By Julius Sanks
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this new law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directiy with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4
— Dr Richard Phillips Feynman, Nobel Laureate, The Character of Physical Law (1999)
You can watch him making the point here.
Would that we had Dr Feynman’s ethical approach today! His thinking about the scientific process went beyond comparing theory with experiment. He was also well aware of other ways science could go wrong. In 1974 he gave the CalTech commencement speech. He titled it “Cargo Cult Science.” This speech is arguably the greatest speech on science ever presented. Why? Because in it, he examines completeness. Sadly, I have not found a video of him presenting it.
For those who are unfamiliar with the Cargo Cult, it appeared in various forms in Melanesia during the early to mid-20th Century. The best known, and the one to which Dr Feynman refers, was the John Frum Movement. During World War II, these cultists observed the belligerents using aircraft to move cargo, either by air-drop or landing on airstrips. Wanting this wealth for themselves, though knowing nothing about aviation, they tried to replicate factors they had observed. As Dr Feynman put it:
During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas — he’s the controller — and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.
https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
Dr Feynman then goes on to explain researchers should not only describe their findings; they should also report anything they know of that might make their findings invalid.
And that is the link to the Climate Cargo Cult. Global Climate Warming Change alarmism is replete with examples of cherry-picked data, irrelevant data, bad logic, deception, and stuff that is just plain wrong. There is also a lot of wishful thinking and, of course, fear-mongering. Alarmist claims are often ridiculously easy to debunk.
A recent example relates to Greenland. A University of Leeds team, as described in a press release, claims melting ice is causing all kinds of problems there:
An estimated 11,000 sq miles or 28,707 sq kilometres of Greenland’s ice sheet and glaciers have melted over the last three decades, according to a major analysis of historic satellite records.
The total area of ice loss is equivalent to the size of Albania, and represents about 1.6 % of Greenland’s total ice and glacier cover.
Where there was once ice and snow, there is now barren rock, wetlands and areas of shrub.
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-environment/news/article/5511/greenland-s-ice-sheet-is-melting-and-being-replaced-by-vegetation
…
Since the 1970s, the region has been warming at double the global mean rate.
https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-environment/news/article/5511/greenland-s-ice-sheet-is-melting-and-being-replaced-by-vegetation
The press release publicizes this paper, which contains a lot of whining about climate change and its effect on Greenland. The paper opens, “Land cover responses to climate change must be quantified for understanding Arctic climate, managing Arctic water resources, maintaining the health and livelihoods of Arctic societies and for sustainable economic development. This need is especially pressing in Greenland, where climate changes are amongst the most pronounced of anywhere in the Arctic.”
How fast is the ice melting? 30 years to melt 1.6% is 0.000533% 0.053% per year. That does not seem very fast. Indeed, at that rate it will take 18,750 187,500 years for the ice to disappear; but only if the ice is not replaced during future winters.
That is Climate Cargo Cult science.
Julius Sanks is an engineer and manager with experience developing weather forecasting systems and environmental satellites, among other things.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate science is more like Aryan Studies, Ariosophy, or Biodynamic Agriculture, than Cargo Cults. It is the active rejection of science, not ignorance.
Although I have never been exposed to it, by all accounts alarmist climate science sounds like critical race theory to me. Tortured facts, mangled language, and leaps of illogic.
They all follow the same process — critical race theory, consensus climatology, intersectionality, etc.: start with the conclusion, force-interpret the data to fit.
And when the TARDIS, which had travelled forward in time landed, the Dr remarked: Where there was once barren rock, wetlands and areas of shrub, there is now ice and snow.
The Climate Cult’s main belief is climate stasis. As it is now, it always was, and ever more should be.
It is I suppose like Creationists who believe Earth is only 9 000 years old and it and everything on it is exactly how Gid created it, and cannot change unless he changes it.
Heretic!!! 4004 BC, according to Revealed Truth!!! A bit over six thousand.
Salute!
Agree a lot about the cult’s seeming desire for no change – some kind of stasis. However, I have trouble finding what their utopian climate is supposed to be. And how many species of life would be eliminated getting there. And will my cherry tomatoes still grow on the fence in March?
Gums sends…
The climate cult’s sought-for stasis is sometime in the recent past, when everything was hunky-dory. Not the Little Ice Age, though; nor the Roman Warm Period, nor the Minoan Warm Period, nor the period when the Sahara Desert was much greener, nor the period when northern Eurasia and North America were a mile deep in ice.
All those periods were only an eye blink of geologic time in the past. Even the last massive ice cover was only around 20,000 years ago. On a 4 billion year-old planet, that interval of time is not long enough to comb your hair or brush your teeth.
So when was the dreamlike, proverbial stasis that bioengineers believe they can re-create by persecuting the proper industries, silencing the proper heretics, throwing the proper fits in traffic, and art museums, and so on?
Ah yes, the ideal stasis period was the Garden of Eden described in the Bible. Except the climate cult doesn’t believe in the Bible, or in God, or any of that other goofy stuff. The climate cult “believes in science.”
Right!
Correction: the Climate Cult believes in The Science.
Specifically, “their” (pseudo)”science.”
Julia, you said that if the ice melts at a rate of 1.6% in 30 years it will take 18,750 years for the ice to disappear if it is not replaced. I beg to differ. Do the math — 30 years to melt 1.6% is *not* 0.000533% per year. It is 0.0533% per year. I think you used the decimal fraction, rather that the percentage when you calculated 18,750 years to melt all the ice. Actually, it would take just 187.5 years to melt all the ice, not that I think that will happen.
1.6% ÷ 30 = 0.053%
100% ÷ 0.053%
= 1,886
Or
100% ÷ 1.6% = 62.5
x 30 years = 1,875
What did I miss to get a different number from both of you, and two different numbers myself (although rounding may explain that)? 🤣
0.053% versus 0.0533%
Asked an old friend, BS math, to check my math and she agrees it’s 0.053%.
Read the two calculations I did you dummy. One of them even states 0.053%.
I notice you didn’t offer any arithmetic to show anything.
1.6 / 30 = .053333333333 and so on.
What Richard is saying in his usual ineligant manner is that if you use more digits of accuracy, your calculations get closer
100/0.0533 = 1876
100/0.05333 = 1875
That’s what I said, “(although rounding may explain that)?”
I’m laughing at you proving you alias. 😉
Using the PIOMES decrease in Greenland ice volume, we get a graph for Greenland ice volume since 1900 that looks like this…
Oops…. that is not Piomes decrease.. Its the gravity-based GRACE decrease.
Surface mass balance looks like this since 1900…
30 years is a very small period to look at ice loss, particularly as it was gaining in the 1970s.
Uh, ‘surface’ has no mass.
(Ice on Greenland is considered very thick in the middle of the continent.)
And beware of sensors that are fooled by melt water on top of ice.
Nice sentiment, but your math seems off. I believe that the proper extrapolation of 30 years melting 1.6% is ten times shorter:
1,875 years = 30 years *(100%/1.6%)
That is closer to the ballpark of “we need to worry about the Greenland ice melt”. I still agree that you can’t extrapolate, because nothing about the climate stays linear for that long.
Ah! Sorry, I should have red further down to your post before making mine.
Non linear indeed. Surely it’s melting at the lowest elevations.
The highest point in Greenland is 12,120 feet. It will take more than a linear warming trend to melt it all the way to the top.
David, and Others: I think the 1.6% is surface area, not volume. This multiplies the time to Net Zero Ice in Greenland (NZIG, pronounced no-zig) by a lot?
According to GRACE, which is measuring gravity changes, and is over an active magma sac in Greenland…. so of suspect accuracy….
Annual mass loss from 2002-2023 was about 270GT/year = 2.7 x 10¹¹ tonnes
Total volume estimated as 2.6 x 10¹⁵ tonnes
That means that even if the current dubious trend continued, it would take some 10,000 years
Climate True Believers have low-wattage brains, and are unable to think in anything other than straight lines.
There is also the Greenland melt scare from around 1922 to consider.. then the re- freeze from 1960-1985.
I don’t see any linearity… I do see why AGW cultists would concentrate just on the last 30 or so years…
Yup, always the convenient cherry pick…”global warming” measured from The Little Ice Age, Arctic sea ice (summer) measured from the high extent at the end of three decades of Global Cooling/The Ice Age Cometh, etc.
Good. :-o)
1875 years ago was 149 CE/AD. Since then we’ve had the end of the Roman Warm Period, then an unnamed cool period, then the Medieval Warm Period then the Little Ice Age then the Industrial Warm Perriod.
A lot can happen in 1875 years. My best guess is we’ll have had a series of cold and warm centuries in next1875 years
Let’s revisit this post in 1,875 years and compare notes. 😁
Should we go ahead and book a place to stay?
🤣
If you haven’t booked a place to observe the solar eclipse in April, then you’re too late. If you book now for an event in 1,875 years, then you might get a place to stay.
Only if you can show your credit card company that you are a vampire so they can *count* on you paying the bill.
The cool period was named The Dark Ages. Kinda fits, no?
You’re all wrong
The right number is 97%
97% is a magic number in climate science
I thought they had changed it to 99%.. or is it 100% now (as you often quote)
Please don’t start him off…..
