We still Have a Chance? Norwegian Climate Doomsday Authors Issue a “Clarification”

Original image: Man at bridge holding head with hands and screaming
Original image: Man at bridge holding head with hands and screaming. By Edvard Munch – WebMuseum at ibiblioPage: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/Image URL: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37610298

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A few days ago WUWT reported on a Norwegian “past the point of no return” global warming paper whose outlook was so pessimistic even climate alarmists were upset.

The authors now appear to have responded to academic pressure, and have publicly accepted that it is never too late to pay the penalty for our climate sins by taking expensive remedial action.

NEWS RELEASE 12-NOV-2020

Climate change: Ending greenhouse gas emissions may not stop global warming

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

Please note that this press release was updated to provide clarity on the model used in this study. The changes are highlighted in bold.

Even if human-induced greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced to zero, global temperatures may continue to rise for centuries afterwards, according to a reduced complexity model of the global climate between 1850 and 2500 published in Scientific ReportsThe authors encourage other researchers to explore their results using alternative models.

Jorgen Randers and Ulrich Goluke used a reduced complexity earth system model to studythe effect of different greenhouse gas emission reductions on changes in the global climate from 1850 to 2500 and created projections of global temperature and sea level rises.

The modelling suggests that under conditions where anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions peak during the 2030s and decline to zero by 2100, global temperatures will be 3°C warmer and sea levels 3 metres higher by 2500 than they were in 1850. Under conditions where all anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions are reduced to zero during the year 2020 the authors estimate that, after an initial decline, global temperatures will still be around 3°C warmer and sea levels will rise by around 2.5 metres by 2500, compared to 1850. The authors suggest that global temperatures could continue to increase after anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have reduced, as continued melting of Arctic ice and carbon-containing permafrost may increase the greenhouse gases’ water vapour, methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Melting of Arctic ice and permafrost would also reduce the area of ice reflecting heat and light from the sun.

To prevent the projected temperature and sea level rises, the authors suggest that all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions would have had to be reduced to zero between 1960 and 1970. To prevent global temperature and sea level rises after greenhouse gas emissions have ceased, and to limit the potentially catastrophic impacts of this on Earth’s ecosystems and human society, at least 33 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would need to be removed from the atmosphere each year from 2020 onwards through carbon capture and storage methods, according to the authors.

###Article details

An earth system model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020

DOI:

10.1038/s41598-020-75481-z

Corresponding Author:

Jorgen Randers 
BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway 
Email: jorgen.randers@bi.no

Please link to the article in online versions of your report (the URL will go live after the embargo ends): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Source: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-11/sr-cce110520.php

This clarification follows a well trodden climate doomsday pattern, in which no matter how scary the climate prediction, we always have a last chance to provide taxpayer funding for climate research or climate remedial action. Lots of last chances.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
96 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Herbert
November 18, 2020 3:06 pm

There is always another round of drinks in The Last Chance Saloon.

StephenP
Reply to  Herbert
November 19, 2020 1:07 am

Now it seems that they have changed their minds and we can now get indulgences by paying lots of cash to researchers and their friends.

Bryan A
Reply to  StephenP
November 19, 2020 6:24 am

World ends at 10…Film at 11

Bill Powers
Reply to  StephenP
November 19, 2020 6:47 am

These Socioientists walk a very fine line between more funding and doomsday.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Bill Powers
November 19, 2020 11:12 am

They walk a much finer line between careless standards and outright lies. In fact, They reek of B.S. when their works show up in Science journals.

James
Reply to  StephenP
November 20, 2020 2:40 am

It has always been about cash. Carbon credits? Yeah, like paying the government cash as a tax has ever solved any problem!

John Endicott
Reply to  James
November 20, 2020 4:16 am

Oh it has. It’s solved the problem of how politicians can reward their hangers on – by funneling them money from the public purse which was taken out of the purses of all the little people.

John Endicott
Reply to  Herbert
November 19, 2020 8:15 am

On your way then, you lawmen,
The time will be soon,
When there’s blood upon the sawdust
In the Last Chance Saloon.
It’s your last chance of boozing,
Where there’s no-one to mind.
It’s your last chance of losing
And the first place you’ll find.
Four days ride from the station
And you’re leaving at noon
And your one consolation
Is the Last Chance Saloon

— from the Ballad of the Last Chance Saloon

Rich Lambert
November 18, 2020 3:09 pm

The alarmists like to talk about tipping points. If there is such a thing, how did the climate get tipped back to where is is?

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  Rich Lambert
November 18, 2020 5:24 pm

Think rocking chairs.
Or pendulums. (Pendula?)
Or Ice Age cycles.

LdB
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
November 18, 2020 5:44 pm

That isn’t a tipping point …. by IPCC and greentard definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system

IPCC AR5 defines a tipping point as an irreversible change in the climate system.

A tipping point for a rocking chair is your granny falling off it, for a pendulum it is the cord breaking and for an ice age it would be snowball earth never to thaw out.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  LdB
November 18, 2020 10:36 pm

My point is that the alleged ‘tipping point’ is actually a shortsighted snapshot of a long cyclical process where the motion changes direction. And the IPCC is nothing if not shortsighted. Deliberately so.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
November 19, 2020 6:59 am

The UN Globalists established and continue funding the IPCC for the purpose of finding an adverse link between man the environment. Why should anyone be surprised that they keep delivering to the Globalists what they paid for.

If we want to solve for Climate Change or allow me to say again: “Catastrophic Global Warm…aahhh we really meant climate change all along and while we are at it we have now determined that you can conflate weather with climate so that we can hysterically hype hurricanes, tornadoes and ingrown toenails with man burning fossil fuel”

So if you really want to solve this so called problem, then disband the IPCC which serves no useful purpose and While we are at it lets send the bureaucrats back to their respective hovels, disband the UN and turn the building into affordable housing.

Neo
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
November 19, 2020 5:15 am

Still waiting for Guam to tip over and capsize (thanks to Rep Hank Johnson)

Joel Snider
November 18, 2020 3:13 pm

That’s the whole point of absolution – you have to give the rubes an out.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 18, 2020 3:20 pm

And it’s ironic – most warmists are atheists – yet they play the same old Catholic guilt game – just painted over with dayglo green – or perhaps Commie-red, would be a better description – even the friggin’ Pope.

Alan M
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 18, 2020 3:31 pm

Definite sign of a religion

Daryl M
Reply to  Alan M
November 22, 2020 5:13 pm

More like a cult.

Reply to  Joel Snider
November 18, 2020 6:28 pm

We need a Climate Reformation! A new Martin Luther.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 19, 2020 6:58 am

I have commented before, but it has been a while.

All of this parallels my belief system, Judeo-Christianity. All of the Commie World View.

The nature of the problem: our inherent selfishness.
The solution: admit your sinful nature, and repent.

Or, face the consequences. Paralleling the Book of Revelation. It is all the same. Plagues, unbearable heat, cataclysms of all sorts. The one thing they are calling for that is not a copy of Revelation is the Flooding. In Genesis 9, God promises that He will never again flood the planet. Thus far, promise kept. 4,000 years and counting.

but Al Gore, who dropped out of Divinity School to preach a dfiferent Gospel, does believe another Flood is coming. [He is getting in his beach time before it does.]

Walter Horstingg
November 18, 2020 3:21 pm

Wait for more of the Biden Science…

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Walter Horstingg
November 18, 2020 6:07 pm

Dementia Joe is now claiming there’s possibly going to be another 200,000 COVID deaths in the US by January 20th.

Only if Govs Cuomo (NY), Newsom (CA), Whitmer (MI), and Murphy (NJ) give him an assist by ordering COVID+ patients to be placed in nursing homes … again. Even then he’d still be way short.

I wonder how long the media is going to keep covering-up Dementia Joe’s clear cognitive problems? Till about March is my guess.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 18, 2020 8:20 pm

He’s dropped his forecasts. Before the election he was claiming that 100 million had already died in the US.

