Essay by Eric Worrall
CSIRO Chief Climate Scientist Pep Canadell lamenting the lost emissions reductions of the Covid Lockdowns.
Climate change targets achievable by keeping global emissions to COVID levels, scientists say
ABC Science / By environment reporter Nick Kilvert
To keep climate change within limits that we can reasonably adapt to, the world needs to cut emissions at nearly the same rate it did during the peak of the global COVID–19 pandemic, scientists say.
Key points:
- Relative CO2 emissions dropped more between 2019 and 2020 than at any other time in recorded modern history
- Climate scientists say driving down emissions by a similar percentage each year, by transforming to a clean energy economy, could keep warming to around 1.5C
- The climate emergency needs to be handled with the same urgency as the pandemic, they warn
Between 2019 and 2020, global carbon dioxide emissions experienced the largest single year-on-year decline ever recorded — 6.3 per cent — dwarfing dips during both the global financial crisis of 2008, and the estimated decline following the end of World War II.
If we could continue that trend every year, we’d be able to limit warming to around 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to the international team of scientists, who published their findings today in Nature Geoscience.
…
“It’s not just individuals doing their part to reduce how much they travel — those sorts of things are not the solutions.
“We need a planned transition across society to implement the changes that are needed.”
It’s also important to note that we would need to see this type of reduction in emissions compounded each consecutive year as we drive towards net zero, she said.
“It is a really interesting example that shows you what it means when scientists say we need ambitious and immediate action to [combat climate change].”
The problem of course is that in the economic rebound that followed COVID restrictions, emissions have again headed north, Dr Canadell said.
“We missed an opportunity and made decisions that weren’t the best for a green recovery.“
“This tells you that the massive change we saw in the economy — in this case because we were shutting it down — an equivalent change needs to happen in the decarbonisation of the world,” said study co-author Pep Canadell from the CSIRO.
…
Read more: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101192612
Although Pep currently works for the CSIRO, Pep got his qualifications at the University of Barcelona, Spain. So I’m guessing he’s no stranger to those air travel emissions he would like the rest of us to cut back on.
Pep avoids calling for people to be deprived of private vehicle ownership or whatever, but there seems no other practical means to achieve the kind of climate lockdown emissions cuts Pep is demanding. Likely there is no practical means of making such cuts. Even if people switched from automobiles back to horses, horse manure produces an awful lot of methane.
Update (EW): Davidmhoffer makes a good point, about the lack of impact the great Covid lockdown had on global CO2 levels.
‘The climate emergency needs to be handled with the same urgency as the pandemic, they warn’
Well, that worked out well. Yet another example of the ‘Fatal Conceit’.
What? just sit down, go about your business and ignore the “fire, fire” yellers?
Try “The sky is falling”.
Huls,
Guess how many end-of-the-world doomsayers there have been over, say, the last 150 years? Guess what every one of them have in common?
We really living in “interesting times”, where and when all sorts of delusions possible out there, are masquerading as the highest form of virtue and rationale, marching and parading all over the places the same…as once upon a time when the red communist or fascist youths did it…
with even a higher conviction and persistence than then, or ever.
Yes, of course, we live in a richer and far more evolved world, with a lot more to waste irresponsibly.
Where almost everything is taken for granted… with no care at all in the world what so ever, and with a total lack of respect and recognition for all straggle, pain, sweat and blood that went before to achieve all this priceless accommodation.
A total disgrace, if you ask me.
cheers
Whiten wrote: “A total disgrace, if you ask me.”
I agree. It is so annoying to read this blatant climate nonsense.
When the Covid-19 alleged “pandemic” was announced, the usual suspects such as John Kerry, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, AOC, the Pope and Prince Charles all bleeted the same nonsensical drivel:
“To solve the crisis of Covid-19, we also must solve Climate Change!”
They implied that The Great Reset was our only salvation… and the Green New Deal… and Depopulation of the plebs… and Lockdowns… and Toxic “Vaccines” …
The probability of innocently being this wrong for this long is infinitesimally small – one in quintillions to one in septillions. It’s not just climate scientists being randomly wrong – they must have known they were not telling the truth.
A partial list of quotations by climate fraudsters is included here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/20/the-radical-green-road-to-venezuela-poverty-misery-and-dictatorship/#comment-2801299
Thank you Allan
🙂
cheers
[getting carried away again Alan. you get a pass this time-mod]
The Green/leftist movement has for decades been a false flag operation for the foreign Marxist groups trying to sabotage our economies. Wake up!
PRO-CHINA AGENTS POSED AS ACTIVISTS TO PROTEST US, CANADA MINES
by Margi Murphy, Bloomberg, June 28, 2022
Pro-Chinese agents posed as concerned local residents on social media to try and spark protests over the opening of rare earth mines in the US and Canada, cybersecurity researchers said in a new report.
TOLD YOU SO 20 YEARS AGO:
THE LIBERALS’ COVERT GREEN PLAN FOR CANADA – POVERTY AND DICTATORSHIP October 1, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/the-liberals-covert-green-plan-for-canada-poverty-and-dictatorship/
“Unregulated consumerism was unsustainable and people would have to learn to make do with less. The government would have to have more control over people to enforce their austerity and the wealth of developed nations would have to be redistributed to help undeveloped nations.”
THE NEXT GREAT EXTINCTION EVENT WILL NOT BE GLOBAL WARMING – IT WILL BE GLOBAL COOLING September 1, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/01/the-next-great-extinction-event-will-not-be-global-warming-it-will-be-global-cooling/
“Future extinction events are preponderantly cold: a glacial period, medium-size asteroid strike or supervolcano. Humanity barely survived the last glacial period that ended only 11,500 years ago, the blink-of–an-eye in geologic time.”
WHAT THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS REALLY ABOUT — AND IT’S NOT THE CLIMATE July 19, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/20/what-the-green-new-deal-is-really-about-and-its-not-the-climate/
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” – Democratic New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti.
THE COST TO SOCIETY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM July 4, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/04/the-cost-to-society-of-radical-environmentalism/
“Global warming and climate change alarmism was never about the science – it was always a false narrative, a smokescreen for the totalitarian objectives of the extreme left.”
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
“Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past.”
SCIENCE’S UNTOLD SCANDAL: THE LOCKSTEP MARCH OF PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES TO PROMOTE CLIMATE CHANGE May 24, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/sciences-untold-scandal-the-lockstep-march-of-professional-societies-to-promote-the-climate-change-scare/
“Many of the world’s primary professional societies have changed from being paragons of technical virtue to opportunistic groups focused on maximizing their members’ financial gains in support of the climate scare, the world’s greatest science fraud.”
HYPOTHESIS: RADICAL GREENS ARE THE GREAT KILLERS OF OUR AGE April 14, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/
“My hypothesis is that ’Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age’. Here is some of the supporting evidence.”
Thank you mod for the “pass”. What do you mean by “getting carried away again”?
1. Off topic? The CAGW green scam and economic sabotage IS the topic. It’s never been about the science – the “Climate Crisis” (CAGW) is a ~50-year-old pseudo-scientific, political fraud that has deliberately harmed economies all over the world.
2. Am I overstating the case?
How many people here think the CAGW narrative is a good-faith, scientifically-based, legitimate environmental concern?
[Loydo and CCP members need not reply.]
3. Too many references? If I don’t provide references, leftist fraudsters tend to dispute my statements with ill-founded ad-hom attacks.
4. I make no apologies for my aggressive stance – see the millions of deaths, especially of children, caused by the bogus ban on DDT that ~doubled malaria deaths, and the more recent green sabotage and delay of Golden Rice that resulted in the blindness of many more. Now we are entering a period of energy and food shortages that can also be legitimately blamed on the red-greens. Finally, none of this is an accident – it’s The Plan.
My co-authors Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I called this climate fraud correctly twenty years ago. Since then, trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been squandered. All an entirely avoidable scam.
[ok then. i commend you on the power of your stance. that was your last pass ~cr]
I agree with most of what you state.
I disagree with this open claim:
Much of what is claimed and measured as “waste” is nothing of the sort.
Even landfills are utilized as methane generators that power landfill needs.
The estimated cost of the Global CoVid pandemic was between US$4 trillion and US $8.5 trillion, depending on which world economic authority you believe, for a drop of 6.3% in world CO2 emissions.
Now to suffer that cost in contraction of world GDP each year going forward to 2050 with a view to alleviating the estimated cost of climate change in 2100….
Hmm.
Pass.
To suffer that each year in addition to the previous year’s suffering… it’s iterative!
They want roughly 7% reduction this year, then ANOTHER 7% lower the next year and so on until net-zero.
And yet the only way anyone sees any difference in the CO2 levels from 2019, 2020 and 2021 is with a magnifying glass.
Global economic disaster for some micro reduction in a trace gas that might affect climate, if it wasn’t totally overshadowed by the effect of water vapour, orbital mechanics and solar variability.
Any sane climate believe would take a measured approach, and focus on mitigation but unfortunately they are all panicked and listen to people who are taking advantage of them for power, profit and fun.
So, to achieve the mystical green utopia, we need to shut down the worlds economies? Is there a point to ‘saving the world’ from climate change, when the solution turns the world into a shit hole of despair?
You seem to be blissfully unaware of an obvious fact,
That’s exactly what the greenies want.
Dystopia is easy to create, but it’s not for the elites or those running the mass media.
It’s for you the sheeple.
The shit hole of despair run by rich elites is what they are already creating in places like Mariupol.
GDP dropped by 1/3 in UKR and is going to drop by 10-15% in Russia.
There, fixed it for you.
All you need is a mass murder like in 1932-33 (communism an excellent idea for that) and you get the required drop in population and emissions.
Pol pot, Stalin and Mao all tried it, and it works like a charm.
No, we just need some good examples.
South Africans struggle in the dark to cope with power cuts – ABC News (go.com)
In order to save the world we had to destroy it.
Haven’t these commies learned that ” planned ” economies don’t work? Look at Cooba. Venezuela. Nicaragua. Laos. They suck the big enchilada. Planned energy ” transitions ” are crapola. Capice?
They never seem to question the model, remember? If the correct socialist model is chosen but the economy collapses when it is applied, obviously the problem was the people who applied it /sarc
“This time we will get it right!”
Most greens would like a return to sedan chairs. That sort of retrograde condition is more in line with how they regard their sedan chair bearers. Peasant scum, all the way down!
Yup. They are the SPITR, ‘spitters’, and we must do as they say because they know they are right. If you don’t fall down in wonder at their brilliance and comply willingly, they will use the power of the State to force you to accept their brilliant ideas.
Between 2019 and 2020, global carbon dioxide emissions experienced the largest single year-on-year decline ever recorded — 6.3 per cent — dwarfing dips during both the global financial crisis of 2008, and the estimated decline following the end of World War II.
6.3%! Well that ought to stick out like a sore thumb on the rise of CO2 concentration over time.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Oops, no it doesn’t. Nada, nothing. Never mind arguing about how sensitive the climate is to CO2, the alarmists cannot even demonstrate that the emission reductions they seek would make the difference in CO2 levels that they claim.
Ah, but if they continued the lockdown I’m sure it would have shown up eventually… /sarc
“Oops, no it doesn’t.”
And neither should it. Eric knows this is bs but instead of making an effort to correct the misunderstanding, he just thinks its funny. Unsurprising if spreading bs is the goal.
As Anton explained below, it’s unsurprising that a 6% reduction would noticeably reduce the rate of rise. I agree with that.
But Loydo, doesn’t it give you pause that even an unsustainable totalitarian lockdown is inadequate to noticeably reduce the rate of rise?
How, if you consider yourself a rational, intelligent person, can you imagine that anything short of a 50-90% cull of human population could achieve the pointless goal of actually reversing the trend?
Are you so anti-human as to actually embrace that, Loydo?
You also oppose nuclear power, I suppose?
You didn’t make an effort, much less a well reasoned talking point.
Buy all means Loydo, please explain the misunderstanding.
Hey Loy-d’oh,
Thanks for pointing out that reducing human CO2 emissions is not going to affect the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Now , can we all get back to living our carbon-based lives !
No comment, eh Loydo?
A bit reticent to admit that you pine for mass starvation?
See the link below Chris Hanley’s post, seems like recent events have affected emissions more than COVID did – and of course it should have affected emissions levels – if the scientific consensus is correct.
However, imho, the emission level data, with it’s lack of major perturbations, is evidence that the CO2 levels are a function of an equilibrium between the atmosphere, ground and sea, dependent mostly on temperature but there’s many cooks in the climate kitchen.
Added the graph, thanks for reminding me David.
6.3% less emissions means that we still emitted 93.7% of the previous year’s quantity. Like a tap that you close just a little bit, reducing the flux by 6%. Your bath tub would still fill, just a little bit less quickly. You wouldn’t see it. Add on top of that that the natural carbon sinks are quite variable from one year to another (because of interannual climate variability). The result is that no one who has at least a basic understanding of the carbon cycle would have expected the Covid dip to be visible in the global CO2 concentration graph.
But you forgot that 95% of CO2 emissions are natural – ocean out-gassing, erosion of limestone, etc. Our contribution can’t even be measured with real equipment – only computer models, like this one:
10 print “It’s worse than we thought”
20 goto 10
More significantly, dropping the CO2 emissions to “net zero” will destroy the west’s economy. The greens aren’t ignorant of this – the destruction of the western economy isn’t an accidental side effect, it’s the whole point of the exercise.
Thanks for making my point for me Anton. If a near shut down of the global economy isn’t expected to make a difference, then the obvious question becomes, what would be significant?
The answer to that is something no rational human being should want to see.
A very good point David, the fact that the industrial emissions slowdown during covid does not register on the prime Moana Loa instrument, means that human emissions are only a tiny part of the CO2 atmospheric system. This implies that these emissions have no possibility of influencing climate change as defined in the AGW dogma, thus this hypothesis is now finally falsified. So what is the purpose of current global emissions policy??
“This tells you that the massive change we saw in the economy — in this case because we were shutting it down — an equivalent change needs to happen in the decarbonisation of the world,”
They propose to sentence billions of people to abject poverty with an absolutely straight face. Look! We’re saving you from the horrors of +2 degrees a hundred years from now! Two degrees! Yes we know, we’re sentencing billions to short miserable lives filled with disease and starvation, but you’ll thank us in a century…
“Our watermelon ecocide policies will k!ll everyone on Earth, but we must, must do it to save the planet for our children. BTW, one of our policies is to not have children.”
–
Ummmm… suuuure… that’ll work. Good plan. 🙄
And notice the idiosyncratic shape of the sawtooths does not alter let alone amplitude. Do we understand the carbon cycle? No.
You don’t understand the carbon cycle, Lionheart. Scientists do.
Do they?
Anton, if you listen to the scientists, it’s obvious that they don’t actually understand the carbon cycle.
Some scientists do.
Climate scientists, most certainly don’t.
Don’t tell me, show me.
They estimate that there should have been a reduction in emissions based on reduced activity during the lockdowns, but as there was no corresponding reduction in measured CO2 then I’m not convinced they’re actually adding things up correctly.
It was CSIRO who helped to develop what is now known as USC, HELE (ultra super critical, high energy low emissions) coal power technology. I had a copy of their magazine reporting on the project – can’t find it, and it is not findable on their website. How have the mighty fallen.
Right, Martin. I have had direct experience with “scientists” from CSIRO, USGS, and CONICET, and almost all of them have crossed over to Political Science, for fun and profit. They are of the same mindset as the more looney tunes followers of CAGW.
Sad but true Ron, the CSIRO needs to be taken to task again, to save their once glorious and inspiring reputation
Pep just doesn’t care an iota about real people and the challenges they face. Obsessed with the CO2 boogeyman and thinks COVID co2 reductions are sustainable and COMPOUNDABLE! This year give up cars and planes like during 2020. Then next year lets drop another 6.5% by… freezing or sweltering in the dark.
This is the same woke crowd that wants suicide for every condition, as no discomfort is permissible and yet for the sake of climate it’s ok to put humanity through hell, leave the developing world in the toilet, ok for people to die because that actually helps the cause.
Climate alarmists really are a doomsday cult.
The culture of death has very nearly completed its march through Western civilization.
Diversity Inclusion Equity DIE Credit someone else with this, but it is the true satanic intent of globalists and their ignorant tools.
And you thought Klaus Schwab was ugly with his mask on.
If this Pep fellow thinks CO2 levels drive up global temperatures then he is NOT a Scientist. He is merely a brainwashed tool of the Communist Party; but, of course, doesn’t realise it.
This CSIRO paper needs to be put on hold pending reviews and outcomes of 2 new papers by mathematician Demetris Koutsoyiannis and colleagues. Published May 25 2022, so review is just starting.
Revisiting causality using stochastics: 1. Theory (ntua.gr)
Revisiting causality using stochastics: 2. Applications (ntua.gr)
Here is an extract from the first paper.
The remaining real-world case study led to an important side product of the current research. This is the surprising finding that, while in general the causal relationship of atmospheric T and CO₂ concentration, as obtained by proxy data, appears to be of hen-or-egg type with principal direction 𝑇 → [CO₂], in the recent decades the more accurate modern data support a conclusion that this principal direction has become exclusive. In other words, it is the increase of temperature that caused increased CO₂ concentration. Though this conclusion may sound counterintuitive at first glance, because it contradicts common perception (and for this reason we have assessed the case with an alternative parametric methodology in the Supplementary Information, section SI2.4, with results confirming those presented here), in fact it is reasonable. The temperature increase began at the end of the Little Ice Period, in the early 19th century, when human CO₂ emissions were negligible; hence other factors, such as the solar activity (measured by sunspot numbers), as well as internal long-range mechanisms of the complex climatic systems had to play their roles.
If correct, the CSIRO paper will be largely wrong and should be considered for retraction.
Geoff S
Geoff, we’ve known for ever that temperature drives CO2 concentration. It’s because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water.
Disputin,
It being the start of the month, I visited the UAH satellite temperature measurements of the lower troposphere over Australia. I had predicted a temperature anomaly above the 1991-2020 UAH baseline of 0.1 deg C. The new UAH figure was 0.11 de C. Near enough.
By the UAH method, there has been no linear trend above Australia for the past decade, showing warming. The line has been flat at0.25 deg C on average for that decade. This presents a serious problem for theories of science that rely on a concept to global temperatures being driven by CO2 in the air. In May 2012, CO2 was about 397 ppm, rising to about 421 ppm 10 years later (Scripps monthly Mauna Loa numbers).
So a graph of CO2 ppm versus temperature anomaly would show a 6% CO2 increase of 24 ppm in 400 ppm in that decade, versus no change in temperature, which averaged 0.25 deg C anomaly. This is a difficult graph to explain when a fundamental part of the story has CO2 causing temperature change. It did not do this over the last decade. Excuses for Nature failing to comply are several, with the Top of the Pops possibly being fluctuations in atmospheric aerosols like SO2 and particulates, maybe increased water in the column, maybe cloud variations, maybe ocean cycles, maybe, maybe..
It is simply really bad science to assume that CO2 drives T. The papers I referenced go into extended territory, with new methods of assessing not just the causality direction, but how much driving there was, its uncertainty and more.
These are important papers because they have the capacity to overturn the accepted wisdom of The Establishment that CO2 is the control knob for T. They advance the confidence that went with past statements of ‘reverse’ causation like you mention. It is like Science replacing gossip.
Why not read the papers, then give some comments on what you deduced? Geof S
COS is a natural oceanic precursor to SO2 and would track CO2 on at least a short timescale and is another negative feedback.
We also know it’s about 12 ppm per degree, and that increased emissions from rice paddies, agriculture, soil bacteria, and combustion have caused much of the other 100 ppm increase. But reaction to that increase is based on the precautionary principle combined with apocalyptic unscientific extensions of junior high school science classes.
“in the recent decades the more accurate modern data support a conclusion that this principal direction has become exclusive. In other words, it is the increase of temperature that caused increased CO₂ concentration.”
My conclusions too, as the 12m average change in CO2 lags SST>25.5C by 5 months:
“hence other factors, such as the solar activity (measured by sunspot numbers), as well as internal long-range mechanisms of the complex climatic systems had to play their roles.”
Solar activity was absolutely responsible for the SST increase:
Geoff, the CSIRO paper is wrong and should be retracted, but don’t hold your breath over it – alarmists rarely walk anything back after being factually refuted.
Thank you for your post Geoff S:
(excerpt)
This CSIRO paper needs to be put on hold pending reviews and outcomes of 2 new papers by mathematician Demetris Koutsoyiannis and colleagues. Published May 25 2022, so review is just starting.
Revisiting causality using stochastics: 1. Theory (ntua.gr)
Revisiting causality using stochastics: 2. Applications (ntua.gr)
Here is an extract from the first paper.
“This is the surprising finding that, while in general the causal relationship of atmospheric T and CO₂ concentration, as obtained by proxy data, appears to be of hen-or-egg type with principal direction 𝑇 → [CO₂], in the recent decades the more accurate modern data support a conclusion that this principal direction has become exclusive. In other words, it is the increase of temperature that caused increased CO₂ concentration.”
—————–
Note to Demitris K and co-authors:
Good conclusion, but you should cite as references the following three papers that predated you by up to 32 years:
“Atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, as proved by MacRae 2008, and Humlum et al (2013). Kuo et al (1990) made similar observations in the journal Nature that were ignored for decades.”
Source: NO EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CRISIS, World Commerce Review, June 23, 2022
I published in Jan2008 based on this beautiful relationship that I discovered in Dec2007:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
Ole Humlum and colleagues published in 2013 and extended the time relationship to Sea Surface Temperature SST.
In June2019 I further explained:
“The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).
The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.“
My brilliant friend Richard S Courtney told me at some time in the 2010’s decade about Kuo et al (Nature 1990). Does anyone else find it “odd” that Kuo (and MacRae and Humlum) were ignored all these years while the CAGW (aka “Climate Crisis”) fraud has caused society to squander trillions of dollars and millions of lives?
The probability of innocently being this wrong for this long is infinitesimally small – one in quintillions to one in septillions. It’s not just climate scientists being randomly wrong – they must have known they were not telling the truth.
Maybe I’m being a bit cranky this early in the morning, but I suggest it is time for Nuremberg 2.0 trials of these climate fraudsters. While I don’t support Nuremberg-style firing squads, perhaps a prison in Greenland heated by green energy would be appropriate, where the CAGW miscreants can continue to hope and pray for excessive global warming.
I sent the above note to Demetris K et al – no response yet.
Had a good email conversation with Demetris K – a pleasant gentleman.
Good, the CSIRO needs to get off its high horse and smell the shit it is peddling under the name of science. How the mighty have fallen, for the AGW dunghill.