As if it matters. There could be but a single scientist who disagrees, and that single scientist is the one who is right if he has the better empirical evidence based argument.
Like Galileo.
(Ironically though treatment of him was tragic, his belief was not ne – someone had concluded it a couple of centuries or so earlier.
An excellent article on the scientific method, that was completely crushed by the second to last paragraph! Apart from throwing in a couple extra zeros while retaining the percent sign, Julius extrapolated the rate of exposing soil at the fringes of Greenland ice to remain constant as the ice sheets get thicker in the interior. Now, that’s bad science on display!
I noticed that, too. The depth of ice at the fringes is surely less than at the heart of the island. Thus volume loss is the important thing to measure, not surface area loss.
Yes. The elevation of Greenland is increasing at 17mm a year.
https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/greenland-ice-sheet-summit-elevation-change
The ice extent is also increasing. Greenland is tracking for 100% ice cover by 2100.
Greenland is an early indicator for glaciation of the NH.
Oceans are warming as they must with increasing solar intensity over global land mass so they retain more heat by the end of NH summer. That pushes more water into the atmosphere in September that comes down as snow over cold land in October through January.
Numerous new snowfall records again in 2023/24.
An opportune moment for me to post my Sanity Check, once again.
Using only IPCC recognised numbers:
Assumption: doubling preindustrial atmospheric CO2 will induce warming of 2ºC.
Assuming anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for 100% of warming, how long will it take to reach 2ºC of warming?
It’s straightforward arithmetic.
1850 – total atmospheric CO2: 280ppm (parts per million) (Vostok Ice Core).
2024 – total atmospheric CO2: 420ppm. (Mauna Loa observatory).
420ppm – 280ppm = 140ppm. Divide by the intervening 174 years = total annual average increase of 0.81ppm CO2 to date.
Mankind is responsible for 3% of total annual CO2 emissions. 0.81ppm x 3% = 0.024ppm.
Therefore, time required for mankind’s emission to double preindustrial CO2:
280ppm ÷ 0.024ppm = 11,570 years.
If we eliminate 100% of mankind’s CO2 emissions today – in the 26 years to 2050 we would alleviate warming by 0.0045ºC. (2ºC ÷ 11,570 x 26 = 0.0045ºC).
Chat GPT AI calculates man is responsible for 5.33% (not 3%) of emissions which is 0.043ppm. On that basis 280ppm ÷ 0.043ppm = 6,511 years before we reach 2ºC.
Run for your lives folks, we only have between 6,511 years and 11,570 years left to live!
Even if we assume that every single CO2 molecule in the atmosphere since 1850 were man made until the doubling of CO2 raises temperatures by 2ºC:
280ppm ÷ 0.81 = 345 years. But we need to deduct the elapsed time since 1850 = 174 years – the time to global Armageddon at 2ºC is 171 years. Not 26 years until 2050.
Which just goes to show that temperature fluctuations of 0.5°C to 1.0°C (or thereabouts) over a short timescale (30 years or less) can only be natural, they cannot be a result of man-made emissions.
Yep, if something is going to warm the planet by 2ºC over the next, say, 26 years, it sure isn’t mankind.
CO2 increases and SO2 decreases combined could add up to 0.5 degrees C. global warming in three decades.
That means you are wrong.
“could”?
Show me the evidence that it will.
absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence
Richard’s ‘logic’ is why we’re now surrounded by wind and solar farms.
Hotscot,
I hate to disagree with you every time you make this logical error, but I will, because it discredits us climate realists to deny reality.
Our emissions may be 3% of total CO2 entering the atmosphere from the oceans and land, but we absorb 0% of total CO2 going out of the atmosphere into sinks. Nature re-absorbs the equivalent of all of the CO2 it emits plus about half of the CO2 we emit. Which means that all of the observed increase in (harmless, nay beneficial) CO2 is thanks to our industry. We get all the credit!
You have fallen into the trap of accepting the false premise that CO2 increasing in the atmosphere is a Bad Thing and you are grasping at straws trying to deny that we’re responsible for it.
There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. CO2 is the gas of life. A couple centuries of fossil fuel use have gradually rescued us from famine and poverty. It is an unmitigated success story. There is no downside beyond the need to eventually build some better seawalls.
Maybe in the unlikely possibility that 100% of observed warming is caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect, doubling CO2 may eventually warm the climate by 2°C. Mostly at night in winter.
Another fallacy you are expounding is that it is relevant how much of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere derive from fossil fuel burning. If the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) really is 2.0, it only matters how long it takes to double concentration from whatever source.
Without further litigating what is raising the concentration, it has gone up about 100ppm in 60 years (1.7ppm/yr), and around 2.5ppm per year recently. To go from the pre-industrial ~280ppm to a doubled 560ppm would require us to add another 135ppm. At the current rate of 2.5ppm/year, it would take 54 years (to 2078). If it slows back to the long-term average of 1.7ppm/year, it would take 79 years (to 2103). If it continues to accelerate, it might happen sooner than 2078. And that’s a big SO WHAT?!!
There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY! Our CO2 contributions save lives!
“Our emissions may be 3% of total CO2 entering the atmosphere from the oceans and land”
It is misleading to call the annual carbon cycle “emissions” since they are balanced by absorption in the same year.
Earth has had a declining CO2 level probably for 4.5 billion years as CO2 is sequestered as carbon in rocks, shells, oil. gas and coal.
The result has been a huge DECLINE of atmospheric CO2 in the long run, reaching an estimated low of 180ppm about 20,000 years ago.
The CO2 is 97% Natural Nutters ignore, or don’t know, that nature has been taking CO2 OUT of the atmosphere (and ocean water) for billions of years.
Nature does not add CO2 to the atmosphere in the long run — nature removes CO2.
The manmade CO2 emissions have recycled sequestered underground CO2 and placed it back in the atmosphere where it belongs, and once was,
Burning hydrocarbon fuels, when using modern pollution controls, was the best thing humans have ever done (unintentionally) to improve the environment of our planet.
For years I have asked the CO2 is 97% Natural Nutters to explain where the approximately 250ppm of manmade CO2 emissions went to without affecting the atmospheric CO2 level. They become mute and start tap dancing, or just ignore the question
Because the CO2 is 97% Natural Nutters and their guru Merry Ed Berry the Contrary, are fools. And Merry Ed Berry is a science fraud.
Richard as you know, I prefer to consider my mistaken skeptical friends as allies in the fight against the societal collapse that NutZero represents. That is not consistent with calling them nutters or frauds.
I don’t preclude the possibility that there could be frauds on the skeptical side, but quite honestly I am unable to see how a skeptical fraud would profit from their fraud. So what would be their motivation?
I agree that Ed Berry’s work is wrong, but I don’t have any evidence to conclude that he knows that it is wrong. Making a mistake is not the same as telling a lie. Arguing for an error is not fraud. Believing an error doesn’t make you a ‘nutter’.
Yes, like believing atmospheric CO2 to be “static” absent the relative pittance human fossil fuel use contributes based on assumptions and estimates and the direct comparison of questionable proxy reconstructions with modern instrument measurements as if they are equivalent? 😉
Stasis is a false assumption, as is the assumption that our “contributions” accumulate to any degree beyond what “natural” contributions do. “Sinks” absorb any CO2, irrespective of source.
Estimates and assumptions of “net flows” are not empirical science. They’re just guesses.
NotSci
You know, I really don’t care very much whether you agree with my judgment of the interpretation of data. The only thing I care is whether you agree that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY and you cast your vote accordingly.
There is no doubt that natural flows vary substantially and there can never be a true ‘stasis’. On the other hand, paleo data strongly suggests that the inexorable long-term trend was down until we discovered fossil fuels. Since then it has been sharply up. Whether there was a rough stasis or a downward trend, something dramatic has changed.
As I said, this esoterica is boring to me. I don’t say that any skeptical theories are proven to be wrong. All anyone can do is weigh the evidence and make a guess as to which set of explanations seem most plausible. Then ask the actually important question which is whether there’s significant evidence that there is a climate emergency. As I see it, there is overwhelming evidence, regardless of the fact that nothing can be proven, that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
Poor Billy-M.. real science is really an enema to him.
The more real science is put in front of him….. the more BS he comes out with.
Thanks for a funny insult
I like them
When I want BS, I read your comments
It may be misleading but that’s what the climate alarmists believe.
How many times do I have to explain to you that my calculation takes the alarmists own numbers and demonstrates that it will take between 6,000 and 11,000 years for mankind’s CO2 emissions to raise global temperatures by 2ºC.
These are their numbers, I’m only using what they want us to use!
What more do you want? They don’t believe any numbers we care to provide them, but you are so up your own intellectual backside you would burn the house down just to prove your own meaningless point.
They can argue with you all day long. They can’t argue with me because it’s their numbers, enshrined in the IPCC, NASA, NOAA and all the other lettered agencies.
I even go to the trouble of assuming that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 since pre industrial times is 100% mankind’s, all 280ppm of it, and the calculation still shows 171 years before average global temperatures rise by 2ºC, not 26 years until 2050 the Net Zero adherents would have us believe.
Even the alarmists would find that preposterous, but not you. Oh no. You’re too obsessed with a sense of your own self importance to possibly recognise an argument that doesn’t come from you.
