Tag: climate change

Abstract

Climate science suggests that, to have a high probability of limiting global warming to an average temperature increase of 2 °C, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2020 and be reduced to close to zero by 2040. However, the current trend is heading towards at least 4 °C by 2100 and little effective action is being taken. This paper commences the process of developing contingency plans for a scenario in which a sudden major global climate impact galvanises governments to implement emergency climate mitigation targets and programs. Climate activists assert that rapid mitigation is feasible, invoking the scale and scope of wartime mobilisation strategies. This paper draws upon historical accounts of social, technological and economic restructurings in several countries during World War 2 in order to investigate potential applications of wartime experience to radical, rigorous and rapid climate mitigation strategies.

Laurence L. Delina, Mark Diesendorf. Energy Policy. Volume 58, July 2013, Pages 371–380.

Meanwhile, however, someone has actually been measuring the temperature. The soft grey line is CO₂.

The United Nations “Green Climate Fund” is supposed to help developing countries cope with climate change with funds donated by the rich countries. Australia is a donor country. Funds raised equals $7.5 million, our contribution half a million. Willis Eschenbach takes a look at where it came from and where it went …

Anyhow, I started all of this out with a simple question. How much of the $7.5 million went to help the people it’s supposed to help?

… the answer is <HERE>.

My grass is growing like crazy, although my vines were somewhat frost-bitten last night. Shame it’s not a little warmer still cos a little warmer is, believe it or not, a little better … you can read all about it <HERE>.

Is it surprising that the government would support an alarm lacking scientific support? Not really. In our study of situations that are analogous to the current alarm over scenarios of global warming, we identified 26 earlier movements based on scenarios of man made disaster, including the global cooling alarm in the 1960s to 1970s. None of them were based on scientific forecasts. And yet, governments imposed costly policies in response to 23 of them. In no case did the forecast of major harm come true.

by Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon.

You can read the whole article <HERE>.

There is a significant warming trend evident in Australia. In Melbourne for example, an increase of 6.2 degrees Centigrade in average daily maxima can reasonably be expected by January (BoM figures). Summer’s like that. But sometimes there are cooling trends. Someone should do something about it …

But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

That of course is from the 1975 Newsweek article telling us of our imminent plunge into the next ice age, it canvassed such spectacular strategies as “melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers“. You can read it <HERE>.

Unsettled in the science are many things. Among them climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide. To the faithful however it doesn’t really matter. I present for your enjoyment the quote of the week, from John Ashton speaking to scientists at the UK’s Meteorological Office.

Moreover, the consequences of climate change could still be catastrophic if the climate sensitivity were zero …

After a period of selective leaking, very reminiscent of the way governments dribble out the bad news before a budget, the IPCC’s AR5 WGI Summary for Policymakers has seen the light of day. The big news is that where that august body was only 90% sure it was our fault that the earth was warming they our now 95% sure.

Quite what they are more certain of is however much less certain.

What is also not certain is where the 90% certainty came from in AR4 (buried in a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers is the fact that the reported 90% confidence interval was simply based on “expert judgment” i.e. conjecture) and as to the new 95% well …

The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors.  The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain.  How they can justify this is beyond me. Judith Curry. (Well worth a read).

None the less it is a propaganda device that works fairly well in moving attention to an immeasurable certainty from the more obvious certainty that observations are well out of step with the models that are supposed to predict our fate.

Observations that show no statistically significant warming for a decade and a half despite increasing carbon dioxide …

Or as AR5 puts it …

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”

Climate changes, has done forever, will do for ever. Carbon dioxide is one of the factors at work, we’ve known that since the 1890’s when Arrhenius developed the theory of greenhouse gases. What is still uncertain is what other factors are in play and the relative sensitivities of climate to them. And on climate sensitivity AR5 …

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

Fairfax and the ABC will no doubt concentrate on the increased certainty of impending doom. They made up their collective minds long ago.