Doomed Planet

The Warmists’ Mission Impossible

A draft final agreement from the Glasgow COP26 talkfest has been released but not yet agreed upon. We are told:

A draft of the Glasgow Agreement published on Wednesday includes language that says the world should be aiming to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and acknowledges the role of fossil fuels in the climate crisis, a first for the annual Conference of the Parties on climate. If the draft is agreed in current form, it could pave the way for deeper emissions cuts by the end of next year.

The document is not final and COP26 delegates from nearly 200 countries will now negotiate the details over the next few days. Consensus from all nations is required.

Typically draft COP agreements are watered down in the final text, but there is also a chance that some elements could be strengthened, depending on how wrangling between countries pans out.

I’d say the odds of it being watered down are strong.  Here are some highlights:

Scientists say the world must limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in order to avoid the climate crisis worsening and approaching a catastrophic scenario.

A key analysis published on Tuesday said the world is on track for 2.4 degrees of warming. That would mean the risks of extreme droughts, wildfires, floods, catastrophic sea level rise and food shortages would increase dramatically, scientists say.

The British COP26 presidency’s overarching goal was “to keep 1.5 alive,” so this firmed-up language is what it and other climate-leading nations were hoping for.

Several countries, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Brazil and Australia, have shown resistance to this change at various meetings over the past six months in the lead-up to COP26.

“The Prime Minister said all countries needed to come to the table with increased ambition if we are to keep the target of limiting global warming to 1.5C alive.”

The draft also recognized that achieving this shift means “meaningful and effective action” by all countries and territories in what it calls a “critical decade.”

It “recognizes that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C by 2100 requires rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, including reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 relative to the 2010 level and to net zero around mid-century,” using language that is in line with the latest UN climate science report.

Let’s have a look at those two ambitions: a 45 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050). 

The 2010 level was 30 GtCO2.  Today it is 36 GtCO2, so despite all the efforts (and all the hysteria that Al Gore, David Attenborough and HRH Prince Charles have been able to engender) emissions have increased by 20 per cent in ten years.   The target of 45 per cent of 2010 levels by 2030 will mean that we must get down to 13.5 GtCO2 per annum.   That looks a big ask, even if everyone jumps aboard.   And assuming we achieved that target in a linear fashion, we would have emitted a total of about 250 GtCO2 during that ten years.  In an earlier article, I noted the IPCC Sixth Report Summary for Policymakers provided some guidance as to the probability of limiting warming to 1.5C or 2C.  The numbers in the table are the total carbon budgets that must not be exceeded in order to achieve the stated probability:

So, we can see that, even if we achieve the interim 2030 target, we are already nudging the limit of 87 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5C.   

Let’s look at net zero by 2050.  Again, let’s assume that everyone gets on board and we achieve a linear decline from 36 GtCO2 in 2021 to zero in 2050.  We will have emitted a total of 560 GtCO2, totally blowing the 50 per cent probability budget. 

But we know that everyone (notably China, India and Russia) will not be aboard the doomed SS 1.5C.   As I noted in my earlier article, none of the 1.5C budgets is even remotely likely.  I hasten to add that I do not subscribe to the IPCC nonsense – I am merely playing a sort of reverse devil’s advocate.

I am banging on about this in the (probably vain) hope that the thought occurs to someone in the mainstream media to ask Scott Morrison or Angus Taylor about the disconnect between their rush to appease the alarmists and the fact that whatever harm we inflict upon ourselves will be in pursuit of an aim that is palpably not achievable.   And if the consequences of an unavoidable 1.5C warming are so catastrophic, why are we not focussing all (or even most) of our efforts into adaptation – such as building dams, better land management and hardened infrastructure?  Like death, taxes and rent-seeking grifters, droughts, storms and bushfires will be with us always.

What Morrison has espoused is not a plan – it’s a wager.  He’s like the once-a-year punter at Flemington on Cup Day, determined to be ‘in it’.  He consults a bookie and, on his advice, puts the rent money, on the nose, on Forlorn Hope – a 12-year-old mare carrying 62kg, ridden by Eddie Obeid and starting at 100-to-1.

13 comments
  • ianl

    Amongst the dishonesties (some of which Peter O’Brien lists here) thrust in our faces is the evasive way that the 1.5C threshold has been settled on.

    The argument is circular, always depending on unstated assumptions built into the failed “models”. Thus:

    Q: What atmospheric CO2 ppm level is “safe” ?
    A: The one that limits warming increase to 1.5C

    Q: Why is 1.5C a “safe” temperature level increase ?
    A: That is determined by the atmospheric CO2 concentration

  • Citizen Kane

    It takes a special kind of intellectual dwarfism or a vainglorious virtue signalling or both to belief that the difference between a mean global temperature of 15 degrees Celsius and 16.5 degrees Celsius will extinguish life on the biosphere as we know it. Factor in that most of this fluctuation has nothing to do with a relatively insignificant change from 320 to 420 ppm CO2 and these morons are on a hiding to nothing!

  • Michael

    The Paris goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees was never realistic and the 1.5-degree aspiration was fanciful. Can’t they just come clean?

  • Peter OBrien

    Michael, precisely!

  • Alice Thermopolis

    PO: “He consults a bookie and, on his advice, puts the rent money, on the nose, on Forlorn Hope – a 12-year-old mare carrying 62kg, ridden by Eddie Obeid and starting at 100-to-1.”

    Or Climate Change, “a bay mare sired by Clap Trap out of the dam, Monsoon Mischief; won the 2015 Paris Summit by a nose from Miss Model, Hot Stuff and Fickle Folly, an international race that attracted many mug punters and provocateurs”, (Devil’s Dictionary of Climate Change, G Lexicon, 2018)

  • bobmbell39

    Why is there no debate about climate change. The ABC tells me the science is settled, my friends who still talk to me say my references are by scientists of no repute. The MSM is scared to discuss it honestly or is in the ABC camp.
    What can we do. As retired geologist I know climate changes it has always done so. It was warmer in the past. Grapes in northern UK.
    Carbon capture and storage has been tried unsuccessfully. Barrow island. Stopping cows giving off methane is nonsense.

  • rod.stuart

    bobmbell39, as a retired geologist, you could use these arguments I would expect? Please respond if you disagree.
    a) Earth has been here for some four billion years. Most of that time the environment has been far warmer than it is today. We live in an Ice Age called the Pleistocene, during which there have been several interglacials.. Each of them, including the current Holocene, has been a bit cooler than the previous. The significance of the “pre-industrial period” is that it coincided with the end of Dalton Minimum, or Little Ice Age. Temperatures have declined sporadically since the Holocene Optimum about 9,000 years ago. There is no rational or plausible reason to suspect that there is anything called “Global Warming”. It is a hoax.

    b) Geology is able to establish the history of Earthly temperatures and CO2 concentration through proxies, most notably ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. They reveal no discernible causative difference in temperature which corresponds to CO2 concentration. In fact, any correlation that exists clearly indicates that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. No rational, logical person could conceivably come to the conclusion that a paltry change in CO2 impacts temperature in any way whatsoever. The Greenhouse argument is a hoax.

    c) The carbon dioxide cycle involves the transport of very large quantities of CO2, the “gas of life”. 98% of Earthly CO2 is in the seas. The ratio is determined by Henry’s Law, and is determined by the temperature of a miniscule layer on the ocean surface. The vast mass of water on 70% of the planet’s surface has thermal inertia, which accounts for the 800 year lag mentioned previously. The CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels is positively insignificant in relation to the quantities produced by natural processes inter alia volcanic activity. No rational person could possibly think that “fossil fuels” have a significant impact on this natural cycle. Methane, due to its density, dissipates rapidly in air and oxidises with in hours, as was illustrated at Aliso Canyon (Porter Ranch) October 23 2015. The “greenhouse effect” is a hoax.

    There is a doco on Odysee by Tim Gielen called “Monopoly: Follow the money” which fully answers your initial question regarding debate.

  • STD

    Peter, the snapshot of the white bear on ice. Talk about striking a pose, that polar bear should have been a model.

  • petroalbion

    Why wait for ‘someone in the mainstream media to ask Scott Morrison or Angus Taylor’?
    The evidence is out there but it is trapped in a hyperbaric echo chamber we have to some degree constructed ourselves. We have allowed debate to be stifled by accepting cancellation, by the media, by the universities and so-called centres of excellence, aka academia. Peter Ridd’s valiant attempt to strike back failed over the contract he had to sign to keep his job, but we need to litigate every attempt to close down the debate. The science is not and never will be ‘settled’. But how? Who would fund such a move? Why are only left wing, green billionaires shelling out their cash?

  • Lo

    The politicians of the world have made a most hysterical response to a virus and done a lot of damage to real people’s physical and mental health as a result. I have no confidence and a great deal of concern as to how dangerous their overreactions to the climate issue might be.
    Good sense and facts don’t seem to be factors any more.

  • Davidovich

    The movers and shakers in the UN and its associated bodies have been quite open about their intentions which are to use global warming/climate change to bring about the end of capitalism. These manipulators have created a belief system with a large number of followers throughout the world whereby facts and logic, as detailed above, are irrelevant to these believers. Frustratingly, our political leaders think it is easier to simply go along with the scam for the votes and possibly because they have seen strong and sensible political leaders such as Harper of Canada, Abbott of Australia and recently, Trump, deposed.

  • AERT DRIESSEN

    Petroalbion asks ‘…how?’ I suggest at the next federal election, now only moths away.

  • colin.white18

    As a non-scientist can I say that it seems fanciful to assert that a concentration of 420 PPM in the atmosphere could reflect heat back to earth but not reflect incoming heat from the sun.
    And that a change of 2deg temperature is meaningful. Average temperature in Townsville is 10 deg greater than the average temperature of Hobart.
    I think we are being conned.

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.