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.
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…
In the comments. so far, these “brilliant” perfessers (according to their resumes) , trying to save the world from climate change doom, were described with the following non-scientific terms:
“climate alarmists”
“spewing scumbags”
“lying bed wetters”
“retards”
I object to use of the term “retards”
Richard Greene
Official Spokesman: Retards of America
… also a “short bus” driver and
executive washroom attendant
for even-numbered stalls
***Moderator Bait***
Unfortunately, most of the terms applied are appropriate.
Hayhoe is saying what I’ve been saying for a while – that is – We are in imminent danger of doing something sooo dumb as to extinguish ourselves.
(I would and always have, further that with the reason why. The reliance of sugar in our diet. We are behaving like drunks because of the stuff)
But Hoho excels herself – she is leading the charge in doom-mongering.
Especially with the Interweb creating an epic high-speed system of Chinese Whispering where everyone feels compelled to expand on what has been previously said
Just before the interweb is switched off (its the only *real* solution) have a look at this= what will probably happen in a Biden/Harris/Cortez world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzoX7zEZ6h4
Holy Cow, the US has printed $3 Trillion *just* to cope with Covid.
Work it out, what would a single daily tablet containing Vitamins B, D plus Zinc and Magnesium cost?
Even if just for the over 40’s at maybe10 cents per day?
Regarding Hayhoe’s doomerism/point of no return using the one cigarette analogy, a better one would be: Jeffry Toobin is one Zoom stroke past the point of no return.
Lol. Ben Shapiro now uses the word “Toobining” a lot on his radio show.
“Recently, there have been warnings that some of these tipping points are coming closer and are too dangerous to be disregarded.”
I took the highest authority at their word and we were all doomed after 2000-
https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
So why are they continually bothering the children with this adult dooming stuff as it’s best we remain calm and let the little ones enjoy the time they have left. Who the Hell upset Greta like that as I thought we’d all agreed it was not on after the exploding schoolkiddies and dropping polar bears off skyscrapers was giving them nightmares unnecessarily. There needs to be harsh penalties for child abuse with the dooming.
Of course the Progressives don’t like this line of thinking. It eliminates their excuse for escalating their war on the middle class.
Let’s party.
*See On the Beach reference above
“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.”
More like it appears that if they push the nonsense so hard that everyone will start doubting any of it is legitimate.
Smells like self preservation more than complaints of doomerism.
Hayhoe herself claimed permanent drought (Doomerish for the midwest land owners)
Na, its a Schism, somebody not adhering to the Orthodox doctrine as prescribed by the Climate Theocracy.
How Dare They!!
Cant have people thinking independently, who knows where that would lead!
Great news! Since…obviously…climate research grant money is no longer needed, we will be able to invest those $Billions into retraining the thousands of climate experts who will be in need of jobs. Perhaps learning to write code?
Wait, wait, wait! . . . I was assured by that brilliant climate scientist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that I would (as of today) still have about 10.25 years left before the world entered the path of unrecoverable catastrophic climate change.
Why should I believe this study by two professors from a Norwegian Business School over the pronouncements of AOC?
I say, for the next ten years, let’s party on! Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to provide the funds.
The Twits are funny. You have this one, shown in the article:
And clicking through to TWITter (against my better judgement), the Twits are denigrating the model that was used. Even MannTastic says their future projections are worthless.
Where have we heard all that before? No no no, THESE models are good and wonderful, but that one is nonsense.
It is indeed an echo chamber in there, since they block anyone who disagrees with them.
It’s also ironic that this Jess Phoenix person (if that is her real name), complains of a “deeply flawed” study, then looks to the likes of Michael Mann, creator of many deeply flawed studies, for help.
Cognitive Dissonance.
They have ineffectively calibrated the fear they’ve instilled by raising and raising the doom predictions and so everyone will just tune them out.
The oceans have now started to cool after the lengthy El Nino dominated period of 2014-2020. This will likely continue if it follows the trends of previous La Nina events.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to:2018.1/trend
It seems reasonable we could return to the at least the same level as 2018 by February. If we then continue the cooling the big question will be how far do we drop. Alarmists have been using ENSO based warming to hype record warm years and 2021 could see a major drop.
Will alarmism continue? Of course it will. They will just use something different.
Typical bunch of ridiculous fear-mongering verbal garbage.
Climate change dictionary
for climate change trained parrots:
2018 = “existential threat”
2019 = “worse than we thought”
2020 = “worse than worse than we thought”
2021 = “hopeless”
2022 = “more hopeless than we thought”
2023 = “worse than more hopeless than we thought”
2024 = “almost no life left on the planet”,
except Donald Trump, running for president again.
President of nothing.
2025 = “the end” (Trump wins)
Note:
Never smile, or burst out laughing,
when informing others of the coming
climate crisis (2019),
disaster (2020),
apocalypse (2021)
armageddon (2022)
annihilation (2023)
holocaust (2024)
A weather guy in NZ (James Renwick) reckons these findings are implausible because it disagrees with other models.
