From the University of Oxford and the Wellll….duhhhh! department comes this exercise in peer-reviewed futility.
In a new study, led by the University of Oxford’s Department of Physics and published November 18 in Nature, an international group of authors who developed the science behind net zero demonstrate that relying on ‘natural carbon sinks’ like forests and oceans to offset ongoing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use will not actually stop global warming.
The science of net zero, developed over 15 years ago, does not include these natural carbon sinks in the definition of net human-induced CO2 emissions.
Natural sinks play a vital role to moderate the impact of current emissions and draw down atmospheric CO2 concentrations after the date of net zero, stabilizing global temperatures. Yet governments and corporations are increasingly turning to them to offset emissions, rather than reducing fossil fuel use or developing more permanent CO2 disposal options. Emissions accounting rules encourage this by creating an apparent equivalence between fossil fuel emissions and drawdown of CO2 by some natural carbon sinks, meaning a country could appear to have ‘achieved net zero’ whilst still contributing to ongoing warming.
The authors call on governments and corporations to clarify how much they are counting on natural carbon sinks to meet their climate goals, as well as recognising the need for Geological Net Zero.
Geological Net Zero means balancing flows of carbon into and out of the solid Earth, with one tonne of CO2 committed to geological storage for every tonne still generated by any continued fossil fuel use. Given the cost and challenges of permanent geological CO2 storage, achieving Geological Net Zero will require a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use.
The authors stress the importance of protecting and maintaining natural carbon sinks while accepting that doing so cannot compensate for ongoing fossil fuel use. Total historical CO2 emissions determine how much a country or company has contributed to the global need for ongoing natural carbon sinks. A country like the UK, with large historical emissions and limited natural sinks, has implicitly committed other countries to maintain natural sinks for decades after UK emissions reach net zero. This is not currently addressed in climate talks.
Professor Myles Allen, of the University of Oxford’s Department of Physics, who led the study, summarises: “We are already counting on forests and oceans to mop up our past emissions, most of which came from burning stuff we dug out of the ground. We can’t expect them to compensate for future emissions as well. By mid-century, any carbon that still comes out of the ground will have to go back down, to permanent storage. That’s Geological Net Zero.”
Dr Glen Peters, of the CICERO Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway, a study co-author, says “Countries report both emissions and removals, but using all removals in climate targets is a recipe for continued warming. Natural carbon sinks currently clean up around half our annual emissions for free, but this ecosystem service must be kept separate from the fossil emissions driving climate change. Relabelling things will not stop global warming.”
Professor Kirsten Zickfeld of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, co-author and leader of one of the other 2009 net zero papers, says “It is a common assumption that removing carbon from the atmosphere to offset burning of fossil fuels is as effective as not burning fossil fuels in the first place. It is not. Offsetting continued fossil fuel use with carbon removal will not be effective if the removal is already being counted on as part of the natural carbon cycle and if the carbon is not permanently stored. Unless we can increase transparency in national Greenhouse gas reporting and target setting, offsets will become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.”
Study co-author Professor Jo House of the University of Bristol UK says: “Land is limited, we rely on it for food, nature, biodiversity, leisure, water storage, and so on. It cannot offset more than a portion of fossil emissions even now, probably less in future with worsening pressures on the biosphere such as population increase, fires, and drought. Giving carbon credits for natural processes that are happening anyway undermines trust in the whole idea of offsetting. We have to urgently protect natural carbon sinks, but there are more scientifically credible and equitable ways of doing this than relying on carbon offset markets.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jeez, have these people got too much spare time on their hands or what?
Government-paid spare time.
Taxpayer-funded spare time
Yeah, historically, they used to dig ditches and then fill them in. I guess the modern version results in neither dirty hands nor blisters.
As if mild warming from the Little Ice Age is a Bad Thing, anyway?
The drop of the temperatures from the previous warm periode (medival warm periode) was in the range of 2-4 degrees. Wich led to the cold periode. So now we need to take that back… what is the counter logic?
If one accepts Michael Mann’s cherry picked at best “hockey stick” temperature model, the LIA never existed, and neither did the Medieval Warm Period. So there! There is no need to explain apparently natural temperature variations, after all.
Of course, I consider the IPCC embracing MBH89 as when they went for full advocacy over any pretense of “science”.
So it’s basically a problem of over-production vs under-consumption.
Why don’t the CO2 climate cranks use the experience of the EV manufacturers to develop a strategy to overcome the over-production vs under-consumption dilemma?
(oh wait . . . )
This ignores the vast amount of desert in the world. Using nuclear desalination we could bring water to these deserts and green them
Where would you put nuclear desalination plants to water the Sahara?
Talk about a continent-improving investment. If the UN ever set that goal they could do some good.
Where? Why, near the ocean, obviously. That’s where the water is. Pump salty water to nuke power plant, desalinate, pump fresh water into desert.
And what do you do with all that salt?
Dump it back in the ocean. The oceans are very, VERY, large bodies of water, and the water added to the deserts will return eventually. The solution is dilution.
I read some time ago that the de-sal plant on the coast of Wonthaggi (Victoria. Australia) has killed off
alla lot of the surrounding sea-bed weed, kelp, critters, moluscs, etc.Water expelled from the de-sal plant there is apparently too briny.
Any substance to this report, do you reckon?
Maybe pipe it further out to sea?
In their paper on ‘The role of hydrogen in the net zero energy system’ the UK National Engineering Policy Centre and The Royal Academy of Engineering noted
“Access to sufficient water supplies is essential and may need desalination plants as green hydrogen produces concentrated brine as waste that needs treatment before release”
So it is possible that the local de-sal plants are not up to the job
Sprinkle it on your food. 😋
Unfortunately desalination doesn’t produce salt, just briny water. There is a secondary industry that could turn the brine into salt which would put the micro-enterprise salt makers of Indonesia out of business, I suppose. Seems like a pointless investment.
The easiest way to get water to the Sahara is to let the winds carry clouds over it. For every 1% rise on CO2 concentration, there is a 0.62% rise in soil moisture. The reason is a) there is some rain the Sahara and b) plants are more water efficient when CO2 concentration rises (stomata and all that). As a result the Sahara-Sahel line has moved 500 km north in the past few decades.
Everything considered, leave it alone and enjoy the greening.
Desalination is one of the few things that wind and solar power is good for. Intermittency is not a problem.
We can’t store electricity. But we can store water.
Wind farms are quicker to build than a nuclear power plant.
MCourtneys answer gets to the issue that troubles me. I want to pour fresh water onto the Sahara desert but I don’t trust the governance of the surrounding nations to manage a nuclear plant. Windmills would solve the problem.
Too expensive.
And too much land use. And too many resources wasted on short-lived equipment. ESPECIALLY in a shoreline high salt environment.
An erstwhile Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, suggested this for Australia. We could feed a lot of the world if it worked.
I thought it was the most sensible idea he’d had. The bar was fairly low, though.
The deserts are already greening as a result of the increase in CO2. We are exiting a drought period in CO2.
I suspect deserts are a necessary part of the biosphere. Without them the effects would likely be negative.
There is no such thing as a ”necessary part” of the biosphere.
We are on a giant ball of molten rock with a thin crust where life gains a foothold where and when it can. That’s it and that’s all.
You’re probably right. But there are many deserts all over the planet. Even Antartica has a desert – in fact, the largest desert on the planet. But you were speaking of hot, arid deserts, and except for Antartica, all the other continents have those.
I can’t think of a desert of that nature in Europe. Even the worst parts of Spain and Greece are not totally arid..
Perhaps some basic knowledge of climate is missing from this thread? Deserts are where the rain does not fall. If they move, which they do as Hadley cells change, humans must move. Nomadic existence over time is essential. As the ice age cycle recorded by geology demonstrates rather well, 80% of Earth’s current climate cycle is spent in the glacial phase of the ice age cycles, which we are already 3Ka into the next glacial phase of – as measured, not modelled. The 23Ka precessionary cycle made the Sahara green 7Ka BP in this interglacial, at 2 deg or so warmer than now, BTW. Geological and orbital precesionary measurement facts.
Hence the early Egyptian civilisation was upriver on the Nile, not in Egypt, the lake beds are still there across the Sahara, and archeological remains associated with them. Location, location, location…. Check out the geological records. One dry lake bed South of Alamein saved the 8th Army in WW2.
Most of our large cities are way to high for the glacial phase as regards being near the sea, 130m too high when the ice caps form, still 60,000 years away, its just much colder till then. But the main infrastructure of many modern cities have been built in 200 years or so, so a form of relocation is easily managed, necessary and unavoidable adaption to a real problem. IF we have cheap plentiful energy to do it. Not otherwise. Only nuclear makes this possible indefinitely, through the ice ages, in human terms at least. Adaption using the massive enrgy resources we can command.
But it is important to realise anything humans can do is still insignificant when contrasted with the power of the Sun and the natural controls the Earth has available naturally, mainly from the ocean relfecting and evapoarting the massive amount of enrgy it absorbs from the Sun and the much smaller amount it must return every day to stay in balance.
The ocean adapts to any change in this balance by rebalancing the planetary energy flow in space to track the natural changes our orbit brings, also the smaller changes from internal and external events. The Sun and earthly responses control and rebalance change at whatevr temperature this requires. Nature has control, not humans. That’s simply a con trick by the First CHurch of the UN IPCC. Rather like the “Sun goes around the Earth” BS that made humans seem significant in religion, and the Pope important in talking to God about how that changed. etc. and get apid a lOT for doing it.
In real scientific reality, the sort you can test by measuring it, we can ONLY protect and adapt to changing global cliamte.
As someone else has pointed out below – we live on a ball of visco elastic molten rock whose crust is so thin it cannot be represented by even a line drawn in a cross section on a normal sheet of paper, whose mountains and ocean depths would be hard to feel on a Pool ball sized earth model, the etchings on a Tiffany globe for the elites, twerking around in space to the rhythm of the Solar system orbital geometry, etc. You can check all this in minutes on Google and with a few simple calculations, on a calculator. NO computer models or religious beliefs required…. just the physics and the measurements you can check from different sources. We KNOW the facts that expose the lies.
But people who can’t understand for themselves prefer to believe the lies they are told by people in power, who want to control and tax them in the name of the lies they commissioned to be manufactured and then promoted as if provable science to support their actions, lies paid for with your money. That you can check to be lies. On the only test of science. The observations. Not what their “scientists say” “could” be the case. Because in fact, it isn’t.
Nature, how many of their peer reviewed articles will withstand a rigorous test to see if the reseach can be replicated with the same results? Closer to zero than 100%?
Net zero
A really effective carbon sink is grass pastures for cattle grazing.
Really? Cutting down rain forest and replacing it with pasture for cattle to graze on effectively increases carbon sink?
How does that work?
Not all grass pasture is cut-down rainforest
Right, but a lot of it is.
Is it? Clear felling rain forest probably leads to erosion of higher land and swamps on lower land.
Rain forests have notoriously poor soil, so it may be difficult to establish and maintain pasture.
I suspect much of the rain forest clearing for agriculture is to grow high water requirement crops such as sugar cane and soy.
See, Uric was probably talking about ‘C’. That is – Carbon.
You confused climate cranks can’t understand that CO2 = Carbon Dioxide, a molecule consisting of one Carbon atom and 2 Oxygen atoms.
CO2 is not the chemical element Carbon, which has symbol C and atomic number 6.
Atomic number 12?
Atomic mass 12?
6 Protons, 6 Neutrons, 6 Electrons. 666 the mark of the devil …
….. to some.
Living trees emit more methane than dead decomposing trees.
I know, just when you thought it was safe to come out of mom’s basement.. 🙁
We’re talking about CO2 here, are we not?
Carbon, not methane.
CO2, not CH4.
Did ‘Mom’ not tell you that?
Your sarcasm doesn’t make up for your lack of knowledge on this topic.
Forestry researchers have discovered that many old trees with internal decay will emit methane- sufficient that you can light it. I’m too lazy to find that research for you- but it’s out there.
Cottonwood can actually produce ignitable CH4 from its stems…
… probably made by internal anaerobic bacteria.
Your initial post that I replied to referenced ‘carbon sinks’. Now run along and see if you can find out what the ‘C’ in CH4 stands for.
Nobody said that.
It was certainly implied.
Vast areas of rainforest are cut down every day to provide pasture for cattle to graze on, so that fat idiots can get fatter and food companies can get richer.
The spiral of life.
Vast areas? Define vast. The world is dynamic. It can’t remain the same all the time. It always changes and humans can contribute to that change- change isn’t necessarily negative. Fat idiots? Serious meat eaters are seldom fat. Food companies like to get rich just like everyone else- particularly lefty academics and burro-crats.
More us cut down to plant crops for “biofuels” at the behest of the Eco-Nazis.
Careful about rain forests being a CO2 absorber. Several studies I saw suggest rain forest/jungle environments are net oxygen consumers, due to the amount of rotting vegetation. Rotting is basically an oxidation process. I know for sure it stinks when you walk through them. Howler Monkeys? Yes.
Are you suggesting that replacing rainforests with pasture for cattle is a better way of absorbing CO2?
That’d be a new one.
No, that would not work. From the monitoring of new trees planted in clear cuts, in fir tree forests, it is clear that the new, young rapidly growing part of the tree takes in the most CO2, and emits O2. However, I wouldn’t touch a rain forest, because, you know, Howler Monkeys.
Show us your math TFN, not the voice in your head. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but prove it with the numbers. It’s not obvious to me.
That would require the total biomass increase per annum for the rainforest (various mixes of growth stages) and grazed pastures.
One thing that a lot of people miss is that pastures actually increase the soil carbon over time.
In part, because an established forest is carbon neutral as trees decay & match new growth. AS with earth’s changing energy balance in space, nature likes an equilibrium. Cut forest regrows, if cattle are grazing and fertilising it, it probably regrows more, which is net absorbing of CO2.
Clearing and planting new trees or some form of crop agriculture is even more effective in increasing CO2 absorption. All obvious, an undeniable truth. Plants are made of CO2.
But of course it doesn’t matter, because more CO2 has had almost no effect on the natural change in global temperature over the last 45 years of pervasive observations, 1.6W/m^2 of AGW is only capable of changing temperatures a fraction of the 1.5 deg of overall change. And the other photosynthetic effects are strongly beneficial, in that many things are growing faster, larger, with less water. SCience can and has measured all these things.
That’s how it works.
So what is the problem that you suggest.
“But of course it doesn’t matter, because more CO2 has had almost no effect on the natural change in global temperature over the last 45 years of pervasive observations, 1.6W/m^2 of AGW is only capable of changing temperatures a fraction of the 1.5 deg of overall change.”
Is there this really true? If so, why is it not so well publicised? Who authored this research and what are their scientific credentials? Please respond without the big political context. I’m more interested in the scientific reasoning than the politics. Has this work been verified by other scientists who work in energy conservation and/or atmospheric science?
All this carbon-counting nonsense.. when the world needs MORE atmospheric CO2 anyway.
It is a crazy deluded fetish !!
But the polar bears….
seals eat fish, fish eat ocean vegetation..
More CO2 → more ocean vegetation → more fish → more seals → happy PBs 🙂
…are quite happy.
Most humorous way to put it – “When Al Gore was born, there were about 4,000 polar bears; now there’s only 20,000 left.”
No link between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures has been demonstrated outside deliberately fraudulent computer models. There is no proof that any observed warming should be attributed to CO2.
Therefore, CO2 is an imaginary foe, and the whole premise of desirability of CO2 removal is false.
This is what should be discussed, not whether natural sinks can or cannot stop global warming.
And it is surprising they still talk about Global Warming, when we all know that it is now Climate Change(TM).
They are very flexible.
If it’s hot, it’s Man made Global Warming.
If it’s cold, it’s Climate Change caused by Man made Global Warming.
Why Man alone is the culprit? Don’t the other 34+ genders emit too?
Yes, but there’s a big problem assigning all the correct pronouns to them/they/he/she/zey/ + + + + +
It does sound rather chauvinistic. On the other hand, in America, all the Earth’s ills are blamed on white men of European descent.
😎
I suppose I could have said “Human made” but there’s still a “Man” in there.
Do you know when the IPCC was set up and what the ‘CC’ stands for?
Hint: it was 1988.
And ‘CC’ doesn’t stand for ‘Global Warming’.
What can it mean?
Regardless, the MSM mostly talked about GW, not CC until recent years.
“What can it mean?”
A vague meaningless nothing….. like your mind. !
Do you know that when the IPCC eas set up, its mission statement was to examine the *human influence* on climate change? They ASSUMED a human influence before they looked at a single piece of so-called “science.”
The IPCC is and always has been a propaganda organization, not a science organization.
They should have been more honest and called it the Intergovernmental Propaganda on Climate Control.
This is utter nonsense, of course. The link between rising global CO2 and rising global temperature is clear and is acknowledged even by scientists who might be considered ‘sceptical’ about its impact.
Roy Spencer (UAH) is a case in point.
Even Anthony Watts (not a scientist) agrees.
To say that there is a link doesn’t mean it’s the ONLY link- but you seem to think that. I don’t think Roy and Anthony would agree.
GARBAGE! There are 2 kinds of ”link” A real one demonstrated by facts and the kind of link that takes warm showers in your mind.
Well produce the evidence, or remain a clown..
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
Did you know that warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
It is just a theoretical construct from consideration of radiative properties only..
It is not real. !
The link is that warming temperatures cause more atmospheric CO2.
“Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.”
I think there’s clear evidence of this in the UAH data. Ok, it’s not a constant warming trend, there are peaks and troughs, as you would expect, but the overall trend is upwards. I’m certainly not suggesting that this in itself is evidence of CO2 driven CC or that it necessarily sits outside of a natural cycle, but it’s an observable upward trend since the beginning of the UAH era.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
AAAha ha ha.
Be assured I do not take sides in this. However, I provided a link that shows very clearly the warming trend on the UAH system. As I’ve said on many occasions, this in itself doesn’t necessarily imply AGW but the trend is there in the data so from a truly scientific perspective, we have a duty to investigate why this is happening. Is it a natural cycle? Is it to do with GHG forcing, or is it a combination of factors? To pretend that the UAH data doesn’t clearly show a warming trend (as was presented in the post I replied to) is effectively burying heads in sand. If you’re going to suggest I have a motive outside of being even-handed, then expect your views to be completely disregarded.
Do you disagree with the clear warming trend showing up on UAH data?
Please examine the link provided to see for yourself the clear warming trend on UAH.
More specifically, he and his ilk should explain…
Multiple episodes of REVERSE CORRELATION between atmospheric CO2 and temperature each lasting HUNDREDS OF YEARS in the ice core reconstructions;
A full-blown GLACIATION that lasted probably a million years when atmospheric CO2 levels were TEN TIMES what they are now.
THREE DECADES of REVERSE CORRELATION during current instrument records between 1945 and 1975.
No “runaway greenhouse effect” no matter how high atmospheric CO2 levels were in the Earth’s climate history, up to 17.5 times today’ levels that we’re supposed to panic about.
Show us the data. The data doesn’t care what anybody thinks.
“Anthony Watts (not a scientist)”
Says a fungal spore…
This is correct. Most reasonable skeptical scientists acknowledge that CO2 has had some degree of effect in the warming observed over the past few decades at least. To what extent CO2 has been driving that warming is still open to some debate, at least among skeptical thinkers. I think where the problem lies, is in the level of extreme views either side of the debate. On the one hand our seas are NOT boiling and the climate extremes are NOT as unusual as the media would have us believe. On the other hand, there’s no point in refusing to acknowledge that there has been some degree of warming observed through both surface based and satellite based systems over the past few decades. To completely discount CO2 as at least a partial driver would be teetering on the edge of established, well evidenced theory. All other associated thinking on whether more or less CO2 is beneficial or not; or whether more warming is beneficial is a debate for another time. But the main point is that even skeptical scientists tend to agree that CO2 has had a hand….to a greater or lesser extent!
Confused drivel.
I read that, just like with KomIntern, we again need some sort of International Governance? And it will be run by a Dictator?
It won’t stop global cooling either.
More smoke and mirrors.
Stinky smoke, from vaping THC.
Is Happer wrong?
No.
Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden (2024) even used the bogus numbers of the IPCC and still came up with a ridiculously small amount of warming from the trillions of dollars that will be used to BS about net-zero.
…. and the Keeling Curve will continue until it doesn’t, and that will have nothing to do with the parasites of humanity BSing about net-zero. Bring on DOGE.
I’m in USA, where forests are still more woodsy than certain other places:
“1711: 75% of the land of Ireland has been made available to colonists who deforest it. “They have not left enough wood to make a toothpick in places” Chevalier de Latocnaye.
1786: the last wolf in Ireland was killed in Carlow, having been the prime suspect in recent sheep killings.
1914: Forest cover is at its lowest point: 1.5% of poor quality forest in Ireland.”
Point being: It’s an old story
Irish Bog Oak ranges in age from 3000 to 8000 years old. The oldest bogs in Ireland are about 9000 years old. Population estimates for 8000 years ago around 10000 people. Loss of trees to bogs probably not down to people.
Happer estimates 0.71ºC warming per doubling of CO2 using purely radiative calculations.
Given natural variability, this will give immeasurable warming from CO2 even over periods of centuries..
Radiation is but one of several methods of moving energy, so the real value is going to be a lot less than that 0.71ºC,
Given the balancing nature of the gravity based thermal/energy gradient, the value is probably very close to ZERO.
Yup. Every one of these “calculations” of the “effect” of atmospheric CO2 on temperature ASSUME that “everything else” is held constant.
So they represent nothing but the MAXIMUM POTENTIAL effect, since the feedbacks are negative, offsetting feedbacks.
And in reality, that means the *actual,* as opposed to *hypothetical* effect probably can’t be distinguished from ZERO.
Which explains REVERSE CORRELATION over and over and over and over in the ice core reconstructions, and GLACIATION with TEN TIMES today’s atmospheric CO2 levels and NO “runaway greenhouse effect” with up to 17.5 times today’s levels and THREE DECADES of REVERSE CORRELATION during the current instrument record (’45 to ’75, assuming CO2 was rising from ’45 to MLO observations beginning in the ’50s which is not controversial).
Their “CO2 drives temperature” hypothetical bullshit is contradicted by all of those observations.
Slightly OT:
With the collapse of COP29, will the Climate Change(TM) shenanigans finally start to fade from the collective attention of the worriers? Maybe it will be replaced with Falling Fertility Rates?
Funny, but today on NPR, I heard people saying how successful COP29 was!
I don’t know for sure because I don’t listen to libtard tripe but I’m guessing there are still people on NPR still chanting variants of “orange man bad”. Have they not heard of DOGE?
Watch out NPR, their “acronym” is bigger than yours.
Add to reasons NOT to listen to the idiots on National Propaganda Radio.
Well, ya just can’t fix stupid.
The referenced article is about a need for more accurate CO2 accounting ‘cos currently net anthropogenic emissions sometimes include sinks as well. Anthony, of course, misunderstands this but it’s kinda hard to get what he really wants to say with his confused and convoluted intro.
There is no “science of net zero”. And the problem is actually the opposite, some natural carbon sinks are, in fact, included in anthropogenic emissions.
Some 😉
“There is no “science of net zero””
True, it is a fantasy little counter-science fetish. !
“a need for more accurate CO2 accounting”
Why waste time and effort “accounting CO2” when the atmosphere needs MORE CO2. !
Just use what energy your country needs and be glad you are making a contribution to the enhancement of plant life and hence, all life, on the planet.
Now THERE’S a statement I can thoroughly agree with.
And no scientific methods as conventionally known since the enlightenment have been practised in the pursuit of anything resembling a falsifiable hypothesis for AGW.
Yeah, playing with words is a sure winning strategy.
Lol.
People like Myles Allen are a disgrace to the physics profession.
This whole exercise is laughable. These guys knew from the beginning that fossil fuel use could not be cut economically and safely to the degree that that would be required to make any difference in our climate. Carbon offsets are nothing but a sneaky way to transfer wealth. All it has accomplished is to line the pockets of crooks and bloat the coffers of government. It is a bad deal no matter how you look at it.
A return to the Stone Age by humans would not have any measurable effect on the climate, because CO2 has never been empirically demonstrated to have any effect on the Earth’s temperature whatsoever.
These wing nuts should devote their time to counting fairies and leave the sane folk to work on things that matter.
OT Just stumbled on an amusing bit (apparently) from the new TV show “Landman” (Yellowstone spinoff)
Commentary on “renewables” vs. oil – worth watching/listening: https://x.com/bonchieredstate/status/1860892910079619112
(Sorry only have the x post not the original)
Good grief. The record is well and truly stuck with these ‘authors’.
There can be no redemption. Yawn.
As a Canadian Prof Zickfeld should know better, 35%, according to Statistics Canada, of Canadas’ land mass is forest a huge CO2 sink.
Their models underestimate the plants by a factor of 100 and then the uptake by 33%. Who lives in a bubble.
Another sink for CO2 are the icy cold polar waters. On liter of water at 0 deg. C can hold 3.55 g of CO2. There is an enormous area of northern and southern cold waters. Since the pH of the ocean water is ca 8.1, a portion of the CO2 is converted to bicarbonate anion which is used to form shells of clams, snails and scallops for example.
A large portion of CO2 that is absorbed by the oceans is fixed by alga, sea weeds and sea grasses, which becomes food animals.
Presently, one cubic meter of air has about 0.8 g of CO2. We really do not have to worry about CO2.
A can of soda pop (375 mls) has 1.33 g of CO2.
BTW: The campus of SFU is surrounded by large forest of trees.
None of these ‘climate experts’ seem to have any qualifications in biology. They seem to think that the lower the carbon dioxide levels, the better.
They need to start asking how respiring organisms like humans can expect to survive if the photosynthesing ones are struggling to photosynthesise due to a lack of carbon dioxide…..
Fossil fuel burning emissions of CO2 contribute less than 5% to the year-to-year increase in global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. At least 95% is from increased natural emissions from tropical oceans.
The average global temperature annual change is being controlled by annual increases in water vapor and clouds and not CO2 (which is co-variant with emissions of water vapor). The cold waters at the poles are the ultimate sinks for atmospheric CO2.
There is no year-to-year accumulation of global atmospheric CO2 (either natural or anthropogenic.).
There hasn’t been enough warming to stop.