Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; A pair of researchers from the Norwegian Business School have produced a climate prognosis so profoundly depressing even Katharine Hayhoe has publicly complained about it.
Just Stopping Emissions May No Longer Be Enough to Stop Global Warming
Researchers argue that it’s time to invest in aggressive carbon capture
Earlier this year, the Earth saw a huge dip in carbon emissions as nations around the globe locked down to slow the spread of the coronavirus. It offered a glimpse into what the world might look like if we took drastic steps to reduce our carbon emissions to slow the spread of global warming: For a brief moment, smog-choked cities around the world had clear skies.
But according to a new modeling study published in Scientific Reports today, even if we made such drastic reductions permanent, it would still not be enough. The study suggests that if we stopped all human-made greenhouse gas emissions immediately, the Earth’s temperatures would continue to rise because of self-sustaining melting ice and permafrost. These “feedback loops” — in which melting ice causes less sunlight to be reflected back into space, which in turn raises temperatures and causes more ice melt — have already been set into motion, the researchers argue.
Humanity “is beyond the point-of-no-return when it comes to halt the melting of the permafrost using greenhouse gas cuts as the single tool,” Jørgen Randers, PhD, professor emeritus of climate strategy at BI Norwegian Business School and lead author of the study, tells Future Human in an email. That’s not to say we should give up on reducing emissions: Rather, Randers says that the world “should accelerate its effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions (in order to postpone as much as possible the temperature rise) and start developing the technologies for large scale removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.”
…
Read more: https://futurehuman.medium.com/were-past-the-point-of-no-return-on-global-warming-scientists-warn-6779aaf4ed2b
The abstract of the study;
An earth system model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020
Jorgen Randers & Ulrich Goluke
Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 18456 (2020) Cite this article
Abstract
The risk of points-of-no-return, which, once surpassed lock the world into new dynamics, have been discussed for decades. Recently, there have been warnings that some of these tipping points are coming closer and are too dangerous to be disregarded. In this paper we report that in the ESCIMO climate model the world is already past a point-of-no-return for global warming. In ESCIMO we observe self-sustained melting of the permafrost for hundreds of years, even if global society stops all emissions of man-made GHGs immediately. We encourage other model builders to explore our discovery in their (bigger) models, and report on their findings. The melting (in ESCIMO) is the result of a continuing self-sustained rise in the global temperature. This warming is the combined effect of three physical processes: (1) declining surface albedo (driven by melting of the Arctic ice cover), (2) increasing amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere (driven by higher temperatures), and (3) changes in the concentrations of the GHG in the atmosphere (driven by the absorption of CO2 in biomass and oceans, and emission of carbon (CH4 and CO2) from melting permafrost). This self-sustained, in the sense of no further GHG emissions, melting process (in ESCIMO) is a causally determined, physical process that evolves over time. It starts with the man-made warming up to the 1950s, leading to a rise in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere—further lifting the temperature, causing increasing release of carbon from melting permafrost, and simultaneously a decline in the surface albedo as the ice and snow covers melts. To stop the self-sustained warming in ESCIMO, enormous amounts of CO2 have to be extracted from the atmosphere.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z
Why was Hayhoe so upset about a climate study which says we’re all doomed?
It appears that people have to think climate change is enough of a problem to be motivated to act, but if the message is too depressing, supporters could lose interest and lapse into apathy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This comes as good news. The situation is now so bad that we can’t fix it. Well, then, we an just carry on as normal and relax. What a relief it is. It was quite nice weather here today.
How wonderful it is that the climate alarmists have hoisted themselves on their own petard!
So two professors from The Norwegian BUSINESS School have weighed in on global warming.
We have yet to hear from:
The Norwegian Cooking School
The Norwegian Ethnic Studies School
The Norwegian Sports Institute
The Norwegian Lutefisk and Lefsa Society
The Association of Norwegian Nudist Colonies
Doesn’t matter where the message comes from, it matters whether or not it’s supported by data and observation.
Do you think Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre shouldn’t weigh in?
Would Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre or any others weigh in on this Canadian issue?
https://ipolitics.ca/2020/09/23/themes-of-provincial-failure-and-climate-crisis-stand-out-in-carbon-tax-hearings/
Now, I just might researchers from the ANNC seriously. Nudists have a vested interest in climate.
Yes, but surely the ANNC would be biased towards warming being beneficial, which is heresy to the climate alarmists.
Some additional facts: Jørgen Randers, MSc solid state physics, PhD management. One of the authors of “Limits to Growth”. A long career of climate alarmism; speciality: Getting most things wrong. But successful nevertheless.
Global warming sounds like very good news for Norway.
Don’t the natives notice it’s really cold there?
When I moved from New York to Michigan for a job in 1977, I first noticed it was cold here. 43 years later it’s still cold here. But … on November 9, 2020 it hit 75 degrees here. People got really excited.
Girls were sunbathing in bikinis and sending selfies to friends in other states.
People were driving convertibles with the tops down.
Motorcycles were zooming on the roads.
Everyone was happy that it was warm.
Some people even took off their masks while walking their dogs.
Only those who live dangerously.
And then it got cold again, most likely never to hit the 70s again until Spring 2021.
Why would ANYONE think global warming was bad news? The greenhouse effect is expected to be very mild in areas that are hot and humid. Should be most noticeable in colder dryer areas during the colder months of the year. Like Norway. And the Detroit suburbs where I live. One of the biggest disappointments of my life is that we didn’t get enough global warming here. Along with never winning the lottery.
Here in Northern Virginia, it was 70 F in the afternoon. After sunset, it rose to 71 F! For November 15th, that is amazing – and something for which everyone is grateful!
Until anyone can actually point to a mechanism for disaster – instead of arm waving assertions of floods and droughts (don’t those cancel?) and “extreme weather” that never seem to be in evidence – I’ll take a warmer November, and the attendant savings on our propane bill.
nicholas,
It is the rampant growth of HUMANITY that is devastating the environment.
There is NO solution until humanity has been reduced to about 1 billion, as it was in 1800, when each person used only one quarter of the energy each person uses at present.
Sounds like you need to lead by example. I suggest self immolation, preferably in front of some governmental building with lots of witnesses. Show us the courage of your convictions.
Hear, hear!
I would suggest Mr Post(humous) should consider that the best population control method is affluence. Affluence grows best in environments of plentiful and affordable energy and individual liberty.
What has passed a possible point of no return is the global indoctrination into a despotic socialist scientology that deems all but the elite of mankind to be virus which endangers their comfortable existence on this planet , which they claim can be controlled by effecting changes in trace gasses.
absolutly
You already have a list at hand with whom should go, I suppose.
Nuclear Power!
Nice weather here too for two hours.
Exactly like it was 60 years ago 🙂
Agreed! And Hallelujah!
If only they knew what they are talking about it would be good news. Unfortunately, they don’t; and we will probably start sinking back toward LIA conditions n a few years. No doubt the same Cassandras will try to blame the cooling on Global Warming for a few years before switching over to wail and nash their teeth about whatever Man is doing to cause the cooling.
As the planet is cooling, this should be fun to watch.
“ …..in the ESCIMO climate model…..”
Pass.
Good catch. But now, of course, it would be an INUIT climate model 0 which I nearly called an IDIUT climate model.
“we report that in the ESCIMO climate model”
I stopped reading at that point.
Was it back-dated to April 1 ?
E == emeritus
S == pseudo
C == climate
I == indicator
M == model
O == outstanding
And authored by a Professor emeritus
NB NB NB Emeritus: e == out of, meritus == ought to be.
Peddling doom is big business.
until the “we” is focused on China….it’s all BS and a $c@m
What a relief to know with certainty that it is all over. Let us therefore quickly build fossil-fueled power plants wherever they are needed, particularly in countries where life really is miserable without them. Our last few years on the planet must be as pleasant and comfortable as possible for as many people as possible.
Eat, drink and be merry. And let us be truly grateful for the 100,000 good years humankind has enjoyed in our beautiful world.
Thank you, God.
“professor emeritus of climate strategy” Oh, yeah…
Must sound very serious to a select public of retards and policymakers.
So let’s start removing the major GHG (greenhouse gas), namely H2O. It will be a big task, but with enough nuclear power, we may succeed.
After that comes the second most dangerous GHG, namely CO2. Removing CO2 would probably be academic after removing the H2O, so let us see if it is easier to do the other way around.
So we first remove min 0.035% of the CO2 in some way, which has the benefit of stopping most plant growth, thus purging most animals and bad humans, the temperature fall and Earth-One is saved in a virgin less populated state.
Bed wetter clown universities.
” in a virgin less populated state.”
If you want to reduce the population, you’ll need more virgins …not less !! (;-))
The billionaires can just wait in their secret underground bunkers until almost everything is dead, then they can terraform the earth as they want, with at least a 0.1% CO2 level.
“Earlier this year, the Earth saw a huge dip in carbon emissions…”
Which doesn’t seem to have registered on the atmosphere.
So given the huge economic damage of this modest reduction in CO2, the true economic damage of “zero carbon” will be devastating. They can see that far at least.
Ergo, the answer is adaptation, not control. I think they have just reached the obvious conclusion, albeit accidentally. Pity they weren’t able to make the next intellectual step.
Alternatively they might consider reading On the Beach by Nevil Shute and take it as an instruction manual rather than a novel. Might at least reduce the number of alarmists.
The rest of us normal, rational, sceptical people can then just get on with our lives without further interference. It is not man-made climate change that will destroy civilisation, it is the belief in man-made climate change that will do it.
sTtinkingScientist:
On the Beach (1959) was one of the best movies I’ve ever seen.
Although not a movie I wanted to see more than once.
I never considered reading the book until you mentioned it.
Thanks fir the tip/
Adaptation is the answer, of course, but these genuises call for geo-engineering instead. Pivoting from a strategy that will certainly cause economic destruction to one that could wipe us and most other living things out isn’t much of a step forward.
On The Beach was an early indicator of how the leftist author set had already been mentally indoctrinated about inclusion of bureaucracy into the design of your meanings of life.
Remember the scene where a fussy bureaucrat nurse was handing out gvernment-supplied suicide pills. It was the imminent end of human life on Earth and there she was, clipboard at the ready, tickng off the names of people so nobody could game the system. Lord knows who was going to check her dilgence and benefit to the common cause.
OTOH, author Shute wrote some realistic books, so I have put this cyanide scene into the deliberate cynicism category. Geoff S
“Earlier this year, the Earth saw a huge dip in carbon emissions as nations around the globe locked down”
not according to noaa.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
does lockdown disprove human AGW ?
Read Roy Spencer why this is the case
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-wont-show-up-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/
an 11% reduction in man’s co2 activity would show in the co2 chart, it doesn’t. I posit that the yearly rise in co2 we see is assumed to be from man (because that’s what activists tell me). without an 11% drop being shown in the chart we can infer the yearly rise is not from man’s activities but from a change in the environment. Spencer wrote that article in May, we are in November.
11% reduction of man’s 6% contribution is only a change of 0.66%, probably why we can’t see it.
But wait – that means our contribution is trivial compared to Nature. Surely not? That means if we went to zero CO2 human emissions it wouldn’t make any difference?
Adaptation. The only sane strategy. If nothing happens, nothing to do. If it does happen, adapt. Like we always have to past climate change. Don’t need to worry whether its natural or man-made either – adaptation is just adaptation, whatever the cause of the change.
But of course greenies and politicians don’t like adaptation – can’t virtue signal and means they are not “saving the world”.
I get your point, but you may have missed mine. 11% of the annual increase (practically a straight line) –
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
it would show on the chart on the left, if the chart on the left is due to human emissions, therefore the annual increase on the co2 chart is not due to man. we tested the hypothesis by decreasing our emissions by 11%, the hypothesis failed.
“11% reduction of man’s 6% contribution is only a change of 0.66%, probably why we can’t see it.”
we are told that 100% of the co2 increase is due to man.
11% of 100% would show on that chart. you don;t need fancy statistics, just eyeball it or take a piece of paper and align the edge with the maxs and mins of the yearly cycle.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
It’s even smaller than that, ThinkingScientist. Dr. Spencer says nature’s emission of CO2 exceeds humankind’s by a factor of 30. That means we are around 3% of total emissions to begin with, and an 11% reduction of our output would mean .33% reduction of the total. Good luck spotting that!
Exactly. The claim is that we are the ones driving the CO2 increase – 100% of the increase so the 11% drop should be easily detected. and by now, after even lower emissions for 11 months. it should be super obvious, but alas. not detected anywhere. Answer: We have ZERO impact on CO2 levels in atmosphere. Natural variability dwarfs our impact
Even if we humans are forced to decrease future emissions by a lot, how are we going to measure the supposed benefit if we cannot see a measured change in the atmosphere?
Remember, van Wjngaarden and Happer, with careful measurement, have shown in a recent preprint that CO2 in the air is saturated in it’s ability to produce significantly more heat if it’s concentration changes. This applies to both more and less CO2 in the air than the current level. If nothing else changes, like water vapour, CO2 is no longer a control know for global temperatures and indeed, it might not have been since the start of the industrial revolution.
A saturated gas, as they describe, is a dead horse for claims of affecting temperature. Scientists know this. Many are too scared to discuss it.
It is not only voting systems that are under a cloud of dishonesty. Geoff S
“Exactly. The claim is that we are the ones driving the CO2 increase – 100% of the increase so the 11% drop should be easily detected. and by now, after even lower emissions for 11 months. it should be super obvious, but alas. not detected anywhere. Answer: We have ZERO impact on CO2 levels in atmosphere. Natural variability dwarfs our impact”
everybody should focus on this, the rest is just noise.
I can’t return to my 50th birthday, in so far, the study is right.
If one is so lucky to be allowed to take that first breath, the inevitable last will surely follow.
Well, y’know, birth IS the leading cause of death.
Now the UK’s (non-elect) PM Dominic Cummings hes lost the Downing St civil war to the greenie and the first fiance Carrie Symonds, the Whitehall catastrophic climate change enters a new phase.
err???[Earlier this year, the Earth saw a huge dip in carbon emissions as nations around the globe locked down to slow the spread of the coronavirus}
really?
cos last I read was there’d been NO discernable drop in the tally of co2 picked up in their monitoring
someone oughta make a shrink appt for the “researchers” as theyre obviously unsetled folk
“The study is deeply, deeply flawed. I suggest looking to
@DrKateMarvel, @KHayhoe, @MichaelEMann, etc. for accurate climate info. ”
Funny how some seek to take back the keys of the climate pseudoscience asylum,
while referencing among of the worst climate charlatans.
Gullibility and crockery are beyond any limit.
If the situation is hopeless, there is no point in climate change policy. so the power these people want won’t be given to them.
The crisis must be severe enough (to justify action) but not so serious it can’t be solved. So the greenies and alarmists have to maintain the crisis according Goldilocks – the crisis must be “just right”, not to hot or too cold.
Same thing goes for climate models of course. Particularly if models too cold – no research funding.
A simple question to the claimed permafrost role in rising CO2 destroys the idea that melting permafrost is a net CO2 emitter.
“When the ground is permanently frozen, how did all that carbon get there in the form of organic matter in the first place?”
The second question is a bit more complex in understanding:
“Why has the amplitude of seasonal swings of Arctic CO2 increased over the last two decades?”
The 2nd question goes to fact that the massive seasonal CO2 drawdown in the high latitudes always is occurring in the summer months when the ground is thawing, and the CO2 increases there happen in the winter months when the ground surface has refrozen.
Don’t ask so complicate questions to such simples, they don’t understand what you are talking about.
