Road to Removal: A blueprint for yanking billions of tons of CO2 out of our atmosphere Let's say that you and your political leaders are committed to reducing the effects of the "greenhouse gasses" such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) that are indisputably toasting our Earth. In this perfect world, you and your political gros fromages are also firmly committed to "decarbonization" — that is, reducing …
Yes, forests are great CO2 sinks.. So we should start by removing subsidies from Drax.. Replace it with a nuke plant. Or failing that even going back to burning coal would be better than what it is doing now.
CCS is a road to nowhere, but it has lots of dosh on offer for snake-oil sakesmen.
If trees can do CCS as a side-effect of living, you'd think humanity could match or improve on it when we put our collective heads together. Plants, for example, need water and are vulnerable to pests. If we can do solar-powered CCS without water, then we do it in the desert.
I've seen a documentary on an experiment in the Sahara where a greenhouse-like structure was used to capture moisture and grow plants inside. An unintended consequence was that some excess moisture leaked out and allowed plants to grow on the outside. More plants then hold the sandy soil together eventually building up humus from their decomposition and slowly transform the sand into more productive soil. However that is a process that would take centuries because deserts are deserts for a reason ie not enough rainfall, and there isn't much we can do about that.
They are sinks, yes, up to a point while the forest grows.
Once the amount of biomass stabilizes (tree growth volume equals tree death), so does it's bound CO2 volume.
Plus, this balance is only stable while the forest is healthy.
Once weather shifts it may become too dry or too wet to sustain the chosen species of trees at a given location.
Pests or droughts can weaken the forest, kill trees, free the bound CO2.
Forest fires can free _all_ CO2 that has been bound in several decades in a few hours/days.
So yes, a growing, healthy forest is a sink.
I would not qualify it as "great" because of its long-term fragility.
> Once the amount of biomass stabilizes
That never happens. If that were true, we would not have Carboniferous coal deposits to exploit or crude oil to extract. We would not have peat bogs, several meters deep. Many habitats are anoxic because of bacteria proliferation and therefore C can't bind with O. In most habitats, the amount of CO2 emitted by plant decay is always less than what they absorb from the atmosphere. This is why organic matter accumulates in soils and then sediments or washes away, then ends up in the huge amount of dissolved ocean organic matter and eventually accumulates in deep sea sediments.
Same applies to carbon sequestrated as CaCO3 from biological origin (the vast majority). We would not have limestone and chalk cliffs, if ocean acidity would release it once foraminiferas decay.
Billions of years of photosynthesis could have contributed to the initiation of Cryogenian, which in turn would have ended with volcanic activity returning some of this deep sea C deposits to the atmosphere as CO2.
> Forest fires can free _all_ CO2.
Combustion is never complete. That's why burnt forest sites are black. So, that story of "stabilisation" of biological carbon sinks is a fallacy.
> > Once the amount of biomass stabilizes
> That never happens.
> Many habitats are anoxic because of bacteria proliferation and therefore C can't bind with O.
Where are large anoxic habitats where we actually try to grow forests for the purpose of capturing CO2?
The big carboniferous coal deposits were built up under very specific circumstances during a relatively short period of time 300-350My ago, when large flooded continental shelfs provided the aneroxic environment that preserved dead wood from oxidizing back to CO2 under Water long enough that it could be covered by mud and sand to become trapped an anaerobic environment.
This is basically the same process that manages to preserve wooden ship wrecks for hundreds or thousands of years.
If what you assume (forests somehow continually store more and more un-oxidized C without growing in biomass) would be true, we would be able to find coal (and oil) deposits from all ages all over the planet and not only in very few places all from one specific period of time, where conditions "just were right" for coal/oil to form.
> then ends up in the huge amount of dissolved ocean organic matter and eventually accumulates in deep sea sediments.
> Same applies to carbon sequestrated as CaCO3 from biological origin
These are 2 examples of a real long-term CO2 sinks - but a completely different process from growing forests as CO2 sinks.
> Combustion is never complete. That's why burnt forest sites are black.
Maybe, but the dead, not completely burned, wood then also decays to CO2 like alll other dead wood amid fresh air and water.
A new forest will eventually grow, capturing back the CO2 released in the fire, but this will again take ~ 50 years.
> So, that story of "stabilisation" of biological carbon sinks is a fallacy.
I'd wish you were right, because then CO2 capture would be a lot easier.
But this is only wishful thinking.
Nice story, but this has been challenged. Evolution is much faster than that.
"The researchers actually offer up a back-of-the-envelope calculation that makes the “lignin-just-evolved-before-lignin-eaters” hypothesis for all that coal seem pretty problematic. If global plant growth was even 25 percent of what it is now, lignin carbon would have piled up at a rate of about three gigatonnes per year—which could add up to the world’s total coal reserves in perhaps a thousand years. At the same time, atmospheric CO2 would have dropped to zero in under a million years.
All the Carboniferous world’s lignin couldn’t have made its way into coal, and lignin isn’t even the only type of organic matter in Carboniferous-age coals. At least some of it must have decayed.
The paper also notes that where there are bits of fairly well-preserved plant tissue, there is some evidence that the decay process worked the same as it does today. There is preserved tissue showing visible signs of partial decay. Above-ground tissue is harder to find than root material, for example, which happens because a lack of oxygen in the wet ground prevents decay by oxygen-respiring organisms. And rather than lignin-rich remains, it’s the lignin-poor parts of those trees that seem to be preserved the best, the researchers say."
Yep - that was my understanding, and before 350mya, those lignin plants didn't exist, if we leave it to nature to evolve a solution, we might therefore be looking at 50m yrs, and that is just too long a Return On Investment to interest the policy makers. Of course if sea levels may rise and cover the bio mass, then we don't need to be patient for evolution to sort it out, and we can rely on good old geology to rush a solution through instead.
Jokes aside, I've gone from a Climate Change change disbeliever (Climate Change is just weather) to concerned citizen (Climate Change may be just weather, but it's accelerated a hundred-fold) and it's not that we can deny that climate change is happening or the inevitability of global warming, it's just that we cannot react quickly enough culturally, or developmentally as a species (and neither can most of our co-habitants of planet earth) to this accelerated global warming.
So in the UK, I think we have done everything we can to make an effective difference (though off-shoring the responsibility of CO2 through manufacturing to China and India is obviously cheating) we are where we are. We should restrict our import of manufactured good to countries who can offer the best environmental credentials, and embargo/tax to hell and back the import of those who can't/won't, I don't accept China / India's argument that the West has benefitted from use of coal/oil for manufacturing, and now it's their turn. Humanity has benefitted, China/India etc have developed their manufacturing and heavy industries on the back of the European Industrial Revolution, and have chosen to solve their energy needs in exactly the same way as the Victorians, but on a vastly bigger scale. There is simply no comparison between the Carbon footprint per capita of 1824 to 2024.
Perhaps we could focus on bringing more manufacturing back to the UK to avoid the additional costs of shipping materials and products all over the world (I refuse to believe there is anything other than a financial short-term benefit to globalisation). Perhaps we should focus on nice environmentally-clean nuclear plants for energy (Solar/Wind/Tidal has its place, but its just not reliable in the UK) now that the GreenPeace Enviromenatalists Eco Warriors have decided that perhaps nuclear was ok all along and seem to have stopped campaigning against it - that said I'm about to invest in solar panels and batteries for home to reduce costs and do my bit, and, yes, we are recent victims of flooding (1 metre deep) which will take 6 months to become re-habitable - that's what you get for living on a flood-plain that should be used for agriculture. Oh well, hindsight and all that!
Perhaps we should consider that MMGW (lets just call it Global Warming), though unfortunate, is inevitable and start planning how we are going to deal with it more effectively (there's only so much hand-wringing can be done) and start restricting housing developments from flood plains, support farmers by promoting local produce and seasonal diets. Start moving population centers away from sea-level-vulnerable locations (good bye London). Whatever the plan is, we're at the tipping point and throwing money at it (without the right plan that is coordinated WW) just isnt going to quick-fix it now (sorry Greta) the solution is going to be generational (it took us 10 generations to get here, and it'll take at least 10 generations to fix it) and we need to embrace the sort of long-term thinking that built cathedrals, and planted trees in stately homes (that we will not see the benefits in our lifetime) - if we are to make any real progress here.
Or else come to terms with just how much our children and grand-children will be affected. Time will show that we don't really own anything, we're just the custodians.
You have to combine both things
1 - return farmlands that were former forests back into forests. That is a one-off CO2 capture since as you say, once the forests is grown the CO2 in/out stabilises
2 - use marginal farmland to grow hardy quick-growing plants which are harvested and dumped down a mine (maybe in a few million years they would have turned back into coal!!!). Hemp for example is very hardy and extremely fast-growing. The only issue there is how long you can do that on the same patch of ground without depleting the soil (or having to use fertilizers which take a lot of energy and CO2 emissions to make)
3 - Return to using wood as a primary material for building and many other things, and have plantations of suitable trees, in whose structure the carbon would be captured. This is a medium-term solution though as eventually the structures need to be renewed and there's only so much you can build with wood
But basically, if you want to capture large amounts of CO2, using plants to do it is a no-brainer as that's what they do naturally
Basically, I agree, but Point 3:
3 - Return to using wood as a primary material for building and many other things, and have plantations of suitable trees, in whose structure the carbon would be captured. This is a medium-term solution though as eventually the structures need to be renewed and there's only so much you can build with wood.
There are 200yr old wooden structures still around, but not many 100yr concrete monstrosities - the reason why is simply that wooden structures tend to be on a smaller / more maintainable scale, whereas when a concrete tower block starts degrade - there's really not much that can be done other than to blow it up and have another go. Yes there's Roman buildings, but the majority material was stone there...
| Hemp for example is very hardy and extremely fast-growing
And use the hemp to manufacture insulation for buildings. Search for IndiNature. Each bat captures a few kg of carbon, plus it makes your house more comfortable in multiple ways, no off-gassing of nasties, buffers water vapour, quite nice to work with, easy to fit into awkward spaces and keeps your toasty.
We should ban the use of petrochemical derived insulation except in exceptional applications where the performance of natural insulation is insufficient.
"But basically, if you want to capture large amounts of CO2...."
Which seems to be a goal as worthy as that of Canute's fabled endeavour. Across the last 500 million years, referencing Smithsonian data that's been widely reported, there's only been about six times global temperatures have been at or below today's levels, and for something like 400m of those 500m years, global temperatures have been substantially hotter than they are today. So the officially sanctioned plan on climate change even with proposed 1.5-2.5C increase is to try and keep the planet significantly colder than it has been for 80% of the past half billion years. Regardless of whether people drive a 4x4 or not, I'm not expecting the plan to work. The previous (generalised) peak in CO2 over the past billion years was around 370m years ago, in the late Paleozoic, just as the Earth went into a 100m year period of exceptionally cold weather and erratic swings in temperature but all lower than the half billion year average. What might be surmised is that there is actually no steady state temperature for Earth's climate, merely a band between 10C and 30C, and most of the time towards the top end of that.
By all means we might want to try and manage global climate, but we should be mindful that it is just as possible that we're in the sort of unstable cold period of the late Paleozoic, and a rapid decline in global temperatures from current levels is possible, and has happened repeatedly before. Looking at temperature data for the last 800k years (eg EPICA ice core data) we're due another rapid glaciation, and all previous glaciations were preceded by a rapid increase in global temperatures. Simply pulling on a hair shirt, adopting EVs, or even going back to a pre-industrial lifestyle is not going to make climate magically more stable at temperatures that are convenient for humanity.
>is not going to make climate magically more stable at temperatures that are convenient for humanity
That is the real crux of the problem; our “advanced society” and us humans need the climate to be within a particular stable range with predictable seasons, which it would seem we are rapidly moving away from…
It doesn’t take that many unseasonal storms to destroy crops and our food supply…
I remember as a 10 year old watching Tomorrow's World all the talk was about the devastating deforestation occurring in the Brazilian rain forest and how it was the planet's carbon sink and that we couldn't keep continuing like this. We have and I notice that talk of this aspect has largely gone out of fashion and that instead I'm to rely on non-dispatchable renewable power and an overpriced electric car that ignores the devastating environmental impacts of the processes involved in mining its required resources in order to solve the problem.
Tell you what, I'll do you a deal, I'll get onboard with the virtue signalling bullshit when someone stops the deforestation as there's no way that's not having an impact.
Tell you what, I'll do you a deal, I'll get onboard with the virtue signalling bullshit when someone stops the deforestation as there's no way that's not having an impact.
Depends what you mean by deforestation. Where that happens, people keep uncovering ruins of the civilisations that lived there before, and could not have been supported in a rainforest. Which leads to interesting theories about whether depopulation following Spanish and Portugese conquests contributed to past climate changes as what was agricultural land re-wilded. There are similar debates about how much the Roman Empire's need for food contributed to desertificaton in N.Africa.
"how much the Roman Empire's need for food contributed to desertificaton in N.Africa."
And how the requirement of wood for boats starting in the ancient Greek era, combined with fields for agriculture resulted in much of Europe being turned from forest to farmland
And how the requirement of wood for boats starting in the ancient Greek era, combined with fields for agriculture resulted in much of Europe being turned from forest to farmland
That also worked the other way around. So a lot of the UK's 'ancient' forests aren't really that ancient, and were planted because we needed a lot of timber for building, industry, ship building and military. And the reverse, ie when picking a site for a new colony or imperial outpost, water and lumber was a critical resource. You can often see this in video of 'ancient and wild' forests where the trees are planted in strangely uniform and straight rows. I think we were better at forest management and carbon capture in those days because wood was a very important strategic resource.
Depends on what you mean by ancient. The truly ancient forests which are now few and far between are exactly that. Sprung up after the last Ice Age. But more recently we have centuries of human "management". Varying from the relatively light touch of pollarding through to the post WWI plantations of dense non-natives. The last thankfully now being removed as they have reached the end of their useful lives.
Forests are NOT carbon sinks. The average life of a tree is in the order of 30 years, and with raising, planting, thinning and harvesting , there's little carbon free about it. I had an elm tree in my garden. It grew from nothing over about 32 years, before dying of Dutch Elm Disease. I cut it down and logged it, and it provided heating for one open fire, over two Christmases. 30 years and the CO2, is back in the skies, where it belongs. CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential for all life on this planet. We have an Oxygen rich atmosphere, entirely due to plant life, and that plant life requires an abundant CO2 content, in fact higher than we presently have.. Flame all you like. This is a fact. Not a speculation, poliutically driven.
> Forests are NOT carbon sinks.
Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes (Nature paper, available on sci-hub):
"Managing forests for climate change mitigation requires action by diverse stakeholders undertaking different activities with overlapping objectives and spatial impacts. To date, several forest carbon monitoring systems have been developed for different regions using various data, methods and assumptions, making it difficult to evaluate mitigation performance consistently across scales. Here, we integrate ground and Earth observation data to map annual forest-related greenhouse gas emissions and removals globally at a spatial resolution of 30 m over the years 2001–2019. We estimate that global forests were a net carbon sink of −7.6 ± 49 GtCO2e yr−1, reflecting a balance between gross carbon removals (−15.6 ± 49 GtCO2e yr−1) and gross emissions from deforestation and other disturbances (8.1 ± 2.5 GtCO2e yr−1 ). The geospatial monitoring framework introduced here supports climate policy development by promoting alignment and transparency in setting priorities and tracking collective progress towards forest-specific climate mitigation goals with both local detail and global consistency"
> I had an elm tree in my garden. It grew from nothing over about 32 years, before dying of Dutch Elm Disease. I cut it down and logged it, and it provided heating for one open fire, over two Christmases. 30 years and the CO2, is back in the skies, where it belongs.
That was human activity. QED. Please feel free to submit a paper to Nature.
Am I reading that wrong, or is the margin of error over 6X the result???
I'm guessing it should have been 4.9Gt, but massive uncertainties are a feature of climate 'science'. The good thing is as money's been poured in, those uncertainties are slowly narrowing, but anthropomorphic emissions are still a teeny fraction of the natural carbon cycle and pretty much get lost in the noise. This is one of the reasons why the UK's 'Net Zero' policy is insane, ie the difference it'll make to global CO2 levels is the equivalent of a fart in a jar. The difference it'll make to the promoter's of 'Net Zero' bank accounts is far more significant.
" plant life requires an abundant CO2 content, in fact higher than we presently have.."
Not exactly but you are close on this point.
At CO2 levels bnelow about 2%, plant life flourishes. At levels below about 0.02%, plant life dies. As far as I can tell, CO2 GHG effect SATURATES below about 0.02% but it is difficult to read from a chart. Increase CO2 to about 0.2% (10 times as much) reaches the peak for "diminishing returns" for plant growth, with little (if any) effect on climate. So at 0.04%, the current equilibrium level based on ocean temperature etc., plants do ok, but they would do better at 0.08% . And the climate would NOT CHANGE.
The exact numbers are, plant death at 150ppm, currently at 400ishppm, and plant preference 1200ppm. And, what the alarmist keep leaving out is that hostorically, CO2 changes follow temperature changes, it does not precede it.
We're fine wirh CO2 levels going up some, even doubling. Cut it in half though, and we're going to start getting hungry and short of breath as the plants grow poorly and start dying off.
The whole idea of man made climate change from CO2 is a COMPLETE HOAX, from the assumption that 0.04% of the atmosphere being allegedly increased by 3% per year by human activity (when it is at chemical and biological equilibrium between the oceans and plant growth, meaning that if you add more CO2 it will be depleted quicky back to the equilibrium level) to the assumption that its greenhouse effect is anything significant (95% from water, and about 2% from CO2, which has already saturated, meaning that if you were to increase the level of CO2, even doubling or tripling, the additional effect is NEGLIGIBLE) and anyone who casually observes the REAL science would REALIZE this and not fall into the TRAP of DOOM-SCROLLING and being MANIPULATED through FEAR to give up your freedom, vote for EVERYONE ELSE to give up THEIRS, and irritate everyone else's life through "just stop oil" protests and various OTHER forms of virtue signalling while so-called "important" climate activists FLY IN PRIVATE JETS.
And when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, you get more PLANTS.
(someone had to say it)
I'll go for the method that's been tested for millions of years: trees.
Has the additional advantage of improving the microclimate in urban areas.
A return to the days when a (native red) squirrel could travel from London to Nottingham without touching the ground.
Do need to choose the species carefully- the changing climate means many native species are struggling.
Restoring peat bogs is a good idea too.
I am doing #1 & #2 and if they cut me some slack on taxes, I could do much more. So could you.
If we had a world wide reduction in government by say 30% and prevented inflation by removing their ability to print money, we would could redirect those energies and prosperity into actually solving the problem without destroying our way of life.
That recommendation will never be taken seriously as it will rely on them stepping aside and having faith that the people can do something by themselves.
>It's nature giving you a hint there's too 'king many of you.
I see a lot of comments like this across the web, and I can't take them seriously because they almost universally use the word "you" where it should instead read "us". To me it really reflects the mindset of the authors, and implies that they see themselves somehow as separate from the rest of the universe.
I see a lot of comments like this across the web, and I can't take them seriously because they almost universally use the word "you" where it should instead read "us".
This is the problem with 'Global Warming' in general. It started as a political attempt to slow down China & India's economic growth & give the UN an 'independent' source of funding. Then metastasised into the Green cancerous blob it is today. People used to joke about how if governments could tax thin air, they would. And now they can and are. But you must make sacrifices to 'save the plant', while we jet off to Dubai or Davos and enjoy the massive profits that have been gained by regulatory capture. So-
The LLNL group estimates that the ongoing cost of all four classes of techniques when up and running would be somewhere in the range of $130 billion per year
It doesn't mention the capital costs, or that the scam won't actually achieve anything productive. But the US IRA included $600bn for 'Green' projects, the UN wants $100bn a year and now a few trillion more for 'reparations', the UK wants to spend £2tn or more on 'Net Zero'. So with the collossal amounts of money in play, it's unsuprising there's so much Greenwash to lock in future profits from gullible politicians. Reality has already disproved most of the 'Global Warrming' dogma, but the deniers will continue to rant about a few million in 'fossil fuel lobbying' and generally can't provide any evidence to support those claims.
Whilst that is correct, the timescales needed to allow population reduction to have any meaningful impact are simply too long. The bigger issue is that the current global population is also going to increase consumption and CO2 (and other emissions) at a time when we desperately need reductions.
Carbon offsetting is a way for rich countries to claim they are doing stuff to address the issue. They are not, it if just a way of burying the problem. I believe I read somewhere that teh amount of land required to offset carbon emissions is the size of India. I cannot remember if that was to meet current pledges in carbon offset or what s needed at current levels or use. I have a feeling that it is the first
"People by themselves tend to be selfish, greedy and have too many children."
Not strictly true for the children part. All demographic information we have points to people having less children as the country become more prosperous, because of a variety of factors:
- in very agricultural / manual labour societies, a baby is a resource who can start doing chores from quite young and productive work for the family from their teens. In countries where better opportunities are available through education (and where child labour is illegal), having children is a financial cost.
- in countries with little social security, more children = more people who can take care of you in old age. With good social security, this is less of a factor
- in countries with crap healthcare, having more babies is a hedge against some of them dying
Birth rates have plummeted in richer nations to less than replacement (hence labour shortage and pension crises), while even in poorer nations in Asia and Africa it's shrunk dramatically the last 20 years. In fact the only groups in western nations with high reproductive rates are those who are deliberately promoting it as a way to 'win' a demographic battle eg ultra-orthodox Jews and settlers in Israel
In any case I absolutely agree that unnecessary consumption is what needs to be scaled back, and those people making a living through that have to recalibrate to a different job
You really need to caveat that statement.
You try in the following sentence, but completely miss that two of the largest religious sections espouse many children ("because birth control is a sin" and "to replace the infidel") .
Anon, because I have friends in both camps. And yes, they all have very large families (6+ siblings) going back at least 3 generations (where I am aware).
There are of the order of a million million tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sounds a lot, but is trivial by planetary standards. Natural events have in the past meant that sometimes there is a lot more, sometimes a lot less. The first major failing of this article is that it fails to discuss those natural processes.
The second major failing of this article is that it fails to discuss the oceans. There is a thousand times as much CO2 in the oceans, dissolved or as carbonates, than there is in the atmosphere. If we did somehow withdraw 1.0E9 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, .99E9 tons would be released from the oceans to restore equilibrium.
What are those 'natural processes' I mentioned? I suggest emission from the junctions of tectonic plates, as CO2 is expelled from subducted carbonate rocks. Expelled into the ocean, where we do not directly see it, but still dwarfing any man-made emissions.
It is time to stop the hot air about CO2, and to start preparing ourselves for an inevitable further rise in sea level to a geological long term normality.
Which in turn means:-
1) Vast areas of very productive farm land will disappear
2) At least 1 billion people will be forced to move... can we all come to your backyard always assuming that your home is above the expanded sea level...
3) The stopping of the Gulf Stream as a side effect of the reduction in arctic and antarctic sea ice which in turn leads to
4) Most of Northern Europe becomes uninhabitable due to the lack of the warming that results from the Gulf Stream.
etc
etc
etc
Thankfully, I'll be long dead by the time this becomes a reality.
Unless Kim Jong Un or some other despot starts a nuke tit for tat then none of us have a chance.
You forgot to add the horsemen of the apocalypse.
Now don't forget to offset your carbon footprint
They are waiting for your money to save the planet!!!
"1) Vast areas of very productive farm land will disappear"
See the globe for a change.Siberia covers almost third of Asia and it's literally empty now because it's way too cold to grow anything in there. Current 'very productive' land areas are cultivated to death and produce crop only with huge amount of fertilizers.
Same thing with Canada and Greenland.
Moving a lot of people still applies. But that's really not a new thing.
You’re not going to be moving north into Canada; the Canadian Shield geology pretty much has no soil. Do explain how you expect to grow food .
Mulch for victory! Send in the wood chippers and earthworms! Good thing about Canada is it has a lot of trees, a lot of land and not many people.
And what is already happening at permafrost thaws?
Methane is being released and that is far worse than CO2. It cannot be captured because of the way it is released. Just saying that tundra can be cultivated is too simplistic.
Going down that route will end up with everyone cramped into high land areas that are not suitable for food production as all the ice will have melted.
Then we will have a massive water shortage as well.
> It is time to stop the hot air about CO2, and to start preparing ourselves for an inevitable further rise in sea level to a geological long term normality.
Let's reincarnate as tardigrades or extremophiles. We'll be safe.
Said otherwise, yes there were extinction periods in the past like 252 My ago. And life went through it. But the most primitive forms only. Not sure how you'll "prepare" to that when you have adapted your environment to your own species rather than the other way around.
Also worth trying to understand how Venus went from habitable "0.7 Gya" to 450°C and 96% CO2 nowadays.
And life went through it. But the most primitive forms only.
Yes, just go on the internet and read comments under this article.
Also worth trying to understand how Venus went from habitable "0.7 Gya" to 450°C and 96% CO2 nowadays.
Let me guess. They didn't adopt the electric car revolution and Venusians were cycle shy and didn't want to pay exorbitant taxes coincidentally only imposed on working-class Venusians.
I think the point being made is that you're trying to push shit uphill. As a species we've convinced ourselves "we can do something about it" however cynicism is raised when you look at the subsidies (wealth transfers) being made and the millionaires getting richer off the back of this "critical moment". The planet is overpopulated and unless you're going to address that aspect it's kinda obvious we're destined for oblivion as a species. It always makes me laugh when someone says "we're destroying the planet" - no we're not, we're destroying the suitability of it for our own and other species. Life will go on, we just may not be part of that.
{S} and the coming population crash isn't a problem ? Ask Singapore, South Korea, Japan and China how their population projections are for 2050, 2100. I note author fails to address the increase in coal burning in China and Africa which swamps CO2 emissions reductions elsewhere.
> There are of the order of a million million tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sounds a lot, but is trivial by planetary standards.
120ppm sounds tiny, but the rise from 280 to 400ppm already gives us a hard time
> Natural events have in the past meant that sometimes there is a lot more, sometimes a lot less.
Yeah and sometimes sea level was hundreds of meters higher or lower than today.
> The first major failing of this article is that it fails to discuss those natural processes.
happening typically over the course of millions of years, not just 150.
> The second major failing of this article is that it fails to discuss the oceans. There is a thousand times as much CO2 in the oceans, dissolved or as carbonates, than there is in the atmosphere. If we did somehow withdraw 1.0E9 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, .99E9 tons would be released from the oceans to restore equilibrium.
Actually no.
Currently the raised CO2 in the atmosphere is "venting" into the oceans, seeking a new equlibrium, and leading to more acidification there.
> What are those 'natural processes' I mentioned? I suggest emission from the junctions of tectonic plates, as CO2 is expelled from subducted carbonate rocks. Expelled into the ocean, where we do not directly see it, but still dwarfing any man-made emissions.
Again those processes exist, but are actually pretty slow.
The raise in CO2 since 1850 can be attributed to men burning coal and oil. Volcanos etc. are little blips in the human-made longterm trend upwards.
> It is time to stop the hot air about CO2, and to start preparing ourselves for an inevitable further rise in sea level to a geological long term normality.
It's time to stop listening to distractors, it's time to stop companies that enable and pay distractors - like you.
"It's time to stop listening to distractors, it's time to stop companies that enable and pay distractors - like you."
You got the first part right: Climate cult has a long time ago stopped listening and is losing connection to reality even more every day.
Science never stops listening: Climate cult has stopped, so by definition, it's not science, but a cult. And cultist like you are happy with that.
In science even one detail which doesn't fit, disqualifies a theory. Any theory. Obviously that doesn't happen in climatology ... well, can't happen as they don't have a theory.
No-one cares that the warming is slowing down while co2-emissions increase fast. Funny that. I'm not claiming I know what is going on, but one thing is sure:Climatologists don't know either.
If they knew, they'd have provable theory and related formulas to predict future temps. Consindering the billions sunk in the "research" we are entitled to have some results too, aren't we?
Remember Newton? He was literally working alone, one man. But produced actual science. When billions and thousands of people can't produce a theory, they are doing something very, very wrong. Simple, eh?
I can make a numerical climate model in 15 minutes and it would be as good as any other one existing in being wrong. Numerical model is *not* science, it's an engineering tool.
"Remember Newton? He was literally working alone, one man."
Newton? The guy who famously said he was standing on the shoulder of giants. So, wrong example.
"Science never stops listening: Climate cult has stopped, so by definition, it's not science, but a cult.
Some people talk about science like prostitutes talk about virginity.
"I can make a numerical climate model in 15 minutes"
OK. Primus. Here, for you: IPCC will surely be interested.
IPCC Secretariat: c/o World Meteorological Organization 7 bis Avenue de la Paix C.P. 2300 CH- 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Phone: +41 22 730 8208/54/84 Fax: +41 22 730 8025/13 Email: ipcc-sec@wmo.int
Your single argument seems to be that warming is/was slowing down - which the theory does not explain, so the theory must be wrong.
If so, this is not correct.
Once you look at air/ocean/soil as a combined system of energy storage and average out natural oscillations, the long-term trend is unbroken.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earths-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade (from 2013, so this is hardly news)
The theory of rising CO2 trapping more heat on earth still stands.
It is actually pretty simple and CO2 could be shown to absorb/reflect infrared radiation in a simple lab setting - already in 1859 by John Tyndall.
For everyone willing to trust his own eyes and own brain.
Who are _you_ calling a cultist?
It is actually pretty simple and CO2 could be shown to absorb/reflect infrared radiation in a simple lab setting - already in 1859 by John Tyndall.For everyone willing to trust his own eyes and own brain.
Indeed it is simple. So make a room, say 10m cubed. Measure it's temperature response with an air mix including say, 280ppmv CO2. Then double the CO2 to 560ppmv, then 1120ppmv. At each doubling, dogma suggests around 1.4C warming from that 'back radiation'. Then realise you regularly inhabit rooms with CO2 levels of 2,000ppmv or more.
Then wonder why, with all the talk about 'energy efficiency' and saving money on heating, we don't just increase CO2 levels in our buildings. Those could be up to 8000ppmv and still safe, if a bit 'stuffy' given the way CO2 levels control our respiration.
Then take the ceiling off the roof and repeat the experiment. Oh.. it gets colder? How can this be with the 'back radiation' that should still be providing all that warming? The Earth is not a greenhouse, heat is radiated away to space, and a few extra CO2 molecules will do nothing to prevent this.
Were seeing a prime example of The Dunning-Kruger effect here
Or cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. You've heard about S-B, you've seen a candle dim as a tube's filled with CO2. Ergo, you are a card carrying cultist that's swallowed the dogma whole.
Me? I'm old fashioned. I like experiments. Plus building a 1km ClimaCube to perform experiments in a climate-controllable fashion would be kinda cool, scientific, and probably quite challenging. But by carefully controlling the energy, and being able to alter the surface effects, you could model the effects of CO2. You could show experimentally the 1.4C or so warming by simply doubling the CO2 concentration.
Or not. After all, greenhouse operators have a financial incentive to cut costs and warm their greenhouses with CO2, yet they do not. Or the IPCC already knows the answer. CO2 is a weak GHG with a GWP (Global Warming Potential) of 1. On it's own, it has virtually no effect. Reasons are simple, ie it's absorption and emission spectra that overlap with H2O, apart from one very narrow window. So to achieve Thermageddon, you need 'forcings' and 'feedbacks' that don't exist, or might be negative. Climate models even show this because when those are plugged in, models more closely approximate reality. But models are by necessity very crude approximations of reality.
But other models exist. So if you can run Crysis, you can probably run a molecular dynamics simulator and give it atmosphere to play with. Water dominates. Or, watch this video that explains the issue from Cody's Lab-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr4S_5UeK3I
That visually puts H2O and CO2 into context, if perhaps unintentionally.
You do know, of course, that your analyses are quite incorrect, and that the vast, vast majority of qualified, objective climate scientists are more than merely aware of your errors, they can pick them apart with precision. I can't help but wonder what your motivations might be. An interesting psychological experiment, to be perfectly honest.
> I can make a numerical climate model in 15 minutes and it would be as good as any other one existing in being wrong. Numerical model is *not* science, it's an engineering tool.
You obviously couldn’t as you seem to have no idea about climate science, by your own admission.
I'm sure he could make a model. It wouldn't be very good, but I think that is the point he was trying to make because he thinks it would be equally as bad as all the other models.
But I think that the models being worked with at the moment are better than anything he could come up with, and try to take into account as many of the things that we know about as they can. It's just unlikely that they take all important factors into account yet. We will probably not come up with really accurate models anytime in the near future.
There is good thinking going into the models. but for us to believe that they are completely right at the moment is just arrogant. We have a very incomplete view of the way that the universe works, and current scientific theories are frequently disproved as research uncovers inconvenient data that shows a theory is wrong. This is the way Science (with a big S) works. Observe something, produce a hypothesis to explain it, create some tests to reinforce (or disprove) the hypothesis, analyse the results, and then decide whether the theory still stands, and then rinse and repeat.
For example, as I understand it, astrophysics and the current string theories built to try to explain anomalies are currently being discarded in droves because of what JWST is discovering. It may be possible that something will come out of the climate research that will do something similar to our atmospheric models. This will probably be folded back in to try to make the models better.
What is in question is the current accuracy, and we probably don't have enough reliable measurements taken over decades to be able to really judge whether the climate models are close to being correct yet. We can hope, but the jury's still out IMHO.
In the mean time, reducing our use of carbon resources is probably prudent, as they're not coming back any time soon!
120ppm sounds tiny, but the rise from 280 to 400ppm already gives us a hard time
No it doesn't. It gives us the 'Greening of the Earth', improved crop yields and often decreased water requirements. Most life on Earth evolved when both CO2 and temperatures were higher than today. There is no 'climate emergency'. Also where do you get 280ppmv from? And why do you think 'hard times' when there's no correlation between CO2 and allegedly 'extreme' weather events, which are after all weather and not climate.
This “natural events” are taken in account in the climate models; they are well known.
No, they really are not. When models hindcast, ie attempt to reproduce the past, then 'natural events' like Pinatubo or Tonga can be placed in the models. Otherwise predicting when those types of events might occur, the locations and the consequences are just wild-assed guesses. So modellers assume there may be X future events over the course of the run. Tonga's an interesting one given that was sub-sea and chucked a collosal amount of water high into the atmosphere, where it'll have a transient warming effect that should be wearing off around about now.
How many 'unprecedented' warming events do you think we might find around busy airports next summer, or will the 'Tonga Effect' result in lower temperatures than the last 2yrs?
Belief in a Higher Power or Doctrine: In the context of climate change, the 'doctrine' is the scientific consensus on climate change. Some argue that this is used to push certain policies or actions without room for dissent or alternative viewpoints. $cience is settled.
Rituals and Ceremonies: Actions like recycling, reducing carbon footprints, or participating in climate marches could be seen as rituals. Critics argue these actions are more symbolic than effective, serving to reinforce group identity rather than significantly impacting climate change.
Concept of Sacrifice: Economic sacrifices, such as higher taxes or costs for green technologies, are often proposed in climate policies. Skeptics might view these as unnecessary burdens that disproportionately affect certain groups (the poor), while benefiting others financially (the rich).
The Notion of Destiny or Preordained Events: Predictions of catastrophic climate events can be seen as preordained scenarios. When these predictions do not materialise as expected, some argue it's framed as a result of not taking enough action, rather than questioning the accuracy of the predictions.
Isolation: There's a perception that individuals or groups who question the mainstream narrative on climate change are often ostracised or labelled as denialists, creating a social divide.
Charismatic Leadership: Public figures and activists who champion climate change initiatives can be seen as charismatic leaders. Critics might argue that these leaders sometimes oversimplify complex issues or push agendas that benefit certain groups (the rich).
End-of-the-World Scenarios: Dire predictions about the future due to climate change (like rising sea levels, extreme weather events) can be paralleled to apocalyptic scenarios in cults. Sceptics argue that these scenarios are used to create urgency and fear to push for specific actions or policies.
Strict Codes of Conduct: Lifestyle changes advocated for reducing carbon footprints – such as limiting air travel, adopting vegan diets, or using renewable energy – can be seen as strict codes of conduct. Critics suggest these are often impractical or costly, with questionable impact on a global scale.
Us vs. Them Mentality: The climate change debate sometimes creates a polarized environment where those who are sceptical of certain aspects of climate change science or policy are seen as against the environment or irresponsible.
Promise of Salvation or Enlightenment: The notion that following certain climate policies will 'save the planet' or create a sustainable future can be likened to promises of salvation.
Candid person: We've got too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Techno-scientist: Let me see what we can do... [...comes back with a big smile...] OK, here is the plan: we will remove it.
Candid person: How?
Techno-scientist: We will build huge machines that will suck it up out of the atmosphere and we'll store it somewhere (in petto: Hopefully it won't escape again.)
Candid person: Won't that create more CO2?
Techno-scientist: I knew you would say that. But I have the solution for this too [big smile]. We will use renewable sources of energy to power these big machines.
Candid person: But we would still have installed some renewable capacity to avoid emitting more CO2. If you use this renewable capacity for your big machines, it's not used to decrease our emissions anymore. Deployment of renewable is already our top priority. We'll have to burn more gas to compensate that missing capacity. You can't have your cake and eat it. No?
Techno-scientist: Hmm. Let me think.
Candid person: OK. Let me know.
The LLNL group estimates that the ongoing cost of all four classes of techniques when up and running would be somewhere in the range of $130 billion per year beginning in 2050. That may sound like a lot — well, it is a lot
Candied-scientist: But I need to buy beach front properties like Al Gore and Barack Obama. And $130bn is only $400 per American per year.
Who knew saving the planet could be such a great money maker! No wonder there are so many climate 'scientists' trying to put their hands in our pockets.
You just need to nicely ask the $cientists to make an exception for your beachfront property in their models oh and ensure whatever local authority there is, unblocks any drainage systems regularly.
There is also the issue that as soon as a mechanical solution is found to contain or capture CO2, all the reasons for slowing emissions and moving away from fossil fuels, the root cause of where we are now, are seen to be noise and can be ignored.
That does nothing to deal with the fundamental problem, you cannot use a fossil fuel indefinitely.
Et voilà , One solution that is guaranteed to reduce carbon emissions, everyone knows it but no one dares talk about it.
It's ok to pump billions into wars but nothing into actually making a serious plan to carefully reduce the population in manner which creates the least amount of damage.
Depopulation is in full swing. The Nazis from Davos, however, don't use graphic methods to achieve that, because in the age of internet that would quickly become unpopular if you've seen people being shipped to gas chambers. Instead they work on crashing the economy, so that any prospects of having a home, a family become unattainable for average person and nudge them to the decision for not having children.
It will only take a couple of generations to expire and the grandchildren of the rich will enjoy mostly empty planet all for themselves.
Be quiet you daft bastard.
My plan is from the satirical end of things designed to make people laugh nervously.
Your plan sounds like its from the tinfoil nut job end of thing just before you disappear into that bunker you're building to keep your guns safe before Obama takes them away (hows that going btw?)
"What do you mean? Wars *reduce the population*. A lot if done right."
The 2nd world war removed about 60 Million and then there was baby boom .. so nothing gained there, in fac the opposite happened ...
The next war or the next virus, and we all know that there will be one or the other, will have to remove about 70 %, 5.6 Billion people, of the population and then the survivors have to find a means of keeping the population level stable thereafter..
It's really not easy to imagine a humain solution...
>but no one dares talk about it.
>It's ok to pump billions into wars
There are theories out there in the wild which posit that the two are very related, and folks do talk about that. It's just that they are immediately handwaved away because if the idea caught on (even if wrong) there would be too many people calling for the end of very lucrative industries. I myself wonder if the the elite on our societies actually want to solve these problems (among others). Seems to me their positions at the top rely on the existence of such huge problems (which conveniently seem to be unsolvable).
I must agree with you though about population reduction. The only problem is determining who gets culled.
Just how much carbon is sequestered in approximately eight billion human beings?
The sequestered stuff isn't really the problem, at least not until cremation. The real problem is the average human exhales around 250kg CO2 a year! Obviously this varies based on activity levels, hence why we should immediately impose a CardioCarbon Tax, especially as people who do a lot of cardio may end up living longer, and thus emit more CO2. So assuming the UK has a population of 70m, they're directly responsbile for emitting 17,5bn tons of CO2 annually! Plus all the additional carbon as a consequence of their existence.
So the obvious final solution is to eliminate the entire population, yet I don't see many Greens volunteering to do something useful however, and directly contributing to preventing global warming. Sadly however, some people have chosen to self-terminate because they've been convinced by their fellow travellers that they have no future.
Nobody is pro-pollution but the arrogance of those that think humans have any impact on earths climate is completely demoralizing.
Earths climate has been constantly changing long before humans and will continue to do so long after we are gone. Solar and orbital cycles change climate … period.
I will continue to support “clean energy”and effective waste management efforts for a better, cleaner environment but until every “climate scientist” gets paid to do something else to occupy their otherwise intelligent minds, this horse hockey will continue to be a massive and completely unnecessary drain on humanity when we clearly have other issues needing our collective thought and attention.
I do not fault “believers” ( a fully un-scientific notion BTW) as those that would attempt to set agendas, have made huge, irresistible efforts to further this idea.
TL;DR … be supportive of a clean environment but don’t believe the climate change BS.
Best wishes to all !!
In a comment to an article (I think it started off about EVs) someone posted we're coming out of an interglacial. I don't know if that's right but if it is things should be getting colder so I say keep pumping the CO2 out to keep us warm.
In a comment to an article (I think it started off about EVs) someone posted we're coming out of an interglacial. I don't know if that's right but if it is things should be getting colder so I say keep pumping the CO2 out to keep us warm.
Only we can prevent Ice Ages.
But it's right.. ish. There was an Ice Age, it's ending or ending, and if history is anything to go by, there'll probably be another one again. Question is.. when? Especially as we don't really know how Ice Ages start or stop. But on the assumption that the last one's done, then warming, sea level rises, isostatic rebound and all the fun geological stuff is entirely expected. Until that slows or stops, then heads into reverse. In which case it's a good time to think about selling property anywhere north of the Laurnetide Extent.
So real climate change is teasing out any human induced noise from the real long-term climate record. Climate deniers wibble about Stefan-Boltzman and 'equilibrium', pretending our climate was perfect prior to 1850. There's plenty of evidence that climate change is natural, possibly cyclical and we don't really know why. Hence the determination to 'prove' the MWP and LIA never happened. Or were somehow 'regional', without being able to explain why.
Luckily most of it is a slow process, but as humans, we have a bad habit of riding epicycles. So in the '70s, there was the impending Ice Age scare. Now it's impending Thermageddon. We know climate changes, so we could do sensible stuff like becoming more efficient, and wasting less stuff. Instead, climate change deniers want the exact opposite wasting more stuff and becoming less efficient, ie the whole 'renewables' scam compared to investing in nuclear.
These variations were regional. Our current episode is much more brutal and is global.
>>> "Roman times used to be warmer"
Republic was cooler (subatlantic period). The Tiber (!), the Rhine and the Danube were freezing in winter, allowing for barbarian invasions. Reindeer were migrating as south as North Germany.
Empire could have been slightly warmer though.
"These variations were regional. Our current episode is much more brutal and is global."
Only *average* is global and regional changes change also the global average. Basic math, you see. But cults have never been good at math.
I believe 'more brutal' when someone survives in Greenland by farming. Or Antarctis, your choice. Just like Vikings did.
Also, claiming it's regional has absolutely zero proof: It's an *assumption* based on climate models which won't admit changes like that, i.e. circular logic. There's a lot of that in climatology.
But more serious problem: None of the climate models can explain local variations which last hundreds of years. To me that means they are outright wrong and shouldn't be used for anything.
When a model can't predict even past correctly, how it can predict future correctly? That's the *first* thing a numerical model has to be able to do.
Science does not leave holes like that and that is the problem with numerical models. Or current climatology cult as a whole: None of the predictions are correct. Despite 30 years and billions in cash.
Example of the problem: We do know that walnut tree was growing here in North naturally about between 500 and 1300. Then it died and now it does that almost 2000 kilometers south, i.e. climate is *a lot* colder than it was at that time. That's ~800 years of very warm period none of the models can explain, so they don't even try.
"Local variations" change also global average or it was an ice age at the South, right? Zero proof of that, of course. Occam's Razor says it was warm also in there. For reasons not known and not researched either, at least now.
"Local variations" change also global average or it was an ice age at the South, right? Zero proof of that, of course. Occam's Razor says it was warm also in there. For reasons not known and not researched either, at least now.
Actually.. it is researched. Just quietly, and often paying lip-service to the cult, because if not, those scientists tend to get branded as heretics and forced out of academia. So there'll be papers or press releases announcing how glacial melt, due to "Climate Change" is exposing the remains of stuff that used to grow there. But can't now. Obviously those trees, bushes, lichens or whatever must have been far hardier in the past to grow under ice.
But those papers pay lip service to the cult, whilst allowing readers to go "Huh, so it must have been warmer".
Antarctica wasn't where it is now when those "trees, bushes, lichens or whatever" were growing there
I was thinking more of stuff discovered around Greenland. But Antarctica is pretty much where it's always been as continents don't tend to wander much, and certainly not in the timescales where exposed stuff has been dated to. Those tend to show ice has advanced and retreated periodically over just a few thousand years. Then of course there's the famous Norse ice farmers who's evidence has been uncovered as ice has retreated. Temperatures still aren't at a level where we can grow the stuff they did today. So much for 'unprecedented' global temperatures.
> But Antarctica is pretty much where it's always been as continents don't tend to wander much
Depends on timescales…
According to the various hypothesis’s the crust is largely stable until some event causes it to “rapidly” move (remember the crust is floating on magma - a liquid). As to what event(s) might have caused this in the past and may do so in the future seems to be a matter of debate…
But because the crust can move, it means we can not assume Greenland for example has always been at the latitude (in relation the axis of the earths rotation and orbit around the sun) it is today.
> "But Antarctica is pretty much where it's always been as continents don't tend to wander much"
My God... You're really pushing it now.
So now you're also a tectonic-plate-theory-denier? Ever heard of Pangea, Gondwana, and Laurasia? Ever heard that Antarctica was stuck between Africa and India with lush vegetation and vibrant dinosaur populations gorging on Araucaria?
Oh But I'm stupid. They said it on the BBC. So it must be evil disinformation, to control our minds.
So now you're also a tectonic-plate-theory-denier? Ever heard of Pangea, Gondwana, and Laurasia? Ever heard that Antarctica was stuck between Africa and India with lush vegetation and vibrant dinosaur populations gorging on Araucaria?
But I did say.. don't tend to wander much
But I was referring to stuff like this-
High in the mountains of Norway, melting ice has led to the discovery of an ancient remote mountain pass, complete with trail markers and artifacts from the Roman Iron Age and the time of the Vikings. The remains reveal the dual historical function of this route: It was once a significant passageway for moving local livestock between grazing sites as well as for inter-regional travel and trade.
...The dated artifacts indicate that the mountain pass was used from AD 300-1500, but suggest that its usage increased around AD 1000 during the Viking Age.
So.. did it end up buried in the ice when Norway migrated north, then once it got bored, retreated south again? Or could it have been.. I dunno, warmer during 300-1500AD? Which oddly enough would correlate with other Viking Age artefacts uncovered by retreating ice on Greenland. For a time, that colony thrived, then it failed due to a combination of climate change and some economics, like the Portugese used to trade with them, but then stopped for a variety of reasons, some weather related.
Oh But I'm stupid. They said it on the BBC. So it must be evil disinformation, to control our minds.
Your words, not mine. But your licence fee money is being used to send a couple of the Bbc's aptly named 'misinformation' specialists off to a propaganda boot camp-
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/12/28/bbc-disinformation-reporter-plans-six-month-sabbatical-to-go-on-climate-course-funded-by-green-billionaires/
A flavour of the echo-chamber discussions can be gleaned from past essays produced by ‘alumni’, which include titles such as ‘Journalists should help audiences understand extreme weather – even when they lack climate data’,
Data is such an old fashioned concept, and not required to practice Lysenkoism.. I mean climate 'science'.
> So.. did it end up buried in the ice when Norway migrated north, then once it got bored, retreated south again? Or could it have been..
I suspect given the difference we in the UK have seen with the movement of the Gulf Stream, the explanation (for comparatively recent changes) could be as simple as changes in the air streams.
Given how much we don’t know about the earths climate, I don’t expect current climate models to be accurate or perfect. However, the general trend is what matters: they predicted CO2 levels would increase, and they have etc. So the instruments are telling us things are changing and changing rapidly into uncharted waters…
I suspect given the difference we in the UK have seen with the movement of the Gulf Stream, the explanation (for comparatively recent changes) could be as simple as changes in the air streams.
Maybe, but a lot of those are more weather than climate. So the Tonga eruption was predicted to have a warming effect for maybe 2 years. That's ending now, so that theory can be tested. If this pass was in use for 500yrs before icing up and becoming impassable, that suggests something else. Which is the problem with denial of well documented climate changes like the MWP and LIA. Records and data exist from both nothern and southern hemisphere, strongly suggesting it was global, protracted, and no correlation with CO2. If it was regional or localised, some plausible mechanism needs to explain this, and why it's not happening again.
However, the general trend is what matters: they predicted CO2 levels would increase, and they have etc.
Not really. The models attempt to predict what the outcome would be, if CO2 levels continue to increase with standard emissions scenarios. If a model is programmed with assumptions for high CO2 sensitivity, forcings and feedbacks, it will predict large temperature increases. Then you test the model's output against observations (hindcasting) and if the model runs hot, there's something obviously wrong with the assumptions. This has been ongoing via CMIP and as a result, sensitivity, feedbacks and forcings have steadily been revised downwards.
So the instruments are telling us things are changing and changing rapidly into uncharted waters…
Not really. The instruments are telling us temperatures are not rising as fast as the predictions made when the panic set in and we were told we needed to act now to prevent >5C warming. That isn't happening, there probably is no 'tipping point' given at low CO2 sensitivity, we don't have enough carbon to burn. We also have better understanding of our climate history, and current warming, or even rates of warming are by no means 'unprecedented'. It's been both warmer and colder in the recent past, ie last 1ka. So there really isn't any need to panic.
>> Oh But I'm stupid. They said it on the BBC. So it must be evil disinformation, to control our minds.
> Your words, not mine.
Your own words. No later than yesterday.
"I am not the Bbc, it is not my job to spread misinformation." Your own words.
So you don't even remember your posts of the previous day? I mean, given the number of "eel-written" posts we have to endure every day, it wouldn't surprise me if there were a whole slime of eels in the Vulture's nest. May be you eels should sync each others up.
Your own words. No later than yesterday.
Way to quote out of context! Cherry pick from another topic entirely. But when I said your words, I refer m'ignorant friend to this part-
Oh But I'm stupid
And you provide copious evidence to support your statement. Unlike when you attempt to contribute to discussions, where you generally don't provide any evidence. But such is climate 'science'.
As for the Bbc, it regurgitates whatever the SBU tells it to wrt Urkaine, and has been consistently been misinforming the public and licence payers wrt it's global warming coverage. As the UK's state broadcaster, it's presumably only following orders. Or perhaps because it's got a lot of its own money invested in 'green' scams, it's working on behalf of its sponsors.
Come rain, snow or shine, everything is teleconnected to Global Warming, somehow-
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/01/04/bbc-claims-climate-change-is-behind-increased-lightning-deaths-in-bangladesh-but-its-utter-nonsense/
It is not as if the BBC is suggesting climate change may be the cause. When the BBC says the increase in deaths is linked to climate change, it is clearly implying there is causation, not just a correlation. It also seems to be implying that climate change is probably the major cause.
But then the Bbc doesn't employ any climate 'scientists', just churnalists who're probably concerned that their tin foil hats might attract CO2 induced lightning.
-- When a model can't predict even past correctly, how it can predict future correctly? That's the *first* thing a numerical model has to be able to do. --
This is a point I have made a few times on various websites. What the climate models do isn't science its fortune telling and any time a prediction comes near to the point it can be checked lets move the timescale out a few more decades or centuries.
The mediaeval, Roman, and Minoan climate Optimum's show up in ice core data from both the Antarctic and Greenland. The mediaeval warm period also shows up in proxy data from multiple points around the globe. They were not regional.
This is a list of papers demonstrating the global nature of these events:
http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/rwpdacp.php
I'm sure you'll check them out and not simply ignore contradictory information because you don't like the source.
This web site is described in Wikipedia
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Tempe, Arizona. It is seen as a front group for the fossil fuel industry, and as promoting climate change denial. The Center produces a weekly online newsletter called CO2Science.
The Center was founded and is run by Craig D. Idso, along with Sherwood B. Idso, his father, and Keith E. Idso, his brother. They came from backgrounds in agriculture and climate. According to the Idsos, they became involved in the global warming controversy through their study of earth's temperature sensitivity to radiative perturbations and plant responses to elevated CO2 levels and carbon sequestration. The Center sharply disputes the scientific consensus on climate change shown in IPCC assessment reports, and believes that global warming will be beneficial to mankind.
Funding
According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000. Another report states that ExxonMobil has funded an additional $55,000 to the center. ExxonMobil stated it funded, "organizations which research significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company. [...] These organizations do not speak on our behalf, nor do we control their views and messages."
The center was also funded by Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company.[2]
Craig D. Idso is the founder, president and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,[2][3] a group which receives funding from ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy and which promotes climate change denial. He is the brother of Keith E. Idso and son of Sherwood B. Idso.
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Tempe, Arizona. It is seen as a front group for the fossil fuel industry, and as promoting climate change denial.
Ooh! I can do this!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeSmog
DeSmog, (formerly The DeSmogBlog) founded in January 2006, is a journalistic and activist website that focuses on topics related to climate change. The site was founded, originally in blog format, by James Hoggan, president of a public relations firm based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
With Hoggan's company having done/doing PR for the fossil fuel industry. And then there's dear'ol CRU, of Climategate fame, who work in a building shaped like an oil barrel because that's where their funding came from. Climate deniers do seem to see conspiracy theories everywhere, and 'fossil fuel' funding pales into comparision compared to the billions invested by people like dear'ol Soros, Jeremy Grantham and various shadowy dark-money 'foundations'.
These variations were regional. Our current episode is much more brutal and is global.
How is this possible? IE what meteorological process allows such extreme climate changes, especially as they've only been 'detected' during those incovenient MWP and LIA.. And not since.
Answer of course is how it was cooked up-
https://climateaudit.org/2014/03/31/neukom-and-gergis-serve-cold-screened-spaghetti/
IF you read around the subject a little, you'll see how Neukom has form for pre-screening to end up with the desired result, ie only selecting data that fits the narrative, which is to explain away the RWP, MWP, LIA and any evidence that challenges the 'unprecedented' warming since the cherry-picked 1850.. Because if you don't, precedents abound and our 'Climate Emergency' is nothing out of the ordinary. The only group that really denies climate change are the cultists who're promoting the current one.
-- You could just print more reports on global warming to achieve the same effect --
Actually that's even better since more trees would have to be planted to replace those felled to make wood pulp and hence paper. So you get new growing trees locking up carbon and nice piles of paper storing carbon. Now is black laser toner carbon, if so bigger win.
It's obvious that carbon removal from the atmosphere is the way to go because unless a nuclear war between China and India, CO2 production will rise spectacularly in the coming decades. We can do whatever in Europe, even stop to exist, it won't have an impact on the climate. So carbon storage is not an option if the goal is to reduce CO2 proportion into the atmosphere, it's the only way to go (unless a nuclear war, see above).
There are plenty of options, plenty of possibilities. Don't focus on one but use all of them altogether.
Seriously? A DAC plant??
What a waste of good baseload geothermal power.
All the energy used by that plant will have to be made up for mainly by fossil fuels, more than nullifying any CO2 extraction done by the plant.
And what happens to the CO2 after it is captured? It is used by oil companies for Fracking.
Does it stay in the ground? I don't believe that they care if it does.
Who are you calling right-wing?
I actually like to read the Guardian in the morning. Has some good stuff about the Post Office etc in it this morning, but it doesn't mean I have to believe everything that they print.
I read the Private Eye too. Guess what their opinion of Carbon Capture & Storage is? It's nothing but a gravy train for owners of empty oil-wells.
Long term, there's nothing to worry about, because the Davos set are arrogant arch-fantasists, who think they can control the world because they're surrounded by yes-men. The problem with them is the damage they'll do in the shorter term, as they use their vast wealth and influence to convince enough gullible or greedy politicians and media types to attempt to implement their impossible ideas. Like every other utopianist movement that managed to capture the levers of power for a little while, they'll fail because of their own hubris. Life will go on, but a lot of people will be hurt and societies damaged in the meantime.
I'm sure people will chime in with other examples of the same. Some closer to home than others.
Okay simply put we are here because of money and the want for more of it at any cost.
With that in mind, who is going to pay these billions every year to remove less that we even emit in a year.
Don't get me wrong something needs to be done, but consider where we are now and why? Nothing meaningful is go8ng to happen.
"Won't some please think of the coffers"
Which can be problematic with many geological climate related processes which are slow.
If we stopped any man made CO2 production today, we would not see an instant swift drop in CO2 levels, it would e slow. There would still be lots of ice sheet melting to contribute to rising sea levels (for simplicity will also ignore thermal expansion of ocean water as there's quite a lot of "thermal inertia" so we are not yet really seeing that effect of a slightly warmer climate yet )_
But because things are very slow, then politicians don't really care as the limits of their long term views are the next 1 or 2 elections, so climate change won't really get their proper attention until it reaches the situation where whatever changes are made will be too little and too late to prevent some real nasty effects..
The worries are not about total human extinction (though it wont be great for lots of animal & plant species, we are exterminating lots of those on a daily basis regardless of any climate effects).
.. Though could easily see a very small human population remaining and back to a low tech society.
If the expected happens e.g. major sea level rises, changes in major circulatory systems (be that ocean currents, the jet streams etc) then problems will start.
Just looking simply at sea level rises, a lot of important cities are based on the coast (for lots of reasons, e.g. historically fresh water from rivers running to sea, flood plains make for good farming, good fishing on rivers and sea, much trade was by boat)
Rising sea levels could see the "loss" of lots of major cities.
.. Let alone other climate changes such as previously pleasantly habitable & farmable areas, becoming too hot / cold / dry to be viable), though conversely some other areas may become viable.
Though there will (for a long, long time, unless CO2 and CH4 levels get super excessive) always be a few human friendly areas.
So we could easily see conditions for mass migrations etc... and if there's one thing humans are good at, its killing each other over such activities, climate change could give all sorts of "reasons" for war. If any of those escalate to nukes then climate change becomes less of a worry as wiping out big swathes of the population & destroying advanced tech will do a great deal to reduce CO2 emissions.
Even without major wars (.. as if..), our tech heavy societies could struggle with some of the adaptations needed (e.g. if in future we have moved heavily to nuclear power plants to reduce CO2 emissions,
as currently they need a lot of water they tend to be near the sea, which is fine, until sea level rises finally start to seriously kick in )
So, serious efforts to combat climate change would help our descendants quality of life (we are a selfish species, so here is a selfish reason)
Making climate change mitigating actions can be (relatively) inexpensive and low impact, given the nasty and massively expensive possible consequences, so precautionary principle would say it's worth going all in on climate change mitigation effects just in case. That's why we invest in the future even if we do not directly benefit, e.g. taxes fund schools, people without kids (generally, unless they are ******) don't begrudge those school funds as despite their personal no kid choice they know that future generations need educating for everyone's benefit.
.
And if the fossil fuel company shills do inexplicably turn out correct, & climate change is a hoax, then not much has been really lost making efforts to keep CO2 and CH4 low
And if the fossil fuel company shills do inexplicably turn out correct, & climate change is a hoax, then not much has been really lost making efforts to keep CO2 and CH4 low
This is a false dichotomy. CO2 is not a pollutant, but rather is a nutrient that is absolutely necessary for life to exist on this planet. It has a minimum atmospheric level, below which much photosynthesis ceases to function and the planet starves, both of food and oxygen. Depending on the type of plant, that level is somewhere around 100-170ppm. "Keeping CO2 low", as in keeping it to the postulated pre-industrial level of close to 280ppm, places us perilously close to that lower bound. We are currently at the lowest level of CO2 for the last 60 million years, on a clear and consistent downward trend.
Given how poorly CO2 concentration correlates with temperatures over that period, and given we are currently closer to the lower bound than at any point in the last half a billion years, I think we may, just possibly, be barking up the wrong tree with our attempts to "control" climate via this vital, live-giving gas.
What we lose, in attempting to do this impossible task, is access to the inexpensive energy that has maintained our current civilisation. We lose the ability to produce food at a cost that people can afford. We lose the ability to not have to choose between heating that food and heating our homes because of the cost. We lose a great deal more, but these are the important things.
> "Keeping CO2 low", as in keeping it to the postulated pre-industrial level of close to 280ppm, places us perilously close to that lower bound.
Forget climate change, people. The new danger is... NOT ENOUGH CO2
> "What we lose, in attempting to do this impossible task, is access to the inexpensive energy that has maintained our current civilisation."
You can trust Exxon, people. They have the sustainability of our civilisation at heart.
> We lose the ability to produce food at a cost that people can afford.
Exxon saves people from starvation. Everybody knows that.
> We lose the ability to not have to choose between heating that food and heating our homes because of the cost
"Mom, I'd rather have my bacon and eggs cooked, you know". "Ok Kevin, but then you won't be allowed to heat your bedroom tonight. The evil IPCC forbids it."
You deniers are unbelievable.
There are people in this country, right now, who have to choose between food and heating because of the cost of energy, in no small part due to the huge levies that are placed on energy prices to fund green energy projects.
And yes, the danger is not enough CO2, which you'd realise if you pulled your head out of your backside and looked at the long-term trends.
>what we lose … is access to the inexpensive energy that has maintained our current civilisation.
That is going to happen regardless of climate change in the coming decades, our rate of consumption is outstripping our reserves and given the amount of exploration we’ve not discovered another Saudi Arabia….
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
