“UN hosts drive to suck”… I thought it already did? (Stupid geoengineering tricks.)

Guest Grauniad & UN-bashing by David Middleton

UN hosts drive to suck back carbon and reverse climate change
New York forum aims to ‘restore’ the climate by reducing atmospheric levels of carbon to those of a century ago

Oliver Milman in New York

Tue 17 Sep 2019 09.00 EDT

A new effort to rally governments and corporations behind technologies that suck greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to help stave off disastrous global heating will be launched at the United Nations on Tuesday.

The first annual Global Climate Restoration Forum, held in New York, aims to spur international support for emerging and sometimes controversial methods to claw back planet-warming gases after they have been emitted from power plants, cars, trucks and aircraft.


The Grauniad

Carbon capture, storage and utilization (CCSU) makes economic sense if the CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or other industrial and agricultural purposes. Direct air capture (DAC) might eventually serve an economic purpose. There could even be an economic benefit if CCSU and DAC simply enabled the continued use of fossil fuels, while restricting the growth in atmospheric CO2. However, doing this in an effort to “restore the climate” to some previous state is an Ian Malcolm-scale bad idea.

Taking dinosaurs off this island is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.

Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm, Lost World: Jurassic Park 1997

To what point in time would they restore the climate? 1975?

Figure 1. Science News March 1, 1975

All of the warming allegedly caused by CO2 has barely elevated the bulk temperature of the atmosphere above “The Ice Age Cometh”…

Figure 2. Modified after IPCC AR4

Oh wait a second… They want to go back before 1975…

The Foundation for Climate Restoration, the group behind the forum, has released a manifesto for its goal to “restore” the climate by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to those of a century ago.

The Grauniad

I didn’t read the manifesto yet; my daily tolerance for stupidity is not unlimited. After I read it, I’ll probably post a sequel.

A century ago, sea level was about half-a-foot lower than it currently is.

Figure 3. Sea level reconstruction from tide gauge data (Jevrejeva et al., 2014). Note rock pick added for scale.

These people are constantly wailing about coral reefs… What would happen to coral reefs if sea level was to drop by 6 inches (150mm)?

Figure 4. Coral cover loss and local sea surface height.  Note that the areas with most severe coral cover loss in 2016 experienced a sharp (~0.2 m) drop in sea surface height from 2014-2016. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2017, Final report: 2016 coral bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef, GBRMPA, Townsville.  Sea Level Research Group
University of Colorado. (Great Barrier Reef: 2016 Coral Cover Loss and Local Sea Level Fall)

Coral reefs can adapt to rising sea levels more easily than falling sea levels.

A century ago, Earth was barely recovering from the Little Ice Age, the coldest climatic period of the entire Holocene Epoch.

Figure 5. Little Ice Age: BAD!!!

The Little Ice Age was bad news…

UPDATED: AUG 29, 2018 ORIGINAL: JAN 31, 2012
Little Ice Age, Big Consequences
Explore some of the numerous events scholars have linked to the Little Ice Age, which new research suggests was caused by volcanic eruptions.

Great Famine
Beginning in the spring of 1315, cold weather and torrential rains decimated crops and livestock across Europe. Class warfare and political strife destabilized formerly prosperous countries as millions of people starved, setting the stage for the crises of the Late Middle Ages. According to reports, some desperate Europeans resorted to cannibalism during the so-called Great Famine, which persisted until the early 1320s.

Black Death
Typically considered an outbreak of the bubonic plague, which is transmitted by rats and fleas, the Black Death wreaked havoc on Europe, North Africa and Central Asia in the mid-14th century. It killed an estimated 75 million people, including 30 to 60 percent of Europe’s population. Some experts have tied the outbreak to the food shortages of the Little Ice Age, which purportedly weakened human immune systems while allowing rats to flourish.


French Revolution
As the 18th century drew to a close, two decades of poor cereal harvests, drought, cattle disease and skyrocketing bread prices had kindled unrest among peasants and the urban poor in France. Many expressed their desperation and resentment toward a regime that imposed heavy taxes yet failed to provide relief by rioting, looting and striking. Tensions erupted into the French Revolution of 1789, which some historians have connected to the Little Ice Age.


History Dot Com

Sounds like “yellow vests” with guillotines!

Little Ice Age


During the height of the Little Ice Age , it was in general about one degree Celsius colder than at present. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did most of the rivers in Europe. Winters were bitterly cold and prolonged, reducing the growing season by several weeks. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and in some regions population decline.

The prices of grain increased and wine became difficult to produce in many areas and commercial vineyards vanished in England. Fishing in northern Europe was also badly affected as cod migrated south to find warmer water. Storminess and flooding increased and in mountainous regions the treeline and snowline dropped. In addition glaciers advanced in the Alps and Northern Europe, overrunning towns and farms in the process.

Iceland was one of the hardest hit areas. Sea ice, which today is far to the north, came down around Iceland. In some years, it was difficult to bring a ship ashore anywhere along the coast. Grain became impossible to grow and even hay crops failed. Volcanic eruptions made life even harder. Iceland lost half of its population during the Little Ice Age.

Tax records in Scandinavia show many farms were destroyed by advancing ice of glaciers and by melt water streams. Travellers in Scotland reported permanent snow cover over the Cairngorm Mountains in Scotland at an altitude of about 1200 metres. In the Alps, the glaciers advanced and threatened to bulldozed towns. Ice-dammed lakes burst periodically, destroying hundreds of buildings and killing many people. As late as 1930 the French Government commissioned a report to investigate the threat of the glaciers. They could not have foreseen that human induced global warming was to deal more effective with this problem than any committee ever could. \


Environmental History Resources

“Many farms were destroyed by advancing ice of glaciers and by melt water streams”… “Ice-dammed lakes burst periodically, destroying hundreds of buildings and killing many people”… Sounds like…

Taking the climate back to Neoglaciation has to be “the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.”

History of Glaciers in Glacier National Park
The history of glaciation within current Glacier National Park boundaries spans centuries of glacial growth and recession, carving the features we see today. Glaciers were present within current Glacier National Park boundaries as early as 7,000 years ago but may have survived an early Holocene warm period (Carrara, 1989), making them much older. These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850. While they may not have formed in their entirety during the LIA, their maximum perimeters can be documented through mapping of lateral and terminal moraines. (Key, 2002) The extent and mass of these glaciers, as well as glaciers around the globe, has clearly decreased during the 20th century in response to warmer temperatures.

Climate reconstructions representative of the Glacier National Park region extend back multiple centuries and show numerous long-duration drought and wet periods that influenced the mass balance of glaciers (Pederson et al. 2004). Of particular note was an 80-year period (~1770-1840) of cool, wet summers and above-average winter snowfall that led to a rapid growth of glaciers just prior to the end of the LIA. Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines.

Tree-ring based climate records and historic photographs indicate the initiation of frontal recession and ice mass thinning between A.D. 1860 and 1880. The alignment of decadal-scale climate anomalies over the early 20th century produced a period of glacial recession somewhat analogous to conditions experienced over the past few decades. The coupling of hot, dry summers with substantial decreases in winter snowpack (~30% of normal) produced dramatic recession rates as high as 100 m/yr from A.D. 1917-1941 (Pederson et al. 2004). These multidecadal episodes have substantially impacted the mass balance of glaciers since A.D. 1900.


The glaciers of Glacier National Park reached their maximum Holocene extent about 150 years ago.

Figure 6. Chaney Glacier, Glacier NP. The magenta line is the maximum extent of the glacier, reached around 1850. (USGS)

Glaciers are always advancing or retreating. Advancing is bad, always bad.

Most alpine and valley glaciers formed after the Holocene Climatic Optimum and generally advanced until the early to mid 1800’s. This period is known as Neoglaciation. Since the end of Neoglaciation most alpine and valley glaciers have been retreating. Neoglaciation ended long-before CO2 levels had risen much above 280 ppm.

Figure 7. Rising CO2 didn’t end Neoglaciation

The good news: The recent rise in atmospheric CO2 didn’t end Neoglaciation. Natural Holocene climate cycles ended it.

The bad news: Sucking CO2 in a mad scientist’s effort to restore the climate to some previous ideal state, won’t work the way they expect it to, yet they are Hell-bent on trying.


When I get…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 24, 2019 6:10 pm

“My second ex-wife screamed in 1988, while in the middle of another HOT Phoenix summer: ‘Facts, facts, stupid facts, don’t bother me with the stupid facts.”

Joel O'Bryan
September 24, 2019 6:10 pm

Glacier National Park (GNP) is about to get one of those epic, glacier-increasing winters … starting this weekend.

The only that has disappeared of late from GNP has been the signs saying the glaciers will be gone shortly (by 2020).

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 24, 2019 8:40 pm

Missoula, Missoula International Airport (KMSO)

Use a NWS site and the above location.
Top link is to a video.
The “discussion” page has text.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 24, 2019 9:35 pm

Western Montana, Northern Idaho, Northwest Wyoming (Yellowstone NP)
“Near record minimum temperatures for next Monday-Tuesday.”

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 27, 2019 2:37 am

Well, of course. That’s exactly what we expected to happen from man-made climate change.

September 24, 2019 6:16 pm

Restricting the growth in atmospheric CO2 and removing CO2 from the atmosphere rank up there with the worst of the atmospheric and ocean engineering ideas, like dumping rusty nails in the sea or spraying particulates or gas into the upper atmosphere. This ‘effort to restore the climate’ to some indeterminate previous state or date is an idea that would have a disastrous effect on plant life and therefore all animal and human life. All the warmer periods of history have seen the rise of great civilisations, like Egypt, Rome and Greece, and the modern era. Just when the world has turned a corner and is starting to eradicate poverty and suffering these lunatics want to reverse it all. The idiocy of this push is encapsulated by that teenage Swedish air-head Greta Thunderbird.

Len Werner
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 24, 2019 7:01 pm

You just dissed my car!! (a classic ’65)

When life truly flourished on this planet, back when the dominant creatures were 20 tons not 20 stone, CO2 was over 2,000 ppm in the atmosphere. I’d say there was a lesson hidden in there somewhere.

Humans are an exit creature existing just before the life-supporting phase of this planet ends, when carbon has all been sequestered in limestone, coal and oil by life’s own processes.

There was a flourishing forest on Ellesmere Island 50 million years ago. shortly after the dinosaur era ended (and it was already at 80º north). By that time, 99% of this planet’s total (to date) climate history was already in the rear-view mirror, gone (50 million divided by 4.5 billion is 0.0111). We are not some fabulous result of a climate optimum, we are one of the last animals to exist before we go to Mars conditions as the Goldilocks Zone moves inward in the solar system.

And we’re screwing even that up with nonsense of trying to cool it off. As my favorite Bugs used to say–‘What a maroon’.

Reply to  Len Werner
September 24, 2019 9:38 pm

Yes. If they remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere to return to pre-human levels, all life starts to die off in a couple of million years as nature removes enough of the rest to kill plant life.

They are literally planning the genocide of all complex lifeforms on Earth.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 25, 2019 8:10 am

nicholas tesdorf – September 24, 2019 at 6:16 pm

Restricting the growth in atmospheric CO2 and removing CO2 from the atmosphere rank up there with the worst of the atmospheric and ocean engineering ideas,

I thought most everyone knew, …….. “ya gotta strike when the iron is hot”.

And this week (at the UN) will be the “hottest” for quite sometime, ….. so they gotta get their “Funding Requests” in while the getting is good, to wit:

A new effort to rally governments and corporations behind technologies that suck greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to help stave off disastrous global heating will be launched at the United Nations on Tuesday.

ray boorman
September 24, 2019 6:35 pm

David, I’ve been wanting to get a round tuit for years. When you get yours, can I borrow it, please?

Reply to  ray boorman
September 24, 2019 11:41 pm
September 24, 2019 6:42 pm

Does anyone have recent scientific references for these “Natural Holocene climate cycles”?

September 24, 2019 6:52 pm

Drive to suck. Nuke the volcanoes! Won’t you sequester a carbon-based child, today.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  n.n
September 24, 2019 8:11 pm

It’s a drive to suck the money out of the western nations.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 24, 2019 9:26 pm

I think it’s more about control.
How’s this one: If we all held out breath for one milliday each week, we could reduce our Carbon emissions by 0.014%!!!

