Guest essay by Eric Worrall
How close can scientists adjust us towards the 1.5C global warming bogeyman temperature without people noticing its just not that big a deal?
Earth may be even closer to 1.5°C of global warming than we thought
ENVIRONMENT 15 December 2020
By Adam VaughanGlobal carbon emissions may have warmed Earth by 18 per cent more than previously thought, raising the prospect of the world having less time than expected to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and avoid catastrophic climate change.
The global average temperature is thought to have climbed about 1.07°C since the industrial revolution, up from a previous estimate of 0.91°C. This update brings all three of the world’s key temperature data sets in line, suggesting the true temperature rise is at the upper end of previous ranges.
…
“Climate change hasn’t suddenly got worse. It’s just our estimate of how much warming has taken place has improved,” says Tim Osborn at the University of East Anglia, UK, who today published a paper with Met Office colleagues on the fifth update to the data, known as the Hadley Centre Climatic Research Unit Temperature (HadCRUT5).
…
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2262953-earth-may-be-even-closer-to-1-5c-of-global-warming-than-we-thought/
The CSIRO is playing even closer to the fire. According to the CSIRO, Australia is even closer to the dreaded 1.5C climate apocalypse than the world in general;
AUSTRALIAN CLIMATE TRENDS
The Bureau of Meteorology and other science agencies employ a range of atmospheric, terrestrial and marine sensors to track climatic trends.
For example, the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature dataset is based on a network of over 100 stations, with data for more than half starting in 1910.
The following information is taken from the 2020 State of the Climate report, produced every two years by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.
Australia’s climate has warmed since national records began in 1910, with most warming occurring since 1950. Australia’s mean surface air temperature has increased by more than 1.4°C since 1910. Since 1950, every decade has been warmer than it’s predecessor. Australia’s warmest year on record was 2019, and the seven years from 2013 to 2019 all rank in the nine warmest years. This long‑term warming trend means that most years are now warmer than almost any observed during the 20th century. When relatively cooler years do occur, it is because natural drivers that typically cool Australia’s climate, such as La Niña, act to partially offset the background warming trend.
…
All this presents a difficult dilemma for climate scientists.
If the adjusted temperatures keep rising at their current pace, pretty soon they’ll blow through the magic death line milestones, and people will start asking what the big deal was.
But if the adjusted temperature series begin to flatten, skeptics will point and laugh, and even mainstream media personalities might start talking about a new pause.
Thankfully there are a few years to go until crunch time, so the most senior scientists of today will all be safely retired long before this aspect of the global warming scare hits the fan.
Here is a big deal and halting it will harm millions….
Green revolution saved over 100 million infant lives in developing world | EurekAlert! Science News
But… but… climate change kills two more-
Storm Gail: Two killed in 30- to 60-car pile-up as three feet of snow hit Northeast (msn.com)
Have you no feelings man?
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, BOM, has sent me several letters over the past 5 years, all on the topic of how far apart daily temperatures need to be so that they are statistically different, rather than mere overlapping error envelopes.
They have obfuscated. The basic question has not been answered.
Here is the latest attempt, verbatim.
Draw you own conclusions.
………….
Dear Mr. Sherrington,
You have asked “If a person seeks to know the separation of two daily temperatures in degrees C that allows a confident claim that the two temperatures are different statistically, by how much would the two values be separated?”
The internationally accepted standard for determining if two measurements are statistically different is ISO/IEC17043. The latter covers the calculation of a normalized score (known as the EN score), which is a standard method for this type of question.
As previously communicated, the most relevant figure that we can supply to meet your request for a “T +/- X degrees C” is our specified inspection threshold (conservatively within +/- 0.3 ⁰C), but this is not an estimate of the uncertainty of the ACORN-SAT network’s temperature measurements in the field.
From Dr. Boris Kelly-Gerreyn
BOM Manager, Data Quality and Requirements.
Letter dated 7th June, 2019
You’re asking the wrong question. Ask them to justify every single change to every data point made in the Australian temperature record. Then ask them for the change to the warming slope caused by all of these temperature records. As a bonus question, ask them if there were any changes at all that didn’t increase the warming slope (we already know the answer to this one).
Global average temperature is, at best, a guess. The consequences of a 1 or 1.5 K rise is, at best, a guess. Other than that Climate Science is a science.
Close to 1.5 — but not there yet!!! Keep going, we can do it!!!
I cannot believe any phenomena – natural or human driven causing a rise in average global temperatures since 1850 of only 0.5%, can have any significant, let alone catastrophic, effect on our climate.This is even ignoring the obvious fact that the extent and adequacy, and even reliability of the of temperature readings needed to demonstrate, let alone substantiate, such a small rise over such a long period has never been available or sufficient!
Willis showed that we have already hit 2.0 C, and all is well.
Has anyone seen the warmists attempt to justify the share of natural variation versus human caused? Surely in a coupled, non-linear system natural variation has not stopped.8
What a bunch of crap…
According to HADCRUT4 data, since 1850, the global warming trend has been a “terrifying!!!!” 0.052C/decade or around 0.88C over the past 170 years, of which, manmade CO2 emissions contributed around 0.3C of the total (0.0175C/decade), with the balance attributable to natural phenomena: LIA recovery, PDO/AMO warm cycles, Super El Nino events, solar cycles, natural variation, etc.
Oh, the humanity!!!….
I find it hilarious that Leftists’ original objective was to keep CAGW below 2.0C by 2100 to “save the world”, but since all empirical evidence show the natural warming trend will be FAR below this, they moved the goal post to….1.5C by 2100, which natural warming will still fall well below…
We should be ecstatic global temps have beneficially recovered 0.88C since the end of the LIA in 1850, and that CO2 levels have beneficially increased from 280ppm to 415ppm, which has increased crop yields by 15%, increased global greening by around 20% (about the sane area as the continental US.), and made plants more drought resistant.
Let’s say global governments don’t spend one more dime on the ridiculous CAGW hoax and enjoy an additional 0.3C~0.5C of CO2-induced warming over the next 80 years rather than insanely wasting $100’s of trillions on this CAGW scam and cause a global economic collapse and a catastrophic energy and food crisis…
20 to 15 years ago, sceptics pointed out that there was 0.6°C of warming over 100 years and most before 1940, so not due to humans before then and not a given that it was due to humans afterwards. Now, according to HadCRUT 4, there is 0.8°C with at least half of it after 1980 to 2005. Even if you have faith in their sincerity, that is quite a small adjustment that makes a big difference to The Science.
Apart from the doubts that they are competent enough to reconstruct a global temperature average from a record too poor for an actual average of the data to mean anything eg
https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3nh/from:1900/mean:60/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1900/mean:60/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1900/mean:60/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1900/mean:60/plot/none
You can also see that what is an average of anomalies from a base period of 1961 to 1990 barely changes in the period after 1980, despite a huge change in the base period … after correcting for an error you can’t make if you have a team rechecking their calculations because 0.2°C makes a huge difference to the arguments.
In any other field of science, that would be game over.
Y’know, I will be happier than a rabbit with a 5 lb bag of carrots to send all my warm air to Australia, just to throw off their projections. I am just slightly jealous that the entire northeastern section of the USA got FEET of snow instead of inches, because some of that white stuff could be watering my lawn for the winter. It would also have the local bird population showing up for chow at my feeding station if we got some snow. But instead of a snowy Christmas and the possibility of slipping and sliding on the sidewalks, we have the OFA’s forecast sitting in my front yard. And when we do get any snow at all, it’s so wimpy it disappears the minute a squirrel shows up.
I am sad.
Despite spending $TRILLIONS to reduce CO2 during the past 30 years, it was found CO2 increased without being affected by any RE spending!!!!
Logically, any more such RE spending is idiotic.
The world temperature increasing has near-nothing to do with CO2, but has everything to do with increased cloud cover, and increased H2O in the atmosphere.
WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption
World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration. EIA.
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/
Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.
Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.
PARIS AGREEMENTS
China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive.
They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements
Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution.
Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.
If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats.
The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs.
The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, CAPEX
The analysis in this article includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.
50% RE by 2050
World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y
100% RE by 2050
World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y
THE BIGGER CAPEX PICTURE FOR THE WORLD AND THE US
World More-Inclusive CAPEX
The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.
This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year
https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/research-and-markets/funding-the-fight-against-global-warming/
US More-Inclusive CAPEX
The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279
A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion
The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.
It is unclear what accounts for the large difference.
Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries.
This would echo the CO2 situation.
Presently, there exists no standard way to verify the CO2 emissions and RE build-out claims of various countries!
The opportunities for cheating/fudging/obfuscation are endless.
NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:
Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.
Nuclear plants about 60 years
Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years
Wind turbine systems about 20 years
Solar systems about 25 years
If you begin with “CO2 is the cause of all warming” then it all makes sense…right?
Why are all the disaster projections coming form people so unskilled at reading a thermometer their reports need to be revised over and over with new numbers for old values? I understand why they can’t predict the future no matter what they claim, but inability to predict the present or even the past seems an existential threat to climate “science”.