The Impossibility Of The 1.5C Target

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

SEPTEMBER 18, 2021

By Paul Homewood

As you will recall, the Paris Agreement set a target of 2C warming from pre-industrial levels, but parties agreed to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. These of course were only “wishes”, and the Agreement had contained nothing of substance to meet either of these objectives.

Nevertheless, the upcoming COP26 is increasingly being presented as an opportunity to get global warming down from 2C to 1.5C. Even if you accept the basic premise of GHGs, this is a nonsense. As already pointed out, the national pledges made at Paris implied that emissions would carry on rising rapidly up to 2030, meaning that even 2C was not achievable. Now a new paper in Nature reveals just how far and how quickly emissions would have to be cut to meet the 1.5C target:

Emissions in 2019 were 34 GtCO2, giving the world another thirteen years with a budget of 460 Gt. If emissions continue to rise as they have since Paris, that figure will reduce to maybe just ten years.

Even the developed countries, which account for only a third of all carbon dioxide, are unlikely to cut by more than 10% in the next ten years, so to meet the 1.5C target then would effectively mean zero emissions after 2030, plainly an absurd proposition.

To meet that carbon budget would imply a halving of global emissions this decade, and then halving again in the 2030s. There is simply no way this is going to happen.

But that won’t stop the myth of the 1.5C target being kept alive.

I predict that COP26 will come up with a last minute, “save the planet” deal, just as Copenhagen and Paris did, which will of course be nothing of the sort. Instead it will be a smokescreen to disguise the utter failure of the whole farrago.

My guess is that China will offer up some minor concession, probably centred around carbon intensity, but absolutely no commitment at all to reducing emissions this decade. India will offer even less, probably only some extra pledges on renewable energy, tied to hundreds of billions more in climate aid. Everybody will pat themselves on the back. And in five years time the absurd Matt McGrath will be warning once again that we only have x weeks to save the planet again.

Be warned. We will be told that the world has finally committed to keeping temperature rise below 1.5C, and we must therefore play our full part by destroying our economy. Meanwhile China, India and the rest of the developing world will carry on regardless.

We were told the same lie in 2015. Don’t fool for it again.

4.9 23 votes
Article Rating
102 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ResourceGuy
September 19, 2021 6:07 am

The greens have been playing God with the thermostat since 1988.

H.R.
Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 19, 2021 7:07 am

Yah, but… wait’ll they find out the knob they’ve been twiddling is not the knob on the thermostat. It’s really the knob on the food processor in the kitchen.

Eh, I suppose most of them know that, but there’s no money in reporting there’s nothing to see. The mission set out and funded assumed that CO2 was the control knob so report on what horrible things could, might, possibly, when pigs fly, maybe happen from increasing CO2.

What do we get? Surprise! We read 1 or 2 studies here every day about some very bad thing that CO2 may cause in 10, 20, 50, or more years. (Fish will only swim in counterclockwise circles. Oh, the humanity!)

Who has the link handy to that list of everything bad CO2 causes?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  H.R.
September 19, 2021 10:25 am

The list can’t be printed because it is infinite!

H.R.
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 19, 2021 11:38 am

Well, that list is approaching infinity, Clyde.

Margaret H Smith
Reply to  H.R.
September 19, 2021 10:49 am

This got so long that it could not be kept up-to-date.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

H.R.
Reply to  Margaret H Smith
September 19, 2021 11:38 am

That’s the one. Thanks, Margaret.

I think I’ll bookmark the link. I read it now and then, laugh, and move on. It will go in my humor folder, or maybe I should put it in the disaster folder… nahhh.

Streetcred
Reply to  H.R.
September 19, 2021 5:37 pm

It’s not the kitchen food mixer knob either that they fiddling with 😉

HotScot
Reply to  H.R.
September 20, 2021 10:52 am

It’s causing mayhem in the European (including UK) energy markets. Nothing to do with a warming planet and everything to do with politics.

Laws of Nature
September 19, 2021 6:09 am

There is one more thing I noticed about this 1.5°C:
Currently, the measured global warming rate is at the low end of CMIP6 predictions.
And a system with “inertia” cannot change the warming rate just like that even if significantly more warming would be “in the pipe”.
Thus any claim of not making the 1.5°C warming limit by 2040 seems to be contradicted by reality, as it seems to require unphysical changes of warming rates.

(At the same time I have to admit that I do not understand the jumps the measured global temperature set like UAH make every months)

Jay Willis
Reply to  Laws of Nature
September 19, 2021 6:35 am

“contradicted by reality,” lol. As if anybody could give a toss about that. This stupidity has been going on for thirty years. No, the only valid strategy is ridicule at this stage in the argument. As they hold the sea back (the sole remaining catastrophe they can dream up) they surely are acting like a bunch of Knuts

Scissor
Reply to  Laws of Nature
September 19, 2021 6:49 am

Good handle, Laws of Nature. Brings to my mind Blue Oyster Cult’s, “History shows again and again, How nature points up the folly of man.”

In light of inertia, much or even all of the observed “jumps” are likely measurement noise and uncertainty. To further your point, for those at COP26 to presume they could effect such change in so short a time, even if their dubious beliefs were true, is folly.

Always, because of the real laws of nature, we find ourselves acted upon by pendulum like forces. A point is reached, where a change stops, if only briefly, to reverse course. We are seeing that behavior now in the NOT ice-free Arctic.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Greg
Reply to  Scissor
September 19, 2021 11:43 am

Arctic sea ice extent has just turned minimum for the year at 4.75e6 km^2 compared to 4.16e6 km^2 in 2007 when Al Gore’s lies, run away melting and the “death spiral” first started getting pushed down everyone’s throat.
That’s notable increase of about 14%. and about 40% more that the OMG minimum of 2012.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Greg
September 19, 2021 1:50 pm

Nice to see it on an upward trend these past 10 years along with the Antarctic trend being above the average of the satellite record.

oeman 50
Reply to  Laws of Nature
September 19, 2021 6:50 am

And what happened to both the world temperature and the global CO2 from the decreased emissions during the COVID shutdown? From what I can tell, not a blip. Does that tell you anything about what all of this shutting down of fossil fuels will get you?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Laws of Nature
September 19, 2021 10:32 am

… I do not understand the jumps the measured global temperature set like UAH make every months

The question should be asked, “What role do data processing artifacts and random error of measurements play in these apparent ‘jumps?'”

Just as strange in the light of expected inertia are the saw-tooth steps commonly seen in temperatures at intervals of several years. Do the models capture that and explain the origin?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 19, 2021 12:10 pm

They might if they took CO2 out of their models totally [no sarc]

Scissor
September 19, 2021 6:09 am

The problem is trying to use arrows when only something of 9 mm or so is needed.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
September 19, 2021 6:37 am

“Use the front sight when moving…”

Upfrontaussie
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 19, 2021 8:37 am

Yes let’s all ammo up and lock and load f n bullshit.

fretslider
September 19, 2021 6:25 am

“To meet that carbon budget would imply a halving of global emissions this decade, and then halving again in the 2030s. There is simply no way this is going to happen.”

This is becoming obvious

“First, electricity prices are rising fast. The loss of the IFA-1 electricity cable connector to France and the scheduled shutdown of French nuclear power plants haven’t helped. As a result, energy bills for UK users look set to rise by 20 per cent in the next few weeks.

Second, industries that rely directly on natural gas are suffering, too. An American fertiliser producer, CF Industries, has shut down two plants in the UK because the price of its main feedstock, natural gas, has risen so much.

UK governments have both obsessed about renewables and taken their eye off the ball when it comes to energy security. UK storage capacity for gas has been allowed to shrink on the assumption that gas could be bought as needed on the world market. The UK has huge port facilities for offloading gas tankers from the Middle East, but is now competing with the rest of the world for that gas. This shows how vulnerable we now are to fluctuating prices.”

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/18/our-eco-obsessed-government-is-sleepwalking-into-an-energy-crisis/

Nobody has yet mentioned all that shale gas….

Last edited 28 days ago by fretslider
Sara
Reply to  fretslider
September 19, 2021 9:22 am

That’s a good reference, fretslider. Thanks for that!

September 19, 2021 6:29 am

“Meanwhile China, India and the rest of the developing world will carry on regardless.”

Exactly that is the target of the Great Transformation, money from the rich to the “poor”, from developed to the less developed world.
Edenhofer, PIK, said it years ago.
It isn’t about climate or nature, only a shift of money.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 19, 2021 6:40 am

Yes I agree. It’s about growth in money. That comes from investing in China. The only sectors showing such growth in the West are the green industries….well until they fail to keep the lights on.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 19, 2021 11:52 am

Shifting OPM (Western economies) to others (Third World) is great until one runs out of OPM (bankrupt West). Not a viable long-term plan.

Captain climate
September 19, 2021 6:32 am

1.5C since when? 1850? I’m so sick of the vagueness in these proposals. And what does that mean for extra warming this century?

Rick C
Reply to  Captain climate
September 19, 2021 8:32 am

Right on Captain C. You know the whole thing is a scam when the clearly natural warming from 1850 to 1950 of nearly 1C is lumped in with the almost no warming since 1950 and attributed to anthropogenic CO2 that only became significant after 1950. Keeling only started measuring CO2 at Mauna Loa in 1954 when it was under 315 ppm.

Last edited 28 days ago by Rick C
Reply to  Rick C
September 19, 2021 9:50 am

“You know the whole thing is a scam when the clearly natural warming from 1850 to 1950 of nearly 1C”
is that 1C considered significant?
“almost no warming since 1950”
0.82C in 70 years. If that’s effectively zero then so in the temp change for 1850 – 1950. So we can safely say the climate hasn’t changed since the dawn of the Industrial Age and nothing we do has any effect.
I’m sure that’s very comforting to some.

Last edited 28 days ago by MorinMoss
AlexBerlin
Reply to  MorinMoss
September 19, 2021 1:32 pm

The temperature has changed, yes, but it has had zero effect on the planet and on the living things on it from a global view. Local changes happen all the time, some for the better (= warmer), some for the worse (= colder). It’s been like that since time began. And yes, I do agree that nothing we humans do has any effect on this, we neither “disturb” the climate nor can we “repair” or “save” it. It warms where and when it warms, and it cools when and where it cools. With or without human activity, it would continue to do so even in the absence of all living things. Being able to adjust and adapt to these natural changes that ubiquitously happen is a special and recently very underrated feature of what we call LIFE. We cannot change the planet or its climate, but we can change ourselves to get the best out of whatever that planet has on the menu for us now and in future. We need to concentrate on riding out the changes, not on attempting to stop them which will not only not work, but probably kill us while trying.

Reply to  AlexBerlin
September 19, 2021 3:37 pm

We cannot change the planet or its climate”
We already have.
“but we can change ourselves to get the best out of whatever that planet has on the menu for us now and in future”
We’ve been asked to do that for decades & haven’t to any significance.

We need to concentrate on riding out the changes”
Why, when it’s had “zero effect” globally?
This site has claimed 1000s of times yesteryears have been worse & humanity survived so what do we need to ride out?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Captain climate
September 19, 2021 9:47 am

Yeah and how do they do the stupid-ass calculation when no one knows climate sensitivity. These people are as thick as pig sh!t. Speaking of which, we learned yesterday from such mathematical thickos on here that the CO2 arbiter isn’t even emissions, it’s emissions per capita. So that’s either going backwards in mathematical ability from birth, or showing your true hand. All about destroying Western economies, eh loydo you sick, terminally jealous person? Normal people will keep deriving wealth and prosperity without you , without you clowns even knowing what’s going on.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  philincalifornia
September 19, 2021 11:08 am

“Yeah and how do they do the stupid-ass calculation when no one knows climate sensitivity.”

The alarmists act like they know exactly how much the temperatures will go up if a certain amount of CO2 is added. Last I heard, they were just guessing at this number. So they don’t really know what they are talking about. They are just scarmongering.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Captain climate
September 19, 2021 9:50 am

Aye, captain. It was 1850 for a long while, then about 5 years ago it moved to 1750. That was a problem because using the 1750 date (barely recovering from the depths of the LIA) meant that we are almost at the dreaded 1.5°C now. And the sky isn’t falling despite all the hype about “unprecedented” weather events. So it’s quietly been moved back to 1850 in the last year or so (probably hoping that nobody notices, and nobody seems to have noticed so far)

Of course, no one has a clue what the global average temperature was in 1850 with any accuracy, and even less of a clue for 1750, so the target is totally fictitious, arbitrary and artificial. And quite possibly adjustable so that the hour of doom will always be in the near future.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Smart Rock
September 19, 2021 11:09 am

“Of course, no one has a clue what the global average temperature was in 1850 with any accuracy, and even less of a clue for 1750, so the target is totally fictitious, arbitrary and artificial.”

Exactly!

JRo
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 19, 2021 10:08 pm

Let’s just call it “0” on all the detailed global average temperature graphs then. It was “0” in 1750 and it was “0” in 1850.

fretslider
September 19, 2021 6:35 am

My guess is China is laughing its head off at western weakness.

leitmotif
Reply to  fretslider
September 19, 2021 12:18 pm

¦D ¦D¦D

Carlo, Monte
September 19, 2021 6:36 am

These people are all liars and frauds.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 19, 2021 9:49 am

….. many are just lazy unemployable idiots, who feel a need to think they’re doing something.

I know a guy (early thirties) in England who just made a sh!tpile of money, bought a big house recently and never even bothers talking about this crap. His business – selling gas boilers. Always good for a chuckle.

Last edited 28 days ago by philincalifornia
September 19, 2021 6:38 am

The warming in the Alpes stopped this morning with snow down to 2000m.

LdB
September 19, 2021 7:19 am

None of the Fossil fuel supply countries are going to agree to leaving the deposits in the ground, that isn’t remotely on the table .. feel free to laugh at any idiot who suggests that. The only long shot of possible outcomes would be certain countries making commitments not to buy fossil fuels. The reality is countries that might agree to that would not be the ones that matter like China and India. COP26 is dead man walking and always has been.

2021 CO2 emission will be 33 billion tonnes and 35 billion tonnes next year all of which is pretty much locked now all you betting folk want to place bets that 2023 is less than 30 billion?

Last edited 28 days ago by LdB
Randy Stubbings
Reply to  LdB
September 19, 2021 8:11 am

What about countries with idiots as leaders? Trudeau has been working feverishly for five or six years to kill Canada’s oil and gas industry but has no plan other than printing money and massively increasing taxes to replace that industry’s huge contribution to jobs and government revenues.

Reply to  Randy Stubbings
September 19, 2021 9:50 am

What about countries with idiots as leaders?

Is there any without ???? 😀

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 19, 2021 11:12 am

None in the Western Democracies.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 19, 2021 1:53 pm

Non-democracies tend to not have idiots for leaders.
The problem is the leaders are using their intelligence primarily to line their own pockets and care little about the welfare of the people.

On the other hand, the idiots who run many democracies tend to be the same.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
September 19, 2021 2:04 pm

Don’t give Trudeau too much credit. He’s simply imitating the US DNC business model that has been in-place since 1973.

AleaJactaEst
Reply to  LdB
September 19, 2021 8:11 am

The UK Govt. just voted to cease all new exploration licenses in the UKCS.

That’s leaving the deposits in the ground.

LdB
Reply to  AleaJactaEst
September 19, 2021 9:12 am

The UK is not a major fossil fuel supplier … stupid yes important to world no 🙂

Last edited 28 days ago by LdB
Frank from NoVA
September 19, 2021 7:24 am

“Instead it will be a smokescreen to disguise the utter failure of the whole farrago.”

Do you mean Fargo? Say it! COP27 – Fargo!!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 19, 2021 11:58 am

Loved the movie.

michael hart
September 19, 2021 7:38 am

But of course they do.

Just as the 2 degree limit was arbitrarily plucked from where the sun don’t shine, they reduced it to 1.5 degrees because, at the time, they were worried that there wouldn’t be sufficient warming to help enable the politics they wanted.

They don’t care that there was significant warming in the thermometer record before human CO2 emissions became considered “significant”.

Nor do they care that the IPCC used to say that a bit more warming might actually be beneficial before it became a net problem.

Fact is, they don’t really care what they say, as long as they are being paid to say something and pretend that it is a problem you need to pay more for in order to solve.

philincalifornia
Reply to  michael hart
September 19, 2021 9:57 am

….. and hordes of stupid and badly-educated people believe them and of course in England, there’s the “mustn’t grumble” large cohort, even though they all know it’s a crock.

Last edited 28 days ago by philincalifornia
September 19, 2021 7:50 am

Eliminating all fossil fuel use would be insufficient to offset the natural warming that’s occurred since the start of industrialization that just happened to coincide with the end of the LIA. This is true even if the IPCC’s grossly overestimated climate sensitivity was correct, yet it’s clear that their estimate is nearly a factor of 3 too large. The data suggest it’s only about 0.3C +/- .05C per W/m^2 while the IPCC incorrectly invokes massive positive feedback to justify their ‘settled’ value of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2. That they have the unimitigated call to call a metric with 50% uncertainty settled signals just how anti-science the alarmists are in support of their anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-West, anti-American agenda.

2hotel9
September 19, 2021 7:59 am

Funny, these same screeching retards refuse to stop using oil and gas themselves. Hypocritical f**ks.

bluecat57
September 19, 2021 8:00 am

Americans can’t do the conversion to F.

Reply to  bluecat57
September 19, 2021 8:46 am

Nor can some practical Canadians.
Stupid French revolutionaries made each degree C too large.
Saying that it is “34 outside” is a lot easier than saying it is “one-point five outside”.
The first temperature scale is very good at conveying information:
“it’s a hundred degrees!”
Or
“It’s “thirty below!”
Has impact, compared to the inadequate centigrade or Celcius.

Scissor
Reply to  bluecat57
September 19, 2021 9:33 am

Everyone is cold at -40.

Coach Springer
September 19, 2021 8:21 am

Sadly, any such reduction would be a limited or non-existent vector on temperature. But they may be forced to do more data revisions to make it look like they’re getting somewhere.

Last edited 28 days ago by Coach Springer
Dave Fair
Reply to  Coach Springer
September 19, 2021 12:06 pm

Radiosondes, satellites (other than RSS) and ARGO estimates are hard to fiddle post-hoc. It screws up the past (already-adjusted) displayed measurements. Plus, as HADCURT shows, it is hard to get all the adjusting groups to do the same fiddling.

bonbon
September 19, 2021 8:24 am

Things have changed dramatically since the last Cop-out.
Note the Afghanistan sudden (even BoJo was not warned) ‘escape’ as Putin put it succinctly.
20 years of ‘forever wars’ with a Saigon replay. And add to that the declassification of 9/11 papers implicating Saudi direct involvement, just as half a $billion aid is offered. The entire planet suddenly realizes the global hegemony is over.

