Thank you Richard...I savored the last bit of 2024, with the Christmas lights and actually a bit of snow (which I wonder if it will be the last in my lifetime) and enter 2025 mentally prepared and preparing for the worst, if I can even imagine it...Thank you for helping me these past 2 years to get informed and get ready...
Thanks for the concerted effort, Richard, but that firehose of disparate data streams has left my old head aspin. I hang my hat on the EU's C3S, and they typically use the 1991-2020 baseline for global temp. comparisons. So, today, they show (with a 48hr. lag) an anomaly of 0.73 degC for land surface air temp. over the baseline, and a sea temp global ave. of 0.48 over baseline. They published "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", in which they gave 0.75 degC increase over baseline for a recent 12 mo. recording period, which I make to be 0.214 degC annual ave. increase. If so, then all of your/IPCC/etc. numbers using the misleading 1850-1900, etc. baselines, etc., are far too conservative and misleading as to the real, rapid global temp. increase, which may be 1 degC every 5 yrs., reaching 3 degC by 2032. But the even greater and more disturbing story is told in the 1.2 trillion tons of melting global ice worldwide, where each melting pound is absorbing 144 BTUs of heat energy, that's 3.3 billion tons per day. Eliot Jacobson has told us that we are pumping the heat energy equivalent of 20+ Hiroshima nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND into the atmosphere, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. So, even with our planet's AC on high, we are still accumulating heat energy at the most rapid rate in history. Please, tell me if I'm wrong. Gregg
I believe that I've quoted him accurately, but are you factoring in the latent heat energy absorption from the melting ice? My point is that we're still heating up on land and sea even with the enormous amount of heat sequestered in the melting ice, even with the enormous ice melt. Thanks for the info and dialog. Afterall, I'm just an ole doc and learning as I go about the climate collapse that appears to be developing rapidly. Last summer, here in Marietta, Ohio, we had a really hot/humid summer and I couldn't go for my usual walk down to the river after 9:30, so I could safely make it back by 10:30 and not have heat exhaustion.
Nah, all that heat energy, which we seem intent on continuing to generate through fossil fuel burning, will burn us the hell up, or at least any child unfortunate enough to be among the 200,000 born today.
3 by 2032 tracks with the my comprehension of the math plus factoring in some leeway for the unknown. It may even be conservative for all we know, but regardless that's way too quick to be anything but a nightmare anyway. 2028 or 2032 equally bad, even if it was 2036 or 2040 it would be similarly devastating. I can even see a path to 5 or 6C or even far more than that before 2050 because the exponential function is a real fucker, as is thermodynamics, and inertia.
Everyone is dead walking and doesn't quite realize it yet.
Extrapolating the C3S data giving the 0.214 degC annual increase from their June 5, 2024 article, that's pointing to a possible 6 degC increase by 2047. So, any child among the 200,000 born today could see an impossible world to survive in by his/her 22nd BD. Little wonder PEW survey revealed 47% of American adults 18-50 are choosing NOT to reproduce ever. Sad that we have a Federal Government being taken over by Neanderthals hell bent on ignoring climate science and whose only interest is in promoting fossil fuel corporations. I pity the children.
Glad to see you back on deck, I was becoming concerned if you were OK Richard. All the best for 2025-it will not be easy for any of us. Be kind to each other
It doesn't have to be the end of the world to be the end of me. 2500 million also seems a little low on the casualty end given the prospects of simultaneous multi-breadbasket crop failures. Even beyond that, I'm hearing papers are en route giving 8⁰ ECS from palaeoclimate data, so various projections may need serious recalibration if those pan out.
I'm operating under the assumption that I have about 10 to 15 years left of something that isn't a complete absolute hellscape nightmare of a life. Really about half of that would be nice to get, the other half would be bonus. None of us are ready for what's coming, even those of us who understand.
I don’t have any way to guess how long, but for me, the fascist political threat is what I suspect is most likely to back me into a corner that I won’t dare be taken alive from at some unpredictable point in time. The ecological etc. breakdown will surely drive a political one at some no later point.
Hey love the article, thanks for compiling everything. That SAID your use of CAPS seemingly at random detracts from the OVERALL feel and message. Just my opinion.
