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.
“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.
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/
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.
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)
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.
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?!
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.
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.
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.
The only conceivable way to reduce emissions is to reduce net world-wide manufacturing … not just shape shifting. The Greens wet dream!
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.
PS: I couldn’t help wondering who regurgitates this drivel for Reuters and welcome to Ron Bousso- Ron Bousso | Reuters Journalist | Muck Rack
“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!