“it will take between 6,000 and 11,000 years for mankind’s CO2 emissions to raise global temperatures by 2ºC.”
HoSpud, stuck on stupid
Let’s use the spectroscopy estimate of the ECS of CO2 with a modest water vapor feedback:
+1.2 degrees C per CO2 x 2
2023 CO2 420ppm
CO2 annual increase +2.5ppm
Time to reach 840ppm = 168 years
Time to double again to 1,680ppm at +2.5ppm a year = 336 years
+2.4 degrees C. (1.2 + 1.2)
would take 504 years (168 + 336)
Not between 6000 and 11000 years, as you claim. You must be drinking again.
The 504 years to +2.4 degrees C. assumes there is enough coal, oil and natural gas to burn to get that mush CO2.
You can lead a horse to water……….
“It may be misleading but that’s what the climate alarmists believe.”
“….you are so up your own intellectual backside you would burn the house down just to prove your own meaningless point.”
The 250ppm is the total of natural and manmade. You incorrectly assume that all of the increase is manmade. This ignores the temperature dependence of the natural which increases with increasing temperature.
A +1 degree ocean temperature increase appeared to outgas about 17ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere in the ice core era.
But with atmospheric CO2 increasing from manmade CO2 emissions, the oceans become a CO2 sink.
They absorb slightly less CO2 than otherwise because of the +1 degree warming since 1880, but OCEANS, LAND and SOIL have been NET CO2 absorbers for over a century.
As temperature increases all natural emitters increase CO2 emission. For the ocean, theoretical and measurements show that a 1C increase in temperature results in a 1% decrease in ocean solubility which is about 100ppm not 17ppm. Small changes in ocean solubility produce large changes in atmospheric CO2 – far more than man-made. The solubility is not a function of man-made emissions but rather that of temperature.
What ice core told you the ocean temperature?!
+250ppm is the estimate of total manmade CO2 emissions plus a small addition for wood burning which is not tracked well.
Atmospheric CO2 increased from 280 ppm estimated in 1850 to 420ppm measured in 2023, up +140ppm
That means nature absorbed about 110ppm of CO2 in that period.
The ratio of natural/manmade is ~95/5. It is ridiculous to assume that all of the CO2 emitted from 1850 to now is due to man and not mostly nature. Also it is ridiculous to assume that only man-made CO2 is absorbed. CO2 sinks are not smart enough to distinguish between natural and man-made. That can’t be for a 95/5 ratio. CO2 sinks absorb natural and man-made in the same ratio as they are emitted. Your model defies known physics and chemistry.
And also ignores the time-lagged CO2 response to previous warm periods. Recall that 800 year time lag where changes to atmospheric CO2 levels FOLLOW changes to temperature?
2024 – 800 = 1224 aka The Medieval Warm Period.
Virtually all empirical data showing that CO2 does not impact climate change is ignored.
Tell me what “sources” and “sinks” for atmospheric CO2 are actually MEASURED.
The “everything but the pittance contributed by our fossil fuel use is ‘in balance'” argument is based on ASSUMPTIONS and ESTIMATES, piled atop the scientific incompetence of directly comparing PROXY reconstructions to MODERN INSTRUMENT MEASUREMENTS as if they are equivalent, which they most certainly are not.
So the scientific “high horse” you think you’re sitting on is but a two dimensional make believe one.
Kindly point to the bit where I said CO2 is a bad thing.
My calculation expresses there is no climate emergency explicitly. The difference is, you say it, whilst I demonstrate it.
Kindly read my statements, carefully. I will repeat just for you.
“Assuming anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for 100% of warming, how long will it take to reach 2ºC of warming?
Note the first word, I underlined here it and put it in bold just for you. “Assuming” does not mean it is certain. I am adopting the worst case, indeed, the alarmists case to illustrate just how ridiculous their claims are.
The question of where and when temperature rise will occur is irrelevant. Alarmists work on the average temperature of the planet. I’m using there own methods.
We can use 3% of emissions, 5% of emissions or 100% of emissions as man made and the calculation exposes the time it takes to reach 2ºC as 11,570, 6,511 or 171 years before mankind can possibly induce a global temperature rise of 2ºC.
Your final paragraph needs a lot of work. You have explained how long it would take mankind to raise atmospheric CO2 to a doubling of pre industrial levels, which is obvious and of little consequence, but you have not explained how long that would take to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 2ºC.
I have.
HotScot
As I said to NotSci, I really don’t care.
Is there a climate emergency or not? That’s all I care at this point in time.
We disagree on a whole bunch of points. And. I. Don’t. Care!
We can disagree and whether you’re 100% right, or I’m 100% right or anywhere in between, it doesn’t change the basic fact that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT I HAVE POINTED OUT.
HotScot, you are double dipping some of your math.
Mankind emits about 5% of the total Earthly CO2 emissions (we estimate). This would be sufficient to increase CO2 in the atmosphere by about 4 ppm per year. However, oceans and global greening seem to absorb about 50% of that additional 4 ppm. This results in monitoring stations like Mauna Loa showing about 2 ppm per year increase. So, by simple arithmetic, to increase by 400 ppm to double the present, would take 200 years. But note the huge amount in the oceans, absorbed by oceans. There is a large possibility for errors and changes in these numbers. There is a good possibility that over the amount of time it takes the deep oceans to cycle, 500-800 years, mankind’s emissions will simply become part of the 20 times larger natural cycle.
pertinent attachment can be found here.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/l10_p5.html
Mods, comment size parameter is far too small to attach a graph…a big limitation on intelligent comments for a science based site.
DM
The secret to posting a chart is to hold a powerful rare earth magnet next to your computer screen and that will pull any sized chart onto the comment thread
Atmospheric pressure at sea level, which averages around 101.3 kPa (101300 N/m^2), is due to the weight of the atmosphere above it. Dividing by the acceleration of gravity, or 9.807 m/s^2, results in a mass of 101300 / 9.807 = 10,329 kg/m^2 of surface area. Multiplying this by the surface area of the earth results in a total mass of the atmosphere
= (10,329 kg/m2) * 4 * pi * (6.37E6 m)^2 = 5.267(10^18) kg.
CO2 concentrations are measured in ppm by volume, or by moles. Dry air has a molecular weight of about 28.96, so the atmosphere would have a total of 5.267(10^18) / 28.96 = 1.819(10^17) kgmol of gases, mostly nitrogen and oxygen, with traces of argon and CO2, and varying amounts of water vapor.
In order to increase the CO2 concentration by 1 ppm (10^-6), the required net emission would be 1.819(10^11) kgmol * 44.01 (molecular weight of CO2) = 8.004(10^12) kg, or 8.004 Gt (gigatonnes).
According to the IEA, total human emissions of CO2 in 2022 were estimated as 36.8 Gt. If all this CO2 remained in the atmosphere with no sinks, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would rise by 36.8 / 8.004 = 4.6 ppm per year.
But if the actual concentration at Mauna Loa is rising at 2.5 ppm/year, natural processes must be removing a net 2.1 ppm/yr, or 2.1 * 8.004 = 16.8 Gt/yr of CO2 (45.7% of human emissions). This net removal rate is likely the negative sum of natural sources (animal respiration, emissions from oceans) and natural sinks (absorption in oceans, photosynthesis, and carbonate removal in shellfish).
If the CO2 sinks were first-order processes (reaction rate proportional to CO2 concentration), the CO2 removal rate would catch up to the human emission rate when the CO2 concentration is 4.6 / 2.1 = 2.19 times today’s concentration. If we estimate today’s concentration as 420 ppm, we would reach equilibrium at a concentration of 2.19 * 420 = 920 ppm, after which the CO2 concentration would stabilize. This would take at least 200 years (500 ppm / (2.5 ppm/yr)), since the rise rate would slow down with time.
Samples from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica have shown CO2 concentrations over 1000 ppm in the distant past, and life on earth has survived such concentrations. But if plant growth rates are doubled two centuries from now, this would be a tremendous boon to food production, and the earth could probably sustain twice its current population.
It is unlikely that a 2.0 F rise in surface temperatures would cause massive melting of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets. Ice can only melt if the surface air temperatures are above 0 degrees C (32 F), which can occur about four months out of the year along the coasts, but rarely occurs (if ever) at the top of the ice sheets, over 2,000 meters above sea level.
A slight warming of the climate could lengthen growing seasons in temperate areas, and could render additional land in Alaska, Scandinavia, northern Canada and Russia arable for crops with short growing seasons, particularly if air enriched in CO2 increases growth rates.
This doesn’t seem like a future scenario to be feared, but to be welcomed.
Yet another one!
It’s not ‘Math’ it’s arithmetic. Plain and simple. Stuff taught at junior school and really easy to understand.
You have shown how long it would take to double atmospheric CO2, but you haven’t explained how long that would take to raise temperatures by 2ºC.
And like so many others, you are so far up your backside with your knowledge of the climate you utterly miss the point that I am using the climate alarmists own numbers to refute their ridiculous claims of 2ºC warming by 2050, or whenever, being all man’s fault.
I show that mankind’s emissions, judging by past performance as presented by the IPCC, NASA, NOAA and all the rest, will miss raising global temperatures by 2ºC by 2050, by multiples of thousands of years.