Maybe that’s the plan – publish some _really_ outlandish ‘findings’ to make some slightly less outlandish findings more plausible.
Others have dismissed the study because the model isn’t complicated enough. I would have thought a better reason to dismiss it would be because it doesn’t predict actual observations accurately.
Me, I wonder if it’s just agreeing with a lot of climate realists – it’s basically saying that reducing human CO2 emissions won’t change the climate, isn’t it?
Renwick is the President of the NZ chapter of Climate Alarmism bedwetters.
Oh good! Since it’s already too late to save humanity and the planet, we can stop wasting money and effort on it and just enjoy wealth, prosperity and warm weather.
Name one person who has lost a job, been publicly attacked and humiliated, threatened with physical harm, had those punishments extended to family and friends …
For pro-CO2 Warming extremism ?
What do they have to lose ??
A degree +/- 20, 40, 60 degree swings in a good year. Don’t be green, go green, clear the Green blight.
Like all the green/PC/SJW hand wringing issues, nobody really wants to say we should give up or really try and “fix” anything because then the gravy train stops. The hand wringing angst and the grievances will continue ad nauseum, with the only common thread being lots of money required, lots of other peoples money for green new deals, reparations, compensation, pork barrelling and free stuff in general.
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
As regards the climate, my personal philosophy is, what me worry.
Incidentally, the original slogan in Mad Magazine was “what me worry.” No punctuation, including a question mark or even a period. The literal translation was, why should I worry? I’m a little pedantic on this point. In fact, I care about that silly slogan than I do about climate alarmism. I do not care about global warming at all.
The paper has now been retracted
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/506655-eco-alarmists-climate-change-message/
Phil,
Thanks. Some Reports are calling it a “clarification” (!).
This appeared in the Brisbane Courier Mail today-
“Climate Clarified.
A Top scientific journal that claimed global warming may already be unstoppable has been forced to issue a clarification after being accused of potentially causing “unnecessary despair”.
Scientific Reports sought to publicise a study by Norwegian scientists with a doom laden press release headlined “ Ending greenhouse gas emissions may not stop global warming.”
Strongly criticised by leading British scientists, the journal issued a revised press release admitting the prediction was based on a particular computer model, and said the results should be tested by “alternative models”.
I am sure the last thing “leading British scientists” want the public to hear is that we are beyond saving the planet.
Something of a death sentence for an entire profession.
A retraction is taking back something incorrect.
A clarification is making a statement or situation less confused and more comprehensible.
As the criticisms were that the study was wrong, retraction would seem more appropriate.
Herbert
You’re right, the RT article exaggerated by saying it had been “withdrawn”. It’s own source the UK Times said only a “clarification” had been issued.
But I checked Scientific Reports and the paper is fully available, I could find no clarification.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z
The reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. For those that believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, in terms of greenhouse gases, the primary greenhouse gas in H2O. Molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2 and on average there is 50 times more H2O in our atmosphere than CO2 The added effect of CO2 must be trivial so removing it is not going to result in any cooling. If they really want to lower the amount of greenhouse gases in out atmosphere they need to concentrate on the major culprit, H2O. Lots of luck lowering global H2O emissions Maybe they can cover all bodies of water and wet ground all over the globe with plastic and not allow agricultural uses of H20 to decrease H2O emissions.
During the previous interglacial period, the Eemian, temperatures were warmer than today with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet no climate tipping point was ever reached and the previous interglacial period was followed by the last ice age. The warmest part of the current interglacial period, the Holocene optimum, has long passed without any kind of climate tipping point. Receding glaciers have revealed remnants of forests that grew during the Holocene Optimum 3 million years ago CO2 levels were higher than today and it was significantly warmer and look what happened.
The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is severely flawed. For example the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earths atmosphere. Such a greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere , or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so thence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well. So the study that we are talking about is nothing more than science fiction.
The reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. For those that believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, in terms of greenhouse gases, the primary greenhouse gas in H2O’
all of that is absolutely untrue.
No, what I am saying is absolutely true. For example, if CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over that past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. Molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger IR absorber than is CO2 and on average there is roughly 50 times more H2O in our atmosphere than is CO2. As a feedback, H2O is a net coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. Any additional H2O added to the atmosphere because of CO2 warming must have a cooling effect. A doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will slightly decrease the dry lapse rate in the Troposphere. This cooling effect alone lowers estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20. In the paleoclimate record there is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that the added CO2 enhances warming.
This was from 1989……
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.”
…….we are now 20 years beyond the 10 years of opportunity, I guess that puts us beyond, beyond human control.
Norwegians. Beautiful but dumb.
Some of them, surely. But not all of us, hopefully.