I am AUTISTIC and I experience "Kinesthetic Synesthesia". Particularly around text.
All of my life I "masked" that and conformed to standard formatting for my work. I am OLD and cranky now. I write for myself now. My writing reflects an approximation of the shapes, colors, movements, and textures I experience when I write.
Oh sorry about that! I had no idea. It's just a little distracting for me at times, but it's minor. Again, love the compilation, graphs and all of it put together. Keep up the good work!
I'm glad you waited until after the holidays for the report. I took a break too. Spirituality really helps me. Trying to have things be nice for my family for as long as possible. Light to you.
We are exiting and ice age transient and this has happened 4 times before in the last 10,000 years and like now we flourished when it was warm and struggled when it was cold.
Keep on recording but there is no climate emergency and we have far more higher priorities.
Jesus christ i wish this was true. I wish I didn't think about this daily and feel deep waves of dread and grief and guilt and anger. What fantasy are you living?
Look I hope this helps.. NetZero is not like asking the population through legislation to read health warnings on cigarette packets or making them wear seat belts. Those are low cost and non-threatening ways to save lives. But NetZero is an extreme solution and will be heavily trading an opportunity to maybe avoid some climate change with a drastic effect on prosperity and even lives in the emerging parts of the planet.
So ….we better get it right…. and I don’t see we have done enough constructive due-diligence by a long shot.
Also due to the extreme penalty of the solution the onus should be on the activists to prove the case….. not the realists.
"this has happened 4 times before in the last 10,000 years" = bullshit.
You are still an idiot and an offensive self-righteous asshole. Richard please block him. He belongs on WUWT and not spreading his psychotic fascist delusions here as a distraction.
Mr. Southway is entitled to his thoughts and I respect his choice to express them in "the lions den". I don't agree with him in any way BUT his views serve as a useful counterpoint to illustrate the delusions of the DENIERS.
About 30% of the population believes as Mr Southway does. It's important to understand what those people are thinking.
Besides, I philosophically disagree with the whole idea of "blocking" people. I have been "shadow banned" myself from climate forums because I was too "doomer".
Thank you Richard I am always respectful of others and do like to test my thinking and the facts I have gathered with others that may not agree.
I would like to correct you on what you said..
We don’t deny we have climate change….. we are “realists” about the real causes.
The 30% is low .. elections are being won by a greater share of the population voting away from carbon taxes and other NetZero policies and this number is rapidly growing.
Also, there is a clear and growing dissension within the scientific community concerning both the risk levels and the impact assessment and the cause. And the number of scientists that are moving toward a realist position is also growing once the funding subjugation is removed.
There is a far higher level of ideology protectionism on the alarmist side than on the realist side and this is something that makes open discussion far more difficult.
What’s interesting is that mostly it’s the same database being used but a far different set of conclusions being reached.
To me its very clear that based on the scientific dissention and no impact on the environmental metrics we should only be releasing policies to undertake focused adaption, and we should halt all forms of CO2 mitigation…I would like your views on that position?
Unmitigated sophistry and lies, distortions manipulation and fallacies.
Generalized conjecture and wild claims without a speck of evidence not one 'fact' to support these atrocious mindlessly illogical and false claims.
You are fraud Nigel Southway. A con man. And a Liar.
In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are used disparagingly. A sophism, or sophistry, is a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.
May I also point out that climate change is just one factor of the horror that’s coming. Pollution and biodiversity collapse and habitat loss — most of human activity in fact — means that whatever the climate crisis throws at us, we and other earthlings will find it impossible to adapt, as has happened in times past. A body can cope quite will with even a severe illness, but if you chop off its arms and legs and remove its vital organs first, it hasn’t got a chance
My mind is far from closed. It has never been. I am expressing my heartfelt intelligent evidence and reason-based conclusions that that what you are doing here and what you are saying here is in my view disgusting and I'm telling that to your face.
Nothing is closed, not my mind not my sanity and not my disgust at callous thoughtless materialist greed driven control freak fascists such as yourself.
The Banality of Evil are you, Nigel Southway. Zero respect. None.
(sorry Richard-this is my opinion my values, and I must stand by them.)
Palm to Forehead!!! In the past 10,000 (excluding last 200 years) CO2 levels have been between 260 and 280 mol..... they now sit around 420ppm... and our emission rates are increasing. Humans have never alive during times when CO2 has been this high. But hey if it makes you feel good to spread this type of dis-indigenous information then you do you... Denial comes in so many different forms.
Here's a question (for both points of view of this argument):
What data/observations/experimental results would make you change your mind?
The climate 'alarmists' postulate that the observed warming is a result of reduced Albedo and increased greenhouse gasses.
The climate 'realists' say it's due to solar variability, volcanic action, and "internal climate variability", and that this rate of temperature increase is not unusual in geological timescales (and therefore we should make no attempt to prevent it, but should focus on adaptation).
I think it would be insightful to understand what evidence would be required to adjust these positions. If you can't come up with evidence that would disprove your hypothesis, you are doing religion, not science.
For the record, as far as I can see the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum occurred at a rate of 5c over 15-20 thousand years, and is thought to have been driven by the release of Carbon Dioxide by volcanic activity, which does somewhat undermine some of the points Nigel makes. But I'm not a climate scientist.
I guess my response would be that the agenda should be policy based using and consolidating these facts….
First can the west make any difference with a NetZero policy even if we had strong facts from the alarmists ?... NO… the western world will be a smaller contributor than the rest who are hell bent on adding more CO2
Next all recording sources show that slightly increasing temperature and more CO2 are having no negative impact on extreme weather and other metrics outside of normal weather variability. (in fact CO2 increase is improving the food supply with the aid of FFs)
Climate science is in a high state of dissention and polarization ….with strong arguments on both sides and no settled ability to predict any outcome with climate modeling clearly not fit for purpose of policy and risk management.
A NetZero approach will certainly be a danger to both prosperity and the well being of the citizenship in both the west and the rest and is fast being called unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
In the past western politicos bought into the climate emergency rhetoric spouted by the UN and allowed this to become policy. But the facts above have made many policy makers start to move to a focused adaptive approach (when needed) while protecting their existing energy systems so that they remain affordable to enable ongoing prosperity.
The smart move would be for western governments to facilitate and in some cases force much more open scientific dialogue and review from both sides of the scientific dissention before any further policy direction is taken.
Incidentally this is what is now happening in some western nations with carbon tax cancelation and legislative controls on energy being lifted or planned for in the next election cycle.
You have failed to answer my question in any meaningful way, and simply used your response to repeat a bunch of 'pre-recorded' talking points which makes me think you are not arguing in good faith or with any genuine curiosity.
What data/observations/experimental results would make you change your mind?
To change my mind that we DO have a climate emergency would be significant long-term changes in average extreme weather metrics plus catastrophic increases in sea level rise. It would have to be an order of magnitude more than is being currently experienced.
Even then it would not be that clear that we are the root cause… And It would still point to much more adaption which we would be far more able to launch with the power of fossil fuels.
I just don’t see a path where we can radically adapt to such changes with NetZero using W&S and EVs.
Its extremely unlikely that a few more PPM of a trace gas is going to make those extreme things happen, but please go ahead and explain.
Look I hope this helps.. NetZero is not like asking the population through legislation to read health warnings on cigarette packets or making them wear seat belts. Those are low cost and non-threatening ways to save lives.
But NetZero is an extreme solution and will be heavily trading the opportunity to maybe avoid some climate change with a drastic effect on prosperity and even lives in the emerging parts of the planet.
So ….we better get it right…. and I don’t see we have done enough constructive due-diligence by a long shot.
Also due to the extreme penalty of the solution the onus should be on the activists to prove the case….. not the realists.
Obviously you slept through your high school physics and chemistry classes. “Saturation” has nothing to do with “heat transfer”, they are two different mechanisms. CO2 does NOT become saturated in the atmosphere like salt would dissolve in water, you know “forming a saturated solution”…. perhaps you were making spit balls during that section of the lecture??? CO2 does not precipitate out when it reaches saturation.. for example, water vapor in the atmosphere will precipitate out when it reaches saturation… you know RAIN… Do you see it “raining” CO2????? That is because CO2 is non-condensable under typical atmospheric conditions!!! REALLY!!!! EXPERIMENTS HAVE BEEN RAN!!!!!!!!
Thanks Nigel. Your sober analysis is welcome amongst the alarmism on display. Whether 3 degC or 5 degC in 2100 the policies advocated today will do little, adaptation is the only way. The truth is that no LGCM predicted the recent 2023 rise in SST, nor the sudden reversal. We do not understand weather and certainly not climate.
It’s a huge shame that publications let themselves be implicit in this kind of political staging of science.
Firstly,,,, anything published with Michael E Mann’s name in it should be taken with a huge pinch of reality salt. This is the same clown that published the temperature hockey stick that has proved to be a planned criminal staging of data to make a point that erroneously promotes an emergency in our climate.
Most of the data in this article has been scaled and windowed to display a panic situation when in fact digging deeper even shows many non-threatening trends or no real trends at all.
Also many assumptions are made that have already been disproved such as the so called decay of coral reefs that by the way like warmer water and are now thriving .. although human pollution (not CO2) is always an issue.
It also cherry picks weather events and tries to compare them to climate which is also a very unscientific way to paint climate as adverse.
Look.. on just about every weather metric… fires floods droughts extreme weather we see no change or even a decline.
Forrest fires have declined over the long range window and its our management that dives the fire instances…. The one in Hawaii is a case in point.
Sea level rise is well within adaptive capability using fossil fuels
Even the data in the scientific section of the IPCC does not support these panic findings..
All the future predictions are unvalidated by using climate models not fit for purpose.
When real data is used over a much longer time window its clear based on the IPCC that we have no emergency that a bit of focused adaptation cannot handle.
We have seen a significant decline in cost and death per population in all climate threats and impacts due to better adaptations, safety legislation, and warning systems.. Its far from a need for gross climate mitigation that wont work anyway.
Why not take this climate Quiz… the data is from peer reviewed sources.
If you disagree with the data….. please let me know.
I do agree that its very hard to know who to believe and that’s the problem when you have science subjugated by politics which is clearly where we are at.
The entry to Robert above is what should come next .
My journey on this subject was research for my book on recovering our industrial sectors and I saw NetZero as a key issue …. So I reviewed both sides of the scientific dissention and found solid scientific arguments on both sides. The issue is that the fix even if it’s a real problem will hurt maybe even worse than the problem. So we better be sure.
I have been in the room with many scientists and engineers over the years and had to manage through diverse views facts and dissention with open dialogue, and I don’t see that open dialogue approach being applied to this problem… Anyone that says that “science is settled” is to be disbelieved as it don’t work that way. I don’t even think we have enough facts to even make a risk level decision. Doing nothing based on the facts we do have may be the best approach at this time.
Thank you Richard...I savored the last bit of 2024, with the Christmas lights and actually a bit of snow (which I wonder if it will be the last in my lifetime) and enter 2025 mentally prepared and preparing for the worst, if I can even imagine it...Thank you for helping me these past 2 years to get informed and get ready...
Thanks for the concerted effort, Richard, but that firehose of disparate data streams has left my old head aspin. I hang my hat on the EU's C3S, and they typically use the 1991-2020 baseline for global temp. comparisons. So, today, they show (with a 48hr. lag) an anomaly of 0.73 degC for land surface air temp. over the baseline, and a sea temp global ave. of 0.48 over baseline. They published "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", in which they gave 0.75 degC increase over baseline for a recent 12 mo. recording period, which I make to be 0.214 degC annual ave. increase. If so, then all of your/IPCC/etc. numbers using the misleading 1850-1900, etc. baselines, etc., are far too conservative and misleading as to the real, rapid global temp. increase, which may be 1 degC every 5 yrs., reaching 3 degC by 2032. But the even greater and more disturbing story is told in the 1.2 trillion tons of melting global ice worldwide, where each melting pound is absorbing 144 BTUs of heat energy, that's 3.3 billion tons per day. Eliot Jacobson has told us that we are pumping the heat energy equivalent of 20+ Hiroshima nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND into the atmosphere, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. So, even with our planet's AC on high, we are still accumulating heat energy at the most rapid rate in history. Please, tell me if I'm wrong. Gregg
Is he saying 20+ HIROs per second, now?
Ouch.
That's about 4.5 HIROs per square mile of open water per year.
In 2023 it averaged out to 15 HIROs per second, roughly 15Zj of ENERGY, about 3.4 HIROs per square mile of open water.
I believe that I've quoted him accurately, but are you factoring in the latent heat energy absorption from the melting ice? My point is that we're still heating up on land and sea even with the enormous amount of heat sequestered in the melting ice, even with the enormous ice melt. Thanks for the info and dialog. Afterall, I'm just an ole doc and learning as I go about the climate collapse that appears to be developing rapidly. Last summer, here in Marietta, Ohio, we had a really hot/humid summer and I couldn't go for my usual walk down to the river after 9:30, so I could safely make it back by 10:30 and not have heat exhaustion.
i get what your saying, once the ice has melted, all that heat energy will quickly bring everything to ambient.
Nah, all that heat energy, which we seem intent on continuing to generate through fossil fuel burning, will burn us the hell up, or at least any child unfortunate enough to be among the 200,000 born today.
And what support do you have for your hypothesis?
3 by 2032 tracks with the my comprehension of the math plus factoring in some leeway for the unknown. It may even be conservative for all we know, but regardless that's way too quick to be anything but a nightmare anyway. 2028 or 2032 equally bad, even if it was 2036 or 2040 it would be similarly devastating. I can even see a path to 5 or 6C or even far more than that before 2050 because the exponential function is a real fucker, as is thermodynamics, and inertia.
Everyone is dead walking and doesn't quite realize it yet.
Extrapolating the C3S data giving the 0.214 degC annual increase from their June 5, 2024 article, that's pointing to a possible 6 degC increase by 2047. So, any child among the 200,000 born today could see an impossible world to survive in by his/her 22nd BD. Little wonder PEW survey revealed 47% of American adults 18-50 are choosing NOT to reproduce ever. Sad that we have a Federal Government being taken over by Neanderthals hell bent on ignoring climate science and whose only interest is in promoting fossil fuel corporations. I pity the children.
Thank you, Richard. Saying “Happy New Year” hardly seems appropriate but it is good to read your content again.
Thanks for this in depth report! Humans are a stupid, stupid species😞
Glad to see you back on deck, I was becoming concerned if you were OK Richard. All the best for 2025-it will not be easy for any of us. Be kind to each other
Happy New Year to you too
Thank you for this excellent overview, Richard. I've just discovered your page.
Have you come across Climate & Economy? The climate round-ups complement your analyses very nicely:
https://climateandeconomy.com/2025/01/07/7th-january-2025-todays-round-up-of-climate-news/
It doesn't have to be the end of the world to be the end of me. 2500 million also seems a little low on the casualty end given the prospects of simultaneous multi-breadbasket crop failures. Even beyond that, I'm hearing papers are en route giving 8⁰ ECS from palaeoclimate data, so various projections may need serious recalibration if those pan out.
I'm operating under the assumption that I have about 10 to 15 years left of something that isn't a complete absolute hellscape nightmare of a life. Really about half of that would be nice to get, the other half would be bonus. None of us are ready for what's coming, even those of us who understand.
I don’t have any way to guess how long, but for me, the fascist political threat is what I suspect is most likely to back me into a corner that I won’t dare be taken alive from at some unpredictable point in time. The ecological etc. breakdown will surely drive a political one at some no later point.
Thank you for the report.
Nice work, but very grim. Thank you (I think...lol).
Hey love the article, thanks for compiling everything. That SAID your use of CAPS seemingly at random detracts from the OVERALL feel and message. Just my opinion.
Thanks again for writing it though.
I am AUTISTIC and I experience "Kinesthetic Synesthesia". Particularly around text.
All of my life I "masked" that and conformed to standard formatting for my work. I am OLD and cranky now. I write for myself now. My writing reflects an approximation of the shapes, colors, movements, and textures I experience when I write.
Oh sorry about that! I had no idea. It's just a little distracting for me at times, but it's minor. Again, love the compilation, graphs and all of it put together. Keep up the good work!
https://apps.climate.copernicus.eu/global-temperature-trend-monitor/
Are we in the longest contiguous stretch to date of being above of IPCC projections?
What an incredibly well detailed blog piece, well done sir.
I think it's a combination of the six-dozen feedback loops we've triggered and the consequences of less shipping aerosols!
https://kevinhester.live/2024/03/18/the-aerosol-masking-effect-a-deep-dive-into-our-faustian-bargain/
HIC SUNT DRACONES
I'm glad you waited until after the holidays for the report. I took a break too. Spirituality really helps me. Trying to have things be nice for my family for as long as possible. Light to you.
We are exiting and ice age transient and this has happened 4 times before in the last 10,000 years and like now we flourished when it was warm and struggled when it was cold.
Keep on recording but there is no climate emergency and we have far more higher priorities.
Jesus christ i wish this was true. I wish I didn't think about this daily and feel deep waves of dread and grief and guilt and anger. What fantasy are you living?
Look I hope this helps.. NetZero is not like asking the population through legislation to read health warnings on cigarette packets or making them wear seat belts. Those are low cost and non-threatening ways to save lives. But NetZero is an extreme solution and will be heavily trading an opportunity to maybe avoid some climate change with a drastic effect on prosperity and even lives in the emerging parts of the planet.
So ….we better get it right…. and I don’t see we have done enough constructive due-diligence by a long shot.
Also due to the extreme penalty of the solution the onus should be on the activists to prove the case….. not the realists.
"this has happened 4 times before in the last 10,000 years" = bullshit.
You are still an idiot and an offensive self-righteous asshole. Richard please block him. He belongs on WUWT and not spreading his psychotic fascist delusions here as a distraction.
Mr. Southway is entitled to his thoughts and I respect his choice to express them in "the lions den". I don't agree with him in any way BUT his views serve as a useful counterpoint to illustrate the delusions of the DENIERS.
About 30% of the population believes as Mr Southway does. It's important to understand what those people are thinking.
Besides, I philosophically disagree with the whole idea of "blocking" people. I have been "shadow banned" myself from climate forums because I was too "doomer".
Thank you Richard I am always respectful of others and do like to test my thinking and the facts I have gathered with others that may not agree.
I would like to correct you on what you said..
We don’t deny we have climate change….. we are “realists” about the real causes.
The 30% is low .. elections are being won by a greater share of the population voting away from carbon taxes and other NetZero policies and this number is rapidly growing.
Also, there is a clear and growing dissension within the scientific community concerning both the risk levels and the impact assessment and the cause. And the number of scientists that are moving toward a realist position is also growing once the funding subjugation is removed.
There is a far higher level of ideology protectionism on the alarmist side than on the realist side and this is something that makes open discussion far more difficult.
What’s interesting is that mostly it’s the same database being used but a far different set of conclusions being reached.
To me its very clear that based on the scientific dissention and no impact on the environmental metrics we should only be releasing policies to undertake focused adaption, and we should halt all forms of CO2 mitigation…I would like your views on that position?
Unmitigated sophistry and lies, distortions manipulation and fallacies.
Generalized conjecture and wild claims without a speck of evidence not one 'fact' to support these atrocious mindlessly illogical and false claims.
You are fraud Nigel Southway. A con man. And a Liar.
In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are used disparagingly. A sophism, or sophistry, is a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.
your mind looks pretty closed to me. I just want the truth and I don't see it yet.
May I also point out that climate change is just one factor of the horror that’s coming. Pollution and biodiversity collapse and habitat loss — most of human activity in fact — means that whatever the climate crisis throws at us, we and other earthlings will find it impossible to adapt, as has happened in times past. A body can cope quite will with even a severe illness, but if you chop off its arms and legs and remove its vital organs first, it hasn’t got a chance
I do agree we have issues but i don't see them being near to terminal.
I would be more concerned about war and economic collapse than the planet.
A closed mind is a terrible thing.
On that, I COMPLETELY agree.
My mind is far from closed. It has never been. I am expressing my heartfelt intelligent evidence and reason-based conclusions that that what you are doing here and what you are saying here is in my view disgusting and I'm telling that to your face.
Nothing is closed, not my mind not my sanity and not my disgust at callous thoughtless materialist greed driven control freak fascists such as yourself.
The Banality of Evil are you, Nigel Southway. Zero respect. None.
(sorry Richard-this is my opinion my values, and I must stand by them.)
Anything else?
Palm to Forehead!!! In the past 10,000 (excluding last 200 years) CO2 levels have been between 260 and 280 mol..... they now sit around 420ppm... and our emission rates are increasing. Humans have never alive during times when CO2 has been this high. But hey if it makes you feel good to spread this type of dis-indigenous information then you do you... Denial comes in so many different forms.
You appear trapped in these assumptions ....
The science is far from settled.
That CO2 is a problem. Its not…. It actually has improved the food supply..
And the other assumption is that CO2 controls temperature.. it has never!
Its Temperature that controls CO2….. And CO2 is already at saturation point…. Experiments have been ran.
Current CO2 and temp correlation does not mean causation!
And that both of these increases in temp and CO2 has caused the environmental metrics to get worse.. and it has not…. See IPCC.
No climate models are fit for purpose.
The average temperatures are not getting hotter on a 30 year window they are getting milder that brings up the average.
This kind of temperatures increase in not unprecedented in earths history.
So where is the emergency?...
And this is why many national governments will be de-committing from NetZero.
The plan will be focused adaption but no mitigation.
https://clintel.org and https://co2coalition.org
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/no-netzero
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDAXzcMD2Ng
Here's a question (for both points of view of this argument):
What data/observations/experimental results would make you change your mind?
The climate 'alarmists' postulate that the observed warming is a result of reduced Albedo and increased greenhouse gasses.
The climate 'realists' say it's due to solar variability, volcanic action, and "internal climate variability", and that this rate of temperature increase is not unusual in geological timescales (and therefore we should make no attempt to prevent it, but should focus on adaptation).
I think it would be insightful to understand what evidence would be required to adjust these positions. If you can't come up with evidence that would disprove your hypothesis, you are doing religion, not science.
For the record, as far as I can see the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum occurred at a rate of 5c over 15-20 thousand years, and is thought to have been driven by the release of Carbon Dioxide by volcanic activity, which does somewhat undermine some of the points Nigel makes. But I'm not a climate scientist.
I guess my response would be that the agenda should be policy based using and consolidating these facts….
First can the west make any difference with a NetZero policy even if we had strong facts from the alarmists ?... NO… the western world will be a smaller contributor than the rest who are hell bent on adding more CO2
Next all recording sources show that slightly increasing temperature and more CO2 are having no negative impact on extreme weather and other metrics outside of normal weather variability. (in fact CO2 increase is improving the food supply with the aid of FFs)
Climate science is in a high state of dissention and polarization ….with strong arguments on both sides and no settled ability to predict any outcome with climate modeling clearly not fit for purpose of policy and risk management.
A NetZero approach will certainly be a danger to both prosperity and the well being of the citizenship in both the west and the rest and is fast being called unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
In the past western politicos bought into the climate emergency rhetoric spouted by the UN and allowed this to become policy. But the facts above have made many policy makers start to move to a focused adaptive approach (when needed) while protecting their existing energy systems so that they remain affordable to enable ongoing prosperity.
The smart move would be for western governments to facilitate and in some cases force much more open scientific dialogue and review from both sides of the scientific dissention before any further policy direction is taken.
Incidentally this is what is now happening in some western nations with carbon tax cancelation and legislative controls on energy being lifted or planned for in the next election cycle.
You have failed to answer my question in any meaningful way, and simply used your response to repeat a bunch of 'pre-recorded' talking points which makes me think you are not arguing in good faith or with any genuine curiosity.
Sorry I will try again .. your question was..
What data/observations/experimental results would make you change your mind?
To change my mind that we DO have a climate emergency would be significant long-term changes in average extreme weather metrics plus catastrophic increases in sea level rise. It would have to be an order of magnitude more than is being currently experienced.
Even then it would not be that clear that we are the root cause… And It would still point to much more adaption which we would be far more able to launch with the power of fossil fuels.
I just don’t see a path where we can radically adapt to such changes with NetZero using W&S and EVs.
Its extremely unlikely that a few more PPM of a trace gas is going to make those extreme things happen, but please go ahead and explain.
Look I hope this helps.. NetZero is not like asking the population through legislation to read health warnings on cigarette packets or making them wear seat belts. Those are low cost and non-threatening ways to save lives.
But NetZero is an extreme solution and will be heavily trading the opportunity to maybe avoid some climate change with a drastic effect on prosperity and even lives in the emerging parts of the planet.
So ….we better get it right…. and I don’t see we have done enough constructive due-diligence by a long shot.
Also due to the extreme penalty of the solution the onus should be on the activists to prove the case….. not the realists.
Obviously you slept through your high school physics and chemistry classes. “Saturation” has nothing to do with “heat transfer”, they are two different mechanisms. CO2 does NOT become saturated in the atmosphere like salt would dissolve in water, you know “forming a saturated solution”…. perhaps you were making spit balls during that section of the lecture??? CO2 does not precipitate out when it reaches saturation.. for example, water vapor in the atmosphere will precipitate out when it reaches saturation… you know RAIN… Do you see it “raining” CO2????? That is because CO2 is non-condensable under typical atmospheric conditions!!! REALLY!!!! EXPERIMENTS HAVE BEEN RAN!!!!!!!!
Firstly… try to keep the personal attacks out of your comments as it shows a lack of maturity…
Here is a presentation that talks to the saturation issue… Plenty of facts and experiments on this…
Will Happer: CO2, the Gas of Life | Tom Nelson Pod #158
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA8elCE75ns&t=3172s
Staring at global surface air and sea temperatures rising for the past 50 years: "Sure is getting mild"
But...does it matter and is it unprecedented?
Thanks Nigel. Your sober analysis is welcome amongst the alarmism on display. Whether 3 degC or 5 degC in 2100 the policies advocated today will do little, adaptation is the only way. The truth is that no LGCM predicted the recent 2023 rise in SST, nor the sudden reversal. We do not understand weather and certainly not climate.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/74/12/812/7808595 .. what is your response? Really, do you think it isn’t a problem?
It’s a huge shame that publications let themselves be implicit in this kind of political staging of science.
Firstly,,,, anything published with Michael E Mann’s name in it should be taken with a huge pinch of reality salt. This is the same clown that published the temperature hockey stick that has proved to be a planned criminal staging of data to make a point that erroneously promotes an emergency in our climate.
Most of the data in this article has been scaled and windowed to display a panic situation when in fact digging deeper even shows many non-threatening trends or no real trends at all.
Also many assumptions are made that have already been disproved such as the so called decay of coral reefs that by the way like warmer water and are now thriving .. although human pollution (not CO2) is always an issue.
It also cherry picks weather events and tries to compare them to climate which is also a very unscientific way to paint climate as adverse.
Look.. on just about every weather metric… fires floods droughts extreme weather we see no change or even a decline.
Forrest fires have declined over the long range window and its our management that dives the fire instances…. The one in Hawaii is a case in point.
Sea level rise is well within adaptive capability using fossil fuels
Even the data in the scientific section of the IPCC does not support these panic findings..
All the future predictions are unvalidated by using climate models not fit for purpose.
When real data is used over a much longer time window its clear based on the IPCC that we have no emergency that a bit of focused adaptation cannot handle.
We have seen a significant decline in cost and death per population in all climate threats and impacts due to better adaptations, safety legislation, and warning systems.. Its far from a need for gross climate mitigation that wont work anyway.
Why not take this climate Quiz… the data is from peer reviewed sources.
https://co2coalition.org/climate-quiz/
If you disagree with the data….. please let me know.
I do agree that its very hard to know who to believe and that’s the problem when you have science subjugated by politics which is clearly where we are at.
Stunning that this is your conclusion. I wish I thought you were right. I wonder what facts you are working with
The entry to Robert above is what should come next .
My journey on this subject was research for my book on recovering our industrial sectors and I saw NetZero as a key issue …. So I reviewed both sides of the scientific dissention and found solid scientific arguments on both sides. The issue is that the fix even if it’s a real problem will hurt maybe even worse than the problem. So we better be sure.
I have been in the room with many scientists and engineers over the years and had to manage through diverse views facts and dissention with open dialogue, and I don’t see that open dialogue approach being applied to this problem… Anyone that says that “science is settled” is to be disbelieved as it don’t work that way. I don’t even think we have enough facts to even make a risk level decision. Doing nothing based on the facts we do have may be the best approach at this time.