moronic talking heads.
I tell people all the time: the kids who wind up in “Journalism” school are the dumb, lazy drunk ones you see out partying every night. Don’t believe a word they say.
[snipped, language. Mod]
The Sahara wasn’t always a desert. At the beginning of the current interglacial the Sahara was covered with lush vegetation. Due to enhanced atmospheric CO2, vegetation is returning to parts of the Sahara. The world’s deserts appear to be shrinking. link
As always, the alarmists crank up disasters and totally ignore benefits.
“The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown” in 1989. How about the most progressive estimates?
Is that degree C or F? Regardless, it’s a global average so the change in temperature, even at 7 degrees C, would be imperceptible without highly sensitive instruments.
Most progressive estimate: The earth will go Nova by 2200. Women and children hardest hit. Hey it could happen–didn’t you see the sequel to “2001-A Space Odyssey?” It was titled “2010”.
At one point in history (15,000 years ago) there was an ancient megalake in the Sahara which at some point in history was part of the Mediterranean Sea.
I wonder if we have 10 years to save ourselves from the insanity that is running rampant on the planet. When it comes to climate we have no control. Adapt or die.
Ha! So true OWG. Can Canada be saved from the dance instructor’s theft of personal income … to “save Canada’s permafrost from thawing” ?
This is funny:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-a-1989-u-n-predicts-disaster-if-global-warming-not-checked-article-authentic/
The site ‘fact checks’ the article and says it’s ‘True. It then goes on to explain how the predicted events have come to pass and we are all doomed.
Truth just isn’t enough, it needs garnishing.
Amazing how denial of it and fiction garnish permeate through so many truth websites.
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
That IS true.
A UN environmental official actually said that.
WHAT this environmental official said has nothing to do with anything at all. Only the claim about what was said, has been checked.
Gotta know HOW to read stuff…. (Or if you will, construction of language must always be checked if there is Orwellian new-speak or double-speak in there.)
Oddgeir
“Global warming” and “Climate Change” alarmism was never about the environment – it was always about total control by the far-left – totalitarianism.
What is the difference between the “far left” and the “far right”? Not much. They are converging routes to the same state of enslavement.
Stalin, Hitler, and Mao we’re all leftists – Socialists / Communists.
So were the sociopaths who destroyed sub-Saharan Africa, Cambodia and Latin America. So are the misfits who seek to destroy Western Europe, Canada and the USA.
I will start worrying about the far right when I actually meet one.
Macrae, stick to topics regarding climate, because you lack a clear understanding of history, and politics. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/ Jonah Goldberg was wrong.
Snopes is a useful site…but not for politics.
It seems clear that you are the one with a poor grasp of history, Geoff.
National socialism is not a form of socialism? That is the same category of error as when fundamentalists claim that the Roman Catholic church is not a form of Christianity.
Were the nazis “to the right of” Bolsheviks? Sure, but still far to the left of classical liberalism.
Rich Davis, I suggest you review history, and pay close attention to which political party the brown shirts attacked. Yup, they attacked the communists. Now, if these folks were “socialists” as you claim, they would have been allies of the communists. Oh, and the first folks that were led into the gas chambers were communists, not Jews.
The Nazi’s were socialists.
They were anti-gun.
The were anti-Christian.
They worked closely with the Russians before the war.
Hitler praised working class German Communists in private.
Hitler despised the bourgeoisie.
I could go on.
Michael Jankowski, the Snopes article summarizes very well the guilt current day right wing adherents have being associated with the right wing fascists that took over Germany leading up to WW2.
Both Communism and Fascism are collectivist and totalitarian at heart. Apart from the iconography, the ONLY substantive difference between them is the way of dividing society. Fascism divides it vertically, by ethnicity and nation, whereas Communism divides it horizontally into social.classes.
Again, Snopes is not useful for politics. It has shown quite a bias.
No, right-wing people don’t want to be associated with Hitler or Nazis…and neither obviously do people the left, who wants to make Trump look like Hitler and Republicans look like Nazis. They also don’t want their “social Democrat” and “Democratic socialist” terms tied to the Nazis and a bevy of other historical undesirables. It’s rhetoric, plain and simple. WTF is this “guilt” you speak of? The vast majority of the “right-wing” despises the Nazis, had no association with them, and has no association with their ideals. So why would they feel guilt? Those in the right-wing that don’t despite the Nazis embrace them and are not bashful about it…so where would their guilt lie?
The Snopes grand conclusion seems to be that, because Nazis were “white nationalists” above all, that they were not socialists. This is as nonsensical as arguing that they couldn’t have been “white nationalists” because in addition to Jews they imprisoned and executed white Germans (and white Pols, Russians, and others, for that matter).
Yes, Hitler put socialists and communists in concentration camps, executed some, etc. They were political prisoners. It isn’t because the Nazis weren’t socialist. It was because these people were opposed to Hitler. It was because some of these people and their political parties signed the Treaty of Versailles. This shouldn’t be news to you, but he was kind of a dictator who didn’t let anything stand in his path and had some lofty and horrible goals. The notion that he’d be pals with people who spoke out against him or were members of rival parties who wanted to keep/remove him from power should be absurd to you based on what you know of Hitler. Yet here you are pretending that one of the most evil people of all time would be on good terms with political opposition just for generally sharing socialist views. Even the Social Democratic Party of the time – which the Nazi party would have supposedly merged with at one time if not for Hitler’s opposition – was supposedly a fierce rival with the Communist Party.
Geoff Sherrington:
Based on your recent posts, you are a deceitful troll who infects these pages with your deliberate falsehoods. I suggest that most of those who read and post on wattsup are far more educated and accomplished than you, and will reject your nonsense.
@Geoff Sherrington June 30, 2019 at 1:17 pm
Of course they did. One always endeavors to eliminate the competition; i.e., anyone offering the same product. Had the communists offered a product that significantly differed from what the Nazis offered they would have been ignored.
You believe Snopes? Why? What credentials do they have? I have seen them distorting accepted history! They have an ax to grind and it isn’t for your good.
Everybody is wrong – and right. Hitler’s economic policies retained many of the core beliefs of the right, such as ownership of private property and corporate ownership. But he blended that with much of Socialism, destroying the free market and pushing centralized, government planning. He was closest to today’s Socialist Democrat.
If he were alive today in the US, he would not be a Socialist. Neither would he be in the kkk. He would feel most at home in the Democratic Party.
Michael Jankowski
snoops is useful, you mean like the time they had to fact check a satire piece “Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News?” or did that tells us more how stupid the people who query the site are?
The word NAZI is a shortening of the name of the party, National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Doesn’t sound like any thing Right Wing to me.
ALERT. ALERT.
THE SEVERAL POSTS IN MY NAME (ABOVE) WERE WRITTEN BY AN IMPOSTER WHO, IN THE LAST WEEK HAS TAKEN TO WRITING UNDER MY NAME. PLEASE WIPE THEM.
I AM CONTACTING CTM FOR FORMAL INTERVENTION.
THE REAL ME IS A SENIOR RETIRED SCIENTIST WITH AN ENVIABLE RECORD OF GETTING THE SCIENCE CORRECT. The imposter is a slug. The imposter does not know that I bought my first small computer in 1970, before IBM released the Personal Computer. My network of computer geek friends have enormous power to punish slugs, one way or another.
Geoff
THIS IS A FAKE Geoff Sherrington.
Written by a creep slug.
Nothing like the original in style or sentiment. Geoff
To the REAL Geoff Sherrington.
Apologies for my comments.
To the fake Geoff S:
What a despicable act! I hope Charles the Moderator provides your email address to the REAL Geoff S, and he takes suitable action against you.
Snopes is a left-wing propaganda outlet, not a source for accurate historical information.
The Nazis certainly were leftists, and were acknowledged as such by all of their contemporary fellow leftists, right up to the day that Hitler betrayed his former partner in crime, Josef Stalin, and attacked him.
The right wing in Weimar Germany were the people who wanted to restore the Kaiser to power. They were not friends with the Nazis.
-jcr
Nazi “socialism” was a political expediency. In 1919, Corporal Hitler was assigned by the Army to spy on a small political party, one among many, in Munich. The party called itself the German Workers Party. Not only did Hitler infiltrate the party, he co-opted it and became its leader. Perhaps Hitler’s political genius was first revealed when he renamed the party using a mind-bending amalgam of the two competing ideologies — nationalism and socialism. The “nationalist” distinction distanced the Nazi Party from internationalist Communism; the “socialist” part was nothing more than political pandering to public sentiment — socialism as a popular movement peaked in the ’20s and ’30s; keeping the word in the party name was simply a disingenuous vote-getter.
Nazi socialism was just rhetoric. They themselves referred to Nazism as the Third Way — rejecting the “left-right paradigm.” In any event, Hitler was an “Aryan” racist whose vision certainly did not include improving the welfare of the world’s “subhumans.”
Richie you are a master of understatement. ^_^
I don’t think the far right wants to disarm the population, but that is a key element of leftism. Once in power, leftism eliminates its enemies with impunity.
In most cases, those identified as “far-right” are actually members of the left.
For example, Nazis.
Jonah Goldberg was wrong https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
More Fake Geoff Sherrington.
More Fake Geoff Sherrington
Exactly this. Nazi’s were all about socialism. It’s in their name as well: NSDAP: National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei. Abbrev to NaZis
Most of Hitler’s ideas and ideals are very Socialist.
One thing you need to give him though: his rise was inevitable due to the inhumane treatment of Germany after WWI. France, UK , Belgium, Poland, Russia and a number of other countries behaved very very badly and humilated a very proud people where punishment would have sufficed. They had a large part in creating the next big one: WWII
“It’s in their name as well”…….yeah, and did you know that the “ Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” is democratic?
Huls
There was nothing inevitable about Hitler or creating the conditions for another war, his rise was facilitated by people who used his demagogy and thought they could control him once the Nazis were in power. They were wrong and so were the appeasers – Chamberlain who sabotaged the attempts to contain his opportunism over the Sudetenland and as Churchill clearly understood thereby made a wider war against a now hugely better equipped German army a much greater, prolonged and painful undertaking.
Aristotle defined virtue as the arithmetic mean between two vices. Yet, strangely, both ends of the political spectrum have little to say about moderates that is good.
The great Paul Ehrlich predicted in 1968 that by the 1980’s Britain would be an ecological wasteland with a starving population.
Ehrlich predicted global cooling caused by soot would end civilization by 1990. Of course, he made this prediction at the end of a cooling cycle, so he was simply projecting the past into the future — Malthus’ error.
Isn’t it?
Have you seen how many obese people there are here in the UK? Starvation is the least of their problems.
of course this was hyperbole if not complete fantasy. still, not to be a wet blanket, the text is ambiguous as to whether the effectis would be manifest in 10 years or the die would simply be set for such a future. Of course it’s now been 30 and you would think the climate apocalypse might have emerged (ergo the effort to seize on any disaster as evidence it hase). But if there wer veracity in this prediction, then adaptation would be the only plausible strategy and at the moment all we here is simply a new round of ‘we have 10 years to avert a crisis’.
Well, at least he got one thing right.
On September 26, 1988 climate experts said all 1,196 Maldives Islands would drown in 30 years. That is already last year, and last time I looked at my Maldives live webcam, it was still there as if the last 30 years didn’t happen. https://realclimatescience.com/2018/08/four-weeks-left-until-the-maldives-drown/
Indeed, most of the islands have grown in size.
It’s pretty dark there on camera right now. If I use my imagination, all I see is a single palm jutting from a flooded island.
If I come back tomorrow and check, I bet it’s the same story.
It is 12 hours opposite PST, so you just missed the sunset in the Maldives around 6:30 Pm. These 9 webcams of the Maldives have some very good views of the clouds/horizon, and the shore/waves. Many of the other webcams around the world are also beach, which is great for viewing sea levels, tides and clouds.
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/maldives.html
Sometimes you just have to laugh.
http://www.technocracy.news/extensive-anthology-refutes-man-made-global-warming/
John Doran.
Thank you, that’s a great anthology.
As far as I can see it, the UN-IPCC only sees humans in a negative light, that for them humans are a degradation to what they (the UN-IPCC ) would wish in their deranged version of a natural order. Humans are part of nature, they are part of the real natural order of life!
However that aside the part of the whole paradigm I don’t get — why is life left out of the model, maybe it’s because life is so difficult to accurately quantify because it IS A VARIABLE not a constant. Let me explain …
What they continually miss is the ever increasing amount of CO2 that humans (by shear wight of population growth) take out of the natural system.
Since 1800 when the population was 1 billion to the current population of around 8 billion the population has doubled 3 times. To keep up with that growth we have our farming and agriculture, and a lot of ignorance of Malthus 🙂 . Humans have been increasingly farming, hunting, fishing, and eating food. Food which at its base level comes from CO2+H2O and solar energy. Solar energy to bind CO2+H2O (from solar energy to chemical energy) into new compounds of sugars, starches, proteins, cellulose type structural material, etc, etc. From those low energy basics to synthesizing higher energy foodstuffs.
Surely for our population to have grown as much as it has, we have increasingly been sequestering away both CO2 and solar energy.
Now that is just humans. Since the end of the LIA, and as the globe has warmed slightly(!), generally lifeforms have expanded their populations, expanded their geographical range as tundras warmed, as icy areas defrosted, as the deserts start to green up, and all despite the humans propensity to attempt to control many of them. Nature has reasserted it’s might to populate the planet to the maximum in its many battles for survival. Nature and life appears to abhor a lifeless vacuum no matter how hard the task — see how the area around Chernobyl has recovered, where life now proliferates, or how Bikini islands corals and the other sea-life has recovered despite what human activities have done (see https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/ and https://www.livescience.com/2438-bikini-atoll-corals-recovering-atomic-blast.html ) .
Yes, it is the part of the whole paradigm I don’t get — why is life left out of the model, maybe it’s because life is so difficult to accurately quantify because it IS A VARIABLE not a constant. The hubris of the UN-IPCC paradigm is anti-life, anti-nature because the totality of life fails to follow their (the UN’s) rules and assumptions — Nature does not value their ideas of equilibrium, of balance, life just continues on it’s own terms.
From the fundamental concepts that you present, it should be clear that life is expanding because of us.
As far a land animals are concerned, the mass of termites is supposed to outweigh the mass of humanity (I blame them for the rise in atmospheric methane). But globally, phytoplankton is the plant life form that is the major driver.
Lovelock’s Gaia is all about life and it’s impacts. He is turning 100 this summer and a centenary celebration and conference is being held in Exeter for this. https://www.lovelockcentenary.info/
R Shearer,
“From the fundamental concepts that you present, it should be clear that life is expanding because of us.”
That is mere speculation but also very egocentric about humans and their importance in the scale of nature. Fish, ocean mammals, amphibians, birds, phytoplankton, etc., have all expanded because of humans? Probably not. But that is not the real question. The question is has the totality of life expanded in the last 200 years? Unless you have observational evidence you can not even guess.
Lovelock’s Gaia, its all ‘touchy-feely’ anti-human BS pretending to be meaningful. What is needed is real research with real figures not opinions, or baseless assertions and assumptions.
As for termites, the research is lacking. However I did find a 2017 paper called ‘CO2 emission from subterranean nests of ants and termites in a tropical rain forest in Sarawak, Malaysia’ by Mizue Ohashi a, Seiki Yamane f ⁎ ,1 MARK , Yuko Maekawa a,b,1 , Yoshiaki Hashimoto c , Yoko Takematsu d , Sasitorn Hasin e ,
and it says in the conclusion —
They also noted that CO2 emissions from these critters were not significantly affected by seasonal changes in weather.
Note that ants are known to ‘farm’ other insects for food. European ant will distribute greenfly and similar species in order that they can ‘milk’ them for the sugars they exude. As the ant population changes so too to some extent does the greenfly’s. No doubt some tropical ants would do something similar. Maybe they too all learned to ‘farm’ from humans.
But of course the number of termite mounds that were recently found in Brazil (only the area of the UK see https://phys.org/news/2018-11-year-old-termite-mounds-brazil-visible.html ) may vent CO2 and methane differently but then why investigate when the science is settle? (Maybe somehow these Brazilian termites must have been inspired by humans to expand their territories, eh 😉 … )
No R. Shearer, you are just another who is blinded by the static ideas as propagated by main stream academia, ideas that have so little data or truth behind them.
The human body is composed of some 18.5% carbon.
Please note that my use of humans as an example of the increase in life on the planet is just that, an example.
I could have use Cyanobacteria but I felt that the point would be lost as most people would not see the importance of that.
Cyanobacteria are important though, for now they are very, very abundant, they are also some of the most efficient photosynthetic bacteria at converting CO2 to other useful chemicals. Among the marine plankton, the global biomass of Prochlorococcus reaches 120 × 10^12 grams of carbon (g C), and that of Synechoccus some 43 × 10^12 g C. This makes Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus, in that order, the most abundant cyanobacteria on Earth.
Tropical marine blooms of Trichodesmium account for an additional 10 × 10^12 g C worldwide. In terrestrial environments, the mass of cyanobacteria in arid land soil crusts is estimated to reach 54 × 10^12 g C and that of arid land endolithic communities an additional 14 × 10^12 g C. The global biomass of planktic cyanobacteria in lakes is estimated to be around 3 × 10^12 g C. This does not include some potentially significant biomass reservoirs such as polar and subarctic areas, topsoils in subhumid climates, and shallow marine and freshwater benthos. Indications are that the total global cyanobacterial biomass is in the order of 3 × 10^14 g C, surpassing a thousand million metric tons (1015 g) of wet biomass.
(see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233522504_Estimates_of_global_cyanobacterial_biomass_and_its_distribution )
In fact from this study https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0702-y called ‘Projected climate change impact on Baltic Sea cyanobacteria’ Inga Hense et al show how hugely important they are.
And from research paper https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010821 )
“… photosynthesizing Cyanobacteria have been shown to be a significant species in the global carbon cycle, accounting for 20–30% of Earth’s photosynthetic productivity and convert solar energy into biomass-stored chemical energy at the rate of ~450 TW”
From all my searches of many other studies, some cyanobacteria are extremophiles with some surviving and flourishing at very hot temperatures, or in strong salines, or others in alkaline, or others in acidic environments. However cyanobacteria are not very good when temperatures drop, and cyanobacteria that tolerate extreme cold ( from the documents I have found), show they are not particularly fast growing or good fixers of CO2.
All in all I take is to mean that as we come out of the LIA (say the last 200 years), Cyanobacteria should increase in both range and numbers, fixing CO2 and storing solar energy as they go.
They add greatly to the the totality of life on the planet.
I wonder how well the UN-IPCC see them in the CO2 cycle of this planet.
Abstract
…
Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.
There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.
Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.
Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.
…
6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).
Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
…
8. [excerpt]
Discussion:
Scientists who support the catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW) hypothesis say that based on physics at the molecular scale, they KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more CO2 will cause warming. Two questions: How much warming, and what are the scale-up effects?
How much global warming?
Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #11.
Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.
Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming.
What are the scale-up effects?
Earth is not molecular-scale, and there are complex CO2 interactions between the oceans, the land, the biosphere and the atmosphere. Some of these important interactions are described in #1 to #7 above.
Warming tropical oceanic temperatures cause evaporation of seawater, tropical water vapour increases (and water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2), equatorial warming follows, that warming then extends to the rest of the planet, and atmospheric CO2 increases. Tropical sea surface temperatures increase, global temperatures increase, and atmospheric CO2 increases, in that order.
…
Recent evidence supports my above conclusions, as follows:
9. Even if ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is too low to cause dangerous global warming.
Christy and McNider (2017) analysed UAH Lower Troposphere data since 1979:
Reference: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
Lewis and Curry (2018) analysed HadCRUT4v5 Surface Temperature data since 1859:
Reference: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
Climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values much higher than 1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of dangerous global warming.
Excerpted from “CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY” by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 2019
pdf: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final-.pdf
Excel spreadsheet: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final.xlsx
ALLAN MACRAE,
I wish you to be assured that I respect your scholarship, that I deduce from credible science much the same as you do.
In the last week an imposter has used my real name to post on WUWT. These fake posts do not reflect my scientific conclusions -they do not even reflect my style of writing, which tends to be respectful where respect is deserved.
Please keep this in mind, after an earlier comment of yours (to the fake writer) rebuked me and made me feel hurt.
You will understand my position. Geoff S
I apologized to you here Geoff – and I do so again.
Best personal regards, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/30/30-year-anniversary-of-the-un-1989-10-years-to-save-the-world-climate-warning/#comment-2735405
To the REAL Geoff Sherrington.
Apologies for my comments.
To the fake Geoff S:
What a despicable act! I hope Charles the Moderator provides your email address to the REAL Geoff S, and he takes suitable action against you.
This claim has been wildly successful. How many shills and con-men have built their entire careers on it? How many billions of dollars has it funneled into the pockets of corrupt demagogues and their “we will save you, trust us” organizations?
Not billions of dollars – by now it is 10’s of trillions of dollars that have been squandered on this fraud.
So the emphatic certainly if the UN shows itself to be as reliable as ever…
The way to defeat such sociopaths as Ehrlich, Mead, Gore,Prince Philip, is to get Transaqua started. To refill Lake Chad from the Congo, and not like all other species, wait for rain.
It is very revealing when this subject is placed squarely on the table, how otherwise indignant anti-CO2 warriors fold, turn squishy.
Transaqua means massive development at a governmental level. China is of course onboard. Austrian School’ers of a colonial stripe wait for emergent, spontaneous, unknowable benefits.
The Abuja Declaration in Nigeria, Feb 2018 is well publicized.
The Chad region is key to economic recovery in Africa.
50 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 30 x 0.00405 = 3193020km sq of rain forest gone by his 50 acre per minute rate.
That’s about the size of India. The Congo is 2345000 km sq. it’s also 78 giga tonnes tonnes of co2. right ….
In January 1972, Maurice Strong told a Swedish newspaper that we had 10 years left to avoid a disaster (I have a copy of the article). When I did my national military service in Norway in 1980-81, we had temperatures down to 50° C below during our exercises mid winter in the north of Norway. Maybe that was what he was talking about. Now living in the Southern Highlands NSW Australia, it’s still cold. I can only hope that their predictions and models get it right for once and that the climate gets warmer for a change.
It’s the 52nd anniversary of the famous Bigfoot film.
https://www.opb.org/news/video/bigfoot-patterson-gimlin-film-sasquatch/
This gets like the compilations of bad predictions made on the first celebration of Earth Day (AKA Lenin’s Birthday). This sort of thing has been going on since at least the publication of Silent Spring, even if it was not climate as such, but the green blob tends to change the method of predicted doom at will.
When Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement the lying BBC put up the lying Shukman whose piece was remarkable for its many-layered lying. Viz no mention that USA was reducing CO2 more than any, no mention of the shortcomings of the PA, says Pacific islands will drown, and god save the mark NOT AGAIN Miami’s tectonic flooded streets. And a little Maldivian complaining that he wasn’t getting US taxpayers money to build a larger airport (look it up).
And what about our Clown Prince and his 100 months to save the planet? Where is that lovely website with all those busted scare stories? 533? The best is the increase in UFO sightings ‘cos aliens worry about what we are doing to the planet. Oh, and narwhal horns are getting shorter.
“Narwhal horns are getting shorter?” Well they do live in extremely cold water. It happens.
During the recent debate between the Democrat candidates for president, Bernie Sanders, said that “scientists say we only have 12 more years to do something about climate chnage”.
My thought upon hearing that was: Bernie, AOC is *not* a scientist, and besides, she said she was just kidding and anyone who took her seriously was an ignorant peon.
If all the failed claims of the Alarmists were put in this thread it would be a long one indeed. I believe the Alarmists have a perfect record when it comes to predicting climate catastrophe: They have been wrong 100 percent of the time. Nothing they say materializes.
Allen says: “ the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C,”
Until the specific heat of air is changed and thermodynamic tables have a caveat saying that if IR is involved the numbers must be augmented with forcing equation, then there is no sensitivity to CO2.
mkelly:
Please read what I wrote:
“ the calculated MAXIMUM climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C,”
That is, climate sensitivity will not exceed ~1C/doubling, will probably be less than ~1C and could be close to zero. The quoted scientists ASSUMED (for the sake of argument) that ALL the observed warming for their chosen time periods was due to CO2, and then back-calculated climate sensitivity.
They calculated an UPPER BOUND sensitivity, and even that is too low to cause a climate problem. Their calculations are two more nails in the coffin of the global warming / climate change scam – the most expensive and lucrative fraud in history.
What’s astounding is that when someone spouts alarming news, the media normally looks for other viewpoints, except when it come to climate alarms. In this case, no publisher of the 10 year warming
bothered to get any kind of detailed rationale, much less get other opinions about the alarmist’s theory Amateur journalism
“What other great examples of failed climate warnings can you remember?”
One of my favourites is in the following video from 2013. The video was published by one of those “sciency” types called Thunderf00t. In the video, a chap called Dr Jeff Masters from Weather Underground explains how PIOMAS summer minimum Arctic sea ice was falling, It shows a chart extrapolating the falling curve, and suggesting the central line would reach zero in 2016. A range (which looks like error bars, but it’s hard to see) would be zero by 2018. Masters cautions against this form of extrapolation, but nevertheless goes on to claims he was being conservative by suggesting loss of all Simmer sea ice from around 2022.
OK, we haven’t reached 2022. The extrapolation was falsified by data last year when the upper error bar had failed to predict zero summer sea ice.
As things stand today (10 million sq km today according to DMI 15% extent), what are the chances of sufficient sea ice melt to get to zero Actic sea ice by mid September? I’ll start the bidding: ZERO.
A prime example of why we should get out of the UN that takes US money on US property and returns no benefit.
But you see the time frame for disaster is if don’t do anything about the problem. But we have done a lot about the problem.
We have held hundreds (thousands?) of conferences involving flying thousands (tens of thousands?) of experts to potentially affected (i.e., exotic) locals with luxury hotels.
We have created thousands of models showing the drastic effects of CO2.
We have published tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of papers describing the oncoming Armageddon.
The news media nationwide have spread the gospel to one and all and effectively marginalized the voices of heretics.
We have promoted the most stupid among us (like AOC and Greta Thunberg) as modern day prophets and visionaries.
I could go on but it’s clear we have done a great deal to stave off the disaster and that’s why it hasn’t happened yet.
+100 to everything said here. The supreme irony of our age of course is that all of this is so transparently about power and the many ways it can be abused, but the mainstream media and the average person are far too stupid to understand this. How I long for the good old 1980s, when young peoples’ rallying cry was “question authority“! Now it’s “please, MORE AUTHORITY!”
Pathetic.
+200
Were they so incredibly wrong in 1989 due to incompetence or malfeasance?
There’s certainly much incompetence on the scientific front. Bogus feedback analysis, blatant violations of COE, linearizing the T^4 relationship between temperature and forcing, misinterpreting ice cores and so much more were introduced and canonized as ‘settled science’ in AR1.
The malfeasance originates at the UN where the IPCC, whose chartered bias in support the UNFCCC presents a serious conflict of interest where they needed a large effect from CO2 emissions regardless of the scientific truth. Somehow they managed to construct a self serving ‘consensus’ around the reports they generated based on the incompetent science.
The malfeasance and incompetence seems to have strongly reinforced each other (positive feedback) which makes the scientific truth so incredibly hard for alarmists to accept. After introducing the emotional trigger of ‘we need to save the world’, otherwise intelligent brains turn to mush.
Yea, Olen, but think about the UN headquarters’ massive monetary contributions to NY’s alcohol, drug and prostitution industries!
CAGW Alarmists never notice that their old alarmist predictions failed totally, as they are now busy pressing ahead with a totally new wave of alarmist predictions with new and different names to the old ones.
Global cooling and a coming new ice age were the climate catastrophe I was taught about in college.
That was ~10 years before this.
“..What other great examples of failed climate warnings can you remember?”
I keep this one bookmarked on my PC:
The Guardian, 31 July 2008…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
“…Time is fast running out to stop irreversible climate change, a group of global warming experts warns today. We have only 100 months to avoid disaster. Andrew Simms explains why we must act now – and where to begin…”
So let’s see….If my math is correct, 100 months from the article date was 30 November of 2016. Two years and 7 months ago. UAH satellite record shows the Earth has been cooling since the 2015 El Nino peak.
I’m lovin’ it. Happy anniversary UNEP!
A big mistake of that article, like so many others, is the claim that CO2 is the most prevalent or important GHG. It is not.
Did NY infect the UN or was it the other way around?
“10 years” reminds me one of Obama’s aides quoting him as saying after Hillary lost, “Maybe we should have waited another 10 years.”
We dodged a bullet.
Don’t give them another shot.
In 1989 I was in college majoring in geoscience. That’s when the global warming fear-mongering started. I didn’t believe it then and I never have.
I particularly remember the disasters that were to befall us due to acid rain and the ozone hole. I never did understand how fluorocarbons, released at ground level in North America, made their way to the stratosphere above the South Pole. I also recall reading plenty of articles about the alarming destruction of the Amazon jungle and how much of it would be gone by 2000. Oh! And AIDS was going to jump into the heterosexual community and ravage the population. Ah, memories….
Big AL (Gore) said the Arctic would be ice free by 2009.
“Big AL (Gore) said the Arctic would be ice free by 2009.”
To be fair, he said it “can” or “could” do so, IIRC.
“Great” moments in the failed climate science apocalypse: 2020 – 6 months to go …
1986:
“Hansen said the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.”
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=llJeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AWENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5501,1378938&dq=james-hansen&hl=en
To be fair, he was talking about Fahrenheit, IIRC.
Perhaps.
It says carbon dioxide is a chemical, where as it is a chemical compound.
Who knows what Hansen meant?
It’s science Jim, but not as we know it.
FWIW, Mr K, Global temperatures on track for 3-5 degree rise by 2100: U.N (5.4-9.0 degrees Fahrenheit)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-un/global-temperatures-on-track-for-3-5-degree-rise-by-2100-u-n-idUSKCN1NY186
Pick a century, any century, use the same numbers … it’s the worst apocalypse. Ever.
The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. That is why the predictions have been wrong.
Good comment William Haas. You wrote:
“Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.”
A minor quibble – I would say “zero or near-zero”, certainly not enough to drive dangerous global warming.
I say that the upper bound of climate sensitivity is ~1C/(2xCO2), and the lower bound is ~0. Theoretical analyses at the molecular scale do not attract me, because of the huge scale-up errors possible from molecular to full-Earth-scale. However, the evidence suggests feedbacks are negative and perhaps strongly negative, so I believe that “near-zero” is the best probable answer.
In any case, this is a purely scientific question, since any climate sensitivity of 1C/doubling or less is too low to cause catastrophic global warming or dangerous climate change.
ALERT. ALERT.
THE SEVERAL POSTS IN MY NAME (ABOVE) WERE WRITTEN BY AN IMPOSTER WHO, IN THE LAST WEEK HAS TAKEN TO WRITING UNDER MY NAME. PLEASE WIPE THEM.
I AM CONTACTING CTM FOR FORMAL INTERVENTION.
THE REAL ME IS A SENIOR RETIRED SCIENTIST WITH AN ENVIABLE RECORD OF GETTING THE SCIENCE CORRECT. The imposter is a slug. The imposter does not know that I bought my first small computer in 1970, before IBM released the Personal Computer. My network of computer geek friends have enormous power to punish slugs, one way or another.
Geoff
You should consider it a great honour that some worthless little lefty troll has tried to hijack the thread by using your good name.
Geoff. Don’t worry, no one believed ‘you’.
From WUWT Dec 26th 2013 ship of fools a comment: “Unrelated (but hilarious) — Peter Glieck has made predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2020, today on HP.”
I hope for the day when a climate scientist announces we are in an interstadial period. Oceans are supposed to rise and ice is supposed to melt. In addition, the resulting greening of the Earth increases food supplies that travel throughout the food chain. It is a season of plenty and we should all be glad we are in it.
Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.
″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.
_________________________________________________________
Tourism and Tuareg LOVE the Sahara :
https://www.google.com/search?q=tourism+tuareg+Sahara&oq=tourism+tuareg+Sahara+&aqs=chrome.