Doomed Planet

Emissions, Error and Innumeracy as a Guiding Policy

World leaders are now in a cleft stick.  How to cut CO2 emissions to a level they claim to believe will limit global warming to no more than 2C, or ideally 1.5C, above pre-industrial levels, and, at the same time keep their lights on.  Until recently, keeping the lights on didn’t seem to be that much of a problem – just keep throwing subsidies at supposedly cheap renewables to make them look less expensive and let the peasants cop it sweet.  But recent events in Europe and China must have given them pause, or some of them anyway. 

The Prime Minister claims the Coalition’s commitment to 2050 net zero CO2 emissions is being driven by events beyond our control – not a warming world (which we can do nothing about) but by pressure from financial institutions and big business. If we want the investment, we are told, we have to play by their rules.  There is some merit in Morrison’s justification but, on that very basis, the net zero commitment must logically be accompanied by a total rejection of any further government subsidies or grants for emerging technologies.  If the private sector is so convinced by these technologies, let them stump up the cash.  

Following the Copenhagen conference, optimists like me (as I was back then) thought its failure might buy us some time for clearer evidence to emerge that the world isn’t warming at anything like the rate the catastrophists claim.  I should have known that, as Michael Kile recently pointed out, sophistry is the lifeblood of the alarmists and any inconvenient ‘inconvenient truth’ can be rationalised away.

We are told we must get to net zero emissions by 2050 in order to achieve the target. Which is it, by the way, 1.5C or 2C?   But we are not told anything about the scientific basis for this plan.   I wrote about this in 2015 prior to the Paris conference. What we didn’t know then, and we still don’t know, is how much CO2 globally we need to mitigate.  Well, we do know, because it’s in the latest IPCC report.  It’s just that no politician ever talks about it.

What I am about to say is quite simplistic, but bear with me, and if I have made any gross errors, please call me out.  Everything we are being offered as justification for crippling our energy, transport and agricultural sectors is simplistic – we must cut our emission to net zero by 2050 to avoid 1.5C/2C of warming –  so I make no apologies for my approach.

If CAGW were a physical law, and not just an unproven hypothesis, it would be described by an equation not a suite of speculative and wildly inaccurate computer models.  That equation would provide a value for the property known as climate sensitivity, which is simplistically defined as the temperature change resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.   According to Wikipedia:

Depending on the time scale, there are two main ways to define climate sensitivity: the short-term transient climate response (TCR) and the long-term equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), both of which incorporate the warming from exacerbating feedback loops. They are not discrete categories, but they overlap. Sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 increases is measured in the amount of temperature change for doubling in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

From this, it is clear that climate sensitivity is a logarithmic function.  Every unit increase in temperature requires twice as much CO2 as the previous increase.  So, if the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises from 280ppm to 560ppm (an increment of 280ppm) and this causes a 1C rise in temperature, then it will take a further 560ppm to effect a further 1C temperature increase.  In theory there is a diminishing warming return on CO2 investment.  It’s a bit like heroin.

The latest IPCC report tells us:

The equilibrium climate sensitivity is an important quantity used to estimate how the climate responds to radiative forcing. Based on multiple lines of evidence21, the very likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is between 2°C (high confidence) and 5°C (medium confidence). The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3°C with a likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C (high confidence), compared to 1.5°C to 4.5°C in AR5, which did not provide a best estimate.

The interesting thing about the above is that this range for ECS (3C) has not narrowed in over forty years of ‘settled science’ research.  It’s just shifted 0.5C higher on the y axis.  This is explained below:

The CMIP6 models considered in this Report have a wider range of climate sensitivity than in CMIP5 models and the AR6 assessed very likely range, which is based on multiple lines of evidence. These CMIP6 models also show a higher average climate sensitivity than CMIP5 and the AR6 assessed best estimate. The higher CMIP6 climate sensitivity values compared to CMIP5 can be traced to an amplifying cloud feedback that is larger in CMIP6 by about 20%.

I find it passing strange that 40 years of research has not understood the concept well enough to narrow the range, but yet they can adjust it by 0.5C.

ECS is not that useful for predicting what might happen if we reduce our emissions to net zero by 2050 because it refers to the steady (or equilibrium) state climate that would result after net zero has been achieved and the amplifying feedbacks (eg increased water vapour) have had a chance to kick in and do their stuff.  This, we are told, could take centuries or even millennia.  So, it’s very convenient that climate scientists have not been able to narrow the range of ECS.  It allows them to postulate a possibly scary 5C rise somewhere in the future, long after they’ll be available to explain away why this was yet another climate disaster prediction that fails to materialize.

The more useful metric is the Transient Climate Response, defined in Wikipedia as:

The transient climate response (TCR) is defined as “is the change in the global mean surface temperature, averaged over a 20-year period, centered at the time of atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling, in a climate model simulation” in which the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases at 1% per year. That estimate is generated by using shorter-term simulations. The transient response is lower than the equilibrium climate sensitivity because slower feedbacks, which exacerbate the temperature increase, take more time to respond in full to an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. For instance, the deep ocean takes many centuries to reach a new steady state after a perturbation during which it continues to serve as heatsink, which cools the upper ocean. The IPCC literature assessment estimates that the TCR likely lies between 1 °C (1.8 °F) and 2.5 °C (4.5 °F).

TCR is also a logarithmic function, but one which can be verified by actual observation — and that is why it is comparatively low and more precise than ECS.  And because we are three-quarters of the way towards our first CO2 doubling since the Industrial Revolution, we already have a good indication that the real TCR lies at the bottom of that range.  The IPCC tells us we have warmed 1.07C since 1850. And since, on a logarithmic scale, the rate of warming is highest at the beginning of the period and tapers off toward the end, it’s probable that TCR is about 1.5C.  And, in order to get to another 1.5C of warming we need to add another 560ppm.

The IPCC tells us that we likely emitted 2400 GtCO2 from 1850 to 2019.   So, we know that 2400 GtCO2 emitted results in 280ppm atmospheric concentration.  Therefore, in order to get an additional 560ppm we need to emit 4800 GtCO2.  At our current rate of emission – 50Gt pa – that will take 96 years.  The warming we have already experienced, whether it be natural or man-made, has been largely beneficial.  So, it’s hard to get too fussed about a further 1.5C.  

And further to that, the reason why climate sensitivity is logarithmic is that CO2 only blocks (absorbs) a certain range of infrared wavelengths.  Various sources tell us it absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometres (µM). This means that most of the heat-producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint” frequencies of CO2.

So, at some, as yet unknown, atmospheric CO2 concentration, all of these frequencies will be fully absorbed.  From that time adding more CO2 will have no effect unless solar radiation increases.  We may already have reached that point. 

To summarize my thoughts to this point, it would seem to me we have little to fear, within our lifetime, or even that of our grandchildren, from a function that decays over time.   It seems a hard sell to me, at least.

It would be much more convenient for the IPCC to have a linear function to determine the relationship between CO2 and warming.  And what do you know, they do! It’s called the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Carbon Emissions TCRE, which is the change in globally averaged surface temperature after 1000 GtC of CO2 has been emitted.  As such, it includes not only temperature feedbacks to forcing but also the carbon cycle and carbon cycle feedbacks.  It seems odd to me that we can have both a logarithmic and a linear relationship describing the same phenomenon, but no doubt some more qualified reader can set me straight on this.  If you look at the following graph in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

Figure SPM.10: Near-linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and the increase in global surface temperature.

You will see that the rise in temperature over the 20th century is linear only if you homogenize the temperature record to hide the fact that the 1930s was as hot as the present and that 1998 was hotter than today.  Absent this jiggery-pokery, the temperature rise in that graph would look a lot more logarithmic. You will notice that it is described in the caption as ‘near linear’.  This is like being a bit pregnant.  In a logarithmic relationship, growth in the y axis variable will decay over time until it effectively becomes zero.  In a linear relationship, it will go on forever, and that is the impression the IPCC appears to be striving for here.  The two are chalk and cheese.  It’s either linear or it’s not.  Global warming will either stop at some point or it will go on forever.  The big question, assuming you accept the ‘science’ (which I don’t) is this: will it stop at a benign level or a dangerous level?  All the indications so far are towards the former.

I could be wrong of course, but regardless of that we are stuck with the IPCC prognostications, which tell us:

This Report reaffirms with high confidence the AR5 finding that there is a near-linear relationship between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they cause. Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate of 0.45°C41. This is a narrower range compared to AR5 and SR1.5. This quantity is referred to as the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE). This relationship implies that reaching net zero42 anthropogenic CO2 emissions is a requirement to stabilize human-induced global temperature increase at any level, but that limiting global temperature increase to a specific level would imply limiting cumulative CO2 emissions to within a carbon budget.

As I understand it the essence of this is that not all CO2 emitted remains in the atmosphere – some is absorbed into the biosphere (hence the global greening we have observed) and some into the ocean.  

So, what we are basing our emissions cuts on is a carbon budget, which is the maximum amount of CO2 we may still emit and remain under some level of global warming.

The IPCC offers a number of budgets (GtCO2) offering different probabilities of keeping below the target temperature.  In summary:

What we don’t know is what target we are aiming for and what probability we are prepared to accept.  Are we shooting for 83 per cent probability of keeping to 1.5C?  Or are we prepared to accept a 33% chance of missing that target, whichever it is?

Let’s have a look at some of these scenarios, starting with the most extreme. If we want the best chance of keeping to 1.5C, the global budget remaining to us is 300 GtCO2.  How does that compare with current emissions?  Well, right now, global emissions are 50 GtCO2 per annum.  It is highly unlikely that, given the positions of China, India, Russia and the developing world, that figure is going to come down anytime soon.  So, in six year’s time (i.e. well before 2050) we will have exhausted that budget.  The Rolls Royce option requires not only Australia but the rest of the world to get to net zero by 2027.  We can forget that pipedream.  

Let’s look at a middle ground option, say 67% probability of keeping to 2C.  This, of course, implies that we are comfortable accepting a 33% chance of exceeding 2C.   The budget is 1150 GtCO2, or roughly half of what the IPCC estimates we have emitted since 1850.  At current emission rates we will exhaust that budget in 24 years, somewhat short of 2050.   Is there any mechanism by which countries are allocated a portion of this target?  Has Australia been given any guidance as to how much CO2 it may emit as part of this grand global scheme?  I think not.

China currently emits 10 GtCO2 per annum. Since 2017, China’s emissions have been growing at 3%.  If that growth were to continue until 2030 — and why shouldn’t it, Xi Jinping having made it quite clear he will do what he wants? — and then peak, China will have emitted a total of approximately 128 GTtCO2 by 2030 and 400 GtCO2 by 2050.

The best information I can find about India is that it emitted 2.5 GtCO2 in 2016, which was up 4.7% from the previous year.  So, let’s assume a growth rate of 4% until 2050.  By 2030, India would have emitted 34 GtCO2 and by 2050, 148 GtCO2.  

So, between them India and China would have emitted 548 GtCO2 or almost half our budget of 1150 GtCO2.  By my calculations, the rest of the developing world emits 22 GtCO2 per annum.  On the basis that most of them are even less likely to cut emissions than either India or China, until 2050 they too would emit another 660 GtCO2.  Let’s say they achieve a higher renewables penetration than developed countries, let’s be optimistic and limit their contribution to say 300 GtCO2 odd.   (In fact, if the poorest countries, especially in Africa, deployed widespread solar and wind power, that might make their lives a little easier but it would not lift them out of poverty.) That does not leave a lot of the budget remaining for the developed world.  It is likely my estimate of Third World and China emissions is on the low side.  This 67% probability scenario might be achievable if all the world started to go nuclear right now, but other than that it looks totally improbable.

Even as I write, a new UN report has come out castigating developed countries for their current commitments, claiming that, even if they were to be met, we would still be on track for 2.7C warming this century.  And it seems the target is, in fact, 1.5C.   According to my reckoning above, developed countries have a budget of only roughly 300 GtCO2 from which they can draw.  Currently, by my calculations, the developed world emits roughly 16 GtCO2 per annum.  In a business-as-usual scenario they would exhaust that budget by 2040.  To attain that level of reductions would require all developed countries to virtually ‘turn off the lights’ starting today.  It is totally implausible.

And what if we opted for the 1.5C target, as is being urged?  You can see from the IPCC budget above, that the only remotely plausible option (from a carbon budget point of view) is the 17% probability one.  How will St Greta and her spellbound admirers – Pope Francis, Prince Charles et alia – receive those glad tidings?

The point I’m trying to make is that if the global elite were serious about limiting global warming – rather than redistributing global wealth – they would have developed a plan based on one of the above scenarios and apportioned the associated budget accordingly, rather than leaving it up to individual countries to determine their own targets.  The reason they haven’t done this is because they know that if they revealed the fact that the only remotely possible budgets guarantee, at best, only a 67% chance of limiting warming to 2C, their own shock troopers – the mindless acolytes that they themselves have programmed – would go ballistic. Better to just waffle about current commitments not being enough and watch eager rent-seekers and their political lap dogs mindlessly destroy our way of life.  There is nothing scientific or rigorous about this process.

According to the IPCC there is nothing magic about getting to ‘net zero by 2050’.  All they stipulate is that the carbon budgets they have detailed above should not be breached.   Being a realist, I believe that none of the budgets above have snowflake’s chance in hell of not being breached.  And I’m sure even the most starry-eyed climate zealot must realize they are highly touch-and-go.  That being the case, it seems (from the global warmist elite’s point of view) highly irresponsible to adopt such as laissez faire attitude to reductions.  If they are to pull it off, this needs to be carefully planned and managed.  Daniel Andrews couldn’t do a worse job than they seem to be doing.

Put simply, Morrison has a ‘plan’ to get to net zero emissions by 2050, but to what aim? 

20 thoughts on “Emissions, Error and Innumeracy as a Guiding Policy

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    All this begs the ultimate question.
    Are we responsible for the current mild warming, or was it going to happen anyway, as it did in Medieval and Roman times?
    The Australian geologists are clear about this, we are temperature rebounding from the little ice age.
    We are lucky to be warming, the alternative, cooling, is not to be countenanced.
    The planet is cooling now over 12000 years.
    The Morrison ‘Plan’ to use technology, not taxes, to reduce greenhouse gas emission is based on the idea that technology will reduce the price of dispatchable, non CO2 producing, energy to a point below that of existing sources, so replace them.
    So with taxpayers money he is boosting the development of better solar panels H2 technology and the rest.
    The solar panel was developed at Uni NSW and the Chinese engineer went home and manufactured them there to send back to Australia and the world.
    The marketing meant we bought a lot of them.
    You know, save the planet.
    As a consequence we are shutting reliable dispatchable power stations.
    Great profit for the Chinese nation, poorer Australia.
    Although a diversion from the above analysis, its best to remember that the CO2 hypotheses is just that.
    Its not testable.
    However some aspects can be looked at.
    Say take sea level rise.
    One expects that SLR would accelerate its rate of acceleration as CO2 doubled, say double.
    It remains in a tight band with linear change.
    The absorption heat bands of CO2 are close to saturation by the existing CO2.
    This was alluded to above.
    That means that additional CO2 cannot act as a greenhouse blanket furthermore.
    The mathematical climate models cannot be run backwards to show what happened before in climate.
    When run forward they are too hot.
    Why believe them?
    Why believe any of it?
    Most of the world does not.
    If they did then they would not be buying our coal and gas.
    While COP’s argue, the planet is booming with a massive greening.
    The plants are recovering from the carbon deficient atmosphere that carbon sequestration in the oceans was forcing on them.
    At least our children will benefit.

  • Daffy says:

    In the 60s there was a wonderful funny movie: “It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad world.” It still is.

  • Claude James says:

    Yes, the West’s elites have gone very bad indeed.
    And too few ordinary people know -or accept- that it is up to them put things to rights -at great cost to themselves actually.

  • ianl says:

    Peter O’Brien outlines the case against statistical pokery very well here.

    The point he makes on “sensitivity” to minor atmospheric CO2 increases being treated equally as both linear and log functions simultaneously is accurate. A number of atmospheric scientists, including Judith Curry, have made that same point quite often.

    The great Richard Lindzen skewered this by simply pointing out that the factors influencing climate interact non-linearly, so each factor will have a different weighting over time. This fact is a really hard sell to the general public – too subtle – and the result of such difficulty is ascribing both linear and log characteristics simultaneously.

    Through the Looking Glass with Alice.

  • Stephen says:

    Lies, damn lies and marketing. This is a five stage process –
    First is the 4,000 page IPCC Report which is actually quite moderate and factual. Read Steve Koonin’s book, “Unsettled” or watch his Youtube Videos.
    Second is the Summary for policy makers which is heavily influenced by the politicians and diplomats. All countries in the UN have a right to review and comment on the summary before it is released. The result is that the more dire predictions are ramped up and amplified.
    Third is the press releases. These are even more sensational in order to attract the most possible attention.
    Fourth is the Main Stream Media who then cherry pick the press releases to headline the most sensational stuff. You know, if it bleeds it leads!
    Fifth the activist then take the media report and further amplify them hysterically. We’re all doomed, we’ll all be ruined!
    The best example is extreme weather et al. The actual 4,000 page report (which virtually no one reads) says that there is no discernable trend in hurricanes, tornados, drought, flood, wild fire and the rest. They rank all of these things as “low probability”. A more honest, and consistent with the data response, would perhaps be, no probability. Yet the activists scream that we’ll al be blown away, drowned dried up or burned to death. Of course any good news, such as extra CO2 greening the planet is totally censored.

  • rod.stuart says:

    Peter is to be commended on exposing the disguise applied to the issue. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    But the big lie is that some mystical “Greenhouse Effect” is in which “Greenhouse Gases” play a role is the Big Lie.
    It is all poppycock, used to distract the average punter from the Truth. Nikolov and Zeller demostrated that the supposed “14 degrees” is nothing more than the the dry lapse rate. Any planet with an atmosphere exlhibits the same phenomena. It is not related to “emissions” in any way.
    “The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not a radiative phenomenon driven by the atmospheric infrared optical depth as presently believed, but a pressure-induced thermal enhancement analogous to adiabatic heating and independent of atmospheric composition”………….Nikolov and Zeller

  • Peter Marriott says:

    Good piece Peter. What angers me is how the financial institutions are issuing lending guidelines that prevent lending to finance fossil fuel power generation. Is this just being used as an excuse by our governments I ask myself ? Surely governments have huge coercive power over the banks, and I would have thought they could easily prevent these kind of restrictions, which amount to little more than blackmail….if they wanted to ? Concerning CO2 retention in the atmosphere I think it’s all very limited, surely. I’ve read no more than 6 years as I think it’s pretty well only convection and wind streams that keep it up there in the first place, due to it’s being heavier than air.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    Thank you, Peter, for drawing back the curtain on the decidedly black art of “climate change” control.
    As others have pointed out here – and elsewhere – there are more holes in the alarmist pseudoscience than craters on the moon.
    And what of that CO2 satellite? Is it revealing too much contrary evidence about the other 97% CO2 not emitted by humankind?
    As for why it has been left up to “individual countries to determine their own targets”, I could be wrong but my recollection is that this was the only way John Kerry et al could clinch a deal at a “minute to midnight” at the 2015 Paris Summit.
    Despite UK PM’s “James Bond” rhetoric and a tsunami of apocalyptic cliches, it is clear already that there will be no meaningful collective agreement at COP26. China and Russia were never going to give UK and the West the kudos of delivering one.

  • IainC says:

    What I find passing strange is that there is a branch of atmospheric science which studies the ancient atmosphere, but there seems to be no cross-talk between them and modernists (or perhaps there is, but the comparisons are blocked as “non-narrative”). As I read it, several billion years ago, prior to the rise of photosynthetic micro-organisms about 2 billion years ago which oxygenated our air, the atmosphere comprised, inter alia, SEVERAL % methane (20x more powerful a GHG as CO2) and CO2. That is, 20,000 ppm of each, give or take. Yet the seas didn’t boil, Venus 2 didn’t arise, and conditions were seemingly perfect for anaerobes and evolving aerobes. Conversely, the rise of plants which took vast quantities of atmospheric CO2 and turned it into coal (thanks!), dropping CO2 levels by a factor of a hundred, didn’t turn the earth into a snowball. Yet here, we are talking low hundreds of ppm CO2 and parts per BILLION of methane leading us to certain doom. What gives?

  • pgang says:

    Whilst I appreciate logical arguments like this, and they are important, the truth is that these natural facts have nothing to do with politics. They never do anymore. All of the major agendas in politics today are derived to ram socialism into the heart of the West; to make compliant, collective serfs of the mob, and to destroy the free human spirit. Politics today is all about impoverishment. It deliberately stands against prosperity and freedom. This should not come as a surprise in an anti-Christian culture.
    Taken in this light, the sickening cronyism of Twiggy Forrest, the major banks and corporations, and the genuflecting of all political colours to big money, all makes perfect sense. The less power and freedom we have, the more enriched they become. It’s an ancient formula.
    Sco-Mo might be trying his best to negotiate the mine field, but if he really believed in a democratic society he would openly stand up for his principles. See Craig Kelly as an example. Perottet is another who was lauded as a conservative but has done absolutely nothing to represent it so far. In fact vaccine segregation has just been extended under his watch. Democracy be damned in NSW.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    pgang:…”the sickening cronyism of Twiggy Forrest”…..
    Why has he suddenly become so evangelical about green hydrogen and saving the planet?
    There may be more to it than just making a buck”.
    In a talk to the WA Pastoralists & Graziers Association in September 2012: “One of the reasons I became a Christian”, Forrest said he “found God” in sand hills on the family Pilbara sheep station as a nine-year-old. He was riding his trail-bike one afternoon when on a whim he threw the keys over his shoulder to see if he could find them.
    According to Andrew Burrell, his (unauthorised) biographer:
    “…as he now relates the story, he couldn’t find the keys despite several hours of frantic searching and was preparing to brave the elements as sunset approached. As a last resort, he decided to pray. Miraculously, they turned up right in front of his eyes.”
    He saw them “between a little petrol overflow and the bike’s carburettor” when he finished praying. “Now there’s not a snowflake’s chance in hell that I threw them there; I threw them over my shoulder. So I just thought okay, that’s cool, we’re showing off a little here, God. That’s a very obvious sign, I won’t ever test you again – and I haven’t.”
    Whatever the case, expect he’ll be at the World Economic Forum early next year preaching his green hydrogen sermon on the mount at Davos .

  • Biggles says:

    Further to the comments of Lewis P. B., (with which I agree), I defy anyone to prove that ‘anthropogenic CO2’ and not out-gassing from the oceans since the end of the last glaciation is the cause of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

  • Lawrie Ayres says:

    You miss the crux of the matter Peter. The UN which is dominated by China through it’s domination of third world countries ( We will build your roads and infrastructure and all you have to do is vote with us at the UN) has moved to give China an edge and to cripple the West. Any one knowing high school physics and chemistry realises that the climate will change as it sees fit and no amount of human interference will affect the result in a meaningful way. The whole rotten scam is designed to make China stronger and the West weaker and more susceptible to socialism. So far the plot is working extremely well as witnessed by Morrison bowing to Gaia at Glasgow while Xi and Putin stay home and laugh at the foolishness.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    Agreed, LA. It is a “rotten scam”.
    Instead of calling it out, our weak government has capitulated at every level. Now we are to buy bogus “carbon credits” from our “Pacific family” to keep the China out while stopping the non-existent rising sea-level.
    The Alliance of Small Island States has been involved in CC activism for at least two decades. They represent about 20% of the 195-member UN vote. In 1945, there were only 45 countries.

  • Peter OBrien says:

    LA, I fully agree with your point but the point of my article was to highlight one subset of the overall scam and that is the disconnect between the message (net zero emissions by 2050) and the supposed science the alarmists rely to formulate that message. To wit, Net Zero by 2050 will not guarantee limiting warming to 1.5C or even 2C. Journalists who get to question politicians should ask them about this disconnect. I’m just manufacturing a bullet here.

  • akellow says:

    You analysis is sound, I think. Arrhenius mad the observation c1896, but the models assume positive feedback as a slight warming increases water vapour – the dominant GHG.
    Garth Paltridge et al examined the available radiosonde (weather balloon) data and found they did not confirm this assumption. Indeed, they suggested that if anything the effect would be negative.
    The observational data support Arrhenius.

  • aco44409 says:

    For what it’s worth the narrative has nothing to do with the weather.

    In the beginning there was Global Warming, and that didn’t scare everyone witless to enable the elite to milk the system that you and I pay for.

    Then there was Climate Change which was intended to redistribute my wealth to Sum Won Els more rapidly than their earlier attempt, and that hasn’t met the timeline declared by the elite.
    So, now it’s Net Zero, which says it all as that’s exactly what Kraut Schlobb is aiming for his band of corrupt robber-barons, as they have planned this for a very long time – by 2030 we’re supposed to have relinquished all of property to those …holes and be happy to have done so, readily.

  • abrogard says:

    I like this. And believe it.
    And I particularly like the comments below it. All ‘believers’, I think, in the fact that the whole thing is BS.
    But right here is a demonstration of what’s wrong.
    For the article could have been written much more clearly and tersely. I think the writer would agree. But he had to write ‘an article’. Not just give facts.
    And all the ‘believers’ are concentrated together patting each other on the back, preaching to themselves.

    So: those two things:

    The system demands we conform to current style and all prostitute ourselves even when shining illuminating light of reason.
    Those who like to see by that light are marginalised and shunted off into dark unfrequented corners.
    Can anyone (who looks) doubt any more the totality of the madness?
    Can anyone doubt any more the evil of it? Ah.. ‘the evil’ I imagine you draw breath at. No ‘evil’ you say. Just errors, incompetence, etc.
    But I fall back on this, again and again:
    If an old person, querulous and frail, in deadly fear of dying of covid as the govt has led them to believe, surrounded by a ubiquitously masked nation wherein we are all apparently a threat to each other and human life hangs by a mere thread, were to ask for Ivermectin in the hopes of saving their life, or at least mitigating their pain, or at the very least offering placebo relief: they will be/are denied it. Even denied to get it by prescription.
    Die, you bastard, is what the govt effectively, boldly, in clear authoritative print says.
    Only thing they ‘offer’ ( i.e. in the mailed fist) is a worse than doubtful vaccine. But a vaccine is powerless after you’ve been infected or even within the first week or two.
    Hence if not clear enough already that panacea is invalid for our poor querulous old person.
    There is no other way to look at it:
    The government, which means in these days of government by ‘presidential manner’ one man only: says ‘Die you bastard.’
    Now if that isn’t evil, what is?
    So that’s it.
    We’re in the grip of an evil monster and
    . We write polite, scrupulous, carefully reasoned articles
    . Which are seen only by the converted.

  • petroalbion says:

    The change over from global warming, which is a measurable quantity, to climate change which has no units (except perhaps British Standard Handfulls) began at the Copenhagen conference on 2009 when it had become obvious that the globe had stopped warming (an event called The Pause). Net zero Carbon sounds like it might have units, but how are they to be divided up if China, India, Russia, Brazil et al don’t take their share? CO2 emissions climb higher and higher but temperature is still in pause mode, with the ‘highest temperatures EVAH’ since the Industrial Revolution being driven by El Niños. If CO2 natural or otherwise does not drive global warming, as would appear from the data, how can it cause climate change?

  • lhackett01 says:

    The Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC AR6 contains statements not supported by the technical content. The Summary seems to be a politically biased statement.

    The conclusions of the IPCC that man-made Greenhouse Gases, especially CO2, are bringing Earth’s climate to the brink of catastrophe is disputed by many scientists. My latest paper, “The Impact of Greenhouse Gases on Earth’s Spectral Radiance” shows clearly that the matter is vastly overblown. It can be read at Comments would be welcome.

Leave a Reply