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.
- 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.
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.
A 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.
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.
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.
Logarithmic diminution operates as follows:
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The weather gets worse in colder times.
- Cold fatally reduces agricultural productivity.
- Cooling is already be becoming evident.
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To the preindustrial carbon cycle with approx 150.000 Gigaton CO2 (140.000 Gt in the sea, 4.000 Gt in the atmosphere and 6.000 Gt in the biosphere) humans have burnt fossils adding max 2.000 Gt CO2 – not much (1,3%). But this has caused unbalance in the atmosphere as a new balance (Le Chatelier) with approc 287 PPM (280 x 1,013) is delayed because of inertia in the system and continuous adding og more and more CO2 (7% of the unbalance disapper in a year – thus half of the unbalance will be gone in approx 10 years if we stopped with CO2 tomorrow)
“The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped some 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.”
The article has some good points that get lost between lies like the above. Global warming has not stopped. At most, it has slowed down. Expecting it to stop or revert while CO2 increases is nothing more than wishful thinking of the worst kind (the kind that wants something bad to happen, i.e. cooling, just to prove being right). Fortunately though, the warming is mostly good (more advantages than disadvantages).
Really? Grand solar minimum coming.
Wishful thinking. Nobody can know that for sure, let alone prove it.
The global marxist movement requires some kind of constant “emergency”. They would just substitute something else for climate.
If there is no CO2 global warming, and whatever there is is minor, the most likely effect is the earth will continue it’s gradual cooling into another ice age. We are currently about 14,000 years into an interglacial period. Based primarily on the ice core data and other paleological measures(sedimentary rocks, fossils, etc) the interglacials last approximately 10,000-20,000 years. There is one “recent” interglacial in, I believe the Vostok ice core, where it only warmed up about halfway but lasted twice as long.
So at best we’re headed towards a continued cooling over the next thousands of years of about 9°C.
See http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-millennial-turning-point-solar.html
Quotes :
“When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is useful to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. My recent paper presented a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposed that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991………………………….
Fig 3 The decline in solar activity (increase in neutron count ) since the 1991 solar activity MTP is seen in the Oulu neutron count.
Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a varying lag between the solar activity MTP and the varying climate metrics. The temperature peak is about 2003/4 – lag is about 12years. The arctic sea ice volume minimum was in 2012 +/- lag = 21years. . For the details see data, discussion, and forecasts in Figs3,4,5,10,11,and 12 in the links below.
See the Energy and Environment paper
The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html See also the discussion with Professor William Happer at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.”
https://youtu.be/2flZ5UfgzC8
This chilling video taken by the Russian military – no doubt in protective suits – shows graphically the environmental destruction in the Arctic caused by climate. The music grippingly evokes the deadly miazma of ecosystem collapse.
There never was liquid water before in the Arctic Ocean – OMG what have we done? Birds cling to a last holdout on precarious cliffs – never before have they been forced to nest their young precariously on vertical cliffs – each one that falls to their death adds to a mountain of human guilt for such a tragedy. A polar bear lies dying by a poisoned creek – howling mournfully.
Alas the blighted seals have developed grotesquely overgrown front teeth – a quick fact-check from David Attenborough confirms this horrible mutation is quite new and without doubt caused by chemical contamination. Icebergs melt under a relentless sun into hideous shapes before disappearing forever. Another polar bear struggles in vain for life. Pure instinct refuses to surrender to merciless climate.
Adding insult to injury, human vandals damage centuries-old ice with an axe – have you no shame? Mutated seals languish in fetid stagnant pools. International tourists look on from a pleasure-boat. In panic a polar bear flees the stench from the polluted waterline and despairingly climbs a mountain face. Party-goers ignore the devastation caused by their kin and wave banalely at a camera. Where is Greta Thunberg when we need her?!
A good post and comments; BUT water off the green ducks back and all preaching to the converted. I have recently subscribed to the Quora site and indeed it is an eye opener.
The vast amount of the questions automatically assume that there is an emergency. I have great fun sticking my oar in by way of answers and get but a few upvotes and a few challenges mostly by the obviously brainwashed. Out of some 150 of my answers I think I have only got 1 or 2 sensible responses. As for finding someone with whom I can have a good scientific chat ? – It’s a desert.
I had hoped that I would get some form of peer review on my own thoughts ; but no as the whole so called debate has morphed into a form of Marxist politically manipulated emotional hysteria.
Still I am having fun!🤗
The half life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 16 years as measured by the bomb test pulse:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871409/
However, atmospheric (aboveground) detonations of nuclear weapons during the period of the cold war (1955–1963) doubled the concentration of 14C/12C in the atmosphere (8, 9). Although nuclear weapon testing was conducted at only a few locations, excess levels of 14C in the atmosphere rapidly dispersed and equalized around the globe. Since 1963, as a result of a worldwide test ban treaty, 14C levels in the atmosphere have been decreasing exponentially with a mean half-life of 16 years.
You have a way with words, Brad; I’ve never seen the “chicken little” climate fraud hysteria mocked more accurately and elegantly, and all in one clear, coherent sentence, to boot; my cap is raised to you, Sir.
James, are you talking to me? If so, you’re overly generous (it was a Dickensian, run-on sentence: hardly Polonius’ sole of levity) and if not, you’re underly so, but thank you!
The reality is that the Earth’s climate has been changing for eons yet the change is so small that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. One must not mix up true global climate change with weather cycles that are part of the current climate. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today 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 to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science.
AGW is not a proven theory but rather a conjecture. AGW sounds plausible at first but upon a more detailed examination one finds that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example there is the idea that CO2 acts as a thermostat and the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming because CO2 has LWIR absorption bands that cause CO2 to trap heat. CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming because H2O also has LWIR absorption bands and hence causes H2O to trap even more heat. So according the ths AGW conjecture H2O acts to amplify any warming that CO2 might cause. Al Gore in his movie, “The Inconvenient Truth” presents a chart showing CO2 and temperature for the past 650.000 years. There is an obvious correlation between CO2 and temperature which Al Gore claims shows that CO2 works as a thermostat and that more CO2 in our atmosphere causes warming. But a closer look at the data shows that CO2 follows instead of leeds temperature. It is higher temperatures that cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water does not hold as much CO2 as does cooler water. Contrary to what AL Gore claims, there is no evidence that the additional CO2 causes warming. On the plot, Al gore included where CO2 is today. CO2 is much higher than one would expect form the warming of the oceans and the proximate cause of the increase in CO2 is mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. According to the chart, if CO2 were the thermostat of global warming then it should be a heck of a lot warmer that it actually is but it is not. If anything, Al Gore’s chart shows that CO2 does not cause global warming as Al Gore claims.
H2O is actually a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis. According to he AGW conjecture, the idea is that CO2 warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming which causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere and so forth. This positive feedback effect does not really require CO2 based warming but will operate on H2O based warming alone. This positive feedback effect, if true, would make Earth’s climate very unstable with H2O based warming causing more H2O to enter the atmosphere causing even more warming causing even more H2O to enter the atmosphere until all the bodies of water on Earth boiled away. Such an event would cause the barometric pressure and temperature of the Earth’s surface to be much higher than it is on Venus but such has never happened. What the AGW conjecture ignore’s is that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form and where heat energy is more readily radiated to space. The over all cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. So instead of providing a positive feedback amplifying any warming that CO2 might provide, H2O provides negative feedback and retards any warming the CO2 might provide, Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for over the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve because we are here.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping gases but rather stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convectime greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. No radiant greenhouse effect has been observed, So too on Earth where gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere acts to limit cooling by convection. Derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect causes the surface of the Earth to be roughly 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. Any additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed. The radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere no on any planet in solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well, This is all a matter of science.
Then there is the “scientific” consensus argument. But there is no real consensus. It is all is all just speculation. Scientists never registered and then voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But even if they had it would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. The AGW conjecture must really be on shaky ground if “consensus” is one of the reasons for us to believe in it.
But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue unabated because they are part of the current climate. We do not even know what the optimum global climate is let alone how to achieve it. The previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet no tipping points ever happened. In the past, the Earth’s CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today and no tipping points ever happened. There is no real evidence that a climate emergency exists. It is all a matter of science.
+10
William Haas,
I would agree with you on all points except one. This is actually the largest and most fundamental point, which started the whole ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’.
You (and virtually all text books) suggest there is a 33 degree C. difference between outgoing radiation and the temperature of the Earth, at +15 deg C. This is because outgoing radiation from Earth is indeed 240 watts/sq-m, which equates to a Stefan-Boltzman temperature of -18 deg C.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding, in my estimation, which started this whole mess.
Applying the S-B equation to the ‘surface’ temperature of the Earth, while disregarding the atmospheric temperature yields the error.
All particles on the surface of the land and ocean emit radiation. The gases which compose the atmosphere also emit radiation, as they have mass and temperature. This may be shocking news to ‘Greenhouse Theory’ proponents, but yes, all of the particles in the atmosphere emit heat (radiation).
Therefore, much like the Sun, we need a ‘composite temperature’. Different layers of the Sun’s ‘atmosphere’ (Photosphere and Chromosphere) have different temperatures. The composite (average) temperature of the Sun is approximately 5500 C.
Since, the atmosphere of Earth is about +15 C. at the surface, about -20 C. at 5-6 km altitude, and about -60 C. at 20 km altitude; then I would guess the ‘composite temperature’ of Earth plus atmosphere is about -20 C.
As a reference point, the temperatures at the peak of Mt. Everest range from -20 to – 35 C. (Also, Mt. Everest located at 27 degrees North latitude, is very close to the Tropics, similar to Palm Beach, Florida).
If one throws in a few degrees of ‘warming’ from the heat content of atmosphere and clouds, then I would guess the sum temperature to be around -18 C.
If what I suggest sounds plausible, then the whole ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ needs a thorough review.
Regards,
KD
i’m happy to see that someone finally put quotation marks around the word “green”.
i’m still waiting for someone to tell me just what is “green” about the “green” new deal.
We (citizens and governments) should transform optimism into actions and power. Really interesting post. Thanks for sharing!
Prjindigo October 7, 2019 at 12:17 pm
Without water vapor there IS NO RELATION between CO2 and temperature AT ALL. CO2 cannot warm itself, the moment it emits energy it would immediately be out of the loop
– is not the whole truth:
Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases in Earth’s atmosphere absorb the longer wavelengths of outgoing infrared radiation from Earth’s surface.
These gases then emit the infrared radiation in all directions, both outward toward space and downward toward Earth.
_________________________________________________
From sun emitted photons, directed to Earth’s surface, are absorbed by trace gas molecules
– and remitted in whatever various directions.
So: the remitted photons mainly aren’t re-directed vertical down to Earth’s surface –
Most of the so-called “greenhouse gases” don’t warm Earth’s soil or Earth’s oceans but
50% incoming energy goes further down in the atmosphere and
50% incoming energy returns upwards.
https://www.google.com/search?q=CO2+absorbs+radiation+versus+CO2+emits+radiation&oq=CO2+absorbs+radiation+versus+CO2+emits+radiation+&aqs=chrome.
That said:
Most of this trace gases, that so-called “greenhouse gases” don’t warm Earth’s atmosphere, oceans or soil, thei’re in effect coolants, energy thieves.