Potsdam PIK Climate Director Says We Will Have To Go Back To Mud Huts By 2040

Germany’s Deutsche Welle (DW) here presents a commentary by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of German ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Professor Schellnhuber fears that the planet could warm even as much as 12°C if man does not act quickly to totally eliminate greenhouse gases. He adds that he “has all the evidence” and that climate scientists “are only trying to do a job” for us.

Hat-tip: Reader Dennis A.

With the US Administration pledging to back out of the Paris climate treaty, Schellnhuber is now calling on scientists “to take to the streets to counter climate denial“.

If we want to hold the 1.5 degrees [Celsius; 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit] line, which is the ambitious goal of the Paris agreement, we have maybe 300 billion tons left – more or less the budget of 10 years – if we do business as usual. If we want to hold the 2 degrees line, which is more realistic, we have another 20 to 30 years to go, but no more actually. So it’s a very tight budget.

It’s quite mind-boggling – for example, by 2030, we have to phase out the combustion engine. And we have to completely phase out the use of coal for producing power. By 2040 we will probably have to replace concrete and steel for construction by wood, clay and stone.

We are at the crossroads now: We either say: this thing is too big for us, this task cannot be done. [Then] we will be transformed by nature, because we will end up with a planet warming by 4, 5, 6 or even 12 degrees. It would be the end of the world as we know it, and I have all the evidence.”

In short, the eccentric professor from Potsdam is essentially claiming that unless we return to living in mud huts with thatched roofs and forego the fundamental amenities of modern life, our great grandchildren will end up living in super tropical hot-house conditions.

Fortunately Schellnhuber’s view is a rare one that is out on the remote fringe. Other climate scientists hold a far more sober view, like Prof Judith Curry. Interestingly, climate hardly seems to be a concern for Schellnhuber’s boss, Angela Merkel, who yesterday did not mention climate change once during her press conference with President Trump. In fact much of the discussion was about trade, economy …along with a little fake news and wire-tapping.

 

111 responses to “Potsdam PIK Climate Director Says We Will Have To Go Back To Mud Huts By 2040”

  1. John F. Hultquist

    Family and friends of Schellnhuber should see that he get the help he needs or he will soon end up like preacher Harold Camping of Rapture fame. Camping suffered a stroke after predicting the end of the world, repeatedly. Harold and Schellnhuber look enough alike to be twin brothers.
    Both of these guys just made (make) things up.

    I will promise not to use an internal combustion engine after 2050. Hope that will be good news to him.

  2. Sunsettommy

    Who denies that Climate changes?

    1. AndyG55

      Mostly people who are part of the AGW scam.

      They deny pre-LIA Arctic sea ice levels were much lower than now.

      They deny that we are currently in a cooler period of the current interglacial.

      They deny that The LIA, MWP, RWP etc, existed

      We all know who the REAL deniers are. !!

  3. CO2isLife

    Nothing is stopping them from moving out of their comfortable offices and homes and into mud huts right now. People should demand they put their money where their mouths are. Why wait? They can start saving the earth right now.

  4. Graeme No.3

    I take it John that your pledge is a Climate Pledge, subject to change every time circumstances change?

    I expect that we will shortly get a comment by sod about how serious things are. sod and Sebastian seem to be the only ones stupid enough to believe the doomsday waffle from someone in need, as you say, of medical help.

    1. DirkH

      Due to cult like information control by the 100% corrupt German media and the collaboration of the mostly leftist teachers, all Germans that don’t use international media still believe the warmunist scam.

      They are losing, of course. But due to their self-imposed isolation they are a late stage holdover of warmunism.

      1. SebastianH

        How is life under your tin foil hat? Is the media trying to control you through chemtrails?

        You white supremacist liker and supporter of the phantom time hypothesis amuse me … who put all that stuff into your head? Are you not afraid to be mind controlled by that organisation/person too? How do you know who is telling you the truth and who is not? Is it more than a feeling?

        Regarding doomsday:
        Reading this blog I am more concerned about the stupidity of people being a bigger problem in the future than any man made warming could ever be. The movie Idiocrazy comes to mind …

        1. Kenneth Richard

          SebastianH, you continue to complain about name-calling and vacuous personal attacks (which I don’t like to read either) when they are directed at you, but then you “compose” posts like this that annihilate any presumed moral high ground that you had pretended you had in this area.

          Instead of insulting those who comment here, perhaps you should concern yourself with trying to figure out why it is that there is no experimental or observational evidence that shows that variations in atmospheric CO2 in volumes of 0.000001 dominate as the main cause of heat changes in the global oceans. And then you should also try to explain why it is that you think you are making progress here. So far, all I’ve seen is that you have become the object of derision for your inability to support your beliefs about the “magic” of CO2 (see your own words below) with substantive scientific evidence.

          SebastianH (actual quote):

          Changing the CO2 concentration in the air column above anything turns out to be a bit difficult, so we will never know what magic effect radiation from CO2 molecules are hiding from us (or not).”

          1. SebastianH

            That quote was about what magic effect the radiation from CO2 might have that prevents it from affecting water surfaces.

            How many times did I answer your question now? The additional forcing due to increased CO2 is enough to account for all the heat content change if your numbers are correct. We did that calculation already too … remember?

            About name-calling: it’s impossible to stay calm when faced with commenters like the one I answered too. For an example of actual insulting language, wait comments by the usual suspects.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “How many times did I answer your question now?”

            Zero. You’ve never provided scientific evidence (a controlled experiment, observation, physical measurements) that shows how much water body cooling is caused by reducing CO2 by 0.00001, or increasing CO2 by 0.000001. All you’ve done is say “Why would heating a surface be any different if the surface is water vs. air?”… and then you, of course, veer off to talking about balls bouncing behind walls and other such unrelated “analogies.”

            You keep on claiming you’ve done the “calculation.” What was the scientific experiment you are referring to that your calculations are based upon? You have none. All you have are non-real-world models and presumptions. You can’t “calculate” physical measurements that don’t exist in the real world. If you think they do, cite the scientific experiment and the actual physical measurements derived from it. Since you can’t, you turn around and call people who ask you to provide this substantive evidence “stupid” and “idiots” and insinuate that they are white supremacists who wear “tin foil hats.”

            “it’s impossible to stay calm when faced with commenters like the one I answered too.”

            OK. Since you can’t stay calm, I guess it is in your best interest to call people names. Carry on.

        2. DirkH

          SebastianH 20. March 2017 at 3:21 AM | Permalink | Reply
          “You white supremacist liker and supporter of the phantom time hypothesis amuse me … who put all that stuff into your head?”

          I like white supremacists? Which one? Do you know one?

          Please. I’d like to have SPECIFIC insults; not your bullsh**.

          1. SebastianH

            You mean you aren’t an ultra right-wing conservative who doesn’t hide that fact on his blog? (also lots of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience on there)

          2. AndyG55

            Seb .. pulling garbage out of you know where.. yet again !!

            Surely you aren’t DENYING that the German media and education system are far-left wing and are pushing the AGW scam for all they are worth !!!

            Not even you could LIE to yourself that deeply !

  5. Matthew Kegerreis

    Hmmmm, Let’s see…. Ice melts at 32 degrees, Methane hydrates and permafrost are frozen in ice. Most of the methane exists in the Arctic, especially along the Siberian shelf. The Arctic is melting at an ever increasing rate. Which means it’s above 32 degrees in a lot of places. Methane is over 100 times more powerful than CO2 over the short term. The release of methane increases the rate of warming, which increases the rate of melting which increases the release of methane. We won’t even go into the effect of albedo (look it up) loss. So don’t worry. There is nothing you have to do. Hang on to your money and your lifestyle and don’t worry about your grandchildren, they’re already dead. Along with all the other species.

    1. Graeme No.3

      Except that the release of methane doesn’t seem to have occurred during the Holocene Optimum. Higher but stable (except for the cool bits) for thousands of years.

    2. John

      Are you familiar with the second law of thermodynamics?

    3. AndyG55

      roflmao.. hallucinogenic overdose there, Matthew. !!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkodTydUR0E

    4. AndyG55

      FYI.. Arctic temperature this century before the El Nino spike.. a TRANSIENT WEATHER EVENT

      https://s19.postimg.org/jrz6i34oj/UAH_No_Pol_2000_2016.png

      1. sod

        “FYI.. Arctic temperature this century before the El Nino spike.. a TRANSIENT WEATHER EVENT”

        if you leave out the spikes at the end of the trend line, you must also leave out the lows there.

        Or you could remove the spikes from the start.

        Your approach is not only false but also utterly stupid.

        1. AndyG55

          You are a moron, sob.

          There are no transient lows.

          You are again proving your self to be one of the most inept and ignorant people on the planet.

        2. AndyG55

          Here is the UAH data for the region from 1980 to before the 1998 El Nino started to take effect

          https://s19.postimg.org/lpwagaqgh/UAH_nopol_1980_1995.png

          DATA really does make a MOCKERY of the AGW scam, doesn’t it sob.

          1. sod

            “Here is the UAH data for the region from 1980 to before the 1998 El Nino started to take effect”

            you can not leave out all the warming and then claim there is no warming. here is “polar” RSS:

            https://i1.wp.com/data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Northern%20Polar_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png

          2. AndyG55

            Good to see you using El Nino events to show warming.

            Nobody disputes that those solar forced event cause warming.

            You still don’t comprehend even the most basic principles, do you, little sob-bot.

            If you want to identify CO2 warming you have to look at periods AWAY from the obvious solar warming of the El Nino events.

            When you do that.. THERE IS NO WARMING.

            END OF STORY.. END OF CO2 SCAM.

          3. AndyG55

            And of course the Northern polar region also gets a lot of energy from the AMO.

            Do you know what that is,sob, and why it effects sea temperatures as well as land temperatures in a CYCLIC pattern ??

            https://s19.postimg.org/xn6kmx0xf/iceland.jpg

            And its just starting to curve back downwards..

            Won’t that be fun to watch 😉

          4. SebastianH

            El Ninos are caused by increased solar warming and not by increased ocean heat content suddenly being released?

            You know what is funny? There is actually another El Nino forcast for this year now … http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

          5. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “El Ninos are caused by increased solar warming and not by increased ocean heat content suddenly being released?”

            Where does heat energy ultimately come from, SebastianH? CO2?

            http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys-discuss.net/2/1447/2015/npgd-2-1447-2015.pdf
            Introduction: Several recent studies of solar–geomagnetic effects on climate have been examined on both global as well as on regional scales.The Sun’s long-term magnetic variability is the primary driver of climatic changes. The magnetic variability (mostly short-term components) is due to the disturbances in Earth’s magnetic fields caused by the solar activity, which is usually indicated by indices of geomagnetic activity. The Sun’s magnetic variability modulates the magnetic and particulate fluxes in the heliosphere. This determines the interplanetary conditions and imposes significant electromagnetic forces and effects upon planetary atmospheres. All these effects are due to the changing solar-magnetic fields which are relevant for planetary climates, including the climate of the Earth.

            The Sun–Earth relationship varies on different time scales of days to years bringing a drastic influence on the climatic patterns. The ultimate cause of solar variability, at time scales from decadal to cen tennial to millennial or even longer scales, has its origin in the solar dynamo mechanism. During the solar maxima, huge amounts of solar energy particles are released, thereby causing the geomagnetic disturbances. The 11 years solar cycle acts an important driving force for variations in the space weather, ultimately giving rise to climatic changes. Therefore, it is very important to understand the origin of space climate by analyzing the different proxies of solar magnetic variability.

            The another most important climate variation is El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, which impact the global oceanic and atmospheric circulations which thereby produce droughts, floods and intense rainfall in certain regions. The strong coupling and interactions between the Tropical Ocean and atmosphere play a major role in the development of global climatic system. The El Niño events generally recur approximately every 3–5 years with large events spaced around 3–7 years apart. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomena has shown huge impact on the Asian monsoon (Cole et al., 1993), Indian monsoon (Chowdary et al., 2006, 2014) as well as globally (Horel and Wallance, 1981; Barnett, 1989; Yasunari, 1985; Nicholson, 1997). In particular, the El Niño, solar, geomagnetic activities are the major affecting forces on the decadal and interdecadal temperature variability on global and regional scales in a direct/indirect way. …. The 11 year solar cyclic variations observed from the several temperature climate records also suggest the impact of solar irradiance variability on terrestrial temperature …These findings suggest that there is possible strong coupling between temperature–ENSO and solar–geomagnetic signals.

          6. AndyG55

            BOM forecast.. oh ok. 😉

            Enso is currently neutral

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png

          7. SebastianH

            Where does heat energy ultimately come from, SebastianH? CO2?

            The heat build up can be entirely account for by the increase in CO2 forcing (you cited the numbers in previous comment discussions). Therefor: yes, CO2.

            Solar radiation provides the energy, the different temperatures on our planet and its atmosphere are set by different sources, one of which being CO2.

          8. Kenneth Richard

            KR: “Where does heat energy ultimately come from, SebastianH? CO2?”

            SebastianH: “The heat build up can be entirely account for by the increase in CO2 forcing (you cited the numbers in previous comment discussions). Therefor: yes, CO2.”

            So what year did CO2 changes in volumes of 0.000001 first take over as the ultimate source of net ocean heat changes?

            And what scientific evidence (physical measurements, observational data, controlled experiment) shows that CO2 is now the ultimate source of net changes in ocean heat content to depths of thousands of meters? Do you have any, or are you just making claims you can’t back up again?

            Why do you think it is that CO2 increases didn’t cause warming of the oceans in the past, as this graph illustrates…

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Rosenthal-13-CO2.jpg

          9. AndyG55

            “Therefor: yes, CO2.”

            ROFLMAO

            1, you cannot show that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            2, You cannot show how changes in atmospheric CO2 cause ocean warming

            You are living in a land of make believe, seb

            A zero evidence scam.

            A NONSENSE, A FARCE !!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA

          10. SebastianH

            Dear Kenneth, when a value increases by 1 part and you have one source for the increase that can cause this 1 part, then it is irrelevant if there are other sources for change that can cause 100 parts or even 1000 parts of change.

            You had the same problem of understanding with the man made increase of CO2 concentration increase. If we emit more than the increase, then it’s all man made CO2. Simple math …

          11. Kenneth Richard

            How odd. Your response doesn’t remotely answer my questions. Here they are again. I’m looking for specific answers.

            1. So what year did CO2 changes in volumes of 0.000001 first take over as the ultimate source of net ocean heat changes?

            2. And what scientific evidence (physical measurements, observational data, controlled experiment) shows that CO2 is now the ultimate source of net changes in ocean heat content to depths of thousands of meters? Do you have any, or are you just making claims you can’t back up again?

            3. Why do you think it is that CO2 increases didn’t cause warming of the oceans in the past, as this graph illustrates…

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Rosenthal-13-CO2.jpg

          12. SebastianH

            1) https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/forcings.gif shows increasing GHG forcing and here is a graph for ocean heat content: https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/20580/area14mp/gvzj8y37-1361767576.jpg … do you have a graph for CO2 forcing for the last decades? Doesn’t matter … there will be a point in time where the forcing was greater then half of the increase in heat content. That’s when CO2 effectively took over. Same as with CO2 levels … since we measure them our output has always been greater than the CO2 level increase, there that’s the main driver of the increase.

            2) What evidence? Do you need evidence that a truck hit you, when it did? CO2 increase means a forcing increase. I showed you the amount of energy even a miniscule forcing will result in. We measure heat content of the oceans and its change is in same ball park as would be caused by the CO2 forcing. If you think otherwise, please show me, where the math is wrong? (Forcing per year times area is greater or equal heat content change per year). There could also be a gigantic forcing due to solar activity and a negative feedback of some sort that cancels this out (since heat content is not increasing faster, does it?)

            3) As before: there is no “only this one thing causes everything” in nature. But if your one thing is greater than the change, then it’s the one thing that is causing the change. Got it?

            We weren’t changing the CO2 concentration in the past (obviously), so something else caused it and the small changes sure had an effect. But your graph shows a decreasing heat content, so obviously some other (negative) effect was greater.

          13. AndyG55

            Please explain how they measure OHC before 2003, seb

            … assumption based modelled fabrication is how.

            There is NO mechanism that allows small changes in atmospheric CO2 to warm up ocean water. Any warming is purely solar.

            There is no mechanism that allows CO2 to warm a convective atmosphere either.. as you keep proving by your abject inability to produce one single paper.

          14. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “there will be a point in time where the forcing was greater then half of the increase in heat content. That’s when CO2 effectively took over.”

            So there “will be” a point in time that CO2 takes over from solar forcing in determining ocean heat content? It hasn’t happened yet? So up until the point in time that this happens, what has been, or is, the dominant cause of net ocean heat changes, if not CO2? Do you have scientific backing for your claims, or are you just making stuff up again? Provide the year or span of years. We’re waiting for specifics, and you keep talking in generalities.

            Your mention of the word “forcing” in relation to CO2 assumes that it has already been scientifically established that this “forcing” from CO2 when increased by 0.000001 is capable of not only causing the heat content of the oceans to change at depths of 1000s of meters, but it “took over” from solar forcing as the dominant cause of changes in ocean heat content. This has never been established scientifically. It’s been made up.

            You are operating on assumptions and hypothetical modeling, not real world scientific evidence. We know it doesn’t bother you at all that you have no scientific evidence that oceans are heated and cooled by varying CO2 up or down. That’s why we keep on asking for evidence and you keep on responding by restating your beliefs and claiming “I already did the calculation”. You cannot calculate something that you don’t have actual real-world physical evidence for.

          15. SebastianH

            Kenneth and AndyG55,

            both of your comments indicate that you don’t know how an object surrounding gas is able to cause a temperature increase of the object. I know that AndyG55 doesn’t know how this works, but I thought you, Kenneth, know how the greenhouse effect and radiative energy transfers work. Have you been pretending or did I missinterpret your comments? Hmm.

            Anyway, if you believe that a gas, however small its concentration is, can not cause temperature increase on Earth’s surface then discussing this further is rather pointless. This would would also explain why you deliberately try to missunderstand my statements …

            A quick test: http://imgur.com/a/iXsVR

            The German text describes this as a ball with a surface area of 1 m² and a power source that outputs 1000 W. The hulls surrounding that ball are very close to each other and the ball and to make calculations simple their surface areas (inside and outside) are 1 m², too. All matter has an emissivity of 1. The net (“Netto”) radiation from the ball to the first hull and from one hull to next is 1000 W/m² obviously. Do you agree or disagree with the “Brutto” figures for the radiative energy transfers between the hulls and the ball? If you disagree, please explain why. If you agree then I don’t know why you would believe that CO2 can’t cause temperature increases …

          16. Kenneth Richard

            Again, SebastianH, all you are doing is trying to describe models. Models are not the real world. Models are hypothetical. Models are educated guesses about what we think might possibly maybe be true.

            We are looking for an actual scientific experiment that demonstrates that lowering the CO2 concentration over a body of water by 0.000001 causes a cooling in that body of water, or an experiment that demonstrates that raising the CO2 concentration over a body of water by 0.000001 causes a warming in that body of water…and if so, how much. In other words, we want actual physical measurements. Not modeling calculations that are rooted in presumption and hypotheticals. Obviously, you cannot provide such evidence, as it doesn’t exist.

            By now I suppose you are familiar with the paper that says there was no greenhouse effect forcing from CO2 (despite the explosive increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions) during 1992-2014 (Song et al., 2016). Can you explain why it is you believe CO2 forcing nonetheless was the dominant cause of net ocean heat changes despite a hiatus from greenhouse forcing during that period?

          17. AndyG55

            Poor seb, you have proven over and over again that basically everything you think you know is ABSOLUTELY WRONG

            Art/Lit science will do that to you.

            Go back and get a proper science /engineering education, untainted by the fallacies of your current ignorance.

          18. AndyG55

            You are still SO DUMB that you think the planet has a “hull” around it.

            big hint.. the analogy is JUNK !!!

          19. AndyG55

            And we are all STILL WAITING for a paper that roves CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            So far, you have produced ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support the very basis of your AGW scam religion, except erroneous junk analogies.

            That is truly PATHETIC of you.

          20. AndyG55

            “By now I suppose you are familiar with the paper ”

            It seems that seb is totally unfamiliar with any actual science.

            He remains wilfully ignorant.

            There is no CO2 warming signature in either satellite temperature record.

            This backs WS’s work totally and completely

            There is in fact NO mechanism by which CO2 can warm oceans, and NO mechanism by which CO2 can warm a convective atmosphere.

            Seb’s utter and complete FAILURE to produce measured data and facts on these two topic shows this to e the case.

            All he has is his brain-washed fantasies and fairy-tale imaginings.

    5. DirkH

      ” Ice melts at 32 degrees, Methane hydrates and permafrost are frozen in ice.”

      Water molecules ´form a cage around a Methan molecule. The structure is a complex, called a Clatrate. It is unstable under a certain pressure. Physical properties of Clatrates are different from those of ice. That’s the reason it’s difficult to exploit.

  6. Robert Folkerts

    Just as well humans are incapable of controlling climate/weather. If it were possible the fights over whose wants are met would be serious.

    Every now and then there are a small number of people who try the mud hut style existence. Usually they chuck it in before too long as it is too hard.
    I would like to see people try to live without refrigeration, for example, and see how they manage.

    1. SebastianH

      You obviously don’t know what a house build of mud looks like. It’s not literally mud, it’s clay/loam. And those people still use refrigerators and have showers, etc …

      1. Kenneth Richard

        SebastianH,

        Do you care? Do you prefer to choose climate change “mitigation” policies over Africa’s poor? Yes, it’s likely that you would prefer to leave 60 million poor people without electricity.

        “Today, over one billion people around the world—five hundred million of them in sub-Saharan Africa alone—lack access to electricity. Nearly three billion people cook over open fires fueled by wood, dung, coal, or charcoal. This energy poverty presents a significant hurdle to achieving development goals of health, prosperity, and a livable environment.”

        Given the choice between helping 30 million people out of poverty with a renewables-only policy, or lifting 90 million people out of poverty with a renewables and natural gas energy policy, would you choose to keep 60 million people from gaining access to electricity for the sake of a presumed climate change “mitigation”?

        http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/our-high-energy-planet
        “A recent analysis from the Center for Global Development, for instance, estimates that if $10 billion were invested in renewable energy technology in sub-Saharan Africa, then 30 million would gain access to electricity. If the same amount of money was given to gas-fired generation, it would supply around 90 million – or three times as many people.”

        http://scroll.in/article/756228/how-climate-change-efforts-by-developed-countries-are-hurting-africas-rural-poor
        How climate change efforts by developed countries are hurting Africa’s rural poor
        Far from the expected development, forestry plantations and other carbon market initiatives in Uganda have severely compromised ecologies and livelihoods of the local people.

        1. SebastianH

          And there is the “help the poor” card being played again …

          How is help hurting again? Aren’t we actually leaving a lot more people behind by spending all that money we have on stupid stuff, not using it to help people? Billions! Trillions!

          1. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “And there is the “help the poor” card being played again …”

            It’s not a “card.” But it’s obvious where you stand on the topic; you’d choose to leave 60 million people in poverty, without access to electricity. As expected.

          2. AndyG55

            Yes seb , we know you couldn’t give a stuff about the poor in other countries.

            You have made that clear many, many times.

            Just so long as you have your Mercedes and your fossil-fuel reliability to hang to, and have the “feel-good” of pretending wind is actually worth the billions spent on it to decimate once reliable electricity supply systems

            That far left AGW “feel-good” is the thing you REALLY need, isn’t it, poor little-minded sed,.

          3. SebastianH

            Oh yes it is a card. Nobody can say anything against helping the poor and attaching something else makes that something also impossible to decline.

            Do you feel bad because you helped just 90 Millionen people instead of the other billion poor people on this planet? What about sustainability effort? Is showing 10 people how to feed themselves better or worse than just giving food to 100 people?

            Help is help. Don’t mix it with politics.

            And AndyG55, please just shut up with your pointless insults.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            As a progressive humanitarian employed in the social services/mental health field, and as an advocate for those who are impoverished (my wife and I take in foster children), and as someone who is very familiar with what it means to be “energy poor”, no, it is not a “card” to consider the needs of poor people and how they might be adversely affected by climate change “mitigation” policies.

            But you go ahead and continue driving around in your Mercedes, SebastianH…and telling us how much better and smarter you are than the rest of us.

          5. AndyG55

            Seb .. please shut up with your pointless, ignorant and moronic comments.

            You add nothing rational to any conversation.

          6. SebastianH

            You add nothing rational to any conversation.

            Says the prime example for pointless comments filled with insults and nonsense.

          7. AndyG55

            Do you know the difference between and insult and the straight down the line TRUTH?

            Where is that paper that shows that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.????

            Until then, your posts will continue to be pointless and non-contributory.

            EMPTY, in other words.

        2. Robert Folkerts

          There are a lot of mud huts around the world. Africa for example. You can be sure not to many of those have refrigerators.

          I actually said the “mud hut style existence”. Usually encompassing a rejection of the usual type of lifestyle enjoyed in the well developed western world. You know, the kind of amenities you currently enjoy. To go forth and hunt and fish and try to grow ones food in a self sufficient way, without modern devices such as electricity, refrigeration etc. It usually soon becomes much to hard to devote most of one’s energy just to survive in that sort of utopia.

      2. AndyG55

        You have NEVER built a house using unfired clay bricks have you, seb

        Its all just childish here-say to you.

        Basically you know NOTHING about the subject.

        Just like every other subject you put your pointless trolling towards.

        1. SebastianH

          What are you talking about? Unfired clay bricks?

          1. AndyG55

            Again you prove your ignorance.

            Is there anything you know anything about??

            So far, everything you think you know has been proven woefully lacking, or abjectly and monumentally WRONG !!

      3. AndyG55

        “And those people still use refrigerators and have showers, etc ”

        Not in the third world they don’t.

        Your slimy anti-human, anti-CO2 AGW agenda has made sure of that.

        Get out the way and let these people have some solid reliable electricity.

  7. AndyG55

    Where’s seb and sob to support poor Petite humber.?

  8. Robert Christopher

    As it is said, it’s hard to become a professor, but very easy to be one.

  9. toorightmate

    I have 12 bid.
    Any advance on 12?

  10. Don from OZ

    Some are worried about polar bears but No mention of the poor eskimos and their IGLOOS. They will have to seek refuge somewhere before they drown in their melted igloos. But where? ( sarc off)

    A question for those ‘in the know’.
    Firstly a few statements relevant to the scenario
    The Northern Hemisphere has about 90% of the worlds population
    The Northern hemisphere has 60.7% water cover and 39.3 land cover
    The Southern Hemisphere has about 10% of the worlds population
    The Southern Hemisphere has 80% water cover and 20% land cover
    Mauna Loa (Nth Hemi) is currently recording just above 400ppmv CO2
    Alert (Nth Hemi) is just under 400ppmv CO2
    Cape Grim (Sth Hemi) is currently recording 400ppmv CO2
    The 2 hemi’s atmospheres are very slow to mix, taking more than a year.
    Question:-
    If man (90% in N.H.) is producing more CO2 than nature why has the SH (10% of world population)advanced, and is advancing, in CO2 concentration at a similar rate to the NH?
    Pierre or Kenneth would you mind seeking counsel from the likes of Seb. Leunig and Fritz Vahrenholt please.

    1. AndyG55

      Not only the population numbers, but basically ALL of the world’s manufacturing is now situated in the NH.

    2. sod

      Real scientist have been measuring these effects for a long time. CO2 is pretty well mixed all over the world, even though there are boundaries in specific heights.

      https://ps.uci.edu/~rowlandblake/publications/177.pdf

  11. gallopingcamel

    The deranged Schellnhuber should broaden his range of study. Then he might learn that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 deliver many benefits:
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/benefits-of-co2.pdf

    While I have to agree with Schellnhuber when he says CO2 causes global warming its effect is so small that we can’t separate it from the other processes that effect global temperature.

    He should note that we live in a particularly chilly period compared to the PETM, the warm period that allowed mammals to thrive mightily. Back then polar oceans were at least 12 Kelvin warmer than today:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png/450px-65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

    1. AndyG55

      “when he says CO2 causes global warming”

      Unproven hypothesis/thought-bubble. 🙂

  12. AndyG55
  13. Richard111

    Interesting to note ‘population’ is being mentioned in comments.

    World population seems to have been doubling every 40 years and looks like it might reach 8 billion by 2020. This implies a global population of 16 billion by 2060!

    “Not possible!” people shout. I just wonder if this is behind the AGW scam.
    People don’t live long in mud huts.

  14. sod

    clay is a very good and pretty modern building material.

    “Advantages of Clay as a Building Material
    There are a number of advantages of clay for which it can be used in architecture. One of the main being the fact that Clay as a building material is ideal for tropical conditions in our subcontinent. Other than these natural clay – of which terracotta is made of, is the most flexible form of earth. It is essentially the least resisting material. Clay is the oldest known versatile building material which has lasted for centuries sustaining its value and utility, it is the most plastic and workable material as it takes shapes of a toy to a material used for making high rise buildings THE BRICK….clay is the most versatile product from plasticity moldability point of view. It can be molded in to any shape or size without least effort. It can acquire pleasing forms as desired by the architects. It is the eco- friendly building material available on earth. The common red clay used for the production of tiles is the most abundantly available mineral, with high plasticity and workability in wet condition. Clay is a healthy solution for modern day building construction. The structures made up of the clay have proven themselves for their versatility and endurance for ages. Clay was selected as the choice of material for various favorable reasons including the commercial considerations, natural availability and recyclable nature of clay. Looking into the current volatility of the manufacturing cost of cement, Clay proves to be the most cost efficient and sustainable. ”

    http://wienerberger.in/facts/advantages-of-clay-as-a-building-material

    But hey, these are just facts again!

    1. David Johnson

      Sod, you oaf, clay is not mud.

    2. Graeme No.3

      How many rooms in are there in your mud hut?

    3. AndyG55

      Off you toddle, little boy.

      It will the first time you have done a single bit of real work in your whole worthless life, won’t it. !!

    4. AndyG55

      You haven’t actually ever done anything with clay building materials, have you sob. I have. (clay and hay bricks sun-dried)

      Be honest, if you can….

      And why did you leave out the phrase “Clay when fired….”

      LYING BY OMISSION, YET AGAIN. !! slimy, wormy. !!

      And guess what is used to make fired clay bricks, little child. !! Very energy intensive. FOSSIL FUELS !!

    5. AndyG55

      And of course, in third world countries, clay bricks are often made using dung as the fibrous content..

      Of you go sob, leave you inner city ghetto basement and experience the real world, for once in your life..

      1. SebastianH

        You are confused … you can build modern homes with clay and wood and there is no third world flavor to it. But aren’t you living in the US? Aren’t those already houses built of wood?

        1. AndyG55

          Oh dear, your abject ignorance continues ad infinitum.

          You have never build a clay brick house , ever, have you seb

          You know absolutely nothing about what is involved.

          Why do you constantly make comments on things you know absolutely NOTHING about ?

          Are you TRYING to PROVE your ignorance???

          Because that is the only thing you have ever managed to prove on this forum.

          1. SebastianH

            Those houses are build out of a wood frame and then the walls are covers with clay/loam. No bricks.

          2. AndyG55

            That is one way, but that is not clay brick, is it dopey.

            You have just proven you have no idea how a clay brick house is built.

            Your IGNORANCE is becoming legendary, seb.

          3. SebastianH

            You obviously have no idea how to build modern, energy efficient clay houses …

  15. sod

    Please stop this “SNOW WILL BE A THING OF THE PAST” nonsense. You folks look like fools every time someone posts it under a heavy snow event like this one!!!

    Here is what the scientist said:

    “Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time”

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf

    Thanks to wuwt for storing the article!)

    1. AndyG55

      He said ………..”within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event. …….

      Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”………

      1. Snow is not rare in the UK at all.

      2. Children do know what snow is.

      Stupid failed prediction.

    2. Kurt in Switzerland

      sod, sod, sod…

      READ your own link:

      [According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

      “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said].

      So it comes down to how many years constitute “a few”.
      Care to take a stab?

      1. sod

        “READ your own link:”

        i have. i Have just FULLY quoted the part that is turning sceptics hysteric all over the internet for a couple of years.

        The relevant part is describing EXACTLY the heavy snow event we are seeing these days.

        Children in a warmer world (along the border line snow regions) will not know snow because their experience with it will change fundamentally. Instead of extended periods of normal snow, they will get no snow some years, snow mud most years and an occasional heavy snow event.

        1. AndyG55

          ““Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” ”

          You are a child, sob.. do you know what snow is??

          Take your foot out of your gob and try again !!!

        2. DirkH

          Tsk tsk. The warmunists are disowning their own esteemed Dr. Viner by falsifying his famous quote. Revisionists of their own past.

          1. sod

            NO!

            He said explicitly:

            ““Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner”

          2. AndyG55

            “““Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,””

            sob knows what snow is…

            Viner was manifestly and absolutely wrong ..

            .. end of story !!

          3. sod

            Can you please stop quoting only the one part of the interview that you like?

            Yes he said

            ““““Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”””

            but in the SAME TEXT he also said:

            “““Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner””

            So now how do we put these two sentences together?

            We do, by not taking the first one literally. Nobody with a working brain would take that sentence literally. Children in Africa who have never seen snow in their life will know what snow is. Because today there are books and films. and some people even go on holidays. Today you can go indoor skiing in absurd places.

            can you figure out the meaning of sentence or can you not?

            The second sentence is meant in a literal way (there is no other interpretation and nothing forbidding a literal interpretation). And it does exactly describe the situation that we have these days.

          4. sod

            “So the twerp posted contradictory statements.”

            no, he did not. One was meant literally, the other one not. You simply do not get it.

  16. David Johnson

    So come on Sod you fool, defend the mad professor instead of trying to change the subject

  17. Richard111

    Talking science sod? Good stuff. I am open to conversion if you can explain how radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere can warm anything.
    Please do not quote climate anomalies as justification.
    I accept CO2 in the atmosphere IS radiating 24/7 over well observed radiation bands. It also absorbs energy from the sun over other bands.
    Of course energy absorbed from sunlight does not reach the ground, so in effect a cooling process when the sun is shinning. Okay, so what is the energy flow when the sun is NOT shinning.

    1. SebastianH

      wtf? Do you know how an oven works? What would happen if you remove all the insulation? Would you still reach the same temperature inside the oven with the same amount of wattage?

      Every form of radiation is an energy transfer. And those transfers happens even from cold stuff in the direction of warm stuff … there is no intelligence in matter that can stop a cold object from emitting in the direction of the sun. The result is that hot stuff has to become even hotter to continue to emit the same amount of radiation (net flux) as before. Simple physics.

      1. AndyG55

        Simple physic.. your limitation. Isn’t it seb.

        So much so that you can’t produce one single paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere..

        ..and you DENY the simple physics of the gravito/thermal effect.

        Best you stick to your “simple” physics and leave the higher level stuff to others.

        1. SebastianH

          There is no “gravito/thermal” effect that works from cold to warm … the gradient temperature startpoint is the surface.

          1. AndyG55

            You really have absolute NO SCIENTIFIC COMPREHENSION, do you. !!!

            No idea what forms the gravito/thermal effect.

            You really think it is formed from the surface.. REALLY ?????????

            You poor little mindless twerp !!

            DENYING REALITY is the only thing you have to support your baseless AGW religion.

          2. SebastianH

            Tell yourself that and live a happy life in fantasy land …

          3. AndyG55

            Poor seb , you are obviously very happy being wilfully ignorant.

            It is your life’s work.

            Your problem to solve. !!

  18. Bitter&twisted

    Sod off to your mud hut.

  19. Stonehenge

    Schellnhuber’s credibility is no better than his ability to convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit: a change of 1.5 deg C is equivalent to 2.7 deg F. 3.6 deg F equates to 2 deg C.

    1. Will Janoschka

      Schellnhuber Does that mean ‘quickly hide’? 🙂

  20. Predictions | Pearltrees

    […] Goodbye World: We’ve Passed the Carbon Tipping Point For Good – Principia Scientific International. Humans don't have 10 years left thanks to climate change. Why 'The Population Bomb' Bombed – Bloomberg View. Potsdam PIK Climate Director Says We Will Have To Go Back To Mud Huts By 2040. […]

  21. clipe

    First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,

    “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”

    http://www.xdtalk.com/threads/a-brit-writers-wry-take-on-climate-change.275343/

    1. Graeme No.3

      clipe:
      😀😀😀

  22. sod

    Does the “statistical system” of the “gravito/thermal effect” explain what happens in a “convective atmosphere”?

    People here are using pseudo science speak to give their alternative facts a scientific touch….

    1. AndyG55

      Oh dear , sob shows he has ZERO COMPREHENSION of the reality of atmospheric gravity/pressure/thermal regulation

      You really must go back to pre-school and start again, Sob .. you are EMBARRASSING yourself with every post.

      Yes the gravity/thermal/pressure effect explains everything that controls the atmosphere.

      Tiny step, for you sob.. very tiny steps.

      I reckon 10-15 years before you wake up to reality.

      Seb.. zero possibility.. his anti-knowledge is too deep. !!

      1. SebastianH

        It even has light speed convection and magic energy reservoirs to counter normal physics. AndyG55’s and – i think – Stephen Wilde’s theory of how the atmosphere works has it all …

        1. AndyG55

          Where is that single paper to show the fantasy of CO2 causing warming in a convective atmosphere, little seb.

          You are still batting ZERO.

          Your understanding of anything to do with how the atmosphere works has been proven to be nothing but hallucinogenic fantasy !!

          ZERO-SCIENCE brain-washed nonsense, is all you have to back your baseless AGW religion.

          Heck even a Jehovah Witness can put up a better argument, based on sounder facts than you have ever managed.

  23. Paul

    So is the planet going to rise by 4,5,6 or 12 degrees as stated? Which one is it – he’s increased his forecast three fold in one sentence and all I can say is that if I was that accurate with my forecasts, I’d be sacked.

    He also states that he had the evidence to back this up. Can we have it then so it can be analysed by other climate scientists and checked against other data sets. After all this is normal scientific practice.

  24. Sam Pyeatte

    The “eccentric professor” needs an extended vacation where he has to live in a mud hut for a few months…