Gary Pearse
September 24, 2019 6:52 pm

“All of the warming allegedly caused by CO2 has barely elevated the bulk temperature of the atmosphere above “The Ice Age Cometh”…

That’s because most of the warming we have today occurred in the first 40yrs of the 20th Century before human caused CO2 emissions were significant. Also, the consensus knows that they are simply lying about a volcanic cause if the LIA. They cooked this story after shamefull attempts to disappear the LIA were pushed back on. (Climategate emails discussed the need to get rid of the LIA and Medieval Warm Period.

The attempted revision of history is prima facie evidence the climateers knew these events made Catastrophic AGW untenable. I think the late Dr. Schneider who can take a lot of credit for this would’ve been amazed at the depth and length of the lies and manipulations propagated from his encouragement of his colleagues to exaggerate, throw up scary scenarios, and be dishonest to push this evil stuff. I think Schneider deserves a statue with his advice to colleagues engraved verbatim on a plaque as a warning to future scientists on what happens when scientists lie and trick the public.

Oh not only Europe’s rivers froze (never give the whole truth!). The Bosphorus (Turkey), New York Harbour and the New Jersey Coast also froze over. Washington’s troops spirited away cannons in the night from British occupied Manhattan by rolling them over the ice to New Jersey! Oh, and glaciers DID advance down Swiss valleys crushing villages that were hundreds of years old.

ray boorman
September 24, 2019 6:54 pm

David, I have wanted to get a round tuit for years. When you obtain one, can I borrow it, please?

David Chappell
September 24, 2019 6:56 pm

Interfere with Mother Nature and she will ALWAYS bite you on the bum.

Eve Stevens
September 24, 2019 7:01 pm

I noticed in the 90’s that my bushes were growing better. Then I noticed that trees were getting taller. North America has had a 40% increase in forest growth since then. I have lived in the same place for 35 years. Not much change temperature wise but the plant life is looking lusher.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Eve Stevens
September 25, 2019 9:11 am

……. but the plant life is looking lusher.

“Yes”, and the tree foliage seems to be darker “green” this year …… and here it is Sept 25th and in central West Virginia the hardwood trees are still a vivid “dark” green …… and according to the below cited Foliage Map things will remain “green” for most of the US up until mid to late October, …… which means that the green-growing biomass will still be sucking in atmospheric CO2 as long as the leaves are green. To wit:

Here’s when fall leaves will peak in your region

The New England region should reach its peak in the first half of October.

The Northeast region will crawl into autumn due to above average temperatures through September.

Mid-Atlantic, Tennessee Valley and Southeast – warmer weather throughout September and into October will probably delay the arrival of fall foliage over the mountains. Elsewhere – late October or early November.

See Foliage map and read more HERE

But iffen the “green” biomass in the NH is still sucking up atmosphere CO2 until mid to late October, ……. and the CAGW “warminists” are correct, ….. then shouldn’t the Mauna Loa CO2 Record keep decreasing until mid to late October? SHURE IT SHOULD, SHURE IT SHOULD.

But I betcha it doesn’t, ….. because I predict that it will stop its decreasing by October 4th and start increasing again.

michael hart
September 24, 2019 7:29 pm

This is a good example of an institution without real purpose, oversight, or proper accountability, but which is still funded and allowed to continue to exist like a zombie.

We should always remember that institutions and corporations are not people but are created by people and do not deserve the same respect as any living human. They should be extinguished without sentimentality when they have out-lived their original purpose.

nw sage
September 24, 2019 7:58 pm

If they REALLY want to reduce the CO2 all they have to do is make time run backwards – it’s as simple as that!!
And it is just as easy to do that as it is to sequester Carbon the way they are trying now.

September 24, 2019 7:59 pm

There is no guarantee that temperatures would ever drop 1 degree if we managed to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere back to 280 ppmv levels of 1850. We don’t really know what the sensitivity of CO2 is to determining any final global atmospheric temperature and it sure isn’t the control knob on the climate as we see from historical CO2 levels. Until we fully understand what Natural Variability is in the long term scheme of things, it is really a WAG.

I tend to agree that perhaps there is a modest net warming for a doubling of CO2, but we really don’t fully understand long term feedbacks either. We are measuring a lot of Urban Island (UHI) warming the last 100+ years, and with major land use change on a planetary scale along with major industrialization, this has to be adding additional warming to the system regardless of CO2 and that won’t change even if we could suck the atmospheric carbon back to 1850 levels. Which means that CO2 is actually responsible for less warming, if land use change and our industrialization and the wide spread human footprint is responsible for some of the warming.

Our experiment of adding surplus CO2 to the atmosphere the last 170 years by humans hasn’t really proven too much of anything since, except promote more vegetative growth which everyone should be celebrating. And a bit warmer is always a bit better than cooling, so what really is the problem? We need to identify and quantify natural variation before we blame everything on CO2. And we need to probably try and figure out what percentage is healthy for the planet and what is detrimental. I would suggest that if humans are indeed responsible for the majority of warming since 1850, then that is probably 2/3 really good overall, and there is perhaps 1/3 negative response. It isn’t just a black or white answer. So even if we are causing some of the warming with CO2 and industrialization/population, it is net beneficial in the long term scheme of things. And a real insurance policy on any natural cooling event that could also last a 100 years and be very problematic for mankind.

Reply to  Earthling2
September 24, 2019 10:19 pm

Well said Earthling.
6 tenths of one degree Celsius is what a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is all that can happen without positive water vapour feed backs and the tropical hot spot .
The alarmists don’t seem to be aware of these simple facts .
The alarmists becoming increasingly irrational when they bring a young teenager to speak before the UN with Zero scientific expertise .
She probably knows as much as some of the UN officials who are trying to wreck the world capitalist system and impose socialism in its place .
When we see these things we know that the UN is leading the world down a path to poverty .
Think about this.
The UN is not a democratic institution and you or I have never had a vote on its makeup .
The UN has morphed into the most useless organization that does little for anyone ,

Reply to  Gwan
September 25, 2019 7:35 am

It does a great job of making UN bureaucrats rich.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Earthling2
September 25, 2019 9:32 am

Why is it that everyone persists in hashing, re-hashing and re-re-re-RE-HASHING the same ole, same ole “Climate Sensitivity to atmospheric CO2” question?

Why is it that no one wants to perform a physical experiment to prove or disprove said “sensitivity” claim?

It wouldn’t take much money, maybe a couple thousand dollars, max.

Just build two (2) identical size frameworks, ……. out of 1/2″ white PVC plastic pipe, ……. with the dimensions of 20 x 10 x 8 feet square, ……. outside in an area where each will be subjected to the same environmental conditions (Sunshine, darkness, rain, wind), ……. place temperature sensing thermocouples inside of them which are connected to an external located recording device, ……… then cover them “air tight” (top, bottom and sides) with 4 mill clear plastic sheeting, …. and then inject enough CO2 in one of the structures to increase its 400+- ppm of CO2 to say 800 ppm.

Then, when the night time temperatures in both stabilizes and reads the same, …….. say at 3 AM, start recording the temperatures in each structure …… and again record said temperatures every hour on the hour (or every half hour, or ten minutes) ……. for the next 24, 48 or whatever hours.

And if CO2 is the “global warming” gas that all the proponents of AGW claims it is, then when the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining on the structures, the temperature in the structure containing 800 ppm CO2 ……. should start increasing sooner and faster and reach a greater temperature than in the other structure ….. and when the Sun starts setting in the afternoon, the temperature inside the structure with 800 ppm CO2 should remain higher than it is in the other structure until later in the night.

And if it doesn’t, …… then the CO2 causing AGW claims are totally FUBAR … and the re-hashing of the “sensitivity” thingy should cease among learned individuals.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
September 25, 2019 11:27 am

Anthony Watts did a similar experiment with the glass jars…one with normal air and one with elevated CO2. He tried to duplicate an experiment that Al Gore/Bill Nye did and found that not only did they fake their high school experiment with false results, but that there was no faster warming in the CO2 controlled jar in Anthony’s replica experiment. Actually the CO2 jar was a little slower. Not that a glass jar or even a larger prop as your greenhouse you describe in your proposal is indicative of the atmosphere, but that Anthony couldn’t replicate the same experiment and get the same results as those two clowns said they did. Which is really at the heart of the Mann made climate crisis, which is that this ‘climate emergency’ is a complete fabrication.

JRF in Pensacola
September 24, 2019 8:40 pm

Anything that reduces arable land and the growing season is, most definitely, not a good idea! Puts many millions, maybe as much as two billion people at risk to malnutrition and starvation at our current population level. Not good!

John F. Hultquist
September 24, 2019 8:50 pm

How about we kick the UN out of NYC and reclaim the land to create a park with flowers, trees, and other vegetation.
We can call the plan “Suck life out of the UN and heal the Earth.”

Rhoda R
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 24, 2019 9:36 pm

That would be a lot more useful that what’s on that site now.

September 24, 2019 10:54 pm

Its all about economics, they see it as a money making business…. How did the u.n become the worlds only business that can supposedly save the world?? Why is a failed protection agency, the loudest voice on “we have 8 months left” even though we said the same thing 30 ,years ago.

Henning Nielsen
September 25, 2019 12:03 am

Let us not be too alarmist about the Little Ice Age, it was also a great time for western culture. Shakespeare did not have to burn his books to keep warm. Nor did Michelangelo have to order heating of the Sixtine Chapel in summer before starting his work. And Mozart, Beethoven and Bach somehow survived this disastrous age too. The French Revolution, as well as the American, gave freedom and liberty to millions. And industry, technology, science, transportation, all made huge leaps forward in this supposedly ice-bound age. No need to follow in the footsteps of the GW alarmists, or their 1970s predecessors.

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
September 25, 2019 1:03 am

but the ice age isn’t coming back, even with a new Maunder minimum, CO2 already in the atmosphere means it would only knock a fraction of a percent off warming

Reply to  griff
September 25, 2019 7:36 am

A few tenths of a degree warming is enough to prevent the next ice age?

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
September 25, 2019 1:32 am

And what was the lifespan and health of most people like in this ideal that you describe?

No, let’s celebrate what fossil fuels and modern science has provided us with and extend its benefits to the far too many in the world have have yet to benefit from these changes instead of leaving them in a medieval – oh sorry, LIA – life of misery and poverty.

If the climate warms a little for some reason which may or may not be connected with CO2, so much the better. Currently we are being driven into a calamity by an insane religion.

September 25, 2019 1:02 am

Well lets see… how about reducing CO2 output to some past level?

The UK has reduced CO2 back to 1880 levels (and I notice nobody starved or went bankrupt through taxes)

Reply to  griff
September 25, 2019 7:38 am

What griff notices and what is actually happening rarely coincide.
According to studies, 10’s of thousands of Britons die each winter because they can’t afford to properly heat their houses, thanks to high energy costs caused by the green ghouls.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  griff
September 25, 2019 8:26 am

How do you know past levels were ideal? So far, nothing bad has happened from increasing the CO2 levels. The biosphere is healthier than it’s been since the LIA, human standards of living are higher than ever in recorded history, people live longer (on average) than ever before, loss of life from natural disasters and disease is at the lowest level in history. I could go on and on, but I won’t bore everyone with stats they can easily look up for themselves. I say it makes more sense to continue as we are until there is some objective data that things are getting worse. I know it’s human nature to worry that things are “too good” and something catastrophic must be right around the corner (waiting for the other shoe to drop), but that does not make it so.

M Courtney
September 25, 2019 1:37 am

This is unjustified according to the most mainstream f climate science sources.
From page 258 of the IPCC WG 3 AR5:

• Despite the importance of the cost of mitigation, the aggregate cost of mitigating x tonnes of carbon globally is poorly understood. To put it differently, a global carbon tax of x dollars per tonne 259 Social, Economic, and Ethical Concepts and Methods 3 Chapter 3 would yield y(t) tonnes of carbon abatement at time, t. We do not understand the relationship between x and y(t).
• The choice of the rate at which future uncertain climate damages are discounted depends on their risk profile in relation to other risks in the economy. By how much does mitigating climate change reduce the aggregate uncertainty faced by future generations?

In other words, no-one knows if the costs of climate mitigation – in any form – are less than the costs of climate change from anthropogenic causes. And they do nothing for other causes.

Only adaptation is a policy supported by mainstream science. Not mitigation or intervention at all.

September 25, 2019 3:48 am

Without carbon dioxide how are plants supposed to finish their growing/feeding cycle? Don’t they need carbon dioxide + sunlight to make chloraphyll* [sorry having a “senior moment”, can’t remember to spell this* !!???!]

Right-Handed Shark
September 25, 2019 4:11 am

So.. let us suppose that they invent a machine that can instantaneously remove 500 gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere. The resultant drop in atmospheric pressure would trigger the release of gases presently dissolved in the oceans. How much of the newly released gases would be CO2?

Some of it?
Most of it?
All of it?

Tom Abbott
September 25, 2019 4:39 am

From the article: “During the height of the Little Ice Age , it was in general about one degree Celsius colder than at present.”

Imprecise statements like this always bother me. They say “colder than at present”. But what do they mean by “at present”?

Are they measuring from the warmest year of the 21st century, which was 2016, or do they mean September 25, 2019? The reason I ask is because on September 25, 2019, the global temperature is about 0.5C cooler than in 2016.

The UAH satellite global temperature chart:


Tom Abbott
September 25, 2019 4:57 am

From the article: “The coupling of hot, dry summers with substantial decreases in winter snowpack (~30% of normal) produced dramatic recession rates as high as 100 m/yr from A.D. 1917-1941”

Yes, the glaciers and the arctic sea ice were at their lowest ebb in recent times, right after the very warm period of the 1930’s. Just as low as today, because the temperatures for both periods, the 1930’s, and the period from 1980 to 2016, are very similar.

There is no unprecedented ice melting going on today. It’s all happened before. Nothing to see here. Mother Nature at work.

September 25, 2019 5:33 am

They want to reduce CO2 levels to something lower, like they were A CENTURY AGO?????

Good Great God Zeus, how ignorant are these twits???? Seriously, a century ago, London, England was awash in the pea-soup fogs that allowed a slimy murdering thug Jack the Ripper to slaughter women and thumb his nose at the police. (Yes, I know, he was somewhat earlier, but you know what I meant.) A century ago, locomotives burned coal to heat the boilers that drove the steam-powered pistons that moved those trains. A freaking century ago, Chicago was so polluted with industrial waste, including the slautherhouses connected to the stockyards, that anyone from THIS century would become deathly ill from just being there for a few minutes.

A century ago, draft horses that died were left to rot in the streets. You can find old photos of kids playing around the corpses. This happened in many cities like New York and London, and the corpse gases must have been at an astonishing level, never mind the diseases harbored in that rotting flesh. A century ago, the automobile was just beginning to find its feet (wheels), with carburetors that produced higher levels of toxic fumes, including CO and CO2, never mind the rest of the chemistry, than anything we have today.

I could go on but you guys can fill in the blanks. The first car I ever drove was my dad’s white-over-blue two-toned Buick. He let me drive down the driveway, turn around and drive back up, and I got to do that twice. I could barely see over the steering wheel, but he was in the car sitting next to me, in case I made a mistake. I told him I liked horses better than cars.

These people are just plain nuts. Their ignorance of what the world was like a century ago is unbelievable. It would be nice to have a time machine so that we could yank them back to a century ago and show them what it was really like.

Coeur de Lion
September 25, 2019 6:36 am

Everyone talks about ppm for CO2. Big numbers. Much better to say “Take a gulp of atmosphere – say ten thousand molecules. Did you know that from 1850 to now, CO2 increased from just under three molecules to just over four in your gulp?” Catastrophic, eh?

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 25, 2019 12:49 pm

Coeur de Lion,
And, of course, to the nearest one tenth of one percent, there is zero CO2 in our atmosphere.
Not many Gretas [or MPs here in the UK] know that.


John Connor
September 25, 2019 4:39 pm

I was confused when I read above (Little Ice Age K Jan Oosthoek) that “cod migrated South to find warmer water” as it has been all over the press recently (https://www.business-live.co.uk/retail-consumer/north-sea-cod-menu-stocks-16976598) that North Sea cod stocks are endangered again because of warmer water caused by climate change.
I guess this means that the cod are smarter than the researchers, they moved out and the researchers are looking in the wrong place.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights