WMO: Globe heating much faster than we thought

Some more good news for the species, not, from the World Meteorological Organisation:

The year 2019 concludes a decade of exceptional global heat, retreating ice and record sea levels driven by greenhouse gases from human activities. Average temperatures for the five-year (2015-2019) and ten-year (2010-2019) periods are almost certain to be the highest on record. 2019 is on course to be the second or third warmest year on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

Global-mean-temperature_MetOfficeThe WMO provisional statement on the State of the Global Climate, says that the global average temperature in 2019 (January to October) was about 1.1 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial period.

Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hit a record level of 407.8 parts per million in 2018 and continued to rise in 2019. CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for centuries and the ocean for even longer, thus locking in climate change.

Sea level rise has accelerated since the start of satellite measurements in 1993 because of the melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, according to the report.

The ocean, which acts as a buffer by absorbing heat and carbon dioxide, is paying a heavy price. Ocean heat is at record levels and there have been widespread marine heatwaves. Sea water is 26 percent more acidic than at the start of the industrial era. Vital marine ecosystems are being degraded.

The daily Arctic sea-ice extent minimum in September 2019 was the second lowest in the satellite record and October has seen further record low extents. In Antarctica, 2019 saw record low ice extents in some months.

“If we do not take urgent climate action now, then we are heading for a temperature increase of more than 3°C by the end of the century, with ever more harmful impacts on human wellbeing,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. “We are nowhere near on track to meet the Paris Agreement target.”

“On a day-to-day basis, the impacts of climate change play out through extreme and “abnormal” weather. And, once again in 2019, weather and climate related risks hit hard. Heatwaves and floods which used to be “once in a century” events are becoming more regular occurrences. Countries ranging from the Bahamas to Japan to Mozambique suffered the effect of devastating  tropical cyclones. Wildfires swept through the Arctic and Australia,” said Mr Taalas.

“One of the main impacts of climate change is more erratic rainfall patterns. This poses a threat to crop yields and, combined with population increase, will mean considerable food security challenges for vulnerable countries in the future,” he said.

The report devotes an extensive section to weather and climate impacts on human health, food security, migration, ecosystems and marine life. This is based on input from a wide variety of United Nations partners (listed in notes to editors).

Extreme heat conditions are taking an increasing toll on human health and health systems with greater impacts where there are aging populations, urbanization, urban heat island effects, and health inequities.  In 2018, a record 220 million more heatwave exposures by vulnerable persons over the age of 65 occurred, compared with the average for the baseline of 1986-2005.

Climate variability and extreme weather events are among the key drivers of the recent rise in global hunger and one of the leading causes of severe crises. After a decade of steady decline, hunger is on the rise again – over 820 million people suffered from hunger in 2018.  Among 33 countries affected by food crises in 2018, climate variability and weather extremes a compounding driver together with economic shocks and conflict in 26 countries and the leading driver in 12 of the 26.

More than 10 million new internal displacements were recorded between January and June 2019, 7 million being triggered by hazard events such as Cyclone Idai in southeast Africa, Cyclone Fani in south Asia, Hurricane Dorian in the Caribbean, flooding in Iran, the Philippines and Ethiopia, generating acute humanitarian and protection needs.

The provisional State of the Climate report provides an authoritative source of information for the U.N. climate change negotiations, known as CoP25, which take place in Madrid from 2 to 13 December. It complements the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The final Statement on the State of the Climate with complete 2019 data will be published in March 2020.

Global Climate Indicators

Temperature-difference_ERA52019 ends warmest decade on record

The global mean temperature for the period January to October 2019 was 1.1 ± 0.1 °C above pre-industrial conditions (1850-1900). The five-year (2015-2019) and ten-year (2010-2019) averages are, respectively, almost certain to be the warmest five-year period and decade on record. Since the 1980s, each successive decade has been warmer than the last.

2019 is expected to be the second or third warmest year on record. 2016, which began with an exceptionally strong El Niño, remains the warmest year.

Large areas of the Arctic were unusually warm in 2019. Most land areas were warmer than the recent average, including South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania. The U.S. state of Alaska was also exceptionally warm. In contrast a large area of North America has been colder than the recent average.

Record greenhouse gas concentrations

In 2018, greenhouse gas concentrations reached new highs, with globally averaged mole fractions of carbon dioxide (CO2) at 407.8±0.1 parts per million (ppm), methane (CH4) at 1869±2 parts per billion (ppb) and nitrous oxide (N2O) at 331.1±0.1 ppb.  These values constitute, respectively, 147%, 259% and 123% of pre-industrial 1750 levels.

Global average figures for 2019 will not be available until late 2020, but real-time data from a number of specific locations indicate that CO2 levels continued to rise in 2019.

Acceleration of global mean sea level rise

Sea level has increased throughout the satellite altimetery record, but the rate has increased over that time, due partly to melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. In October 2019, the global mean sea level reached its highest value since the beginning of the high-precision altimetry record (January 1993).

Ocean heat

More than 90% of the excess energy accumulating in the climate system as a result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases goes into the ocean. In 2019, ocean heat content in the upper 700m (in a series starting in the 1950s) and upper 2000m (in a series starting in 2005) continued at record or near-record levels, with the average for the year so far exceeding the previous record highs set in 2018.

Satellite retrievals of sea-surface temperature can be used to monitor marine heatwaves. So far in 2019, the ocean has on average experienced around 1.5 months of unusually warm temperatures. More of the ocean had a marine heatwave classified as “Strong” (38%) than “Moderate” (28%). In the north-east Pacific, large areas reached a marine heatwave category of “Severe”.

Continued ocean acidification

In the decade 2009-2018, the ocean absorbed around 22% of the annual emissions of CO2, which helps to attenuate climate change. However, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations affect the chemistry of the ocean.

Ocean observations have shown a decrease in the average global surface ocean pH at a rate of 0.017–0.027 pH units per decade since the late 1980s, as reported in the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which is equivalent to an increase in acidity of 26% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Decline of sea ice

The continued long term decline of Arctic Sea Ice was confirmed in 2019. The September monthly average extent (usually the lowest of the year) was the third lowest on record with the daily minimum extent tied for second lowest

Until 2016, Antarctic sea ice extent had shown a small long-term increase. In late 2016 this was interrupted by a sudden drop in extent to extreme values. Since then, Antarctic sea-ice extent has remained at relatively low levels.

Greenland ice sheet

Total ice Mass Balance (TMB) for the Greenland Ice Sheet gives a net ice loss for September 2018 to August 2019 of 329 Gigatonnes (Gt). To put this into context, data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites tell us that Greenland lost about 260 Gt of ice per year over the period 2002-2016, with a maximum of 458 Gt in 2011/12.

High impact events

Floods

The Central USA, Northern Canada, Northern Russia and Southwest Asia received abnormally high precipitation. The 12-month rainfall averaged over the contiguous United States for the period for July 2018 to June 2019 (962 mm) was the highest on record.

The onset and withdrawal of the Indian Monsoon were delayed, causing a large precipitation deficit in June but an excess of precipitation in the following months.

Very wet conditions affected parts of South America in January. There was major flooding in northern Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, with losses in Argentina and Uruguay estimated at US$2.5 billion.

The Islamic Republic of Iran was badly affected by flooding in late March and early April. Major flooding affected many hitherto drought-affected parts of east Africa in October and early November.

Drought

Drought affected many parts of southeast Asia and the southwest Pacific in 2019, associated in many cases with the strong positive phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole. Exceptionally dry conditions prevailed from mid-year onwards in Indonesia and neighbouring countries, as well as parts of the Mekong basin further north. Long-term drought conditions which had affected many parts of inland eastern Australia in 2017 and 2018 expanded and intensified in 2019. Averaged over Australia as a whole, January-October was the driest since 1902.

Dry conditions affected many parts of Central America. It was substantially drier than normal in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador, until heavy rains in October. Central Chile also had an exceptionally dry year, with rainfall for the year to 20 November at Santiago only 82 mm, less than 25% of the long-term average.

Heatwaves

Two major heatwaves occurred in Europe in late June and late July. In France, a national record of 46.0°C (1.9°C above the previous record) was set on 28 June. National records were also set in Germany (42.6°C), the Netherlands (40.7°C), Belgium (41.8°C), Luxembourg (40.8°C) and the United Kingdom (38.7°C), with the heat also extending into the Nordic countries, where Helsinki had its highest temperature on record (33.2°C on 28 July).

Australia had an exceptionally hot summer. The mean summer temperature was the highest on record by almost 1°C, and January was Australia’s hottest month on record. The heat was most notable for its persistence but there were also significant individual extremes, including 46.6°C at Adelaide on 24 January, the city’s highest temperature on record

Wildfires

It was an above-average fire year in several high-latitude regions, including Siberia (Russian Federation) and Alaska (US), with fire activity occurring in some parts of the Arctic where it was previously extremely rare.

The severe drought in Indonesia and neighbouring countries led to the most significant fire season since 2015. The number of reported fires in Brazil’s Amazonia region was only slightly above the 10-year average, but total fire activity in South America was the highest since 2010, with Bolivia and Venezuela among the countries with particularly active fire years.

Tropical cyclones

Tropical cyclone activity globally in 2019 was slightly above average. The Northern Hemisphere, to date, has had 66 tropical cyclones, compared with the average at this time of year of 56, although accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) was only 2% above average. The 2018-19 Southern Hemisphere season was also above average, with 27 cyclones.

Tropical Cyclone Idai made landfall in Mozambique on 15 March as one of the strongest known on the east coast of Africa, resulting in many casualties and widespread devastation. Idai contributed to the complete destruction of close to 780 000 ha of crops in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, further undermining a precarious food security situation in the region. The cyclone also resulted in at least 50 905 displaced persons in Zimbabwe, 53 237 in southern Malawi and 77 019 in Mozambique.

One of the year’s most intense tropical cyclones was Dorian, which made landfall with category 5 intensity in the Bahamas. The destruction was worsened as it was exceptionally slow-moving and remained near-stationary for about 24 hours.

Typhoon Hagibis made landfall west of Tokyo on 12 October, causing severe flooding.

Climate-related risks and impacts

Health at increasing risk (World Health Organization)

In 2019, record-setting high temperatures from Australia, India, Japan, and Europe impacted health and well-being. In Japan, a major heat wave event affected the country in late July to early August 2019 resulting in over 100 deaths and an additional 18 000 hospitalizations. Europe experienced two significant heat waves in the summer of 2019. In June, a heatwave affecting southwestern to central Europe resulted in a number of deaths in Spain and France. The most significant heat wave was in late July, affecting much of central and western Europe. In the Netherlands, the heatwave was associated with 2 964 deaths, nearly 400 more deaths than during an average summer week

Changes in climatic conditions since 1950 are making it easier for the Aedes mosquito species to transmit dengue virus, increasing the risk of the occurrence of disease. In parallel, the global incidence of dengue has grown dramatically in recent decades, and about half of the world population is now at risk of infection. In 2019, the world has experienced a large increase in dengue cases, compared with the same time period in 2018.

Food security continues to be negatively affected

(Food and Agriculture Organization)

In Southern Africa, the start of the seasonal rains was delayed and there were extensive dry periods. Regional cereal output is forecasted to be about 8 percent below the five-year average with 12.5 million people in the region expected to experience severe food insecurity up to March 2020, an increase of more than 10 percent from the previous year.

Food security has been deteriorating in several areas of Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya and Uganda due to a poor long/Gu rainy season. Overall, about 12.3 million people are food insecure in the Horn of Africa region. Between October and November 2019, Somalia was further affected by intense flooding.

Associated with the  worst flooding in a decade affecting some parts of Afghanistan in March 2019, 13.5 million people are food insecure in the country, with 22 out of 34 provinces still recovering from severe drought conditions faced in 2018.

Disasters increase population displacement (UN High Commissioner for Refugees and International Organization for Migration)

More than 10 million new internal displacements were recorded between January and June 2019, 7 million being triggered by disasters such as Cyclone Idai in Southeast Africa, Cyclone Fani in South Asia, Hurricane Dorian in the Caribbean, flooding in Iran, the Philippines and Ethiopia, associated with acute humanitarian and protection needs.

Floods were the most commonly cited natural hazard contributing to displacement, followed by storms and droughts. Asia and the Pacific remains the world’s most disaster displacement-prone region due to both sudden and slow-onset disasters.

The number of new displacements associated with weather extremes could more than triple to around 22 million by the end of 2019.

Your kids will live it.

David Llewellyn-Smith

David Llewellyn-Smith is Chief Strategist at the MB Fund and MB Super. David is the founding publisher and editor of MacroBusiness and was the founding publisher and global economy editor of The Diplomat, the Asia Pacific’s leading geo-politics and economics portal.

He is also a former gold trader and economic commentator at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the ABC and Business Spectator. He is the co-author of The Great Crash of 2008 with Ross Garnaut and was the editor of the second Garnaut Climate Change Review.

Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

  1. See that cold patch over North America? And the neutral ones over China and India? Yep, that’s why nothing will ever get done globally. Ain’t no one living at the polar caps, so climate science is fake news.

    • Sorry but the cooling was due to a combination of a 2500 and 1000 year solar cooling cycle overlaying the 30000 year milankovich orbital forcing cycle. This period of warming rebound is primarily driven by cloud changes with a small amount of CO2 warming post WW2. The IPCC states that warming prior to WW2 was natural in origin yet the cant account for what caused it because they continue to ignore cloud albedo changes that dwarf CO2 forcing. There is obviously no money if humans are not responsible.

  2. WMO: Globe heating much faster than we thought … basically admitting they were wrong with their predictions
    Also: Auction clearances go BOOM! except for … you really don’t need to see all the auction results … just trust us with the pick we did for you.

    • I think scientists have been disinclined to be incautious with their language to avoid accusations of scare mongering

      As sh$t gets real serious real fast they’re going to have to shed any worries about that and be honest

      On current trends we’re utterly fked

      • The short term trend is diven by solar enso effects. You get warming El nino during solar cycle decline and cooling La Nina during solar cycle ascending phase. So we are due for global cooling in the next couple of years which will again falsify the models which show twice as much warming as what is observed.

        • short term vs trend. See the squiggly lines in the first graph? That is your ENSO effect. See the UPWARD TREND? That is Global Warming. The models model the trend – They will be fine. Do you know why the models will be fine? BECAUSE WE HAVE SHOWN, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE WORLD IS WARMING AND HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE OF ALMOST ALL OF IT!

          • I accept the warming. Is there any natural warming? How much is AGW adding on top of any natural warming? there is a problem with the models in that they don’t reflect reality. See Dr Christy’s view in my post above. Dr. Spencer, Dr Christy’s associate predicted the IPCC change in the satellite data and how it would be done.

            Here is Tony Heller’s view
            https://youtu.be/bOHrYY3yAGE

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        Back in 2007 I attended a Regional Climate Change Effects presentation by the CSIRO and BoM at the Wollongbah Agricultural Centre near Lismore.
        The Scientists presented their data and unpacked it for us.
        Basically there would be longer hotter summers and warmer shorter winters.
        There were 4 presenters, 2 from each institution, and 6 audience members.
        Afterwards some of us audience had a cuppa with the scientists, I expressed my opinion that , based on other info I had come across, their presentation time frames were not reflecting the speed that CC was occuring at, (that CC was happening faster than the presenter scientists had just told us.)
        They all agreed that CC was happening faster than they presented, “But,” they said, We cannot prove it yet, so we don’t say it.”
        They were very concened with Facts, and not being alarmist.

        • Back in the mid 2000s i lived with a BOM computer model devoloper. I ask her if she employed the scientific method and she replied “what do you mean?” The concept was foreign too her. Computer models are not based on thermodynamics but curve fitting algorithms that attempt to emulate short term weather events out to 14days. There usefulness for predicting climate 100 years from now is zero.
          The claim that the observed warming is worse than predicted is an outright lie. Here is a direct comparison of computer models vs obs which show that the observed temperature is lower than predicted. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/comments-by-ross-mckitrick-on-the-continuation-of-climate-model-failure/

          • Do you really think that the models the BOM use to fairly accurately predict 14 days into the future are the same models developed to predict trends hundreds of year into the future….??

            One is designed to predict weather events, the other to predict climate trends….

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        How and in what way have we as scientists contributed to this disastrous failure of climate policy? The first point indicates scientific conservatism and has been noted before by many.2 It is our job as scientists to question new theories to make sure they hold up. So, we demand to know how certain we are this is true. But what we do not ask is if we can be sure this effect will never happen. This latter is how anyone is trained to think in an emergency situation.3 The best-known example is probably the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change’s (IPCC) decision to explicitly exclude ice sheet melt from its Fifth Assessment Report’s estimate of future sea-level rise. It is now widely believed that there is a substantial risk of much more rapid change, mainly due to the possible collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.4

        The second has to do with our holding on to illusions, for fear of inciting panic. The IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5 degrees warming gives a remaining emissions budget as of 1 January 2018 of 320 billion tonnes (Gt) of CO2, when accounting for some Earth system feedbacks.5 Using the latest estimate for 2018,1 and a continuing exponential rise in emissions in accordance with the last 170 years,6 I conclude that the budget given by the IPCC will be exhausted at the beginning of 2025. Past investment in fossil-fuel and energy infrastructure alone has been estimated to commit the world to emitting 658 Gt CO2, as of 2018.7 Given that the approach of climate policy has been to address fossil-fuel emissions at the demand and not the supply end,8 and that the negative emissions technologies that dominate the IPCC’s below 1.5 degree warming scenarios are unproven,9 it is extremely unlikely the Paris Agreements goal will be met.10 But even the publications outlining the most dramatic scenarios – scientific or popular – never seem to say it is too late.

        Another way we, as scientists, have contributed to the crisis concerns the excessive rationalisation of a threat. In other words – we switch off common sense and produce scientific results borne of idealized models – be they mathematical or intellectual. All of us are probably well apprised of the knowledge that there is no decisive and radical action on climate change – no car free Sundays as enforced during the 1980’s oil crisis (I’m old enough to remember!), no massive push towards public transport, no willingness to stop the continuing rise in air travel, or awareness of the enormous energy consumption of the internet.11 The Climate Action Tracker initiative estimates that given existing pledges, the world is heading towards 3 degrees of warming.12 As citizens we all know the difference between a politician’s words and deeds and we are all painfully aware of recent changes in the geopolitical landscape, implying a very real risk of a 4 or higher degree of warming.13 And yet, the IPCC’s various assessment reports have repeatedly relied on highly idealized so-called integrated models that know and admit nothing of these things, and therefore be easily bent to produce results that fly in the face of common logic.14 In our official model, this purportedly objective approach is the very one implemented to inform policy makers.

        Finally, Paul Watzlawick’s famous dictum that we cannot not communicate is also true for us climate scientists, even if we do not want to hear it. By going on with our daily routines and not rebelling – filling in another grant application for looking at yet another tiny detail of the complex web of cause and effect that is the planetary climate system, following the demands of a funding system that might serve the interests of politicians as much as those of humanity – we send out a powerful message that everything is under control. The way the IPCC’s assessments are structured makes it very clear that regarding climate change, we are dealing first of all with a physical problem (Working Group 1) that has impacts on the natural world and societies (Working Group 2), that have to be dealt with by technical solutions (Working Group 3)15. An alternative point of view may be simply expressed by saying we are dealing with the mundane problem of good housekeeping – the original meaning of the Greek word “economy”. Climate change, biodiversity loss, overfishing and air pollution could also just be symptoms of a more fundamental problem: that the word “economy” has assumed a different meaning from its origin, and that we cannot imagine a functioning economy without never ending growth supported by unlimited resources.16

        A way out

        The fact that we have been so stunningly unable to react to climate change may have to do with a failure to see precisely where the problem really resides and that the community of climate scientists have falsely assumed the position of superior expertise, where in fact it should have belonged to social anthropologists, historians, psychologists, and political and social activists. If this is so, it would explain the remarkable success of the latest protest movement, and the failure of the science and policy establishment.

        If we take this point of view on board for a moment, it becomes clear where the way out of the crisis can be found – at least in principle: acceptance of our collective failure, humility on the part of the “experts”, and immediate action from the human side of the problem. Most of the funding so far plunged into expert meetings, science conferences, computer resources, expeditions and lab work should now go towards building social capital and political trust, the facilitation of pertinent, open debate, and the establishment of global democratic institutions with capacity to deal with a global problem that – so far – has been impossible to tackle.

        [To read an interview of Dr Knorr by the founder of IFLAS, Professor Jem Bendell, see here]

      • Well the previous interglacial was 4deg c warmer than now and both our primitive ancestors and the polar bears survived just fine. A lot of the coal we burn originates from plants that grew at 10000ppm CO2. It was 800pm up until the circum antarctic ocean formed 20 million years ago. Dinosaurs used to live in polar forests that have since been destroyed by ice. There isnt a single place on the equator that isnt covered by Rainforests that would expand in a warming scenario and paleoclimatology shows that a warmer climate surpresses El Nino making australia wetter and more stable like the holocene optimum.

        • I think the implication is “we’re” as a civilisation, not a species. Significant climate change will wipe out current civilisation as it has done for many in the past, with or without man made greenhouse gas emissions help.

        • Robert don’t forget the rate of change. Sure the PPM were at similar levels, but the rate of change was millions of years. We’re now at tens to hundreds of years rate of change, this is unprecedented. Species adaptation is basically impossible at this rate of change.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoregulation looks at the ranges of temperatures humans can survive in, including the wet bulb temperatures. Large parts of the tropics will be uninhabitable.

          • Lol you think a change of 1 deg over 100years is rapid. The global temp fell by 1.2 deg between 1998 and 1999. The seasonal changes is up to 80 deg Celsius. The daily change of 1300w/m2 between day and night is millions of times more rapid than CO2 forcing. Then consider a VEI 8 eruption like mt toba 70000 years ago that nearly wiped out humanity . This is nothing.

      • “You know what else has similarly rising over that same period?”
        population, solar cell use, batteries in use, number of climate scientists, internet use, plastics use, inequality in the developed world, and a whole heap of other stuff as well.

          • These sorts of trans-impedance products are very interesting. As we all learned in First year Elect Maximum power transfer occurs when Source Impedance = Load Impedance
            So what does this mean for a solaPV setup.

            Hmmm source Impedance of one Solar Panel is about 10 ohms (40V output at 4 amps) so if the inverter apparent load is also about 40 ohms (4 series panels) than we achieve maximum power transfer between the Solar and Air Cooling domains.
            If the AC’s compressor motor is phase angle corrected than there’s no reason that it can’t run directly from the Panels without putting a battery in between.
            Makes sense to do these sorts of products. especially when heating and cooling are combined with hot/cold energy storage mechanisms.

      • You know correlation doesn’t equal causation right? Are you aware of Henry’s law? Are you aware that global warming comenced 100 years before humans produced significant CO2. From the satellite period from 1979 onwards the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment shows that the earth is loosing more heat as it warms up, not trapping more as expected. 70% of the warming is due to natural forcing in the form of reduced cloud cover. Co2 is only a small forcing, claiming it has a large effect violates thermodynamics just like a perpetual motion device does.

        • Basic thermodynamics in action:

          The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as “greenhouse” gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth’s daily and long-term weather (“climate”).

          – C02 is a greenhouse gas
          – solar radiation comes through, but prevents earths radiation from escaping

          See the link yet?

          • Brenton do you understand the difference between forcing and feedback? The nature of ghg forcing is not in question, it is how the earths thermodynamic system responds to the force by either amplifing of negating the effect. The climate scientists assume positive feedback while the thermodynamic equilibrium law states that negative feedback would be expected. The observations show negative feedback and thus CO2 forcing is not dangerous.

        • Mate, you can’t say CO2 is a small thermodynamic force, and that it violates laws like a perpetual motion machine – pretty sure actual thermodynamics shows it’s a significant insulating force. (Note: I’m a chemical engineer and find your sweeping statements about thermo vague, concerning and discrediting).

          • You know that 30ppm of CO2 absorbs 50% of the energy available. CO2 is near saturation (beer lambert law).
            The forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7w/m2. That is 1.2 deg C. 4 deg C of warming requires 14w/m2.
            To get dangerous warming from co2 requires massive positive feedback that has been assumed but never demonstrated. It is this positive feedback that violates the thermodynamic equilibrium law. (Le chetaliers principle) the law clearly states that a system will move towards equilibrium (energy minimization) and from equilibrium resist any forcing (negative feedback). The positive feedback mechanism for CO2 is the enhanced ghg theory that stipulates rising humidity in the upper troposphere at 10km. The observations show declining humidity at that altitude, consistent with negative feedback. That is clearly the definition of falsification.

        • Why do pro fossil fuel people always argue different points to the ones the climate scientists actually make.
          They always use big words and point out obscure science points the average person does not understand purely to baffle us with their superiority.

          It’s simple around 100% of the scientists studying climate change say it needs urgent action. No big words needed or baffling science talk. All we need to work out is, “is this real or made up?”. Let’s see, most of the rich and powerful countries and/ or people lose power and money if we are to combat climate change(eg. it could cause USA to self destruct as their dollar & dominance is tied to oil). Answer= hell yeah it is real…

          • I don’t think 100% is true. The models do not reflect the actuality. See my post of Dr Christy’s talk earlier this year at the top. he is the Guru on satellite’s and has been doing this stuff for 40 years. Have a look and tell me what you think. Here it is

            https://youtu.be/I8hdE3eZ6vs

          • Claiming anyone who disagrees with agw theory is in the pay of big oil is a conspiracy theory dude. I’m a scientist, my job is to test theories with observations in an attempt to empirically falsify said theory. Are you saying I shouldn’t do what I’m trained to do because other people claim something is proven? How will that advance scientific understanding if you not allowed to question something?

          • He’s saying if you want to make a claim contradicting basically everyone else who’s an expert on the subject, you need compelling evidence, not something that takes a minute to find at https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

            “I’m a scientist” carries no special weight when everyone you’re disagreeing with is as well.

          • “It is not “basically everyone” smithy. https://www.thegwpf.com/ian-plimer-97-of-scientists-agree-on-nothing/

            STOP with the horse manure

            Here is how The Scientific Method works:
            – you publish your hypothysis, method, results, conculsion in a peer reviewed publication.
            – other scientists can then put in formal responses with errors and mistakes.

            Here is how Science does not work:
            – you publish your hypothysis, method, results, conculsion in a peer reviewed publication.
            – some random person posts some random blog full of errors and inconsistencies (that get pointed out, but the author never bothers to correct) then every Flat Earther posts links to it like you have thinking you have ‘proven” that the peer reviewed science is wrong.

            THERE ARE SO FEW SCIENTISTS THAT DISAGREE WITH AGW THAT THEY CAN NAME EVERY ONE OF THEM!

          • LOL. Apparently my original comment was too much for the filter. Presumably too many URLs.

            It is not “basically everyone” smithy.

            Yes it is.

            Every major scientific body on the planet agrees on the subject.

            The only disagreement comes from fringe loonies and comically transparent vested interests like Ian Plimer.

        • And this is why scientists are off in remote places drilling into snow & ice pack reading values of gasses in the atmosphere that are stored in ice from hundreds to thousands of years ago.

          • Which demonstrates we are still cooler that the recent holocene optimum temp. Aka GISP2 that shows large changes in natural temp are normal and that the current temps is nothing special.

        • In the face of undeniable evidence, mountains of peer reviewed science and the fact that we still have people who are, in effect, saying that ‘the world is flat’ shows the power of money to corrupt people and influence opinions!

          • The trillion dollar global warming industry that contols the media would like to thank you for your support. I’m sure Al Gore and Tim Flannery will send you an invite to stay at their beach houses sometime soon.

  3. Maybe Climate Change will end up acting as the end of Population Growth by Proxy.
    Nature will always find a way to give humanity a nice big slap for our collective hubris.
    The planet will be fine. Humanity will be, deservedly; f%$#@#^

    • Well having the crop producing regions of America and Europe under a mile of ice will put a dent in population. Natural warming cycles tend to last 500+ years so we should enjoy the good times while they last. This one might be the last for 100000 years if the past is any guide.

      • Only the relatively wealthy will survive?

        LOL … are you kidding?
        Do you think the hordes of affected millions will take it lying down,
        I for one would love the opportunity to pay the elite, negligible taxpaying members of Melbourne’s premium inner-city suburbs a late night visit to eloquently discuss the greed and avarice they had displayed in the years leading up.
        That is…. if someone meaner, nastier and more ruthless than me gets to me first.

        Go long on rope, jerry cans of fuel, matches, cable ties and machetes.

        • I think you’re not seeing my vision here:
          Rich countries have the resources to survive, poorer countries die in large swathes. Once the global population has reduced to say a bil or two carbon emissions will crater. Problem solved. More space for us all. Everyone (who survives) is a winner 😉

          Rope cable ties and pitchforks in Africa won’t hurt us here. The Lucky Country maaate. Again

          • bolstroodMEMBER

            I think you are overlooking something.
            No matter how “wealthy” a country is, without food or water yuare poor.
            You cannot eat money, or drink gold.

          • bolstroodMEMBER

            I think you are overlooking something.
            No matter how “wealthy” a country is, without food or water you are poor.
            You cannot eat money, or drink gold.
            Famine is a distinct possibility.

          • Fellas, just a little light humour.

            This is a heavy subject. And as I’ve ‘splained many times before – if things are as bad as claimed then we are toast and no amount of action will prevent the inevitable. Chill – have a beer 😉

  4. It has been very clear that the return on renewables will diminish with scale. The bang for the buck will get less and less with time as more and more renewables are deployed.

    https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/

    And there is the issue of competing land usage, agriculture in particular. A similar issue arises for the use of dams as batteries – it cannot work.

    I think Bill Gates is right. The term “clean energy” screwed up people’s minds. The resulting massive misallocation of capital is appalling, to say the least. But then again, capital is unlimited under fiat systems, so who cares?

    https://stopthesethings.com/2019/11/13/system-upgrade-bill-gates-backs-new-wave-nuclear-for-worlds-clean-energy-future/comment-page-1/

    As the housing bubbles show, it will take ages before people come back to their senses.

    Anyways, back to celebrating rising house prices / record mortgage stresses!!

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now