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
CO2 greening of the planet is gathering pace and becoming harder to ignore.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x
It is human caused and it is good.
No evidence it’s human caused, but 7.5 billion people definitely are benefiting either way.
At one point they use RCP8.5 (2081 to 2100).
That’s not happening.
What else in this study is nonsense?
The reason for posting these figures is to discuss Tony’s greater premise from a different viewpoint.
–
“proposition. Science tells us that rapidly rising Co2 in turn causes rising temperatures, which has become a very serious problem for humanity.”
“There are all sorts of caveats of course, with methane, water vapour, clouds, feedbacks, ocean response, natural variations etc”-
“Whether the reader personally believes excess Co2 to be a problem” No.
–
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.”
–
One does not need a drop in CO2 at all for temperatures to return to pre industrial levels.
Our poor knowledge and ability to measure the important parameters of cloud cover, aerosols and ECS means we are making hopeless stabs in the dark at trying to make such assessments.
–
If we take the world as it is and ignore human interference altogether, basically the recipe for the last 3.5 billion years, we would see that temperatures consistent with life have existed for that very long period.
Which means the orbit and temperature range we are in has been remarkably stable for that time.
Hence distance from the sun, temperature of the sun, size of the earth etc for this to happen are reasonably well established.
Ice ages and hothouse earths are not going to happen for tens to 100s of thousands of years.
Short term variations of several degrees happen all the time on this background.
Proof the change of 0.44C in just 8 months, the temperature swings with El Nino and La Nina.
Herein a problem as El Nino and La Nina merely describe what is happening with the oceans when this temperature changes occur, they are pat of the change, not the cause, very important.
–
The consequence of 0.44 in 8 months or larger at times is simply this. A 1C change can occur in any one year, a 2C change in10 years and a 3C change in 100 years or longer.
Hence we have been going through such a change of a little over a 1C in the last 150 years.
At a time coincident with rising CO2 emissions, which also necessitate an extra undetermined forcing.
–
If I was to postulate a non human affected earth the pattern of the last 150 years is easily achievable without invoking CO2.
Hence it could also easily return to preindustrial levels in the same frame or faster or slower.
–
Would lowering CO2 help or hinder this?
The unquantified CO2 response seems likely to be of such a low level that it would not really be a help or hindrance to these time frames.
I still see a giant problem in the concept of energy in and energy out and so called retained heat or radiative imbalance.
A massive hole.
In the sense of the time energy can be retained, retarded or held back for.
Energy transit time is the problem.
Earth is basically in steady state radiation balance.
That is the oceans and land have all warmed up to the degree that they are entitled to under the laws of thermodynamics.There is no active room to store extra energy into the oceans, no reason why the earth should suddenly say it will disobey the laws of energy and start storing up extra energy.
What the sun puts in daily more or less has to go out daily. Not stay stored under the ocean surface for hundreds of years.
–
Please do not misunderstand. There are pockets of warmer water under the surface. In cliudy nights the air stays warmer under the clouds than under a bare sky.
But these pockets are already in existence, or being created while the earth has to continually radiate back the same amount of energy it has received.
For every hot pocket of air or water there is another pocket that is colder in order for that energy to radiate out.
-There is a radiative imbalance every day when the sun comes up.
The CO2 in the air helps transiently delay the passage time of the incoming radiation. until it reaches radiative balance. When the power of the sun goes way the radiative imbalance works the other way.
The temperature of the air is due to the actual level of the CO2 etc that day, and every day.
responds
Tony Brown,
It is CO2, not Co2. The latter is a molecule consisting of two atoms of cobalt.
The covid-19 crisis, when compared to the climate “crisis” is revealing that we live under a system in which academics have gained substantial control over the levers of power. This is becoming form of “rule by professors” under which our elected politicians claim “we have to follow The Science.” The action taken for covid-19 was extreme enough that they felt the need to bring the professors out on stage with them.
I predict that when they really start ramping up CO2 mitigation levels to the extent they have threatened, you will see more professors wheeled out, this time of the climate variety. They will spout the same sciencey stuff that the virus professors spouted, but making even less sense when subjected to scrutiny.
I am saddened when people misunderstand posts like this.
Tony is asking where is the evidence of when a) CO2 will start to fall and when temperatures will start to fall.
This missing evidence is being used to force unbelievable policies on the peoples of Europe and via green envy of AOC etc, the US.
All Tonyb is asking, does anyone know where or what this evidence is.
The obvious conclusion is,if this crowd source search for evidence turns up nothing sensible, then we can concur the climate policies are evidence free.
But we need to demonstrate this.
Steve
Yes thanks, precisely right.
Tonyb
THAT is the question. That’s the dog in the night the IPCC won’t mention.
The UK Met Office has given an answer, of sorts, via a Press Office post, see https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2020/05/07/coronavirus-will-impact-the-atmospheric-co2-record-but-not-enough-to-slow-global-heating/:
“To halt the CO2 rise and prevent further warming, CO2 emissions would initially need to halve, and reduce by even more in the long term.”
We’re going into a Grand Solar Minimum. Temperatures will start to fall soon, though will be adjusted to make it look as though they are not.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/08/27/astrophysicist-asserts-the-globe-will-cool-1c-during-2020-2053-due-to-an-oncoming-grand-solar-minimum/
We are not going into a Grand Solar Minimum, we are in the midst of a Centennial Solar Minimum. Solar activity won’t decrease further and should increase after 2032.
Feynman, J., & Ruzmaikin, A. (2011). The Sun’s strange behavior: Maunder minimum or Gleissberg cycle?. Solar physics, 272(2), 351.
“The data do not support the Maunder Minimum conjecture. However, the behavior can be understood as a minimum of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle that previously minimized in the beginning of the 20th century.”
At 280 ppm carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, it is assumed it was in equilibrium with the nature (oceans and land). Close to the equator CO2 was desorbed from the oceans to the atmosphere and the cold oceans absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere – all in parallel with other natural CO2 transport phenomena resulting in a net very, very slow decreasing CO2 concentration.
All the natural CO2 transport phenomena are still today present although at a reduced desorption flow rate due to the higher atmospheric CO2 concentration which also will possibly increase the absorption rate into cold oceans. As well there is a higher biological activity on land as well.
2019 ended at 413 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.
By recent fuel combustion and industrial production, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is calculated to increase by 4.5 ppm/year if nothing else happens (CO2 emission = 36*10^12 kg/year ; 44 kg/kmole ; atmos weight = 5.2*10^18 kg ; 29 kg/kmole ==> 36/44/5.2*29*10^-6 = 4.5 ppm/year).
If the nature (land and oceans) also are adding CO2, then the atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase by more than 4.5 ppm/year.
At Mauna Loa the atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured to increase by only 2.5 ppm/year.
The difference, 2 ppm/year, has to be accumulated elsewhere – into the nature.
The natural CO2 emissions to the atmos are much bigger than those from the the fossil fuels, but the flow from atmos to nature are even bigger, according to the atmos CO2 mass balance, net 2 ppm/year to the nature.
Those big natural CO2 flows through the atmos makes the recidence time for a single CO2 molecule to be less than 12 years.
Reducing the CO2 concentration will take much longer.
By reducing the fossil fuel emissions to only 16 Gton/year CO2, the concentration will initially stay steady at 413 ppm (net 2 ppm/year in and 2 ppm/year out from atmos) for a very long period of time.
By a sudden 100 % reduction of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the sinks are still initially active at net 2 ppm/year. At lower atmos CO2 concentration that figure will be much lower, 0 ppm/year at 280 ppm (or at slighty higher concentration due to all the accumulated CO2 from fossil fuels).
Halfway down from 413 to 280 ppm, 413-(413-280)/2 = 347 ppm, the net sink flow rate is assumed to be reduced to half of the existing.
Let’s use (2+2/2)/2 = 1.5 ppm/year as an average sink rate going from 413 ppm halfway down to 280 ppm ==> (413-347)/1.5 = 44 years to reach 347 ppm at zero anthropogenic emissions.
Halfway down from 347 to 280 ppm, 347-(347-280)/2 = 313 ppm, the net sink flow rate is assumed to be reduced to half.
Let’s use (2/2+2/2/2)/2 = 0.75 ppm/year as an average sink rate going from 347 ppm halfway down to 280 ppm ==> (347-313)/0.75 = 45 years to reach 313 ppm at zero anthropogenic emissions.
By 2050 at 450 ppm the net sink rate is assumed to be 2*(450-280)/(413-280) = 2.55 ppm/year.
Let’s use (2.55+2.55/2)/2 = 1.9 ppm/year as an average sink rate going from 450 ppm halfway down to 280 ppm ==> (450-365)/1.9 = 45 years to reach 365 ppm at zero anthropogenic emissions.
In conclusion every halfway step down to 280 ppm will take 45 years.
The atmospheric temperature close to the surface, will respond in parallel to the ocean temperature change, everything else being the same (volcanos, sunshine …..).
CO2 emissions :
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-year/
Atmospheric CO2 measurements :
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html
Roy Spencer calculations :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/a-simple-model-of-the-atmospheric-co2-budget/
”A responsible sceptic”, Ferdinand Engelbeen reviewing climate data :
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/climate.html
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
This article’s author seems unaware that in December 2017 Australian researcher Robert Holmes published a definitive, peer-reviewed refutation of any possible “carbon footprint” (greenhouse-gas CO2) influence on any –repeat, any– planet’s global atmospheric surface temperature (GAST).
For genuinely falsifiable (Popperian) thinking on this prospect, as distinct from sociopathic Luddites’ Grand Theft bleats-and-squeaks [cf: “Mass timber” construction over concrete-and-steel; what’s next, tumbleweed airliners?], see also Danish researcher Henrik Svensmark and Russia’s Valentina Zharkova: Since sunspot activity governs the strength of solar magnetic fields (SMF), sunspot minima reduce SMF intensity. As fields diminish, Cosmic Rays penetrate Earth’s magnetospheric sheath to seed the planet’s overcast cloud-cover, diminishing total solar irradiance (TSI) and lower global temperatures. [Also see Klimat Kooks’ “clean energy” New Manhattan Project, pretending nuclear power does not exist.]
Combined with plate-tectonic continental dispositions, currently blocking global atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns by walling off Eastern from Western hemispheres, for the first time since the pre-Cambrian Ediacaran Aeon fluctuating TSI has induced cyclical 102-kiloyear glaciations over 3.6 million years since the mid-Pliocene. Though Earth’s interstadial 12,250-year Holocene Interglacial Epoch ended with a 500-year Little Ice Age in AD 1350, global temperatures have trended lower over 3½ millennia from New Kingdom Pharaonic times. On this empirical basis, Holmes’ “Mean Molar Mass version of the Ideal Gas Law” equates any planet’s Temperature T = PM/Rp, where P = Atmospheric Pressure times M = Mean Molar Mass over R = Atmospheric Density times Gas Constant p.
With virtually zero error margins throughout the solar system, Holmes’ Law accordingly negates any planet’s parts-per-million (PPM) “carbon footprint” (CO2), refuting anthropogenic warming via “fossil fuel” (sic) emissions root-and-branch. QED: Any AGW poseur professing otherwise is either studiously ignorant of decades-long research, basic math plus nuclear reality, or a mendacious fool.
The interglacial period prior to this one that we’re living in, had lower CO2 and was 2°C warmer. So the question is moot.
The problem is that the goal of reducing CO2 emissions has become confounded with the goal of establishing an authoritarian redistributive/socialist/marxist new order.
In the 1960s and 1970s Sweden and France showed the world how to generate all the emissions-free electricity you could want without collapsing living standards or requiring a political revolution. That is why there is so much greenie opposition to nuclear power – it works. Safely. There should really be no debate about what to do if the objective is simply to reduce CO2 emissions per unit energy used.
So this is an entirely political issue. And it has become the new battleground. In fact, you could quite reasonably call the battle to come the mother of all political battles. Two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time. You cannot have a Green New Deal and at the same time experience personal economic and political freedom at anywhere near a level seen in the postwar period. Under a Green New Deal regime, energy use will be rationed, sometimes severely so, there can be no doubt about that.
Game on. For all our sakes, we can only hope the winners are those who value personal liberty.
Tony Brown: ” but having scoured various ‘official’ web sites I can find no definitive estimate.”
Which just demonstrates once again the monumental task involved in trying to work these things out, the number of variables, latent, discrete, continuous, dependent, independent, known and unknown, etc. are seemingly endless. The science is far from settled as some would have us believe.
TB – “The three questions I ask, in the expectation that the answer can be provided from main stream published science is”
Well to your first two questions concerning the lifetime of CO² in the atmosphere, Chicago University produced this http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf back in 2009.
In France we have a guy called Jean-Marc Jancovici, he is an Associate Professor at Mines ParisTech, I personally have issues with some of his “solutions” to these “problems”, but he talks very frankly about the climate and the consequences of certain political decisions that are being made, especially in the EU.
Not a scientific paper I know, but here on his own website is his take on the questions: (In English) https://jancovici.com/en/climate-change/predicting-the-future/will-climate-change-get-rapidely-to-a-halt-if-we-quickly-decrease-the-emissions/
I am not aware of Jancovici nor how much credibility he is given but he produces a very clear graphic. I will check him out further. Thanks
Tonyb
I fully understand the point Tony is making. We are being asked to change our lifestyle, so we should be told when to expect the benefit. It is the responsibility of scientists and politicians to tell us, but we know that they will be unable to do that because there is not enough knowledge or evidence.
Rather than shock these people into questioning their actions, I expect them to ignore us.
I would prefer to give massive publicity to the fact that climate models are not fit for purpose. I would challenge politicians on why they can justify expensive change on the basis of flawed models. I would claim that the scientists do not understand the climate, as illustrated by four decades of failed models which are getting worse, not better.
The time to do this is now, for several reasons. The alarmists are gearing up for another big campaign once Covid fades from the headlines. The public has been exposed to the controversial nature of pandemic model predictions. In the UK an algorithm used to predict education exam results failed badly. It may not come as a surprise that climate modelling is not as reliable as they have been led to believe. Politicians challenged on the science using failed models as the evidence is more of an immediate issue than guessing when in the climate might respond.
Shrodinger’s cat
Thanks for your support. You say
“I would prefer to give massive publicity to the fact that climate models are not fit for purpose”
The trouble is that we have been doing that for years and some way is found to skirt round the issue, Just as excuses were made for Fergusons flawed CV model and the Exam algorithm.
Hopefully if the general public realise they are being asked to wear painful hair shirts without knowing when they can take them off again, there will be a widespread refusal to go along with it that can circumvent those controlling the agenda
tonyb
Thinking about it, both are linked. If the models are unfit for purpose, they are unable to pedict future temperature increases allegedly caused by increasing CO2. Estimates of the reverse, i.e. when will temperatures decrease as a result of reductions in atmospheric CO2, cannot be answered either.
In other words, reliable scientific understanding and justification simply does not exist.
If we assume the sky is indeed falling, how many virgins would we have to sacrifice to the sky-gods, and how long would it take for the sky to stop falling and reverse back to its original place?
Well, NASA recently found that the atmosphere had contracted. You know, like as a gas volume reduces when the temperature goes down. So, in a sense, the sky is falling. I believe we’ve passed the tipping point for this emergency and it is too late even to sacrifice virgins.
Has anyone ever calculated or done experiments to show how much CO2 is released from the oceans as they warm?
Their model – which I do not believe in – says the nature can take 2.4 ppm each year. What it can not take is the rest, 2.2 ppm from the total 4.6 ppm we emit every year, so if we stop emitting, concentration in the atmosphere would go down with 2.4 ppm every year.
“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.”
It would appear so even from those who shouldn’t be off with the fairies-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8675935/New-petrol-diesel-cars-banned-2030-Government-electric-vehicle-plans.html
Behold the Industrial Devolution.
Observa
.The idea that new diesel and petrol cars would not be allowed in the UK from 2030 will hopefully demonstrate to others that the rest of the world is taking action, whether we think it necessary or not
tonyb
“…temperatures have risen substantially…”
A 0.1 to 0.2 C rising trend PER DECADE!!! (UAH) in the anomaly is not “substantial.”
(how many can ‘splain “anomaly? Show of hands.)
It’s natural variation, noise in the data, UHI, instrument uncertainty, technical progress in equipment and updated methods and trivial NOT substantial.
Attack the root of the fallacy and the rest will topple.
It depends for how long it is sustained. The Quaternary Ice Age was established through a decreasing trend of only 1 °C per million years. Coming from the Miocene that trend was sufficient to freeze solid Antarctica and Greenland and extend large ice sheets over a big part of the Northern Hemisphere. So a trend of only 0.00001 °C per decade is tremendously substantial if sustained over 7 million years.
But then we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for the Quaternary Ice Age, so we shouldn’t complain. Such a silly animal would have not been produced if the favorable conditions of the Miocene had persisted.
“The Quaternary Ice Age was established through a decreasing trend of only 1 °C per million years.”
And that was ascertained exactly how?
Archived flash drives?
Lawrence, K.T., Liu, Z. and Herbert, T.D., 2006. Evolution of the eastern tropical Pacific through Plio-Pleistocene glaciation. Science, 312(5770), pp.79-83.
“hypothesized”
It’s pay walled and I’m not that curious.
Let me say this about proxies which are the predominant research tool for anything older than 200 years.
Proxies are little different from parlor games like Tarot cards, Magic 8 balls and Ouija boards.
And a diversion from the essence: 1) The atmosphere/albedo make the earth cooler not warmer. 2) The GHG “extra” energy :LWIR loop does not exist.
Here in the northern hemisphere, temperatures here start to fall about 4 pm or so every day. On longer timescales, average temps start falling slowly around the first week of August.
