Tag Archives: climate

Climatistas, Again

Posted on by
Reply

From Watts Up With That we get the latest internal inconsistency of the climate panic-mongers.

Including gas, oil and coal, they [the UN’s IPCC] estimate a total fossil fuel reserve of nine hundred to two thousand gigatonnes of carbon (GtC).  I decided to apply those numbers to both the Bern Model and the simple exponential decay model.

Willis Eschenbach, the author of the linked-to article, asked:

My interest was in finding out what would happen, according to the two CO2 models, if we burned all of the fossil fuels by 2100.

That is, if we completely exhausted all of our coal, oil, and natural gas in an orgy of consumption over the next 85 years, what would we get?

Using the two models cited, the Bern model and the simple single-time-constant exponential model, two of the IPCC’s favorite models, Eschenbach got the answer [emphasis his]:

According to the IPCC, there is not enough fossil fuel carbon (oil, gas, and coal) on the planet to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration from its current value.

Doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 is one of the big bugaboos of the climatistas, never minding that at 800 parts per million by volume of CO2 in the air (the result of that doubling) is just about the level when life on earth was especially lush during earlier geologic eras.

Hmm….

Global Warming, Again

Posted on by
Reply

A guest essayist at Watts Up With That has an interesting article. Here’s the closing paragraph (as usual, RTWT):

In summary, approximately 81% of the warming in the last century may have resulted from all anthropogenic influences, as suggested by figure 4 [see the article]. This includes water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and land use changes to the albedo and thermal mass. CO2 may account for as much as 52% to 56% of the contribution from anthropogenic drivers (See Figs. 1 & 2). Fossil fuel-CO2 represents less than 75% of anthropogenic CO2. If we were successful in completely phasing out fossil fuels over the next 100 years, we would have a reduction of 50% in average CO2 emissions. If the Earth is warming at a nominal rate of 1°C per 100 years from all influences, then we can hope, at best, for a reduction in temperature increase of 20% (0.54×0.75×0.50) or 0.20°C. That is to say, if the world were to phase out fossil fuels in the next 100 years the warming would be 0.80 degrees instead of 1.00°C! Unfortunately, eliminating fossil fuel use will probably not be successful in significantly reducing future temperature increases, even if it can be accomplished.

A whole two tenths of a Centigrade degree, out of a climatista-expected entire one Centigrade degree. Imagine that.

The Coercive Power of the State

Posted on by
Reply

This is the Progressive Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as articulated by California Governor Jerry Brown (D). At the just concluded Paris “Climate” Summit.

Tom, you used the phrase “policy.” Good policy. But I want to unpack that term a little bit. Inside the policy, you need a law. You need a rule. You need the coercive power of government to say, “Do this.” Now, you have to be wise and don’t say something stupid or order something stupid but the fact is, the regulations supported by the laws drive innovation.

And

You do have to have, at the end of the day, a regulation, a law. Progress comes from well-designed regulatory objectives that business then follows.

You can be sure California is going to keep innovating, keep regulating. And, shall I say, keep taxing.

All for the very best of causes. This complements the Left’s drive to take our weapons.  All for the very best of causes.  All for political power.  And, we mustn’t neglect Mao Tse-tung’s position:

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

The Pseudo-Logic of the Climatistas

Posted on by
1

Fat Head has a piece about the climate by Tom Naughton (the head fat head); it’s well worth the read.

What’s interesting to me, though, is his comment in the comment stream of his post.

Penn & Teller got hundreds of people at a environmental conference to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide—including the “science” information officer.

The real problem with this is that P&T ignored the at least equally pervasive problem of hydrogen hydroxyl. This extremely dangerous chemical already is pervasive in our atmosphere, in our lakes and rivers, and in our oceans. If allowed to accumulate too much in our oceans, in particular, it’ll lead to relative desalination of those critical waters, poisoning salt water life, right down to the sea water dependent single-celled organisms that are the very foundation of Gaia’s life-bearing ecology.

Why didn’t that Science Information Officer call P&T on this danger, instead of meekly signing their limited petition? It’s for the planet, after all, and all the children who live on it.

A Bit About Global Warming

Posted on by
Reply

The climate panic-mongers need to explain some things. This, for instance, from Steven Mithen’s After the Ice: A Global Human History 20,000-5000 BC (quoted at Watts Up With That:

The next century of human-made global warming is predicted to be far less extreme than that which occurred at 9600 BC [11,600 BP]. At the end of the Younger Dryas, mean global temperature had risen by 7°C in fifty years, whereas the predicted rise for the next hundred years is less than 3°C. The end of the last ice age led to a 120 meter increase in sea level, whereas that predicted for the next fifty years is a paltry 32 centimeters at most,….

The timeline that opens the article at the link is complex, and it’s instructive. So is Andy May’s article at that link.