Guest post by Tony Brown
“If Europeans truly mobilize around the delivery of the 2050 goal, every business decision, lifestyle choice, political swing, every hallmark of European culture — from annual ski trips, to Champions League Football matches, to French cheese — will need to be tested against its contribution to climate change.” European Commission ‘Green Deal’ March 2020
This is an article with a simple proposition. Science tells us that rapidly rising Co2 in turn causes rising temperatures, which has become a very serious problem for humanity.
The three questions I ask, in the expectation that the answer can be provided from main stream published science is;
“Assuming we reach zero carbon emissions by 2030-Extinction Rebellion (XR) requirement, or 2050 -the aim of most governments under the Paris Accord- 1) how long would it take for Co2 levels to naturally fall below the’ safe upper limits’ of 350ppm espoused by such as James Hansen; 2) for it to fall further to 280ppm -the previous pre industrial level -AND 3) when will temperatures start to fall in turn, to achieve pre industrial levels, said to be 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade below present, according to the IPCC.”
There are all sorts of caveats of course, with methane, water vapour, clouds, feedbacks, ocean response, natural variations etc but having scoured various ‘official’ web sites I can find no definitive estimate. An examination of the Extinction Rebellion web site demonstrates they are anarchists, rather than a serious green organisation. A couple of more reasoned attempts to track the consequences of zero carbon emissions are given in Note 3 below the graphic-Figure 1 together with a variety of other useful background information.
Whether the reader personally believes excess Co2 to be a problem is not a matter this article is concerned with. Let’s take science at face value –our respective Governments have overwhelmingly agreed that humanity has added some 140ppm of Co2 to the pre industrial 280ppm and that, as a result, temperatures have risen substantially and are at a dangerous level and causing extremes of weather.
As a result of this scientific advice, Governments around the world intend to take dramatic measures to curb both Co2 levels and thereby limit temperature increases. The answer to my question must be in the public domain in a readily understandable form, in order for politicians-rarely versed in science- to feel it necessary to make the far reaching changes proposed. In this connection the EU’s position in Note 2 under the graphic will reward a read, as it will likely reflect the position of your own Government, or in the case of the USA-the opposition parties.
General comments on the subject are of course welcome, but If you wish to make a specific prediction of the Co2 reduction time and/or temperature reduction please quote evidence in the form of an equation, or a reference, or link to a science paper.
So here are the simple questions again. Assuming we reach zero carbon emissions by 2030-Extinction Rebellion (XR) requirement, or 2050 -the aim of most governments under the Paris Accord- 1) how long would it take for Co2 levels to naturally fall below the’ safe upper limits’ of 350ppm espoused by such as James Hansen; 2) for it to fall further to 280ppm -the previous pre industrial level -AND 3) when will temperatures start to fall in turn, to achieve pre industrial levels said to be 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade below present, according to the IPCC.
Note 1; Figure 1 below assumes a 430ppm concentration by 2030 or 450 ppm by 2050 based on Co2 levels continuing to rise from 2020 until towards the chosen date, when they would taper off, before becoming net zero. Consequently any estimated reductions need to start from that point. Figure 1 is left blank waiting for data from replies to be inserted;
Figure 1; Co2 and temperature-timescales and trajectory
Background information
Some 10 or 12 years ago, when I first started writing climate related articles, I emailed around a dozen leading climate scientists to ask that if emissions stopped dead, how long would it take temperatures to drop back towards the desired pre industrial levels?. That is to say around a couple of degrees centigrade. (This doesn’t take into account that the temperature by 2030 or 2050 should be higher than now as Co2 continues to increase, plus there is the ‘heat in the pipeline’)
Most responded. Some had never done the calculations, others didn’t feel there was sufficient data for accurate projections. One said we should start to see a slight reduction in temperatures in around 400 years, but the full effect would not come about for possibly thousands.
Until Covid 19 took over public debate, climate was a very hot topic and will do so again as the immediate effects of the pandemic recede into the rear view mirror.
Consequently it is relevant to ask the question again in the light of much more research and knowledge accumulated over the last decade or so. This has provided data that has persuaded governments to adopt stiff targets in such International agreements as the Paris Accord and encouraged the rise of activists like Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion, whereby the ‘climate crisis’ is being forcibly placed into the centre of the public domain.
In a future article, once the data is in, I hope to explore the measures needed to achieve the stated objectives and surmise whether the public would be more or less willing to accept the sacrifices and lifestyle changes needed, bearing in mind the drastic changes in everyone’s lives over the past few months.
In respect of climate mitigation ambitions, readers will find it worth spending a few minutes exploring the EU position under Note 2)
Note 2 ; This is a small segment from the Politico web site about EU plans, .which will mirror the views of many other signatories to Paris. The title is self-explanatory
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-climate-goal-revolution-net-zero-emissions/
“Cutting the Continent’s emissions to “net zero” — meaning Europe would sequester at least as much greenhouse gases as it produces — by 2050 will require a radical overhaul of nearly every aspect of the modern economy. Dramatic cuts in carbon will wipe out entire industries, transform others and force people to change the way they eat, work, live and travel”
“If Europeans truly mobilize around the delivery of the 2050 goal, every business decision, lifestyle choice, political swing, every hallmark of European culture — from annual ski trips, to Champions League Football matches, to French cheese — will need to be tested against its contribution to climate change.
The European Climate Law, proposed by the Commission in March, would submit every EU law, past and future, to a test of its compatibility with climate neutrality — a “tectonic shift,” according to E3G, a think tank that advocates for emission cuts.”
Note 3 A variety of papers, sensationalist and more rational, sketch out a wide variety of scenarios making it difficult to separate reality from fantasy. A couple of more reasoned attempts to track the consequences of zero carbon emissions are given below. ‘The Conversation’ has a recent editorial policy of not publishing ‘denialist’ climate comments or articles.
Summary from ‘The Conversation.’
Temperatures will stabilise at a higher temperature with some 0.6C of heat in the pipeline with, for the foreseeable future an irrevocable rise of temperature of up to 4C.
There is no real road map of temperatures coming down, and elevated levels of Co2 will remain for many hundreds of years. The article is from 2017.
From Nature, who reckon on a temperature rise for hundreds of years whilst Co2 will stay at an elevated level for thousands.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/what-happens-after-global-warming-25887608/
The Future?
The 2020 Covid economy, whereby Co2 emissions have continued to rise but more slowly than recently, provides some clarity as to the fundamental changes needed from industry and the public to actually achieve net zero. This effectively means ‘more of the same’ restrictions as during the pandemic. Much less air travel, fewer personal means of transport and more reliance on public transport, much less consumption, fundamental changes to industry, supplemented by measures on addressing additional sectors of the economy year on year, to permanently ratchet up the effect.
This will likely include less meat eating, less imported foods and drink, fewer electrical items including mobile phones and servers, the phasing out of gas central heating, a substantial reduction in home temperatures with thermostats set to 19degrees C ((66 degrees F) no wood or coal burning devices, phasing out of most conventional power sources, a much greater reliance on renewable energy and likely a carbon allowance and alterations to tax structures to encourage a change in behaviour. This is expected by governments to result in a gentler, slower, less polluted and more sustainable way of life, centred more round the local community.
Tony Brown August 2020
The Paris Agreement doesn’t stipulate emission reductions to zero by 2050. The only thing that was agreed to (but not binding) was the “Nationaly Determined Contributions” (NDCs) which were applied from 2020-30 and assumed to run at that level till 2100. These were 25-27% for USA and 40% for EU as a guide.
It is true that the IPCC also invited countries to submit “Mid Century Strategies” (MCS) over the ensuing 5 years. These were nothing more than “aspirations”, a word used by Climate Interactive who are heavily associated with MIT and advised the IPCC at Paris.
The US and EU Mid-Century Strategies landed on the IPCCs desk in NYC over the next two years. They essentially ‘aspired’ to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, not 100% ie to zero and to do so by employing “as yet uninvented technologies” (US’s MCS).Their rambling, non-committal tone perfectly encapsulated the complete unpreparedness for such an undertaking.
The MCS’s were never part of the solidly agreed terms at Paris. Only the much more modest NDCs were. The MCSs were simply invited to focus minds on the task ahead. 5-yearly reviews of NDCs were agreed to in the Paris Agreement, starting in 2020. It can be assumed that the MSC’s might inform those revisions. But the NDC emission reductions can’t go down- they must always “ratchet” up, a favourite word of the IPCC/MIT et al.
Thus, if they get anywhere at all, the COP delegates will get a few crumbs every 5 years, and never reach 80% by 2050, let alone 100%.
The 100% we have AOC to thank for. She shoe-horned it in under the Trojan Horse of the 80% in the US Mid-Term Strategy. Now everyone thinks it was a) always there b) binding (or at least, as binding as the NDC pledge. Climate Interactive, Climate Action Tracker and MIT continually conflate the NDC’s (which are genuine Paris Agreement pledges) with the MCS submitted reports. They consistently called the 80% reduction by 2050 a “pledge” alongside (actually, rolled in with) the NDC’s. Now it’s a 100% “pledge” thanks to AOC and its trickled over to the EU and UK.
This nefarious practice has duped the voting public into thinking their governments have promised to reduce emissions by 100% by 2050. Meanwhile the electricity bill for the average U.K./German/Californian has almost tripled in 10 years.
and it also allows the BS carbon neutral technologies a free pass.
Wood chips are likely higher CO2 emitters than the coal they replace not to mention wind energy and solar which demand huge coal and oil inputs for construction and maintenance.
so this whole discussion is like a surreal puppet show all the players are just virtue signaling and if they don’t know it they are truly stupid. Just possible!
It depends where you get you wood chips.
Importing forest derived chips to the UK from USA is clearly NOT sensible and doesn’t reduce CO2.
Using sawmill waste, quick growing willow or coppiced wood, waste wood e.g from demolition probably is.
Solar panels and wind turbines save more CO” in their lifetime than takes to make, transport, erect, operate and ultimately demolish. The point at which saving kick in is usually in months not years. Look it up!!!
Not really! You still need back up from fossil fuels or nuclear to keep civilisation running. Besides that, the effort required to build, repair, and replace windmills and solar is beyond reach.
“Solar panels and wind turbines save more CO” in their lifetime than takes to make, transport, erect, operate and ultimately demolish. ”
Ignoring all the massive amounts of toxic chemicals used and abused in the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines doesn’t help your fantasies, griffool !
Most wind turbines are just left to rot anyway, and their bases are left as huge anti-environmental boulders. And like the turbine blades, the solar panels, a large proportion will just be dumped in land fill to pollute the surrounding area for hundreds of years.
But you don’t care about that, do you griffool. Environmental vandal !!!
California, Australia. Neither anywhere near their goals. Lmao
Well, maybe, but how much CO2 is reduced is the question.
When will temperatures start to fall?
For the central-eastern US, it’s the end of next week, Labor Day weekend:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/814day/index.php
The history of the Norse settlement in Greenland has been studied and documented, and clearly shows that Greenland was significantly warmer around the year 1000 than today. Then the history shows that the climate grew colder, leading to the Little Ice Age in the 1600’s. Now, after several hundred years of warming, we are still not as warm as 1,000 years ago. With this in mind, what is the problem?
For that matter, 6,000 years ago it was even warmer than 1,000 years ago, sea levels were several feet higher, and trees grew further north and at higher altitudes than today. See “Climate Change in Prehistory” by Burroughs, a book with an appendix containing some 270 scientific references.
The reality is that we are in a relatively long-term cooling phase, the result of the Milankovitch Cycles, and in the process of heading for the next BIG ice age of some 90,000 years. Due to the side effects of that ice age, including reduction of land area available for farming and reduced CO2 levels as the colder ocean waters absorb more CO2, we will be hard pressed to maintain food production. The additional CO2 in our atmosphere will help counteract these problems to some degree, and future generations will thank us. The effects of CO2 on temperature are negligible compared to the natural climate cycles of our earth.
+1,000. I agree completely. There is nothing unusual about the current Modern Warm period.
In addition we need to take advantage of it now (the relative warmth and abundant energy), while we can and build out nuclear power technologies for when the remaining fossil fuels are difficult to extract. The very fact that most Climate Change carnival barkers a strident anti-nuclear power exposes what their true endgame is.
100% agree. The Ice Core records show that the world has been cooling relatively rapidly for the last 3 millennia, since before this nice Roman times. According to Clive Best because the ellipsis of the earth’s orbit that slow cooling could continue but extend the Holocene significantly. However the current less active sun could well give rise to some nasty shocks of cooling on the way
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Personal transport in most of Australia has likely gone up.
Why?. Well most are still working so now drive to work and rest either got job keeper or living on retirement funds so drive to their favourite holiday spot.
Mass Public transport is covid taboo.
Car dealers , caretakers, campers, surfers…are everywhere they can be except home.
Neck I’m one of them.
How can I take “the science” at face value when there isn’t any science involved? It’s a ridiculous proposition I have to take the models at face value instead.
So the questions are really – 1) when would the models predict a fall in temperatures and 2) when would it actually happen.
1 ) The models overstate the impact of CO2, assume all of “the extra” comes from fossil fuels, and overstates the so-called “atmospheric half-life” of CO2 – all of which makes it impossible to produce a realistic answer. Given that man is adding about 4% of the total CO2 emitted into the atmosphere a year (a gross estimate all by itself) and that the “half-life” is often quoted to be over 100 years (another ridiculous statement), and that man is the only source of CO2 (again, ridiculous) then you should see the extra CO2 fall by 50% in 100 years, so if the natural is 280 and it’s at 420 today it would be 350 in 100 years. This would, according to the models, reduce temperature by about 1.5C. It would also reduce the growth rate of plants, the amount of food produced, and lead to more starvation, and accomplish NOTHING.
2) Now assuming that at least half of so-called “global warming” is natural after a glacial period (fairly certain assumption or we would still be in the glacial period), that the “half-life” of CO2 is actually closer to 20 years (probably less), that there are natural sources for some of the “excess” CO2 (such as warming up the ocean), then you would see a reduction in temperatures of: n = Total observed warming, 1/2 n = natural and 1/2 n = man made, so the temperature would after 20 years be still rising at the rate more than 1/2*1/2 n + 1/2 n = 3/4 n. After 100 years it would become more than(1/2)^4*1/2 n + 1/2 n = 17/32 n. It would depend on the actual sensitivity to CO2 and the additional CO2 being added by nature. Temperatures keep rising until nature says differently. Man could slow rising temperatures by a small amount by most of them dying off and the rest living in the stone age.
Sorry, all of this ignores the inertial feedback of the oceans, but it should make my point – we are seeing higher temperatures because some natural process(es) are making it warmer, and man has very little to do with it.
Now the next question is “Why do YOU assume warming is all bad?”. It could lead to a wetter climate, more moderate temperatures for large areas of the Earth, and higher food production. There is no “natural” best temperature of the Earth, it is always changing and so must mankind if they want to continue to live here.
It’s true that greenhouse gas warms the world. It’s just that the ghg is NOT CO2.
The only greenhouse gas that has a significant effect on climate (climate includes temperature) is water vapor. It helped make the planet warm enough for life as we know it to evolve. Humanity has been causing the water vapor to slowly increase for millennia as a result of increasing irrigation. Irrigation and other water vapor sources have increased along with human population and began to increase much more rapidly around 1960.
Water vapor has been accurately measured worldwide only since Jan 1988 when it began being measured as total precipitable water (TPW) by NASA/RSS satellite. One of the reasons the Global Circulation Models are wrong is that they calculate the WV from the temperature instead of using the actual WV measurements which are greater.
Blaming CO2 for warming is shallow penetration of science/physics. Analysis using data from Quantum Mechanics calculations by Hitran reveals that water vapor increase has caused about 10 times more ground level warming than CO2 increase. The cooling effect of more CO2 in the stratosphere apparently cancels the small contribution to warming of more CO2 at ground level with the result that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
WV has been increasing about 1.5% per decade which is MORE THAN POSSIBLE from feedback from temperature increase. Most (about 96%) of the WV increase is a result of irrigation increase. All of the human contribution to climate change is a result of increased water vapor. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
“Science tells us that rapidly rising Co2 in turn causes rising temperatures”
Observational science never told us this. Post hoc fallacy and false attribution tells us this. Geothermal denial tells us this.
http://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/
And here I was, hoping that at long last Zoe had managed to come to her senses. Alas, not.
Have you submitted that paper to the Nobel commission yet? If correct, you should be entitled to at least 3 or 4.
I do not subscribe to Zoe’s rejection of the conventional theories of the GHG effect, but being curious I looked at some of her blogs and found the one about MIMAS (satellite of Saturn) very intriguing.
https://phzoe.com/2020/04/21/the-strange-case-of-mimas/
They don’t give Nobels for common geophysical knowledge.
It’s only climate scientists that are deluded, not geophysicists.
Venus is hot because it turns very slowly and, thanks to its thick atmosphere and high winds, doesn’t cool off during its 121.5 Earth day-long nights. That the air is mostly CO2 is neither here nor there.
And why is its atmosphere so thick?
You seem to think this thickness is some kind of cause, whereas I correctly see it as an effect of internal subsurface energy.
It’s thick because its CO2, SO2 and N2 were not drawn down by geology, chemistry and biology, as on Earth.
Only thermal energy can “defeat” gravity.
The default state is not gases suspended above a surface waiting to be “drawn down”.
They aren’t drawn down by gravity, but by chemistry and biochemistry. What was CO2 in Earth’s air is now its carbonate rocks and living things.
John, you’ve turned this into a chicken and egg problem. Which came first? CO2 in air or CO2 inside liquids or solids? Or were they simultaneous?
It is the internal thermal energy that determines thickness of atmosphere. Just look at Venus and Uranus. Uranus has an even thicker atmosphere. Is that because it has even less biochemistry than Venus? No. That is an absurd question. They are both essentially biochemically barren.
Be sensible, John.
“phasing out of most conventional power sources, a much greater reliance on renewable energy”
phasing out of most conventional power sources, a much greater reliance in unreliable energy
Fixed it for you.
Tonyb,
You have set up an exercise much like graduate students discuss in pubs on Friday afternoons and into evening – with food and beer. This discussion is then continued the next Friday, and the one after that. So, sorry – no answers.
But another question. There is a claim that the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is responsible for greater plant growth. Still, the increase goes on at about 2 ppm per year. If Zero CO2 were to happen all the extra green will continue to draw on that atmospheric plant food and the concentration would drop.
How fast?
How far?
Will it cause over-shooting; that is at 280 does it continue to drop?
At what concentration do plants begin to suffer from too little?
Rumor is that at 150 ppm most plants could not survive.
Thus, when does “extinction” happen?
[414 – 280 = 134] [ (134 / 2) = 67 years ]
Thus, in 2087 extinction begins.
“Climate change” encompasses anything. As there is no qualifying pronoun to distinguish warming v cooling, natural v man-made , or even if it is dangerous, the term is both utterly meaningless and can mean anything at the same time. Many have been deceived by semantic manipulation.
When the pendulum swings toward cooling, we will find the narrative changing again. It will be “Impending ice age caused by humans.” The “solution” will be the same- hand over your wealth and freedom or the world will end.
The human brain is the same size as it was 10,000 years ago. The same superstitious tendencies and tendencies to be bullied in to committing ludicrous acts are still there. BLM violence/ destroy society totally based on someone essentially dying from methamphetamine overdose is as absurd as the old pagan rituals of sacrificing virgins.
The belief that the 3% of atmospheric CO2 level increase that is from humans is going to destroy the world should be as absurd as it can get, yet we are (once again) being bullied in to believing this absurdity. To quote Voltaire-“Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
Have we really outgrown human stupidity? The very clear answer is NO.
It’s better to let the sacrificed virgins live.
Laboratory experiment tells us that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Science tells us that we are uncertain of the order of cause and effect in an open frame of reference (e.g. atmosphere).
“Reducing energy consuption via meatless meals, cell phones, etc means a claim that energy must bereduced. That is pure nonsense: all energy can be electric and all can be generated by a carbon free and very cheap SMR molten salt reactor. All cars will go electric is short order. Let’s do a little thinking, please
All we have to do is design and build one of them. Going from a desktop model to full production is hard. So far, way to hard for those pushing SMR.
