by Judith Curry
I have a new op-ed published in The Australian, here is the complete text.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a new Synthesis Report, with fanfare from the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres:
“The climate time-bomb is ticking but the latest IPCC report shows that we have the knowledge & resources to tackle the climate crisis. We need to act now to ensure a livable planet in the future.”
The new IPCC Report is a synthesis of the three reports that constitute the Sixth Assessment Report, plus three special reports. This Sythesis Report does not introduce any new information or findings. While the IPCC Reports include some good material, the Summary for Policy Makers for the Synthesis Report emphasizes weakly justified findings on climate impacts driven by extreme emission scenarios, and politicized policy recommendations on emissions reductions.
The most important finding of the past 5 years is that the extreme emissions scenarios RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5, commonly referred to as “business-as-usual” scenarios, are now widely recognized as implausible. These extreme scenarios have been dropped by UN Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Agreement. However, the new Synthesis Report continues to emphasize these extreme scenarios, while this important finding is buried in a footnote:
“Very high emission scenarios have become less likely but cannot be ruled out.”
The extreme emissions scenarios are associated with alarming projections of 4-5oC of warming by 2100. The most recent Conference of the Parties (COP27) is working from a baseline temperature projection based on a medium emissions scenario of 2.5oC by 2100. Since 1.2oC of warming has already occurred from the baseline period in the late 19th century, the amount of warming projected for the remainder of the 21st century under the medium emissions scenario is only about one third of the warming projections under the extreme emissions scenario.
The Synthesis Report emphasizes “loss and damage” as a central reason why action is needed. It is therefore difficult to overstate the importance of the shift in expectations for future extreme weather events and sea level rise, that is associated with rejection of the extreme emissions scenarios. Rejecting these extreme scenarios has rendered obsolete much of the climate impacts literature and assessments of the past decade, that have focused on these scenarios. In particular, the extreme emissions scenario dominates the impacts that are featured prominently in the new Synthesis Report.
Clearly, the climate “crisis” isn’t what it used to be. Rather than acknowledging this fact as good news, the IPCC and UN officials are doubling down on the “alarm” regarding the urgency of reducing emissions by eliminating fossil fuels. You might think that if warming is less than we thought, then the priorities would shift away from emissions reductions and towards reducing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes. However, that hasn’t been the case.
The IPCC has been characterized as a “knowledge monopoly,” with its dominant authority in the UN climate deliberations. The IPCC claims that it is “policy-neutral” and “never policy-prescriptive.” However, the IPCC has strayed far from its chartered role of assessing the scientific literature in support of policy making. The entire framing of the IPCC Reports is now around the mitigation of climate change through emissions reductions.
Not only has the IPCC increasingly taken on a stance of explicit political advocacy, but it is misleading policy makers by its continued emphasis on extreme climate outcomes driven by the implausible extreme emissions scenarios. With its explicit political advocacy, combined with misleading information, the IPCC risks losing its privileged position in international policy debates.
The impact of these alarming IPCC reports and rhetoric by UN officials is this. Climate change has become a grand narrative in which human-caused climate change has become a dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that there is only one thing we can do to prevent societal problems—stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative leads us to think that if we solve the problem of burning fossil fuels, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these other problems. The end result is a narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as energy systems, water resources, public health, weather disasters, and national security.
The IPCC Reports have become “bumper sticker” climate science – making a political statement while using the overall reputation of science to give authority to a politically manufactured consensus.
JC note: h/t to Dan Hughes for the “bumper sticker” line
The most important finding of the last five years is that there has been no warming in the satellite data for over eight years.
Where are the feedback effects that are supposed to drive extreme temperatures?
mostly the hot air from the likes of Al Gore with his “the oceans are boiling”- ever increasing, hotter and hotter
Maybe it’s like herpes and is just waiting for its chance to reappear?
The feedbacks are in the offices of media organisations like the BBC, CNN, MSNBC etc etc etc
That’s where the heat is generated.
No warming for eight years despite the largest eight year total of CO2 emissions in history
Every long term climate prediction has been wrong for over a century
Those are the two best weapons to battle CAGW propaganda, but Ms. Curry always seems to leave them at home when she is out in public. Not smart.
This is the feedback loop.
New York labels disadvantaged communities to get more climate funding (cnbc.com)
They can always recant it later–much later.
Vatican Repudiates Colonial Era ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ (voanews.com)
When one examines the attached image, it appears that at the frequencies that CO2 absorbs, all the surface radiation at those frequencies is already being absorbed. If that is the case, how can additional CO2 trap more? Where does the additional radiation originate?
“Back radiation” is the answer you most often hear. The assumption is that this “additional” radiation further heats the surface. But again, if all the surface radiation is already being absorbed and radiated back toward the surface, how does additional CO2 absorb and radiate even more? Where does the additional radiation originate?
I am not advocating that “back radiation” can heat the surface beyond what the sun does. Just trying to point out some of the logical faults in the greenhouse theory of radiation!
A nice graph, except the “H2O” label is totally misplaced.
You could argue, although I have never seen such and argument, that with more CO2 the primary absorption of surface radiation would be at a lower altitude. If that is the case then the blackbody radiation from the atmosphere would be from a lower and warmer region thus increasing the total back radiation.
The radiation originates from the ground, same as before the 2 x CO2….but 3 watts of it is blocked from escaping to outer space by the additional CO2 molecules. Thus warming the air by 3 watts relative to the 340 watts incoming sunlight…
See below Fig 4 for where the 3 watts comes from.
Happer and van Wijngaarden
or maybe more clearly Fig 10 in this:
And you can run it yourself on Modtran with fixed relative humidity while adjusting surface temp offset, to see the effect of additional water vapor feedback.
Those plots show just how saturated CO2 is. No matter how much additional CO2 enters the atmosphere the IPCC can only squeeze out a few more watts of forcing.
…squeezing a few watts….if you get in a discussion with a technically minded warmunist he will tell you that one degree of warming is 5 watts and that is 3 C of warming…or some such…
To oversimplify to the point where I beg forgiveness of my past Thermo profs, if 240 watts/M^2 heats the surface of the planet to 288 degrees Kelvin, then one might approximate that 3 more watts (from DM to JG discussion above) might add 3/240 = 1.25 percent to the temperature which is an additional 3.6 degrees on the 288. This is about the number that warmunists gravitate towards…
However, my physics instructors taught me that that 3.6 degrees warmer surface would result in about 20 watts more upward IR, by Stephan Boltzmann law. My heat transfer instructors taught me that about about 8 watts of that 20 would escape directly to outer space through the clear sky atmospheric window in the usual temp range of +90 C to -65 C (Wein’s law) which includes ALL of planet Earth.
Even if clouds block a fraction of the clear sky atmospheric window, the tops of those clouds actually reflect even more than 3 or 8 or 12 watts of the incoming sunlight back to outer space.
So, interpolating, this probably results in about 3 watts / 8 watts times 3.6 degrees or 1.35 degrees of warming for a 2xCO2 scenario (more over-simplification forgiveness pls).
Or less if more clouds are produced as a result of 7% more water vapour in the air per degree of temp increase, which would reflect more sunlight to outer space.
This is also ignoring convection and evaporation that carry the other 20 minus 8 watts of the 3.6 degree scenario (a factor of 8/3 too high !), to the upper atmosphere to radiate to outer space from higher altitudes….NOT really warming us down here at the surface any more and probably less than the 1.35 degrees….
The 3.7 w/m2 additional forcing that the IPCC claims will result from doubling the CO2 concentration comes from modeling the GHE. Not everyone modeling the GHE gets that number, I have seen one at 2.2 w/m2.
If you compare the measured OLR before doubling to the modeled OLR after doubling you can see where the IPCC expects to get the 3.7 w/m2. The additional radiation blocking occurs at slivers of energy along the band edges and at a small secondary location of CO2 blocking. Further models never produce accurate results in environments as complicated as our atmosphere. Bottom line, I question the precision of the IPCC results.
Pretty well accepted that it is the back radiation resulting from CO2 absorption of surface radiation that heats the surface beyond what the sun does.
More consensus ?
Consensus : General agreement or accord.
Yes that statement has a large consensus.
No. No one who understands atmospheric physics believes such nonsense.
What do you believe? What mechanism supplies the downwelling radiation totaling 340 w/m2 necessary to bring the Earth into temperature equilibrium?
I am not advocating that “back radiation” can heat the surface beyond what the sun does.
Really? Back radiation is about 15µ. A block of dry ice radiates at ~15µ. Green house gases intercept outgoing radiation just like your graph shows. What CO2 and the other greenhouse gases do is slow the rate of cooling, “back radiation” doesn’t “heat” anything.
Amazing. The surface radiates about 400 w/m2 coupled with thermals and latent heat totals about 500 w/m2 leaving the surface of the planet. The sun returns about 160 w/m2 leaving a deficit of about 340 w/m2 needed to maintain surface temperature equilibrium. Most people who have studied the GHE claim that energy is provided by back radiation from the atmosphere resulting primarily from GHG absorption of surface radiation.
Back radiation is in the form of black body radiation and is not just at 15 microns.
Dr. Roy Spencer some time ago pointed out that if you point your infrared thermometer at the sky you get a reading. It’s not zero, and that helps keep us warm. So you’re right. CO2 absorbs and reradiates at 15µ in all directions and prevents some cooling, it doesn’t do any warming of anything. So there’s some confusion about reradiation from specific absorption wavelengths and black body radiation.
…not just 15 microns…
Well you start by assuming Black Body radiation is a good approximation.
Surface top curve, Photon electromagnetic radiation emitted by surface is the area under it’s curve. “Sky” bottom curve. Photon electromagnetic radiation emitted by “Sky” downwards is the area under it’s curve. Net “HEAT” emitted by the surface is the difference between the two curves. You can’t have “back” radiation without “fore” radiation.
Now you just have to get your head around the atmospheric window and that the “sky” is emitting upwards as well as downwards to the surface and we’ll be on top of it…..
There are actually three curves right. The top curve that represents the 398 w/m2 radiated from the surface. The middle curve that represents the 340 w/m2 from the sky radiated downward back to the surface, and the sky curve representing the 240 w/m2 radiated upward to space.
The question no one is asking is what is supplying the energy that the sky is radiating. A simple energy balance shows that if 398 w/m2 enters the sky from the surface and only 240 w/2 is radiated to space then 158 w/m2 remains in the sky to be radiated back to the surface. To those who believe there is science in the GHE call that the back radiation or the downwelling radiation.
There are other mechanism that heat the sky but what is describe above is the GHE portion of the downwelling energy.
There is no doubt that co2 absorbs infra red which transforms to heat. But, as the comments here, and Judith’s post demonstrate, beyond that, no one is certain of the effect of this on weather.
However, our policy makers are most certainly bent on upending society, based on this uncertainty.
CO2 infraed absorption bands never reach saturation
That’s what a logarithmic effect means
The greenhouse effect (aka back radiation) does not add heat, it prevents some heat from rising to the infinite heat sink of space.
There is a water vapor positive feedback to any cause of troposphere warming.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm so the climate effect, along with a water vapor positive feedback, will be harmless
Also good news is that CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere forever — 50 years is a good guess, with a 35 year half life.
Also good news is that most of Antarctica COOLS from more CO2 in the atmosphere, mainly due to the permanent temperature inversion over most of the continent.
There is no sea level arise acceleration with tide gauges because Antarctica is NOT melting (the total ice mass is nearly the same as in the 1970s)
The logarithmic law no longer applies for our case.
The logarithmic law breaks down if the molecule being investigated interacts with the radiation by absorbing the light and subsequently re-emitting the light.
Another important reason is that the incident radiation is not the only energy exciting the molecules given they exist in the atmosphere, thus interfering with effective cross sections and total light levels.
And then of course the concentration is very high. According to sources the absorbance should be between 0.2 and 0.5 and I’ll wager we are way beyond that.
May I introduce you to Beer-Lambert’s Law.
Got to like any law named after beer
What did you think I was talking about? Did I have to spell it out for? you.
Radiation emanates from individual molecules in a random direction if they are energetic enough to emit a photon and transfer from an excited energy state to a lower energy state. The photon has energy E=hν where ν is its frequency and h is Planck’s constant. The wavelength λ can be derived from λ=c/ν where c is the speed of light. If we take CO2 at 44 Daltons per molecule and a nominal photon wavelength of 15 microns we can calculate that the photon has energy 6.6E-34x3E8/15E-6 J or 1.32E-20J, so a molecule with at least that kinetic and vibrational energy could in principle emit such a photon. The proportion of molecules at such an energy is given by the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution, whose key parameter is the square root of absolute temperature divided by the square root of molecular mass. As the atmosphere thins with altitude, a randomly emitted photon has a greater chance of escaping to space without encountering a molecule that absorbs it. if it is emitted hemispherically upwards, and a greater chance of being absorbed before it reaches the surface if it is emitted downwards.
“Climate change has become a grand narrative in which human-caused climate change has become a dominant cause of societal problems.”
The new Satan! And he’s created a time-bomb to destroy the planet and us! But the new religion will save us. It has priests, cardinals and popes and a doctor of climate theology, Greta Thunberg. And it has the MSM to spread the faith. But you can save your soul if you purchase carbon credits- then get on your private jet and yacht, to go forth and preach that the oceans are boiling. The wind and sun gods will work hard to save us too.
“The new Satan! And he’s created a time-bomb to destroy the planet and us!”
Satan doesn’t want to destroy the planet he wants to wants to destroy Western Capitalism and freedom. There are plenty of quotes from today’s Marxists that say exactly that.
Satan does not exist any more than a god does
Take it up with Joe Z. That aside, when someone talks about Satan, most people know exactly what they mean.
The leftists claim Trump is satan.
Trump and CO2 and Putin are the three satans,
according to leftists.
Radical Leftists are insane.
And they seem to be in control.
“Satan does not exist any more than a god does”
Can you prove – rationally, I mean – either of those dogmatic assertions? If so, please demonstrate it.
CC is the best tool in the modern Marxist’s political manipulation toolshed. They don’t talk about how many millions they purged when CO2 was 20% less plentiful….
as well as the former head of the UNIPCC who stated that the real goal was the destruction of capitalism
Scratch any hard core lefty and that’s what they say.
For the past 100 years
“…a new Synthesis Report, with fanfare from the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres”
So, what is new? Nothing.
No, that’s not quite true, what is new is the ever increasing level of alarm in the media. It’s Goebbels on steroids at the BBC with Justin Rowlatt leading the sermons of doom from the climate change pulpit. But then, alarm is the fundamental principle of the climate religion. And if you don’t share it… ask Judith.
Everything you ever heard or will hear will be the “IPCC’s starkest message yet” (h/t nature.com)
I confidently predict that the closed minds of the alarmist brigade will find little new to understand about the climate systems by 2100. Why would they? They know that at 350ppm CO2 the world will be the perfect utopia.
Don’t mention Svensmark…
Extraordinary theory and prediction requires extraordinarily accurate proofs or, at the very least, extraordinarily compelling evidence.
Neither the theory of a continually warming climate as a result of CO2 enrichment, or the idea that the warming may be dangerous come anywhere near to meeting these requirements.
Charlatans such as AG and MM use falsified and adjusted or doubtful data to play to the primal fears and emotions that are an integral part of the human psyche. Too similar to religious cultism and even mainstream religions to be accidental.
Politician use the scientific evidence that they choose to advance the dialogue that they require to advance their power and the ability to promote their favored ideology. The basic method is of little difference in it’s exploitation of human fears. They may be focused on different target groups and one of them will often target the other to influence the desired results.
The public becomes divided into two groups, the choir and the sinners. Both have rewards for their members that make it difficult to encourage defections from one to the other. Your proofs or evidence does not matter in the least.
One for oceanographers:
Circumpolar currents will slow dramatically affecting the climate for centuries. At least according to CSIRO models.
CSIRO used to be an august scientific body. Now, not so much as it struggles for relevance, it has embraced the koolaid to lubricate funding.
It is the business of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to promote the idea that the planet is approaching a temperature that will alter life on it in a manner that will make it impossible. The livelihoods of the “panelists” and their cohorts are dependent on the acceptance of their unprovable theory. Should the panel be dissolved and issue no further predictions of existential doom the unwashed masses would move on to other fears, nuclear war, perhaps, which is a more salient issue than melting glaciers and inconvenienced polar bears.
The entire framing of the IPCC Reports is now around the
mitigation of climate change through emissions reductions.
The IPCC Reports have become “bumper sticker”
Sound bites and Bumper Stickers work.
The argument needs to be won. Details about
IPCC Synthesis & Assessment Reports
Conference of the Parties
Projections by 2100
appeal to academics, the general population not so much.
Here is some sound bite & bumper sticker fodder:
More rain is not a problem.
Warmer weather is not a problem.
More arable land is not a problem.
Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
There isn’t any reason to reduce CO2 emissions
There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
The IPCC tells us, “We need to act now.” because:
Sea level rise & Ocean “acidification”
Declining food production
Hurricanes & Tornadoes
Droughts & Floods
Those things have either happened before or right along,
or are simply not true. And the bears are doing fine.
The above is not meant to criticize Dr. Curry, it’s a statement about the problem of getting the word out. People have stopped putting bumper stickers on their cars for a variety of reasons and sound bites critical of the “Climate Change” narrative aren’t likely to be seen on the nightly news. Boils down to money.
I’m selling a new bumper sticker for leftists
Climate Change Killed My Dog
They’ll buy anything that demonizes climate chante change
It doesn’t have to be true.
My suspicion is that skeptics are depicting plots of CO2 and temperature erroneously.
The idea on these pages is to make it appear as though the temperature is rising slowly and the CO2 rising rapidly.
Consider reversing the conceptual logic – such that the small increase in CO2 (0.01%), with say 4Wm-2 per doubling “radiative forcing”, cannot explain more than a small fraction of temperature change depicted in datasets such as GISTEMP.
In a plot of GISTEMP v CO2, therefore, the GISTEMP is rising far faster than can be explained by the couple of watts attributed to trace gas in consensus to date.
A lot of assumptions must be realized to account for the bulk of warming depicted in GISTEMP.
I have provided a schematic below.
The “?” depicts the part which is unexplained.
Just a thought.
NB : “Thinking differently from me” ≠ “Wrong / Erroneous”.
From the AR6 WG-I assessment report, in the “Technical Summary” (section TS.3.2.1, “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, Transient Climate Response, and Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Carbon-dioxide Emissions”, page 94) :
Looking for linear “trend channels” in the HadCRUT5 (Infilled) dataset, and seeing how they correlate (or not …) with cumulative CO2 emissions gave me the following alternative “schematic”.
Unfortunately I have got “blocked” in my thinking and haven’t advanced for a few days now, which usually means I’m missing something “obvious”.
The implicit assumption everywhere is that if there is warming, it is all caused by CO2.
In reality all warming depicted cannot be caused by a direct CO2 effect. The magnitude of other factors combined must substantially exceed the direct CO2 effect.
The direct CO2 effect upon doubling is by consensus 4 Wm-2. This accounts for <1 degree Celsius change at some distant time horizon.
At 50% increase of Co2 today the HadCRUTS depict already in excess of 1C.
The adjusted and homogenized datasets depict far more warming than can be attributed to CO2.
So, we must use our imagination to account for the rest. I have allocated this to the “?”.
There is no available physics or experiment which describes this mysterious additional warming.
Efforts to curve fit CO2 data are by default arbitrary.
My schematic is meant to illustrate a reasonable scale of direct CO2 effect according to consensus.
That is correct.
I “eyeballed” the scale on the RH-axis so the “Cumulative (FF&I) CO2 emissions” curve would (roughly) line up with my chosen “GMST anomalies, Reference Period = 1850 to 1900” proxy (HadCRUT5), and then looked at the discrepancies — in both magnitude and direction — between the “consensus” projection and the empirical data.
Son of a [ bleep ] ! I’m a [ bleeping ] idiot, aren’t I ? …
It’s right there in the TCRE definition provided by the “consensus” (IPCC WG-I) report I copied : “The TCRE falls likely in the 1.0°C-2.3°C per 1000 PgC range, with a best estimate of 1.65°C per 1000 PgC.”
Note on units : 1 Peta-gram of Carbon (PgC) = 1 Giga-tonne of Carbon (GtC).
I should have “lined up” the “Cumulative CO2 emissions” scale (in GtC) with the temperature anomalies determined by “TCRE = 1.65” …
Check the numbers in my updated graph (using “Total CO2 emissions” instead of “FF&I CO2 emissions”, the latter don’t agree so well).
“Other factors” four times larger, and in the opposite direction, from 1850 to 1918.
“Other factors” seven times larger, in the same direction this time, from 1904 to 1947.
“Other factors” twice as big, in the opposite direction again, from 1937 to 1977.
The only exception is the “current / recent warming period”, from 1964 to 2022, when the “other factors” added ~72% to the “expected” TCRE warming from (cumulative) CO2 emissions.
good thinking. keep up your good work.
In other words, the IPCC would have you believe, not merely that CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect, but that the memory by Gaia of CO2, which was once in the atmosphere, has a warming effect.
They reach that conclusion by noting the unremarkable fact that two things which have both been increasing for the last 170 years are therefore correlated, and then asserting (with “high confidence”) that that means one causes the other, even though there’s no plausible physical mechanism by which it could cause the other. It is every bit as ridiculous as blaming bedsheet strangulations on cheese consumption.
It astonishes me that something so obviously nonsensical could be accepted and published by so-called “scientists,” even in the IPCC. I was an AR6 WG1 Expert Reviewer, but I did not notice that particularly pure nugget of 24 karat craziness. I only read part of the 2409-page Report, and I unfortunately missed that part.
I wish that I’d noticed it, because it would have been so very easy to ridicule. It’s even more idiotic than the nonsense which I did notice and complain about.
the belief that removing a tiny, barely measurable amount of CO2 from the atmosphere somehow magically will solve all the earth’s climate issues – the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as a percentage of the atmosphere is tiny to begin with and the vast majority of it is naturally occurring and we can’t do much about that unless we all want to stop breathing – these people are nothing but absurd
Follow the UN money
How did a Climate Optimum morph into a Climate Emergency?
Leftists represent half of the population.
The dumb half, brainwashed to fear the future climate.
With no understanding that today’s climate is the best climate in the past 5,000 years.
And that from 5,000 to 9,000 years ago, the climate was better because it was at least +1 degree warmer than today.
That +1 degree C. warmer climate was called an Optimum.
An Optimum, because it was good news.
Today the Climate Howler Global Whiner’s are claiming that if the average temperature rises +1 degrees C. AND GETS BACK TO the Holocene Climate Optimum level, that would NOT be another Optimum
It would be a Climate Emergency.
A Climate Optimum temperature has morphed into a Climate Emergency temperature.
An amazing leap of non-logic.
To repeat, if there are any leftists reading this, who didn’t get it the first time:
A +1 degree warmer than today climate is called a Holocene Climate Optimum, because it was in the past.
And the CO2 level in the atmosphere was at least 25% lower than today.
A +1 degree warmer than today climate is claimed to be Climate Emergency, if it is in the future.
That can only make sense to leftists, because leftists have no sense.
Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
In 2001 the IPCC said, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”
When the IPPC admits that long future climate states are unknowable, claiming that we have an emergency is particularly unsupportable.
None of the foretold disasters have occurred. The Arctic ice cap is still there, the snow is still on Mt. Kilimanjaro, sea levels are rising at the same rate as always, the glaciers in Glacier National Park are still there, requiring removal of signs predicting that they would be gone by 2020.
Unfortunately, scientific facts are overwhelmed by a political narrative, even among some scientists who know better.
This is how things really work folks.
Climate is a label for political money deals.
New York labels disadvantaged communities to get more climate funding (cnbc.com)
On Cue, the videogamers who claim to be scientists are jumping out of their hiding places and shouting boo:
“Antarctic ocean currents heading for collapse- report” by By Tom Housden – BBC News, Sydney • March 30, 2023
“We’re halfway to a tipping point that would trigger 6 feet of sea level rise from melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet” by Catherine Clifford • Mar 29 2023
Imagine that. Its going to melt in “hundreds even thousands of years”. I am quaking in my boots.
Very nice Judith.
When has the UN not wanted authority over a nations autonomy?
“Climate Change” is just the latest lever.
From the article: “Since 1.2C of warming has already occurred from the baseline period in the late 19th century,”
That 1.2C occurred during the year 2016. Since that time, the temperatures have cooled by about 0.6C.
The 2016 temp. peak was a man-made event, caused by a Chinese edict in 2014 to reduce industrial SO2 air pollution. It was highly successful, and SO2 aerosol emissions decreased by 23 Million tons between 2014 and 2016, a HUGE amount.. The temp peak occurred simply because the atmosphere was less polluted, which allowed the sun;s rays to strike the Earth’s surface with greater intensity, causing increased warming.
Rather than temperatures decreasing since 2016, they have remained been essentially flat since then.
NASA/GISS J-D Land/Ocean
Burl, perhaps you are correct that less SO2 enhanced an El Nino that caused the temperatures to spike in 2016.
But El Nino’s don’t account for how the temperatures behave on the scale of decades.
The facts are that Earthly, or at least the U.S., temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age have a spread of about 2.0C from the warmest to the coldest temperatures, and when we are in the cool phase of the cyclical movement, it doesn’t matter how many El Nino’s appear, the temperatures still cool by about 2.0C over a period of decades.
Here’s the U.S. regional surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999) to show what I mean:
El Ninos were occurring all during the time period from the 1930’s to the 1970’s, yet the temperatures cooled by 2.0C during that period.
Something else is the control knob of the Earth’s atmospheric temperatures. It’s not CO2, and it’s not SO2, and it’s not El Ninos.
No, Tom, it’s SO2!
Here are several of my articles that you should read, all of which show how SO2 aerosols affect our climate:
“The Definitive Cause of La Nina and El Nino Events”
“Net Zero Catastrophe Beginning?”
“The Cause of Atmospheric Rivers”
“The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”
“A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
I see that the last link doesn’t work anymore. The article (and others) can be viewed on Google Scholar by typing in my name
I’ll check them out, Burl.
I see their science as selective manipulation of data according to opinion. And then there’s the politics. Change my mind.
It took a while to find the CO2 loss model in the IPCC reports. The model I found was in AR4 Ch10 in a footnote of a table. The IPCC claims atm CO2 decreases in a combination of 4 separate rates. 22% of CO2 remains in the atmosphere forever. 26% has a half-life of 120 years. 34% has a half life of 13 years. 19% has a half-life of about 10 months. However, we know from the 1963 14-C Bomb Spike the 100% half-life of CO2 is 11.2 years.
What is important about this?
The IPCC need to blame CO2 rise on human activity. In order to do that, they use the estimates of human emissions of carbon into the atmosphere since 1750. The problem is, unless CO2 has long residence time in the atmosphere, there is no way to blame humans for the observed CO2 rise from 280 ppmv in 1750 to about 420 ppmv today. Consequently, CO2 rise must be a natural phenomenon, and any efforts to control our emissions of CO2 would be a complete waste of effort. So much for using CO2 to grow government control over the economy and us.
The Bomb Spike is essentially a perfect tracer experiment. A bolus of 14-C was injected into the atmosphere over a very short time relative to the decay of the signal. The spike was twice the normal steady-state level of 14-C produced naturally by cosmic rays. The 14-C produced by hydrogen bomb testing decayed over several decades producing a very clean signal we could follow. No additional anthropogenic 14-C was produced in quantity to disturb the decay rate observation.
Very reasonable assumptions are needed. The 14-C produced by bomb testing was rapidly converted to 14-CO2 and was chemically identical to the 12-CO2 in the air in 1963. The loss rate of CO2 from the atmosphere is identical for the two carbon isotopes. Once the 1963 CO2 enters a major reservoir, it effectively is lost permanently for purposes of measuring the decay rate.
Why is it reasonable to assume the 1963 14-C doesn’t return to the atmosphere? There is certainly some return of CO2 to the atmosphere from other reservoirs; however, the returned quantities are composed of CO2 from all prior years, so any 1963 CO2 is mixed with dozens of years worth of other CO2 in a reservoir. Trees can grow for hundreds of years. Grasses and leaves are buried. Bicarbonate persists in the ocean at about 50 times the quantity seen in the atmosphere. Oceanic carbon is taken up by plankton to build skeletons and these fall to the bottom of the sea after the organism dies. The ocean is a carbon sink. CO2 returns to the atmosphere through eruption of volcanoes following subduction of ocean sediments heating in the outer mantle causes lighter molecules to rise through the crust.
The AR6 is a desperate move from a failing organization trying to breathe life into a climate based agenda people don’t care about. They need to appear valuable to governments seeking more power and control over their populations. Otherwise they don’t get paid. They lose the little power and influence they have. They won’t be invited to the important parties.
Maybe they will make a show on Broadway: Cry for me, Davos!