Rod Evans
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2020 8:56 pm

Mark,
He was confusing dead people with additional voter numbers, being spirited in to the ballot, an easy mistake to make if you are a Dem official….

John Endicott
Reply to  Rod Evans
November 19, 2020 8:44 am

True. After all the Dems have build the most “extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in history” according to old Joe.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 18, 2020 8:51 pm

How long will the media keep covering it up?
Certainly until he is inaugurated, if the courts uphold the current reported election result. After that he is on his own. He will be in post only long enough to allow the procedural process to take place where he is removed by his own team, due to ill health and replaced by Kamala Harris.

Ron
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 19, 2020 3:23 am

He, like Obama, should be due a Nobel Peace prize by then.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Ron
November 19, 2020 6:19 am

They’ll leave the Nobel medal on the ground just outside the Oval Office. When Joe steps out to pick it up, Kamala licks the door shut behind him. Voila!

John Endicott
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
November 19, 2020 8:46 am

Hmmm. Joe likes sniffing people hair and Kamala likes licking doors. Them Dems sure are kinda kinky.

beng135
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
November 20, 2020 8:33 am

Kinky is too kind. Perverted is more accurate.

David Chorley
Reply to  Walter Horstingg
November 23, 2020 12:14 pm

At first glance I thought you said “Biden seance”…. at second glance I thought … “probably will be”

John Shotsky
November 18, 2020 3:30 pm

They say a boat is a hole in the water that you throw money into.
Co2 is a hole in the earth that you throw everyone’s money into.

HD Hoese
November 18, 2020 3:37 pm

I used to review papers before the the Anthropocene, sometimes in subjects to varying degrees unfamiliar. I wondered about this, especially about the use of the word “Sadly…” and also why they didn’t suggest other explorations.

“It is, of course, simple to come up with parameter changes that remove the self-sustained melting of the permafrost—especially if those changes are made in what we already know are the most sensitive parts of ESCIMO, namely the equations that describe water vapour, albedo and clouds…..We encourage other model builders to explore these conclusions in their models, and report on their findings.”

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  HD Hoese
November 19, 2020 6:22 am

Translation:
“Our model is junk, but we got our grant money. You should come get some too.”

Steve Case
November 18, 2020 3:54 pm

The modelling suggests that under conditions where anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions peak during the 2030s and decline to zero by 2100, global temperatures will be 3°C warmer and sea levels 3 metres higher by 2500 than they were in 1850.

That comes to 4.6 mm/yr

NOAA Tells us average global sea level rise rate is 1.7-1.8 mm/yr. LINK

There isn’t any evidence that rates acceleration to 4.6 mm/yr any time soon. Any realistic evaluation of acceleration turns up about 0.01 mm/yr².

Jorgen Randers and Ulrich Goluke have no empirical data to back up their claim.

Scissor
Reply to  Steve Case
November 18, 2020 4:03 pm

Thank goodness. I thought it was going to be 3C warmer and sea levels 3 meters higher by the year 2400.

DonM
Reply to  Steve Case
November 18, 2020 4:35 pm

“… global temperatures will be 3°C warmer and sea levels 3 metres higher by 2500 than they were in 1850.”*

*this specific model outcome assumes CO2 is the primary variable, that all other variables are insignificant in comparison, and that over the next 480 years all other natural variations/variables remain static.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  DonM
November 18, 2020 5:39 pm

Yes
Otherwise known as garbage

Kevin
Reply to  DonM
November 19, 2020 5:46 am

By 2500, houses will fly.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Steve Case
November 18, 2020 6:10 pm

The Year 2500 is a new standard for moving the goal posts.
Just imagine where humanity was in 1520 AD.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 18, 2020 8:30 pm

In the year 2525, if man is still alive, if woman can survive, they may find…

Redge
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
November 18, 2020 11:43 pm

In the year 3535
Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today

Yup, just got the date wrong

John Endicott
Reply to  Redge
November 19, 2020 8:49 am

In the year 4545
Ain’t gonna need your teeth, won’t need your eyes.
You won’t find a thing to chew.
Nobody’s gonna look at you.