“Why has the amplitude of seasonal swings of Arctic CO2 increased over the last two decades?”
Better monitoring.
Same monitoring site run by NOAA at Barrow, Alaska, put in service around 2001. The amplitude of the seasonal CO2 swing at high latitude has clearly increased across those 18 years of data.
More plant matter, perhaps.
See figure 8. In this NOAA description of how CO2 measurements are fitted to a curve.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/mbl/crvfit/crvfit.html
Jørgen Randers is Norways Paul Ehrlich. That is all you need to know.
According to wiki, he is indeed a full member of the Club of Rome, a bunch of dangerous psychopaths who based some of their absurd conclusions on Paul R. Ehrlich’s garbage.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome
Those psychopaths got it completely wrong and are still here spouting nonsense and scaremongering.
There is no doubt that the so-called “Club of Rome” is the enemy of mankind !
This might be a good time to ask if there was ever a time in the apparent history of this planet that the climate was not changing?
Or when it was ever under control. Joe Biden says we can bring it under control. I’m sure the solution is lots of new and draconian taxes. Apparently they plan on bribing the climate into control.
You can never be woke enough. You can never be alarmist enough. It’s always worse than before.
The moderates will be eaten by these extremists, as all leftwaffe group think does all the time, it’s built in.
The genie is out of the bottle, and if XR feel emboldened enough to consider desecrating a war memorial on the 11th of November, then they will have no compunction in coming after you Madam Hayhoe.
Climate war is what they are looking for.
“leftwaffe”?
I like it.
This seems like an appropriate moment to repeat this Carl Sagan story: He was, as everyone here probably knows, well known for his idiosyncratic pronunciation of the word billions. It happened one time that he gave a talk to a group of women and during that talk he discussed how the sun was eventually going to turn into a giant star which would engulf and destroy the earth. At the end of the talk, he asked for questions. An older woman stood up and asked, “How long did you say it would take before the sun destroyed the earth?” Eight billion years, he responded. Thanks God, she said, I thought you said eight million.
Good, long past time for these lie spewing scumbags to shut the f***k up and move on with their lives.
I suggest these lying bed wetters top themselves to help the rest of us avoid doomsday…..
Within the Climate Faith, there are tendencies towards nihilism. The sub-group Extinction Rebellion is representative of this tendency. No less than the Greenie munchkin prophetess, Greta the Great One also leans that way. This does perform the function of making those Alarmists who offer more hope for humanity within the approved ideology, appear more rational and reasonable.
‘On The Beach’ mentioned above? god, how I used to love Ava Gardner.
You have retards and then again retards. But I never thought that they apparently live in Norway.
I ran across a meme recently that pointed out that Edvard Munch’s screaming man looked like a dog with droopy ears, and now I can’t stop seeing that dog.
Regards,
Bob
Thanks Bob, ruined that painting for me too now…..
Seeing the dog now too… aargh.
(Munch also did some really good arctic landscapes)
grief is suggestible? who knew..
Take a break, Bob.
Story behind The Scream
I did a painting that looked just like that in seventh grade art class. The teacher told me it was awful and gave me a “C”. Told me I had no art talent, but recommended his mechanical drawing class on making blueprints for builders and engineers. I threw the painting away. But I should have saved it. Would be worth millions today.
I saw this on the UK Daily Mail earlier this morning, but also a story that Richard Betts had disagreed with the findings and the claims had been withdrawn, but it has now been assigned to Room 101. But I did find this
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/point-of-no-return-global-warming-claim-withdrawn-by-scientific-reports-journal/news-story/6b9a898842552f27673bc7870a15a7c8
Unfortunately behind pay-wall
Tweet about the subject
“It’ll be tough, but it’s definitely possible & within our capabilities.”
But only if we eschew all of our stuff and give it to the priests… errr, scientists. Only then our grand-grandchildren can make it alive.
Btw, I’m 40 and I don’t have kids, don’t fly (I have fear of heights), I don’t own a car, I sit most of my time at home in front of my PC. I did my part already…