Paris

The fake two degree political limit on global warming

It is a prime tenet of global warming alarmism that we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to “limit the increase in global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels, or risk hitting a tipping point where the impact becomes irreversible” and all hell will break loose. This two-degree number has been adopted by the IPCC and by many governments, and is the primary goal of the Paris Climate Accord (in addition to extracting money from developed nations).

Does that number, two degrees Celsius, have any basis in science? Here is some history on how it developed (graphic from Carbon Brief).

It seems that the number was accepted without much question. Where did the number come from? Emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia during “Climategate” revealed that Dr. Phil Jones, head of CRU, inadvertently admitted that the number was “plucked out of thin air” and has no basis in science.

In this context, “pre-industrial levels” means prior to the year 1850 which marked the end of the “Little Ice Age.” The globe has been warming (on and off) from that since 1850.

And guess what? According to the Berkeley Earth global average surface air temperature record, Earth has already warmed more than two degrees Celsius since the early 1800’s pre-industrial levels. (Source) See any irreversible tipping points yet?

Let’s examine Earth’s temperature history of the past 600 million years to see if two degrees Celsius is a big deal in Earth’s history. Estimates of temperature and CO2 content are based on geologic, biologic, and isotopic evidence.

Sources for figure above:

Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z, 2001, GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204.

Scotese, C.R., http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Notice in the figure above that for most of the past 600 millions years, global temperatures have been 5- to 12 degrees Celsius higher than they are now, i.e. a warmer world is the norm. There has been no “run-away” warming and life has been robust and flourishing, especially during the steamy Cretaceous Period when global temperatures are estimated to have been at least 12 degrees Celsius higher than now.

Dear politicians, the two degrees Celsius goal is a political one, not a scientific one. No matter what you do, you cannot stop climate change. Adapt to it and stop wasting trillions of dollars on this unnecessary and futile effort.

“The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” — James Hansen, “Climate forcings in the Industrial era”, PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 22, 12753-12758, October 27, 1998.

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC.

While controlling emissions from burning fossil fuels may have some beneficial effects on air quality, it will have no measurable effect on climate. It will have great detrimental effects on the economy and our standard of living. The greatest danger of climate change is that politicians think they can stop it.

See also:

Impact of Paris climate accord and why Trump was right to dump it

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Advertisements

Welcome to a new geologic era – the Idiocene

Idiocene ADI graphic

A new era, the Idiocene, is a time when common sense exited the planet. It is characterized by a fear of global warming. Individuals, organizations, and governments are under the thrall of this bogeyman.

President Obama has declared that global warming is much more dangerous than radical Islamic terrorism. States and countries are eschewing inexpensive, abundant energy sources in favor of unreliable, expensive, allegedly “green” energy sources. It is a time of silliness and hypocrisy – with many unintended consequences.

On December 5, 2015, at the Paris Climate Charade, about 178 countries signed an agreement to cut CO2 emissions with the goal of keeping future global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

This U.N. deal is based on voluntary participation and is virtually unenforceable. It features voluntary emission caps, voluntary progress reviews, no international oversight of any voluntary progress, and voluntary contributions to the U.N. managed slush Fund to mitigate climate change.

Secretary of State John Kerry has stated:

The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, car pooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world. (see video)

I wonder that if a cut of 35% in emissions will have no beneficial effects, what makes you think additional cuts will?

Some examples of the circus:

Britain cuts renewable energy subsidies. (Daily Mail)

India plans to double coal output by 2020 and rely on the resource for decades afterwards. (The Guardian)

Japan and South Korea have committed to cutting CO2 emissions, yet both are pressing ahead with plans to open scores of new coal-fired power plants. (Japan Times)

China has permitted building 155 new coal plants. (Daily Caller)

Very green California government intensifies its attack on renewable energy. (source)

Belgian professor calls the Paris agreement a “grand illusion”, a “resounding failure” and one of “wishful thinking” on the part of the rich countries. He calls the 2.0°C warming target “unrealistic” – never mind the 1.5°C warming target, which in the interview he called “laughable”. (NoTricksZone blog)

Dr. Craig Idso writes in the Washington Examiner:

One of the most bizarre claims to come out of the conference is the assertion that global temperatures must be kept from rising a mere seventy five-hundredths of a degree Celsius (0.75°C) above present day values (they are to be kept within a total increase of 1.5°C since pre-industrial times) or climate Armageddon will result. This narrative includes melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea levels, inundated coastlines, more frequent and severe hurricanes, droughts, floods and other types of extreme weather events, crop failures, plant and animal extinctions, and widespread human suffering, diseases and death.

Such a claim is preposterous. It exists only in the deranged output of computer model projections that are derived from the most extreme and frenzied future scenarios. Data and observations provide no hint whatsoever that such a catastrophe would occur if the world warmed another 0.75°C or more. Temperatures were likely at least that warm, if not warmer, a thousand years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, and another thousand years before that during the Roman Warm Period. Additionally, global temperatures were approximately 2°C warmer than present some 5,000 years ago during the peak warmth of the current interglacial period. Yet in none of these time periods did climate Armageddon occur.

Global warming godfather James Hansen has even called the conference and its result a fraud. Economic expert Prof. Bjorn Lomborg wrote at Twitter that the agreement will be “extraordinarily costly”, and that it “will do little – if anything to rein in global warming.” (NoTricksZone blog)

Obama touts the agreement as “the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”

Physicists Lubos Motl writes “Stunning scientific illiteracy behind the Paris 2 °C target.”

The “final” COP21 Paris agreement has 31 pages and this delusional text will go down in history as a certificate of madness and hysteria.

Fourteen months ago, Victor and Kennel published an article in Nature explaining some of the reasons why the “temperature targets” such as the 2 °C target should be ditched because this kind of targeting is ill-defined, meaningless, inconsequential, unreachable, … and just plain idiotic. Victor’s and Kennel’s main complaint was that the global mean temperature wasn’t in any useful sense correlated with the health of our planet.

But the climate hysteria has lost all contacts with science. The hundreds of stupid mammals from all corners of the world who gathered in Paris don’t read Nature. It’s much worse than that, of course. They don’t talk to anyone who has a clue about science, either. They’ve brainwashed themselves into believing that the global warming temperature must be a high-precision, well-defined number and, which is even worse, they may push it in any direction they want by meeting their fellow mammals and signing meaningless arrogant declarations.

Needless to say, sub-degree accurate comparative temperature targets can’t be used as the basis of any human or corporate or national behavior or planning. This form of planning is nonsensical for at least 5 totally fundamental reasons. Read more

See also: Global Average Temperature: Meaningless & Misleading

Such is the new Idiocene.

The term “Idiocene” was coined by the Carbon Sense Coalition, see their graphic here.

Related:

THE MORAL BANKRUPTCY OF CLIMATE SCIENCE