Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate scientists maxing out on panic.
Climate change ‘hitting harder and sooner’ than forecast, warn scientists ahead of UN meeting
Updated yesterday at 11:02am
Key points:
- The new report revealed that global temperatures between 2015-2019 were the hottest on record
- It noted carbon emissions in the same period had risen by 20 per cent
- Its authors also warned of the alarming extent of sea-level rise and melting glaciers
A new report published ahead of key UN climate talks has warned the world is falling drastically behind in the race to avert climate disaster, with the five-year period ending in 2019 the hottest on record.
The data, compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), says climate change is accelerating, with sea levels rising, carbon dioxide levels increasing and ice sheets melting faster than ever before.
It warned that carbon-cutting efforts have to be intensified immediately and comes ahead of a major UN climate summit in New York on Monday that will be attended by more than 60 world leaders, as secretary-general Antonio Guterres pushes for countries to increase their greenhouse gas reduction targets.
…
“This reads like a credit card statement after a five-year-long spending binge,” said Dave Reay, chair in carbon management at the University of Edinburgh.
“Our global carbon credit is maxed out,” he added.
“If emissions don’t start falling there will be hell to pay.“
…
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-23/climate-change-accelerating-warn-scientists/11537240
The report is available here.
Carbon emissions rising 20% in four years, and still that pesky Arctic icecap refuses to melt.
It must be a real challenge for the climate community, thinking up new scary statements which are even more scary than last year’s scary statements, without accidentally including verifiable claims about consequences which might lead to embarrassment.
“…hell to pay”? Is that a technical term? 😉
We need the names of the worlds 99% of scientists who support such lies……. What temperature records? From which year to which year? What level is the worlds oceans rising? How did hundreds of years of mass coal burning in the years before the victorian industrial and during plus world wide coal burning years not change the climate? America wasn’t built buy using green Energy 😐 How come fossil fuels is a big world ending problem now?! Also how much does the u.n. and ipcc get per year to scare billions of people? The u.n can not help areas affected with civil war, but some how they know the factual science to save the world 😐
THE NAZI ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM & THE CLIMATE CHANGE
video – 27 minutes 3 seconds
In the second episode of Close Encounters, Rupert Darwall and Ben Weingarten discuss Darwall’s new book ‘Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex’ and a series of topics including the Nazi roots of the modern environmentalist movement, Sweden’s environmentalist power grab, the anti-capitalist underpinnings of the environmentalist movement, the links between the acid rain fraud and today’s global warming movement, why the Paris climate accord represent a battle for America’s soul and much more.
New taxes for fighting global warming ? No problem
Notice how these so called scientists and anyone still a AGW warmist , fail to notice the obvious warming phases aligns with El-Nino phases. When El-Nino fades, temperature drops, and even more when there is a La-Nina phase.
CO2 doesn’t do squat to temperature trends.
The only data I have seen contradicts these claims ,for the 4 year period.are they trying to confuse the false data in the summer of heatwaves which technically were not heat waves and the temps were recorded in known hot spots in inner citys which bare no relation to temps recorded 20 miles away,a 20% increase in c02 that might be the case but the starting point was tiny around 0.410 and is around 0.417 now ,theres no correlation to a increase in temps when there has been no overall temp increases,this is yet again another example of the vicious circle un predicts with no evidence,to convince governments who fund the un and scientists a self fulfilling agenda, the governments who are not taken in by this bulls–t need to make public exactly what’s going on here.
I forgot to add, did they admit, that there own models are wrong? I thought we had until 2050?
I sure am getting sick of hearing these sheep in the USA who say they’ll resign the Paris Agreement as soon as Trump is out of office. They tell me 195 countries… Blah, blah, blah. Okay, what of the 195 countries?? Countries like Zimbabwe signed on, but have no real carboy footprint to reduce so why count them? Countries like Germany made bold promises and aren’t living up to them. Countries like China and India promised to EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE emissions reaching “peak by 2030” with no promise to reduce in the future. So, what countries are we speaking of??
“climate change is accelerating, with sea levels rising, carbon dioxide levels increasing and ice sheets melting faster than ever before. ” ?
Where ?
Its the Greater Lie Theory on steroids. To keep the ball in the air when the gravity of facts keeps trying to pull it back down you must keep increasing the size of the lies. And then you must move quickly to the next lie before the former lie can be exposed. The climate hucksters seem to have taken a page out of the old Enron playbook.
Remember the early 2000s, when the temperature trend was downward, and alarmists screamed about “cherry picking” because 1998 was a strong El Nino year, so you couldn’t include it in your analysis? Somehow, they seem to have forgotten that objection, because their new “accelerated warming” and “accelerated sea level rise” claims are based on short, 5 or ten year periods that include an even more powerful El Nino.
IF our “Global Carbon Budget” is “Maxed Out” as indicated, why are countries like China (>30% of global emissions and rising) and India given free reign to continue releasing CO2 at ever increasing rates for the next 15 years?
AND China is vaunted as a Climate Leader??
Why does an obviously DEVELOPED nation like China get the pass like a third world developing nation???
Fossil Fuel Percentage Unchanged for Over 43 years
In the 1970s the big worry was fossil fuels would soon run out, and so we should “use them wisely”. But in the 1980s the risk changed to one of an overheating planet, and so we should not use them at all. This article shows unchanged fossil energy use from 1970 to 2013, a period of 43 years.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/12/green-energy-revolution-a-flop-fossil-fuels-share-of-total-energy-use-unchanged-in-40-years/ – sthash.ppb98WN4.dpbs
Fossil fuels have been 78 to 80 percent of total primary energy for at least 43 years, despite trillions of dollars having been spent on RE during the past 20 years. It appears there is plenty of FF for at least the next 80 to 100 years, albeit at higher prices.
FF CO2 emissions are only about 36.183 b Mt, FF/53.4 b Mt, all sources = 68% of all manmade emissions in 2016. Considering the extreme steepness of the FF CO2 reductions to stay within 2 C by 2100, which are impossible to implement (see graphs in URLs), even steeper reductions to reduce ALL manmade CO2 would be impossible as well, even if the entire world were to build only nuclear and hydro plants as of right now. See URLs.
http://euanmearns.com/global-co2-emissions-forecast-to-2100/#more-21109
https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-global-co2-emissions-2016-mean-climate-change
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-world-making-almost-no-progress-towards-renewable-energy
In 2017 WMO called a very watery conference on climate change and aviation. Where it was unclear if planes impact warming or warming impact planes. More money being needed to conclude, whenever, if ever. As usual. More money, more panic, more money.
This said, in case we missed it, is there an official WMO issued advisory bulletin on how we have to fly to dodge the tremendous and very urgent absolutely dangerous effects of global warming ?
Like, when it’s so hot in Germany that we have to use engine anti-icing from ground up on September mornings?
How comes the WMO avoids discussion with those who know a thing or three on first-hand weather?
Somehow, despite that many hot talks, glycol prices are already taking the elevator. It’s so warm here that the weather guys talk of winter operations mega-mayhem. Once again that is.
C’mon WMO guys, quit your disorder and join reality for crying out loud !
So?….the UN put policies in place that guarantee “carbon dioxide levels increasing”
and then expect people to take them serious
From the US EPA …
“In 2017, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,456.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, or 5,742.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents after accounting for sequestration from the land sector.
“Emissions decreased from 2016 to 2017 by 0.5 percent (after accounting for sequestration from the land sector). This decrease was largely driven by a decrease in emissions from fossil fuel combustion, which was a result of multiple factors including a continued shift from coal to natural gas and increased use of renewables in the electric power sector, and milder weather that contributed to less overall electricity use.
“Greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 (after accounting for sequestration from the land sector) were 13 percent below 2005 levels.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks
The US is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation and electricity generation are the largest US contributors. Electric vehicle sales are still small but rising — automobile and truck manufacturers are spending billions to develop new electric products. For generation, natural gas is replacing coal while wind turbines and photocells are being added to the mix.
Now, what about building some safe, clean and reliable nuclear generating plants to put the last nail in the CO2 coffin?
What prediction?
The observed temperatures are below those predicted by the models. How can they say climate change is happening faster than predicted?
Global warming is demonstrably happening a lot slower than predicted. In fact, for a couple of recent decades, global warming wasn’t happening at all. Once we have the most recent El Nino out of the way, I’m guessing that global warming will stall out again.
IMHO, these guys think we’re in for a bout of global cooling and they’re getting desperate.
When will these Climate change fanatics realise that the Industrialised nations cannot effect change any faster than they are doing. The new industrialised nations are trying to improve their populations living standards and will not slow down. That trying to force the situation will only bring conflict. That more human lives could be put at risk by acting precipitously. That the UN has no ability to coerce or govern the world and in all likelihood would cause more harm than good. Or do they want up to 2 billion lives put at risk upon there hands. Science should be focusing on cleaner energy forms as should the UN and National governments and in my opinion nature will not supply them.
“So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Stephen Schneider saw a “double ethical bind” wrt telling the truth about climate change, but that has conveniently morphed into giving them carte blanche to full-on LIE, and that is precisely what they’re doing.
Assuming “emissions” mean carbon dioxide emissions, hasn’t the US reduced its emissions over the last 20 years or so?
Are China and India paving our way to Hell now?
This started before Greta appeared.
The summit keynote was given by nobody else than Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, who in Jackson Hole had called for regime change to go for direct money pumping, helicopter money, cryptocurrency, the whole package! Presenting a paper, a contract of the 130 largest banks, which represent $47 trillion in assets, representing the principle of “responsible banking.”
