By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
By the time you read this, the monthly Mauna Loa CO2 concentration will probably have been published. The profiteers of doom have been delighted by the global Chinese-virus lockdown, which many of them would like to be permanent.
As John Christy reported here yesterday, in March the UAH dataset maintained by Roy Spencer shows the second-biggest month-to-month drop in global mean lower-troposphere temperature since the record began in December 1978.
But, as Anthony Watts pointed out in a comment, the fall in temperature owes nothing to a decline in CO2 concentration, whether or not caused by the lockdown. The keepers of the Mauna Loa record agree with him:
Let us assume that there has indeed been a 25% decline in our sins of emission, and that it will persist until the pandemic ends in 18 months’ time, as some epidemiologists have predicted. Let us also assume that there will be a further 0.2 ppmv reduction in CO2 concentration for each of the next 18 months. Then the CO2 concentration will have fallen by a dizzying 3.6 ppmv.
Maybe. For IPCC says CO2 persists in the air for about 125 years, in which event nothing we do this century will make much difference to CO2 concentration.
However, just for fun, let us imagine that over the next 18 months the concentration does indeed fall by 3.6 ppmv. Let us work out how much global warming the tens of trillions that the Chinese-virus lockdown has cost us will have bought.
In March, the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration C0 was 414.5 ppmv. At the end of the pandemic, then, C will be 410.9 ppmv. Let us pretend that, as the Thermageddonites wish, it would not bounce back to where it is now, but that the pandemic will reduce all subsequent CO2 concentrations, whatever they might otherwise have been, by 3.6 ppmv. Let us also pretend that the reduction will occur immediately, rather than in 125 years’ time.
The coefficient k in the CO2 forcing equation is 5 (derived from Andrews et al. 2012). The Planck or zero-feedback sensitivity parameter P is 0.3 K W–1 m2 (ibid.). The system-gain factor G from feedbacks is the absurdly exaggerated 3 imagined by IPCC et hoc genus omne (it is in truth more like 1.2, which means there is no climate “emergency”, but let us be generous to the cult).
Eq. (1), informed by these quantities, gives the global warming reduction arising from the drastic emissions reduction caused by the pandemic, on the generous assumption that it is a permanent reduction.
Gee wow golly-gosh! Mirabile dictu!! One whole twenty-fifth of a degree!!! Hold the front page!!!!
All the numbers fed into Eq. (1), as well as the equation itself, are “mainstream science”. And that’s the whole problem with this global warming nonsense. The cost of mitigation is as large as the benefit is small. Even if we stop emitting CO2 altogether by 2050, if IPCC is right the corresponding small reduction in global temperature will take 125 years to come through.
For that reason alone, even before allowing for official climatology’s glaring error in the definition of temperature feedback, an error in which IPCC intends fraudulently to persist in its Sixth Assessment Report even though it has been told in writing that its definition is incorrect, it makes no economic sense to do anything whatsoever about global warming except to let it happen, adapt to it and enjoy the sunshine.
Will someone tell world followers?
Today’s graphs show a continuing decline in active cases, but the mean daily compound growth rate in cumulative deaths remains high. The reason is that at this stage in the pandemic the case fatality rate is very high. Take the United States.
There have been 66,000 reported deaths at the time of writing, but the Centers for Disease Control concluded a couple of days ago that, based on excess mortality data, deaths have been under-reported by about 15%. So there have really been about 76,000 deaths.
Assuming a mean 17 days from case report to death, the deaths reported now arose on or about April 13, when there were 715,000 cases. So the U.S. case fatality rate, at a rough estimate, is about 10.5%, compared with a global 7.5% (and more like 24% in the UK).
But there are now 1.131 million cases in the United States. Allowing for the current gentle slowing in both reported cases and deaths, even if there were no more cases (and at present there are 30,000 new ones a day), by mid-June and perhaps sooner there will have been 125,000 U.S. deaths associated with the Chinese virus – and counting.
To put this in context, the CDC has estimated that the past winter’s flu season caused somewhere between 20,000 and 62,000 deaths. Already the Chinese-virus deaths have exceeded the high-end estimate within just a few weeks. Unfortunately, there are many more deaths to come.
Fig. 1. Mean compound daily growth rates in estimated active cases of COVID-19 for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from April 1 to April 30, 2020.
Fig. 2. Mean compound daily growth rates in cumulative COVID-19 deaths for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from April 8 to April 30, 2020.
Ø High-definition Figures 1 and 2 are here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The Planck or zero-feedback sensitivity parameter P is 0.3 K W–1 m2 (ibid.).”
No it is not. This is equivalent to 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing and is not the zero-feedback sensitivity, but the steady state average sensitivity after all ‘feedback’ like effects have already had their effect. This is not and can not be further amplified by additional feedback. The feedback of 0.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing is already accounted for.
To be consistent with feedback analysis, the zero feedback sensitivity would be 1 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing corresponding to less than 0.2C per W/m^2, i.e. an ideal BB at the surface temperature. They claim that 1.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing is the ‘zero-feedback’ sensitivity, but don’t explain where the extra 0.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing is coming from. They get away with this by incorrectly claiming a temperature output rather than an emissions output from the climate feedback model. Again, to be consistent with the feedback analysis, the extra 0.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 is the feedback and is the entire extent of the feedback PERIOD.
How is sweden doing? Are they up to 16,000 deaths a day as the exponential growth models predicted for an open for business nation?
No!
Maybe they are recording 8,000 deaths per day?
No!
4000?
No!
2000?
No!
Well, they have to be recording at least 1,000 a day by now?
No!
500?
No!
250 a day has to be the least they should be suffering for still allowing people to work and earn a living!
No!
100 per day then?
Close to it… They reached 108 deaths per day on a 7 day rolling average and have since then been declining down to under 70 deaths per day on a 7 day rolling average.
Impossible, the models were saying they would see 18,000 deaths by september, and that would require them to be dying in far larger numbers and still climbing!
Those models had an agenda, just like Lord Monckton has one. I do not know what his agenda is, but the agenda of the models was to destroy western civilization for the benefit of the Chinese by forcing governments who are supposed to be responsible adults in the room to shut down their economies.
The models began by arguing that we needed to save the health care system from being overrun by sars-cov-2 victims. We needed to flatten the curve. It sounded good. But in actuality, the healthcare system, at least in most 1st world nations could have handled the virus outbreak, with some stress obviously.
Since our healthcare systems did well, the modelers have changed the goal to slowing the number of deaths so that the deaths between now (whatever day it is) and some period a few months off, are fewer. Of course, this is a virus, no matter what day today is, if you can argue that opening up for business will cause more deaths in the same amount of time, then this argument is always true. But at the end of the day, being a virus that is stealthy and highly contagious, it will eventually reach just about everyone regardless of whether you slow it down or not.
Sweden is one of the only control groups we have to see if this argument is true. So far, after 6 full weeks of open for business, more or less individually determined social distancing, all schools except higher education still open, they have not seen the death rates that modelers argue we would see if we went the way of Sweden. 6 weeks is certainly more time than is needed to see if the exponential growth model is accurate or not. We do not need to wait years to see if what Sweden is doing is right or not. We have many more weeks than was needed to see if it was going wrong. If it were going wrong exponential growth shows up exponentially fast!
In the United States of America, we have probably burned well over $10,000,000,000,000 in our worthless efforts to save lives. That is 10 trillion dollars that will not be available for many other things. That is 15 years of our military budget. Gone, vaporized, destroyed, missalocated.
I too happen to disagree with Monckton over a few issues, but I have newer felt he even remotely served an agenda he would not be open about.
Astonerii, I agree with most of what you are saying. I also agree it is hard for many people to comprehend and live “stay home” orders. Both Monckton and I are not hit that hard, we both have pretty good housing in rural surroundings, but as more than half the worlds population now live in cities, the curfew must be terrible in the long run. And, as you say, Sweden has pretty much proven to have been the most mature and data driven.
We Swedes will send the you the bill for limiting our production of exported goods. 🙂
They only have 10 million living there, why don’t you compare them to Czechia who also have only 10 million?
Sweden 22nd in the world with 22,317 cases and 2679 deaths growth rate 5.8.
Czechia 42nd in the world with 7,764 cases and 245 deaths growth rate 2.8.
Or Singapore, or South Korea, or Taiwan?
As everyone loves to argue, everything that is not the same is different. Thus you cannot get anything from comparing different things.
But, Sweden is in for a world of hurt in the next few weeks. Or maybe it will take longer. Ok, not yet, maybe a little longer. But since I support lockdowns, and since Sweden did not lockdown, then I know for a fact they are wrong and will suffer for it. But, then again, maybe since Sweden is not doing so badly, maybe they are really locked down, but just never told anyone they are, because, science bro!
You see, I keep seeing these arguments against Sweden. They are not as densely populated. Different population totals. They are further north. They may not have government lock down, but in spirit they are locked down. The list goes on an on and on and on and on.
But the bottom line is that you can compare different things to one another.
Sweden is not as densely populated as a whole country as many others. Their biggest city is not as densely populated as New York City is. But they do have cities, and they have wide open areas, and 80% of their population in lives in city of one form or another. So, for the most part, they are similar enough to the entirety of the worlds countries to make some comparisons. On a per capita basis, say per millions, they have several nations that are much worse off than they are. Spain, Italy, United Kingdom for instance are far worse off than they are. They also seem to be fitting into a band with several other nations. The United States of America for instance, and there are other nations way down and doing great. Germany, Japan.
And the difference is this. Sweden is open for business, and it is in the middle of the pack in general. It is the control group for whether economic suicide is a valid response to the virus. And the evidence shows that economic suicide is not a valid or valuable response to the virus. Better to keep working, creating the wealth that allows you to deal with problems and remain healthy and alive, rather than hunker down and suffer the same with far less resources.
Would you rather face a freezing winter with plenty of oil and gas to keep warm, or would you rather stop working, stand outside screaming, “stay away cold” and face winter with empty fuel tanks?
All corona viruses die down in April , May , June. It will be back in December .
Yes we can see that it died down in April & May, it only went from 863184 at the end of March to 3,481,371 now.
This is not the flu.
All those who think it is a flu, should volunteer to work in hospitals without PPE-s, get infected, recover speedily and build immunity. While armed with a new health status start rebuilding post-corona economy and take advantage of enormous opportunities for those who get there first.
As you were with the catatonics and seizures doomsters as we’ll all adapt-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/naked-mole-rats-just-got-weirder-when-they-dont-get-enough-co2-they-have-seizures/ar-BB13vrPE
In the meantime don’t forget to take your medication if the CO2 levels are a bit low with the Rona shutdown and early adapters should keep some dry ice on hand as smelling salts. Soda pop is handy in an emergency too.
The USS Roosevelt has 1,100 cases of Wuhan Virus. Four people went to the hospital. One died. This group is younger than the average population, but the Navy isn’t populated with teenagers – many sailors officers stay in the service for more than 20 years, some for more than 30 years. And, we’re not talking about a bunch of marines! People in the navy are only marginally healthier than civilians of the same age range. (I was honorably discharged after six years of service during the Reagan Admin, so I know more than a little bit about this.)
It’s high time we talk the germaphobes down and end this hostage crisis! Besides, the curve has been completely flattened. That was supposed to be the point, right? In the US at least, you can count on one hand the number of places where the health system could possibly be overwhelmed if infections ramped back up.
The US has a rich history of civil disobedience, starting from before there was a US. It’s looking more and more like it’s time to add a new chapter to that history.
You are close. You have found a covid statistical anomaly. A cohort of individuals who have an unusually low death rate for covid.
Why?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838v1
Vitamin D Insufficiency is Prevalent in Severe COVID-19
The sailors, sail in warm waters and hence are not Vitamin D deficient.
One death out of 1000 covid cases.
Prevalence and correlates of vitamin D deficiency in US adults
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310306
42% of the US population has been shown to be Vitamin D deficient. With elderly and dark skin people the most Vitamin D deficient.
82% of the US dark skin (‘black’) citizens are Vitamin D deficient.
Dark skin people in the US and in London had roughly three times as many deaths per covid 1000 cases as white skin people.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/12/health/black-americans-hiv-coronavirus-blake/index.html
Chart summarizing the results of Vitamin D studies. Roughly 70% reduction cancer, almost elimination of type 1 diabetes, 64% reduction in multiple sclerosis, and so on. There is also a strong correlation with dementia and Vitamin D deficiency.
https://www.grassrootshealth.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/disease-incidence-prev-chart-051317.pdf
William: The recommended vitamin D supplement that has been confirmed by extensive testingt o be absolutely safe and close to sufficient to reach body optimum is 4000 UI/day.
This is a link to the US researcher who was responsible for the oversight of all Vitamin D research from 1000 UI to 10,000 UI in the US. There were zero health problems observed due to the supplements, in that range.
This video is a lecture from the US researcher who has forced to treat Vitamin D supplements the same as dangerous cancer drugs. He was responsible for oversight of all US Vitamin D supplement research from 1000 UI to 10,000 UI and beyond.
There were zero problems in any of the research for Vitamin D supplement use from 1000 UI to 10,000 UI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrU1yrmNIqc
Results of a Prostate Cancer/Vitamin D Trial: Effectiveness Safety Recommendations
Bruce H Hollis
P.S. This is all new news to me. There is sufficient evidence that there is a case for criminal negligence.
In the Canadian system I have unused power. This will not stand. There will be a political explosion in Canada when the population finds out how long the Vitamin D research has been ignored and held back because of special interests.
This is system rot, not failure.
So, you think Navy sailors are making Vitamin D at sea… by being in the sun?
Sorry… I stepped away for a few moments… I didn’t want to spill anything on my laptop while I was laughing.
Thanks for that Vitamin D summary, William. Very useful. I take Vitamin D supplements so I’m glad to learn it is doing me so much good. 🙂
I haven’t had the flu in so long I can’t remember the last time, and I take flu shots only sporadically. Maybe that luck will hold for the Wuhan virus. If not, I’m off to the Doc for some hydroxychloroquine ASAP.
A headline this morning states several hundred workers at a meat packing plant in Nebraska have tested positive for the Wuhan Virus. ALL of them were asymptomatic.
Of course, we all know how much sunlight meat packing plant workers get, in general, and this one is located in that famously sunny state of Nebraska. So, nothing really to see here folks…
“CO2 persists in the air for about 125 years”
I’m not sure if anyone addressed this in the comment section. My understanding is that residency time is, at most a couple of decades, maybe a little more, or a little less. It’s been a while since I’ve studied this particular subject. I’ll do some more research, but if anyone has seen any recent studies on residency time, a like would be awesome. Thanks!
Google it and you will get a host of answers.
You want us to use Google to look up information related to globaloney warmunism, information related to the poisonous pollution of carbon? That’s funny, right there, I don’t care who you are!
From the article: “But there are now 1.131 million cases in the United States. Allowing for the current gentle slowing in both reported cases and deaths, even if there were no more cases (and at present there are 30,000 new ones a day), by mid-June and perhaps sooner there will have been 125,000 U.S. deaths associated with the Chinese virus – and counting.”
It’s time to call out those who have been trashing the virus computer models, claiming they are inaccurate, and were not a reason to put society on lockdown. The trashers are obviously wrong, and they should admit it and also admit that the authorities were correct to institute social distancing in order to save millions of innocent lives.
The virus computer model bashers have caused doubt in the minds of the public about how and why this pandemic is being handled. Putting doubt in the public’s mind is not a good idea in a crisis, especially when that doubt is fueled by arguments that turn out to be wrong.
The pulbic is misled by the Leftwing media and now those who don’t want the economy shut down are chiming in claiming we didn’t have to do this in the first place because the computer models are all wrong. But it is those who make these claims who are all wrong.
And our current death toll has been kept down by our social distancing efforts, and although I can’t prove it, I would say that hydroxychloroquine has had a role in keeping the death count down.
It’s time for the virus computer model bashers to admit they had it all wrong and they treated Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx unfairly, accusing them of all sorts of perfidity, and undermining the Plan to fight the Wuhan virus in the process.
It’s gotten to the point that even a mention of the virus computer models gets a firm kneejerk dismissal from some quarters, even though there is nothing wrong with the models. Good work, you propagandists. Your propaganda is having an effect, but not the one you want. It’s just causing more problems because of the misunderstandings you have introduced to the subject. You need to correct yourselves and stop panicing people with disinformation about the virus computer models.
My brother, a true believer in the Wuhan Virus models, sent me a link from the seditious rag, The Washington Pravda, that dismissed the models used every year to calculate flu deaths. Deaths are actually much, much lower doncha know! So, the Leftists disparage models when they feel like it. Of course, that article is the equivalent of relentlessly revising historical temperatures down in order to make current temperatures look like they are problem when they are not.
If you feel badly about our “kneejerk reaction” to doubt models, you ought to take it up with the charlatans that squandered the public trust in the last couple decades to promote a faux crisis.
Also, it’s been quite awhile since I read it, so perhaps you could remind me, who is the subject of the cautionary tale of the boy who cried wolf too much? Is it the boy or his audience?
“If you feel badly about our “kneejerk reaction” to doubt models, you ought to take it up with the charlatans that squandered the public trust in the last couple decades to promote a faux crisis.”
No, I dont feel badly about it, I think it is Wrong. You’ll see in the not-too-distant future.
Making excuses for critiizing the virus computer models based on the human-caused climate change computer models just shows confusion on your part. Noone bashes the climate computer models more than I do. I do so based on the fact that climate change models are not based on facts but on guesses. The virus computer models are different. They are based on facts and educated guesses and they are compared to reality, whereas, if the climate models were compared to reality, they would fail every time.
The virus computer modelers say the mitigated deaths from the Wuhan virus will be between 100,000 and 140,000. You apparently say that is not correct. I’m happy to watch this all unfold, and I’m pretty sure you are the one who is going to be wrong. I’m sure you will correct me, if that time ever comes. I don’t expect to be hearing from you on this matter.
“Also, it’s been quite awhile since I read it, so perhaps you could remind me, who is the subject of the cautionary tale of the boy who cried wolf too much? Is it the boy or his audience?”
That Wuhan Wolf has killed about 70,000 Americans. The Boy who cried wolf was referring to an imaginary danger.
Quoting myself: “It’s gotten to the point that even a mention of the virus computer models gets a firm kneejerk dismissal from some quarters, even though there is nothing wrong with the models.”
Just to emphasixe the point, I just heard Brian Kilmeade, an otherwise smart guy, say on Fox & Friends this morning that the virus computer models are all junk.
The Virus Computer Model Disinformation Specialists are doing an effective job. Thanks for sowing confusion in the ranks. A wonderful contribution to humanity.