MarkW
November 18, 2020 4:08 pm

Changing their conclusions based on social pressure.
I thought these guys claimed to be scientists.

Hivemind
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2020 4:36 pm

Not real scientists. Climate “scientists”.

fred250
Reply to  Hivemind
November 18, 2020 5:25 pm

Not real scientists. Climate “scientists”.

How many ranks below a “Social Scientist” is that ?

LdB
Reply to  fred250
November 18, 2020 5:45 pm

Well it’s not the bottom but you can see the bottom from there.

philincalifornia
Reply to  LdB
November 18, 2020 8:14 pm

They can still convince their granny’s knitting circle that they’re scientists, although some of them are nodding along to be polite.

Redge
Reply to  LdB
November 18, 2020 11:45 pm

I disagree, it’s social “scientists” all the way down, and then it’s climate scientologists.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Hivemind
November 18, 2020 6:15 pm

Climate Dowsers is my new preferred term.

Dowsing: Divinations using un-scientific methods.

OldCynic
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2020 5:08 pm

MarkW
Well said sir. I was trying to find an equally pithy phrase, but your fifteen word demolition is better than anything I could imagine.

As an aside, does anyone know whether the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication?

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2020 5:28 pm

Social scientists.
Or maybe socialist social scientists.
Or maybe socialist antisocial pseudoscientists.

LdB
Reply to  MarkW
November 18, 2020 6:07 pm

Interesting to see the personal bias of some in the Climate Science debate, no-one picked up the statement from Prof Katherine Hayhoe

once you smoke one pack of cigarettes, you’re technically past the point of no return in terms of zero lung damage

Like to see the science for that claim and how she measured it.

I think we all get the know smoking is bad for your lungs but the concept that a single pack damages your lungs that is a new extreme for a scientist.

Reply to  LdB
November 18, 2020 6:32 pm

I have read that even after heavy smoking for years, your lungs are able to recover relatively quickly. Our bodies are amazing things

MarkW
Reply to  LdB
November 18, 2020 8:23 pm

Even one cigarette damages your lungs.
The question then becomes how much (very little) and how quickly the lungs recover (very quickly).

DonM
Reply to  LdB
November 19, 2020 8:15 am

once you give credence to anything that Kathryn Hayhoe says, references, thinks, or agrees with, you’re technically past the point of no return in terms of zero brain damage

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
November 19, 2020 8:40 am

LdB, technically her comment is correct. Just one cigarette (let alone one pack) causes damage. It’s just that the damage is so minimal (and the human bodies recuperative abilities so good) that it’s not even worth worrying about. It’s when one cigarette is followed by another and another and so on over a life time that the minimal damage accumulates beyond what the human body can reliably repair.

RockyRoad
November 18, 2020 4:10 pm

I volunteer my GoFundMe account to receive this “expensive remedial action”. And the results will be just as good as if it were spent anywhere else!

Honest!

d
November 18, 2020 4:33 pm

“never too late to pay the penalty for our climate sins by taking expensive remedial action”

You forgot notional, irrational, unproven, and delusional as adjectives for remedial action.

“A delusion is a fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.”

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 18, 2020 6:19 pm

I got your sarcasm. As David M frequently say, “If you have to add the /sarc tag, what’s the point?”

Mike
November 18, 2020 4:44 pm

”The authors encourage other researchers to explore their results using alternative models.”

AAAAAAha ha ha ha ha

Ron Long
November 18, 2020 5:03 pm

I’m thinking of Gildna Radner as Emily Litella: Nevermind!

Pat Frank
Reply to  Ron Long
November 18, 2020 7:33 pm

What’s all this I hear about gerbil warming!? Why are people warming the gerbils? Gerbils can take care of themselves!

What?

Oh.

Never mind.

fred250
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 18, 2020 11:09 pm

Pat,

I have absolute proof that gerbil warming is happening.

comment image

comment image

fred250
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 18, 2020 11:12 pm

And in style, no less.

comment image

And getting ready for Christmas

comment image

Patrick MJD
November 18, 2020 5:17 pm

Will Norway going to give up on the social and economic benefits of fossil fuels (Oil)? My guess would be no.

Alex Borstlap
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 19, 2020 3:32 am

Patrick MJD, me living in Norway maybe having a closer insight in the situation, there are political partjes and all kind of ngo’s that are happy to throw the country as a lemming over the cliff, thinking the new pillars will be windmills at sea and seafood in all kind of variaties. Electric cars have been heavily subsidized the last ten years or so and the end is still not nigh. And not to forget CO2 storage in empty oil fields. Norway will lead and save the world in their not so humble opinions. On the other hand rumour has it that Norway has the largest percentage of climate sceptics under the population in the world, around 65%. Outside the Oslo bubble folk are quite down to Darth.

Alex Borstlap
Reply to  Alex Borstlap
November 19, 2020 4:16 am

Down to earth of course.

Kevin
Reply to  Alex Borstlap
November 19, 2020 5:51 am

“On the other hand rumour has it that Norway has the largest percentage of climate sceptics under the population in the world, around 65%.”

Cite source?

John Endicott
Reply to  Kevin
November 20, 2020 2:27 am

Um, Kevin, are you having reading comprehension issues? He did site his source: “rumour has it”. Spelling differences aside, do you need me to post the definition of what rumor/”rumour” means?

Tom Abbott
November 18, 2020 5:24 pm

From the article: “Even if human-induced greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced to zero, global temperatures may continue to rise for centuries afterwards”

Isn’t this based on the authors’ claim that CO2, once put into the Earth’s atmosphere, will stay there for hundreds of years?

Some estimates say CO2 only stays in the Earth’s atmoshpere for about seven years. If that were the case, it would blow up their theory.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 18, 2020 5:35 pm

Although anthropogenic methane may be flammable (and we are all emitters), CO2 has yet to blow anything up.

Not Sure
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
November 18, 2020 11:50 pm

Wrong! I’ve heard about blown up Paintball co2 tanks and surely there’s other things blown up too. We just have to accumulate a bit more to get this planet blown up..

Gunga Din
November 18, 2020 5:28 pm

If it’s already too late to act then people might choose to “eat, drink and live normally” (and keep their cash and freedoms).

Scissor
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 18, 2020 5:36 pm

Much needed things being said about freedom to make one’s own choices around CV-19.

Geoff Sherrington
November 18, 2020 5:32 pm

What about CO2 being saturated, unable to take in significantly more infra red, so unable to give more heating? Geoff S

Pat Frank
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 18, 2020 7:59 pm

Happer and Wijngaarden find the bulk of the CO2 and H2O bands are saturated Geoff. But once again the wings are not.

They calculated that doubling CO2 will still bring about 2 C of warming. But again, the rest of the climate is still ceteris paribus.

MarkW
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 18, 2020 8:28 pm

As long as the bands aren’t completely saturated, then there is room for more CO2 to have an impact. Not much of an impact, but not mathematically zero either.

CD in Wisconsin
November 18, 2020 5:37 pm

The usual gloom-and-doomist narrative about the Arctic, but not a word about the Antarctic.

Not a word about the logarithmic physics of CO2 or how close we are to the saturation point.

Not a word about the paleoclimate ice core studies that show CO2 changes trailing temperature changes.

Not a word about how the models do not jive with what the UAH satellite says has been going on for the last 40 years.

Not a word about any of the natural drivers of climate. I guess that they don’t exist.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera…..

Anyone that tries telling me that climate science isn’t hopelessly corrupted by politics, money and eco-activism is living in a fantasy world. I am part owner of the Brooklyn Bridge in NY, and I’ll sell it to you real cheap. $$$$$$$

Money does indeed make the world go round….

Loydo
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 19, 2020 4:08 pm

Not a word about…spurious nonsense. Let’s just dismantle one of them for you, again.

“Not a word about the logarithmic physics of CO2 or how close we are to the saturation point.”

Come on CD, that red-herring was landed only two or three days ago for you. Have you already forgotten? Stop repeating it as if it means anything, it just isn’t true.

See Roy’s point #5, again…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

Six years later and you’re still mindlessly trotting it out? The rest of your talking points fall into exactly the same category: endlessly repeated, zombie myths, red-herrings and disinformation. Please, don’t make me brandish the ‘playing chess with pidgeons’ quote.

November 18, 2020 7:45 pm

A graph of typical top-of-atmosphere radiation flux (remote from the poles) is at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1k9OpSeNkiavyKjxzgU22i33m_QHNiUt3 It shows a dip centered on the CO2 wavenumber band. The energy from the dip got shared with the much more numerous water vapor molecules. The WV molecules, particularly in the wavenumber range 500 to 600/cm and altitude range 2 to 6 km, can radiate part of it directly to space. WV below the tropopause can radiate to space because of the huge 1200 to 1 average molecule population gradient from surface to tropopause. The spike at wavenumber 667 is from CO2 in the stratosphere where more CO2 results in more cooling.

yarpos
November 18, 2020 7:56 pm

They could have derailed the gravy train had anyone outside the system noticed what they said.

John
November 18, 2020 8:53 pm

What is a “reduced complexity model” and why is it better at predicting 500 years in the future than the IPCC models which have overpredicted temp increases by 300% on average (0.9 C vs 0.3 C measured in the troposphere in the tropics) over the past 40 years. I’ll believe Nostradamus’ predictions from 500 years ago before these models.

Lasse
November 19, 2020 12:10 am

Norway is selling carbon capture storage.
Always follow the money!

Serge Wright
November 19, 2020 1:58 am

This is actually very humourous.

A guy in Norway, a country close to the north pole where the human survival challenge for thousands of years has been trying to survive the cold, now realises with 3 degrees of warming in a frozen landscape, that all is not doomed. Give that man a medal and a T shirt. He can wear the medal now, but the T shirt will still only come out when he travels south for his holidays.

kkevin
Reply to  Serge Wright
November 19, 2020 6:01 am

That Russians aren’t burning as much coal as economically possible (and selling electricity to China) is an argument against AGW. Siberia with Nebraska’s climate would be a big win for them (unless China rolled in on electric tanks).

DaveS
November 19, 2020 4:51 am

Even true believers have found this paper over the top. A commentary on YouTube showed a tweet from such a person saying we should look to the likes of @MikeEMann for more realism. You don’t see that kind of comment every day 🙂

John Endicott
Reply to  DaveS
November 19, 2020 8:24 am

Image how terrible your paper must to be for someone to think the likes of Mann is more realistic. No wonder they’re walking it back!

Kevin
November 19, 2020 5:41 am

Does anyone have a good list of mainstream media or academic articles claiming it must be fixed by time xyz?

ResourceGuy
November 19, 2020 5:52 am

The bad models are the ones that cut off the potential flow of funds from Bezos and others. Bad, bad model, heel.

John Endicott
November 19, 2020 8:21 am

Lots of last chances.

It’s a new Last Chance, you see. A Last Chance to avoid climate doom. I must say, I still get very excited about it all. I know we have them rather often now, but that’s because of the Climate Alarmists’ great goodness, you see.

With apologies to Douglas Adams and Doctor Who’s the Pirate Planet

November 19, 2020 8:44 am

This clarification follows a well trodden climate doomsday pattern, in which no matter how scary the climate prediction, we always have a last chance to provide taxpayer funding for climate research or climate remedial action. Lots of last chances.

That reminds me of the crass chat-up line that was ridiculed in season 2 of “The Good Place”:

“time’s running out and I’m the only choice you’ve got”

ResourceGuy
November 19, 2020 10:28 am

Ah Norway….

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/norway-opens-arctic-oil-blocks-150000167.html

It depends on the day of the week and the performance of the permanent fund, as to which Norway it is.

kcrucible
November 20, 2020 5:14 am

Reduced complexity… meaning that they might actually just be seeing natural processes leading to sea level rise since 1850, and it’s inevitable?

%d bloggers like this: