Carbon Budget 2022: “Nine Years to Save the Earth” from Climate Change

Essay by Eric Worrall

According to the United Nations, gas projects launched in response to shortages created by the Ukraine war could destroy the world. Though we have an extra year over their 2019 11 year warning.

World has nine years to avert catastrophic warming, study shows

Scientists say gas projects discussed at U.N. climate conference would seriously threaten world’s climate goals

By Sarah Kaplan
Updated November 11, 2022 at 12:57 p.m. EST

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt — Nations will likely burn through their remaining carbon budget in less than a decade if they do not significantly reduce greenhouse gas pollution, a new study shows, causing the world to blow past a critical warming threshold and triggering catastrophic climate impacts.

But new gas projects — launched in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting global energy crunch — would consume 10 percent of that remaining carbon budget, making it all but impossible for nations to meet the Paris agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, according to another report released Wednesday.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/11/11/cop27-egypt-carbon-budget-gas-projects/

The abstract of the study;

Global Carbon Budget 2022

Friedlingstein, P., O’Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Bittig, H. C., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gkritzalis, T., Gloege, L., Grassi, G., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Jersild, A., Kadono, K., Kato, E., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lindsay, K., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGrath, M. J., Metzl, N., Monacci, N. M., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O’Brien, K., Ono, T., Palmer, P. I., Pan, N., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rodriguez, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Shutler, J. D., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, X., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., Walker, A. P., Wanninkhof, R., Whitehead, C., Willstrand Wranne, A., Wright, R., Yuan, W., Yue, C., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.

Received: 26 Sep 2022 – Discussion started: 29 Sep 2022 – Revised: 14 Oct 2022 – Accepted: 14 Oct 2022 – Published: 11 Nov 2022

Abstract

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ.

For the year 2021, EFOS increased by 5.1 % relative to 2020, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2021, GATM was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.9  ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.6 GtC yr−1 (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low or sinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest an increase in EFOS relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %) globally and atmospheric CO2 concentration reaching 417.2 ppm, more than 50 % above pre-industrial levels (around 278 ppm). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2021, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extratropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022b).

Executive summary

The remaining carbon budget for a 50 % likelihood to limit global warming to 1.5, 1.7, and 2C has, respectively, reduced to 105 GtC (380 GtCO2), 200 GtC (730 GtCO2), and 335 GtC (1230 GtCO2) from the beginning of 2023, equivalent to 9, 18, and 30 years, assuming 2022 emissions levels. Total anthropogenic emissions were 11.0 GtC yr−1 (40.2 GtCO2 yr−1) in 2021, with a preliminary estimate of 11.1 GtC yr−1 (40.5 GtCO2 yr−1) for 2022. The remaining carbon budget to keep global temperatures below these climate targets has shrunk by 32 GtC (121 GtCO2) since the IPCC AR6 Working Group 1 assessment based on data up to 2019. Reaching zero CO2emissions by 2050 entails a total anthropogenic CO2 emissions linear decrease by about 0.4 GtC (1.4 GtCO2) each year, comparable to the decrease during 2020, highlighting the scale of the action needed.

Read more: Global Carbon Budget 2022, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900

To be fair, the UN is trying to be more consistent about this warning, unlike previous warnings. In 2019 they issued an 11 year warning, so they’ve only nudged this 9 year warning forward by one year – perhaps a silent acknowledgement of the growing pause in global warming?

Obviously at some point the current nine year warning will have to be radically updated or quietly forgotten, like they forgot the 1989 UN 10 year climate warning. In a few years, when it becomes obvious nothing bad is happening, a slight revision like the one year extension tacked onto the 2019 warning simply won’t do.

But who knows, perhaps by then people will be worrying themselves sick about some other allegedly world threatening crisis.

5 20 votes
Article Rating
83 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
max
November 13, 2022 6:10 pm

When you’re making up the questions, and the answers, consistency just isn’t all that important.

Tom Halla
November 13, 2022 6:11 pm

First, that is one long co-author list!
Second, we have already died multiple times of predicted disasters, so another prediction is a bit hollow. While there is a market for disaster porn, this is nothing new.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 13, 2022 7:59 pm

In their rating system for merit pay increases, publications are a significant factor. Researchers have figured out how to boost their numbers with little effort.

JohnC
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 14, 2022 1:14 am

If each of those authors contributed, then it would be a couple of sentences each. I am wary of papers with so many named “authors”, although I once found a paper where the first page of A4 was filled entirely with the list of authors.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  JohnC
November 14, 2022 4:56 am

If the real writers spread out the glory- they get so much more dedicated support.

