Essay by Eric Worrall
“… Ideas such as thickening sea ice to prevent collapse … may once have seemed extreme. …”
We passed the 1.5C climate threshold. We must now explore extreme options
David King
Mon 7 Apr 2025 19.00 AESTWe do not have the luxury of rejecting solutions before we have thoroughly investigated their risks, trade-offs and feasibility
As a lifelong scientist, I have always believed that if something is possible, we can find a way to achieve it. And yet, one of the starkest realities we now face is that the world is failing to meet its climate goals. Last year marked a historic and deeply troubling threshold: for the first time, global temperatures exceeded 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Without drastic and immediate climate action, this breach will not be temporary. The consequences – rising sea levels, extreme weatherand devastating loss of biodiversity – are no longer projections for the distant future. They are happening now, affecting millions of lives, and likely to cause trillions in damages in decades to come.
But we must think beyond our immediate horizons. When I read The Iliad, I am reminded that it was written 2,800 years ago. I often wonder: in another 2,800 years, what will people – if humanity as we know it still exists – read about our time? Will they see us as the generation that failed to act or one that made the choices necessary to safeguard the planet for the future?
…
One of the greatest challenges of climate science today is that many of the necessary levers to regain control are uncomfortable, even controversial. Ideas such as thickening sea ice to prevent collapse or brightening marine clouds to reflect sunlight may once have seemed extreme. Yet, as we contend with an escalating crisis, we must at least explore these possibilities. We do not have the luxury of rejecting solutions outright before we have thoroughly investigated their risks, trade-offs and feasibility.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/07/climate-solutions-extreme-options
…
We hit 1.5C by some measures, but there are no climate disasters, except in the imagination of scientists like Professor David King. Nor will there be any climate disasters, even if temperatures climb higher.
Face it Professor King, you and your friends are wrong – a warmer world is a more benign world for humans.
The proof is that our monkey ancestors thrived in a much hotter world. The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 5-8C hotter than today, was the age of monkeys. Our monkey ancestors thrived on the abundance of the hothouse PETM, and colonised much of the world, as far as Greenland and Siberia, only retreating when the cold returned.
The only thing I fear is our benign warm climate might soon come to an end – not in my lifetime, but way too soon for a human race which is only beginning to embrace its full potential.
Geologically the Earth is still locked in the Late Cenzoic Ice Age, which began 34 million years ago and still holds our planet in its frozen grip.
The last ice age was so cold it may have almost been an extinction event.
As we approach the end of the Holocene Interglacial, global cooling is a far greater long term threat than global warming. Winter is coming, and we don’t have enough coal to drive back the ice.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Professor King writes “The consequences – rising sea levels, extreme weatherand devastating loss of biodiversity – are no longer projections for the distant future. They are happening now…”
For proof of the calamities he describes, he cites a report by a non-profit US and Swedish outfit called ICCI focused on polar and glacial ice and sea level, an article from the UK newspaper, The Guardian, concerning extreme weather and another from The Guardian concerning biodiversity loss. He could have cited any of several technical authorities regarding ice which show very small changes in recent decades, PSMSL.org regarding tide gauge sea levels which show world wide sea levels rising steadily at an unchanged rate since at least 1850, the USGS which studied coastal sea level changes covering a period starting 6,000 years ago showing the same. He could have even consulted IPCC reports showing no changes in extreme weather for centuries. But he chose The Guardian instead.
Good grief!
Where’s all the usual AGW stall-warts to show us the “climate emergency” ?
MIA…. because they KNOW there isn’t one.
The old chemistry professor shouldn’t worry as much as he apparently does. At his age, he won’t be around for the climate denouement. Unlike Oreskes, Mann, Marcott, and a host of others.
Story tip. Firebugs are out early this year, all over the UK after the high fire risk warnings were issued. 150 fires in NI as of a day or so ago, believed 100% arson. Similar in Scotland and heath/forest in Southern England repeatedly spontaneously combusting at 5:30am. No doubt King would say it’s caused by climate change and definitely not climate activism and other malign motives.
Judging by the comments on the ITV news link, most people realise what’s going on, answering back against those citing climate change.
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1062319869264021&id=100064580538218
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/emergency-incident/mourne-mountain-wildfires-psni-deploy-helicopters-to-spot-arsonists-and-assist-nifrs-5074013
“As a lifelong scientist” who’s clearly never, ever taken the trouble to assess the reliability of the models and data on which he has fixed his conclusions.
Like the rest of his trained but alarmist ilk, he’s a disgrace.
As a “lifelong scientist,” he should understand the basics. As Feynman succinctly noted:
None of the predicted catastrophes have occurred. It’s time to replace the flawed theory, not to impose pointless “drastic” solutions.
Perhaps they’ll think humanity collectively and collaboratively produced climate fiction works leading to fame and fortune for its authors.
One “extreme” solution would be to do “nothing” and instead focus on regional mitigation against weather events.
C’mon Tim.
That idea is so rational, it’s verging on being radical.
such is the state of public policy making these days 🙁
The learned professor is a SA borne chemist. I suggest that outside his field of expertise he is as ignorant as any of us. Perhaps he should stick to what he knows.
Shutting Professor David King in a padded cell would be an act of mercy.
but cruel and unusual punishment for the padded cell. Only joking he’s entitled to his opinion, even if it is completely without value.
“but cruel and unusual punishment for the padded cell”
I was trying to figure how to say something like that.. Well done 🙂
He can share it with Miliband.
In a universe beholden to entropy, Mr. Worrall rightly refutes the fallacies of “global warming”, and all its dire false predictions of humanity’s doom. And yet, he adheres to the utterly ridiculous THEORY of evolution, referencing his “monkey ancestors”. This is scientific schizophrenia at its finest.
Professor King forgot that the 1.5 degrees limit was set after the IPCC thought 2.0 degrees is good enough. May be he gives himself another half point and relaxes. Come to think of it, he probably does not burp for fear of releasing some amount of CO2, he may have created. He needs to prop up his feet and have a beer full of CO2 and enjoy the consequences, whatever they may be.
Certainly the government can control the weather. Canada had a carbon tax for that very purpose.
A small city near me has a fully staffed climate control office. They turn the snow down to limit snow plowing expense. Controlling the climate is the duty of government. Along with controlling every part of life. They know best.
/s
“… Ideas such as thickening sea ice to prevent collapse … may once have seemed extreme. …”
No need to thicken sea ice. Just convert it all into Pykrete!