Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, gave a talk for the Irish Climate Science Forum and CLINTEL. His online presentation was titled: After COP26, with a looming energy crisis, is there a realistic alternative to Net Zero?
The GWPF recently rebranded the name of their campaigning arm to Net Zero Watch. So it was not surprising the focus of his talk was the obsession current western leaders, like Biden and Johnson have with Net Zero.
The reason of this obsession is the 1.5 target that was now the main focus of the COP26 conference in Glasgow. Remember, in 2015 in Paris countries agreed they would try to stay below 2 degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial and preferably even below 1.5 degrees. The IPCC then published a special report in 2018 about this 1.5 C threshold. In this report they calculated the remaining carbon budget to stay below 1.5 and 2 degrees. Since then these carbon budgets play a key role in international climate negotiations. You get messages like “we have only 12 years to save the planet”.
In practice staying below 1.5 C means Net Zero for the whole world in 2050. Peiser showed with graphs from the recent past and projections from the EIA that such ambitious goals are totally unrealistic.
At the top what is needed (according to models) to stay below certain targets. Under projections by the EIA. From the presentation by Benny Peiser.
The US Energy Information Administration projects that the energy production from renewables will increase in the coming decades but so will the contributions from coal, oil and gas. Peiser called a quick change to Net Zero totally unrealistic and an “utopian change”. He reminded us though that groups like Exctinction Rebellion really seem to believe that we will go exctinct if we cross the magic 1.5 C barrier. He showed a google search term for “climate emergency” indicating the term came up pretty quickly in 2019 when governments around the world were announcing this “climate emergency”. We live in an era of climate hysteria.
Boris Johnson and Biden wanted countries to acceleratie the phase-out of coal altogether. However during the conference they had to water down the formulation until at the end a meaningless promise by countries like India and China remained. Peiser showed the different formulations.
Literally minutes before closing the conference China forced the western countries to water it down to the “phase down” of coal power (whatever that means) and even make it conditional to “targeted support” which means in practice that India is asking for one trillion dollar if the west really wants India to quit coal any time soon. So as the skeptics predicted the conference ended in a huge deception. Targets are not binding and remain conditional on a huge wealth transfer.
Issue Attention Cycle
Peiser called this 1972 figure about the issue attention cycle the key graph of his presentation. According to him we are just entering – at least in the UK – phase 3 of this cycle in which people start to realise the cost of the policies. In phase 1 scientists try to get the issue on the agenda. This was the fifties to the eighties. Since the start of the IPCC we are in phase two in which there is “alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm”. The media is helping a lot to hype the issue. Peiser told that in this phase public discussion is all about the science (is it really CO2? Is it really bad?) leading to the science is settled and we have to do something. On the policy side people were told climate policies will improve the climate and the environment and at the same time it will benefit the economy (green jobs).
However now mitigation policies are implemented people are starting to feel it in their pocket. And this hurts. In England this winter, especially when it will be a cold one, lots of people will literally sit in the dark and cold in their houses, unable to pay the bills. People begin to realise climate policies make them poorer and colder. Peiser sees a new movement coming up, including tenths of MP’s who want to scrutinize the costs of going to Net Zero. Peiser also noticed that he is approached much more by the media than a few years ago. The media is picking it up, they have to.
How long the third phase of the issue attention cycle will last is impossible to predict. It could definitely take ten years at least. So skeptics who hope for a sudden change in the atmosphere surrounding climate change will need to be patient.
Peiser’s focus with Net Zero Watch and the GWPF will remain the same for the coming years. “Show that there is really no climate crisis and there is ample time for a slow decarbonisation, first towards gas and later towards nuclear in combination with adaptation.” They recently published a paper documenting this more realistic climate approach.
Peiser has become wellknown for his CCnet newsletter which he made since 1997. Their current newsletter (several times a week) is still a must follow if you want to keep up to date with the news about climate change and climate policy. Please subscribe here.
The green blob is opposed to industrial society, so inducing a crash is not something they would try to avoid.
At some point in this insanity, cooler heads should be waking up to just what a terrible idea Net-Zero is. The whole notion is meaningless to most, it just sort of sounds good to the easily-fooled, like they are part of a solution. But a solution to what, exactly? There really is no problem!
Climate anything is just a cover to control thru regulations and taxes a ruse of dictating every facet of life of human beings and any other co2 living entity and industry process. This will be a battle for the next 75 years. Who comes out on top I have no idea.
The progressive politicians in congress are riding a dead horse in their battle with fossil fuel producers. Anthropogenic CO2 is a broken spear. As voters recognize these conditions, there will likely be a significant change in congress this next year. That should Signal a D-day in this insane war.
Like him or not POTUS Trump was onto it and refused to allow the USA to sign a Paris Agreement.
He also addressed the UN in New York and told delegates to stop interfering into the national affairs of member nations, that the UN should downsize and stick to its original charter.
The UN interfering with national affairs, has caused rape, poverty, war, and pestilence.
Assuming voters recognize. But some may be unreachable and don’t engage in critical thinking. For them all you need is a widely publicized “sound bite” and a minimally publicized policy and they will continue to vote in droves for the former out of reflex or feeling.
And the simpler the better. If you want better weather, voting Democratic is the only way to ensure that.
There is something primal about the “weather vote” and one can imagine that in the time of the Aztecs that the leaders that promised more human sacrifices toward that end were preferred. And even if the weather didn’t change at least the policy reduced the number of “enemies of the people”, so one could take solace in that.
When is there going to be a serious discussion of the incredibly small annual contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere by human activity? From 1960 through 2020 it was slightly less than 1/10th of one part per million of atmosphere per year. This microscopic annual contribution is insignificant as regards global warming or climate change and requires no corrective action. There are many other World problems that could better use the attention being wasted on the bogus human caused climate change problem.
Logic and reason, worst of all when supported by facts, are racist don’ ya know?”
A crash is bad for some, a bonanza for others.
Assets are less expensive, and most importantly freed up, ripe for the picking.
You must always remember Tom, you only own what you own because they haven’t taken it from you yet.
The federal reserve has empowered a select group of merchant banks with huge amounts of almost free cash. They are currently the bother boys and girls. Things like threatening Australia with crashing their sharemarket if they don’t get out of coal. The merchant banks treat fines for wrong doing like we treat speeding fines like a fast transit tax.
Pfizer thinks the same way, oops, got caught.
I wonder who funds the greens.
An interesting site is wallstreetonparade.com
Yes. Time to sell assets based on the eldorado of renewables and invest in REAL commodities.
Patently untrue, as govt policy in UK, Germany and other states clearly shows.
Um, have you looked at the twaddle from XR and other wallies like Friends of the Earth, Greenpiss, etc? They are completely opposed to Western (industrialised) society. They have some ridiculous idea that “getting back to nature” will be all about dancing in wild meadows, when in reality it would be a short and brutal life.
griff cites destructive UK and German policies as evidence that such policies are not destructive.
Nobody doesn’t do logic the way griff does.
In my four decades on this Blue Marble I have found that most humans fall into three categories:
CTs–Critical Thinkers comprising only 2% or less of the population.
PPs–Permanently Politicized the sheeple.
TSs–Terminally Stupid—-Griff and his buds
All very well but the fact is that after two less active solar cycles, increasing La Niña events, a record cold Antarctic, increasing Arctic ice and a lengthening ‘pause’ in warming the evidence is accumulating to support my hypotheses of more than a decade ago.
Whilst the consensus is increasingly diverging from reality that same reality is fast converging on my hypotheses.
Was your hypothesis of more than a decade ago that there would be a further decade of continued warming?
It was that cooling should begin after one or two less active solar cycles. In the event there was a pause in warming which now appears to be moving towards cooling.
The mechanism was described in some detail and related to solar effects on the upper atmosphere altering the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
No, it was that cooling had already begun in 2007.
It hadn’t, of course.
That was not a prediction, it was an observation of a particular region across 3 years.
I have always been cautioius about predictions because of the lack of data about oceanic thermal inertia.
but there isn’t any cooling…
Cooling since the end of the last El Nino is proof that the world is warming.
The arctic ice is NOT increasing. Is it?
the record cold in Antarctica was just one day in one location – not a continent wide trend.
The pause is only in the UAH data.
It warms despite two low solar cycles…
and you can’t keep ignoring the increasing extreme weather events, like NW USA, Germany, china, NW Canada again, plus many new record temperatures.
and strangely nobody here mentions this:
Winter heatwave breaks records in four US states | US weather | The Guardian
A record-breaking heatwave has swept large parts of the US, with much of the country experiencing balmy conditions even as Americans move into what is supposed to be meteorological winter.
Much of the western half of the US has seen temperatures 35F (19C) above average for this time of year in the past days, with Wednesday bringing the hottest December weather on record for Montana, Wyoming, Washington state and North Dakota.
Why are you so afraid of the UAH data? Is it because it isn’t adjusted beyond recognition to show a spurious warming trend?
“ Is it because it isn’t adjusted beyond recognition”
LOL ….
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2018/01/satellite-temperatures-are-adjusted.html
So, why is your mob so afraid of UAH? Are the adjustments not bigh enough?
Oh lookie here, a brand-new Baton Spaghetti Chart (TM) — how unusual.
Antarctica science base had to be raised three times over past many years due to ice level increases.
If one looks at the data, as opposed to the models, arctic ice has been increasing since 2012.
No, the record cold was for the entire continent, it’s warming that is limited to the Antarctic penninsula.
Outside of two big El Ninos, there has been no warming for over 20 years.
There is no big increase in bad weather. Everything is within the range of normal.
Breaking records that only go back 100 years or so, is not that big a deal.
September sea ice has increased slightly relative to 2012, but annual Arctic sea ice extent has continued to decline. (Full year data, 2012 – 2020 shown)
That shoule be ‘decreased’
“the record cold in Antarctica was just one day in one location – not a continent wide trend.”
Really?
According to a 30 Oct 15 (updated: 6 Aug 17), study by NASA, <i>NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses,</i> the Antarctic ice mass is increasing.
“A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.”
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Then there is the July 2017 paper in Nature, <i>Recent Warming and Cooling in the Antarctic Peninsula Region has Rapid and Large Effects on Lichen Vegetation.</i>
“The Antarctic Peninsula has had a globally large increase in mean annual temperature from the 1951 to 1998 followed by a decline that still continues.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05989-4
Also, a February 2021 paper, <i>An Assessment of ERA5 Reanalysis for Antarctic Near-Surface Air Temperature</i> finds that,
“The temperature trend from ERA5 is consistent with that from observations, in which a cooling trend dominates East Antarctica and West Antarctica, while a warming trend exists in the Antarctic Peninsula except during austral summer. …
The trends in ERA reanalyses and observations are all negative in East Antarctica in all annual and seasons, and the fastest cooling trend appears in MAM [March-May], and the cooling rate of this season is more than 1 °C per decade. …
Over the Antarctic Peninsula, trends of annual and seasonal temperature means in ERA reanalyses and observations are not significant.”
The temperature record contained in Table 4 of the paper shows that since 1980:
1. East Antarctica, which covers two thirds of the continent, saw a cooling of 0.70°C per decade.
2. West Antarctica has cooled at a rate of 0.42°C per decade.
3. The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed at a rate of 0.18°C per decade
In total, East and West Antarctica have cooled about 2.8°C and 1.7°C, respectively, while the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed 0.72°C since 1980. Note that the regions of East and West Antarctica combined are vastly larger than the tiny Antarctic Peninsula which, at 522,000 km², is less than 3.7% of the continent.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/2/217/htm
And there is the February 2021 paper at Environmental Research 2021, <i>Seasonal sea-ice variability and its trend in the Weddell Sea sector of West Antarctica.</i>
“The result shows the expansion of SIE [sea-ice extent] is 2.5 ± 3.5 × 103 km2 yr−1 in the Weddell Sea sector over the last four decades (1979-2019)….
the overall SST [sea surface temperature] trend in the Weddell Sea is negative …
The negative trend of SST is associated with the presence of more sea ice that results in the cooler surface in the eastern Weddell Sea.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdc88/pdf
Lastly, there is the Japan Meteorological Agency report, updated on 26 Febtuary 2021, that states,
“In the Antarctic Ocean, the annual maximum sea ice extent has shown a long-term trend of increase since 1979. … The rise equates to 0.015[0.004-0.027] x 106 km2 per year.”
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/seaice_global/series_global_e.html
These are just five peer reviewed studies from reputable sources, that refute the IPCC Antartica melting assertion. But that is just one of many IPCC “interesting” predictions. Does anyone remember AR4, WGII, Section 10.6.2 where it is stated that,
“Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf
The point is, the Global Climate Change “Settled Science” says the Antarctic ice mass is presently decreasing because the continent is warming. Traditional science refutes this assertion.
Here is an interesting question. How can the AGCC models accurately predict sea level rise, when they assume that the Antartic ice/snow mass is presently decreasing, when multiple studies that say it is increasing?
I wish you were correct that the world is warming but here in Canuckistan we are freezing our butts off as per usual. My biggest fantasy worry is not global warming but rather that we won’t generate enough greenhouse gas to prolong this interglacial and Canada will be buried under a mile of ice again. Go go global warming.
“but here in Canuckistan we are freezing our butts off as per usual”
which part of Canuckistan?
I’ve been involved in construction & infrastructure projects in the GTA & elsewhere for several decades and winters have become significantly milder everywhere I’ve been.
In the 70s, almost every one was hellish but for most of the past dozen years I rarely bother bundling up or wearing proper boots except on rare occasions.
Maybe the wall is crumbling as it looks like Japan has opted out of New-Zero madness. A few more drop-outs and we can get back to normal.
No back to “normal” unless the current governments of most western societies are replace with people not crazy with CO2 fever and with the ability to somehow resists the huge financial powers pushing it.
Take a look at this information:
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/11/investigative-reports/un-backed-banker-alliance-announces-green-plan-to-transform-the-global-financial-system/
“….and Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and former chair of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada. Carney, who is also the UK prime minister’s Finance Advisor for the COP26 conference, currently cochairs the alliance with US billionaire and former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg.”
Why do people not question the ‘interlocking directorate’ of Mark Carney? As if he didn’t already have enough roles to play, he’s the key advisor to the ‘Emergency Climate Change Declaration’ that so many Canadian universities have signed on to.Would this not have him influencing curriculum, grants and other funding decisions at these institutions?
Here’s also an excellent interview between the brilliant Whitney Webb and James Corbett.
https://www.sott.net/article/461503-Interview-1676-Whitney-Webb-Exposes-How-Green-Finance-is-Monopolizing-the-Planet
‘How Green Finance is Monopolizing the Planet’
Not just “maybe” is the wall crumbling. Immediately following COP26 Japan has now quietly changed her mind. The whole inane craziness will crumble much sooner than we think (I hope!!). And any government that has legislated for NetZero will ignominiously have to backtrack and change legislation.
We are down to the nut-cutting time. As they become aware of the total costs, voters will toss the profiteers. Politicians will see an advantage and they will take it.
Japan has opted out of coal power, for sure…
For now. If coal drops in price or natural gas increases much more, that will change.
Perhaps you need to go and read what they said again they only agreed to ban unabated coal power. They will be burning coal way past 2030 and likely still at 2050.
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/japan-once-leader-climate-under-fire-coal-use-cop26-2021-11-09/
When hype clashes with reality, reality wins. Eventually.
That is my fervent hope!
There’s been a debate? I thought it was settled before there could be any debate?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this sounds like, “We can capitulate to your irrational demands, but more slowly than you want us to.” The more weakness rational people show, the harder the left pushes, e.g. 2° limit reduced to 1.5° limit. This battle is not about saving the planet, much less saving the freedom and rights of the people on the planet. It is about control of the lives of the people on the planet. The ones that are left after the fossil fuel that sustains them is eliminated. Please prove me wrong. I desperately want to be. . .
2C goal (Schellnhuber at PIK) went to 1.5C after the energy budget ECS studies showed it was observationally about 1.7C, so 2C was impossible.
Many of the “higher up” lefties or climate freaks will have guaranteed themselves, at least, enough resources to not have to change their lifestyle.
You can bet your bottom dollar they won’t take sailing ships to the next COP conference. They certainly won’t do it over the Internet!
I’d sail to Sharm el-Shiek if someone else is paying.
Sounds like a great time
I have a simpler analysis. The ‘new phase’ results from just two basics.
It is harder and harder to keep up the faux climate alarm against such an ever growing fact background. The shriller the alarm, the less credible it becomes. And the warmunists dialed up to 11 when max was 10.
“2000: children won’t know snow—wrong. ”
First – when would those children “know”? (he did not say).
Given that many will live to 80+
Second – he was talking of lowland England – where snow is scarce anyway.
He is not the IPCC just an idiot scientist (Viner) shooting his mouth off with a personal opinion, and the ever sensationalist media taking it forward.
So you have a nice strawman to burn for evermore.
“Sea level rise accelerating—wrong”
It is of course (else where would all the water from melting glaciers go?) ….
(Here just 2 studies)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0531-8
“Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s””
“Previous studies reconstructed twentieth-century global mean sea level (GMSL) from sparse tide-gauge records to understand whether the recent high rates obtained from satellite altimetry are part of a longer-term acceleration. However, these analyses used techniques that can only accurately capture either the trend or the variability in GMSL, but not both. Here we present an improved hybrid sea-level reconstruction during 1900–2015 that combines previous techniques at time scales where they perform best. We find a persistent acceleration in GMSL since the 1960s and demonstrate that this is largely (~76%) associated with sea-level changes in the Indo-Pacific and South Atlantic. We show that the initiation of the acceleration in the 1960s is tightly linked to an intensification and a basin-scale equatorward shift of Southern Hemispheric westerlies, leading to increased ocean heat uptake, and hence greater rates of GMSL rise, through changes in the circulation of the Southern Ocean.”
And:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-mean-sea-level-from-satellite-altimetry-over-1993-2020-Data-from-the-ESA-Climate_fig3_350458635
“Global mean sea level from satellite altimetry over 1993-2020. Data from the ESA Climate Change Initiative Sea Level Project until December 2015 (black curve, Legeais et al., 2018), extended by the Copernicus C3S data until 9 March 2020 (blue curve) and Near Real Time data from Jason-3 until 16 June 2020 (red curve). The thin black curve is a quadratic function fitted to the data to represent the acceleration (+0.10 +/-0.02 mm/yr2). The TOPEX-A drift and GIS (Glacial Isostatic Adjustment) corrections have been applied.”
(note the quadratic fit to the data)
“Arctic summer ice free by 2014 or 2016–wrong.”
Yes, you’re wrong again … another idiot scientist shooting his mouth off (Wadhams) with a personal opinion is not the IPCC consensus science – as much as you would like it to be to make it another strawman to burn…..
“Polar bears endangered—wrong.”
An again here, you assume that all “forecasts” (actually projections as scientists cannot know future fossil burning extent) should have come true or not now when most projections are for decades ahead.
This (of course) is for when late summer/autumn sea-ice is scarce.
Given that they use sea-ice to hunt, seems reasonable
Which is NOT NOW .
despite all the sciency sounding bs the simple facts according to NASA are that satelittes are only able to estimate sea level to a cm or two at best ( the debate is over one or two mm’s ) and they are unable to measure sea level along shorelines , where it actually matters and can be verified by empirical observation .
Baton uses his mighty ESP powers and predicts continues spaghetti out beyond 2080! Horrors! How can the world survive the onslaught?
Net Zero is a Pipe Dream.
Thank Goodness, CO2 is a benign gas and doesn’t need to be regulated because these people will never get it regulated to Net Zero or anywhere near that.
The meme is losing. That’s why you see headlines that talk about “struggling to sell climate change”. They *are* struggling, and the only reason for that is people are just not buying it as a serious problem.
Probably because CO2 is not pollution. Never was, never will be, end of story.
Considering ever carbon molecule in your body came of CO2 you have to be bat ???? crazy to think it a problem.
The issue attention cycle and other public relations approaches do not work accurately in the absence of all relevant factors.
Nearly missing at the moment is the substantial doubt that “the science” is correct, or even relevant. This is related to the observation that most of the climate disaster predictions made to date have failed.
We must not forget that a fundamental cornerstone, that temperature and CO2 in air are related and dominantly important to the story, has not yet been shown as a correct assumption. The critical feature, climate sensitivity, remains without an agreed value.
It remains plausible that the sensitivity is zero and hence that the main story is a fabrication.
The story relies heavily on models of climate which have extremely large uncertainties, so large that no future prediction of main outcomes, like temperature change, are valid. This is shown by traditional error and uncertainty analysis.
Do not attempt to apply the trendy “cancel culture” move to the science factor
If the science does not work, the story does not work.
Keep science as the main focus.
Geoff S
The sensitivity has to be zero as regards radiative material in an atmosphere otherwise atmospheres could not be retained.
Any increase in surface temperatures to a level higher than that required to support the weight of the atmosphere against gravity will place the topmost layer above the point of balance so that it will be lost to space.
Once lost to space the total weight of the atmosphere drops so it expands further and again the topmost layer is lost to space.
The process continues incrementally until there is no atmosphere.
Since that never happens at any quantity of radiative material the equilibrium sensitivity to radiative gases or aerosols must always be zero.
Why a downvote with no explanation ?
With all due respect, your argument must be simply incorrect. True, an atmosphere retaining more heat should expand. False, the upper layer will then be stripped off into space—by what mechanism, at what point of balance?
Provably (via proxies) Earth’s atmosphere has varied from ‘much’ colder to ‘much’ hotter, with or without CO2 as an influence. The hotter episodes resulted in no discernable loss of total atmosphere. That does, per Feynman, falsify your inscrutable atmospheric loss if GHE theory.
There is evidence that the hotter times were a consequence of a denser atmosphere with more mass than we see today such as during the Carboniferous era.
My point is that the mass of the atmosphere determines the surface temperature enhancement above that predicted from the S-B equation which is based on irradiation intensity.
Variability around that enhanced surface temperature is neutralised by convective changes that prevent destabilisation so that loss of atmosphere is minimised or negated.
If one increases surface temperature above that set by atmospheric mass and beyond the point that convective adjustments can neutralise it then the topmost layer contains molecules that carry more total (KE + PE) energy than is required to balance the downward force of gravity and over time the solar wind will strip them away to space.
Ice ages tend to reduce atmospheric mass by freezing water vapour to the surface.
Convective adjustments neutralise the effects of radiative materials within an atmosphere.
Current radiative theory proposes that radiative material within an atmosphere creates a higher surface temperature than can be neutralised by convective adjustments.
That is clearly false.
With respect, your reply did nothing to address my objection.
The thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on early Earth’s temperature – Chemke – 2016 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library
‘ We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due to an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.’
The above paper and others preceding it do acknowledge the past variability of atmospheric mass on geological time scales and do recognise an effect on surface temperatures arising solely from that mass.
Although periods of warmth and cold occur independently of atmospheric mass the system adjusts via changes in convective overturning to retain stability in the longer term.
If one then introduces the concept of warming from radiative material then that would destroy the ability of the system to retain a stable atmospheric mass by interfering with the stabilising process in the way that I set out.
Are you aware of the upward pressure gradient force created by kinetic energy at the surface ?
It is that upward force that must be balanced against the downward force of gravity if an atmosphere is to be retained:
The Ups and Downs of Air Parcels | METEO 3: Introductory Meteorology (psu.edu)
No there isn’t.
Repeating an invalid claim, doesn’t make it true.
You have confused cause and effect.
Beyond that, the amount of water vapor that is “frozen” out of the atmosphere during an ice age is very, very tiny compared to the mass of the rest of the atmosphere.
It is indeed a very tiny amount but it illustrates the general principle. At low enough temperatures the entire atmosphere would fall to the ground as a solid.
As for cause and effect I think you will find that the temperature drops before ice forms.
We aren’t talking general principles here. You are claiming evidence for a cause, yet can’t provide any such evidence.
You are claiming that less water vapor in the atmosphere causes the temperature to drop. To prove this you point out that when it gets cold, water vapor leaves the atmosphere.
You are confusing cause and effect.
If I am not mistaken Wilde is employing virial theorem to describe thermodynamic equilibrium processes.
The focus in these threads is almost exclusively instantaneous radiative balances which happens to ignore a large portion of earth system process.
Wilde has the perspective to understand the atmosphere operates in hydrostatic balance The clue is that he uses words like kinetic energy, and he understands how kinetic energy relates to potential energy.
Wilde speaks in terms of macroscopic heat (or energy transfer process) related to motion and thermodynamics of the atmosphere. He understands that kinetic energy is a function of specific heat and total internal energy. .
It is this “internal energy” that is the bridge between radiation balance and thermodynamics necessary for climate study.
I do not believe that many here have understood the connection between (gravitational) potential energy, kinetic energy, specific heat, total internal energy, and radiative-convective equilibrium.
Consider that in astrophysics the luminosity of a star is considered a function of its mass. This is a similar manifestation of the virial theorem to help make the connection.
Applied to an atmosphere virial theorem simply proposes that the surface kinetic energy (heat) is half the (gravitational) potential energy.
For the radiatively minded, this can be translated as ‘surface upward radiative flux density’ is proportional to ‘atmospheric upward and downward emittance.’
Many appear to have not made this connection between flux density and specific heat. They then can’t comprehend proportional connection between kinetic energy and atmospheric emittance.
Perhaps this is why radiatively minded people have failed to appreciate the connection between mass or pressure and flux densities. For Wilde, this may seem more obvious.
If you can get there it should not be a stretch then to appreciate that thermodynamics puts a permanent constraint on the IR radiation forcing in the atmosphere.
Not least the IR optical thickness or “greenhouse” effect which appears to be rather completely stationary. (notwithstanding “all-sky” thermodynamic equilibrium which is another matter.)
We are left then with equilibrium cloud balances, solar irradiance, and total mass/pressure to describe changes to the system on any particular time scale.
To anyone still reading, it can be a difficult matter to wrap your head around – but imo it is damaging to reflexively dismiss these ideas because you have failed to appreciate the matter.
About fifty years ago a joke about the five stages of failed projects was going around. Can’t find a reference but from memory
1 Wild enthusiasm and promotion for the organisers
2 Implementation,
3 Disaster
4 Search for people to blame
5 Scapegoat the innocent
Still true today.
You forgot the final stage
6 Praise and honours for the non-participants
or go here for some of Dilbert’s thoughts
Rafe,
6. Demand compensation from all around you
7. Make some camouflaged changes, then try it all again.
I remember those times, with affection. Geoff S
1: Enthusiasm
2: Disillusionment
3: Panic
4: The hunt for the guilty
5: Persecution of the innocent
6: Praise and honours for non-participants
Certainly true of any major IT project I’ve ever seen!
Any honest observer can see that global cooling is actually happening ….how long will the dishonest keep the co2 fantasy alive.
What I find hilarious is watching The Guardian, my preferred lining for the kitty-litter tray, being forced to report news which contradicts its great CAGW narrative. Earlier this year, the paper reported that France had endured its longest and coldest Spring in decades, causing severe agricultural losses.
I think ‘in decades’ is you key take away there
OMG, the one with a sense of humour has taken control of the griff bot today!
I wonder then how during this N hemisphere summer ‘cooling’ managed to produce 6 heatwaves in USA Canada, one setting a substantial new record, plus heatwaves in E Europe, Siberia, N Finland, across the entire Mediterranean, including new records in Sicily and Greece… plus a number of truly extreme rain events and other extreme rain events (e.g ‘Mediterranean hurricane’ in Sicily)
Plus a winter heatwave in a large area of the USA…
Winter heatwave breaks records in four US states | US weather | The Guardian
A record-breaking heatwave has swept large parts of the US, with much of the country experiencing balmy conditions even as Americans move into what is supposed to be meteorological winter.
Much of the western half of the US has seen temperatures 35F (19C) above average for this time of year in the past days, with Wednesday bringing the hottest December weather on record for Montana, Wyoming, Washington state and North Dakota.
hot and cold temp records are set somewhere on the planet every year . they call it “ weather “
It’s only weather when it’s a cold record. Anything warm is proof that CO2 is gonna kill s all.
When the records only go back 100 years or so, setting a new one is not the big deal that poor griff wants them to be. At the same time he’s been proclaiming every heat wave as proof of global warming, he’s also been dismissing every cold wave as mere weather.
It is a common theme amongst alarmunists that none of them are capable of understanding even basic statistics. Most of them get visibly upset when you try to explain statistics to them.
“Any honest observer can see that global cooling is actually happening ….how long will the dishonest keep the co2 fantasy alive.”
Do please point us to the data that the “honest observer can see”.
And no, a month or 2 or even 12 is not evidence of long-term cooling (or even 5 or 10 years actually).
Neither is Monckton’s latest snake-oil recipe of a “pause” that is actually increasing the long term UAH warming trend.
As I’m fascinated at the level of cognitive dissonance required in order to hold that view.
This BTW is the current state of the temp anomaly over the (contiguous) U ….
“tenths of MP’s” Edit, please.
However now mitigation policies are implemented people are starting to feel it in their pocket.
Well not so much that right away but the empty shelves. Went to buy some new handgrips for the kindy grand-daughter’s bike at K-Mart only to be faced with all the empty shelves of bike accessories. So perhaps if she wants to continue riding it I’ll have to plug the open ends with timber plugs and run some foam tape around them or some such.
Then this one caught my eye when even Oz is struggling with enough truck and delivery drivers-
Australia’s supply chain could COLLAPSE next month because of China (msn.com)
Not to worry as the trucking companies can simply buy battery trucks and semis. Err no….hang on a minute!
It is appropriate that the symbol of the utter incompetence and idiocy of COP 26 is that pompous fool John Kerry whose true character has delivered this absurd failure.
There is always an emergency of some kind in some place. If left on their own people will deal with it to the best of their ability and live with the consequences. Government intervention is always to late, irrational, and out of proportion to the problem.
Fear to hear ” I am from the government, I am here to help.”
The great President Ronald Reagan said: The nine most fearful words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
The logical conclusion is to recognized that nature has a very effective “net Zero” with respect to CO2 emissions. There are many sinks for CO2 (from cold rain to cold polar waters).There is little or no atmospheric accumulation beyond a year. The rise in concentration is a measure of an increase in natural emission rates. Natural emission rates are 20 or more times all anthropogenic CO2 emissions. All those natural sinks are just as effective at absorbing anthropogenic emissions as they are with natural emissions. The CO2 from a power plant stack only has to travel to the cold water in the nearest cloud to be “net zeroed”. With “net zero” attained, the war against fossil fuel produces can be abandoned.
Build more pipelines. Drill and frack more. Let supply meet demand and decrease inflation.
Prosper as a nation and collect more taxes as a result.
a side note. Natural gas is a clean burning bio-renewable; burning only one molecule of carbon for every four molecules of hydrogen.
OT….Yahoo news forcasts massive snow storm on Hawaii’s big island.
For the nihilistic ecologist living large on taxpayer dollars, replacing religion with materialism has failed them miserably. So, it isn’t surprising that anti-industrialism became the next step in their journey to fulfill the meaninglessness of their existent philosophy.
They killed God because God failed to fulfill them. They are now out to kill industrialization because their possessions have failed to fulfill them. Perhaps if they had some working grasp of human history beyond the visualization of a hockey stick. Their perchance for fascistic authoritarianism in terms of settled science, and this seeming desire to relive the dark ages while cloaked in silica chips. We might hope that history would act as a reign to steer them away from industrial destruction and towards some future more hopeful than their hatred of the permanent human condition of individuals striving toward their success.
It’s not that I don’t want these so called ‘ecologist’ to succeed. Far from it. Save what can be saved. If they are truIy out to save anything more rational then their hyperbole of saving the planet. All for the good.
I simply don’t want the rest of the world to have to stop succeeding. The third world to be kept out from becoming burgeoning economies just so the ‘ecologist’ can feel victorious in their nihilism.
We are all infants in this game of learning about our world and future world. We cannot afford to have intemperate, political, social extremist masquerading as virtuous parents pushing the carriage. There is too much at stake to rush hurley-burley at a figment of utopian dreamscape called NetZero given the absolute dominance of fossil fuels in energy production. That dominance being a probability beyond 2050. We need something far more tangible than made in China renewables to hang the future upon. Especially as they are failing to meet our collective essential needs right now.
Over the last several years I have tried to contact Peiser and his science editor Whitehouse many times re the uselessness of the IPCC -UNFCCC climate model forecasts of dangerous CO2 caused warming. They never responded. I assume they believe the consensus forecasts and merely question the costs and possibility of getting to Net Zero. They still do not want to discus the basic science. There is no CO2 caused climate crisis
Here is a quote from
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html
“As shown in references 1-10 above, the anthropogenic CO2 Radiative Forcing concept on which the climate models’ dangerous warming forecasts are based is inappropriate for analyzing atmospheric temperature changes. Solar sourced energy flows in and out of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone provide the net negative feedback which has kept the earth within a narrow temperature range for the last 600 million years. The effects on temperature and climate of major meteorite strikes, periods of flood basalt outpourings and major volcanic eruptions are superposed on this solar sourced background. The sample lengths in the IPCC reported model studies are too short. The models retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, “solar activity” cycle is millennial. The relevant system for comparison should include the entire Holocene.
Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/11 was + 0.08 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 18 years. As shown above, these Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in”Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models” (35) says “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The global temperature cooling trends from 2003/4 – 2704 are likely to be broadly similar to those seen from 996 – 1700+/- in Figure 2. From time to time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South. Local weather in the Northern Hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with, in summers occasional more northerly extreme heat waves droughts and floods and in winter more southerly unusually cold snaps and late spring frosts.”
See Figs 1 -5 in the paper linked above
No wonder that Peiser and Whitehouse didn’t respond; I stopped reading and started skimming after the first paragraph. I was inflicted with negative knowledge by such a jumbled mass of unrelated and mostly incomprehensible statements.
All eyes on Port Arthur and perhaps there’s a certain sublime irony in-
The small burial site at Port Arthur, the Isle of the Dead, contains what is believed to be the world’s oldest oceanic tidal benchmark.
since
Experts say it indicates the tide level has already risen 15 centimetres since 1841.
Port Arthur historical prison site ‘displaying evidence’ of damage from sea level rise (msn.com)
Wow a whole 0.8333 mm a year average for 180 years when the geology of Hallett Cove in South Australia can show an average annual SLR of 16.25mm/yr for 8000 years starting some 15000 years ago. That’s when aboriginals could walk on land that’s now Spencer and St Vincent Gulfs while Kangaroo Island was large hills on their way to the coast on the Continental Shelf.
Aboriginal cooking fires and traditional burn-offs to flush out game have a lot to answer for it seems with this new kid on the block doomsday theory. When they weren’t busy killing off the Megafauna with Megafires according to Tim our ex Climate Commissioner Flannery-
Future Eaters Ep.1 – Taming the fire -The thesis and responses from critics (abc.net.au)
Don’t upset the New Noble Savage brigade Tim and stick with the dams are never gunna fill again mate as you’ll be on safer ground-
Towns in NSW & QLD evacuated ahead of major flood warning (msn.com)
So six inches?
Many men see that as 7, 8 or even 9, if you get my drift.
And oh yeah… We’re all going to drown!
I am not hoping for a sudden change. I hope to outlive the zealots to see the idiocy widely condemned.
The myriad of models using the CMIP6 input as their reference give the current global surface temperature over a range of 2C. So clearly a 1.5C rise is within the range of current disagreement. It is a non-issue. If it was an issue then there would be clear agreement on the current GST.
The green anarchists, have been beating the climate in crisis drum for the past thirty years.
During their increasingly frantic alarm inducing effort, we have had polar bears supposedly, in severe danger, yet on investigation we find they are fatter and more numerous than they have ever been. The ban on hunting has even caused the population to grow to troubling numbers in some Canadian areas. Polar bears tend to go unmentioned these days by the alarmist movement. Nature in the raw wasn’t giving the right message, so they roped in the luvvies. They focused particularly on old luvvies, as much needed go to gurus. Thus, stepping up to the plate to induce more alarm, came David Attenborough. He gave us tumbling walrus caused by climate change apparently, only to be found out, and shown up for the total sham that story was.
The quiet renaming of the alarm from Global Warming, to Climate Crisis, a Guardian induced slight of hand did not go unnoticed. It allowed any and every headline grabbing weather event to be used as proof there was a crisis. It was so obvious a crisis existed, even an uneducated Swedish child, a school drop out with personality issues no less, could see it….apparently, it was so obvious she could also actually see the CO2.!.
It all failed to move the people.
The climate alarmist science was shown to be fake, then the luvvies inputs were shown to be fake. No matter bring on the politicos, to up the climate alarm anti. The Biden movement has fallen apart, as old Joe struggles to remember who is President. AOC and every advocate for total anarchy are struggling. The climate alarm movement has failed, it has not convinced the public there is a problem, so they are changing horses in pursuit of total anarchy. Now they have engaged infections as their go to agent for destroying society.
Let us see if that works out any better for them.
I suspect it won’t go well, although so far it has gained more traction faster than the climate alarm method managed.
I am sure those who are being encouraged to have ever more “jabs” for ever more frequently identified viral infections, will eventually ask….why?
Polar bears tend to go unmentioned these days by the alarmist movement.
________________________________
Population counts these days says maybe 18 to 25 thousand bears which doesn’t include most of Greenland, Russia’s Arctic coast and the huge area around the North Pole.
More to the point, recent counts of bears don’t show a decline. And of course, that’s the reason we don’t hear so much about the plight of the the polar bears anymore.
https://polarbearscience.com/
…best estimate 39,000 …
😉
Stage 4 will be the general recognition that unreliables are not a valid proposition. Stage 5 only concerns the survivors because the perpetrators of the hoax hang from lamp posts.
and yet multiple states are now at 40% renewable and beyond with no issues.
Even if that were remotely true, it’s like the guy who jumped off a 100-storey building, and thought “This isn’t so bad!” while falling past the 40th floor.
Oops… Read “falling past the 60th floor” or “having fallen past 40 floors.”
some days 100% some days 0% . reliability matters
Not to griff, the only thing reliable about him is his willingness to continuously spout this weeks lie.
Once again, griff pretends that 5 minutes once a year, is the equivatent of doing 40% for the entire year.
Once again, griff completely ignores the existence of cross state inter connections when it suits his purpose.
In other words, more lies.
Related news:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/12/04/clintel-trilogy-calls-on-heads-of-government-young-people-and-climate-scientists-to-wake-up/
The most essential question about climate goes unasked and that simple omission impeaches those demanding drastic social change in the name of saving the planet. That question must be: what is the optimum climate for the biosphere we depend upon? To the extent the climate may be changing, do those changes move towards that optimum or away from it? Does any human activity contribute or detract from that change?
For example, human burning of hydrocarbon fuels have added to the CO2 in the atmosphere. Higher CO2 levels allow plants to grow faster, resulting in greater yields for grain crops. Is that a positive or negative change?
The problem is, Ewin, the climate alarmists don’t have an answer to your most basic of questions. They also could not care less, because climate alarm is just a convenient vehicle they ride to destroy capitalism. Even if some scientists came along and said we need to increase the atmospheric CO2 up to 1000 PPM to achieve the ideal living environment on Earth, the alarmists would still say no it is not scientifically proven so we must keep destroying safe stable energy supplies in order to destroy society and our future.
The anarchists don’t do science and they don’t do rational thought either.
I don’t see a reason to decarbonize at all. We’re fortunate to live in an interglacial, and if we want this planet to remain nice and toasty, we’d better release all the CO2 we can to mitigate the effects of an ice age we know will come within the next few thousand years. And it’s also good for plants.
The idea that the earth will suffer a runaway greenhouse effect is so ludicrous that it needs to be mocked and ridiculed (even with just basic logic) until these clowns are too ashamed to even put the words “green” and “house” together in a sentence.
My fear is the same draconian policies governments imposed on citizens over COVID will be used to force Net Zero. Lockdowns for Saving Earth are coming…
I think we are entering a new phase in the “Climate debate”, but not the one that the author claims. I believe that some of the leftists have finally come to realize just how much the general media has been lying to us and that will produce a significant number of new sceptics. The lies and hypocrisy in the political realm have been so blatant that this is unavoidable. That is not to say that those that wish this country ill will or that think only of what they desire get from the public purse will change their thoughts. It is to say though that some true liberals have had an epiphany.
51 to 49 in Switzerland though. Thats way too close for comfort.
And why do so many people buy this climate change rubbish?