Ron Long
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 14, 2022 2:01 am

“…another prediction is a bit hollow.” You got that right, Tom. The alfalfa they are trying to feed us has already passed through the horse.

Curious George
November 13, 2022 6:16 pm

Nine Years to Save the Earth
Not again, please.

MarkW
Reply to  Curious George
November 13, 2022 6:28 pm

Does mean the marks are no longer paying any attention to warnings of only 10 years left?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Curious George
November 13, 2022 6:31 pm

They don’t say that. That is Eric’s embellishment. They say that a further 105 Gtons emission would lead to total 1.5°C of warming, and on current emission path, that will take 9 years. Seems pretty factual.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 13, 2022 7:04 pm

It’s only “factual”, if you accept the lie that the models are anything other than broken toys.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  MarkW
November 13, 2022 7:15 pm

The paper does not use GCM’s. It is a carbon cycle study, which basically tracks and quantifies the various sources.

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 13, 2022 7:45 pm

“while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models

“The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products.”
😉

Nick Stokes
Reply to  leefor
November 13, 2022 9:04 pm

Of course they use models. They are everywhere in science. But they don’t use GCMs.

Chasmsteed
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 13, 2022 11:20 pm

A Perspective On Models.
Just to put models into perspective with an example – In finite element analysis of car body structures where the science is extremely well defined and understood and we have incredibly good structural analysis tools – we still find on physically testing a physical prototype car body – via modal analysis – in order to validate the computer model of the physical body  – we invariably find that such practical testing invariably invalidates the model and we end up tweaking the design or the model – usually both – to get them to align – this in order to perform extreme but non-destructive tests on the computer model rather than on expensive prototypes or production vehicles.
Similar problems exist with airframes, boats (from racing yachts to supertankers), gas turbines etc. etc. in spite of the fact that the physics, engineering, thermodynamics etc. etc. are all well understood and we have plenty of prior working models – we still find problems between models and actuals when simply changing designs for new smaller or bigger variants – with greater variations expected on completely new designs.

Modelling designs containing differing elements of materials with different properties like tensile strength, elasticity, viscosity, coefficients of friction etc. etc. all serve to amplify such problems.

The climate contains hundreds of such confounding variables.

When you scale such an array of compounding problems up or down you introduce non-linear problems of scale – Areas increase to the square of the scale, mass / volume to the cube of the scale, rotational inertia to the 4th power and torsional stresses to the 5th power.

Modelling has its limits even in the well-defined realm of engineering – As an engineer I know this, so you will have a hard time convincing me of the veracity of any model containing dozens of ill-defined and poorly understood parameters for variables whose influences are also poorly understood and equally ill-defined.

Climate models are no more than crystal ball gazing but using a computer.

JohnC
Reply to  Chasmsteed
November 14, 2022 1:23 am

The other difference between using a model for engineering purposes is that they are usually used as the starting point, with modifications made to the prototype hardware when the real materials are being used and not some mathematical idealised materials.
There is no computer that is capable of modelling the entire climate system. If there were it’s answer would be 42.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chasmsteed
November 14, 2022 4:44 am

“The climate contains hundreds of such confounding variables.”

This should always be kept in mind.

CO2 is just one of the counfounding variables, and it’s behavior in the climate is not well understood. Certainly not enough to claim CO2 is the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures.

slowroll
Reply to  Chasmsteed
November 14, 2022 9:41 am

Actually crystal ball gazing into a crystal ball preset with their desired results.

bnice2000
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 14, 2022 2:52 am

Poor nick, so devoid of science that he still hasn’t grasped the difference between models that are constantly validated against measurements…

.. and climate models which are nothing more than spaghetti fired from a scatter gun. !

Redge
Reply to  leefor
November 13, 2022 11:34 pm

Nick’s correct when he says all scientists use models

leefor
Reply to  Redge
November 14, 2022 12:43 am

Yeah, Now all he has to do is say they are all validated.

JohnC
Reply to  Redge
November 14, 2022 1:35 am

We all use models to make sense of the world we live in. The difference is that we view the world in an analogue manner, whereas most scientific models are digital with its limitations.
Would an analogue model be better?
Climate itself is a mathematical construct in that it is defined as the weather parameters over a rolling 30 years, which is an arbitrary number in itself, why not 10, 20, 50 or 100?

HotScot
Reply to  Redge
November 14, 2022 1:47 am

What used to be known as a “back of an envelope” guesstimate.