So what then? Well, the crazy autopilot Australia nuke sub deal AUKUSA, with France possibly leaving NATO (which Macron said was brain dead last June).
Add that to the Great Reset train wreck about to pile up, with food shortages.

Funny how empires go. A train-wreck, a great escape, and a ship-wreck – it is in tatters.
To top that the entire trans-Atlantic financial system is tottering – one crisis after another.

China knows full well the danger of that financial system imploding – Evergrande, a Lehman moment, will be handled differently, to say the least.

Climate is taking a back seat….

What is taking the drivers seat is the BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, the New Silk Road. Guess which country sits right in the middle? Afghanistan. Counter to geopolitical bowel feelings, real serious opportunities exist for real serious development. Flake knee-jerk swipes such as the AUKUSA stunt are rapidly seen as such.

Last edited 28 days ago by bonbon
AGW is Not Science
September 19, 2021 8:45 am

Not only do I not “fall for it,” I also don’t “fall for” the notion that reducing human CO2 emissions would stop the temperature from increasing, or decreasing, or staying the same, because atmospheric CO2 does not drive the effing climate.

Before they “demand” that we “do something” to “fix” the non-crisis of “climate change,” first they actually have to demonstrate their “cause” is actually capable of what they say it is, which they have never done. “Hypothetical bullshit” does not qualify as a basis for policy.

I really wish whoever it was that quoted an (unnamed) geologist would have given that geologist credit, for their quote about CO2 was a perfect summation of what nonsense the whole “climate change” canard really is when he/she said “If CO2 could do what they say it can do, then the oceans would have boiled away or frozen over a long time ago.” I doubt anyone could sum it up better than that!

Ronald G. Havelock, PhD
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
September 20, 2021 3:38 pm

There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 plays any role in climate whatever. No existing data series (and there are many) demonstrates even a correlation with CO2, either as measured in the atmosphere by the Keelings or as stupidly measured as “emissions” from human activity (“Oh those dreadful humans” I can hear Malthus, Ehrlich, and the Club of Rome screaming.) The Emperor has no clothes on, none! but nobody in positions of power around the world can see it. Is it their complete ignorance about what science is really all about? We do have a looming crisis, my friends, but it is the crisis of ignorant doomsaying, led by criminal “science” quacks like “Professor” Michael Mann.

September 19, 2021 8:57 am

The “given” on the Earth’s temp is 288 K.
That is the current temp that the climate control freaks claim is 1.5 degrees too high.
And they argue amongst themselves that it should be set at 1.5 above an arbitrary level, or at 2 above.
So, in pre-industrial times it must have been at 286.
Therefore, their ideal is setting the temperature of the nearest planet at 287.5 K.
It is doubtful that HVAC engineers can set the temp of a tall building with such precision.

Mason
Reply to  Bob Hoye
September 19, 2021 2:32 pm

Or even measure it.

GeoNC
September 19, 2021 9:11 am

I’m willing to do my part in reducing oil consumption just as soon as I am supplied with definitive proof that it’s use is what is driving any increase in global temperature. Also, I’ll require all politicians to reduce their consumption to my level.I wish they’d hurry. I’m turning blue holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

Ari Okkonen
September 19, 2021 9:11 am

No problem. Warming that actually was the warming phase 1975-2010 of the traditional Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation has already stopped. Now we are heading to chilly times of 2040.
Analysis of North Atlantic sea surface temperature history: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339274895_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentration_in_Atmosphere_Has_Negligible_Effect_on_North_Atlantic_Sea_Surface_Temperature

Atlantic_SST_2012_with_estimate_R.png
Scissor
Reply to  Ari Okkonen
September 19, 2021 9:37 am

Is there any theory underlying the base linear trend and AMO oscillation or is this just a model fit?

Ari Okkonen
Reply to  Scissor
September 19, 2021 10:00 am

Linear trend is the recovery from Little Ice Age. It is clearly visible in 300 years of ice breakup dates of Tornionjoki river. 65 year cycle of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation just seems to happen.
Nonlinear coupled systems, e.g. climate+oceans, may oscillate more or less chaotic when energy (e.g. from the Sun) is supplied. An example from another domain is playing a violin where a constant movement of the bow causes oscillation of strings.
Ice breakup dates (days from the beginning of the year) of Tornionjoki river:

tornionjoen_jaanlahto_R.jpg
Scissor
Reply to  Ari Okkonen
September 19, 2021 10:43 am

Thanks.

Greg
Reply to  Ari Okkonen
September 19, 2021 11:42 am

What makes you think the linear trend is due to CO2 ?
This is the problem with climatology, there is the default assumption that a linear trend can be fitted to any variable and attributed without further justification to GHE, all the various “oscillations” them become trendless, net zero change “internal noise”.

This is a word game like the rest of their pseudo science. By calling all these variables “oscillations” there is an implicit suggestion of a pendulum swing variation with zero long term change. Since this is never stated openly it is never questioned.

Maybe AMO has a long term component and this is the cause of the trend.

There is no scientific reason no to consider and examine that possibility, other than that they already “know” where the trend comes from.

It is all pseudo science.

Why do you attribute the trend in this data to CO2 ?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Greg
September 19, 2021 12:20 pm

if you are addressing Ari, this is the title of the paper he cited:

Increasing Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Atmosphere Has Negligible Effect on North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature

Dave Fair
Reply to  Greg
September 19, 2021 12:30 pm

Ari never mentioned CO2. Chill out; while your observations are correct, you chose the wrong target.

Ronald G. Havelock, PhD
Reply to  Greg
September 20, 2021 3:46 pm

Exactly so. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELEIVE THAT CO2 PLAYS ANY ROLE WHATSOEVER. There is no data, only “theory.” There is not even a weak correlation and correlation is not enough to show cause and effect.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ari Okkonen
September 19, 2021 12:25 pm

So, over a period of about 130 years covering two peak-to-peak sine waves, the Atlantic SST has risen by about 0.4 C? Should I be worried?

Editor
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 19, 2021 12:49 pm

Dave Fair ==> There is no scientific record of Global sea surface temperatures that goes back 130 years. The early portion, probably everything before WWII, is a semi-fictional guess — and even after WWII is based on measures with HUGE measurement errors and uncertainty. so much so, that the entire discussion is moot.

This is true for many of the fractional-degree changes of various climate metrics being thrown about by the IPCC and activists. The only real exception, oddly, is the Tide Gauge record which only applies to individual locations and then to absolute sea levels only when corrected by Continuously Operating Reference stations attached to the same structure as the tide gauge.

There is one temperaiure station that is long-term dependable that I know of, and that is at Greenwich Observatory in the UK.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 19, 2021 1:30 pm

I agree whole heartedly, Kip. That is why I propose only radiosondes, satellites and ARGO be used for scientific studies. Using other metrics leads to guesswork affected by bias.

BTW, what does Greenwich indicate for periodic temperature trends?

Last edited 28 days ago by Dave Fair
Editor
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 6, 2021 7:58 pm

Dave ==> I don’t now, but the station is still active and the UK Met should have a downloadable long-term data set.

AndyHce
Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 19, 2021 2:01 pm

And the measurement uncertainty of the best technology tide gauges is =/- 2 cm

Editor
Reply to  AndyHce
October 6, 2021 7:55 pm

Andy ==> I am only finding this comment now, but yes, you are absolutely right. +/- 2 cm. That’s correctly CENTImeters — not MILLImeters.

Sara
September 19, 2021 9:19 am

The Greenbirdbrains want to “drop” the planet’s temperature, huh? Well, aside from the ridiculous notion that CO2 is anything other than beneficial to plants (among other things), just how do they expect any sane person to believe that they can actually control that when they can’t even control their own digestion systems?

The more I read about this, the more it seems like a mad race toward destruction by the nutballs who support it. For this reason, I will very sincerely offer them a chance to prove they are right by sending them to the coldest place I can think of, which (oddly enough) is not Iceland (haven’t seen any summer gear in the live volcano vids so far), but the Kamchatka Peninsula up in the northernmost end of it, where it’s cold all year and really getting colder right now.

They are just plain nuts. I’ve run into people who were out of touch with reality in some ways, but this is worse than anything I’ve ever seen prior to finding WUWT. If it weren’t for you people, I’d never have realized the depth of this crazy-pants stuff.

Scissor
Reply to  Sara
September 19, 2021 9:56 am

Yes, if one examines the average temperature of places generally recognized as having the best weather, one finds that the temperature is warmer than the average temperature of earth’s surface. Of course, “best weather” encompasses other factors like, sunshine, rainfall, humidity wind, etc.

https://www.verdict.co.uk/these-are-the-places-with-the-best-weather-in-the-world/

And yet, people not only tolerate, but thrive in various extremes, both hot and cold. Consistent temperature like that of San Diego is attractive and wild extremes, like those in Siberia, are probably less so. Still, it’s all very subjective, as is the 1.5C target.

Since you mentioned a volcano, there’s one erupting on La Palma, Canary Islands.

Last edited 28 days ago by Scissor
Sara
Reply to  Scissor
September 20, 2021 1:04 pm

Oh, I saw that, and how it is rapidly advancing. There’s another one that just started outgassing and spewing stuff. I’ll have to look that up.

Thanks!!!

SAMURAI
September 19, 2021 9:51 am

First of all the ENTIRE PREMISE of this 1.5C UN goal (5 seconds ago used to be 2C) is absurd because all empirical evidence and physics show ECS will only be around 1C (which is a net positive), and more importantly, most of the warming we’ve enjoyed since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 has been from natural factors: LIA recovery, natural variation, 1933~1995 Grand Solar Maximum event, more PDO/AMO warm cycles than cool cycle since 1850 (3 vs 2), over a 30% reduction in solar irradiance reflecting airborne particulates since 1980, natural ocean current flux, natural Jet Stream flux, etc.,

During the next coming PDO/AMO cool cycles, CAGW will be disconfirmed.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 19, 2021 11:21 am

“During the next coming PDO/AMO cool cycles, CAGW will be disconfirmed.”

I think you’re right.

Greg
September 19, 2021 9:56 am

Good news in time for COP-OUT 26 :

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Arctic sea ice extent has just turned minimum for the year at 4.75e6 km^2 compared to 4.16e6 km^2 in 2007 when Al Gore’s lies, run away melting and the “death spiral” first started getting pushed down everyone’s throat.

That’s notable increase of about 14%. and about 40% more that the OMG minimum of 2012.

So with no net loss in 15 years it’s clear all the hype and hyperventilation about “ice free summers” was a waste of time and yet another example of the fact that you cannot just fit a straight line “trend” to everything in the climate system and pretend that correlates with CO2 and thus it’s all our fault.

Last edited 28 days ago by Greg
Scissor
Reply to  Greg
September 19, 2021 10:50 am

NSIDC doesn’t like what the Arctic is saying.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Greg
September 19, 2021 12:38 pm

It will be interesting the next few years in watching the effect of a negative AMO on Arctic sea ice.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Greg
September 19, 2021 2:25 pm

It would be good news, but because it does not fit the agenda it will be ignored. A complete non-event. Facts are irrelevant.

dodgy geezer
September 19, 2021 10:01 am

Doesn’t matter if we fall for it or not. We no longer have any influence over our leaders. They go ahead regardless..

Peta of Newark
Reply to  dodgy geezer
September 19, 2021 10:15 am

Absolutely – and in cahoots with haha Scientists.

It is exactly what Eisenhower warned

If they persist with the idiotic garbage fantasy that is the GHGE, the will do something sooooo stupid as to defy belief. And end all life on Earth.
The burning of Biomass is a good start on that road

Yes, something is moving out there, something is changing and twitching the thermometers and sea-level gauges.

It is called Soil Erosion and has been the root-cause of the demise of all previous attempts at settled human civilisation.
Some people out there do know that…… let’s give them a helping hand to get the message across before ploughs, paddy fields, nitrogen fertiliser and Roundup turn the entire global land-area into a The New Sahara.

September 19, 2021 10:19 am

“Agreement had contained nothing of substance to meet either of these objectives”

The belief that a contrived global temperature anomaly can be controlled rheostat-like with limiting fossil fuel emissions is no different than believing in magic.

Clyde Spencer
September 19, 2021 10:19 am

To meet that carbon budget would imply a halving of global emissions this decade, and then halving again in the 2030s.

The estimates are that the annual reduction in anthropogenic CO2 in 2020 was around 7-10%, with it reaching more than 18% in April. Yet, the seasonal peak in May was essentially the same as the previous year, and the slope and shape of the Winter growth ramp was the same as typically observed for years. That is, there is no empirical evidence from which to extrapolate to suggest that even 50% reduction will have any measurable effect, let alone achieve the hoped for goal.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/

The problem is that the atmosphere can’t distinguish anthropogenic CO2 from natural sources, and all the sinks should absorb CO2 in proportion to the abundance of the various sources. That means humans contribute less than 5% to the atmosphere. Five percent of 50% is less than 3%. It has been claimed by others that the 2020 decline can’t be observed because it is less than the ~2% annual increases and is lost in the noise. I think that this is a rationalization for explaining why a CO2 decline can’t be measured when it is assumed that humans are exclusively responsible for the annual increases. I think that the conclusion should be that even if we totally eliminated (100%!) anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the most we could hope for would be about a 4% decline in the annual increases.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/07/carbon-cycle/

Last edited 28 days ago by Clyde Spencer
Doonman
September 19, 2021 10:27 am

Science has determined that termites emit ten times the amount of CO2 that humans do.

Here is the 1982 observational study of global CO2 termite emissions. Science 05 Nov 1982: Vol. 218, Issue 4572, pp. 563-565 DOI: 10.1126/science.218.4572.563.

10% of termites must be exterminated worldwide NOW to meet any worldwide temperature goal. The atmosphere does not care where the CO2 comes from. Yet no one who claims to want to save the earth has ever suggested this solution. Apparently, they do not wish to follow the science.

September 19, 2021 10:35 am

The CO2 budget theory is based on a saturation of sinks assumption. Actually the sink increases in sync with CO2 concentration. 36 GtCO2 corresponds then with an equilibrium CO2 level of 512 ppm. (1GtC = 3.67 GtCO2)

7E17C7E2-E0C5-4BF7-A73A-9EC9F7189392.png
steen rasmussen
September 19, 2021 11:32 am

There is obviously an IPCC need for lowering the temperature limit once again and now to 1.5C over 1850 level? When you ask yourself why? … knowing that we are now finally back to the theoretical mean temperature level of the Earth (288K) and flatten out. The reason is IPCC know, that there is a chance we will get a natural cooling period when the sun enters a new period of low activity (2020 – 2055?). Therefore they need major reductions before 2030, because else they will not be able claim that the cooling was obtained by reductions of CO2 – and then they are finally out of business.

HotScot
September 19, 2021 1:14 pm

I have posted it before, and I’ll continue to do so until the public understands that climate science is no more complicated than basic Arithmetic.

This is the calculation, using internationally recognised data, nothing fancy, no hidden agenda, just something you can do by taking your socks and shoes off.

Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostock Ice Core).

Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (Manua Loa)

410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.

That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take more than 20,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for 20,000 years.

One hundred (100) generations from now (assuming ~ 25 years per generation) would experience warming of ~0.25°C more than we have today. ‘The children’ are not threatened!

Furthermore, the Manua Loa CO2 observatory (and others) can identify and illustrate Natures small seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 but cannot distinguish between natural and manmade atmospheric CO2.

Hardly surprising, mankind’s CO2 emissions are so inconsequential this ‘vital component’ of Global Warming can’t be illustrated on the regularly updated Manua Loa graph.

It’s independent of seasonal variation and would reveal itself as a straight line, so should be obvious.

Not even the global fall in manmade CO2 over the early Covid-19 pandemic, estimated at ~14% (14% of ~0.02ppm CO2 = 0.0028ppm), registers anywhere on the Manua Loa data.
 
Why am I not surprised?!

Ronald G. Havelock, PhD
Reply to  HotScot
September 20, 2021 4:05 pm

I think its Mauna Loa, BTW, but these Keeling graphs have a lot to do with the scare factor driving all this nonsense. It is always cited as the truest, most accurate, most representative measure of atmospheric CO2, but these assumptions stink from a scientific point of view. Why don’t we have more measurement in more places at more atmospheric level? I think the answer is that the “climate scientists” don’t want to know. For them, the “science” is settled and the politicians don’t even want to ask some elementary questions of the “scientists.” Its enough that 97% (bogus survey) agree that its time to panic.

September 19, 2021 3:47 pm

All the above assumes that CO2 controls temperature and not that temperature controls production of CO2 in Nature. Proof of this is yet to be seen. Restatement is not proof.

Mickey Reno
September 19, 2021 5:11 pm

Paul Homewood, why do you concede an unproved axiom. There is NO causal proof that limiting CO2 emissions will limit climate change, let alone control it to the degree or precision necessary to guarantee the world will not warm more than 1.5 or 2 degrees. The best evidence we have, the long ice cores, suggest that CO2 merely follows temperature changes that occur for other reasons, Milankovic cycles, solar, albedo, natural circulation variability, etc.). Those cores show temperature declining from highs during inter-glacial periods into the next period of glaciation when CO2 is at it’s peak.

Streetcred
September 19, 2021 5:35 pm

The only conceivable way to reduce emissions is to reduce net world-wide manufacturing … not just shape shifting. The Greens wet dream!

Last edited 27 days ago by Streetcred
observa
September 20, 2021 2:30 am

No worries as Sustainable Aviation Fuel is on the way from Shell with net zero emissions by 2050-
Oil giant Shell sets sights on sustainable aviation fuel take-off (msn.com)

Shell and Deloitte leading the way-

”In a new report on the decarbonisation of aviation published together with Deloitte, Shell called for the sector to cut its emissions to net zero by 2050.”

The other sectors of the economy just need to get in touch with Deloitte on this.

observa
Reply to  observa
September 20, 2021 4:45 am

PS: I couldn’t help wondering who regurgitates this drivel for Reuters and welcome to Ron Bousso- Ron Bousso | Reuters Journalist | Muck Rack

Gary Pearse
September 20, 2021 12:58 pm

“To meet that carbon budget would imply a halving of global emissions this decade, and then halving again in the 2030s.”

Paul, even the chief climateers have realized the models are running a way too hot. Jim Hansen “The Father of Human Caused Global Warming” opines that a 30year cooling period starting now can’t be ruled out, despite even more rapid growth in CO2 emissions.

This suggests ‘business as usual’ still won’t push GW to more than 1.5 C. The ‘theory’ has simply been falsified. Good possibility for betting against the meme, though!

%d bloggers like this: