Do We Really Have Only 12 Years to Live?

By Andy May

Why have uninformed celebrities and politicians been telling everyone, who will listen, we are all going to die in a climate catastrophe in 10 to 30 years? U.N. General Assembly President María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés of Ecuador warned us that:

“We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damages to our planet” (link)

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, once said:

we only have 12 years or “the world is going to end.” (link)

Figure 1. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Photo by Cheriss May of NurPhoto, taken on Feb. 5, 2019.

Prince Charles of the UK on July 11, 2019:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.” (link)

However, these absurd statements are not supported by even the most fanatical climate alarmists, like Kate Marvel (NASA), Gavin Schmidt (NASA), Katharine Hayhoe (Texas Tech), or Andrea Dutton (University of Florida) (link). The original inspiration for these statements came from a 2018 IPCC report entitled Global Warming of 1.5°C. Even the alarmist Scientific American does not think the world is ending in twelve years.

We will discuss this IPCC report below, but first let’s look at some critical evidence that is not in the report. As usual the IPCC dodges the current benefits of warming and additional CO2, so we need to fill in this gap.

A little over two years ago I posted an essay entitled “Calculating the Cost of Global Warming,” it did not calculate a cost, but discussed calculations made by others. Global warming and the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere are not existential threats to mankind or to nature. Global warming will not go “runaway,” this idea, discussed here, has been discredited by climate change skeptics and by climate alarmists alike (see here and here for examples). So, given that global warming and additional CO2 will not harm us, we are reduced to a discussion of the economic impacts and benefits, both positive and negative, of global warming and additional CO2.

Global warming and additional CO2 are benefiting humankind today and will still be a net benefit for many years to come. Someday, if the worst climate change computer projections turn out to be true, there may be a net cost. To compute the cost of global warming we need to determine the net present value of the current and future benefits (negative costs) and the net present value of the possible future costs, after multiplying the possible future costs by the probability that they may occur. This calculation needs to be done at some chosen future date, the date should be far enough in the future that some positive costs could occur, but not so far in the future as to invalidate our climate and economic projections. Obviously, the longer in the future that we project the climate and its impacts, the less certain we are that they are valid. If the result is a negative cost number, then we have a net benefit to humankind and if positive we may have a problem if the cost is too high. Sounds simple enough, but the process is fraught with problems. In the words of the IPCC:

“Global economic impacts from climate change are difficult to estimate.

Economic impact estimates completed over the past 20 years vary in their coverage of subsets of economic sectors and depend on a large number of assumptions, many of which are disputable, and many estimates do not account for catastrophic changes, tipping points, and many other factors. With these recognized limitations, the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income (±1 standard deviation around the mean) (medium evidence, medium agreement).” IPCC WGII AR5 Technical Summary, page 71.

The emphasis is added by the author. Currently, global economic growth is about 3% per year, 2.9% in 2019 and an estimated 3.3% in 2020 according to the International Monetary Fund. So, the maximum economic impact of 2°C, as estimated by the IPCC, would be recovered in less than a year using current growth rates. This is hardly a crisis but let us examine recent arguments and cost estimates.

Projecting future climate

Before any future costs can be estimated, we must first estimate what climate will do in the future. Projecting future climate is very uncertain as explained here. Determining how much impact humans have on climate is even more uncertain, see here for a discussion of how the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has attempted to determine human influence. The quote suggests that there may be “tipping points,” they mean that human influence on the climate may “tip” the climate system into an unstable state causing some sort of catastrophe, but we can rule that out as discussed in the already cited post “Can Earth be Compared to Venus.” Basically, the large amount of water in our oceans dampens any changes in our climate due to the high heat capacity of water. Colin Goldblatt and Andrew Watson show us that it is impossible for a planet to go “runaway” by simply adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The IPCC phrase about “catastrophic changes” may be suggesting that extreme weather might increase, but we’ve seen no signs of that, as explained here.

The climate projections made by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), the most recent being CMIP5 in 2014 are high relative to observations as shown in Figure 2 in a graph by Dr. John Christy. This graph was presented to the House of Representatives committee on Science, Space and Technology on February 2nd, 2016.

Figure 2. A graph of CMIP5 global tropospheric temperatures (5-year averages) versus satellite and weather balloon observations. These predictions are for the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5, a moderate case. Source: House of Representatives report by Dr. John Christy.

Nearly all the models overestimate current tropospheric temperatures, the average is too high also. The only model that comes close to the observations is the Russian model, INM-CM4. This model is structurally different from the others. Relative to the other models, it assumes a much smaller climate sensitivity to CO2 and a larger climate inertia, due to the oceans and their large heat (storage) capacity. INM-CM4 does not predict dangerous or expensive warming. All the curves are smoothed to eliminate short term changes, like El Ninos, since climate is defined as a long-term state, that is, greater than thirty years.

Economic Forecasts

So, we’ve established that the current climate forecasts are problematic and that they probably overestimate the climate impact of increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Given this, one would think that taking the average output of these forecasts and feeding it into economic models to determine the impact of climate change on our economy would be problematic as well. But this is exactly what climate change economists do.

Benefits of global warming and additional CO2

In discussions of climate change, the rather obvious benefits of global warming and additional CO2 are often ignored. Yet, global warming and additional CO2 have increased the amount of land under cultivation and increased farm yields. The additional CO2 has also caused the planet to become greener as measured by total leaf area. This is discussed here and in the post’s links and references. Additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes plant leaves to have fewer stomates or breathing holes in their leaves, this causes plants to use less water and makes them more resistant to extreme temperatures and droughts. Warming increases the Earth’s vegetative area and the additional CO2 causes plants to move into areas where they previously could not survive. It also allows plants to survive at higher altitudes on mountain sides because there is more CO2 available at any given air pressure and air pressure decreases with altitude. The effect of altitude on photosynthesis is very complex, but the partial pressure of CO2 is a key component.

These physiological changes to plants, due to rising levels of CO2, have increased crop yields dramatically. Combined with improved fertilizers and rapidly spreading advanced farming technology, this has resulted in far less hunger in the world today. This is true even though the population has increased. Dr. Craig Idso has computed the monetary benefit of additional CO2 here. In Table 3 of Idso’s report (page 11) he calculates that between 1961 and 2011, CO2 has increased farm gross revenues, for the top 45 crops, by an astonishing three trillion constant 2004-2006 U.S. dollars. The crops showing the largest increase were rice, wheat and grapes. These crops saw increases of US$579 billion, US$274 billion and US$270 billion respectively.

World population growth peaked at about 2.2%/year in 1963 and has been falling ever since. The actual growth peaked in 1989 at 88,000,000 people and this quantity has also been falling since then. Even so the global population is larger today than at any time in the past, mainly because people live longer today. Today’s population is around 7.8 billion people, more than twice as many as in 1961, yet people today have more food per person, not less, as seen in Figure 3. Part of this increase in food supply is additional CO2 and warmer weather.

Figure 3. Total kilocalories (food Calories) of food per person around the world. Data source FAOSTAT.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 today is about 400 ppm or 0.04% of the atmosphere. We are seeing the benefits to food production, farm productivity and the greening of our planet as I write this. There is no suggestion that the rate of farm productivity growth, due to increasing CO2, will fall anytime soon. Plant productivity, due to increasing CO2 will increase at least until the CO2 concentration has more than doubled from today’s level, as seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Dr. Sherwood Idso holds signs showing the additional CO2 concentrations used to grow four Eldarica Pines. The photo was taken by Sherwood Idso’s son, Dr. Craig Idso in 1989. The tree grown at “AMB” or ambient conditions on the left was grown with a concentration of about 350 ppm, the concentration in the atmosphere then. The tree on the far right, was grown in an atmosphere of 800 ppm CO2, twice the concentration we have today. Used with Craig Idso’s permission.

Thus, we have every expectation of continued growth in our food supply and aerable land area due to higher CO2 concentrations for the forseeable future. The CO2 concentration is currently increasing at a rate of about 2 ppm per year at Mauna Loa (see here), so it is unlikely reach 800 ppm in less than 200 to 300 more years, assuming some increased uptake by plant life. Other benefits of warming include lower heating costs in the winter and fewer deaths due to cold weather.

Climate Change Hazards

The most recent IPCC report on the hazards of global warming and additional CO2 is entitled Global Warming of 1.5°C. It was published in 2018 and the downside risks of additional warming and CO2 we will discuss next come from this document. We will focus on the key assertions from the “Summary for Policymakers.”

The first assertion in the document:

“Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.” (A.1, Page 6, Summary for Policymakers)

This estimate is based on climate models as discussed here. Figure 5 shows the HadCRUT4 global temperature record. It is produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The NASA dataset closely tracks this dataset, as can be seen here.

Figure 5. The HADCrut 4.0 global surface temperature dataset. Source: Met Office Hadley Centre.

The HadCRUT global surface temperature record shows a decreasing temperature trend of negative 0.0016 degrees per year from 1850 through 1910, an increasing temperature trend of 0.0138 degrees per year from 1910 to 1944, then decreasing again at a negative 0.0026 degrees per year from 1944 to 1977, and increasing again from 1977 to 2019 at a rate of 0.017 degrees per year. It is possible that a flattening of the temperatures started about 2000, but the 2016 El Nino appears to fit in with continued warming, only time will tell if we have flattened longer term or moved into another cooling trend. The trends displayed in Figure 5 start in 1850 in what we are assuming is the pre-industrial era, at -0.3°C and end in 2019 at +0.7°C. So, in this document, the IPCC is claiming that 100% of the warming is due to humans. This is somewhat at odds with their WG1 AR5 assertion:

“It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half the observed increase in GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] from 1951 to 2010.” WG1, AR5, Page 60.

Figure 5 presents the current rate of warming as 0.0171°C per year. This is 1.7°C per century or 0.5°C in thirty years. So, if the current warming trend, as determined by a least square’s regression of the data since 1977, continues for another thirty years, we will achieve 0.5°C of additional warming. This is what the IPCC is claiming, 2050 is within the range they give in the report. It will be interesting to find out if that happens.

WG1 AR5 says more than half of the warming since 1950 is due to human activities and Global Warming of 1.5°C says all of it is due to humans. The difference in the two assertions is not explained in the Summary for Policymakers. In WG1 AR5, they explain that uncertainty prevents them from being more precise. But, even in WG1 AR5, they assumed that natural forces did not play a role in modern warming (see Figure 6 and the explanation here). In Figure 6, “NAT” are natural forces, such as solar variability, and “Internal Variablity” are natural climate oscillations, like the El Nino/La Nina events. They assume that over periods of sixty years, these natural fluctuations sum to a zero effect, many others disagree as you can see here. Longer term climate cycles, that is longer than 60 years, have been well documented and longer-term solar cycles appear to correlate with them, although there is a furious debate about this in the Wattsupwiththat community. Thus, the IPCC assumption of zero natural influence on climate since 1951 has been seriously challenged by some. Other arguments against the assumptions illustrated in Figure 6 can be seen here and here.

Figure 6. The WG1 AR5 (page 66) likely ranges of warming forces, given in degrees C of warming, over the period from 1951 to 2010 due to greenhouse gases (GHG), humans (ANT), humans, except greenhouse gases (OA), natural forces (NAT) and internal variability.

The second assertion in the document:

“Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence).” (A.2, page 7, Summary for Policymakers)

They are simply saying that human emissions alone, to date, will cause warming of less than 1.5° for some time to come, even if we stop emitting CO2 today. No argument there. But, the magnitude of the impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions on climate is unknown. This statement, combined with the first assertion, like many others from the IPCC, implies we know the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions on climate with a fair degree of accuracy (±20%, or a “likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C”) and we do not. The impact of CO2 alone, is only known to ±50% (1.5° to 4.5°C per doubling of CO2) according to WG1 AR5, page 14.

The third assertion:

“Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C (high confidence). These risks depend on the magnitude and rate of warming, geographic location, levels of development and vulnerability, and on the choices and implementation of adaptation and mitigation options (high confidence).” (A.3, page 7, Summary for Policymakers)

Given that warming to date has benefited humankind, made the planet greener, and supplied us with more food, why would we characterize 0.5° to 1°C of additional warming as a risk? Wouldn’t it be more logical and accurate to characterize warming, to date, as a benefit? Further, “climate-related risks” for whom? Aren’t deaths due to cold a “climate-related risk?” More people die from cold weather than warm weather.

The fourth assertion:

“Climate models project robust differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C. These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence), heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence).” (B.1, page 9, Summary for Policymakers)

Laughably obvious and unalarming. If global average temperatures go up, hot extremes will increase in some regions, of course they will. There will be more precipitation in some areas, since higher temperatures generally lead to more precipitation, and colder temperatures lead to less. The probability of drought will increase in some regions, there is always a drought somewhere, so this is obvious as well.

Later in the document they go further and speculate that risks from droughts are projected to be higher at 2°C of warming than at 1.5°C in some regions. What part of global do they not understand? They are wording much of this in such a way as to make obvious statements sound alarming.

“By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre [4 inches] lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depend on future emission pathways. A slower rate of sea level rise enables greater opportunities for adaptation in the human and ecological systems of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas (medium confidence).” (B.2, page 9, Summary for Policymakers)

Sea level has been rising for the past 18,000 years, as shown in Figure 7. If we take the construction of the religious monuments at Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey as when civilization started, sea level has risen 60 meters (197 feet) since civilization began. The current rate of rise is very low at around 2 to 3 mm/year.

Figure 7. Sea level rise since the last glacial maximum. Author: Robert A. Rohde, source: Wikimedia.

For more on sea level rise see here. The recent rate of global sea level rise cannot be determined accurately since our instruments are only accurate to several centimeters and the rate is between one and three mm per year, or about 4 inches per century to 12 inches per century. These are not alarming rates and allow coastal residents and their descendants plenty of time to either move to higher ground or build defenses, such as sea walls. Sea level rise is not a global problem, it is a local problem. Do not expect to be taking photographs of the Statue of Liberty halfway under water in your lifetime or in the lifetimes of your great-great grandchildren regardless of climate change.

The next assertion:

“On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems and to retain more of their services to humans (high confidence).” (B.3, page 10, Summary for Policymakers)

This is obvious nonsense, colder weather leads to more extinctions, not warmer weather. See discussions here and here. The average temperature of the Earth’s surface for the past 500 million years, the age of complex life on Earth, called the Phanerozoic, is about 20°C (68°F), this is over 5°C (9°F) warmer than today. We are currently living in an Ice Age, which is a rare occurrence in the Earth’s history. A fact that drives this home is that mortality is much higher in the winter, at any location in the United States, than summer. As the Earth warms, there will certainly be more heat-related deaths, but the decline in cold-related deaths will be larger. Warming increases temperatures in winter more than in the summer. Warming also occurs more at high latitudes than low latitudes.

Discussion

The remaining assertions all depend upon the IPCC assumption that colder is better and warmer is bad. Further, and even more dishonest, is the assumption, against all evidence, that warming is always bad. They ignore abundant evidence that past warming has been beneficial.

B.4 suggests that warming will increase ocean temperatures and lower ocean pH or “increase ocean acidity.” It ignores the abundant evidence that corals and other ocean life have built-in methods of adapting to changing temperature and pH, as discussed here.

B.5 asserts that humans are at greater risk as temperatures rise, this is the opposite of what the summer/winter mortality data shows. Far too many studies seek alarming headlines by reporting absurd results, as discussed by Bjorn Lomborg:

“Journalists looking for alarming headlines get help from climate scientists who gloss over adaptation and from public-relations teams that know their audience. A 2018 paper looked at two scenarios. In the first, sea levels rise almost 3 feet during the next 81 years, yet no one thinks to change the height of a single dike anywhere in the world. That would cost $14 trillion globally a year.

The authors acknowledge this wouldn’t happen: ‘It is clear that all coastal nations have and will continue to adapt by varying degrees to sea level rise.’ In the second scenario, they try to account for adaptation, though they assume that as soon as any nation gets as rich as Romania is today, it will freeze its efforts.” (WSJ, May 30, 2019)

The IPCC and the climate alarmist community have become experts in framing the discussion to avoid any conclusions that are different from their political agenda. They avoid any discussion of evidence that warming is beneficial or that adaptation is preferable to or cheaper than mitigation.

Section C discusses how to achieve zero greenhouse emissions by 2050, which the IPCC believes is necessary to limit temperature increases to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial era. They do not show why this is necessary, nor do they prove why limiting greenhouse emissions will achieve what they say. After all, we might warm 1.5°C due to natural forces. Section C is a discussion of model results, but as we have seen the climate models have not been validated against observations.

Section D is a logical bait-and-switch. They stop discussing observations, assume their models are perfect, change the goal from improving the planet and humankind to achieving their strawman goal of keeping global surface temperatures from exceeding 1.5°C.

We have seen that warming, particularly warming from 1.5° to 2.0°C from the pre-industrial era, will almost certainly benefit humankind and nature. There could be some economic consequences in the far future, beyond the year 2100, but they will be small relative to the economic consequences of eliminating or radically curtailing the use of fossil fuels.

The cost of mitigation

Mitigation, or the reduction in CO2 emissions in the hope that this will reduce the rate of warming, is extremely expensive as Bjorn Lomborg, Nobel laureate William Nordhaus and economics Professor Richard Tol have written. Richard Tol has written that climate change will have a limited impact on the world economy prior to the year 2100. Regardless of the IPCC warnings about man-made greenhouse gas emissions causing dangerous warming, Nobel laureate William Nordhaus has said that the costs of their proposed CO2 cuts are not worth it.

The IPCC refuses to compare the costs of ending the use of fossil fuels to the costs that might be incurred if temperatures rise. However, according to Bjorn Lomborg and the IPCC, the cost of potential warming might be 0.2% to 2% of global GDP, but as noted above that is not a problem, it is perhaps nine months or so of growth. Yet ending fossil fuels would cost the EU 24% of its wealth. Lomborg notes:

“the over-the-top reception to the latest IPCC report means that we are more likely to continue down a pathway where the costs [of mitigation] would vastly outweigh the benefits [of curtailing climate change].” WSJ, October 9, 2018

Perhaps this issue is clearer when we discuss energy poverty. This is defined by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as a family that spends more than 10% of its income on energy. Ten percent of Americans are in energy poverty and in Germany, which has very high energy costs due to their reliance on renewables, more than 30% of the citizens are in energy poverty. Calls for the government to do more to curtail the use of fossil fuels are disguised as selfless calls to action, but they disproportionately punish the poor.

Conclusions

The hysterical statements of an impending climate doom in 12 years are not supported by observed changes to date. The report does prove that the level of BS rises with report length, but it does not say the world will end in 12 years.

What the report does say, is that we might reach 1.5°C of warming, since the pre-industrial era in the Little Ice Age, by sometime between 2030 and 2052. We place the beginning of the pre-industrial era at about 1850 when the HadCRUT global surface temperature record starts. The world’s surface has warmed about one degree since then, so they are saying we could warm an additional 0.5°C by 2030 to 2052. They claim this might cause some serious problems, but present no evidence of this danger, only unvalidated computer model projections and speculation. They ignore the abundant data that shows humankind is benefiting from the warming to date and will probably benefit from warming in the future (see here). As Professor Richard Tol (University of Sussex) has written:

“The impact of climate change on the economy and human welfare is likely to be limited at least in the 21st century.” (The quote, a discussion of his results and the link to his paper can be seen here.)

There is nothing new in Global Warming of 1.5°C. They rehashed the IPCC AR5 report and changed the “dangerous” temperature increase from 2° to 1.5° as a stunt to make the “danger point” appear to be sooner. The IPCC has presented no evidence that 2°C above the temperatures in the Little Ice Age are dangerous, much less 1.5°. This document is not a scientific document, but political propaganda.

145 thoughts on “Do We Really Have Only 12 Years to Live?

      • I submit that the apocalyptic timeframe is shorter due to microwave saturation with no place to hide except below ground:
        On January 25, 2020, environmental groups conducted more than 210 events in over 200 cities Their goal is to stop the deployment of millions of 5G antennas on Earth and 50,000 5G satellites in space, and to secure emergency high-level meetings with officials in governments and international governmental organizations including the European Union, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization. The issue is microwave radiation, which has been steadily intensifying for over two decades courtesy of the wireless revolution. 5G will bring a huge increase in radiation, virtually overnight, everywhere —in cities, suburbs, parks, nature preserves, wildlife refuges, oceans, Greenland, and Antarctica. Instead of cell towers every few miles, there will be cell towers—small but powerful—in front of every third to fifth home. Instead of 2,000 satellites orbiting the Earth, there will shortly be 50,000.The organizers of the events include people who have already been so severely injured by wireless devices that they can no longer participate in society at all. They are fighting for their own lives, the lives of their children, and the lives of the insects, birds, animals, and all of us submit that electrosmog poses a more significant danger with a narrower timeframe:

      • Kiribati is still here with their never-ending begging-bowl out though … are we sure this thing is really happening?

      • Art, you posted: ” . . . we only have 10 left now.”

        Actually, the “12-years-left” statement was made by AOC in Jan 2019 (check out the date on the second link given in the above article). That means, by her accounting, that we still have 11 years left now.

        Whew! . . . you had me worried there for a minute.

        • now I have the stress of figuring out what I am going to do with that extra year … thanks for nothing Gordon.

    • For the love of God, people, haven’t you figured out YET that NONE of this has anything to do with “the science” or “the evidence?” It’s now a secular religion being weaponized to stampede the human “herd” off a cliff, it’s as simple as that. Astroturf from top to bottom, with a lot of useful idiots like AOC in between.

      True Believers don’t WANT to be persuaded that all this is hooey; because that would invalidate the “virtue” on which their hard-won social status depends. They’re not going to read your graphs and your math and your evidence because THEY DON’T CARE–anymore than you can convince a creationist that the world is older than 7K years.

      What they need is PUSHBACK in strong, ungloved terms–to be told the American people ARE NOT on board with their world redistribution scheme, and if they want to scare themselves and their children senseless they can knock themselves out. But if they come for OUR money, energy, etc. they’re going to get a fight that will make the Gilets Jaunes look like house pets.

    • AOC’s doomsday is already a self-admitted lie – sorry, she said she was ‘joking’ – and that anyone who believed her was an idiot – probably the closest to a factual statement that she’s made.

      But she wasn’t joking – she pumped that message hard for months to get the scare out there – just like Goebbels – and now it’s in the public.

    • Greta Also talks about 12 years
      From the Guardian:
      Our house is on fire. I am here to say, our house is on fire.
      According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), we are less than 12 years away from not being able to undo our mistakes. In that time, unprecedented changes in all aspects of society need to have taken place, including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50%.

  1. People have been living in hot dry places for thousands of years. It’s not the end of the world, just the end of the cushy lifestyle.
    The 12 years or whatever number they make up doesn’t matter. What matters is who actually believes it. It might be the only thing not blamed on the Russians.

  2. It has been said, and no one knows who said it first, that when a headline is followed by a question mark, the answer is always No!

    Nevertheless, this is a well constructed essay (having read it quickly), so thanks Andy.

    I’ll check back tonight, as I’m trying to get some things done for which I need daylight.

    [ ….unlikely reach 800 ppm in less than 300 more years.
    But 2 x 200 = 400; that needed to get to 800.
    Or what did I miss? ]

    • That was my first thought reading the headline. 12 years gets me to 78.

      I remember in school, the campus film society ran Dr. Strangelove one week. They had a handout commenting that everybody was afraid of atom bombs, and then pointed out that since the bomb was developed billions of people had died of other causes. Quite a few people die from weather, climate not so much. Relatively, the number is negligible.

  3. CO 2 has minimal effect on global temperature.
    These people are either insane ( All Out Crazy) or very, very stupid ( Proper Charley).

  4. Nice post. The only problems are that it is fact based and logical, two concepts utterly foreign to AOC, Prince Charles, and their alarmist ilk.

    The CAGW nonsense is now finally burning itself out. The older scare stuff didn’t work any better than renewables. The more Warmunists double down on gloom and doom now (AOC and Green New Deal) the more ridiculous they look to the rest of us.

    • More people are figuring out that all the increase has come from China and the developing world…

      ..and the more the little communists twist and turn to keep from blaming China..the more obvious it gets that’s it’s a $c@m

    • It is a skillful propaganda plus pseudo-science. Dr. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of the campaign. To detect an Orwellian effect, just run a query for The Art of Propaganda on Amazon. In the first page of results, there is no reference to Goebbels. So you can’t (or shouln’t) know how the barrage of propaganda was inspired.

    • It’s becoming obvious to more and more people that wind and solar won’t work. If you google nuclear power only solution you get around half the hits saying that nuclear is the only viable way to replace fossil fuels. The other half insist, for various reasons, that it isn’t. The first hit says conservation is the way to go so it isn’t advocating for wind and solar.

      As far as I can tell, the tide is turning in favor of nuclear. The alarmists have a problem. For political reasons, they have ginned up the climate crisis as an excuse to implement their socialist agenda. Of course the population believes the real problem is CO2 and any solution that addresses CO2 is as good as any other solution. Oops. If nuclear solves the CO2 problem, there’s no crisis. If there’s no crisis the excuse for the socialist agenda evaporates. Then the alarmists have to go to all the work of ginning up another crisis. Aw, too bad. (imagine a crocodile tear emoji here)

        • It’s surprisingly simple to get some fusion. link

          … all it takes is a vacuum tube, a pair of electrodes, and a high-voltage transformer; fusion can be observed with as little as 10 kV between electrodes.

          The problem is that the vast majority of particles find a way to lose their energy that doesn’t result in a fusion producing collision.

          Anyway, I agree that the current approaches to fusion energy are probably barking up the wrong tree.

        • @rbabcock

          The reason that aneutronic proton + 11 Boron fusion isn’t powering the world is that it’s very difficult. It’s not that it’s new or novel, or “radical”.

          The hard part of fusion is forcing the charged nuclei together in the face of like-charge repulsion. For deuterium-tritium fusion, you need 13.6 keV energy. That’s really hot. For proton-Boron fusion, you need about ten times higher energy. Your link references a laser heating/confinement reactor scheme that’s usually called “inertial confinement”. It’s not new or novel. it doesn’t change how much energy is needed. There’s nothing you can do to make p-B fusion work easier than D-T fusion. If your lasers are better, it’s still easier to do D-T than p-B. D-T is easier to fuse. That will not change.

          The plus side of p-B and other aneutronic fusion paths is that they do not produce most of their energy in a hot neutron that will go zinging into your reactor wall causing all manner of damage and making it radioactive, and generally hard to collect the energy. So it has that attraction. But, as said, it’s really hard to do.

    • Rud, my spiele these days with China, India, Africa, Russia…. going ahead with rapid fossil fuel energy expansion is we are going to go ahead with the big CO2 experiment no matter what the EU, UK, Canada, Australia.. does.

      We are going to know precisely what TCS/ECS is and if there is something to worry about. So why should the minority wipe out its own prosperity for no benefit to the world. Me, I think so far the best bet is on a Garden of Eden Earth, green, prosperous, well fed and likely peaceful with peak population only decades ahead.

  5. If I have to share the place with the likes of Lewandowsky, Cook, Ocasio – Cortez, Oreskes etc I am not sure I want to live that much longer. The Moon or Mars would seem a more amenable place.

    • Not me.
      I can live an extremely long and happy bunch of more years with those people making complete jackasses of themselves with their every utterance.
      For one thing, it brings a degree of clarity to the world to have a subject such as this one, that causes so many individuals to out themselves as weak minded dolts, shameless liars, outright thieves, various flavors of control freaks, swill-sucking rent seekers, nest feathering sinecurists, and all of their various lackeys, toadies, sycophants, brownnosers, bootlickers, and apple polishers.
      Not to mention bad scientists and total moronicuses ( or is it moronici?).

      • Nicholas, thankyou for pointing out the bright side of the situation.

        I am reborn. I will mow the lawn tomorrow then have a chat with the landscaper and try and pin down the builder as to when he can start on the kitchen and barhroom.

        I will put up a large picture of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and laugh while I sip on a cold beer and throw darts at it while enjoying my new outdoor patio…

      • Nicholas McGinley – February 23, 2020 at 9:46 pm

        Not me.

        I can live an extremely long and happy bunch of more years with those people making complete jackasses of themselves with their every utterance.

        Shure you can, Nicholas McG, …… and that’s exactly what the smart people in Venezuela thought when socialist policies were being implemented by dictators Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro.

        From being the richest country in South America, ….. 2 out of every 3 of the remaining population are now going hungry.

      • I agree . . . and even recommend stockpiling popcorn for the AGW song and tap dance show that will follow in the next 5-10 years if we enter something approaching a Little Ice Age cooling period, which is more and more likely as many scientifically-sound, climate-driving cycles/processes converge toward that outcome.

      • Nicholas: Precisely, this is the best sociological/psychological experiment ever done. I’ve long thought that John Cook of the 97% consensus is essentially right, that only 3% at most do any thinking and the wonders of the world came out of the imagination and thinking of this small number (even probably fewer).

        Dissidents in the Soviet Union were from this small number. I have no problem with the wokies own idea that 3% are effectively preventing most of the 97% from destroying themselves by preventing them from peomulgating imbecilic policies.

  6. Andy,
    No we don’t have only 12 years to live nor will there be any climate catastrophes before or after 2030.
    My authority is Dr. Myles Allen, Lead Author of the IPCC –
    “Why protestors should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric”, The Conversation, 19 April, 2019, republished in The Guardian.

    • Doesn’t the climate break down every morning when the sun hits it, then it reconstructs itself? And it’s done that billions of times? And it will do so again today?

      Let me know the conditions in which it won’t!..Meanwhile, y’all have a good day!

  7. Nice post, Andy May!
    One problem… You can’t educate and convince irrational, emotional ‘AOC’ style idiots using hard data and verifiable science. They ‘know’ better, from their non-science and fact free perspective. It would be easier to teach a walrus to ride a bicycle. Much easier…..

    • Spot on.

      There is just no point in trying to “remedy” people who are suffering from a cult mentality.

      It is said that humans have a herd instinct, and go mad in crowds, but “recover” one at a time.

      This current cult mentality (AGW) could take a while to pass this time – (un)socia media, and all that.

  8. Actually, “their” message has been, and continues to be, we have X years before it will be too late to avoid whatever we are encouraged to fear. I’ve been hearing this crap about one thing or another since Erlich’s population bomb in the 60s and “they” just continue to move the drop dead date as people continue to ignore “their” attempts to acquire wealth and power.
    How many times have Prince Chuck, AGore and the rest of “them” readjusted “their” prognostication? But like Erlich and the ozone layer, acid rain, polar bears … “they” will claim that doomsday has been avoided because of “their” activism.
    The problem really lies with the media and their refusal to report empirical truths (about anything). The media, like politicians, need our fear to maintain their power.

    • Czechlist – February 23, 2020 at 3:00 pm

      Actually, “their” message has been, and continues to be, we have X years before it will be too late to avoid whatever we are encouraged to fear. I’ve been hearing this crap about one thing or another since Erlich’s population bomb in the 60s and …….

      But, but, ….. Czechlist, …… the Christian church has been touting that same message for 2,000+ years.

      Its tuff to compete with “fear & ignorance”.

  9. Who sells you what?

    Would you buy cash on the spot a full price Rolex or a brand new driven only to church Benz from a guy that hangs by the fried chicken stand ?

    Would you enlist in a “get rich in a week” internet school of business?

    So then why should you buy “scientific facts” that even eminent scholars can not defend from celebrities whose mains business is public relations ?

    It’s all a question of common sense and it’s short supply for some.

  10. WG1 AR5 says more than half of the warming since 1850 is due to human activities …

    Andy, should that read 1950 instead of 1850?

  11. What if we get a Lake Toba like supervolcano eruption in Yellowstone in the next 10 years? It COULD happen. Is it likely to happen? Probably as likely as any of the other Global Climate change “coulds”. I see that Price Harry has just bought a $7 million estate in Malibu. Hasn’t Prince Charles told him about the coming catastrophic rise in sea level?
    Seems there is a major disconnect between what people say and what people do.

    • Except for the beach front homes, Malibu is fairly high above sea level.
      Most of Southern California has a fairly sharp rise in elevation just inland of the beach. Large section have a steep and high cliff that fronts the beach, while in other places it is more of a bluff and then a steep incline.
      Besides, California has a coastline of emergence. That is why it has that topography to begin with.
      Not much SLR there.
      The alarmism is nonsensical blather when viewed in juxtaposition to actual reality.
      Unless it is directly on the beach, the odds are close to 100% that it will be destroyed in an earthquake or by fire long before the ocean ever touches the property…which will probably be never.
      And if it is on the beach, erosion, landslides, or flooding during a storm will be the dangers…not inches per century sea level changes.

    • Since I live just 60 miles from the crater’s rim, a Yellowstone eruption is one of the few situations that will cause my personal climate to break down! Hopefully, I’l be gone before that happens!

  12. “This calculation needs to be done at some chosen future date, the date should be far enough in the future that some positive costs could occur, but not so far in the future as to invalidate our climate and economic projections.”
    Dr. Mototaka Nakamura, an expert in meteorological modeling, says” It is a delusion to believe that simulation models that lack important nonlinear processes in the real climate system can predict the sense or direction of the climate change correctly.”
    As cogent and well written as this post is I have to agree with Dr. Nakamura and Pat Frank who told us the models tell us nothing about the future. If the model simulated future plays out like these models think is possible, Andy’s analysis is as good as they come.

  13. To the climate protesters who say we have only 12 years left to live, I say, “Don’t worry, you’ll still be collecting your welfare check long after 12 years have passed.”

    • Since then she has been more likely to reiterate her original BS than to strike a more moderate tone.
      In other news, since she discovered this past Summer that plants grow out of dirt, she has wondered why the U.S. is so racist when it comes to agriculture, lamenting how we grow so little plantain, manioc, and such, due to every being a bunch of racisses’.
      I am hoping she finds out why at some point.

    • ..and that is exactly why I believe AOC is a capital T shy of a full TACO!

      With any luck, she won’t be returning to Congress!

  14. AOC should try holding her breath until it happens. I have looked at some of the data, a 0.2 degree Celsius temperature rise since the start of the Industrial Revolution does not make a climate catastrophe. This prediction is just as unlikely as the previous 12 and 10 years predictions that have come and gone of which there have been many.

  15. Even if man-made climate change was twice as bad as the alarmists claim, liberalism would still be far more dangerous and destructive.

  16. I’m just sayin …. I wish articles here would stop referencing the out of date spaghetti graph that stops in 2015. We have at least three more years of complete data. Granted, the data is probably crap, just like all the rest of it, but at least it is data.

  17. it is essential to remember that the climate change movement has nothing to do with the climate they are not interested in the temperature or CO2 or sea level rise they are interested in implementing their One World communist government nothing else. They intend to do this by destroying the economies of the Western world. Then proposing radical Solutions which always lead to communism.

  18. What do all these “deadlines’ have in common?
    They are never reached.
    There is always time to “ACT” if we just give them the power and authority to do so .
    NOW! Before it’s too late!
    Claimed “Tipping Points” that have passed? The science was settled then. We’ve learned more since then.
    “Political Science’ won’t doom the planet (cue George Carlin) but it will make life a living hell for the rest of us.

  19. Whatever your views on climate change, a problem or a hoax, none of these statements say the world is going to end in 12 years. They state that if nothing is done by twelve years, the changes will be irreversible, and /or the world will end sometime after that. I take ‘the world’ to mean the world as we know it, not that the planet is going to disappear from the universe.

    I do wish that climate sceptics stopped behaving just like climate warmist – over-exaggerating.

    • ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,’ Ocasio-Cortez says
      – usatoday.com

      However, these absurd statements are not supported by even the most fanatical climate alarmists
      – wattsupwiththat.com

    • we only have 12 years to stop catastrophic climate change and our understanding that we have entered the 6th mass extinction event” (their bold) – Extinction Rebellion. They make no attempt whatsoever to prevent the impression being taken up by many vulnerable young people that the extinction event is in 12 years time.

    • Tom Foley,

      AOC said exactly that, here is her full quote (I abbreviated it in the post): “Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we’re like, ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ”

      I don’t take her seriously and I hope no one else does!

      Paraphrasing Michael Mann slightly, I intentionally tried to caricature the left’s concern about climate change. I other words, the title is partially a joke to ridicule the left. But, it also is partly serious, because a member of the U.S. House of Representatives actually said that, intentionally or not.

      His original quote: “to intentionally try to caricature the concern about climate change.”

      from here: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27082019/12-years-climate-change-explained-ipcc-science-solutions

  20. Ocasio-Cortez Rebuffs ‘Fact-Checkers,’ Says The World Ending In 12 Years Was ‘Dry Humor’

    Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez complained Sunday that GOP fact-checkers were taking her “dry humor” literally.

    “This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and ‘fact check’ it,” she tweeted. “Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal. But the GOP is basically Dwight from ‘The Office’ so who knows.”

    • A quote is a quote. Perhaps she should do standup, and not peddle in prophecies, to socially justify planned population schemes, immigration reform, trillions of dollars in redistributive change, single/central regimes, and other purposes.

      • That is just another lie she told neo, to cover up the first lie.
        The you tube video makes it quite obvious she was not employing humor.
        She said it was “our world war two”, and she was unthinking gravely, at length…not making a joke.
        When she claimed it was humor, she had never gone back to look at how she said it, or she might have come up with a more plausible lie.
        And Tom Foley, you are just wrong.
        She said it even more emphatically than your version of what she said, not less.
        And then called for deconstructing our entire economy and civilization, wrote up plans for an economic mobilization that would take literal control of every aspect of every life, from how and what we can eat and how often, to where and how we can live, how large of a dwelling (small) how many kids, how we can travel, how much hearing and cooling we will be permitted…
        Try reading the NGD, then explain again who is ‘over exaggerating’ (and who is being over-redundant while you are at it).
        It is apologists like you that allowed this crap to fester for 30 years, and still you act like there is little amiss from these maniacs. Are you aware that children are killing themselves on account of this crap?

        • the only ones killing themselves obviously have the “social intelligence of a sea sponge”, so it’s no big loss.

          (I wonder how many of her zealot followers were insulted by her lame attempt to take back her outright lie/exaggeration)

        • AOC’s comeback was as idiotic as her original claim–and equally false! She needs to learn that two wrongs seldom, if ever, make a right!

          The main problem is that her oiginal claim is belived by far more people than the number of people who have heard her denial, and likely will be forever–that’s how theses evil climate mongers roll!

          She should be held legally responsible for spreading disinformation designed to disrupt the body politic! I pesonally believe it qualifies as sedition, especially in the context of her Green New Deal and the Democrat’s more recent New Way Forward Act!

          She poisons the system at every opportunity and should be considered the insurgent traitor that she is, but of course would also deny! We must realize that open socialists/communists are easy to spot and are always consistent!…

          Consistently bad!

          • “She needs to learn that two wrongs seldom, if ever, make a right!”

            Perhaps, but three lefts do indeed make a right.

  21. Remind me? This entire yes/no/maybe/shrug/dunno conclusion has been drawing from the very pages of the IPCC report Greta DARES us to read?

    Make up your mind, Swedish Smallfry, does the IPCC tell us our dreams are being stolen, or that “Global economic impacts from climate change are difficult to estimate.” It seems to me that in your own words your own words tell us to be alert but not to actually panic.

    Nice one Greta.

    • Surely, a double-edged scalpel. Another one. They really should lose their religion, deny their mortal gods, and establish a religion that doesn’t conflate logical domains, deny individual dignity (i.e. diversity), deny intrinsic value (e.g. selective-child) and evolution, and normalize minority capital and control schemes.

  22. Many thanks for an excellent article. One to keep for those who believe the gloom and doom.

    Two comments/questions:

    1. Your “ It also allows plants to survive at higher altitudes on mountain sides because CO2 is denser than air, this causes the proportion of CO2 in air to decrease with altitude.” looks wrong to me. Surely, less CO2 at altitude is worse for plants not better.

    2. Your 60m of sea-level rise may possibly be correct for a particular location, but it seems unlikely. I understood that the global sea-level rise at the start of the Holocene was approx 120m over 21ky (5.6mm/yr).

    • Mike, The higher the concentration of CO2, the higher up the mountain adequate CO2 exists for plants. At 1200 ppm, plants can live at 14,000 ft or higher.

      Since about 11,000 BP, sea level has risen 60 meters. Your number is also correct, just a different starting point.

    • I am pretty sure when the ocean rises, at is everywhere, excepting for small variations due to wind and pressue, which cancel our ever time, and not counting changes in the land height, which is separate from the global ocean actually rising.

  23. The HADCrut 4.0 global surface temperature dataset is a distortion of the temperature record which “disappears” the warmth of the 1930’s and the cold of the 1970’s.

    Basing predictions on this false record gives false results.

    All unmodified regional temperature charts from around the world show that it was just as warm in the recent, recorded past, as it is today. There is no unprecedented warming. The bogus HADCrut 4.0 shows unprecedented warming when there is none, and is at odds with every unmodified regional chart.

    HADCrut 4.0 is exhibit no. 1 in the Human-Caused Climate Change Hoax.

  24. Andy May:

    The Hadcrut Temp. Chart which you show (Fig. 5) has a large, temporary temperature spike circa 1878.

    What is your explanation for this amazing anomaly?

  25. Andy;
    “because CO2 is denser than air, this causes the proportion of CO2 in air to decrease with altitude.”
    This is a very minor effect. Although atmospheric scale heights of gases depend on molecular weight, thus concentrating heavier gases toward lower altitudes, this only occurs in the stratosphere. Dominant vertical mixing in the troposphere overcomes this tendency. Regional variations in CO2 generation and uptake are more important.

    • donb, During the Little Ice Age, we were very close to the starvation CO2 concentration level, which is about 150 ppm at sea-level for most plants. That is why there are no plants high in the mountains. Now CO2 levels are rising, as they rise, plants can grow at higher altitudes. Remember as CO2 drops with altitude, total air drops, with this combination there is not enough CO2 above some level for plants to live. With more CO2, they can live higher. Your mixing idea, does not fix this problem, it is the total amount of CO2, at the given altitude, that matters.

      In more detail, lower CO2, more stomata, more loss of water. Lower pressure, more evaporation. See here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242168/

  26. “There is no suggestion that plant productivity growth, due to increasing CO2, will decline anytime soon….”
    I thought it useful to check at NASA to see what if any argument they could advance to dispute this.
    On February 12, 2019, NASA posted “Human activity in China and India dominates the greening of Earth, NASA study shows.”
    The paper cited is Chen et al 2019, “China and India lead in greening of the world through land use management”.
    In 2016 in Zhu et al it was universally agreed that the world was ‘greening’ not ‘browning’ and NASA had a post on that paper.
    At the conclusion of the NASA press release of February 12, this appears-
    “The researchers point out that the gain in greenness seen around the world and dominated by India and China does not offset the damage from loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions such as Brazil and Indonesia.The consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems remain.
    Overall, Nemani sees a positive message in the new findings. ‘Once people see there is a problem, they tend to fix it,” he said etc.”
    Is it just me or did a BS detector just go off.
    Brazil and Indonesia have suffered plant degradation that exceeds the 15% plus greening of the planet since 1990?
    Are there any papers that suggest this?

    • Herbert, Not to my knowledge. The sources I have all say greening is global, this would include Brazil and Indonesia.

  27. Co2 is good ! It increases crop yields and greens the planet ! If weather gets warmer just buy an AC unit. I’m so fed up with the doomsayers harping and nagging about co2. Give it a rest and let me live in peace and enjoy life.

    • Humans also benefit from higher concentrations of CO2.

      I have heard of studies on people who work in greenhouses to determine if the elevated CO2 levels employed there have any deleterious impact, and the results show humans also benefit from elevated concentrations of the plant-fertilizing gas!

  28. Depends on the political climate and how much further people’s IQ’s drop, how much they learn to deny reality and how the uber rich manipulate governments. Plus the flu epidemic is not a good sign. As for the weather-type climate killing us, nope.

  29. “It also allows plants to survive at higher altitudes on mountain sides because CO2 is denser than air, this causes the proportion of CO2 in air to decrease with altitude.”

    Is this true? I read that the atmosphere is pretty well mixed up to about 100 km altitude.

    • Farmer, The air pressure drops with altitude and this lowers the total CO2 available to plants, if the CO2 concentration is higher, they can live at a given air pressure. It’s the total available CO2 that matters. The main issue, is if the plant has enough stomata open to gather enough CO2, it loses too much water through them and dies. Evaporation occurs quicker at high altitude. Like most things with plant growth, it is complex in detail. But, with any given CO2 concentration, below some magic amount, likely around 1200 ppm, there will be an altitude in our mountains where plants cannot survive. See here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4242168/

      • Thanks Andy – I can understand that CO2 partial pressure is reduced at higher elevations proportional to total atmospheric pressure reduction. I question that CO2 density makes a difference because the atmosphere is well mixed below about 100 km. Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon have different molecular weights yet their relative concentrations are consistent up to about 100 km elevation.
        Molecular weights of gases in order of atmospheric abundance are:

        28.01 Nitrogen
        32.00 Oxygen
        39.95 Argon
        18.02 Water Vapor
        44.01 CO2

      • Farmer, I see your point. The air pressure reduction is probably the driving force. But, CO2 starvation at high altitudes is the main reason plants have an elevation limit.

  30. It is patently obvious that claims we now have only 10 years now before oblivion are scaremongering. Is that the beginning or the end of 2030 before it is all over and the world is turned in to ash? If it is the beginning of 2030, then we have (hyperventilate, hyperventilate) just 9 years , 10 months and 5 days (thank goodness for the extra day of the 2020 leap year) before we all die. If it is the end of 2030 before we all burn in flames, it is 10 years, 10 months and 5 days.
    Hyperventilate- we have only 130 months to sign up for a climate emergency and hand total world control over to the UN or the planet gets it. Help, help, scream,tantrum, soiled diapers.

  31. Notice that the Very Bad Thing in alarming predictions is always ten or twelve years away. This is close enough to scare people, but far enough out that it can’t be immediately dismissed as alarmism.

    For most adults, twelve years is likely to bring age-related diminutions of health, good looks and vitality. I am 68. In twelve years (assuming I don’t die), I’ll be 80. I probably won’t be able to walk unaided, or hear anything, or read a book and remember what I’ve read. I am pretty bummed about that, but I really don’t care about what will happen to the climate, as my health will be my biggest worry.

    Think what a consideration of future possibilities for the next twelve years would have meant to a citizen of Europe or North America in 1940. If you were a young man, there would be a significant probability that you would be killed in combat. If you were a civilian living in England or Germany, there would be a significant probability that you or someone you loved would be killed in a bombing raid, or that your country would be conquered by angry people who would then set about enslaving you. Except that those things were due to happen, not in twelve years, but in five.

    I mean come on: I live in Edmonton, and I know perfectly well that nothing bad is going to happen to the climate here. Has the climate here changed in any way that anyone would notice since 2008? No. So why would it change by 2030? On an intuitive level, that makes no sense. Unless you’re kind of a nut.

  32. well my question is why “scientist” who are diligent to correct any mistake from the skeptics don’t tell miss cortes what she said is wrong???

  33. AR5 also says man is the ‘dominant’ cause of warming.

    If there were 9 causes of warming, with 8 giving 10% each, and the last 20%, that last would be ‘dominant’, but a long way from over 50%.

  34. 12 year left is absurd but the sooner we act against global warming et cetera and places like Saudi, Brazil, Indonesia, China and India act the less draconian the solution will be. There is a tipping point but that is not clear. The sooner we abandon our ludicrous consumerist culture with high levels of mental illness the better. It is really time to mock Billionaires who do little to generate their wealth and drive a greedy political class to lick their feet.
    We need a change in values and the way we interact. Some of these ideas are found in Islam and others in Liberalism.

    • There is no tipping point, that’s just another “scary” supposed “possibility” trotted out to panic the weak-minded. Committing economic suicide today in order to ward off a completely unproven and, upon examination comparing assertions with facts, utterly absurd and imaginary “risk” in the future is cult-worthy insanity.

  35. Andy, part of the” 11 years to live” hysteria comes from the IPCC 450 and the 430 scenarios as shown in this graph:

    https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/co2-mauna-loa-projected.png

    People who take to the streets with signs forecasting doom in 11 or 12 years have fallen victim to IPCC 450 and 430 scenarios. For years activists asserted that warming from pre industrial can be contained to 2C if CO2 concentrations peak at 450 ppm. Last year, the SR1.5 lowered the threshold to 430 ppm, thus the shortened timetable for the end of life as we know it.

    A more likely projection suggests that, at most, we could see in the next 80 years a continutation of the last 60.
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/01/28/i-want-you-not-to-panic/

  36. Comedian Joe Machi, on Saturday’s (2/22/2020) Greg Gutfeld Show, had a great line. He said, “They say the world will end in 12 years due to global warming. I don’t know if that’s true, I’m not an actor.”
    *rimshot*

  37. “We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damages to our planet” (link)

    I remember being endlessly battered by that lie in 1998.

    We were in it deep, it was going to cost a fortune.

  38. Non alarmism for dummies.
    1. We are coming out of an ice age, and it is normal and good that temperature is increasing.
    2. There is no proof that CO2 is increasing temperature in a meaningful way. Possibly not at all.
    3. It is a physical law that more CO2 will come out of the ocean when it gets warmer. Like a hot soda.
    4. So most the CO2 increase we measure is probably from the sea, totally natural and not dangerous.
    5. CO2 is very good for the earth, the more the better. It is the building block for all life. It produces food. It greens the earth
    6. Getting as much fuel as possible out of the ground and using it is like charging earth’s battery. Nature will use the CO2 to produce plants that will nourish people and can be used for energy again and again.
    7. There is no reason to believe that reducing CO2 will have a meaningful impact on temperature. Maybe we can avoid 0,1 degree of warming, but that is much smaller than the uncertainty about how much earth will warm.
    8. There is no reason to believe that we will impact sea level rise by reducing carbon emissions. The ocean rises steadily with or without CO2. We just have to take measures to protect ourselves. Look at the Dutch. Most of them live happily below sea level. They will not sit and wait to be drowned by a few extra centimeters of sea level. They will build higher dikes/sea walls to protect themselves.
    9. There is no reason to think that catastrophic events will increase with a few degrees warming. There is no increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires, but media coverage makes it seem like that.
    10. Renewable sources have no chance of providing the energy we need. Solar panels produce nothing at night. Windmills produce nothing when there is little wind. Both use almost as much energy to produce as they can provide in their lifetime, and they will use enormous earth resources to produce, with a need to destroy a lot of nature through mining for iron and rare minerals. They will destroy a lot of nature where they are placed and will use areas close to half of the United States. And there is no possibility of having enough batteries or pumped storage to have enough power when it is needed.
    11. Use of fossil fuel has lead to all the prosperity we have. We use energy for everything related to a modern way of life. Without energy we would still be in the Stone Age. With the instability and impossibility of powering modern civilization with wind and solar, we will go back to Stone Age living.
    12. Much more CO2 is very good for plants and for feeding the world. Too little CO2 could mean the end of life on earth. Below 150 ppm, plants would all die and that wold be the end of life. Double the CO2 and we could feed double the population on earth.
    13. Cold kills more people than heat. Heart attacks and pneumonia can kill and take away several years of life for 10 times more people than heat can kill. And heatwaves in general take away only a few days of life for people who would have died within weeks anyway. So if we calculate days of life taken away by heat or cold we may say that cold takes away at the very least 10000% more days than cold. For every day alive taken by heat, at least 1000 days alive are taken by cold. So cold is at least 1000 times worse than heat when it comes to life or death.
    14. The oceans are very large and it will take much more CO2 than we can ever produce to make it slightly less alkaline. Daily variations in alkalinity are much bigger than what we can make the whole ocean change. And ocean life adapts to this challenge.
    15. If we should need to cool the earth, we could use aerosols, particles in the air. Volcanoes already lower temperature when they erupt. IPCC claim that temperature has been lowered 30% because of aerosols.
    16. Almost all of the predictions from the UN IPCC have so-called high confidence is 8 of 10 (80%). Normally researchers would be laughed at if they tried to publish something with 80% certainty. The very least accepted scientifically is 95% certainty (19 of 20). So none of the scary scenarios come even close to what would be considered science.

  39. There is also an inverse relationship between the size of earrings worn and the time to extinction prediction.

    Debate has ended so let it be written.

  40. Maybe I missed something, but I am continually amazed by scientists’ failure to get to grips with this.
    “Political propaganda”, the conclusion, smacks of “I haven’t a clue why they are doing this”.

    There is always a reason.

    So first question – why now, especially the recent hysteria?
    The “everything bubble”, way beyond the 2008 bubble, is about to burst with catastrophic outcomes for the globalized financial looting escapades of recent decades. Since 2015, B.of.England Governor Mark Carney recognized this openly, declaring the only way to go forward is with green investment, i.e. the GFI, mother of AOC’s GND. In other words the radical’s GND was born in a bank lobby. Midwives such as Leyen, Lagarde, AOC, Warren, Greta, are played just nicely! BlackRock is trimming the green hedging.

    Second – who would have the logistical depth to do full nation 24×7 green-washing? Well the MSM owners of course, same bank lobby, the ante-room of the Deep State Regime-Change Dept.

    Thirdly – who benefits? Well Sir mini-Mike Bloomberg let’s it all hang out – not farmers, nor miners, nor construction, nor manufacturing, nor science. Who might you ask then? Hint – not you, only a very few.

    Just imagine what Sir mini-Mike Bloomberg thinks of the scientific approach of the Article.

    • Succinctly :
      “THEIR” financial looting paradigm certainly does not have 12 years left, more like months.
      Making it OUR problem is THEIR priority – i.e. to loot us blind in broad daylight.

  41. They have no argument so they use lies and perversion. Scare tactics, promise of gifts and the destruction of morality , that is what they offer. All they want in return is your freedom at their generosity.

  42. According to the IPCC, as referenced in the above article: “Global economic impacts from climate change are difficult to estimate.”

    Not really. Consider the following:
    Based on scientifically-measured mean average annual temperature differences between the Earth’s poles and its equator, a 2 degrees Celsius average warming of Earth’s atmosphere and land surfaces would be equivalent to moving about 260 miles south in the northern hemisphere (and about 175 miles north in the southern hemisphere), or about 1000 feet lower in elevation in either hemisphere based on the standard atmospheric adiabatic lapse rate).
    So, does the climate, types of shelter, farming of crops and animals, difficulty of obtaining water and power, and overall quality of life change so much over such short distances (~200 miles north/south), or 1000 feet in elevation? I think not . . . and this is among the best possible examples of how a 2 deg C global temperature swing might actually affect life on Earth.

    If anything, such limited global warming will likely have a net-positive global economic impact as it will likely increase the probability of rain globally (thereby crop growth for most of the world) and reduce the total amount of fuel used to keep humans warm over the course of a year in the temperate latitudes.

  43. The temperature data set is 50% computational and it highly distorted.

    Computational data is manipulated data.

    Tony Heller of realclimatescience.com exposes how the IPCC is manipulating the data to create the false impression the global temperature is rising when it is not.

  44. Thank you, Andy May, for the excellent article on the scientific reasons why we don’t need to worry about global warming.

    There are more reasons, in addition to the high heat capacity of water, why additional CO2 in the air will not lead the Earth into thermal runaway.

    One reason is the high heat of fusion of ice. Climate alarmists are fond of saying that X amount of CO2 will lead to the warming of the atmosphere by Y degrees Celsius. But to heat 1 cubic meter of air at sea level pressure by 1 degree C requires about 310 calories of heat, while melting enough ice to produce 1 cubic meter of water requires about 80 million calories.

    The density of the atmosphere at sea level, at an assumed average temperature of 15 C, is about 1.25 kg/m3. The total mass of atmosphere above 1 m2 of sea surface is estimated at 10,330 kg, meaning that the effective height of the atmosphere (assuming it was all at sea level pressure) is 10,330 / 1.25 = 8,260 meters. In order to heat this column of air by 1 degree C would require 310 * 8,260 = 2.56 million calories, or enough heat to melt 0.032 cubic meters of ice, or (in a single square meter), 32 mm of depth of ice.

    Warming the atmosphere can only melt ice where the atmosphere is in contact with ice. The total area of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets is about 15.7 million square kilometers, while the area of the oceans is about 360 million square kilometers. If the entire atmosphere warmed by 1 degree C, the 32 mm of ice melted over 15.7 million km2 would spread out over 360 million km2, for an average depth of 32 * 15.7 / 360 = 1.4 mm.

    Depending on where they are measured, sea levels are rising at a rate of about twice that per year, so there are other effects (besides CO2 in the atmosphere) which may be causing the oceans to increase slightly in volume. But even if atmospheric temperatures did rise by 2 degrees C, melting ice caps would have a negligible effect on sea level, of about 2.8 mm.

    • If you are going to associate GSLR with warming surface atmospheric temperatures you also need to account for thermal expansion of ocean waters, if only over the first 100 feet or so of ocean depth.

      • My quick calculation says that if only the top 10 m of ocean volume increased uniformly in temperature by 0.1 C, the SLR from that thermal expansion would be 0.23 mm

      • Andy, thank you very much for providing the link to your most-excellent article on all the factors that contribute to global SLR. In particular, I appreciate (a) your reference to ocean temperature trends based on Argo floats, thereby discounting the Karl-ized data-contamination of factoring in ocean vessel engine water intake temperature measurements, and (b) your end summary of take-away points.

        You calculation of the range of net GSLR (1993-2010) due to thermal expansion rings true. Terrific!

  45. Someday, if the worst climate change computer projections turn out to be true, there may be a net cost.

    So in other words, There will never be a net cost. Since the “computer projections” assume all matter of “things not empirically demonstrated,” for which there is far more evidence against than for.

    Economic impact estimates completed over the past 20 years vary in their coverage of subsets of economic sectors and depend on a large number of assumptions, many of which are disputable, and many estimates do not account for catastrophic changes, tipping points, and many other factors.

    If this pile of manure was honest, it would read more like this:

    “Economic impact estimates completed over the past 20 years vary in their coverage of subsets of economic sectors and depend on a large number of assumptions, most of which are pure nonsense, and many estimates do not account for catastrophic changes, tipping points, and many other factors, none of which are remotely credible and for which there is no empirical support.

    So, in this document, the IPCC is claiming that 100% of the warming is due to humans. This is somewhat at odds with their WG1 AR5 assertion:

    “It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half the observed increase in GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] from 1951 to 2010.” WG1, AR5, Page 60.

    So, in other words, they are telling bald-faced LIES and hoping that nobody is paying attention.

    They assume that over periods of sixty years, these natural fluctuations sum to a zero effect, many others disagree as you can see here.

    LMFAO. Of course they “ASSUME” natural fluctuations sum to a zero effect. And ALSO think their assumptions are facts.

    Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence)

    What a crock of shit. The old “CO2 will persist for centuries to millenia” ASSUMPTION, based in turn on their “natural carbon cycle” ASSUMPTIONS of “balance” based on no data (of CO2 sources and sinks) and apples-to-scorpions comparisons of “proxy” CO2 levels to modern atmospheric CO2 level measurements (for the overstated amount of increase). What a house of cards.

    The remaining assertions all depend upon the IPCC assumption that colder is better and warmer is bad. Further, and even more dishonest, is the assumption, against all evidence, that warming is always bad. They ignore abundant evidence that past warming has been beneficial.

    BINGO! They keep trying to scrub from memory how all the previous warm climate periods of the Holocene, each one going back in time warmer than the ones that followed, were called “Climate Optimums.” [I guess in the IPCC dictionary, “optimum” means “bad.”/sarc] Warmer climate is, and has always been, the BEST climate for life on Earth of all kinds. It is truly laughable how they cling to this fantasy of warming being “bad.” Check the biodiversity of the equator vs. the poles, and hit me again with how that warmer climate means LESS biodiversity thing works. Again, a MODELING exercise that just starts with all the wrong assumptions and feeds them into a computer. GIGO again.

    The IPCC and the climate alarmist community have become experts in framing the discussion to avoid any conclusions that are different from their political agenda. They avoid any discussion of evidence that warming is beneficial or that adaptation is preferable to or cheaper than mitigation.

    I think that sums it up nicely, except I’d have to change it to read “that adaptation is preferable to AND cheaper than mitigation”. I can’t read any more because it makes me see red.

  46. “Will we have fusion power in thirty years?” They (whoever that is) have been saying will we will, since about 1920. Mañana for sure.

    The Doomsday Clock has been at minutes to Doom for years. Clearly the clock isn’t ticking.

    The Population Bomb has been ticking steadily since 1968 (Ehrlich) and 1798 (Mathus), but the world is still here.

    The list of “we only have X years to fix the climate” claims is long, too long for me to list. It would be interesting to see what the trend is in X over the years. Hansen was worried for his grandchildren. Greta has already decided she has no future.

    If X is 100, who cares? not my problem.
    If X is 30, who cares? we still have lots of time to fix it.
    If X is 10, it’s too late to do anything anyway.

    They picked 12. Which worked for the Revolution Now crowd. Nothing will happen that will fix the climate, but lots of things will happen that we will all regret. Welcome to Venezuela.

    Clearly, this is not something that can be successfully countered with science and reason. It is not a matter of facts. The people who make up these numbers won’t read articles which prove them wrong. More importantly, the people who believe these things do not have the science and reason to understand them even if they happened to read them.

  47. Begging your pardon, but I would suggest that you edit
    “implies we know the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions on climate with a fair degree of accuracy (±20%, or a “likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C”) and we do not.”
    to
    “implies both • that we *do* know the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions on climate with a fair degree of accuracy (±20%, or a “likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C”) and • that we *do not* [know the impact].”
    (or similar), to make the point more obvious. (I always highlight “not”, because it is easy to miss it occasionally.)
    (Possibly I have overdone it a bit.)

Comments are closed.