Guest essay by Eric Worrall
More evidence the United Nations would like to make the Covid-19 lockdown permanent.
Fall in COVID-linked carbon emissions won’t halt climate change – UN weather agency chief
22 April 2020
Climate ChangeAn expected drop in greenhouse gas emissions linked to the global economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is only “short-term good news”, the head of the UN weather agency said on Wednesday.
“This drop of emissions of six per cent, that’s unfortunately (only) short-term good news”, said Professor Petteri Taalas, World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Secretary-General, in reference to a 5.5 to 5.7 per cent fall in levels of carbon dioxide due to the pandemic, that have been flagged by leading climate experts, including the Center for International Climate Research. World Meteorological Organization✔@WMO
In the 50 years since the first #EarthDay, #climatechange has accelerated, reaching a new peak in the past 5 years, which were the hottest on record. That trend is expected to continue. We need to show the same solidarity and science for #ClimateAction as against #COVID19 pic.twitter.com/moMGFJqk5Q
— World Meteorological Organization (@WMO) April 22, 2020Once the global economy begins to recover from the new coronavirus, WMO expects emissions to return to normal.
“There might even be a boost in emissions because some of the industries have been stopped”, the WMO head cautioned.
…
Read more: https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1062332
The United Nations simply doesn’t care about the pain ordinary people have endured from the lockdowns, because lockdown laws don’t apply to them. A permanent extension of lockdown laws would not affect the personnel or operations of the United Nations.
…
Section 11: Representatives of Members to the principal and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences convened by the United Nations, shall, while exercising their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the following privileges and immunities :
(a) immunity from personal arrest of detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind;
(b) inviolability for all papers and documents;
(c) the right to use codes and to receive papers or correspondence by courier or in sealed bags;
(d) exemption in respect of themselves and their spouses from immigration restrictions, alien registration or national service obligations in the state they are visiting or through which they are passing in the exercise of their functions;
(e) the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions as are accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions;
…
From THE CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, 1946
The only risk for the bureaucrats who run the United Nations is that one day it might all come to an end, they might be held to account for their arrogance and incompetence. Thanks largely to President Trump the United Nations is having a few money problems. Let us hope President Trump extends his moratorium on funding the UN WHO to the entire United Nations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The UN still bases their CO2 life span in the atmosphere at 100 years. They don’t feel a blip or other reduction will be seen anywhere. With mankind’s contribution being about or less than 3%, this allows them the luxury of saying, see we’re right if no discernible dip is identified.
Rhs,
The CO2 life span is about 50 years, calculated over the past 60 years of data from Mauna Loa. The UN assumes much longer life spans for part of our CO2, but that is based on the Bern model, which assumes a saturation of the sinks (true for the ocean surface, false for the deep oceans and vegetation).
Human contribution is about 4% nowadays, but as human sinks are near absent (some reforestation), the full increase in the atmosphere is nearly all human.
Even so a contribution of 4.5 ppmv/year that drops to 3.5 ppmv/year will show up as a drop in yearly increase of around 1 ppmv/year or less than 0.1 ppmv/month. Not even measurable in the Mauna Loa data as the accuracy is around 0.2 ppmv, within a +/- 4 ppmv seasonal amplitude and a +/- 1.5 ppmv natural year by year variability (Pinatubo, El Niño)…
It’s good to see that so many here have a higher understanding of this than 97% (+/-) of climate scientists.
“Even so a contribution of 4.5 ppmv/year that drops to 3.5 ppmv/year will show up as a drop in yearly increase of around 1 ppmv/year or less than 0.1 ppmv/month. Not even measurable …”.
But it isn’t spread over a year, surely a sudden drop in CO2 emissions over two or three months must become apparent.
If not it invites the question: what measures are necessary to have any effect whatsoever?
As I mentioned previously nearly everybody will eventually get this virus dogs cats and perhaps even mosquitoes and no one will even notice except very aged people that are already about to die with exceptions of immunocompromised person ect. Re check today antibody tests in New York estimate to be about 3million from a 3000 random antibody samples so mortality in New York with a supposed high death rate is now estimated to be about 0.5%!! So work out mortality rate in California with 75 Deaths??? but same incidence as New York by antibody tests???? The Lockdowns will not work just delay infection and kill lots more directly over time and through economic consequences ect.
A good question might be, will you take a vaccine if it comes out before you catch COVID-19? Why, why not?
“Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach ‘herd immunity’ in weeks
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-lockdown-in-sweden-but-stockholm-could-see-herd-immunity-in-weeks.html
“As I mentioned previously nearly everybody will eventually get this virus dogs cats and perhaps even mosquitoes and no one will even notice except very aged people that are already about to die with exceptions of immunocompromised person ect. ”
There are now reports coming out about people in their 20’s and 30’s suddenly being struck with strokes from out of nowhere, while respiratory symptoms are minimal. The Wuhan virus may be destroying organs and creating blood clots in the body before they show any serious respiratory symptoms.
We don’t know everything we need to know about this virus. We shouldn’t take it lightly.
Sounds more like the tendency to redirect deaths toward covid as “that’s where the money” is, as Dillon on various IPCC scientists would attest
The Climate don’t care on damn bit about emissions. It is about the actual CO2 concentration for the GHG effect and the climate change.
The climate scam and climate pseudoscience of climate models on the other hand is all about emissions and the wealth they economic generate to control and re-distribute.
March 2020 MLO average was 414.50 ppm. March 2019 was 411.97 ppm. That 2.5 ppm grwoth is exactly what one would expect based on year-over-year grwoth rate with much of 2019 in a weak El Nino/ENSO-neutral climate.
The wheels of the emissions to CO2 growth correlation bus are about to come off.
This is actually of massive importance and every day that passes and shows C02 concentrations simply following their natural annual cycles is a nail in the AGW coffin – This is a unique moment in our history to study CO2 levels now that the entire world has come to an abrupt standstill
The Eco loons cannot be allowed to have the argument both ways here!!!!
The good news from the article above is found in:
“Once the global economy begins to recover from the new coronavirus, WMO expects emissions to return to normal. ”
“There might even be a boost in emissions because some of the industries have been stopped”, the WMO head cautioned. ”
Celebrate with CO2.
Yes, champagne – when the time comes.
Daily CO2
Apr. 22, 2020: 415.60 ppm
Apr. 22, 2019: 414.14 ppm
This time is about the seasonal peak, as the Northern Hemisphere starts to green up.
If the idea that human CO2 does not control GW or CC has any merit, atmospheric CO2 won’t respond to the fall off in emissions – let’s see …
Unless of course the numbers are homogenized to fit the IPCC AGW hype
I was looking into the CO2VID link just yesterday, so my take on it …
NOAA has added a few lines to its site with the heading “Can we see a change in the C02 record because of COVID-19?” (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/index.html#co2change)
To save clicking …
“There have been many inquiries whether we can see in our CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa and elsewhere the slowdown in CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. That drop in emissions needs to be large enough to stand out from natural CO2 variability caused by how plants and soils respond to seasonal and annual variations of temperature, humidity, soil moisture, etc. These natural variations are large, and so far the “missing” emissions do not stand out, but we may see them as the year progresses. Here is an example: If emissions are lower by 25%, then we would expect the monthly mean CO2 for March at Mauna Loa to be lower by about 0.2 ppm. When we look at many years of the difference between February and March we expect March to be higher by 0.74 ppm, but the year-to-year variability (one standard deviation) of the difference is 0.40 ppm. This year the difference is 0.40 ppm, or 0.33 below average, but last year it was 0.52 ppm below average.”
Those last few words suggest no unusual trend variation in March.
2018 and 2019 had about the same levels of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, both years having the highest levels on record (https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019), mostly due to China.
I note that CO2 concentrations increased 2.92ppm from 2018 to 2019 (408.52 > 411.44), the third largest annual increase since records began in 1957. Concentration increased 3.41ppm from 2015 to 2016 and 2.97ppm from 1997 to 1998 (1997/98 ENSO – chicken or egg?).
CO2 concentration in March 2020 was 414.50ppm, compared to 411.97ppm in March 2019 – up 2.53ppm over the 12 months.
On April 21 the concentration was 416.28ppm, compared to 413.63ppm on April 21 2019 – up 2.65ppm on an annual day comparison basis and 4.31ppm compared to March 2019.
In the week beginning 12 April, the average concentration was 416.27ppm, which compares to the weekly value a year earlier of 413.63ppm – up 2.64ppm.
I think it’s much too early to see any influence on CO2 readings after less than two months of emission reductions due to COVID-19, but the very early indications are that despite a month or so of satellite imagery showing a substantial reduction in global atmospheric smog/air pollution, nothing substantial has happened to CO2 trends.
The World Meteorological Organisation estimates COVID-19 will reduce CO2 emissions this year by 6% (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-emissions-wmo-1.5540721).
The NOAA example says a 25% emissions reduction should lower CO2 readings for March by 0.2ppm, which implies that if mankind cut emissions by 100% the readings would be 0.8ppm lower. I suspect this is based on the fact that since 2000, the average increase in February to March CO2 concentration was exactly 0.8ppm – i.e. cut emissions by 100% and there’s no increase in CO2 concentration.
If the March 2020 concentration of 414.50ppm was reduced 0.8ppm to 413.70ppm, it would still be a 1.73ppm greater concentration than the 411.97ppm of March 2019.
Since April has had a 74% bigger Mar-Apr than Feb-Mar increase since 2000 (0.80ppm v 1.39ppm), in a couple of weeks the April averages might provide a better indication than March averages as to whether COVID-19 lockdowns are reducing the CO2 concentration trend. However, I doubt that the global lockdown will last long enough to detect any anthropogenic influence or lack of influence amid the noise.
So – for these clowns at the UN, a sign that the global economy is being destroyed is good news?
That about says it all.
Chris
It is not called Covid 19, it is called Sars Cov 2.