The Covid emissions reductions are as much a green fantasy as the global warming he’s trying to stop.
wonder who funded this? CSIRO is now pay for play and partially privatised I gather
stupid much?
so how do these IYI think that the massive 9x solar setups , the ftard green/teals/labor are saying we would need in just 10yrs?
and the GK how many wind turbines would get made?
firing this fella would be useful
Those climate freaks are fools. CO2 is not a climate driver. This site has published more info than many others that shows the the proof of the climate change fraud.
Canadell must be angling for another government grant for more junk science modelling.
SA is doing its part….
South Africans struggle in the dark to cope with power cuts – ABC News (go.com)
I found the study here. more models. Check out the authors.
– – – – – – – – –
Global patterns of daily CO2 emissions reductions in the first year of COVID-19
Day-to-day changes in CO2 emissions from human activities, in particular fossil-fuel combustion and cement production, reflect a complex balance of influences from seasonality, working days, weather and, most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00965-8
“Relative CO2 emissions dropped more between 2019 and 2020 than at any other time in recorded modern history.”
and then….
“Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion tonnes, their highest ever level, as the world economy rebounded strongly from the Covid-19 crisis and relied heavily on coal to power that growth, according to new IEA analysis released today.”
Emerging economies are embracing the use of fossil fuels to make net zero by 2050 a pipedream!
“We need a planned transition across society to implement the changes that are needed.”
************
All scientists making this claim need to go first. Transition to a life devoid of demand for fossil fuel energy and fossil fuel-based products in your lives. When the rest of us see what happened to your standard of living and quality of life, we will decide whether or not to join you.
Until the day climate alarmist scientists do this, they will not impress me with their rhetoric. Hypocrites.
“Er… we prepared for it, and then we almost had a full grip on the economy, but kinda slipped… can we please try again, miss?” says a C+ student, while remnants of Lenin and Roosevelt slowly start spinning.
The bane of the modern Progressives is excessively Progressive education.
And would you look at that? You literally cannot see any effect of the ’emissions drop’ from human activity!
Anyone notice the discrepancy between the red measurements and the black line? The little hiccup at the start of 2022 followed by an immeidate spike and the spike fails to show at all.
I seriousl;y doubt the accuracy of those figures – that looks far more like manipulation to try and prove a point.
Between 2019 and 2020, global carbon dioxide emissions experienced the largest single year-on-year decline ever recorded — 6.3 per cent — dwarfing dips during both the global financial crisis of 2008, and the estimated decline following the end of World War II.
If we could continue that trend every year, we’d be able to limit warming to around 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to the international team of scientists, who published their findings today in Nature Geoscience.
Instead of seeing the strong correlation above between burning fossil fuels and economic heath/prosperity, they discard economic health all together and call for conditions that would correlate with a permanent economic collapse………..the new normal in a world without fossil fuels.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
As long as it keeps us from hitting the magical +1.5 deg C of warming, we are in good shape (-:
Everything is ok up to +1.499 deg C……….then, like somebody flips a switch, an increase above that means the currently greening planet, featuring most life doing well, will suddenly transform to a planet of non productive deserts along with massively flooded land. The oceans will increase 25 feet in 1 year and swamp all the coastlines as the polar ice completely melts.
Ticks, fleas, roaches, weeds, mold, bacteria and killer bees will replace honey bees, butterfly’s, tree frogs, bunny rabbits, polar bears, crops and humans.
The weather will transform to record heat during the Summers, followed by record cold in much of the Winter because of the polar vortex permanently relocating in the mid latitudes.
Violent tornadoes will dominate thru much of the Spring, as far north as the Arctic Circle with dozens of cat. 5 hurricanes every year.
All this taking place immediately after the critical +1.5 deg C temperature threshold is crossed.
“6.3 per cent”, a totally fake number estimated by desk jockeys sitting in climate la-la land. That number is unrecognizable via any actual measurement.