1, 100, 1,00 – – please
When the sun sets in the west.
What do I win?
“how long would it take for Co2 levels to naturally fall”
We take climate action not to make co2 fall but to stop making it rise. The theory does not say that high co2 causes warming. It says that rising co2 causes warming. We don’t take climate action to control the temperature. We do so to control the rate of warming.
Clarification:
what I wrote refers to climate action in the form of emission reduction. It doed not apply to climate action in the form of geo-engineering.
In that method of climate action, particularly things like sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere for example, we do control temperature and it can cause cooling. We don’t have a control knob. Pls see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/08/28/geo-engineering-climate-change/
Is there really going to be a Part II to this garbage? Maybe Part II will have some real science in it, something worth reading past the first couple of paragraphs?
Bob
What you or I believe is irrelevant. It is those carrying out the agenda that matters and they believe that humanity is causing a huge problem. They are egged on by influential fanatics.
A glance at the first paragraph then a read of the story will show how seriously the EU take all this. it may be that after November America will radically change its stance
Tonyb
Europe andthe US can do what they like about CO2, it is Asia whih is in charge of emissions.
–So here are the simple questions again. Assuming we reach zero carbon emissions by 2030-Extinction Rebellion (XR) requirement, or 2050 -the aim of most governments under the Paris Accord- 1) how long would it take for Co2 levels to naturally fall below the’ safe upper limits’ of 350ppm espoused by such as James Hansen; 2) for it to fall further to 280ppm -the previous pre industrial level -AND 3) when will temperatures start to fall in turn, to achieve pre industrial levels said to be 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade below present, according to the IPCC.–
Is there anyone sane who wants global temperatures to fall “1 to 2 degrees Centigrade below present”?
I don’t think anyone wants zero carbon emissions, they want net zero carbon emissions.
Which means if burn wood from trees and make a lot CO2, it does count as CO2 emission because it’s the rules that it’s “net zero carbon emissions”.
Also if plant a lot trees, that outsets burning coal to power your electric car.
Idea is to enslave the entire world and then Dear Leaders can make important decisions about what the want to call “net zero carbon emissions”. And it’s just a matter of getting your slaves to plant some trees.
Anyhow, if earth cools by 1/2 C, they will change their minds, and decide warming is better than getting colder while in an Ice Age {duh!].
Then Dear Leaders will burn everything to make CO2 god come back, and then it will appear we are living in Mordor. Or every totalitarian state to date makes huge amount pollution for no apparent good reason.
Then we will get cannibalism because, why not?
And it only stops, when we kill all of our Dear Demented Leaders.
“Is there anyone sane who wants global temperatures to fall “1 to 2 degrees Centigrade below present”?”
Whaat? Given any rapid change, up or down, could screw up a lot things; the weather patterns for example, and that temperatures are rising rapidly right now, you mean is there anyone sane who wants global temperatures to rise“1 to 2 degrees Centigrade below present” don’t you?
“and that temperatures are rising rapidly right now”
BS !! Only by smearing urban warming all over the place and fraudulent adjustment of past data.
Reality is different.
Only a degree or so above the coldest period in 8000 or so years.
FAR lower than for most of the Holocene.
Of course some more warming won’t hurt anyone, because it would happen in places that are still very much on the cold side now.
More CO2 won’t hurt anyone either,
in FACT, it will be very beneficial to basically ALL LIFE ON EARTH. !
“This is expected by governments to result in a gentler, slower, less polluted and more sustainable way of life, centred more round the local community.”
In that case where are their plans for downsizing government? As with Covid, the public sector continues unabated, regardless of circumstances.
” . . . centred more round the local community.””
I don’t think they have thought much about this:
Are there “local communities” in high-rise apartments?
For example, see this photo.
I have looked at the heating curve that is the best fit for ocean heat take up since the records began in 1955. I did not consider the point in time of action but rather considered the level of CO2 reached. The atmospheric level of CO2 will double by 2080 if the current rate of increase continues. By then the ocean temperature rise over the 1850 level will be 0.4C:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgnXLo5LnjuHhohGM
Given that half of the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is removed by non human causes then the decline from any level will be the same as the rise if all burning of fossil fuel is stopped; a decade here or there is not going to make much difference due to the high thermal inertia of oceans (basically Hansen’s missing heat). The means the rate of temperature fall will mirror the temperature rise as the flux imbalance goes negative due to falling CO2 levels. So expect 230 years to get back to 1850 temperature from 2080, which gives 2310 for weather to be perfect again. (All politician’s are in the perfect weather game; all promising that nasty hurricanes, nasty wild fires, nasty tornados, nasty cold snaps, nasty hot spells, nasty droughts, nasty floods etc will all be gone after the fix it by not burning fossil fuels)
Assumptions are:
All ocean warming since 1850 is due to increase in CO2.
Increase in ocean heat flux is a log function of the CO2 increase.
The measurement of ocean temperature 0-2000m is accurate since 1955.
If these assumptions apply, the model is a reliable predictor. The change in ocean temperature is less than the change in surface temperature but there is substantial annual noise in the sea surface temperature due to a range of weather related factors that are not significant from a climate perspective.
An interesting aside here with respect to removing CO2, the bush fires in Australian over the 2019/20 summer burnt enough fuel to power the entire Australian economy for 2 years.
A false premise in two different levels.
–Science doesn’t tell us anything because science is not a person. Some scientists say so, but scientists have been known to be wrong before.
–The warming has not become a very serious problem for humanity by any rational criteria.
Javier
Hmm, as bit pedantic. There are thousands of articles on science that say ‘science tells us’ I am happy to be in their illustrious company.
As for how serious it is ,those that control the purse strings and control our lives believe it to be a very serious problem and will go to any lengths to save us from ourselves
tonyb
Well, you shouldn’t Tony because you can’t argue with Science while you can argue with scientists. So when somebody is using “science tells us” essentially that somebody is telling us we can’t argue that. It is a HUGE FALLACY. They are not an illustrious company.
Why are you assuming they are telling the truth? It is not as if they haven’t been known before to tell lies. They say whatever is necessary to pursue their goals. It is clear that their goal is to carry out an energy transition because that is where the money is going. If the goal was to reduce CO2 then two thirds of the World, that happens to be the ones that are increasing their emissions faster, would not get a free pass. Leading by example does not work in the international arena.
“BobM August 28, 2020 at 5:40 pm
Is there really going to be a Part II to this garbage?”
Brilliant.
Says it all.
We don’t have to guess. Thanks to the A-bomb tests, we know that CO2 clears the air rapidly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_pulse#/media/File:Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg
The drop from 1965 to 1975 looks to be about 50 percent. Tau about 18 to 20 years.
Almost none of the CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere in 1965 remains in 2020.
That one chart entirely refutes any claims that CO2 “accumulates” in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The global experiment is done. Conclusion — there is no spoon.
Also
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/#comment-1352246
Tony Brown: “Science tells us that rapidly rising Co2 in turn causes rising temperatures, which has become a very serious problem for humanity.”
No, it doesn’t.
Climate models have no predictive value. And climate modeling is not a branch of science.
In a world where the truth doesn’t matter, the liars rule.
Didn’t the temps start to fall about the same time Barack Obama parted the rising seas?
“this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …” Barack Obama
He did part with common sense, but that is a different story.
When will Temperatures start to fall?
Nick Stokes has a graph that helps immensely.
The Moyhu NCEP/NCAR index.
His leading post The GISS V4 land/ocean temperature anomaly also has a link to commentasry from J Hansen.
Few have commented that at the start of this year and coming off a very hot Novenber December 2020 was shaping up to be the warmest year in recent records.
The emergence of a probable La Nina has put an end to that.
Currently 2020 Aug 0.144
Previous monthly’s 2020 Jul 0.214 2020 Jun 0.223 2020 May 0.337 2020 Apr 0.401
2020 Mar 0.356 2020 Feb 0.554 2020 Jan 0.552 2019 Dec 0.587
–
In answer to the question on one index only Temperatures have fallen by 0.43 C worldwide in just 8 months and look likely to go lower.
Nick has problems with his graph that he had to adjust in a misleading way.
The base for the anomaly is no linger 0.00C but -.05.
I guess he did not want to show negative daily values have started to happen.