“raising global temperatures by 2ºC by 2050”
The current center of the IPCC ECS of CO2 range is about +3.3 degrees C. (+2.5 to +4.0)
At the current rise rate of +2.5ppm a year, that +3.3 degrees C. warming would take 168 years, NOT by 2050.
Nut Zero Goal of 2050
Alarmists frequently claim they fear a +2 degrees above the pre-industrial global average temperature level … which is a made up tipping point based on a wild guess of the average temperature in 1850, which no one could possibly know with any accuracy
Yep. And I prove it’s ridiculous, whilst you waffle on with irrelevant nonsense just to hear your own voice.
Big pile of baloney
“Mankind is responsible for 3% of total annual CO2 emissions”
Mankind is responsible for about 2x the annua atmospheric CO2 increase with nature absorbing roughly enugh CO2 to equal half of the added manmade CO2 emissions
This is from the first five minutes of climate science 101. If you can not even admit where the atmospheric CO2 increase comes from, then you know NOTHING about climate c science.
You are a manmade CO2 emissions denier with absolutely no data to support your conclusion. (aka A Loser)
And nature is producing say 95% of the total yearly CO2 emissions.
that in no way says that nature is not producing 100% of CO2 year to year increases.
Those actual scientists not driven by “AGW nutter” ideology estimate some 20% or so of the highly beneficial increase in CO2 has been caused by human releases, the rest by increased biosphere activity due to warming.
The AGW Nutter, El Nino Nutter Underseas Volcano Nutter and CO2 is Natural Nutter emits a huge burst of verbal flatulence.
Nature has been a net absorber of CO2 most likely for all 4.5 billion years
The CO2 is 97% Natural Nutters look at natural seasonal carbon emissions and ignore natural seasonal carbon absorption
The El Nino Nutters look at natural El Nino heat releases and ignore natural La Nina cooling. They claim EL Ninos cause all global warming. But there were El Ninos from 1940 to 1975 along with GLOBAL COOLING. So I guess they cause warming and cooling?
Measured and calculated annual emissions are around 4-5% human the rest natural.
Since it is a cycle of absorption and emission, and nature cannot tell the difference…
Around 95% of that small amount of human released CO2 is absorbed each year.
Sorry if science and measurements get in the way of your AGW-nuttery !!
Not my problem. !
You are a science doofus who counts half of the seasonal carbon flow (emissions) and completely ignores the other half (absorption)
That adds up to perpetual climate stupidity, your problem that I can’t solve.
DENIAL of 3 strong El Ninos being the only atmospheric warming in 45 years.
Billy is a real AGW-nutter data-denier.
..
Seems you are the ignoring the fact that 95% of humans 5% emissions must be absorbed.
Don’t bother. Richard is a pompous ass who can’t point to anything to support his concocted claims. He just likes the sound of his own voice.
He’s to busy poncing around in pantyhose to listen to anyone else.
If I am wrong that AGW exists and humans have added a large amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, then almost 100% of scientists are wrong too. You remain perpetually stuck on junk climate “science”.
Weren’t you told to stop dribbling about fairies and pinheads?
Where have I ever said AGW doesn’t exist?
Unlike you I prove it exists using alarmists numbers and find mankind will raise the temperature of the planet by 0.0045ºC per year.
Where’s your number.
Don’t tell me, you don’t have one.
Where did I say AGW doesn’t exist?
How about the La Nina cooling events that you completely ignore?
How about global cooling from 1940 to 1975 with El Ninos? Do they cause global cooling too?
The ENSO cycle is temperature neutral in the long run and you are an El Nino Nutter
1982 to 2024 is not a ”long run.” 500 years is a long run. Your comments on ENSO are incomplete and speculative.
Jeez RG. Way to gently correct a fellow skeptic!
I am a proud graduate of the Don Rickles Charm School
In 2023 I decided to treat conservative climate myths exactly the same way as I treat leftist climate myths.
Otherwise conservative comment threads become echo chambers.
More like the Billy Madison “make everyone dumber” emulation society !!
You have lots of climate myths.. that your AGW-nuttery relies on.
Still waiting for scientific evidence of CO2 causing warming… 😉
There must be tens of thousands of scientific studies. Hire someone to read a study to you.
That’s a cop out which most likely means that you have no evidence.
No, Richard, I could not disagree more and I don’t write this expecting to influence your behavior because I’ve written similar posts to you in the past and have no naive hopes. I write it for others who may be persuadable.
Ridicule of alarmist claims made by the typical ‘bad faith’ alarmist troll has its place to be sure. We can be fairly confident that no amount of patient polite banter is going to alter the views of The Rusty Nail or Lusername. To the extent that their claims truly are ridiculous, it’s ok to ridicule their claims. And I would argue to taunt them playfully with disparaging nicknames. Not hard-edged angry hatred but playful dismissive ridicule that goes along with some substantive argument. If more people are persuaded than are offended that’s probably a win.
On the other hand, a person who already accepts the basic premise that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, but may have come to the conclusion with some oversimplification or who has been influenced by others who make mistaken arguments is generally not someone who should be ridiculed. It is better for them to persist in believing some errors about WHY there is no climate emergency than for them to be alienated and go away mad.
In addition, as we both agree, people who persist in spreading wrong theories can discredit our accurate arguments by tainting climate skepticism with an air of science denial. People will often cling defiantly to views that are ridiculed. It can be a self-defeating tactic.
We really want our allies to give up their errors so they don’t detract from persuading other people who can see that their arguments are wrong. We don’t really care very much about some troll dropping some minor point and seeming marginally more reasonable while remaining fundamentally alarmist.
What you seem to always miss is the effect of chaotic flame wars on persuadable observers. No normal person who is mildly curious about climate skepticism is going to waste hours sorting through back-and-forth insults in the Dickie & Nasty Show.
It should be possible to disagree politely and substantively with allies who hold mistaken views. It is important to do that precisely because of the risk that a persuadable person will go away shaking their head if nonsense goes unchallenged.
As I said, it is not my expectation that you’ll listen to my counsel, but maybe others will.
Are you suggesting my calculation is wrong Rich?
If so, please explain why.
I use alarmist data because no matter what data sceptics present to them they reject it. There are nuances, of course, but not 11,000 years worth.
And as I clearly point out, it is a sanity check, not definitive science, which no one else has produced anyway, so it’s really no worse than any other.
What it is useful for, however, is that with a few numbers and dates, I can explain this over a beer to an alarmist and get buy in at every stage of the calculation.
I get agreement on a few simple numbers (which are their own); those being the dates; atmospheric content; 2ºC of warming; 3%, 5% or even 100%, and get them to do the calculation on their iPhone, or on the back of a beer mat with junior school arithmetic, which demonstrates it takes 6,000 – 11,000 years for mankind’s emissions to warm the planet to 2ºC.
What I’m frequently confronted with here are people so clever they don’t understand basic arithmetic and/or they don’t understand the principles (maybe next time I’ll give a Janet and John explanation) or they are so far up their own scientific backside they feel the need to get into the minutiae, which a couple have done today, and evidently not bothered to actually read to the end of the calculation and realise the conclusions I reach.
So far, climate sceptics have spent 50 years contorting every single deep scientific argument to convince alarmists they are wrong and yet, we’re surrounded by windmills and solar farms with spiralling energy costs and deindustrialising nations, whilst China is laughing at us.
90% of the planet’s population do not have a higher scientific qualification. How do you expect to convince them of anything when you are talking way above their educational abilities?
Alarmists beat everyone to the punch by adopting propaganda, which even the most ill educated understands.
This is my little bit of sceptic propaganda which, by using alarmist numbers, they can’t argue with, although some will.
“Are you suggesting my calculation is wrong Rich?
If so, please explain why.”
Your claim that +2 degrees C. warming would take 6000 to 11000 years was refuted in my prior post. 500 years would be a good estimate assuming an ECS of CO2 of +1.2 degrees C.
Where did you go wrong?
Probably right after you logged in to WUWT. Downhill from there.
It’s not my claim dummy.
HotScot
I did already explain where I see that you’re off base. I’ll illustrate it with an analogy in a second reply. But first to the comment about propaganda. We are on the same page there. The battle is in the field of politics, not science.
Propaganda as a term comes from the Latin for the propagation of the faith. We skeptics recognize that the alarmist horde act on faith and promote doctrine. Whereas we prefer falsifiable hypotheses and only provisionally accept as likely true what we find to be supported by evidence.
Unfortunately, the enemy (and let’s be realistic, they are true enemies who seek our destruction), is never going to deviate from propaganda. I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot combat anti-human propaganda with scientific discourse with its talk of uncertainty. Moreover, their malignant propaganda is rife with irrational emotion that is immune to rational arguments and data.
For these reasons, our counter-revolution must incorporate strong appeals to emotion as well as to common sense. We may buttress this with sound scientific hypotheses, but to be perfectly frank, the science must be relegated to a status of window dressing.
Persuadable people must not be asked to evaluate whether there is a water vapor feedback. They need to understand that their standard of living is under attack, that powerful elites are enriching themselves selling out their country. The need to understand that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Where did I mention water vapour feedback?
My calculation can be done with junior school arithmetic on the back of an envelope.
Water vapor feedback is at the core of the alarmist thesis and I used it merely as an example of a scientific controversy that should not be the focus of our attack on alarmism.
I was agreeing with your sentiment that attempting to win an argument about the existence of a climate emergency by explaining nuances of complex science is not going to be successful when the listener, for lack of sufficient scientific training, cannot hope to evaluate your claims.
As I have said many times and intend to continue saying many more, I want to persuade as many people as possible that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. I will remain cordial and wherever possible supportive to everyone who shares that common ground with me.
At the same time I will challenge my fellow skeptics to embrace sound science and will continue to make a case against hypotheses that I do not find reasonable.
My purpose is two-fold. First of all because I am concerned that casual visitors here may conclude that WUWT promotes fringe views that they find disqualifying to the skeptical viewpoint. Secondarily because seeing an actual debate that is not censored, the visitor may be encouraged to believe that this is a welcoming forum where many (if surely not all) sincerely seek truth.
Ok, so to the promised analogy.
About 80 million people travelled out of the US in 2023, some of them multiple times. A very similar number travelled inbound to the US, again some multiple times. For the most part these are Americans visiting other countries and then returning home or foreign citizens visiting the US and then returning home.
The net effect of this travel on population is roughly zero.
Now at the same time, thanks to a corrupt and treasonous criminal administration that willfully refuses to enforce the law, a couple of million illegal economic migrants, or “undocumented Democrats” are pouring over our open southern border each year. In the past, many of them would have been deported but now they are ALL adding to the population of the US.
The 80 million in and out on holiday and business travel are analogous to the natural flows of CO2 that occur over the course of the year and which do not change the concentration of CO2 except seasonally.
The 2 million in and ~none out are analogous to the emissions we generate by burning fossil fuels.
Now as it happens 2 million is only 2.4% of the 82 million entering the US. We can say by your logic that illegal immigration is negligible, right? If the population rises from 330 millions to 332, only 2.4% of the increase should be attributed to illegal invaders, that is to say 48,000.
Do you see my point now?
Ref.
https://www.trade.gov/feature-article/2022-annual-and-2023-year-date-outbound-results
Your convoluted means of making a point ignores that whilst an immigrant moves into America, he moves from somewhere else thereby leaving a tiny vacuum.
Move a CO2 molecule from one place to another and you leave a tiny vacuum.
It’s still the same number of people or molecules, just shuffled around.
Oh HotScot, I like you. I will to like you because you’re a retired peace officer and a fellow skeptic. Sometimes you seem to struggle mightily to thwart my will to like you, but my will is indomitable!
When my analogy is inconvenient to your thesis it becomes ‘convoluted’. But it isn’t convoluted at all. You look at a massive seasonal in-and-out ‘breathing’ of the biosphere and focus only on the breathing out. As if you could inflate a blimp by breathing out exclusively and never breathing in.
It would be convenient for our case if we could somehow prove that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning do not raise CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. After all, if that were true then it would be a moot question whether increased CO2 concentration raises temperatures. There would be nothing we could do about it.
You and others rightly point out that we can’t measure each of the myriad sources and sinks with anything close to accuracy sufficient to distinguish the errors from the quantity of our emissions. And that is true.
But then the fallacious leap to the idea that all of the rise in CO2 concentration ’may’ be natural. We do not need to know any of the individual fluxes to know beyond a shadow of doubt that nature is a net sink of CO2.
There are two things in this problem that we know with relatively high precision and a great many that we can’t easily measure.
We know with good accuracy the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere and the total quantity of fossil fuels burned. If we look at a reasonably long time period, let’s say 20 years, then we can also improve the accuracy of our calculation by minimizing the significance of slight measurement and timing errors and variations in seasonal effects.
We can calculate the total mass of the atmosphere from the average measured atmospheric pressure, and the surface area of the earth. From this information and the measured concentration of CO2, we can calculate how much the concentration of CO2 would increase through emission of a given mass of CO2.
While the amount of CO2 emitted per unit mass of fossil fuel varies by type of fuel, for each type (coal, oil, natural gas), we can estimate the quantity quite accurately.
So that leaves the question of how much of each type of fossil fuel was burned over the period of two decades. How do we know this and what sort of errors are likely to exist in the data?
We know it because every jurisdiction records production and nearly all (all?) do so for tax purposes. The question of which direction the errors are likely to run toward is significant here. The more production reported, the more tax is owed. Thus the numbers are almost certainly under-reported. Lately with governments pledging to burn less coal, there may also be a bias to underestimate coal consumption.
Now why is that relevant? Because if the total emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel are underestimated and the production figures represent the lowest value practically possible, then we can already say that only about half of the CO2 emitted from fossil fuel burning has shown up in the 20-year rise in CO2 concentration. Nature is a big net sink over any typical annual period and over the whole 20-year period.
Any error in those fossil fuel production statistics is only going to lead to the conclusion that natural sinks absorbed even more fossil fuel emissions than the official record shows. There is no room in the math for nature to be a net source.
Now some will claim that there’s an assumption of stasis or equilibrium in play here. But that is false. Nature does not remove the same amount that it out-gasses. It is not static. In fact, long-term paleo evidence implies that nature has mostly always been a net sink, drawing down CO2 concentrations from perhaps 7% (70,000 ppm) down to 180 ppm by the last glacial maximum.
I suspect that you will also reject this analysis as being too convoluted. Well, I offer it for others to consider and not just for you. As long as you stand with me in saying that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, that satisfies me.
The climate Nutters are bums and it is long past time to tell them they are ruining any chance we had of refuting CAGW predictions of doom.
Nutters include AGW deniers and One Third of Atmospheric CO2 Was Manmade Deniers.
I was polite to conservatives for 25 years but in January 2023, recognizing that we are seriously losing the climate change propaganda war, I decided to treat all climate science nonsense equally.
Leftists claiming CAGW will ruin the plant are just as bad as conservatives denying humans can affect the climate. It was hypocritical to treat lefts and conservatives differently. So I stopped doing that.
The worst bums are the lukewarmer conservatives who agree that CO2 emissions are a problem that MUST be solved, but there is no rush. Then the debate shifts away from whether CAGW is really coming, or is just a fantasy
…to debating how fast we should reduce CO2 emissions. Judith Curry fits this description. Try to get her to explain why she thinks CO2 emissions are a problem and she tap dances around the question like a politician.
Those conservatives who deny AGW, which is supported by data, can never effectively refute CAGW, which is not supported by any data.
It is my assumption that climate Nutters who post here will say the same things to people they know, spreading their disinformation.
“Those conservatives who deny AGW, which is supported by data”
What is the data that you are referring to? I doubt that you have any.
He doesn’t have any because there isn’t any. He is an AGW nutter. I almost feel embarrassed for him…almost.
IPCC 1990… ”we are unable to detect the predicted signal”
IPCC 2023… ”Global warming is caused by humans [ it just is!!!!! ]
New data showing the above claim is correct….
Richard never produces anything but bile.
Still dribbling about fairies and pinheads.
Richard how is it that you think that by making yourself a butt of derision and angering those who in your mind are spreading error, that you will somehow improve the situation?
Don’t worry, Rich
It is just a child-mind’s plaintive plea for attention.
I have a staffy dog that regularly rolls on its back, gives a little yap or thumps it tail on the floor… and expects me to rub its tummy.
I see not much difference.
You are in the running for the dumbest commenter here. Keep up the good work
Full of sh*t as usual Richard.
I’m not making any claims, unlike you.
I’m using the alarmists own numbers to refute their claims.
But you are far too much of a simpleton to recognise that.
You misinterpreted the alarmist position and made up ridiculous numbers for a +2 degree C. warming. You need to be sedated.
What number do the alarmist’s claim then?
1.5ºC, 3.5ºC?
Plug them into my calculation then.
Sadly junior school arithmetic is beyond you.
While human burning and such might produce 3% or 6% of total yearly CO2, that in no way says that humans are not producing 100% of CO2 year to year increases. Maybe it is only 80% or 60% or some other number, but the % of yearly emissions is a very different thing than the % of yearly increase.
Humans produce about 5ppm of CO2 each year and nature absorbs abut half
+5ppm is 200% of the atmospheric CO2 increase each year
Human 5% emissions.. Nature 95% of annual emissions.
Since nature cannot tell the difference, 95% of that 5% human released CO2 gets re-absorbed.
And it only takes a smallish change in natural emissions to over-ride any human contribution.
Are you really saying that natural warming doesn’t increase nature’s contribution. !!!
That would be your normal Billy-M style anti-science. !
That is not correct.
There are many types of CO2 sinks. Some are already maxed out, some like plants will take years to grow enough to absorb all of the new CO2 being emitted.
Since they are not being measured, you don’t really know that. Assumptions and estimates are not data or facts.
Natural CO2 emissions are completely offset by natural CO2 absorption in a year.
Over the long term (billions of years) atmospheric CO2 levels have been naturally DECREASING.
Nothing more than an assumption.
Allow me to do a simple thought experiment.
Assume a world in which nature is producing 100 units of CO2 per year.
This same world is also absorbing 100 units of CO2 per year.
End result, CO2 levels are stable.
Now introduce something else that starts to produce 1 unit of CO2 per year.
What is going to happen next?
Under your proposed scenario, since nature was absorbing 100% of all CO2 produced before, nature will still consume 100% of all CO2 produced and it will be impossible for CO2 levels to rise.
The reality is that nature will continue to absorb the 100 units if produced before, and CO2 levels will rise by 1 unit per year.
At some point down the line, plants will notice that CO2 levels are rising, and they will grow, enabling nature to increase the amount of CO2 being absorbed. However, this will always remain just a fraction of the extra CO2 being generated.
Define the fraction please. I can plug it into my calculation and see what difference it makes.
And what pray tell establishes this artificial “ceiling” on what “nature” is capable of absorbing?
One thing I fail to understand is why some people are so desperate to believe either that it’s impossible for man to be responsible for the increase in CO2, or that it is impossible for CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.
They are so desperate that they have to invent ever more fanciful arguments that are ever more divorced from reality and basic science in order to defend their previously chosen position.
Did you even bother to read my calculation?
Apparently not.
In other words, the 2.5ppm is 100% of atmospheric CO2 increase.
I’ll accept that.
If that’s your argument, and if you can manage the basic arithmetic, you should have noticed I allowed for mankind being responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 not just 3%.
On that basis, from today, it will take 171 years for that CO2 to raise global temperatures by 2ºC, not 26 years to 2050.
“Assuming anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for 100% of warming.” As I state in the second line of my explanation.
That’s not to say CO2 is 100% responsible for warming, it gives the alarmists the benefit of the doubt which allows them no wriggle room for argument.
If you can manage a bit of junior school arithmetic, try it using my calculation assuming atmospheric CO2 is 90% responsible for warming, or 70%, or 50% or even logarithmic.
Better still, produce your own calculation with your own evidenced data and see how you go.
But you won’t do that, will you.
Mankind is responsible for 100% of the increase.
There you go. I’m happy with that and have allowed for it. It will take mankind 171 years to induce 2ºC of warming, not 26 up to 2050.
You could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment had you actually read the calculation.
BTW. You are wrong as illustrated:
“The UK emitted 440 million tonnes (Mt) [485 million Tons Imperial] carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in 2019, a 0.9 % share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The UK’s GHG emissions stood at 755 Mt CO2e in 1991, and have fallen steadily as the country shifted to cleaner energy sources and a service economy. Between 2005 and 2019, when the UK was still an EU Member State, the country’s GHG emissions fell by 35 %, much faster than the EU average. Land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) has been a modest but constant carbon sink, absorbing around 11 Mt CO2 per year since 2016 (2.5 % of the UK’s 2019 GHG emissions), bringing the UK’s net emissions to 429 Mt CO2e in 2019.” (European Parliamentary Research Service)
The Scripps Institute of Oceanography, UC San Diego derives information on the progress of atmospheric CO2 in the atmosphere from the Mauna Loa observatory.
There is not a flicker of recognition of the UK’s 35% CO2 reduction efforts between 2005 and 2019. In fairness the UK produces only 0.9% of global CO2 emissions, perhaps too small to register. However, one of the larger CO2 emitters, the United States of America emitted some 6 billion Tons of CO2 in 2000 falling to 5 billion tons in 2022. Almost a 20% reduction, yet still not a flicker of recognition on the Keeling curve.
It can be plausibly argued that whilst western emissions are falling, China’s emissions are rising however, the covid pandemic provided a global baseline of comparison. A study published in ‘nature climate change’ “Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement” found global man-made CO2 fell on average across the globe by 17%. Still not a flicker on the Keeling curve.
Just how much CO2 emissions reduction does mankind need to achieve before it registers on the Keeling Curve?
There is a clue. Were mankind’s CO2 emissions so prolific and destructive, why are they not plotted separately on the Keeling curve? The answer is obvious. For all practical purposes they are undetectable. That’s why we have wasted 36 years in pursuit of a phantom.
Fair enough. But I use the numbers the alarmists provide me with, at their insistence that they are correct.
Fine by me, I’ll use their numbers to ridicule their conclusions that by 2050 mankind will have warmed the world by 2ºC. They are out by thousands of years based on their own numbers.
+2 C. degrees warming since 1850 assumes about +0.5 degrees more warming by 2050 which is possible from manmade CO2 emissions and manmade SO2 emission reductions.
The main problem with +2 degrees C. is it is a meaningless finctional tipping point and the global average temperature in 1850 is a wild guess.
2ºC is the number the alarmists obsess over.
If you care to describe Vostok ice core data as such, fine by me, but argue it with the alarmists, then come back and provide me with a better researched number. Until then, kindly wrap up, it’s cold at Vostock……..
Read the calculation. I allowed for 100%.
It also in no way says that human emissions are causing ANY of the yearly increase, because the “natural” is nothing but ESTIMATES and ASSUMPTIONS on both the “sources” and “sinks.”
The fact that mankind only produces 3% of all CO2 isn’t relevant.
Prior to the industrial revolution. CO2 levels were more or less steady as the amount absorbed each year pretty much balanced the amount generated each year.
There were wobbles up and down as climatic cycles caused both increases and decreases in the plant activity.
Also you are counting the entire time since the bottom of the Little Ice Age, when CO2 levels did not start rising dramatically until after 1950 or so.
There are plenty of good arguments against the CO2 cult, there is no need to invent bogus ones.
For example, it’s been estimated that even if we burned all of the oil/gas/coal that can be economically mined, it would only drive CO2 levels up to around 800 ppm. Then we can point to the fact that for most of the last 100 million years, CO2 levels were over 2000 ppm, with some periods reaching up to 7000 ppm, and not only did none of the predicted catastrophes happen, but life thrived.
We can also point out that the rate of warming has been pretty close to linear since the bottom of the little ice age and that when the rate of warming was the same prior to 1950 and after it, despite the big increase in CO2 levels after 1950.
Te estimated CO2 increase from 1940 to 1975 was +7%
The measured CO2 increase from 1975 through 2023 was +27%
The big increase of GLOBAL average CO2 was after 1975, not after 1950.
Natural warming increased natural CO2 emissions.. well I’ll be darned !!
The ice core records show that it takes 800 to 1000 years for changes in temperature to influence the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
There is no way for the temperature increases since 1850 to have caused more than a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
But the Medieval Warm Period can!
7% of what?
27% of what?
Christ on a bike man, try to make some sense.
7% increase of atmospheric CO2 from 1940 to 1975 and a +27% increase of atmospheric CO2 from 1975 to 2023. Go find a child to explain this to you.
Show me a good argument against the CO2 cult please. I am using the data the alarmists insist we use. You have been using your arguments for the last 50 years and here we are, surrounded by windmills and solar farms. Way to go.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein
1850 is the preindustrial time alarmists use as their starting point. Who am I to argue, they’re the experts after all.
Typically, you (and others) wander off producing data that isn’t relevant because it sounds clever but is utterly inconsequential to the argument I present.
If my arithmetic or logic is flawed, please let me know, but don’t go lecturing me on burning all the gas and coal or CO2 levels 100 million years ago. No wonder you haven’t got anywhere arguing with alarmists when you can’t undertake a straightforward, logical, sanity check, as was stated within the first few lines of my post.
Which rather makes my point. Take my calculation and plug in a starting date of your choosing and CO2 levels at the time, and the time it takes mankind’s CO2 emissions to generate 2ºC of warming get even bigger.
Remember, this is not my data, this is alarmists data. All I do is make them look silly.
“Remember, this is not my data, this is alarmists data. All I do is make them look silly.”
HotSpud
You misinterpret the alrmists and make yourself look silly
First off, you are using their numbers, but inventing fanciful arguments that have no basis in science.
So your position is that since using actual science against propaganda hasn’t worked, we have to stop using science and resort to using propaganda ourselves.
Actually, my arguments completely refute your claims.
I don’t make scientific arguments. I adopt the logic of alarmists and use straightforward arithmetic to expose how ridiculous it is.
Meanwhile, all you do is snipe, and when I ask you to produce something yourself you don’t or, more likely, can’t.
Jeezus, how many times do I have to repeat this? I’m using the data alarmists obsess over. Whether it’s correct or not is irrelevant, climate alarmists believe it with religious fervour.
All I have done is taken THEIR numbers and calculated how long it would take to warm the planet by 2ºC.
Turns out THEIR numbers – NOT MINE, not yours, not Dicky Greene’s – THEIR numbers demonstrate it will take up to 11,000 years to raise the temperature of the planet by 2ºC.
Please try to embed that straightforward principle in you head.
The ice core “proxies” are not the equivalent of modern instrument measurements. Air bubbles in ice are not a closed system, and the absolute values of CO2 “determined” is likely all understated.
And as I understand it, there were higher values shown, but those data points were discarded as “outliers.”
You can “find” supposed “stability” quite easily when get to throw out the data you don’t like. If today’s instrument record was made equivalent to the ice core reconstructions, it would be averaged over considerable time – and then that handful of data points would be discarded as “outliers.”
Antarctica melting claims are even better
The claimed melting is 150 gigatons a year, which could be a rounding error, versus a 24.4 million gigaton total ice mass estimate (most other estimates are higher)
If the alleged melting continues, which means the current interglacial will never end, it will take 1.6 million years for all the Antarctica ice to melt
I can’t wait.
👍
Antarctica has been slowly freezing over the last 50 million years. So now it’s gonna melt in two shakes of a lamb’s tail??
A small portion of Antarctica does melt: The small peninsula from nearby underseas volcanoes and ocean currents and a few ice shelves from nearby underseas volcanoes.
The rest of Antarctica has a permanent temperature inversion and does not melt — actually gets colder — from more greenhouse gases.
The pink areas on the chart below are the permanent temperature inversions portions of Antarctica … which has about 90% of ice on land for the entire planet, which will not melt from more CO2
So we’ve saved the planet from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet then. QUICK! Advise the BBC, CNN, CCN, and all the rest of the media climate foamers that the climate crisis is canceled.
Last greenhouse period with no Antarctica ice was to 34 million years ago.
Dinosaurs 230 to 65 million years ago
No ice on Antarctica and you get dinosaurs in your back yard.
Okay, my math has been challenged. 1.6% = 0.16. You got me on the annual rate; it’s .0053, or 0.053%, per year. My bad. Percentages have been my curse since high school, especially in scientific notation. That said, I believe 18,750 years is correct. I just crunched that again. It’s a proportion:
30 years for 0.16; how many years for 100?
0.16/30 = 100/x
x(0.16/30) = 100
x = (30*100)/0.16
x = 18,750
My math as follows
100 ÷ 1.6 = 62.5
62.5 × 30 = 1875
“Okay, my math has been challenged. 1.6% = 0.16.”
No.
1.6% = 0.016
Good article.
Edit: then 1/0.016=62.5 periods of 30 years or 1875 years total.
100% ÷ 1.6%
x 30 years?
Ah! Now I think I see what you did . . . .
“30 years for 0.16; how many years for 100?”
You’re mixing percentage and proportion when you need to be consistent. Either of these would work:
• 30 years for 1.6%; how many for 100%?
• 30 years for 0.16; how many for 1.00?
Reasonability check . . . .
With either form one can see that the 30 year period resulted in melting somewhere between 1/50th and 1/100th of the total.
If the melting continued at this rate it would take between 50x30y=1500y and 100x30y=3000y to melt all of the ice.
So, somewhere between 1,500 and 3,000 years? 1,875 looks better than 18,750.
Anyway, that’s what I think.
Oh boy, Julius, SMH!
1.6% can be expressed as 0.016, not 0.16, which would be 16%.
100% is also expressed as 1.0
1.0/0.016 = 62.5
or
100%/1.6% = 62.5
So just extrapolating (always a dubious practice), it would take 62.5 times as long as it has taken to melt 1.6% (also very bogus because it’s an AREA of thin ice disappearing around the edges vs miles thick in the interior).
But the sketchy math says 62.5 x 30 = 1875 yrs.
Just so you know, I got so much flak about my math I asked an old friend, BS math, to check it. She says it’s actually 187,500, as I corrected myself. Thanks to CTM for updating my text.
As I mention below. I’m on to your game. Nobody, even my dear wife, is that bad at math. You’re playing some kind of game to see how we will react.
I like the nuance there, your “old friend, bullshit math”. You wanted to imply your old friend with a bachelor of science in mathematics, and I’m sure many of us swallowed that hook, line, sinker and bobber.
Anxiously awaiting what your big aha takeaway is in this tomfoolery.
Percentages are his curse. Oh, and decimals.
Let’s not even TALK ABOUT “Base 5.”
🤣 😅
Real peer review in action
Arctic Canada + Greenland ice area is actually pretty close to its highest extent in 8000+ years..
Yes.. a bit less than during the LIA, but not much.
Greenland ice can only melt if the current interglacial lasts forever. That would be an unprecedented event. The whole concept is silly science
Mr. Sanks, your percentage conversions are atrocious! 0.016 = 1.6%. 0.0053 = 0.53%. You move the decimal point two places.
I came here to also comment on the off-by-100 arithmetic error, and see it is well-covered.
But in addition, I don’t trust that 1.6%. That’s too small for me to trust, for one; measuring surface area of a huge island with non-linear coastlines is a tricky business, especially prone to bias errors.
But more to the point, is the measurement surface area only, or does it take into consideration depth? I haven’t read the original and don’t intend to, because even if it claims to, that is even harder to measure accurately and even more prone to bias errors. But the summary quotes the report as saying “An estimated 11,000 sq miles” which sure looks like depth was not considered. It’s as useless as measuring your wealth by counting how many bank accounts you have.
Agree entirely, but I do like using the numbers the highbrow pseudo scientists in these universities produce to illustrate with straightforward arithmetic how ludicrous their claims are.
Seriously, you would have thought one of these bright sparks would have done a quick sanity check on the back of an envelope to understand what their claims actually represent in the real world.
I also feel the same about of paleoclimatic proxy data and paleoclimate reconstructions data. The margins of error in those must be crazy.
yep.
What they’ve measured is like the thin ice you might get on a puddle after a frosty night and then assuming that the 3-dimensinal Titanic-sinking monster iceberg next to it will melt at the same speed
And that was/is my suggestion for recording sea level rise.
>> It is entirely my conviction that most if not all the observed SLR is due to us shovelling dirt into the water – the water **seems** to be rising due to Archimedes Principle
The data must be out there already. What is important for SLR is not how high the tide rises but the *volume* of land that is not in the water
With GPS now able to record height, longitude and latitude to centimetre accuracy now, it has to the simplest thing ever to measure The Volume of Dry Land.
To assert that sea level is rising, prove/demonstrate that the volume of land is decreasing.
it’s that simple
Suggesting the climate industrial complex find a new method of fiddling the data is not a good idea Peta.
Besides, the amount of material mankind shovels into the oceans undoubtedly pales into insignificance compared natural erosion etc.
So you’re good with some unnamed, unknown entity accessing your GPS data, that tells precisely every place you have been, and even how long you stayed there (try that on your wife, she’s not going to believe you were just dropping off groceries if you stayed six hours), to calculate ummm… anything? Of course there’s no way that can go wrong. /s
Let’s do a little math.
Surface area of earth: 5.1×10^14m^2
% of surface covered by ocean: 71%
sea level rise: ~2mm/yr or 2×10^-3m/yr
(5.1×10^14)(0.71)(2×10^-3)m^3/yr
= 7.2×10^11 m^3/yr
(720 billion cubic meters per year)
That would be about two billion cubic meters of soil washed into the oceans each DAY.
23,000 cubic meters per second.
The total flow of rivers is ~1.2 million cubic meters per second.
Meaning that you claim that on average, river water, as it enters the ocean, is about 2% dirt by volume.
Is that reasonable?
Beat me to it. 👍
Earlier articles using estimated total Greenland ice volume and claimed yearly ice melted volume calculated 1000 years to melt 1% of total Greenland ice.
Aside from the percent/year math, the paper cited says:
“An estimated 11,000 sq miles or 28,707 sq kilometres of Greenland’s ice sheet and glaciers have melted over the last three decades, according to a major analysis of historic satellite records.”
Note that it uses units if area, not volume or mass. This implies that 40% of Greenland’s ice cover has melted. The claim is clearly absurd as the appearance of 11,000 square miles of ice free land and the huge sea level rise that would involve would be hard to miss.
OT: Just saw an LA Times article on the recent speculative AMOC tipping point collapse paper. The article manages to avoid mentioning that the paper included a time frame estimate from the model that indicated the tipping point would be reached in about 1,700 years. The LAT tried hard to suggest the AMOC collapse is imminent by 2100.
Good points.
Something else that puzzles me is that assuming the oceans warmed enough to melt all the sea ice around Antarctica – causing little to no sea level rise, the sea eventually reaches the continent itself.
Being that Scott froze to death at 40ºC below zero during its summer, how does the warmer water then reach the land bound ice with no meaningful sea level rise? Ambient air temperatures aren’t going to fall by 40ºC any time soon to melt that.
The concept of Antarctica melting at all without an immense rise in atmospheric temperatures beats me.
The frequently expressed belief is that the sea ice, frequently braced against underwater mountain peaks (sea ice can be 1000s of feet thick in places) holds the land ice in place. With sea ice gone, glacial advance into the sea (where it would become melting sea ice) and glacial calving into the sea ( where it would melt much faster) would greatly increase, causing much large net loss of ice currently on land.
Without any study, my impression of Greenland sea ice melt is that it might have that effect in some places but more generally the thinner coastal ice has melted while the majority of ice is inside the mountain bowl, at much higher altitudes, so it cannot readily flow into the sea. Maybe something similar exist, at least in some places, in Antarctica.
Fair point.
The continent bound ice wouldn’t sit still if the sea ice melted, which it’s doing, and has done for millions of years, replenished by snowfall, compacted into ice, which migrates across the continent to the sea.
Wasn’t it about 70 years for the Arctic ice to swallow a WW2 bomber that crashed there, was covered in snow, which was compacted to ice, and the plane spat out at the bottom of a glacier?
Nailed it, Rick!
The numbers here completely crazed..
I tried to verify by using the land area figures that Leeds present..
Leeds assert that Greenland is 2.1 million km² and that, over 30 years, 28,707 km² have melted
The sum then becomes = 100*28707/2100000 = 1.367% of Greenland total area has melted in last 3 decades.