Now this is essentially a long-prepared scheme which started with the Paris Accord in 2015, in which its Article 2 basically says that the only way to implement climate change measures is by directing financing into it. This was then picked up in 2016 by the Green Finance Initiative, GFI, claiming that they want to make London the hub of international green financing, and then this thing systematically spread out, whereby they now say, in this compact that they want to implement the Paris Accord by having two-thirds of all coal eliminated by 2030; that they want to implement new standards of investments, by basically forcing clients to choose between following these principles or being exposed that they are not following this list, and then they would have quote “a reputational risk,”
Now, who are these honorable men? Lloyds Banking Group (caught in securities fraud, stock “misselling”, etc.); Danske Bank (currently in a massive money-laundering scandal); ABN Amro (looter of cities through deceptive interest-rate swaps deals before and after the 2008 crash); Deutsche Bank, the London destroyer of German banking; Citigroup, Wall Street’s biggest serial bankrupt; Barclays, a leader in rigging the LIBOR rate from 2007-15; BNP Paribas and Societe Generale, etc
What these bankers mean by “hell to pay” is unless the GFI takes off with immediate green investments only, their system will implode, and we the taxpayer will have to pay their way out of hell. Get it?
They will shed Walrus tears that it was necessary to use children to make us pay.
Have just a quick look at ZH – the crash warnings are all over the site.
Maybe Greta Fasberg can shame CO2 into not being so inconsiderate of her feelings.
Neither India or China will reduce their coal fired power station programme and plant exports! They will argue that such a policy would only raise global temperatures! This would be their contribution to the IPCC programme. Hansen would have to agree with them. After all he did write a recent Paper explaining that the Pause occurred because of the increase in Developing Country emissions of particulate carbon and sulphates which creates what, in the 70’s was called Solar Gloom. These emissions lead to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface and thus cooling. Removing these emissions, as was done in the West from the Clear Air Acts of the 50’s onward, generated probably the major proportion of any warming prior to the increased Developing World industrialisation, and not any increase in CO2 concentrations. The alarmist temperature/CO2 curve used in CAGW theories and reporting is not anywhere near as steep as they were claiming, and many still are. This explains why even they have had to reduce the CO2 sensitivity within their models from 4 plus to somewhere below 2!
The IPCC, BBC and British Guardian Newspaper all seem to be cherry picking. They quote a 5 mm/year rise in sea level over the period 2014 to 2019 as an indication of acceleration. If you use Nerems (dodgy) methodology to calculate acceleration over this period, it comes out as a deacceleration of over 1 mm/year2. 5 years is much too short a period to derive any meaningful values. Even 25 years is too short. I used the NASA data as listed in https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ to derive slopes and accelerations over 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 year periods the results being listed below..
Dates Jan to Jan
Slopes mm/year
Accelerations mm/year2 (-ve indicates deacceleration)
Jan – Jan Slope Acc
1993-1998 3.36 0.000
1998-2003 3.84 0.742
2003-2008 2.41 -0.658
2008-2013 3.48 1.241
2013-2118 4.99 -1.137
1993-2003 2.72 0.114
1998-2008 3.25 -0.266
2003-2013 2.73 0.217
2008-2028 4.52 0.286
1993-2008 2.90 0.039
1998-2013 3.00 -0.075
2002-2018 3.63 0.318
1993-2013 2.87 0.012
1998-2018 3.45 0.120
1993-2018 3.21 0.097
Even the 2 20 year periods, which overlap by 15 years, show accelerations varying by a factor of 10.
I discussed Nerem’s approach in my paper
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17lXnNtsLSlzSOx7tRvbDPwYMDibpvXKG/view?usp=sharing
the above being a corrected version, some silly typos having crept in, apologies for that. The current discussion about sea level rise acceleration may all be a red herring. In my paper I point out that the Tidal Gauge readings could also be part of a very long period sinusoidal curve. I eye balled in a 770 year curve with an amplitude of about 480mm. This is easily comparable with both Tidal Gauge and Satellite readings and would not go amiss with the actual periods between historic warm periods of about 1000 years.
Some additional thoughts on the NASA results. 25 years is much too short a period to ascertain any definite trends. And completely too short a period to pursue any enhanced acceleration up to 2100. The NASA results are usually given as a single value every 10 days but behind each value there is an enormous amount of data. Each 10 days between 300,000 and 500,000 readings are taken and a rolling 60-day average calculated. One not often quoted value is the standard deviation for each 10 days set of readings. This is generally about 100mm and the spread of readings can be worked out using probability functions. This can also be shown graphically using the Excel function NORMINV(Probability,Mean,Standard_dev) to generate a normally distributed set of random numbers. For example, assuming the mean value was 50mm and the SD 100mm a set of 10000 random values matching these parameters can be generated by inserting NORMINV(RAND(),50,100) in cells A1 to A10000 and then inserting a histogram plot. Each time it is executed a new histogram is produced. I ran cases of 100, 1000 and 10000 values and found 10000 was more than adequate to show the trends and variations. Life is too short to go any higher!
These runs show, as would be expected, that using bins in the histogram of 20mm range that less than about 8% of results fall in the maximum bin and that actual values can range from about -400mm to +500mm. A typical histogram is shown in the figure below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RZj_KHRfv0D3X3eYFe0PMmMyWQNMfdQD/view?usp=sharing
Seeing a typical histogram makes the consistency of all the NASA results over the 25 years even more remarkable.
“Dave Reay, chair of carbon management at Edinburgh University”
OK, someone please tell me there really isn’t a department of/program of carbon management at Edinburgh University….please “say it ain’t so”….please…..