Ooo, can I play too. If the Sun went dark and stopped giving off heat, but kept the same mass so our orbit stayed the same, how much CO2 would need to be in the atmosphere to keep us from cooling, since CO2 is what really controls the climate?
From the above article: “Assuming we reach zero carbon emissions by 2030-Extinction Rebellion (XR) requirement, or 2050 -the aim of most governments under the Paris Accord . . .”
Well, humans typically exhale 38,000 ppm (3.8%) CO2 compared to inhaling about 410 ppm CO2 with every breath, the excess CO2 resulting from the human body’s metabolic activity.
There are about 7.8 billion humans currently living on Earth.
How is humanity every going to reach net-zero—let alone, true zero—anthropogenic carbon emissions at any time in the future? Short of purging Earth of humans, that is.
From the above article: “Assuming we reach zero carbon emissions by 2030-Extinction Rebellion (XR) requirement, or 2050 -the aim of most governments under the Paris Accord . . .”
Well, humans typically exhale 38,000 ppm (3.8%) CO2 compared to inhaling about 415 ppm CO2 with every breath, the excess CO2 resulting from the human body’s metabolic activity.
There are about 7.8 billion humans currently living on Earth.
How is humanity every going to reach zero anthropogenic carbon emissions at any time in the future? Short of purging Earth of humans, that is.
That’s basal metabolism, ie sleeping.
Include typical daily activity averaged over a day it’s close to 50000 ppm.
About 1 kilogram of CO2 per human per day.
About half the CO2 emitted by burning of fossils stay in the air. If we only emit half of present emissions the level of CO2 in the air would stabilize to a little higher level than today.
If we stop the fossil burning i assume the level in the air would start dropping with 2ppm a year. The forcing from changes in CO2 acts very fast and the variuos feedbacks acts just as fast, so from theese rute considerations i guess the temperature should begin dropping in 10 years time.
When the temperature has dropped sufficiently, we have to concider emitting CO2 again, just to keep the paradisian climate constant.
(Laughing) The “CO2 is the planet’s temperature control knob” belief.
Let’s just assume your belief if correct.
And how do you propose getting to half current emissions when the emissions growth is all in the developing world, mostly China and India? Put Europe into the stone ages while China and Russia watch and laugh waiting for their chance to take what they want?
Svend, Your idiotic ideas come straight from a Kremlin and Beijing play book for World Domination.
Atmospheric total water is 0.25 percent or 2500 ppm.
Often called TPW.
http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm
But very very unevenly distributed.
Tony is asking exactly the right question, and the fact that it is so hard to find it answered anyplace in the vast quantity of publications about global warming is a bit of a giveaway.
The question is one to ask of activists and policy makers advocating policies.
Its fundamentally as simple as this: what effects on the supposed problem will the proposed policies have?
Except he has put it in reverse: he has asked what it will take to produce the changes people claim to want and to intend producing.
The underlying problem with the movement is the same whichever way you put it. They demand that things be done which, if the theory is correct, will have no effect on the supposed problem. They refuse to advocate things which, if the theory is correct, are required to make any impact on it.
If you want two examples: in the UK they advocate turning Drax into biofuelled generation. How much effect will this have on global CO2 levels? None. Similarly by the way with the proposal to go to EVs by 2030.
And an example of the second, you will find no activist prepared to advocate that China should reduce total tons of CO2 emitted, or stop building coal fired power plants. But this is something they ought to think, if they really believed the theory, is absolutely essential.
The movement has a clear and fundamental problem. It is advocating as means to ends policies which, according to its own theories, will not do anything to deliver those ends.
Go figure why this might be happening. But the fact is, it is. This is what Tony is pointing out.
They do not really believe in AGW. If they did we’d be building 20 GWatts of nuclear generation capability annually…for 30 to 50 years…it’s the only way to meet their (artificial) targets. And the China/India free pass seals the certainty of the lies. It’s not about the Climate.
They invented a pseudo-crisis that can’t be fixed using their own fake numbers and their currently stated fake solutions (renewables and taxes ONLY in the Western World) . Their solutions puts them (increasingly centralized power) in control of almost everything we do and everything we make.
It’s all and only about acquiring power for the Globalist Agenda. And that’s the same reason they’ve stopped at nothing to get rid of Trump…currently the number one obstacle to their plans. Watch the (95%) unified Press attacks…everyday with the same attack stories using the exact same words and phrases across the entire Press Corp. They speak as one voice. And CAGW is one of their story lines.