But then they also say that over last 30 years, vegetation has increased by 87,475 km²
Do we then take it that, 30 years ago, (87475-28707) = 58,768km² were already ice-free but not growing greenery
The Big Question is, when did that 58,768 km² actually melt and especially, why was it not green prior to 30 yrs ago?
You are asking the questions Leeds themselves should have asked before they produced their paper.
God bless Leeds (my old school), just look at the rabbit hole I fell into
The link we were given pointed to their ‘Greenland’ report and also to the Environment School at Leeds, so off I went to find them (via a computer model) slagging off my pet project = Tree Planting.
Their model says that trees will make climate worse because they have lower Albedo than grassland. And affect ‘other greenhouse gases’ by 30%
?????
OK but what ‘grassland’. What about the Albedo of arable land. Maybe it is =grassland’ but only for 2 months of the year, else it has the Albedo of asphalt
So off I goes to find some Albedo numbers = as attached.
That only covers Jan ’86 to Dec ’89 but Holy Cow, Earth’s Albedo plummeted from about 0.25 down to about 0.15
And where the fug does that leave the figure used arrive at ‘Green House Warming’ Effect of 0.30??!!!!!
For places on the equator, I get that to mean that over 48Watts/m² of extra heat energy were being absorbed by Planet Earth
And those are Real Watts coming from a hot object (El Sol at 5,500 Celsius) and not Imaginary Watts coming from CO₂ molecules radiating at minus 79 Celsius
What a complete mess.
Planting trees does not work because they absorb CO₂
Trees work because they absorb water then store it within themselves and also immense amounts of it in the soil/ground beneath them.
They capture water at night, raising the temp from what it would be then release it during daytime, lowering the temperature around themselves
oh bollox, here’s the picture…
It’s from here:
http://www.climatedata.info/forcing/albedo/
Climate Change/Global Warming alarmism is replete with examples of cherry picking, irrelevant data, bad logic, deception, wishful thinking, fear-mongering and stuff that is just plain wrong.
The Harry and Louise ad campaign that destroyed the Clinton health care plan should be resurrected to destroy Climate Change Policy insanity. Insurance companies foot the bill for the those TV ads. Is there anyone with $20 million laying around to do it.
I tell people that power stations, dams and nuclear plants are being torn down or decommissioned in the name of saving the planet from CO2. We are being told that the world’s economy can be run by wind turbines and solar panels. And I get blank stares.
My efforts to point out data and basic physics gets me the response that we just don’t yet know how to turn 100% of wind into 300% of electricity, not that there are any real limitations of physics or chemistry (such as for bateries). Also, even from official web sites on things like C40 cities and 15 minute cities, any suggestions that there will be limits placed on personal freedom is just right wing propaganda; only good will come from such plans.
The 1.6% relates to surface area covered by ice. Nothing is known about how that translates to ice volume. Therefore any estimate of timescale is impossible.
look here
https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-greenland-ice-melt/
mods, it seems you can’t post a graph any more. What’s up ? WUWT comments often require more than a one-liner Rodney Dangerfield response…
You mean that graphik ?
story tip
Cambridge U. Climate Scientist Dr. Mike Hulme Denounces ‘Climate Emergency’ As ‘Noble Lie’
https://www.climatedepot.com/2024/02/26/watch-cambridge-u-climate-scientist-dr-mike-hulme-denounces-climate-emergency-as-noble-lie/
An ignoble lie for us at the receiving end.
Hulme is nobly wrong.
AGW cult. Not a perfect analogy, but humans are very prone to taking little bits of “ truth”, evidence, plausibility, conceptuality and building theories into a massive construct- all built on a highly flawed foundation.
The little bits of “ truth” or plausibility can be used in a similar way to create some of the most devastating con jobs. And if there is something to be gained ( or gamed!), well then be exceptionally skeptical ie: Investing , AI, Bitcoin, NFTs, WEB 3.O. Climate: Green Energy Solar, Windmills, EVs etc, Politics/Economics: Adam Smith, Marx, Galbraith, Keynes – Moral hazard social welfare state, “Great Society”
Sociology/ psychology Propaganda , nudging ,“best and the brightest “, Critical race theory and on and on, Results- Mass movement and delusion = a heavily damaged society.
Well you get the idea.
… From that data, we find that the 1981 – 2010 thirty-year average mass balance for the Greenland ice sheet was a net loss of 103 billion tonnes …
… We can ask, IF Greenland were to continue losing ice mass at a rate of 103 billion tonnes per year, how long would it take to melt say half of the ice sheet? Not all of it, mind you, but half of it. (Note that I am NOT saying that extending a current trend is a way to estimate the future evolution of the ice sheet—I’m merely using it as a way to compare large numbers.)
To answer our question if 103 billion tonnes lost per year is a big number, we have to compare the annual ice mass loss to the amount of ice in the Greenland ice sheet. The Greenland ice sheet contains about 2.6E+15 (2,600,000,000,000,000) tonnes of water in the form of snow and ice.
So IF the Greenland ice sheet were to lose 103 billion tonnes per year into the indefinite future, it would take about twelve thousand five hundred years to lose half of it …
And even if the loss were to jump to ten times the long-term average, it would still take twelve hundred years to melt half the ice on the Greenland ice sheet. Even my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren won’t live long enough to see that. …
Greenland Endures
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/03/greenland-endures/
Well, I had not expected such a lively discussion. The 0.000533%/year value is correct; 0.016/30. The time to melt everything is 187,500 years: 30*100/0.016. Next time I’ll have a friend check my math! I’ve asked CTM to update the text to the correct value.
Nope. Still off by two orders of magnitude.
The calculation comes to1875 years, but it’s a bogus calculation to assume all areas would melt at the same rate regardless of thickness. So ironically your wrong math may be much closer to reality than the correct calculation.
I am aware it’s bogus to ignore volume. Regarding 1875, I’m in some kind of decimal place hell and getting a friend with a BS math to check my work. Should have done that before submitting the piece.
No necessity to amuse with %, only 100/1,6×30
As 100 and 1.6 as fraction are % both % cancel down
Percent is not a unit. It’s a notation, so cannot be cancelled down.
100% ÷ 1.6% x 30 = Same thing.
Per my old friend with a BS math, the correct number is 187,500 years. Ignoring that pesky ice volume problem. I respectfully suggest your original calculation assumed percent is a unit that can cancel out. Nope; percent is not a unit.
I get it now. You’re punking me, trying to see how long you can get me to believe that you’re serious?
You know that you could easily check your answer for reasonableness. What is 1.6% of 187,500 years? Is it 30 years?
(1.6/100)(187500) = 3000
wait – wait, don’t tell me. You’ll do that as:
(.016/100)(187500) = 30
OK, so I’m dim. What deep message are you trying to convey with this game?
That there are people, scientists or otherwise, who believe in and practice these rules of honest investigation and discovery is a boon to us all. That they appear to be vastly outnumbered by the people who sold their souls for fame, money and power is an albatross we should struggle every day to remove from our collective necks in order to allow society and our planet to flourish.
The how long will it take the ice to melt predictions are silly science
The estimates assume the current warming trend within an interglacial will never end.
We live in a near ideal climate for humans, animals and plants for an ice age period.
This interglacial will not last forever and the ice melting will stop.
Not that the melting from global warming is fast enough to be visible as sea rise acceleration in tide gauge charts.
[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE’A recent example relates to Greenland. A University of Leeds team, as described in a press release, claims melting ice is causing all kinds of problems there:
It should be noted that the article records an area of ice melted, not a volume. The newly exposed land is likely near the coast, where the ice wasn’t very thick to begin with, while the Greenland ice sheet is over 2,000 meters thick in the interior, where it is held in place by a ring of mountains. So the 1.6% of area melted in 30 years represents a much smaller percentage of the volume of the ice sheet.
If part of the ice-covered area is replaced by “wetlands and areas of shrub”, maybe people could go back to fishing or raising crops or sheep there, like the Vikings did during the Medieval Warm Period.
Very nice, I think half truths are more dangerous than flat out lies. These jokers need to be called out every time. They are liars and cheats.
The Norse tried to settle Greenland, near the current municipality of Kujalleq, between year 985 and 1002 and died out sometime after their last recorded contact in 1408, likely due to disease and starvation during the Little Ice Age. During the same time as the colony began to collapse, Inuit actually moved into the same area as their more Northerly territory and hunting grounds became too iced over year round.
Just what the Norse would have needed was University of Leeds “maintaining the health and livelihoods of Arctic societies and for sustainable economic development”. Gotta wonder, though, how the Inuit got along without them.
Story Tip.
After All the Media Hype, Wildfires Across Southern Europe Were Completely Normal in 2023 – The Daily Sceptic
Serious thanks to CTM for updating my text after an old friend with a BS math corrected my numbers! Jeez, and I have a BS aero engineering. Charles, if we ever get together in person I owe you a drink!
Come on, Julius! What are you and CTM up to here?
You’ve carried the charade past it’s sell-by date.
The stiffest competition to much climate science is the broken clock which is observed to be correct at least twice a day. I am surprised Mystic Meg isn’t batting for the IPCC since she is more prescient than that odious ice hockey stick bloke will ever be … .