ATheoK
Reply to  Redge
November 14, 2022 2:07 am

Nick’s correct when he says all scientists use models”

That doesn’t make any model worthwhile.

Product of a proverbial house of models is utter fantasy.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Redge
November 14, 2022 3:33 am

The big difference is that models in other disciplines are always checked by observations, and discarded if they fail to provide testable predictions.

Graham
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 13, 2022 7:52 pm

That may be so Nick BUT the models are all predicting warming that is not happening ,they are so far out they should all be scrapped .
No other branch of science would make use of models that are so far from reality,
It is actually quite simple .
The models are useless because they have been tuned to the theory that increasing levels of CO2 will lead to runaway warming .
You should know as a scientist that the effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic .
Water vapour is by far the main green house gas and it swamps CO2 CH4 and N2O which have all reached saturation in the atmosphere .
Very little if any more warming will occur as that is what has happened over the last ten years .
You and your mates are flogging a dead horse Nick.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Graham
November 14, 2022 4:51 am

“You and your mates are flogging a dead horse Nick.”

Yes, they are.

CO2 is increasing yet global temperatures are cooling.

Nick and his mates assume too much.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 13, 2022 8:26 pm

Nit pick nick is up to his usual attempts to deflect.
If they are assuming that 105gt of CO2 is going to result in 1.5C of warming, then they are most definitely using GCMs.

Redge
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 13, 2022 11:34 pm

I thought the climate seancers were worried about carbon dioxide, not carbon

It may be the fashion to say “carbon budget” but scientifically it’s incorrect, and yet not a single reviewer called them out on invalid terminology

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Redge
November 14, 2022 4:54 am

It’s dumbed-down politics, not science.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 14, 2022 8:11 am

One constant with Nick, he will never let go of a good distraction, no matter how refuted it gets. They make the claim that X gt of CO2 will produce Y degrees of warming. That’s based solely on the output of models. This paper uses models.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 13, 2022 7:44 pm

I don’t see how they can determine any specific future GAT trend based on expected future human CO2 emissions when historically there does not seem to be any direct relationship between those two variables:
comment image

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1980/trend

Last edited 2 months ago by Chris Hanley
Nick Stokes
Reply to  Chris Hanley
November 13, 2022 10:32 pm

Interesting graph. But it doesn’t seem to say anything about GAT.

Equilibrium GAT is expected to relate to ppm CO2 in the air, not emissions, although of course one thing leads to another.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 13, 2022 10:40 pm

The graph comes from the abovementioned paper Freidlingstein et al. that does.

Last edited 2 months ago by Chris Hanley
bnice2000
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 14, 2022 2:55 am

“is expected to relate”

By whom??

There is no scientific evidence for that expectation…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bnice2000
November 14, 2022 4:58 am

That’s right, there is no scientific evidence for that expectation, but alarmists go merrily along assuming there is.

There is no evidence that a certain amount of CO2 equals a certain temperature in the Earth’s atmosphere. No evidence whatsoever. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.

Mike
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 13, 2022 7:47 pm

”They don’t say that”

Oh yes they do say that…..Guterres said it just 2 days ago.

”U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 30, 1989
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. 

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. 

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.” 

The only thing difference between the above and today is the date.

Last edited 2 months ago by Mike
Nick Stokes
Reply to  Mike
November 13, 2022 10:18 pm

The paper under discussion does not say that.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike
November 14, 2022 5:06 am

“The only thing difference between the above and today is the date.”

Yes, the Climate Doomsters have been declaring climate disaster for decades now, and no climate disaster has appeared. Nothing out of the ordinary, weather-wise, is happening.

Severe weather *is* ordinary weather. And of course, the statistics show that there is less severe weather now than in the past, something which refutes the alarmist claims that CO2 will increase the magnitude and frequency of severe weather. We have more CO2 in the atmosphere today, yet we have less severe weather now, rather than more.

Back to the Drawing Board for you Alarmists!

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 13, 2022 8:28 pm

Nick is so desperate to change the subject that he often doesn’t stop to think about what he is actually saying.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 13, 2022 10:27 pm

Eric, I’m pointing out that the paper you have cited says nothing, pro or con, about the necessity for 1.5. It is a thorough annual review of the state of the carbon cycle. If you want to attack people saying 1.5 must not be exceeded, you should find who is saying it where, and review what they actually say.

Douglas
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 13, 2022 11:50 pm

Nick,
You may be correct about the Friedlingstein et al 1922 report being a clinical review of the carbon cycle but it is underpinned by the claim that 2.0C (or 1.5C) has critical significance.
Look at the opening words of the Executive Summary.
There is no scientific basis for the Paris Target of keeping emissions below 2 degrees C warming (now 1.5 degrees) to avoid disastrous outcomes.
Hans Joachim Schellenhuber invented the figure (or borrowed it from earlier users) as Steve Koonin so forcefully explained in “Unsettled”.
When he asked Schellenhuber some years ago why 2 C and not 1.5C or 2.5C or some other figure, the response was to the effect,”Well, it’s about right, and it is an easy figure for politicians to remember”.
4 C by 2100 and 2 C by 2050 is believed by some to be “about right”, except the warming this Century does not seem to be following that track.
Now it is part of climate science folklore and politicians not only remember it but weary us by quoting it daily as some eternal law of science.
By the way Australia has likely passed 1.5C warming this year, as the State of the Climate Report 2020 had us at AAST 1.44C +/- 0.24 C in that year and with the post pandemic recovery,we are likely powering our way to 2 degrees C.
Fine by me and no alarm bells are evident in our wide brown land.

bnice2000
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 14, 2022 2:58 am

The 1.5C was pulled out of someone ****

It is well below the temperature for most of the last 10,000 years.

To use it shows total ignorance, but to be expected from the AGW stooges..

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  bnice2000
November 14, 2022 8:14 am

“The 1.5C was pulled out of someone ****”

And might I suggest that it be re-inserted there.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 14, 2022 8:18 am

Nick would argue over whether the paper said “isn’t” or “is not”.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2022 9:23 am

Was that down vote from you Nick?

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 14, 2022 8:19 am

If the 1.5C is such a meaningless number, why are the authors hyperventilating over the possibility of exceeding it?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  MarkW
November 15, 2022 12:04 am

You haven’t read the paper. The authors don’t do that.

bnice2000
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 14, 2022 2:49 am

SO WHAT ?

The 1.5C value is totally meaningless, pure invention, and well below the Holocene norm.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still well below planetary historic average

CO2 does NOT lead to warming…. that is scientific nonsense.

So the whole comment is totally NON-factual

Joao Martins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 14, 2022 4:17 am

So a “prediction” that you will be millionaire… sorry, billionaire next year based on your astrological chart also “seems pretty factual”: thus, hurry and buy a house in Martha’s Vineyard near the seashore, certainly you’ll have money to pay for it, planets don’t lie!

(In other words: what is the meaning of “factual” when “predicting” the future?)

Last edited 2 months ago by Joao Martins
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 14, 2022 4:19 am

“They don’t say that. That is Eric’s embellishment. They say that a further 105 Gtons emission would lead to total 1.5°C of warming, and on current emission path, that will take 9 years. Seems pretty factual.”

Assuming a 1.5C temperature increase due to a certain amount of CO2 increase is not factual, it’s a guess.

Rick C
November 13, 2022 6:30 pm

27 years of COPs, $Trillion spent of wind, solar at battery projects – results:

CO2 concentration has increases at constant a rate per Mona Loa measurements. Global energy from fossil fuel dropped from 82% to 81%.(EIA)No significant change in rate of global temperature change – a non alarming 0.13C per decade (UAH).Sea level rise shows no acceleration. Why would anyone with half a brain expect anything different to happen in the next 9 tears? You’d have to be willfully ignorant or really gullible to buy what the IPCC is selling.

By the way, I’m always suspicious when a scientific paper talks about synthesized data. After all synthetic means “man made”.

Last edited 2 months ago by Rick C
Scissor
Reply to  Rick C
November 13, 2022 7:31 pm

The frequency of sharknados today is not any different than it was in the past.

Mike
Reply to  Scissor
November 13, 2022 7:51 pm

🙂

Scissor
Reply to  Mike
November 13, 2022 8:10 pm

Of course, best to avoid shark twisters.

Louis Hunt
November 13, 2022 8:58 pm

“…a slight revision like the one year extension tacked onto the 2019 warning simply won’t do.”

Yes it can do. If you extend the end of the world by one year every year, you will never reach it. Perhaps that is their plan. They can still frighten the masses by claiming the end of the world is nigh, yet never have to account for being wrong because the (revised) date never arrives.

Louis Hunt
November 13, 2022 9:12 pm

What about the Prince of Wales’ warning in 2009 that the world had only “100 months to act” before the damage caused by global warming becomes irreversible? That date came and went without any accountability. How many times do these people get to cry wolf before we stop paying attention?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Louis Hunt
November 14, 2022 5:19 am

When will our politicians stop paying attention to all this human-caused climate change propaganda? Going along with Climate Change Insanity is destroying their own nations. Too dumb to see?

John V. Wright
November 13, 2022 9:39 pm

Oh my – whatever will become of us 😱?

claysanborn
November 13, 2022 9:46 pm

Eric, all the losers that make claims of climate doom&gloom have no standing. To have standing, they must put up something of value that they lose when they are proven wrong. For example, for them to say that our climate reaches a tipping point in 10 years, 12 years, they must define exactly what is meant by tipping point, and then put up something of value, like money, which they will lose to whomever is willing to match it. I’m sure if they will put up, or shut up say $100 Million, that the collective skeptic intelligence would gladly match it. For skeptics, it is a guaranteed return on investment. All that is needed is an infrastructure to manage the conditions and the wagered monies. Of course the big hole if this idea is nailing down the conditions that must be met at the end of the supposed doom&gloom period; since the lefty bullshitters are constantly moving the goalposts, the target conditions would also never be met – after all, the lefties only want to incite fear and solve nothing, not produce real-world logic. I can wish though, eh?

Last edited 2 months ago by claysanborn
davidmhoffer
November 13, 2022 10:10 pm

But new gas projects — launched in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting global energy crunch — would consume 10 percent of that remaining carbon budget

Huh. I thought the new gas projects launched in response to Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine were to displace gas that used to come from Russia. Or do we count the gas Russia no longer ships as part of the gas from the new projects that does ship? Is this what they mean by the new math?

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 14, 2022 4:17 am

‘…would consume 10 percent of that remaining carbon budget.,

Has any legislature passed such a budget?

universalaccessnz
November 13, 2022 11:26 pm

I don’t think any of those names are include in the independent FD University scientists survey that says 41 % of scientists may disagree with their assessments.

RickWill
November 13, 2022 11:29 pm

I have a desire to live long enough to laugh at the climate botherers as they give up in disgust but they keep extending the goal posts and lowering the bar so one day they can tell us they told us so – it simply isn’t cricket.

HotScot
Reply to  RickWill
November 14, 2022 2:15 am

It certainly isn’t, it’s a racket sport………

guidvce4
Reply to  RickWill
November 14, 2022 5:01 am

They won’t give up in disgust, no matter what the future holds. Just move the goal post, the favorite trick of snake oil salesman and other grifters, including these faux scientists, are so good at doing.
The continued predictions and changing timelines should be the clues that the “climate” balderdash is really nothing more than political fodder for controlling the masses.
Its all political, no substance.
Just sayin’.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
November 14, 2022 5:33 am

The next decade ought to tell us something. If CO2 controls the temperatures, then we should see warming, because there is no doubt CO2 concentrations will increase in the atmosphere.

Currently, the temperatures are cooling in the face of increased CO2. That could continue for a few decades, but one decade would give the skeptics some mighty powerful talking points. It would be fun watching the alarmists try to explain the discrepancy between reality and their CO2 claims.

comment image

Rod Evans
November 14, 2022 1:48 am

Just a rough guess, the number of co authors of this latest climate alarmist study is over 90, possibly 97?
Do they imagine, by having such a ridiculous list of contributors that will in some way lend the work credibility?
On the plus side, we have now been given until 2031 so an improvement over the 2000 end of the world study, that primed the IPCCs introduction to the world all those decades ago. It is also an improvement over Prince now King Charles’s 96 months to save the world stated back in Jul 2009. How we were all quaking in our boots as 2017 came round. The polar ice caps had not all melted in the summer as predicted, Al Gore was saying it would be all gone, by 2014. His prediction apparently repeating what experts had told him (maybe over 90) was confirmed by the BBC in 2016. That came and went like so many of these doom monger predictions. With such sterling and useless prediction uppermost in our minds. The summer of 2017 came and went, phew still we are here.
No matter bring on a new player some uneducated nobody a child with ‘issues’ is discovered in Sweden. The doom mongers breathed a fresh air of Co2 laden belief. Or is that relief? An ideal predictor of future world conditions had been found. A heroin to look to for endless wall to wall nonsense.
Her prediction was for the end of the world to be sometime during 2020. Thankfully Covid came along and all Climate change concern had to be put on hold for a couple of years. It never stopped John Kerry though, he continued to fly across the World in his personal jet demanding we remember Covid may kill you, but Climate change will definitely kill you, so don’t forget about Climate Change.
Maybe that is why we have this latest extension? It’s up from the current 2025 or 2030 being pushed into the public’s mind, by the ever subservient and pliable MSM.
On a personal note. As the end date keeps getting pushed ever forward, I am starting to be concerned, I may not be around for the big event when it happens……..

Last edited 2 months ago by Rod Evans
Rod Evans
Reply to  Rod Evans
November 14, 2022 3:17 am

Just did a count as best I can while enjoying morning coffee. I get 107 co authors. It must be a very important study…

guidvce4
Reply to  Rod Evans
November 14, 2022 5:04 am

LMAO! Wow! 107 co-authors who want to be tagged with this useless piece of garbage. Amazing.

ATheoK
November 14, 2022 1:57 am

From the Abstract, my bolding and underlining their fabrications:

“Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties.

Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration.

The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products.

The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models.

The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle.

All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ.”

A sordid mess of models, estimates and fantasies prepared by a host of authors are melded into one sloppy ‘end of the Earth’ warning. A typical waste of funding for alarmism purposes.

Alpha
November 14, 2022 3:09 am

From the conclusion of the paper:

“…A broad stakeholder community relies on the data sets associated with the annual carbon budget including scientists, policy makers, businesses, journalists, and non-governmental organizations engaged in adapting to and mitigating human-driven climate change, riding a gravy train for all it’s worth.

alastairgray29yahoocom
November 14, 2022 3:32 am

Such impressive scholarship One hundred authors wailing from the same minaret and beating a collective global breast. Sack-cloth and ashes for a distressed planet. I hope the planet does not end on a Tuesday in 8 yrs time because that is when they are coming to fit my heat pump

Duane
November 14, 2022 5:00 am

All the Ukraine war has done is change the factors in the who-produced-what formula. Russia sells less gas to Europe, so Europe, facing a shortage, buys more gas from other gas producers, including Norway, the US, and other sources of gas. The net effect of the war on the gas markets is temporary, and if anything results in a temporary reduction in natural gas usage, not increase.

What they’re really pissed about is that the temporary shortages in gas supply bring to the fore the dependence of everyday life on natural gas for most people … who otherwise wouldn’t think much about the implications of the global warmunism campaign.

Last edited 2 months ago by Duane
guidvce4
November 14, 2022 5:27 am

The climate circus continues to out itself with each new report. Now we have the names of some of the “scientists” who have no business publishing or proclaiming anything remotely noteworthy or believable.
They are all politicians working to subdue the folks with logical thinking abilities and common sense. The elixir they are selling is nothing more than complete capitulation to their scare tactics and submission to whatever their advice is to solve imagined problems. Oh, and massive donations to their cause.
So much excrement, so little useful results.
Just sayin’.

Ron Long
November 14, 2022 6:06 am

Wow! Looks like Nick Stokes, replying to Curious George, has set a new WATTS record for stirring up a hornet’s nest. He should get a trophy.

It doesnot add up
November 14, 2022 6:32 am

I note the attempt to convey a false degree of precision in their numbers by quoting uncertainty in terms of +/-1σ. Casual readers who miss that statement and who are more used to at least a 2σ nominally 95% probability range will gain a very false impression.

Eric Schollar
November 14, 2022 8:21 am

You would think that these nitwits would stop making doomsday claims with specific dates attached. Consistently making demonstrably incorrect predictions over many years, however, does not appear to discourage them at all.

slowroll
Reply to  Eric Schollar
November 14, 2022 9:50 am

All leftists assume the public cannot remember what happened the day before yesterday. Just look at the pontifications from the bolshiecrat parry.

Eric Schollar
Reply to  slowroll
November 15, 2022 2:33 am

You’re absolutely correct. To your example, we can add, inter alia, their obedient media. Along with activist and deluded academics, the Pope, school teachers, Hollywood celebs and The Doom Goblin.

cuddywhiffer
November 14, 2022 9:18 am

Any publication with so many listed authors is immediately suspected a ‘junk’.

michael hart
November 14, 2022 2:02 pm

When the credited authors list looks to be in the region of about 100 names then you know there is no coherent thought to the article.

Richard Greene
November 14, 2022 5:02 pm

They should have said 9.628 years = more scientific
Also +1.539 degrees C, not +1.5 degrees C.

The +1.5 degrees C. is a meaningless number that has already been reached April 1998 and February 2016 in the peak heat month of two very large El Nino heat releases. As expected, millions of people died from the heat — it was all the newspapers. Would have been much worse, but it only lasted one month each time !

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights