More fuel to the fire, as it were. Unnecessary Net Zero, Part II: A Demonstration with Global Carbon Project Data April 23rd, 2024 Some commenters on my previous blog post, Net Zero CO2 Emissions: A Damaging and Totally Unnecessary Goal, were dubious of my claim that nature will continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere at about the same rate even if anthropogenic emissions decrease…or even if they were suddenly eliminated. Rather than appeal to the simple CO2 budget model I created for that blog post, let’s look at the published data from the 123 (!) authors the IPCC relies upon to provide their best estimate of CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere, the Global Carbon Project team. I created the following chart from their data spreadsheet available here. Updated yearly, the 2023 report shows that their best estimate of the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by land and ocean processes has increased along with the rise in atmospheric CO2. This plot is from their yearly estimates, 1850-2022. The two regression line fits to the data are important, because they imply what will happen in the future as CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. In the case of the nonlinear fit, which has a slightly better fit to the data (R2 = 89.3% vs. 88.8%) the carbon cycle is becoming somewhat less able to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. This is what carbon cycle modelers expect to happen, and there is some weak evidence that is beginning to occur. So, let’s conservatively assume that nonlinear rate of removal (a gradual decrease in nature’s ability to sequester excess atmospheric CO2) will exist in the coming decades as a function of atmospheric CO2 content. A Modest CO2 Reduction Scenario Now, let’s assume a 1% per year cut in emissions (both fossil fuel burning and deforestation) in each year starting in 2024. That 1% per year cut is nowhere near the Net Zero goal of eliminating CO2 emissions by 2050 or 2060, which at this point seems delusional since humanity remains so dependent upon fossil fuels. The resulting future trajectory of atmospheric CO2 looks like this: This shows that rather modest cuts in global CO2 emissions (33% by 2063) would cause CO2 concentrations to stabilize in about 40 years, with a peak CO2 value of 460 ppm. This is only 2/3 of the way to “2XCO2” (a doubling of estimated pre-Industrial CO2 levels). How Much Global Warming Would be Caused Under This Scenario? Assuming all of the atmospheric CO2 rise is due to human activities, and further assuming all climate warming is due to that CO2 rise, the resulting eventual equilibrium warming (delayed by the time it takes for mixing to warm the deep oceans) would be about 1.2 deg.C assuming the observations-based Effective Climate Sensitivity (EffCS) value of 1.9 deg. C we published last year (Spencer & Christy, 2023). Using the Lewis and Curry (201 value around 1.6-1.7 deg. C would result in even less future warming. And that’s if no further cuts in emissions are made beyond the 33% cuts vs. 2023 emissions. If the 1% per year cuts continue past the 2060s, as is shown in the 2nd graph above, the CO2 content of the atmosphere would then decline, and future warming would not be in response to 460 ppm, which was reached only briefly in the early 2060s. It would be a still lower value than 1.2 deg. C. Note these are below the 1.5 deg. C maximum warming target of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which is the basis for Net Zero policies. Net Zero is Based Upon a Faulty View of Nature Net Zero assumes that human CO2 emissions must stop to halt the rise in atmospheric CO2. This is false. The first plot above shows that nature removes atmospheric CO2 at a rate based upon the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and as long as that remains elevated, nature continues to remove CO2 at a rapid rate. Satellite-observed “global greening” is evidence of that over land. Over the ocean, sea water absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in proportion to the difference in CO2 partial pressures between the atmosphere and ocean, that is, the higher the atmospheric CO2 content is, the faster the ocean absorbs CO2. Neither land nor ocean “knows” how much CO2 we emit in any given year. They only “know” how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. All that is needed to stop the rise of atmospheric CO2 is for yearly anthropogenic emissions to be reduced to the point where they match the yearly removal rate by nature. The Global Carbon Project data suggest that reduction is about 33% below 2023 emissions. And that is based upon the conservative assumption that future CO2 removal will follow the nonlinear curve in the first plot, above, rather than the linear relationship. Finally, the 1.5 deg. C maximum warming goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement would be easily met under the scenario proposed here, a 1% per year cut in global net emissions (fossil fuel burning plus land use changes), with a total 33% reduction in emissions vs. 2023 by the early 2060s. I continue to be perplexed why Net Zero is a goal, because it is not based upon the science. I can only assume that the scientific community’s silence on the subject is because politically driven energy policy goals are driving the science, rather than vice versa.
Science was corrupted by policy, and now that bad science is driving bad policy. Annual GWPF lecture: Climate Uncertainty and Risk Posted on May 4, 2024 by curryja by Judith Curry My talk on Climate Uncertainty and Risk, presented at the Annual GWPF Lecture Continue reading → . . . The wickedness of the climate problem is related to the duality of science and politics in the face of an exceedingly complex problem. There are two common but inappropriate ways of mixing science and politics. The first is scientizing policy, which deals with intractable political conflict by transforming the political issues into scientific ones. The problem with this is that science is not designed to answer questions about how the world ought to be, which is the domain of politics. The second is politicization of science, whereby scientific research is influenced or manipulated in support of a political agenda. We have seen both of these inappropriate ways of mixing science and politics in dealing with climate change. . . .
The descent of SciAm into woke nonscience began long before Shermer started working there. It was obvious by the early 90s, with its blatantly ideological attacks on The Bell Curve, probably the most controversial scientific work since The Origin of Species. But I remember being puzzled by some of its excursions into leftist (especially feminist) ideology in articles related to social science even as early as the late 80s.
HADCRUT is cooking the books. HadCRUT Has Now Fully Removed 0.15°C From The 1940s Warmth ‘Blip’ As Proposed In 2009 E-mails By Kenneth Richard on 20. May 2024 The amplitude of the recorded warmth in the 1940s was always a problem for purveyors of the human-caused global warming narrative. So the 1940s temperatures have been artificially cooled to make this less of a problem. In 2009, overseers of the HadCRUT global temperature data discussed “correcting” the “1940s warming blip” in e-mails that they later tried to hide from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) investigators. “So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.” “I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately.” “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with ‘why the blip?’.” Image Source: Climate Gate E-mails (FOIA) And, just as they had said they would do, 0.15°C of warmth has gradually been removed from the 1940s HadCRUT global temperature data over the last 15 years. They have “corrected” the data to align with their narrative. Image Source: climate4you.com What’s also noticeable here in this HadCRUT-changes-temperature-data chart provided by climate4you is just how much warmth has been added to 21st century temperatures since 2008. The HadCRUT3 global temperature trend was recorded as 0.03°C per decade during the global warming hiatus years of 2000-2014 (Scafetta, 2022). This was increased to 0.08°C per decade by version 4, as the overseers of the HadCRUT data conveniently added 0.1°C to 0.2°C to the more recent anomalies. Today, in HadCRUT5, the 2000-2014 temperature trend has been adjusted up to 0.14°C per decade when using the computer model-infilling method. So, within the last decade, a 15-year temperature trend has been changed from a pause to a strong warming. After all, when the observations don’t fit the narrative, it is time to change the observations. Image Source: Scafetta, 2022
But, but, that can't be true, because it means there would have to be a conspiracy, and that's a conspiracy theory, and it is known for certain that conspiracy theories are always false. That's why there has never been a conspiracy of any kind, and never can be. Brutus acted alone. Or maybe Caesar tripped and fell on several senators' daggers. Yeah, that must be it.
Bad science has infected German courts. Alps’ Glacier History Contradicts German High Court Claim Of CO2 “Linear Relationship” By P Gosselin on 22. May 2024 With comparatively stable CO2 levels over 10,500 years, temperatures still fluctuated within a range of -4 to +3 °C. Yet, German Constitutional High Court preposterously claims there is an “almost linear relationship” between CO2 and temperature. Junk mandated to “science” by law? Alpine glaciers: spoilsports for the CO2 climate hypothesis The CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by humans through the burning of fossil fuels is declared by today’s climate science as a “greenhouse gas” to be the decisive factor in an impending climate catastrophe. It is claimed that “never before” temperatures on earth had been rising at such rates as nowadays. The Alpine glaciers are often referred to as key witnesses to this argument. This “eternal” ice is said to be under existential threat from climate change. The “death” of glaciers is mourned on radio, in TV-shows and in the printed press. To prevent this impending catastrophe, the advanced civilization to which we owe our comparatively healthy and carefree lifestyle must be scrapped: let’s do away with coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy, with cars, steel, aluminum, concrete….and as a consequence also with modern medicine. By Fred F. Mueller Fig. 1:: Just as its peers in the Alps, the Great Aletsch Glacier – seen here from the Jungfraujoch – is being stylized as a “crown witness” of CO2-induced climate change (Photo: Private) The United Nations assumes that the CO2 emissions introduced into the atmosphere by humans are warming the climate due to a “greenhouse effect”. This greenhouse effect is said to endanger our existence. This thesis is propagated by its offshoot, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as irrefutable scientific truth. Claims to this effect are constantly repeated in countless scientific and journalistic publications. It is particularly emphasized that it is imperative to “recognize CO2 as the principal climate control knob” 1). In the meantime, clever representatives of the “green” climate movement have ensured that this view has even been enshrined as an incontrovertible truth in supreme court rulings by the German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), among others. Figure 2: The so-called “climate judgment” of the German Federal Constitutional Court 2) elevates the central IPCC thesis on the alleged harmfulness of CO2 to a nearly incontrovertible truth with quasi constitutional status (graphic: author). Since this ruling, Germany is on a one-way highway to hell into an economic and social abyss. From now on all governments are obliged to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2045 3), regardless of the impact this has on the economy and the well-being of the population. Any fanatic NGO can sue the German state if it is not content with the reduction achieved. Worse still, the current greens, socialists and liberals government is already preparing further legislation to deny future governments any opportunity to revise this course again. A law currently being prepared by (Liberal) Minister Buschmann is supposedly intended to “protect the constitutional court from undemocratic successor governments.” In reality, the new law will prevent even democratic majorities from overturning the Federal Constitutional Court ruling and the resulting regulations. Without any regard for the misery this will imply for the population. Friedrich Merz and his conservative CDU have already signaled their support for this project. . . .
It's a pity: so many words and so little content. There are other factors than human which may change the earth's temperature. Guess what? Ever heard about Milenkovic cycles? Please don't feel offended. It's just about how new this item is to you.
And? The fact is: Without human influence we should be right now in the middle of a new little Ice Age and on the run to even colder times. Other questions? There are great books and websites covering this items.
No. The Little Ice Age was characterized by the lowest sustained level of solar activity in thousand of years, while the 20th century warming period was characterized by the highest. The record warmth last year was driven by the transition from La Nina to El Nino, exceptionally and unexpectedly high solar activity -- which continues, as the auroral display last week demonstrated -- and the pulse of stratospheric water vapor caused by the Tonga submarine volcano. Nothing to do with human influence at all.
The Met Office are rewriting the temperature record to support their politically-derived narrative. Concerns Mount as Met Office Fiddles With Historic Temperature Record in Exact Way Planned in Leaked ‘Climategate’ Emails CHRIS MORRISON Specifically, almost one in three (29.2%) in ‘junk’ Class 5 had ‘uncertainties’ up to 5°C as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). Nearly half (48.7%) were sited at ‘near…
The IPCC is just a lobbying organization. Fooled On Climate and Energy by UN Lobbyists John McLean PhD Ultimately the scare about man-made warming is not based on science but on lobbying by the IPCC and UNFCCC, and flawed lobbying at that. Most people probably believe that the IPCC and UNFCCC are honest UN agencies with great integrity. In effect, the IPCC as a lobbying co-ordinator and publiciser, and the UNFCCC as taking the IPCC’s lobbying and trying to pressure governments into political decisions, with both agencies using the might of the UN’s media machine to further their aims. The IPCC describes its role as … “to assess … information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” The outcome of this is that we have a lobbyist organisation with a single focus, in this case man-made climate change rather than the larger picture of why the climate might be changing. Lobbying organisations often make distorted or deceptive claims, and fail to mention other important information. The IPCC is no exception; its reports have the characteristics of dishonest lobbying: . . . .
Yeah, the "skeptical" website was winning most of the awards easily as it was for Jo Nova LINK as well.
Yeah I used to be a subscriber of the magazine back in the early 1990's where their decline became too obvious that after a few years of it drop it.
This is why the climate models fail. Scientists Admit Cloud Radiative Properties Are 3D But Studies ‘Ignore’ This And Use 1D Simulation Data By Kenneth Richard on 24. June 2024 Modeling the main factors driving climate is riddled with and precluded by observational error. Some scientists now acknowledge this. Clouds are a main factor – even the “most important factor” – controlling changes in the Earth’s radiation budget, or climate (Sfîcă et al., 2021, Lenaerts et al., 2020). Image Source: Sfîcă et al., 2021 and Lenaerts et al., 2020 But as scientists acknowledge in a new study (Ademakinwa et al., 2024), substantial errors in calculating cloud effects on climate are inevitable because three-dimensional (3D, vertical and horizontal) cloud affects are reality, and current calculations only consider one-dimensional cloud properties (1D, vertical). “Failed retrievals” in radiative property simulations of cloud effects occur over 40% of the time. This leads to biases, errors amounting to ±36 W/m². Considering this error margin of 72 W/m² is 360 times larger than the total forcing from CO2 over the span of 10 years (0.2 W/m²) for an imaginary clear-sky-only (cloudless) Earth (Feldman et al., 2015), it is not possible to detect the real-world effect of CO2 forcing in any radiative transfer calculation. Summary: “Since clouds in reality have three-dimensional (3D) structures, the simulation of radiative transfer (RT) in clouds should ideally consider the transport of radiation in both vertical and horizontal directions (referred to as ‘3D RT’).” However, “operational bispectral cloud retrievals are almost exclusively based on the one-dimensional (1D) RT theory that considers only the vertical and ignores the net horizontal transport of radiation.” Consequently, “the radiative properties of clouds under 3D RT are substantially different from those under 1D RT.” Image Source: Ademakinwa et al., 2024
I love that I am not the only one what uses a quote of his for a signature. I have long found him as one of the greatest minds of the 19th century. And I just have to laugh at how almost everything he said is generally hated by "modern Liberals".
Logic 101, one can not prove a negative. And that is not how it works in a court of law either, for obvious reasons. It is not up to the defendent to prove they are innocent, it is up to the DA to prove they are guilty. Your saying that is to be honest completely idiotic, you have to prove that. It is not up to anybody to prove they are not. By your logic, I can say that you are a green elephant. And unless you can prove otherwise, that is what you are.
Actually, you will find that most of us that are screamed at as "deniers" bring things like this up all the time. Or ocean currents, salinity of the oceans, albedo, and quite a lot of actual scientific content. The funny thing is, quite often I see those that scream we are "deniers" have little to no actual science content. They just cherry pick what they think supports their claims. And it is actually quite funny when actually analyzing their claims, their reference is actually saying the opposite of what they claim. And trust me, Jack as well as Bringiton and myself have brought that up many times. Always to thunderous silence, and largely complete ignoring of anything said. That is one thing I have seen they are damned good at, absolutely ignoring anything they can not answer. For example, one thing I love to ask them is why in all of the history of over 2.5 million years of repeated ice ages, in not one single instance has an interglacial stopped and reversed before it reached its totality. And we are nowhere even near that point yet, but somehow we are expected to believe this is a "magic ice age", and we should be getting colder. It makes no sense, and it is in complete contradiction of all geological evidence. But we have to believe them for... reasons.
Funny thing is, Will, that I've NEVER SEEN a piece on WUWT the denies AGW. What I have seen is logical, scientific, well documented, and sometimes contentious articles where scientists discuss science with other scientists without the editorial dictum "emphasize AGW disaster or don't get published".
