What if there is no Climate Emergency?

Reposted from edmhdotme

screenshot-2019-09-25-at-12.10.57-1
What if there is no Catastrophic Risk from Man-made Global Warming ?
What if Man-made Climate Change really is a non-problem ?
But what if there is a Global Cooling Catastrophe in the offing ?

It is the propaganda of Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change alarmists that has illogically conflated Carbon Dioxide, the beneficial trace gas that sustains all life on earth and which can cause some minor warming, with real and dangerous pollutants to create the “Great Global Warming Scare / Climate Change Scare / Climate Emergency / etcetera”.

The role of Atmospheric CO2

To establish realistic policy the following points about man-made CO2 emissions need to be recognised:

  • The warming Greenhouse effect is essential to all life on earth, without it at ~+33°C planet Earth would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.
  • Most of the greenhouse effect, (more than ~90% – 95%) arises from water  as vapour and clouds in the atmosphere.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
  • The role of water as vapour or clouds is fully acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, even though they concentrate their alarmist views on Man-made CO2 emissions.  The role of Man-made emissions and climate impact is their mandate after all.

(page 666 of the IPCC assessment.)

  • Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide CO2 is not pollutant.
  • The world needs its atmospheric CO2 for the survival and fertilisation of plant life.
  • Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the very stuff of life.
  • Atmospheric CO2 is essential for PHOTOSYNTHESIS, it supports all life on earth.

At about half the current atmospheric concentration of CO2, plant Photosynthesis falters and the world soon dies.  In comparison with the Geological past the World is now in a period of CO2 starvation, because most of the CO2, once at least 10 times more abundant in the atmosphere at the time when plants evolved, has since been sequestered in the oceans as limestone.

CO2 concentration came close to that fatally low level, (~150 ppmv), during the last ice age, 110,000BC – 10,000BC.  The dangerously low level of atmospheric CO2 could well be exceeded in any coming Ice Age.

Colder oceans absorb more CO2 and ocean life sequesters it as limestone.  This is the way our world will eventually die of atmospheric CO2 starvation in a future glacial period.

Increased CO2 concentration promotes plant growth throughout the planet and reduces the water needs of plants.  According to NASA, ~15% extra green growth across the planet is already attributed to the relatively recent increase in CO2 concentration.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Man-kind as a whole contributes only a small amount of the CO2 in the Carbon cycle, (~3% per annum), and any extra atmospheric CO2 is rapidly absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere, (with a half-life of ~5 years).

If any extra CO2 were to have some minor warming effect, it would be all to the good.  Atmospheric CO2, whether Man-made or mostly naturally occurring, cannot therefore be considered as a pollutant.

The diminishing warming effectiveness of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

There is no direct straight-line relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.

The effectiveness of CO2 as a warming Greenhouse gas rapidly diminishes logarithmically as concentration increases.

Screenshot 2019-09-23 at 10.06.07.pngA concentration of atmospheric CO2 greater than 200 ppmv equivalent to ~77% of CO2’s Greenhouse effectiveness is absolutely essential to maintain all plant life and thus all life on earth.  Plant life will be extinguished at ~150ppmv.

CO2 is not causing global warming

At the current level of ~400 ppmv, ~87% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is exhausted.

Screenshot 2019-06-29 at 14.26.41

At only 13% of CO2 effectiveness remaining, so little of its power as a greenhouse gas now remains that there is no possibility of ever reaching the “much feared” +2°C temperature rise or more predicted by alarmists, that they think will be caused by future Man-made CO2 emissions.

Alarmists consider that level of +2°C to be catastrophic and sadly they have convinced many of the Western world’s politicians.  Economically this is not so, and any increase up-to +2°C would be beneficial.  Global temperature would then approach the very abundant period of the previous Eemian interglacial epoch 110,000 years ago.

https://academic.oup.com/reep/article/12/1/4/4804315

But now increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can only lead to very limited further warming and certainly not to any catastrophic and any dangerous temperature increase.  The assumptions are set out below.

Screenshot 2019-09-23 at 14.02.30.png

Logarithmic diminution operates as follows:

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/the-diminishing-effect-of-increasing-concentrations-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature
  • 77% of the CO2 greenhouse effect of CO2, 0 – 200 ppmv, is essential to maintain and fertilise plant life and thus all life on earth.
  • If it is assumed that all the increase from 300ppmv – 400ppmv is Man-made it would give 4.2% of the Greenhouse effect and a temperature rise of between 0.14°C – 0.07°C
  • A possible immediate future rise from 400ppmv – 500ppmv could only give a rise of between 0.11°C – 0.05°C
  • A later rise of CO2 from 500ppmv – 1000ppmv, were it to occur, can only give a further rise of between 0.33°C – 0.17°C
  • This ignores the statement by the IPCC that only 50% of CO2 increase is Man-made, which would reduce these increased temperature values by half.
  • This also ignores the assumption made in Climate models that there is massive positive and escalating feedback from further increasing CO2 emissions:  even if such feedback was proven, any continuing warming from CO2 emissions would still remain marginal as a result of the logarithmic diminution effect.

So, it is now likely that the impact of rising CO2 concentrations on global temperature, even at its greatest assessed effectiveness, is not only marginally insignificant for temperature rise but is also in fact beneficial.

To bring the Developing world up to the level of development of China, as indicated by CO2 emissions/head, over the coming decades their CO2 emissions are bound to escalate by at least a further 20 billion tonnes per annum, (+~60%).  So all the attempts by Western Nations to control global temperature by the limitation of their own CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels can now only ever have marginal or immeasurable further effect.

https://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

Therefore, all de-carbonisation efforts by Western Nations are misguided and irrelevant.

Fossil fuels are a gift of nature.  They are like a battery of energy created by sunlight several million years ago.  They have enabled all the civilised development in the West and will continue to support the growth in prosperity of the developing world.  Fossil fuels are not running out.  Fracking developments can occur almost anywhere worldwide.  For example there are 300 years’ worth of Coal in the UK alone.

Nonetheless there is a coming Climate catastrophe

That catastrophe is the exact opposite of the “we are all going to fry narrative” of the Climate alarmists.  It presages a very scary future for Man-kind and the biosphere in the comparatively near-term:

  • According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial.
  • The world has already been cooling at ~0.14°C / millennium, ~20 times the earlier rate since before Roman times, in fact since ~1000 BC.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming
Screenshot 2019-09-25 at 18.08.58.png
  • But as can be seen in the rapid Recovery from the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago, when temperature increased at a rate of ~+2.5°C / millennium, the world’s Climate can change radically and suddenly.
  • There is every reason to suspect that the World could meet a similar falling temperature cliff at the coming end of our present Holocene epoch, this century, next century or this millennium, similar to the end of the previous Eemian interglacial.
Screenshot 2019-10-06 at 10.31.02.png
  • The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped some 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
  • At 11,000 years old, our congenial, warm Holocene interglacial is coming towards its end. The Holocene has been responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors.
  • The world will very soon, (in geological time), revert to another period of true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York. With much lower sea levels this was state of Western Europe only 16,000 years ago and gives an idea of what the new Ice Age look like in due course.
Screenshot 2019-06-30 at 21.05.21.png
  • The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly scared about, both for the biosphere and for man-kind.
  • Some immediate cooling now seems likely in the near term, (this century), as a result of the state of the current Solar cycle.

How The Sun Affects Temperatures On Earth

  • The weather gets worse in colder times.
  • Cold fatally reduces agricultural productivity.
  • Cooling is already be becoming evident.
Screenshot 2019-09-23 at 10.16.42.png

And trying to control Man-made CO2 emissions in the Western world will do nothing to ameliorate the coming Cold Climate Catastrophe.

Conclusion

Spending any effort, for solely emotional and childish reasons, without true cost benefit analysis and without full engineering due diligence, let alone at GDP scale costs, trying to stop the UK’s 1% or the EU’s 10% of something that has not been happening for 3 millennia has to be monumentally ill-advised.

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2018-bp-data

It should be understood that the real reason for Green thinking is to bring Energy and Economic catastrophe to the capitalistic Western world.

Green thinking should be regarded as a continuation of the “Cold War”.

Russia, China and India are mocking the way Western governments have been induced by “Green” thinking to promote their policies of abject self-harm at great national cost and to no perceptible benefit.  This is supported by Western “useful idiots” (Lenin’s term).  Lenin held them in utter contempt.

The developing and Eastern worlds are certainly not going to be meekly following the deranged example of the “virtue signalling” West.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.3 4 votes
Article Rating
148 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Phillip Bratby
October 7, 2019 12:17 pm

“What if there is no Climate Emergency?” There is no climate emergency – so what?

SMC
October 7, 2019 12:24 pm

SO, what happened, what changed, around 1000BC to cause a cooling trend?

October 7, 2019 12:40 pm

According to alarmists, water vapor increase depends only on temperature increase of the liquid surface water and has increased an average of 0.88% per decade. Actual measurements show the global average WV increase to be about 1.47% per decade. This proves WV increase, not CO2 increase, has contributed to temperature increase. WV increase is limited and might have already reached its limit

Tiburon
October 7, 2019 12:52 pm

This, IMHO, is the rough equivalent of Hiroshima in the Climate Wars. Again, IMHO, should it go viral, as we might hope for to happen with Anthony Watts’ update video on the continuing Media Hype, it will be remembered as the turning of the tide in cultural awareness of the Hoax (and if we are lucky, a bit better understanding of the political and financial interests that propel said Hoax)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3432&v=rEWoPzaDmOA

What if there is NO climate emergency? That there is NO discernable anthropogenic CO2 contribution, once solar particle forcing has been included in the global energy budget, as promised to be include (we shall see, of course) in the coming CMIP6 reports. Now up to 700 relevant peer-reviewed papers supporting this revelation, in the last couple of years.
And of course – though they are trying mightley, the modellers still can’t model clouds. Oops.

Daily progress on this front available at Suspicious0bservers.org

Samuel C Cogar
October 7, 2019 1:24 pm

Excerpted from article:

Most of the greenhouse effect, (more than ~90% – 95%) arises from water as vapour and clouds in the atmosphere.

The effectiveness of CO2 as a warming Greenhouse gas rapidly diminishes logarithmically as concentration increases.

How’s come the ”warming” effect of the Greenhouse gas “water (H2O) vapor” ….. doesn’t rapidly diminish logarithmically as its concentration increases?

Atmospheric “water (H2O) vapor” absorbs IR the same as CO2, ……. right?

How’s come near-surface atmospheric “water (H2O) vapor” has a Heat Index value and CO2 does not?

Ron Long
October 7, 2019 1:30 pm

Kind of a scarey posting, actually, but wait a minute, a mile thick of ice on New York City? Now I’m all in! Maybe only the top floor of the Trump Tower will stick through?

October 7, 2019 1:39 pm

It’s a shame that most CAGW aficionados are functionally illiterate and will not be able to benefit from the wisdom of this article.

George Steele
October 7, 2019 1:45 pm

“What if” games are fun!
What if we were at peak warming in 2018. Mother Nature may have plans for a steep descent. A perfect storm, perhaps, of a Grand Solar Minimum and Magnetic Excursion [enabling cosmic ray induced Volcanoes].

Luc Ozade
October 7, 2019 1:45 pm

Does anyone know WHO “edmhdotme” (the author of this article/essay) actually is?

lynn
October 7, 2019 1:57 pm

I have long thought that there should be a saturation amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for a greenhouse effect. Chemical reactions almost always have a saturation amount for their effectiveness. Why should CO2 and sunlight absorption be exempt from this natural rule ?

The only real climate fear that we should have is another ice age. Which, is overdue.

Volton
October 7, 2019 1:57 pm

I dont think it was Lenin that had useful idiots. Can’t remember off the top of my head who it was and dont have time to fact check right now.

kim
October 7, 2019 2:05 pm

Hear, hear, hear.

The warming man can do will be net beneficial. The greening we’re doing would be miraculous if it weren’t so predictable.

Alarmism has been a classic ploy of manipulation through fear and guilt. The fear is unnecessary and the guilt misplaced. Our grandchildren will understand this.
===========================================

October 7, 2019 2:39 pm

Why don’t thermodynamic specific heat tables mention this IR problem? According to climate science it takes less energy to raise temperature of CO2 if IR present than if IR absent.

Increased CO2 does nothing per Anthony’s experiment.

October 7, 2019 2:46 pm

Oh, come on.

If there were no climate crisis, if it was all just a false alarm, then the climate movement would have to stoop to rudeness, fallacy, intimidation, a Faustian pact with the political class, an eclectic repertoire of propaganda techniques combining the worst of both Orwellian and Goebbelian traditions, historical revisionism, weasel-wordiness, tweaking and ultimately abandoning the rules of science, non-standard statistical methods, Lysenkoist punitive psychology, forgery, secrecy, resurrecting the putrid zombie called consensus-as-evidence who was supposed to have been staked, decapitated and buried in unshriven ground upon the advent of evidence-as-evidence 300 years ago, and plain old-fashioned mendacity in order to keep their dogma in the ascendancy despite its theoretical bankruptcy.

Sorry, but I just don’t see that happening.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 8, 2019 4:44 am

lol..+++++

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 8, 2019 10:09 am

Atomic grade sarcasm, you win the interweb today.

Dudley Horscroft
October 7, 2019 3:39 pm

To my way of thinking, +33C is a very comfortable temperature, not making for “Earth would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.” Here is Tweed, New South Wales, we are only just getting up to about 25C, for 33C you have to go to Darwin.

Surely you mean -33C?

Gary Mount
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 7, 2019 5:17 pm

It is the additional temperature of ~+33C from The warming Greenhouse effect on top of the temperature without the effect.

October 7, 2019 4:57 pm

Apparently vineyards are experiencing a period of growth in the UK:
https://www.winegb.co.uk/uk-winemakers-celebrate-harvest-of-the-century-as-warm-weather-continues-2/

Wine producers across the UK are hailing 2018 the harvest of the century following a record-breaking summer and an unusually warm autumn resulting in excellent quality grapes with high yields.

This growth will continue if the IPCC forecasts are correct.
https://www.savills.co.uk/blog/article/280817/rural-property/are-british-vineyards-still-a-good-investment.aspx

Despite rapid growth, British viticulture shows no signs of slowing down in the future. The industry predicts 40 million bottles per year will be produced within the next 20 years, over seven times the current 10-year average. That would also be over double the 15.6 million bottles produced by 2018’s record-breaking harvest.

If the globe cools, what will happen to the UK vineyards? Can the wine makers get compensation from the UNIPCC for their inaccurate forecasts? Can energy consumers get compensation for the high cost of intermittent generators and carbon taxes?

October 7, 2019 5:15 pm

No RGHE or RGHE that does nothing.

Six of one, half a dozen t’other.

October 7, 2019 5:22 pm

“The warming Greenhouse effect is essential to all life on earth, without it at ~+33°C planet Earth would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.”

288 – 255 = 33 100% garbage!! Cold and inhospitable. Wrong, hot and inhospitable.

288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with the atmosphere is rubbish.
288 K is a WAG pulled from WMO’s butt. NOAA/Trenberth use 289 K.
UCLA Diviner mission uses 295 K.
The 255 K is a theoretical S-B “what if” temperature calculation for a ToA average 240 W/m^2 (w/ atmosphere!!) ASR/OLR balance (1,368/4 *.7) based on a 30% albedo.

Refer to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen, i.e. at an average 240 W/m^2 OLR and an average S-B temperature of 255 K.

That is just flat ridiculous.

NOAA says that without an atmosphere the earth would be a -430 F frozen ice-covered ball.

That is just flat ridiculous^2.

Without the atmosphere or with 100% nitrogen there would be no liquid water or water vapor, no vegetation, no clouds, no snow, no ice, no oceans and no longer a 0.3 albedo. The earth would get blasted by the full 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.

The sans atmosphere albedo might be similar to the moon’s as listed in NASA’s planetary data lists, a lunarific 0.11, 390 K on the lit side, 100 K on the dark.

October 7, 2019 6:13 pm

The case for chaotic Holocene climate that naturally creates warming and cooling cycles at millennial and centennial time scales:

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/11/chaoticholocene/

Steve O
October 7, 2019 7:50 pm

This crowd has spent a lifetime opposing the only grid-scale, reliable, zero-carbon energy source known to man. And while today they are advocating for expensive ways to reduce carbon emissions, in another 50 years they’ll be advocating for artificial emissions to hold off an ice age.

Lavoisier
October 7, 2019 8:16 pm

I haven’t had the time to go thru all these posts but has anybody pointed out yet that, generally speaking, optical absorbance is logarithmic with concentration? Just saying…

October 7, 2019 8:41 pm

What is the evidence that CO2 is logarithmic? It’s the entire basis of this post.

Reply to  Renee
October 8, 2019 9:53 pm

Rate of temperature change versus time is clear example of a logarithmic function. And they are different between the NH and SH.
https://imgur.com/a/pHgiWrT

Reply to  Renee
October 8, 2019 9:57 pm

Sorry, the plot is thousands of years.

Lavoisier
October 7, 2019 8:52 pm

From wikipedia:

Logarithmic vs. directly proportional measurements
The amount of light transmitted through a material diminishes exponentially as it travels through the material, according to the Beer–Lambert law (A=(ε)(l)). Since the absorbance of a sample is measured as a logarithm, it is directly proportional to the thickness of the sample and to the concentration of the absorbing material in the sample. Some other measures related to absorption, such as transmittance, are measured as a simple ratio so they vary exponentially with the thickness and concentration of the material.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Lavoisier
October 7, 2019 9:37 pm

There are people who need to read, and understand, this ^^^

Reply to  Lavoisier
October 7, 2019 10:17 pm

For Data that has wild-ass swings, we tend to use logarithmic solutions. However, the medium which tends to be more stable and predictable, arithmetic solutions are more reasonable.

October 7, 2019 10:12 pm

Great post, Ed. Well researched and well written. Love your website.

An additional note to readers: every carbon atom in your body was once atmospheric CO2. Every molecule of oxygen that you breathe was once atmospheric CO2. That is how necessary, not just “beneficial”, that CO2 is to all life.

WARMER IS BETTER. FIGHT THE ICE.

Hokey Schtick
October 8, 2019 2:51 am

But it’s carbon! Carbon is bad. *Head explodes*