CLIMATE CHANGE – THE FACTS

cancel2 2022

Canceled
.
Naturally the usual riff-raff and detritus are banned.

1) Global Temperatures

It is generally reckoned that global temperatures have risen by about 1C since the late 19thC. This however is only a guesstimate at best, as most of the world had very little climate data in those days. According to satellite data, temperatures have not increased since 1998.

2) Little Ice Age

Any discussion of temperature rise since the 19thC needs to be put in the context of the Little Ice Age, which lasted around 500 years and ended in the late 19th C. Scientists believe that this was the coldest period since the end of the Ice Age, and evidence shows that it was a worldwide event, although timings were not always the same. The Little Ice Age succeeded the Medieval Warm Period, which again appears to have been a global event, during which temperatures were at similar levels as today.

3) Glaciers

Melting of glaciers is often held up as “proof” of global warming. But in fact they began retreating in the 19thC, long before current “man-made” global warming. There is particularly strong evidence of this fact, as Alaskan and Alpine glaciers were already being closely surveyed as early as the late 18thC.

As the glaciers in Alaska retreat, they are uncovering the remains of ancient forests, which have been carbon dated back to the Middle Ages, indicating the glaciers were much smaller then. Exactly the same has occurred in Patagonia.

Evidence from around the world, including South America and New Zealand, confirms that there was a massive growth in the size of glaciers between the Middle Ages and the end of the Little Ice Age. Glaciologists have established that many glaciers in both Greenland and Iceland reached their post ice age maxima during the 18th and 19thC.

4) Arctic

We hear a lot about temperatures rising in the Arctic, and icecaps melting. In fact, temperatures around the Arctic are little different now to what they were in the 1930s and 40s. Subsequently they fell sharply in the 1970s and 80s, before rising again. This cycle appears to be connected to multi-decadal ocean cycles

Arctic sea ice retreated as a result until 2007, since when it has remained stable. Satellite data for sea ice extent is only available since 1979, in the middle of the colder interlude, and therefore cannot provide reliable long term trends.

The ice cap in Greenland has also been slowly melting, but the amounts involved are extremely tiny in relation to the total ice mass. Again, long term temperature records in Greenland show that temperatures were as high in the 1930s and 40s. On a longer timescale, scientists also know that temperatures throughout the Arctic have been much higher than now for the last 10000 years.

5) Antarctica

Sea ice around Antarctica has been stable since 1979, if anything increasing slightly. NASA have established that the Antarctic ice cap has actually been growing since 1992, because snowfall has more than offset thinning glaciers.

6) Sea levels

Since the ending of the Little Ice Age in the late 19thC, global sea levels have risen by about 8 inches. Sea levels around the UK give a similar result, after allowing for vertical land movement. (Most of England has been sinking since the ice age). The recent rate of rise has been slightly higher, about 10 inches per century, sea were also rising at a similar rate in the mid 20thC.

7) Extreme weather

There is no persuasive evidence that extreme weather is getting either more common or severe:

a) According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is no evidence of any long term increase in hurricane activity.

b) US data confirms that tornado activity has declined since the 1970s, when proper records began. Notably data also shows that there are now fewer of the most violent tornadoes.

c) The IPCC also report little evidence that flooding is getting worse.

d) Equally they find little proof that droughts are becoming worse globally, though there inevitably regional differences.

e) Wildfires, contrary to popular myth, are claiming many less acres than they did in the past.

One of the biggest sources for the myth of extreme weather is 24/7 media coverage, which now brings events into our homes which would have gone unreported not long ago. In the UK, long term data also provides no evidence of an increase in extreme weather, such as storms, floods and droughts.

8) UK climate trends

According to official Met Office data, UK temperatures stopped rising about fifteen years ago. The summer of 1976 remains the hottest on record, as well as having the most intense heatwaves. Furthermore there is no evidence of any significant changes in rainfall trends, other than in Scotland which has experienced higher rainfall in recent decades.

9) Climate projections

All of the scary forecasts concerning temperatures, sea level rise etc are based on computer modelling of the climate. However these models have consistently grossly overestimated the small rise in temperatures actually experienced.

10) UK Climate Change Act

The 2008 Climate Change Act committed the UK to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. Since the Act was passed, the UK’s CO2 emissions have reduced by 183 Mt, representing 31% of 1990 levels. However this has come at a great cost. This year, subsidies for renewable energy are forecast to hit £12.2bn, equivalent to about £450 per household.

This year however, Parliament approved changes to the Act which alter the target from an 80% cut to 100%. Official estimates put the cost of this at £50bn a year by 2050, some £1800 per household.

11) Global emissions

While UK emissions have dropped by 183 Mt since 2008, global emissions have increased by 3389 Mt. UK emissions are now only a tiny 1% of global ones. Despite the hype, the Paris Climate Agreement, signed in 2015, won’t do anything to reduce emissions, as most countries plan to carry on increasing them until at least 2030. Notably these include China and India, who account for 35% of the world’s carbon dioxide.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
 
Last edited:
.
Naturally the usual riff-raff and detritus are banned.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/

[Pre-1] Define "climate change".

[1] Random numbers. There is no land based data. There is no satellite data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

[2] We don't know what global temperatures were then or now.

[3] Glaciers grow. Glaciers shrink. Glaciers grow. Etc...

[4] It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Arctic, then or now. Same with sea ice levels. Same with Greenland. Not even with "magick" satellites.

[5] Same with Antarctica.

[6] It is not possible to measure global sea levels. There is no valid reference point, as land moves.

[7] Define "extreme" weather. "Extreme" is a subjective term.

[7a-e] Weather happens, regardless.

[8] UK temperatures cannot be measured either. Neither can rainfall in Scotland.

[9] Climate projections are useless.

[10] Sounds like the UK is wasting a lot of money on religious fear-mongering...

[11] It is not possible to measure global CO2 emissions nor CO2 content.
 
[Pre-1] Define "climate change".

[1] Random numbers. There is no land based data. There is no satellite data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

[2] We don't know what global temperatures were then or now.

[3] Glaciers grow. Glaciers shrink. Glaciers grow. Etc...

[4] It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Arctic, then or now. Same with sea ice levels. Same with Greenland. Not even with "magick" satellites.

[5] Same with Antarctica.

[6] It is not possible to measure global sea levels. There is no valid reference point, as land moves.

[7] Define "extreme" weather. "Extreme" is a subjective term.

[7a-e] Weather happens, regardless.

[8] UK temperatures cannot be measured either. Neither can rainfall in Scotland.

[9] Climate projections are useless.

[10] Sounds like the UK is wasting a lot of money on religious fear-mongering...

[11] It is not possible to measure global CO2 emissions nor CO2 content.

Temperatures are taken continuously 24/7 by polar orbiting satellites and data is compiled by both RSS and UAH. Why you and your fine feathered friend continue to parrot that canard is totally beyond me.
 
Temperatures are taken continuously 24/7 by polar orbiting satellites and data is compiled by both RSS and UAH. Why you and your fine feathered friend continue to parrot that canard is totally beyond me.
I and my fine feathered friend are both aware that the emissivity of Earth is unknown... That's why.
 
Not only are the Al Gorians unaware of the LIA and MWP, but they ignore other climate history like this ...

"The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death)[1] because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.72–1.26 °F).[2] This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3]

Evidence suggests that the anomaly was predominantly a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in April in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). This eruption was the largest eruption in at least 1,300 years (after the extreme weather events of 535–536), and perhaps exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines."
 
MORE FACTS

Below is the composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15 C and 101325 Pa.

Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
Helium -- He -- 0.000524%
Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%
Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%
Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%
Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide -- NO2 -- 0.000002%
Iodine -- I2 -- 0.000001%
Carbon Monoxide -- CO -- trace
Ammonia -- NH3 -- trace

29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind.

The notion that man is causing the planet to heat up based on CO2 that amounts to less than 1% of the gas in oxygen can only be believed by morons. :rolleyes:
 
.
Naturally the usual riff-raff and detritus are banned.
Living in the kiddie pool rarely works. If someone brings the thread out for public discussion, this thread will die.
1) Global Temperatures

It is generally reckoned that global temperatures have risen by about 1C since the late 19thC. This however is only a guesstimate at best, as most of the world had very little climate data in those days. According to satellite data, temperatures have not increased since 1998.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
2) Little Ice Age

Any discussion of temperature rise since the 19thC needs to be put in the context of the Little Ice Age, which lasted around 500 years and ended in the late 19th C. Scientists believe that this was the coldest period since the end of the Ice Age, and evidence shows that it was a worldwide event, although timings were not always the same. The Little Ice Age succeeded the Medieval Warm Period, which again appears to have been a global event, during which temperatures were at similar levels as today.
No one was monitoring the global weather 500 years ago.
3) Glaciers

Melting of glaciers is often held up as “proof” of global warming. But in fact they began retreating in the 19thC, long before current “man-made” global warming. There is particularly strong evidence of this fact, as Alaskan and Alpine glaciers were already being closely surveyed as early as the late 18thC.

As the glaciers in Alaska retreat, they are uncovering the remains of ancient forests, which have been carbon dated back to the Middle Ages, indicating the glaciers were much smaller then. Exactly the same has occurred in Patagonia.

Evidence from around the world, including South America and New Zealand, confirms that there was a massive growth in the size of glaciers between the Middle Ages and the end of the Little Ice Age. Glaciologists have established that many glaciers in both Greenland and Iceland reached their post ice age maxima during the 18th and 19thC.
What about the glaciers that are advancing?
4) Arctic

We hear a lot about temperatures rising in the Arctic, and icecaps melting. In fact, temperatures around the Arctic are little different now to what they were in the 1930s and 40s. Subsequently they fell sharply in the 1970s and 80s, before rising again. This cycle appears to be connected to multi-decadal ocean cycles

Arctic sea ice retreated as a result until 2007, since when it has remained stable. Satellite data for sea ice extent is only available since 1979, in the middle of the colder interlude, and therefore cannot provide reliable long term trends.

The ice cap in Greenland has also been slowly melting, but the amounts involved are extremely tiny in relation to the total ice mass. Again, long term temperature records in Greenland show that temperatures were as high in the 1930s and 40s. On a longer timescale, scientists also know that temperatures throughout the Arctic have been much higher than now for the last 10000 years.
Greenland does not have an ice cap. It's central region is an ice field and it is not melting at all. No one was measuring the temperature of the Arctic 10000 years ago. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Arctic. Arctic winter ice extent has been increasing the last few years.
5) Antarctica

Sea ice around Antarctica has been stable since 1979, if anything increasing slightly. NASA have established that the Antarctic ice cap has actually been growing since 1992, because snowfall has more than offset thinning glaciers.
In 2014, the Antarctic experienced a record maximum winter ice extent since recording began. It has gone down from that, and wanders up and down from year to year.
6) Sea levels

Since the ending of the Little Ice Age in the late 19thC, global sea levels have risen by about 8 inches. Sea levels around the UK give a similar result, after allowing for vertical land movement. (Most of England has been sinking since the ice age). The recent rate of rise has been slightly higher, about 10 inches per century, sea were also rising at a similar rate in the mid 20thC.
It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
7) Extreme weather

There is no persuasive evidence that extreme weather is getting either more common or severe:

a) According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is no evidence of any long term increase in hurricane activity.

b) US data confirms that tornado activity has declined since the 1970s, when proper records began. Notably data also shows that there are now fewer of the most violent tornadoes.

c) The IPCC also report little evidence that flooding is getting worse.

d) Equally they find little proof that droughts are becoming worse globally, though there inevitably regional differences.

e) Wildfires, contrary to popular myth, are claiming many less acres than they did in the past.

One of the biggest sources for the myth of extreme weather is 24/7 media coverage, which now brings events into our homes which would have gone unreported not long ago. In the UK, long term data also provides no evidence of an increase in extreme weather, such as storms, floods and droughts.
It is not possible to measure the global precipitation, number of storms, or average wind speed. We DO monitor the number of tropical storms forming in the Atlantic. Records at the National Hurricane Center show no increase in the intensity or number of storms beyond normal variations.
8) UK climate trends

According to official Met Office data, UK temperatures stopped rising about fifteen years ago. The summer of 1976 remains the hottest on record, as well as having the most intense heatwaves. Furthermore there is no evidence of any significant changes in rainfall trends, other than in Scotland which has experienced higher rainfall in recent decades.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the UK. It is not possible to measure the precipitation of the UK.
9) Climate projections

All of the scary forecasts concerning temperatures, sea level rise etc are based on computer modelling of the climate. However these models have consistently grossly overestimated the small rise in temperatures actually experienced.
As you correctly point out, models are not data.
10) UK Climate Change Act

The 2008 Climate Change Act committed the UK to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. Since the Act was passed, the UK’s CO2 emissions have reduced by 183 Mt, representing 31% of 1990 levels. However this has come at a great cost. This year, subsidies for renewable energy are forecast to hit £12.2bn, equivalent to about £450 per household.

This year however, Parliament approved changes to the Act which alter the target from an 80% cut to 100%. Official estimates put the cost of this at £50bn a year by 2050, some £1800 per household.
Unfortunately, the UK is an oligarchy. There is nothing to stop acts like this from destroying the UK economy. They have no constitution.
11) Global emissions

While UK emissions have dropped by 183 Mt since 2008, global emissions have increased by 3389 Mt. UK emissions are now only a tiny 1% of global ones. Despite the hype, the Paris Climate Agreement, signed in 2015, won’t do anything to reduce emissions, as most countries plan to carry on increasing them until at least 2030. Notably these include China and India, who account for 35% of the world’s carbon dioxide.
It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is also not possible to measure where CO2 is coming from.


Much of this stuff is just arguments from randU fallacies. Using made up numbers as data is a fallacy.
 
Temperatures are taken continuously 24/7 by polar orbiting satellites and data is compiled by both RSS and UAH. Why you and your fine feathered friend continue to parrot that canard is totally beyond me.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
 
Yet the satellite data closely corresponds with radiosonde data from weather balloons, can you explain that without bullshitting me?

Invalid. A weather balloon is a single thermometer at changing altitudes. It is not a reference point. There is no correlation with satellites, since satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperatures.
 
JUNEAU — The massive Taku Glacier has grown for nearly 130 years, extending deep into fjords and its namesake river southeast of the Alaska capital. Now, measurements indicate the Taku has ended its defiance of Alaska’s warming climate and become the last of the Juneau Icefield’s dozens of glaciers to retreat.

Chris McNeil, a U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist whose as-yet-unpublished scientific paper chronicles the glacier’s change, said the Taku’s reversal could send icebergs into the Inside Passage and the Port of Juneau, as it did in the late 19th century and early 20th century.
...
In more recent history, the disintegration of the Columbia Glacier sent icebergs into the oil-shipping lanes of Prince William Sound. The conditions facing the Taku Glacier are similar, but the Taku is more than twice as large as the Columbia.

Even if Juneau never becomes an urban Glacier Bay, McNeil said, the reversal of the Taku on its own represents “a pretty important benchmark in regard for glaciers and climate change in Alaska.”

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/sci...g-juneau-icefield-glacier-begins-its-retreat/
 
I think there will be a technical solution. All this panic by the left over nothing.

Excellent ban list by the way.
 
Invalid. A weather balloon is a single thermometer at changing altitudes. It is not a reference point. There is no correlation with satellites, since satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperatures.

I'd love to know where you are getting that bullshit from, are you a fan of loony Joe Postma?

https://climateofsophistry.com/

Instead of regurgitating the same old bollox over and over, I suggest you read these excellent articles, you might just learn something?

https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/02/01/basics-emissivity-and-the-stefan-boltzmann-equation/

https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/24/planck-stefan-boltzmann-kirchhoff-and-lte/
 
Last edited:
.
Maybe we should ask the UN's new climate expert Pippi Longstocking how she proposes to do this?

The World Is Not Going To Halve Carbon Emissions By 2030, So Now What?

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that “limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” Specifically, “Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050.” Since then, many advocates and policy makers have proposed that target as a political goal.

Here I’ll show you the simple mathematics of what achieving the 2030 target entails. The evidence shows clearly that the world is far from being on a path that will come anywhere close to that goal. That is not an opinion, it is just math.

Of course, climate change poses risks to our future, and aggressive mitigation and adaptation policies make good sense. So getting policy making right is important.

Let’s begin with a few key numbers as starting points. According to the 2019 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, in 2018 the world consumed in total almost 14,000 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). That energy supports the lives, hopes, aspirations of more than 7 billion people.

Like wealth, energy consumption is deeply unequal around the world, and many who do not have access to a full range of energy products and services are working hard to secure that access. So we should expect energy demand to continue to grow over the next decade. From 2000 to 2018, according to BP, consumption grew at about 2.2% per year, and ranged from a drop of 1.4% in 2009 to an increase of 4.9% in 2004. In the analysis below, I use an assumed 2.2% growth per year to 2030.

Here I focus on carbon dioxide from the consumption of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas and oil, and ignore emissions from the use of land. When combusted, fossil fuels emit different amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal by far emits the most. In 2018 about 27% of total global energy consumption came from coal, but according to the Global Carbon Project, coal accounts for about 40% of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.

To simplify the analysis, I assume that emissions reduction targets will be met through reductions in fossil fuel consumption which occur across all fossil fuels. That allows us to equate a reduction in fossil fuel consumption with a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. It also keeps us from misinterpreting a reduction in emissions from a switch from coal to natural gas. If the ultimate goal is net-zero carbon dioxide, then eventually all energy consumption will have to be carbon-free, meaning that carbon dioxide-emitted natural gas will have to also be eliminated.

I’ll also ignore the possibility of technologies of “negative emissions” which would allow the continued use of fossil fuels. The main reason for ignoring such technologies is that they don’t presently exist at scale, and don’t appear to be just over the horizon.

OK, with these starting points in place, let’s now look at the IPCC target for 2030. A 45% reduction in emissions from 2010, implies an allowance of about 5,950 mtoe of fossil fuel consumption for 2030, and a reduction of about 5,800 mtoe from 2018. If consumption grows by 2.2% per year to 2030, that means that the world will consume about 4,200 mtoe more in 2030 than in 2018. So the grand total of new, carbon-free consumption by 2030 needed to hit the 45% reduction target is about 10,000 mtoe.

That means that the world will need add about 1,000 mtoe of carbon-free energy every year over the next decade. Over the past decade, the world added about 64 mtoe of carbon-free energy every year, and in 2018 it added a record 114 mtoe. So the world would need to accelerate the deployment of carbon-free energy by 9 times or more the rate observed in 2018, and about 15 times greater than that of the past decade.

The deployment of new carbon-emitting energy would obviously have to cease immediately. Over the past decade fossil fuel consumption has increased annually by an average of about 150 mtoe. Last year’s record increase of 114 mtoe of carbon-free energy was dwarfed by an increase in fossil fuels of more than 275 mtoe. It is accurate to say that the world’s growing supply of carbon-free energy is additive, and not replacing fossil fuels.

Discussions of climate policy often center on the deployment of carbon-free energy supply, but rarely discussed is the corresponding requirement for the decommissioning of fossil fuel energy. As I have argued in a previous column, the magnitude of the net-zero by 2050 challenge is equivalent to the deployment of a new nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years, while retiring an equivalent amount of fossil fuel energy every day. Emissions reductions for 2030 consistent with the IPCC view of the 1.5°C temperature target require a much great rate of deployment than one nuclear power plant worth of carbon-free energy deployment every day, because about half of the required emissions reductions are squeezed into the next 10 years.

The bottom line of this analysis should be undeniable: There is simply no evidence that the world is, or is on the brink of, making “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” that would be required for the deep decarbonization associated with a 1.5°C temperature target. Anyone advocating a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 is engaging in a form of climate theater, full of drama but not much suspense. But don’t just take it from me, do the math yourself.

Despite the overwhelming evidence on the unlikelihood of meeting the 2030 target, such realism has yet to take hold in climate policy discussions. Some even go so far as to claim that presentation of this type of analysis amounts to climate denial. For those making such claims, I’ve got news for you – the world is going to miss the 2030 target whether we talk about that reality or deny it, so we had better get to work on rethinking climate policy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gradso...tributed-but-opportunity-is-not/#3be0219d887d
 
I'd love to know where you are getting that bullshit from, are you a fan of loony Joe Postma?
Instead of regurgitating the same old bollox over and over, I suggest you read these excellent articles, you might just learn something?
...deleted junk science articles...
False authority fallacy.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have a frequency term in it. You are trying to deny that law and add one again, using junk science articles.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. The temperature of Earth is unknown.
r=C*e*t^4
 
.
Of course, climate change poses risks to our future, and aggressive mitigation and adaptation policies make good sense. So getting policy making right is important.
Define 'climate change'. You don't get to dictate energy markets.
.
Let’s begin with a few key numbers as starting points. According to the 2019 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, in 2018 the world consumed in total almost 14,000 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). That energy supports the lives, hopes, aspirations of more than 7 billion people.

Like wealth, energy consumption is deeply unequal around the world, and many who do not have access to a full range of energy products and services are working hard to secure that access. So we should expect energy demand to continue to grow over the next decade. From 2000 to 2018, according to BP, consumption grew at about 2.2% per year, and ranged from a drop of 1.4% in 2009 to an increase of 4.9% in 2004. In the analysis below, I use an assumed 2.2% growth per year to 2030.
Argument from randU fallacy. Prophecy.
.
Here I focus on carbon dioxide from the consumption of fossil fuels,
Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
Not a fossil.
.
natural gas
Not a fossil.
.
and oil,
Not a fossil.
.
and ignore emissions from the use of land.
Why are you so afraid of CO2? It is necessary for plant life.
.
When combusted, fossil fuels
Fossils don't burn.
.
emit different amounts of carbon dioxide.
Zero. Fossils don't burn.
.
Coal by far emits the most.
Coal is not a fossil. CO2 is not a problem. It is incapable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is. CO2 is necessary for plant life.
.
In 2018 about 27% of total global energy consumption came from coal, but according to the Global Carbon Project, coal accounts for about 40% of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
.
To simplify the analysis, I assume that emissions reduction targets will be met through reductions in fossil fuel consumption which occur across all fossil fuels.
So more argument from randU. The use of more random numbers.
.
That allows us to equate a reduction in fossil fuel consumption with a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
.
It also keeps us from misinterpreting a reduction in emissions from a switch from coal to natural gas.
Doesn't matter. Irrelevance fallacy.
.
If the ultimate goal is net-zero carbon dioxide,
Not possible.
.
then eventually all energy consumption will have to be carbon-free,
Not possible.
.
meaning that carbon dioxide-emitted natural gas will have to also be eliminated.
Not possible. You don't get to dictate energy markets.
.
I’ll also ignore the possibility of technologies of “negative emissions” which would allow the continued use of fossil fuels.
Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
.
The main reason for ignoring such technologies is that they don’t presently exist at scale,
Plants.
.
and don’t appear to be just over the horizon.
Plants.
.
OK, with these starting points in place, let’s now look at the IPCC target for 2030. A 45% reduction in emissions from 2010, implies an allowance of about 5,950 mtoe of fossil fuel consumption for 2030, and a reduction of about 5,800 mtoe from 2018. If consumption grows by 2.2% per year to 2030, that means that the world will consume about 4,200 mtoe more in 2030 than in 2018. So the grand total of new, carbon-free consumption by 2030 needed to hit the 45% reduction target is about 10,000 mtoe.
Argument from randU fallacy.
.
That means that the world will need add about 1,000 mtoe of carbon-free energy every year over the next decade. Over the past decade, the world added about 64 mtoe of carbon-free energy every year, and in 2018 it added a record 114 mtoe. So the world would need to accelerate the deployment of carbon-free energy by 9 times or more the rate observed in 2018, and about 15 times greater than that of the past decade.
Argument from randU fallacy.
.
The deployment of new carbon-emitting energy would obviously have to cease immediately. Over the past decade fossil fuel consumption has increased annually by an average of about 150 mtoe. Last year’s record increase of 114 mtoe of carbon-free energy was dwarfed by an increase in fossil fuels of more than 275 mtoe. It is accurate to say that the world’s growing supply of carbon-free energy is additive, and not replacing fossil fuels.
Fossils don't burn.
.
Discussions of climate policy often center on the deployment of carbon-free energy supply, but rarely discussed is the corresponding requirement for the decommissioning of fossil fuel energy. As I have argued in a previous column, the magnitude of the net-zero by 2050 challenge is equivalent to the deployment of a new nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years, while retiring an equivalent amount of fossil fuel energy every day. Emissions reductions for 2030 consistent with the IPCC view of the 1.5°C temperature target require a much great rate of deployment than one nuclear power plant worth of carbon-free energy deployment every day, because about half of the required emissions reductions are squeezed into the next 10 years.
You don't get to dictate energy markets.
.
The bottom line of this analysis should be undeniable:
Argument from randU fallacy. There is no analysis. Only random numbers.
.
There is simply no evidence that the world is, or is on the brink of, making “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” that would be required for the deep decarbonization associated with a 1.5°C temperature target.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
.
Anyone advocating a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 is engaging in a form of climate theater, full of drama but not much suspense. But don’t just take it from me, do the math yourself.
What math?
.
Despite the overwhelming evidence on the unlikelihood of meeting the 2030 target, such realism has yet to take hold in climate policy discussions. Some even go so far as to claim that presentation of this type of analysis amounts to climate denial. For those making such claims, I’ve got news for you – the world is going to miss the 2030 target whether we talk about that reality or deny it, so we had better get to work on rethinking climate policy.
You don't get to dictate energy markets.
 
Back
Top