The Impossibility Of The 1.5C Target

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

SEPTEMBER 22, 2021tags: cop26

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:

image

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 22 votes
Article Rating
195 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mickey Reno
September 24, 2021 6:03 am

“Don’t FOOL for it again.”

Well said. ha ha ha ha ha ha

Ron Long
Reply to  Mickey Reno
September 24, 2021 10:43 am

And he threw in “farrago” for extra points. I had to look it up “a confused mixture”. New word for the day.

Jack Black
Reply to  Ron Long
September 24, 2021 12:08 pm

Gallimaufry, mingle-mangle, mishmash, hodgepodge, and mélange, which is incidentally the name of the “spice” extracted from the sands of the planet Arrakis, in the film “Dune” !

Who will be the Kwisatz Haderac ?

auto
Reply to  Jack Black
September 24, 2021 4:14 pm

The ‘Shortening of the Way’?
Probably not Boris – nor POTUS Sleepy Joe.
Possibly not Poisoner Putin.
I suppose that leaves the delightful Mr. Xi – imperialist, slave master etc.

Auto,
Not hugely impressed with the current statesfolk [‘statesmen’ is obviously not an acceptable lexeme today] who are available worldwide.

Sara
Reply to  Mickey Reno
September 25, 2021 4:49 am

Couldn’t we just tell those nutballs who come up with this stuff to go pound sand some place special? And make it preferably frozen sand, too. Yeah, that would be epic.

Tom Halla
September 24, 2021 6:07 am

As if the Chinese and Indians will suddenly become True Believers in the Holy Cause of Climate Change?

griff
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 24, 2021 6:14 am

The Indians are installing huge amounts of solar power, at a rate which is making coal uneconomic. India grew its coal fleet by only net 0.7 GW in 2020, after adding an average 15.0 GW a year from 2010 to 2019. 

Much of India’s 33 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power capacity currently under construction and another 29GW in the preconstruction stage will end up stranded, according to a new briefing note by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).
“Coal-fired power simply cannot compete with the ongoing cost reductions of renewables. Solar tariffs in India are now below even the fuel costs of running most existing coal-fired power plants,” says author Kashish Shah, Research Analyst at IEEFA.

Oh, the Indians currently have a coal shortage at their coal power plants…

HotScot
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 6:27 am

How do the Indians manage at night with all that solar?

As well as the UK and the rest of Europe is doing with no wind?

It’s a 24 hour economy like most other major nations across the globe.

Reply to  HotScot
September 24, 2021 4:49 pm

Not just at night. My understanding is that moveable arrays generate significantly just 8 hours a day and fixed arrays just 6 hours. So the backup is actually the front up as it were. Solar just cuts emissions a bit.

Of course at higher latitudes these numbers get even smaller in winter.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  David Wojick
September 24, 2021 6:01 pm

You are correct; and if the array gets shaded during the day it will be highly likely that it will shut itself down.

ATheoK
Reply to  HotScot
September 24, 2021 6:57 pm

Don’t forget the Monsoon seasons.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 6:31 am

Griff, you are a never ending source of hilarity

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
September 24, 2021 8:35 am

Griff is a real card. The joker in the pack

fretslider
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 6:38 am

Oh griff, you really expect the Indians to give up development? Why on Earth would you want them to? 

How developed do you think India is? From your bible

“Two teenage girls have been gang-raped and killed after doing what half a billion women and girls are forced to do every day – go outdoors to try to find somewhere discreet to go to the toilet.

A toilet, bathroom, powder room – whatever you want to call it – at home, at school, at work, in the shopping mall, is something many of us take for granted and cannot talk about without feeling embarrassed. But we must: because the lack of toilets is costing women their lives.”

Two girls died looking for a toilet. This should make us angry, not embarrassed | Barbara Frost, Winnie Byanyima, Corinne Woods and Nick Alipui | The Guardian

That’s why they’re giving you two fingers at this CoP.

Last edited 22 days ago by fretslider
philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 6:39 am

So what? Tell us what effect that, or the subject of any other of your nitwit pronouncements will have on the global climate. Show us the math from which you derived your answer too. Hee hee.

Tom Halla
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 6:40 am

Griff, you are confusing virtue signaling with a real power grid.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 6:51 am

You’re quoting from a piece of propaganda put together by one of the renewables lobby. Of course they’re going to say renewables are the big thing. I quote:

The Istitute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) examines issues related to energy markets, trends and policies. The Institute’s mission is to accelerate the transition to a diverse, sustainable and profitable energy economy.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
September 24, 2021 7:24 am

What else would one expect from Gullible Griff and his merry band of alarmists?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 24, 2021 2:54 pm

No, not gullible. Just a shameless liar.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 7:04 am

India is installing huge amounts of coal and gas fired power, lie spewing liar. China is, too, no matter what lies you spew, lie spewing liar.

Reply to  2hotel9
September 24, 2021 8:36 am

And nuclear power. In fact any damned power will do!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 7:30 am

Installing a power source that is 2 to 3 times more expensive than coal, is making coal uneconomic? Really?

Oh, the Indians currently have a coal shortage at their coal power plants…

I’m guessing that griff isn’t smart enough to realize that he has just refuted his entire post.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 7:46 am

Coal is not uneconomical.. Solar is. Solar cannot exist without coal; coal can exist without solar. Hence the solar “solution” MUST have a coal backup. So the costs of that coal plant MUST be included in the total for solar. The converse is NOT true.

Solar/wind are cost ADDERS, not cost REPLACERS. They only ADD cost to the system as they require the existing system to stay around to kick in when solar and wind cannot supply enough power.

Solar and wind are ALWAYS more expensive for this very reason. ALWAYS.

MarkW
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
September 24, 2021 9:49 am

This remains true, even if you only have a few percentage points worth of wind and solar.

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 7:49 am

griff: Do you believe everything anyone (from climate “emergency” fanaticism, of course) tells you?

Do you really believe everything that you wish were true?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 9:00 am

As per the article, India will build all the wind and solar WE are willing to pay for and little more
No baksheesh, no intermittent windmills

michel
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 10:56 am

There is a good account of the factual background, from a green point of view, but reasonably well balanced, here:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/coal-king-india

Bottom line: no-one can conclude with any confidence that India will do anything but increase.

And the 62GW referred to in your report above? Well, read the link I supplied. They are going to build it. How much solar they put in, who cares?

The hard question about India is the same as the hard question about China. If the alarmist account is correct, both China and India don’t simply need to install wind and solar, or reduce GDP carbon intensity, or have low per capita emissions, or low historical ones.

They actually need to reduce the tonnage they emit. The alternative, on the theory, is they will destroy human civilization due to catastrophic warming.

Question for Griff: do you want China and India to reduce their tonnage of emissions? To what level, by when?

And if not, do you really believe it?

T Stewart
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 2:11 pm

Nonsense — renewables are unreliables — no sun at night and the wind stops — unreliable fake renewables only create poverty — they are for subsidy sucking organisations. This forecast is as reliable as those charlatans making up lies about dangerous carbon dioxide. In 1989 Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study. 
That was in 1989 what has actually happened and how does this differ from what they say now in 2021 — the UN have learned to prioritise hysteria and resist the specific projections like the Maldives being underwater where they have been wrong for 50 years. There is no climate emergency just hysteria.
The green charlatans claim every weather event or catastrophe for their fake doomsday cult and enjoy every human tragedy to parrot their doom and gloom.

LdB
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2021 5:37 pm

Griff … did you read the report

So answer these questions please
1.) What percentage of coal are India still burning in 2040 where the report ends?
2.) How are the replacement energy funded?
3.) What job does the Author have from day to day?

For bonus points what is the IEEFA and how is it funded.

Last edited 21 days ago by LdB
Iain Reid
Reply to  griff
September 25, 2021 1:26 am

Griff,

time and again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of power generation and the futility of trying to make renewable generation work. It cannot and retain a stable supply of power.

michel
Reply to  Iain Reid
September 25, 2021 7:59 am

Yes. The problem is with the idea that solar is cheaper. It may be, if you leave out everything that is needed to make it a real product, which is security of supply 24 x 7.

By the time you add in storage and transmission, which is what it takes to make the products comparable, you find that just the batteries to fund solar all night means that its astronomically more expensive. And that for a country the size of India, there are not enough raw materials in the world to make the required quantity of batteries.

Bad faith. Also known as levelized costs.

September 24, 2021 6:10 am

To cease oil production, cease fracking, and stop importing crude oil, the supply chain to refineries will be terminated and that manufacturing industry will become history, i.e., no more fuels for transportation infrastructures, and no manufactured derivatives from crude oil to make the thousands of products demanded by worldwide economies and lifestyles.

philincalifornia
September 24, 2021 6:17 am

So how does one calculate the CO2 level target for the stupid-ass 1.5 degree target without knowing climate sensitivity tp CO2 ?

Answer: Pretend that simple arithmetic doesn’t exist.

HotScot
Reply to  philincalifornia
September 24, 2021 6:24 am

Don’t even need to know the sensitivity. Simple Arithmetic suffices anyway.

(See below).

philincalifornia
Reply to  HotScot
September 24, 2021 6:42 am

Or we can just estimate its effect in round numbers, which is particularly easy given the fact that it is a round number.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  philincalifornia
September 24, 2021 7:55 am

The calculation is really quite simple, I’m surprised you don’t already know it:

[<Desired level of wealth transfer> / <Years that wealth is needed>] * [<Degrees we must stop in X years> / <Dollars per CO2 emitted>] = deg / CO2.

Really quite simple, actually.

Reply to  philincalifornia
September 24, 2021 11:09 am

Hell they don’t even know if the feedback variable is a positive or negative. Just sayin’

HotScot
September 24, 2021 6:21 am

Here we go again.

Judging by historic emissions and temperature rise, not only is the whole premise ridiculous, even the claims in this article are ridiculous. And history is all the evidence we have to go on as we don’t have a crystal ball.

Assuming for a moment that atmospheric CO2 is the culprit, 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 presented 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.

Even accepting that CO2 emissions are higher now than in 1850, the time taken to reach 2ºC of warming is still thousands of years away.

Chris Quartermaine
Reply to  HotScot
September 24, 2021 6:43 am

As a non scientist, I found this very convincing. Could you just elaborate where the 3% comes from? The ‘consensus’ is that that we are contributing all of the increase.

HotScot
Reply to  Chris Quartermaine
September 26, 2021 2:54 am

Like I said, I have used internationally accepted numbers in this. Whilst the gullible public are convinced mankind is producing all the emissions, anyone who has looked into ‘climate science’ understands we are only responsible for 3% – 4% of atmospheric content.

bdgwx
Reply to  HotScot
September 28, 2021 8:12 am

Internationally accepted numbers are 3-4% for the emissions in units of ppm/yr or GtC/yr and nearly 100% for the increase from 280 to 410 ppm. See  Friedlingstein et al. 2020 for more information on the topic.

DCE
Reply to  HotScot
September 24, 2021 7:22 am

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

You are understandably assuming Mother Nature’s ‘contributions’ to CO2 are constant. That is an assumption no one can take for granted. (I’m not faulting you for it. I am merely pointing it out and not just to you, but to everyone.) ‘Natural’ sources of CO2 will vary their contribution for a variety of reasons, with some of those variations being small and others quite large. I understand it is easier to deal with an average, but to assume the only varying contribution to the CO2 in our atmosphere is due to human activity is an erroneous assumption and can lead to faulty conclusions.

Okay, that’s my 3.47 cents worth…

Coeur de Lion
Reply to  DCE
September 24, 2021 7:40 am

Take a look at the Moana Loa detailed graph of CO2 level – the really detailed one – and you will notice that the shape of the sawteeth is idiosyncratic and that they are perfectly reproduced before and after and during the COVID industrial disaster years. So how much is human? None?

stewartpid
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 24, 2021 10:31 am

Mauna Loa …. moaning Loa is a h00ker who will be working COP26

HotScot
Reply to  DCE
September 26, 2021 2:57 am

I could include every variable possible in the calculation, it doesn’t change the fact that we are looking at 20,000+ years for mankind’s contributions to raise the planet’s temperature bu 2ºC.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  HotScot
September 24, 2021 8:00 am

Nice calcs! And even if man was 100% responsible for the increase – that still is 200 years to go before we hit 560 PPM (doubling). So this whole “12 years to heal the planet!” thing really does ring hollow…

bdgwx
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
September 24, 2021 9:58 am

Humans are pumping nearly 5 ppm/yr into the atmosphere now. About 2.5 ppm/yr is getting buffered. So (560 ppm – 415 ppm) / (5.0 ppm/yr – 2.5 ppm/yr) = 58 yr assuming the emission and buffer rates stay constant.

Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
September 24, 2021 5:01 pm

And the significance of 58 years is? A temperature change of less than 0.3 C?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 24, 2021 6:03 pm

This tiny amount is defined as a disaster by the averagers.

bdgwx
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 25, 2021 6:34 am

It is quite a bit less than 200.

Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
September 25, 2021 9:26 am

Yeah, I agree that both 58 and 0.3 are quite a bit less than 200. Your “cleverness” again hides any point you might be trying to make.

bdgwx
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 26, 2021 6:09 am

My point is that it can’t possibly be as long as 200 years to reach 560 ppm at the current rate at which CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere.

HotScot
Reply to  bdgwx
September 26, 2021 3:05 am

Take your sleight of hand and ram it mate. This is just what the climate faithful do, take fictitious numbers on the basis of an unfounded theory and turn 20,000 years (based on historic fact) and turn it into 200 years.

No on can measure, far less apportion, 5 ppm in the atmosphere with any certainty. If they could, like I said, Manua Loa laboratory would produce a separate graph to show mankind’s ‘shocking’ contribution to the atmosphere. But they can’t, so they don’t.

Stick to the known facts!

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  bdgwx
September 25, 2021 8:26 am

So then, where did the “12 years before its too late!” mantra come from?

HotScot
Reply to  bdgwx
September 26, 2021 3:00 am

You’re big problem there is “buffered” as no one can say that is indisputably true. It’s a theory, not a fact. Try to stick to the facts in hand.

bdgwx
Reply to  HotScot
September 26, 2021 6:11 am

It is a fact. The biosphere is greening and the hydrosphere is acidifying. The biosphere and hydrosphere are taking up carbon mass.

bdgwx
Reply to  HotScot
September 24, 2021 9:41 am

“which man is responsible for ~3%”

Not quite right. Humans are responsible for ~3% of the total emissions in units of ppm/yr or GtC/yr. But we are responsible for nearly 100% of the accumulation in units of ppm or GtC. A ~3.0% increase in the emission rate with only a ~1.8% increase in the buffer rate adds up very quickly. In fact, humans pumped about 330 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere of which about 195 ppm was buffered by the hydrosphere and biosphere leaving about a 135 ppm accumulation. If humans hadn’t pumped 330 ppm into the atmosphere to begin with than 135 ppm wouldn’t remain. Again…pay very close attention to your units here. The ~3% is in reference to a mass rate (ppm/yr) which is very different from total mass (ppm).

“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.”

The issue here is the signal-to-noise ratio. The reduction was small and short-lived. As a result the SNR is too small for conclusive null hypothesis testing. I did an analysis last year and concluded that the reduction would have need to be 50% for about 2 years for the SNR to be high enough to draw conclusions with simple signal processing techniques. In the end the total reduction in 2020 amounted to less than 10%. We may see publications with more advanced signal processing with filtering (like seasonal, vegetation growth, ENSO, etc.) in the not too distant future that might be able to pull a good signal out of the noise if they don’t already exist.

Last edited 22 days ago by bdgwx
HotScot
Reply to  bdgwx
September 26, 2021 3:09 am

There’s that theoretical expression ‘buffer’ which no one can observationally prove.

It’s an alarmist theory, I’m dealing in known historic fact.

Your post is utterly wasted because you have wandered into the realms of theory, not fact.

bdgwx
Reply to  HotScot
September 26, 2021 6:12 am

Same response as above: It is observationally proven. The biosphere is greening and the hydrosphere is acidifying. The biosphere and hydrosphere are taking up carbon mass. There is nothing alarming about this IMHO.

willem post
Reply to  HotScot
September 24, 2021 10:04 am

You may want to see this URL, which states a strong correlation with growing CO2 in the atmosphere and growing human CO2 emissions.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=45

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  willem post
September 24, 2021 12:58 pm

Skeptical Scientology? Really?

2/10 for effort. Must try harder, Willem.

HotScot
Reply to  willem post
September 26, 2021 3:12 am

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Skeptical science. The website set up by a cartoonist……who likes to dress as a Nazi……..are you having a laugh?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Nigel in California
Reply to  willem post
September 26, 2021 1:50 pm

“strong correlation”

Not very useful until it is proven. Would you risk trillions of $ on an unproven ‘strong correlation’ or a proven causation?

Dean
Reply to  HotScot
September 25, 2021 5:09 am

Is 97% of the increased CO2 emissions naturally occurring? Where does that number come from?

Its not a Cook’s et al 97% is it?

bdgwx
Reply to  Dean
September 25, 2021 6:41 am

Most of the total increase in emissions is human in origin. And in terms of net transfer (emissions-absorptions) the human component is positive at about +38 GtCO2/yr while the natural component is negative at about -19 GtCO2/yr. This causes the atmosphere to accumulate CO2 at a rate of about 19 GtCO2/yr or 2.5 ppm/yr.

Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
September 25, 2021 9:30 am

With no measurable impact on any of the Earth’s various climate regions when considering natural variations over 100+ year timeframes.

HotScot
Reply to  bdgwx
September 26, 2021 3:13 am

Nothing but theory. Sick to the facts.

iggie
Reply to  HotScot
September 26, 2021 3:02 pm

Hot Scott
Don’t forget that temps are controlled by agencies that have a policy to control the agenda. Here’s the present data for De Bilt in Holland showing a warming trend.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=NLM00006260&ds=14&dt=1

However, this was original unadjusted (raw) temp for De Bilt before the panic around 2010 re the ‘plateauing’ of temps after 1998. It shows the warm temps prior to the cooling years from 1950-1980.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600003&dt=1&ds=1

So don’t worry – these agencies will adjust the temps to reflect what they want.

ResourceGuy
September 24, 2021 6:23 am

This linear thinking is brought to you by the UN and the Climate Crusades-Advocacy Division.

Carlo, Monte
September 24, 2021 6:26 am

This 1.5 or 2.0°C limit notion is a tacit admission that the UN climate models are nothing but over-blown linear functions of atmospheric CO2 concentration. They might as well be linear functions of fairy dust.

fretslider
September 24, 2021 6:33 am

“a budget of 460 Gt.”

Which has now been reduced a bit

“Scientists on Spain’s Canary Islands believe a major volcanic eruption could continue until December after the volcano on La Palma burst into life for the first time in half a century.”

La Palma volcano eruption could continue until December, scientists say | Jaun News (jaunenglish.com)

There’s always those pesky unknown unknowns. Settled science can’t deal with them.

Last edited 22 days ago by fretslider
Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  fretslider
September 24, 2021 6:40 am

I recall watching an interesting documentary about Canary Island seismic activity, that if a sizable chunk of one of the west-ward facing volcanic slopes were to slump into the Atlantic the resulting tsunami would slam into the US east coast…. Talk about draining the swamp. after the water recedes there won’t be much left of D.C. I know, my schadenfreude is showing.

Richard Briscoe
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 24, 2021 7:37 am

This will happen sooner or later, but probably – hopefully – not for thousands of years.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 24, 2021 8:00 am

Freuen Sie nich so schnell, Pamela! Models very often give very wrong predictions…

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Joao Martins
September 24, 2021 8:37 am

Eu sei….

ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 6:40 am

Isn’t it strange how people say we cannot take action to limit climate change because we cannot achieve what is needed.
But if we do nothing it is possible that many life forms on this planet will not survive.
How much will it cost to keep rising seas from our cities?
The railway (destroyed a few years ago in a storm) past a small costal village in uk :
“The new wall will cost £80million and be delivered in two sections. The first section, which runs for approximately 400m from Colonnade underpass, west of Dawlish station, to Boat Cove has now been built, ensuring that this section of railway is more resilient for future generations.
When both sections are built, the new, larger structure will protect the town and the railway for the next 100 years”

How much for London/florida/etc.

But here the author suggests just sitting back and watching it happen. Or perhaps he suggests waiting until it is beyond any doubt (what is this limit of acceptability)? But then it will be even more difficult.

The actions need to provide electricity to the masses in developing nations that will not add to the climate change – for which they will need money. They should not be allowed to copy the west and burn fossil fuels – it will affect the whole world. Money from those whom have already polluted would enable this necessary leap.

Perhaps limiting to 1.5°C rise is not possible, but it is for future generations that we need to do all we can

fretslider
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 7:02 am

“Isn’t it strange how people say we cannot take action to limit climate change because we cannot achieve what is needed”

No, it’s entirely sensible.

You have to get past the arrogance and hubris of the High Priests of the Church of AGW and Latter Day Lunatics.

How would you stop a volcanic eruption that affects the climate?

Put a sock in it?

Last edited 22 days ago by fretslider
ghalfrunt
Reply to  fretslider
September 24, 2021 9:52 am

fretslider
How would you stop a volcanic eruption that affects the climate?
————————-
you wouldn’t stop an eruption but you might divert the lava flow (Heimaey) or if a catastrophic event that causes a world wide winter by injecting particulates into the upper atmosphere I do not think people would sit in their rocking chairs saying “oh well cant be helped”.

Perhaps these particulates can be precipitated with water or captured by filters or other methods?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 12:23 pm

Yes, because it’s entirely plausible to run balloons into the stratosphere with giant filter boxes to suck out the particulates, which is where a VEI 6-8 event would put them. 😀

Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 1:43 pm

Seriously ??? 😀

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 24, 2021 2:11 pm

gf takes great pride in being totally ignorant in many different subjects.

HotScot
Reply to  MarkW
September 26, 2021 3:16 am

He knows LaLa Land very well.

Chuck no longer in Houston
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 2:20 pm

You have no sense of scale. That’s a pretty common shortcoming with the ArtSchool crowd.

philincalifornia
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 7:04 am

But if we do nothing it is possible that many life forms on this planet will not survive.
How much will it cost to keep rising seas from our cities?

What’s really strange is that there are still people who believe this shiite.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 7:09 am

“But if we do nothing it is possible that many life forms on this planet will not survive.
How much will it cost to keep rising seas from our cities?”

At the current rate of sea level rise, doing nothing is just smart! Please note that Obama, Gore, and countless other wealthy people have continued to buy and live in coastal mansions barely above King Tide level. A more pressing problem is subsidence which mimics SLR. This is common along the east coast of North America and in many places were low-lying land was filled to create more real estate. Over-pumping of ground water can also result in subsidence when it doesn’t also result in salt water intrusion into the water table.

Instead of spending trillions on wind turbines, solar panels, and exploding EVs, that money would do more good helping Africans move into the 21st Century with reliable sources of energy. Bring light to the Dark Continent!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 24, 2021 9:35 am

Bring light to the Dark Continent.

Yes. According to an IEA study of Access to Electricity 2019 (SDG Data and Projections) the number of people without access to electricity in the world dropped from almost 860m in 2010 to 770m in 2019 and 75% of the people without access now live in sub Saharan Africa.

But even in Africa the number of people gaining access to electricity doubled from 9m pa between 2000-2013 to 20m pa between 2014-2019, outpacing population growth. In Kenya the access rate rose from 20% in 2013 t0 almost 85% in 2019 and in North Africa the access rate is 99.6%.

Last edited 22 days ago by Dave Andrews
HotScot
Reply to  Dave Andrews
September 26, 2021 3:19 am

When we talk about gaining access to electricity, that must be quantified by how much electricity they get access to.

Running a light bulb or a fridge is access to electricity, but not by western standards.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 7:17 am

The section of railway you refer to has been damaged by Atlantic storms on several occasions, the first time was just a few months after it was opened in 1846. The decision to build it along the coast was purely for aesthetic reasons, not practical, and could have been built inland. But, they wanted a scenic railway and although the original engineers were well aware of the susceptibility of damage due to storms they built it there anyway. To claim the most recent damage is due to “climate change” is, as usual for you, pure ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Devon_Railway_sea_wall

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
September 24, 2021 8:57 am

No, not aesthetic reaons. Cost reasons. The land away from the sea is heavily contoured part of what is a drowned estuary. All the towns are on the coast – fishing, tourism are their raison d’etre. To deviate inland without excessively steep sections of track would have entailed massive cuttings or tunnels the whole way along.

dawlish.jpeg
Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 24, 2021 11:58 am

Yes, the flattest land between Exeter and Dawlish is just above the high water mark along the River Exe. Right where you wouldn’t put it if you were concerned about future maintenance costs, along a coastline that was/is not unfamiliar with Atlantic storms. Victorian engineers were expert at building bridges, digging cuttings or even removing entire hills, and would have done so as it would have been cheaper in the long run as an inland line would not need anywhere near as much maintenance as a coastal line. It was a matter of choice to put the line where they did.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
September 24, 2021 9:01 am

Did i say it was destroyed because of AGW – NO! It was an example of the cost to preserve for 100 years (apparently) [almost £1M/year] a small stretch of coastal railway at Dawlish.
There are other places in UK where a few AGW cm of sea rise will wash away cliffs (around East Anglia) opening the land behind to salt water flooding. Luckily this is mainly farmland and Brexit seems to have destroyed a lot of uk farming!!

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 9:55 am

I’m still waiting for you to provide some evidence that the current SLR isn’t just part of the warming up out the last glacial cycle, or more recently, the little ice age. There’s been no acceleration in the last 200 years, despite CO2 being a recent addition.

If the destruction was not caused by CO2, then why did you include it in a list of disasters that in your petite little mind, were caused by CO2? Or are you just that confused?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 1:42 pm

There are other places in UK where a few AGW cm of sea rise will wash away cliffs

The sea has been eroding the coasts of Great Britain since the stone ages. There is no evidence that any of it was caused by man. There has also been isostatic rebound, which would confound any attempt at proving a human component.

Mr.
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 7:20 am

Well the best thing that could start to be done now would be to begin replacing installed wind & solar farms with nuclear plants as the “renewables” reach their 15 year productive lifespans.

Spend the $100 billion a year Green Climate Fund on that, and there would be no regrets.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Mr.
September 24, 2021 9:06 am

No industry wants to build nuclear. It is too expensive. Hinkley C has loans backed by the uk government an index linked strike price of £0.90/MWh (more than unsubsidised wind), and inderterminate date for first power, an indeterminate final cost, and the build is by the Chinese. And this alone would stop most here from recommending it!!

Mr.
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 12:13 pm

Most industries were / are happy using coal for power generation.
(Affordable, reliable, sustainable, scalable, etc)

The push for changing away from coal has not been based on economies, but rather on ideologies.

Accordingly, the costings of wind & solar are done with ideological thumbs on the scale.
Where do any of these costings apply the full attributable costs of maintaining dispatchable reliable coal or gas generation to cover for the intermittency of wind & solar?
They’re getting a free ride, but don’t want to admit to it.

And batteries for that matter.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 1:46 pm

The only reason for the higher costs with nuclear are from constant delays and pointless regulations to mollify the antinuclear idiots. “Industry” doesn’t want to touch it.

HotScot
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 26, 2021 3:27 am

Rolls Royce have identified 16 sites in the north of England suitable for SMR’s. The time of the expensive (because of regulation, not construction) centralised Nuclear plant is over.

SMR’s can be churned out in factories to provide cheap, reliable electricity to the whole country, probably in less than 20 years once given the green light.

HotScot
Reply to  Mr.
September 26, 2021 3:26 am

…….

Last edited 20 days ago by HotScot
MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 7:36 am

But if we do nothing it is possible that many life forms on this planet will not survive.

I find it hard to believe that there is anyone who is actually stupid enough to believe that.

A few million years ago, CO2 levels were over 5000ppm, and you want us to believe that going from 300ppm to 500ppm might end life on this planet.

Seas have been rising since the end of the last glacial cycle. At a few millimeters per year we will do what we have always done. When a building close to the coast wears out, after tearing it down, if the water has gotten too close, we rebuild it inland instead of in place. Easy peasy, and no extra costs.

Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2021 9:06 am

Indeed. The whole SW of Britain of which the aforementioned estuary is a part comprised of ‘drowned valleys’ as the istostatic rebound and rising sea levels post the last ice age pushed that part of Britain underwater most severely

Modern sea level rise is not a patch on the post ice age rises that separated Britain from Europe, and drowned Doggerland. And possibly flooded the Mediterranean and Black seas.

100 meter sea level changes – now that’s ‘sea level change’ not a measly 3mm a year or whatever it is.

If that’s all that CO2 can do it isnt really much of anything, is it?

ghalfrunt
Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2021 9:08 am

“A few million years ago, CO2 levels were over 5000ppm, and you want us to believe that going from 300ppm to 500ppm might end life on this planet.”

Life was somewhat different then. very difficult to compare then and now.

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 9:56 am

Nice cop out, did you think it up yourself?
You are the one claiming that 500ppm is going to so change the climate as to make life itself impossible. Defend your stupidity for once, instead of just dancing away from it.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2021 9:26 am

There also were not many cities a few million years ago!

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 9:57 am

So what? As I have demonstrated, SLR has not increased and the solutions are both cheap (perhaps even cost free) and easy.

HotScot
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 26, 2021 3:29 am

Cities have constantly evolved and moved over time. Nothing unusual about that.

Of course your comment could only come from a city dweller worried about property prices.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 7:55 am

“They should not be allowed to copy the west and burn fossil fuels”
Should not be allowed? Have you been studying for a degree in despotism at the Klaus Schwab University for Wannabe Dictators?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
September 24, 2021 8:10 am

…. yeah, probably with a minor in Genocide.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
September 24, 2021 9:11 am

We messed up the planet, allowing them to use polluting fuels would mess it up further. They need money to leapfrog the polluting stage. This has to come from “the west”

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 9:16 am

So you want them to have useless windmills and solar that have just very recently demonstrated their uselessness in the UK when the wind didn’t blow and the sun wasn’t shining.
You want to waste money on tech that doesn’t work and impose it on the world’s poor. Klaus and George must be proud of you.

philincalifornia
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 9:54 am

Yet another clusterfcuk scheme from the leftards who don’t know how the world works. They’ll take the money and burn fossil fuels (and laugh their tits off at you).

…. and the people doing the phony-not allowing will get their take too (and laugh their tits off at you too).

Last edited 22 days ago by philincalifornia
MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 9:59 am

Please provide evidence that anything is messed up.
So far all weather has been well within the range of normal, despite the efforts of a few lunatics to claim otherwise.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 1:56 pm

“Polluting fuels” provided a world in which humans have never been better off and there is no evidence the planet is “messed up” in any case. The “west” however, was responsible for most of the wonders of the modern world, allowing the planet to easily support billions.

What “pollution” were you thinking of?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 8:02 am

Disingenuous much? It’s impossible, even within the context of the completely false, Warmunist ideology you espouse.
Eg: Even assuming pigs could fly, it would be impossible for them to fly to the moon.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 24, 2021 9:15 am

I disagree Sir! It entirely begs the question of hiw these avaiating porcines are propelled.. with sufficient internal fermentation and auxiliary oxygen it is entirely possible that fart ignition would be more than adequate to propel them anywhere in the solar system as has been proposed for Unicorns…indeed Sir! I challenge you to prove that they have not already reached the moon. The fact that we cannot see them is no reliable indicator of their absence, but might be due to deficiencies in our viewing apparatus. And we should never forget the precautionary principle! Orbiting pigs might cause severe damage on re-entry and we should spend trillions on protecting ourselves from them!

Yours
Chairman

International Porcine Catastrophe Committee

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 24, 2021 10:00 am

How does fart propulsion work outside the atmosphere? Do the porcine units provide their own oxidizers?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2021 12:29 pm

He did mention “auxiliary oxygen.”

BrianB
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 8:09 am

The actions need to provide electricity to the masses in developing nations that will not add to the climate change – for which they will need money. They should not be allowed to copy the west and burn fossil fuels – it will affect the whole world. Money from those whom have already polluted would enable this necessary leap.

communistfrunt,
It would have been shorter and more transparent had you simply said “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  BrianB
September 25, 2021 4:11 am

Yes, and the abilities will have to be tickled out with a whip.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 8:24 am

Thought the 19th, 20th, and 21at century that railway has repeatedly suffered due to being built too near to the sea. It has nothing whatsoever to do with sea level rise.
In addition the whole “Dawlish is going to disappear because of global warming!” twaddle has easily been shown to be a load of rubbish. The rate of SLR there is roughly 1.7mm/yr (and bear in mind that the coastline is subsiding by 0.5mm/yr.)
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/dawlish-rail-study-ignores-the-facts/
Do some research before you make a fool of yourself Ghalfrunt.

Last edited 22 days ago by Andrew Wilkins
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
September 24, 2021 8:25 am

Details of historical damage

Screenshot_20210924-160622.png
ghalfrunt
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
September 24, 2021 9:13 am
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 9:19 am

So if it wasn’t due to CAGW, what are you worried about?

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
September 24, 2021 9:54 am

the cost

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 10:01 am

You could always volunteer to help with the rebuild. You know, to help keep the cost down.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
September 24, 2021 10:00 am

He’s worried at the costs that will be necessary and used that project to illustrate it.

Last edited 22 days ago by Anthony Banton
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 24, 2021 10:05 am

What’s the cost of repairing a poorly sited railway got to do with the fabled 1.5 degrees?
It’s a bit OT if you ask me.

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 24, 2021 2:15 pm

So taking a problem that has nothing to do with AGW, and using it to help determine AGW costs makes sense to you?

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
September 24, 2021 10:02 am

GhoulFont is just embarrassed that his attempt at distraction was called out.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2021 10:05 am

Bless him. At least he tried.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 8:49 am

I’ve cycled alongside that track. As the tide was coming in, nearly got washed off me bike! Chap I was with DID!

It’s always been vulnerable to storms etc, It was just the only handy bit of flat land so was done on the cheap..

Really that line was built to serve the coastal holiday towns, so they built it along the sea wall. Going inland to moorland via cuttings was simply pointless

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 11:04 am

Even if “global warming” is linear (which it isn’t), the burden of proof is on you to show that warming is not only caused by humans, but that it would be harmful. So far, it’s reasonably easy to show there has been nothing but beneficial outcomes from the mild warming since the LIA ended. As for CO2 increases, that too has been a benefit.

MarkW
Reply to  Rory Forbes
September 24, 2021 2:16 pm

To date, there isn’t a shred of evidence that more CO2 has been anything other than entirely beneficial.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
September 24, 2021 3:00 pm

Yup … once you’ve brushed away all the posturing, failed “science”, hand waving, doom saying and virtue signalling, the AGW true believers have nothing to offer. It’s all just sophistry.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 5:05 pm

Its for the children! Stop analyzing and just do it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 8:01 pm

“How much will it cost to keep rising seas from our cities?” Since I don’t live in a seaside city I’m not responsible. The people involved will have to deal with things as they occur; I can’t anticipate future sea levels. Anyway, future people will be far wealthier and have advanced technologies such that they are better able to handle weather events.

HotScot
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 26, 2021 3:16 am

Here we go. Off into LaLa Land…..

This is not the blog for this fanciful nonsense.

Steve Case
September 24, 2021 6:46 am

Hans Christian Anderson’s
“The Emperor’s New Clothes”
first published in 1837 Wikipedia

The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. And the emperor’s minions immediately stuffed a sock in the kid’s mouth.
 

Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 24, 2021 6:59 am

Humans have never been able to control the weather! Tossing virgins into the calderas of volcanoes didn’t do it and destroying Western civilization by banning fossil fuels is not going to do it either. We have managed to hang on through massive glaciations and rising and falling sea levels. There is no reason to think we can’t keep this up as long as we don’t start tossing atomic weapons around or unleash Captain Trip’s children.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 24, 2021 8:13 am

Yes!

Superstition and magic don’t work. But intelligence and knowledge of the natural processes has enabled humans to live with what they have.

n.n
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
September 24, 2021 8:56 am

The next great leap, unlike the last great leap, enlists mothers to throw their babies on the barbie.

Nick Schroeder
September 24, 2021 6:59 am

For us geezers who receive AARP magazine this observation was included in the article about Jamie Lee Curtis. Thought it apropos to CAGW.

“When ideas go unexamined and unchallenged for a long enough time, they become mythological and very, very powerful. They create conformity. They intimidate.”

E. L. Doctorow in conversation with Bill Moyers, 1989

2hotel9
September 24, 2021 7:07 am

Again, climate changes, it changes constantly, always has and always will, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Thank God!

philincalifornia
Reply to  2hotel9
September 24, 2021 7:49 am

Thank God indeed that these buffoons can have no effect on the climate. They seem to think that Little Ice Age temperatures were a good thing.

MarkW
Reply to  philincalifornia
September 24, 2021 2:17 pm

I had one alarmist tell me that the perfect climate was the one he remembered from his childhood.

2hotel9
Reply to  MarkW
September 25, 2021 3:49 am

Yea, that fantasy perpetuated by TV and movies. It underpins their whole sick a$$ed religion.

2hotel9
Reply to  philincalifornia
September 25, 2021 3:46 am

Problem is they are able to have an effect on important things. They are systematically destroying economies, energy production, and agriculture.

John
September 24, 2021 7:26 am

The world will stay under 1.5 due to natural variability (GSM) and they know it. They will still take these measures and claim victory however. It’s not about 1.5 but about resetting the world economy away from capitalism using a template of sustainability, social justice, and climate justice.

Joao Martins
September 24, 2021 7:43 am

BEWARE!

The keyword in the title:

Abandoning 60% of global oil might limit warming to 1.5

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Joao Martins
September 24, 2021 8:42 am

But almost certainly will NOT!

n.n
Reply to  Joao Martins
September 24, 2021 9:00 am

It assumes, presumes, that climate variability cannot be completely explained through natural processes.

September 24, 2021 7:43 am

I like to maintain that cars cause the day. Traffic picks up before sunrise and continues to increase until the Sun is up, then it decreases to a moderate level during the day, but then the traffic peters out and the Sun goes down. It would not be hard to convince a five-year-old that cars cause the Sun to rise and fall.

B Clarke
Reply to  Charles Higley
September 24, 2021 9:24 am

To late the Egyptians did that with boats Rah the sun god and all that.

Shanghai Dan
September 24, 2021 7:44 am

If 2 deg C is good, then 1.5 deg C must be gooder!

n.n
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
September 24, 2021 9:01 am

Gooder is not bad, but we can do betterer.

Coach Springer
September 24, 2021 7:50 am

Cutting 60% of oil “might” not do anything. Except wreck the global economy while creating a new way to groom us.

n.n
Reply to  Coach Springer
September 24, 2021 9:03 am

Redistributive change and lowered expectations is always a majority effect in service of a minority seeking capital and control.

buggs
Reply to  Coach Springer
September 24, 2021 10:35 am

If by groom you mean eliminate, then yes, that is quite likely. Food transportation alone being reduced by 60% would result in rather significant mortality in temperate regions.

Gary Pearse
September 24, 2021 8:16 am

“…emissions would carry on rising rapidly up to 2030, meaning that even 2C was not achievable.”

Using the climateering arithmetic (which remains unchanged in over 40yrs), the temperature anomaly projections made in 1990 proved to be 300% too high compared to observations. This experiment demonstrated either a) that CO2 sensitivity used (temperature increase per doubling) was too high, or b) feedbacks to CO2’S warming were net negative, or c) (most likely) both of the above.

In complex systems, when one component is changed: pressure, temperature or changes in concentration of one or more chemical components, the entire system adjusts to resist change to the initial conditions (a perfect description of feedbacks and a strong case for such feedbacks to be net negative).

This is Le Chatelier’s principle, named after the 19th century chemist who first observed it. The principle is used by chemical engineers to optimize production of virtually all chemical based products, so it’s not just a handwaving notion. An axiom I would add, is that the more interactive components to the system, the greater the resistance to change of the system by changes in any of the components.

Climate certainly is far more complex and component rich than any product manufacturing process. To me, the 300% overestimate of temperature anomaly using IPCC’s 1990 projection, provides a Le Chatelier coefficient of 0.33 to multiply by to correct the forecast and to correct the climatists’ other results arrived at for the Paris Accord and COP meetings.

With this in mind, and leaving out natural variation, I would say the increase above 1850 temperature by 2100 is likely to be less than 2C with business as usual. Burn our fossil fuels and everything will be fine – more than fine given the Great Greening and bumper crops!

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 24, 2021 9:21 am

“With this in mind, and leaving out natural variation, I would say the increase above 1850 temperature by 2100 is likely to be less than 2C with business as usual. Burn our fossil fuels and everything will be fine – more than fine given the Great Greening and bumper crops!”
—————–
it is good to hold onto your BELIEFS. but it is preferable to have your ideas backed by facts.
I assume you have scientific facts to back uo your starement. Could you share them with me so I too can feel relaxed about the future – thanks?

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 10:04 am

The total lack of evidence that CO2 is causing any warming is the strongest evidence available.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 12:48 pm

Here is a simple statement of Le Chatelier’s Principle:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Le%20Chatelier's%20law

“a statement in physics and chemistry: if the equilibrium of a system is disturbed by a change in one or more of the determining factors (as temperature, pressure, or concentration) the system tends to adjust itself to a new equilibrium by counteracting as far as possible the effect of the change.

Wiki used to have an excellent description which I used repeatedly. This appears to have led to obfuscation of that fine essay and even introduction of a falsehood making a long standing equilibrium ad part of it. The principle is used to increase production in the chemical industry where needing long standing equilibrium would defeat economic production.

Even a system not in equilibrium would be changed in the same manner and degree as an identical system that was in equilibrium. In my experience, physicists in general and atmospheric scientists seem unaware of this principle. I’d be happy to hear from physicists on this.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 24, 2021 1:30 pm

ghalfrunt, can we say then from your comment that if you can satisfy yourself that the Le Chatelier principle of resisting change is a real phenomenon in complex systems, you would be prepared to rethink crisis climate? Or would you hold on to your beliefs. I’d love to bet on this topic with climate scientists or a dozen of the 100s of millions of propagandized folk out there who buy the party line.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 2:08 pm

it is good to hold onto your BELIEFS. but it is preferable to have your ideas backed by facts.

Considering that you “believe” in a fantasy that is entirely devoid of “facts”, I believe it’s high time you learned some of the actual science available here at WUWT. None of it supports your beliefs. The FACT is, we are as subject to natural variability as we always have been. All available evidence points to the FACT that no human signal has been found in the post LIA warming. We are still subject to the null hypothesis.

Last edited 21 days ago by Rory Forbes
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  ghalfrunt
September 24, 2021 7:03 pm

Wow
Irony alert!!!

Scientologist berates others for holding beliefs.

Priceless

I’ll go with “IPCC says there is no current crisis” for $100, Alex

tim maguire
September 24, 2021 8:30 am

Fortunately, I don’t believe for a second that we have the ability to fine tune the climate as though it were the reception on an old radio. So the news that their dreams are impossible doesn’t distress me too much.

Last edited 22 days ago by tim maguire
September 24, 2021 8:34 am

The amount of propaganda around climate change this year has been staggering.

We are being softened up for something really bad I fear

Duane
September 24, 2021 8:44 am

You can tell who has the actual science and engineering figured out, and who doesn’t.

The latter is fixated on magical thinking … stuff will happen just because they really really wish really really hard that it happens.

Reminds me of that old joke about the little boy who comes screaming down the stairs to the family living room on Christmas morning, and spies the beautifully decorated Christmas tree, around the base of which is a huge pile of steaming poo.

The little boy is overwhelmed joy and wonder at the sight, exclaiming “I just know there’s gotta be a pony somewhere under that pile of poo!”

Peta of Newark
September 24, 2021 8:49 am

One of the more intriguing dots that one might join is one that dawned on me, as a semi-professional ‘explorer’ and amateur historian

It came as I bumbled around the Cambridge Fen – what was 95,000 acres of wet-land in SE England
In an epic outpouring of Good Intentions, High Ideals and Think of the Poor People/Children they set about draining and reclaiming that ground.
Self interest and greed played No Part in this grand scheme. har har har

Intially the drainage part of things was done via windmills but unfortunately, The Fen had other ideas and somewhat resisted. Wind-driven pumps were not up to the task. I’ll say no more.

but then – tada 1850 came and so did coal fired steam engine pumps and – let’s say: The Fen changed

And ain’t that the oddest thing, its when The Climate changed also.
Not all at once of course, its when it started changing

But surely Shirley NO NO NO – because the radiation is re-emitted in all directions there is completely no chance that the drains (and the subsequent arrival of ploughs) had anything to do with it

Tom
September 24, 2021 8:53 am

I think this is to a large extent the problem of “everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to go right now.” I will never understand the disconnect between what some people want and what is doable.

OK S.
September 24, 2021 9:22 am

I was just reading a two-year-old article about Spindletop Hill near Beaumont, Texas, and was struck by a comment, wondering, “Will these people later in their lives be embarrassed by their ignorance?”

Spindletop launches Modern Petroleum Industry-Comment 1

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa • 2 years ago  

yeah this is great the oil industry is great yeah… its not like the consumers of all the oil would end up releasing billions of pounds of carbon into the air that still remains there to this day. the people who made this are horrible, horrible, people. they will go to a deep dark place when they die.

Dodgy Geezer
September 24, 2021 9:28 am

Why not just wait and let the current downward phase of the AMO take us down without any effort on oue part?

Tom Abbott
September 24, 2021 9:54 am

There is no evidence showing that a certain amount of CO2 added to the Earth’s atmosphere will result in a certain temperature rise. There’s no evidence for a temperature rise at all based on CO2.

So these people who claim they can control the Earth’s temperatures to 1.5C or 2C are just blowing smoke. They have no explanation to demonstrate how what they claim is true. They just make the claim and expect the rest of us to accept it as established fact.

It’s all unsubstantiated assertions from the alarmists.

Saying something is so, doesn’t necessarily make it so, but that’s the way the UN IPCC Charlatans and the other alarmists are behaving, as though it does. That would be because assertions are all the alarmists have. They don’t have any evidence, so they try to bluff their way through with scary assertions.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 24, 2021 12:46 pm

But the 1.5C line gets repeated endlessly by others too lazy to check the fraud level involved.

Robert of Texas
September 24, 2021 9:55 am

Unless Western nations begin building nuclear power plants to provide electrical power, the rest of this is just noise. Eventually clueless places like the U.K., Australia, Germany, California, and Texas will realize the unreliable energy is a complete waste of time and money.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robert of Texas
September 25, 2021 5:11 am

https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/nuclear-smr-firm-nuscale-power-exploring-coal-to-small-reactor-project-in-poland/

Nuclear SMR firm NuScale Power exploring coal to small reactor project in Poland

By Rod Walton -9.24.2021

“U.S. next-gen nuclear reactor developer NuScale Power has signed a memorandum of understanding with two Polish companies to explore converting coal-fired power plant sites to small modular reactor (SMR) generation facilities in that country.

Oregon-based NuScale joined with KGHM Polska Miedź and Piela Business Engineering to plot a path forward on deploying the SMR technology as a coal repurposing solution for KGHM’s industrial processes in Poland. KGHM is involved in copper and silver production, while Piela is a consulting and engineering advisor.

Nuclear reactor units do not emit carbon dioxide when generating power, so are considered possible parts of the aim toward net-zero or lower greenhouse gas emissions to deal with climate change. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved NuScale’s SMR design, while the company is still working with partners to develop and build a physical plant by the end of the decade.

end excerpt

Some people are trying to think ahead.

whatlanguageisthis
September 24, 2021 11:08 am

Seems like a pretty easy target. Just un-adjust the historical temperature record to bring it back up to what was measured and the warming is gone.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  whatlanguageisthis
September 25, 2021 5:18 am

Exactly right. If we go by the written surface temperature record, CO2 shows itself not to be a problem because it is no warmer today than it was in the recent past, although there is much more CO2 in the air today than in the past, yet it is no warmer even with the additional CO2.

Alarmists want us to think we are living in the hottest times in human history but the only way they can make such a claim is to distort the written temperature record using their computers, and that is what they do, and then claim the warmth of today is unprecedented.

The written temperature record puts the lie to this Human-caused Climate Change scam.

There is no unprecedented heat today.

Eric Harpham
September 24, 2021 12:19 pm

We will be saved from 1.5 degrees centigrade rise by nature.

The Beaufort Gyre will go into fast discharge mode and release 500 cubic miles of fresh water into the North Atlantic dramatically reducing the salinity of the North Atlantic Overturning Circulation (think Gulf Stream) seriously disrupting the Thermohaline circulation worldwide. This will cause colder winters and cooler shorter summers particularly in North East America and Europe.

The sun is just at the start of a Solar Grand Minimum (google “Maunder minimum”) which will last until 2070 (Theodor Landscheidt with coldest time between 2035-2043) or until 2065 (Valentina Zharkova with the coldest time being 2028-2032) depending on which research you read and believe.

We are in for a rough time, particularly our children and grandchildren, and all that the politicians can do is take away the only reliable means of powering our world. You couldn’t make it up and write a novel about it; nobody would believe the stupidity of it all..

bdgwx
Reply to  Eric Harpham
September 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Zharkova says the solar grand minimum started last year and we should prepare for the global mean temperature to be 1.0C cooler than today during the period 2031-2043.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243

Eric Harpham
Reply to  bdgwx
September 24, 2021 11:44 pm

In the lecture I watched she said 2028-2032. No matter what the detailed date is it is far closer than the 2100 beloved of the warmistas and I estimate 75% of people alive today are likely to experience it and that should focus people’s minds.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
September 25, 2021 5:32 am

The temperatures dropped 2.0C from the 1930’s to the late 1970’s in North America.

I enjoyed the late 1970’s, weatherwise, and otherwise. 🙂

If we counted from the “hottest year evah!”, 1934, the temperature drop from 1934 to the late 1970’s was 2.5C. You won’t see this same amount of cooling on a bogus, bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart. You have to look at an unmodified, regional temperature chart to get the true picture.

Unless we get much colder than the late 1970’s, I don’t think the majority of us have anything to worry about weatherwise, although cooler does have detrimental effects on crops so that is something we may have to deal with, especially considering the population numbers we are now dealing with.

Here is the U.S. regional surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999:

comment image

And then here’s how the Data Manipulators bastardize the chart and make 1934 cooler than 1998:

comment image

Last edited 21 days ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 25, 2021 5:50 am

Keep in mind that 1998 and 2016 are statistically tied for the warmest year since the 1930’s.

North America for one, has been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since the 1930’s, yet North America is in a temperature downtrend. Where’s all this CO2 heat the alarmists keep talking about?

Last edited 21 days ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 25, 2021 6:11 am

And here is a side-by-side comparison of the Hansen 1999 US chart with a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.

In the text you can read Hansen’s lame explanation for why the Hockey Stick chart profile looks so different from the profile of the US chart.

Keep in mind that the US regional temperature chart profile, which shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, is duplicated all over the world by other unmodified regional surface temperature charts. All the regional charts look like the US chart.

None of the unmodified, regional surface temperature chart profiles from around the world resemble the bogus Hockey Stick chart profile.

The Hockey Stick chart is all by itself in its depiction of the Early Twentieth Century temperature profile. The regional charts do not agree with the computer-generated Hockey Stick chart.

The regional charts show it is not any warmer now than in the recent past. The Hockey Stick charts show we are living in the hottest times in human history.

So who is lying to you? The temperature recorder from a century ago who never even heard of Human-caused Climate Change, or the computer programmer with a Human-caused Climate Change agenda who manipulates the temperature record to promote the scam?

I’m going with the unbiased witness.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research//briefs/1999_hansen_07/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 26, 2021 6:57 am

The url above was moved to another place on NASA’s website in the recent past, and the one above showed a “404” not found when connecting to it. Now, it’s working again for some reason. That’s good.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Eric Harpham
September 24, 2021 3:55 pm

We will be saved from 1.5 degrees centigrade rise by nature.

Unfortunately, yes. Another natural 1.5 degrees, even on top of the natural 1.2 would be great for the planet. Back to Roman Warm Period times of plenty.

Christopher Chantrill
September 24, 2021 12:44 pm

Carry On Regardless? Wan’t there a British movie by that name? Ah yes, “the fifth in the series of 31 Carry On films (1958–1992)” according to La Wik.

Richard Page
September 24, 2021 2:07 pm

I was wondering when the special needs kid was going to show up. Are you all right, dear? Do you need a wee-wee?

MarkW
September 24, 2021 2:20 pm

Is that you Ingraham?

PS: Peak Oil is alot like global warming and fusion. It’s always a decade off.

Last edited 21 days ago by MarkW
Chuck no longer in Houston
September 24, 2021 2:29 pm

Is that you Ingraham?

ATheoK
September 24, 2021 6:54 pm

So, mankind’s use of 40% of their current fossil fuel utilization rate will be consdiered norma and doesn’t raise temperature?

Kinda odd, 60% alleged reduction only drops the anomaly 25%?

That suggests eliminating the remaining 40% will only achieve another 16% temperature reduction?

Looks to me that their rectum sourced numbers are leading them nowhere.

Pat from kerbob
September 24, 2021 7:10 pm

The real problem that the climate scientologists identified decades ago is that cheap energy lead to a hockey stick graph of human population.
That is and always was the real problem, that cheap energy = more humans.

The club of Rome, the IPCC, green peace, Greta, all a dedicated to kicking out the cheap energy leg of the stool which will then crash the human population.

That is the goal.
AGW is just the tool

These people HATE humans. It’s Friday night, millions of them are settling in front of the TV to watch eco porn on Discover and other channels like “after humans” and “the great cataclysm”, etc with a glass of wine and a box of Kleenex

These people all need serious help

observa
September 24, 2021 8:17 pm

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.

Oh I’ve recalled that quite often based on belief in computer models and the very very very etc… last chance before I’m doomed. However I have a wee problem with unwavering belief in computer modelling-
‘A bit of a mystery’: why hospital admissions for Covid in England are going down (msn.com)

Not to mention who is plugging in the data and what data and why-

‘Misinformation fuels conspiracy theoriesWhen asked why researchers would make so many mistakes or worse, deliberately mislead, misrepresent and falsify data, he says: “The real question is why none of the groups promoting ivermectin as a mass treatment for Covid-19 did their basic due diligence, because much of the fraud is really not that hard to identify.”
Chaccour believes that pressure on academics plays a role.
“A lot of people are working at entry level and on PhDs, putting in 120 hours a week for less than minimum wage,” he says. “The more you publish and the bigger the paper is, the more recognition the journal gets that publishes it, the closer you are to a more stable lifestyle and career recognition.”
In the case of ivermectin, recognition has come from researchers that cite the papers, pushing the papers up the academic rankings and giving the journals or websites where they are published prominence. But politicians, celebrities and journalists are also promoting the findings.’
Fraudulent ivermectin studies open up new battleground between science and misinformation (msn.com)

Why would I expect a university degree to suddenly confer more honesty integrity or simply resistance to fads or Groupthink upon the awardee? As for their science being settled….?

Matthew Sykes
September 25, 2021 12:28 am

We are very unlikely to get 2 C more warming unless we go past 1000 ppm.

We got about 0.5 C for the 45% we added so far, so thats about 0.8C per doubling (close to Lindzens figure).

The earth really is not that sensitive to CO2, it is pretty much saturated and partly overlapped by water vapour.

September 25, 2021 3:44 am

Why would anyone want to enter discussion with this crowd?
A well-spoken mob that obviously delights in grinding people into verbal debris for mere mentions, or mis-statements, let alone honest questions. You guys goad one another into toxic supremacy battles. Tiresome. You don’t win arguments endlessly deriding character profiles as petty ivory tower blood-sport, or one-note-samba dancing around CO2 fetishes.
I come for the graphs and weigh topics, but know this: you ARE fanatics.
It’s a reasonable observation.

%d bloggers like this: