It amazes me how activists and even highly educated scientists are clinging to the hope that global society is somehow still able to meet the junk-theoretical 2°C greenhouse gas emissions target.
And so I had to laugh when Zeke Hausfather at Twitter brought down two Potsdam, Germany, activist scientists from their fantasy world of radical CO2 reductions and back to brutal reality. Hausfather is right, we have to start getting real about things and how the world really works.
Time to wake up
Hausfather was reacting to a recent post by Stefan Rahmstorf and Anders Levermann over at Real Climate, where they seem to desperately hold on to the hope that the 2°C target can be reached – if we all sacrifice mightily. Unfortunately the only way that could happen is if governments declared a global state of emergency, called out the army and ordered everyone at gunpoint to cut massively CO2 emissions – to the absurd extent that would allow the theoretical 2°C target to be met. It almost feels like the two scientists would even accept that.
Yes, they say there’s a chance – if we reach peak emissions by 2020, and then if we all happily hop on our bicycles and eat a vegan diets thereafter.
Rahmstorf and Levermann write:
We will need an enormous amount of action and scaled up ambition to harness the current momentum in order to travel down the decarbonisation curve at the necessary pace; the window to do that is still open[x].”
Hasn’t anyone told Rahmstorf and Levermann that China and India aren’t going to change anything until 2030, at the absolute earliest (and that’s a big if)? Haven’t the two Potsdam scientists read the lax conditions in the Paris Accord?
Someone needs to sit the two scientists down and break the bad news to them: It’s already too late. The theoretical 2°C target is now pure fantasy. That point is long gone…assuming the CO2 theory is right to begin with.
“Strongly doubt any of the scenarios are remotely feasible”
I’m not the only one who is sure that the alarmists made the tactical mistake of placing the 2°C target goal posts way too close, but so is warmist Zeke Hausfather.
Here’s his reaction to the two German alarmist authors over at Twitter:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I strongly doubt that any of these scenarios are remotely feasible. https://t.co/PwXPWo2sNU 1/2 pic.twitter.com/YcQ8OmoSvi
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) June 6, 2017
Looking at the chart above, if humanity had started cutting back say 25 years ago, it might have had a chance to reach that target. But as the chart shows, today it is only possible with ultra-drastic, state-of-emergency emissions cuts. Forget it – it’s not gonna ever happen.
I couldn’t resist, and so I left my comment (before it was taken down) in response to Zeke:
39 responses to “Zeke Hausfather Brings Real Climate’s CO2 Reduction Fantasies Back To Brutal Reality”
Do the activists look once in a while into the CO2 measurement at Mauna Loa?
The annual growth rate in 2015 was with 3.03 ppm the highest in the whole measurements, closely followed by 2016 with 2.98 ppm.
It is said that the global CO2 emission world wide shows in the last 3 years no real increase. This means that the CO2 emission and the CO2 measurement have no correlation.
It also means that the whole effort to install wind turbines and solar panel have not made a dent at all. It has even increased more than in previous years.
Good observation. Perhaps there is a lag?
1) Yearly CO2 increases have been varying with weather events (see: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative or the graph in the link you posted). Don’t forget natures’s influence on CO2 concentrations, don’t be that skeptic!
2) Do you really think that a steady CO2 emission output should mean a steady CO2 concentration increase? It doesn’t work like that.
3) “It also means that the whole effort to install wind turbines and solar panel have not made a dent at all.” – well, apparently CO2 emission didn’t increase for the last 3 years or so you have written? Are renewables picking up the complete increase in energy usage already?
2) Do you really think that a steady CO2 emission output should mean a steady CO2 concentration increase? It doesn’t work like that.”
Then how does it work seb..
everybody get ready for “FANTASY TIME” , with seb! 🙂
3) you know that wind turbines are a tiny fraction of energy used, ZERO to nearest whole number
So NO !! Not unless you can come up with another moronic meaningless analogy.
A paper about the increase of the CO2 concentration was posted on this very site. Haven’t you read it?
The increase of the concentration for the next timespan can be roughly calculated by taking the difference between the current ppm and base ppm (290), divide it by a factor (ocean to atmosphere ratio = ~40) and subtract that from the total emission output of that timespan.
A steady output will cause the CO2 concentration to increase slower and slower until ocean absorbtion can cope with all of those additional emissions. Of course this assumes there is unlimited absorption potential for the oceans.
1) What do you mean with CO2 increases varying with weather events?
Do you mean the fact that the distribution of CO2 is not perfect across the globe? It varies by about 40 ppm give or take. Just look at this graphical presentation:
Or do you mean the ups and downs in relation to the season of the plant live in the northern hemisphere?
2) No, I don’t think that CO2 emission are perfectly matched in the Mauna Loa measurements, as there are a lot of variables in nature.
The so called 97% scientists and the IPCC believe it, as they have started with the matching of the the Keeling curve and the increase of the temperature and then referred to the emissions of man.
NOAA is believing it too: “Increased emissions are directly affecting atmospheric CO2”. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c14tellsus.html
3) I’m just referring to the argument “Fossil-fuel CO2 emissions nearly stable for third year in row” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/14/fossil-fuel-co2-emissions-nearly-stable-for-third-year-in-row
Why should I say something else when this is stated “according to figures released as world leaders begin to arrive in Marrakech for a UN climate summit”. I guess I believe it … maybe
Would they say this to show that the renewable energy has worked? I leave it up to you to decide.
I have just answered you low density point regarding the Martian atmosphere that you raised on the other thread 17 New Scientific papers.
You might want to have a look.
The influence of temperatures on CO2 emissions is even more obvious if the variations of both are scaled to be comparable.
CO2 variations truly mimic temperatures with a delay.
“mimic temperatures with a delay.”
But that delay is what caused temperatures to heat up..
Just ask seb.. he will explain. 😉
Yep, that’s what I ment. Thank you for clarifying it with a graph.
That’s right seb, TEMPERATURE DRIVES CO2
Thanks for the confirmation.
I don’t trust these numbers. Remember that Mauna Loa data show a decrease of CO2 concentration in summer (Northern Hemisphere summer), followed by a steep rise in winter. As the year starts part way up on the graph, those “yearly” numbers are suspect.
Curious George, you can believe the increase and decrease over the year. That is nature. The decrease starts in spring when the plant life is taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and the increase starts in the fall when the plant life stops.
Just the normal seasonal changes.
This CO2 variation is relatively large compared to manmade CO2 levels, and yet ‘climate scientist’ fail to see any seasonal temperature variation caused by it.
Not much chance of finding the mythical CO2 human fingerprint.
Crash goes the greenhouse theory, CO2 as a control planetary temperature is a observational failure.
Has anybody ever been able how many ppm of CO2 would correspond to an increase of 2°C? I thought not!
Nobody has a clue about the real climate sensitivity. Even the IPCC had to cut back in AR5 on its previous gestimates; they still are in a range from simple to triple..
Neither the German political caste nor the “scientists” nor the media EVER ask the question of what EFFECT any German CO2 reduction would have. It is all about setting an example and demonstrating how GOOD we are, payed for with real money stolen from ordinary people.
The amazing thing is that people are still stupid enough to vote for the ur-Green party CDU – the most fraudulent bunch of liars ever to have graced German soil.
They so crave murdering the real economy. They are useless and they know it. That’s why they want to destroy anyone who isn’t.
The IPCC agrees that the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas rapidly diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration.
At 400 ppmv so little of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas now remains that there is no possibility of ever attaining the much feared +2°C temperature rise caused by Man-made CO emissions, that is thought to be so catastrophic by alarmists and sadly by convinced Western world politicians.
The Greenhouse effect is essential to all life on earth, without that warming effect of ~+33°C the planet would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.
Atmospheric CO2 is essential for the survival and fertilisation of plant life: it thus supports all life on earth.
Therefore atmospheric CO2, whether its mostly naturally occurring or Man-made, is not pollutant.
A concentration of atmospheric CO2 < 200 ppmv equivalent to ~77% of CO2’s Greenhouse effectiveness is essential to maintain plant life and thus life on earth.
At the current level of ~400 ppmv, only ~13% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas remains.
Therefore increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can only lead to very limited further warming and certainly not to any catastrophic and dangerous temperature increase.
As its effectiveness diminishes, a doubling of CO2 concentration from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv, (climate sensitivity), can only result in a temperature increase of ~0.37°C as the median case and the worst case can only result in less than +1.0 °C
So Mankind’s attempts to control global temperature by the limitation of CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels can only ever have marginal or immeasurable effects.
All de-carbonisation efforts by mankind are therefore misguided and irrelevant.
As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last nineteen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent further warming.
You are forgetting possible feedbacks and surface temperatures didn’t really stagnate or cool over the last nineteen years nor has ocean heat content.
It might have marginal or immeasurable effect, but what if … https://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cartoon-from-trenberth-ams-paper.jpg
If you are suggesting that it is all a big Hoax, the evidence is strongly pointing in that direction. I am very willing to take the risk that it is all a load of rubbish.
Possible or imaginary or immeasureable
ZERO fact seb , yaps again !!!
That’s the point Seb. Nothing in climate remains the same all the time. It’s changing and not because of the instantaneous content of CO². That would be impossible.
Why is that impossible Stephen? I have never seen a convincing argument for that skeptics view point here. Just failed attempts at disproving 200 years of physics/science …
How is it possible to “disprove” the concept of a theoretical greenhouse effect heating the ocean depths when you’ve simultaneously acknowledged that this is only theoretical and has never been proven scientifically in the first place? How does one disprove that which has not been proved (that CO2 variations heat the ocean depths)?
But since you believe that parts per million (0.000001) variations in atmospheric CO2 in the last 100 years are what control the temperature of the ocean, and that this very belief is “200 years of physics/science”, please cite the scientific experiment that proves that it has been carbon dioxide, and not any other natural variable that has been heating the 0-2000 m of the ocean since CO2 concentrations began rising (~1900). And explain where it has been proven that natural variability and natural forcing have been ruled out.
“I have never seen a convincing argument for that skeptics view point here.”
Your brain-washing has made you deliberately and wilfully BLIND.
You live in a world of pure hallucination and ANTI-science, seb.. and are too base-level ignorant to realise it.
Like we do it with every other theory/hypothesis. Find one example where it doesn’t explain the result and voila …
The theory of relativity will stand as long as someone finds a situation where it doesn’t. It’s always been this way and it will always be this way. Proofs are a mathematical thing.
You keep bringing this up as if that is what I have written. This hasn’t been just switched of, but as you showed multiple times now OHC has decreased in the past (your Rosenthal reconstruction links). Also the CO2 forcing alone is enough to explain the increase in the amount of OHC. You could take any other influence an attribute the increase to it, but CO2 concentration increase is something we did and therefor the human influence.
But you are a skeptic, you don’t think that we caused the CO2 increase, you don’t think that the CO2 forcing is as high as stated and you don’t think that physics work the same for every body of mass. That’s ok, but it puts you in a corner with conspiracy theorists and the like with their wild theories about how the (physical) world is operating.
Scientific Studies Reveal No Correlation Between CO2 And Ocean Heat Content Variations For 99.975% Of The Last 10,000 Years
So in your world, it has been proven that the theoretical, non-observed conceptualization of CO2 radiative forcing of ocean heat content is the truth because the increase since 1955 is explained by the “CO2 forcing alone” and is something we did. Never mind that we’ve also had a Grand Maximum of solar activity during this same period, or a dramatic reduction in volcanic aerosol activity since the Little Ice Age. Or a significant reduction in cloud cover since the 1980s. Those factors don’t count…because CO2 alone explains the rise since 1955.
I have expressly stated multiple times that I am agnostic about the extent to which humans have contributed to the changes in CO2. I think it’s likely that we have contributed some, but I also don’t think our guesses about past CO2 concentrations are accurate. They’ve been agreed upon by purposely selecting some values over others.
CO2 forcing of net changes in ocean heat content has never been observed scientifically. It’s theoretical. It’s rooted in modeling. You have yourself acknowledged this.
There is nothing conspiratorial about pointing out that something you believe to be the truth is not rooted in observation, nor do we have real-world physical measurements verifying it.
How much cooling of a body of water is forced by a removal of 10 ppm CO2 from the atmosphere or the air above it? You cannot answer this question using real-world data or measurements. Because it’s never been observed to occur.
There is no conspiracy in pointing out that you have no observable, physical measurements to support your beliefs. Therefore, your attempts to pejoratively marginalize me by saying I’m in a corner with conspiracy theorists because I don’t agree with your beliefs is rather ironic.
It appears that you have no understanding of heat transfer which is an engineering subject since Lazare Carnot (French Engineer) wrote about heat transfer and thermodynamics around 1800. Engineers measure and make experiments to work out theories from which they can make improvements or scale up equipment, make better measurements (such as computer, satellites, ultrasound etc) In the last forty years so-called scientists appear to be jumping to theories (like blackholes in space or climate change) which are not based on actual measurements or real experience.
please elaborate. Calling this an engineering problem doesn’t explain how you understand heat transfer. It always transfers from the hot reservoir to the cold one, correct? How is that violated by greenhouse gases insulating the surface from space?
You do understand – as an engineer – how insulation works, do you?
You don’t get it, do you? All those things contribute to the observed OHC change. Without any of those contributers the change would look different. If you could eliminate the CO2 forcing influence OHC change would look more or less flat, that’s what I am saying. Nothing more.
The mechanisms have all been observed. Just because it is difficult or next to impossible to change CO2 concentration in a column of the atmosphere for an experiment this doesn’t mean that somehow physics will not work the way they are expected to. The atmosphere is working as insulation towards space over any surface. It’s composition (yes, density too) determines the size of the effect.
And, once again, this assumes that the “CO2 forcing influence” on ocean heat content changes is both observable and measured. It isn’t. This is your assumption, based on theoretical models.
How much cooling will take place in a body of water if the CO2 concentration above it is reduced by -0.00001 (10 ppm)? Do you know? Of course you don’t. It’s never been observed. Or measured. CO2 removal has never been used in a real world experiment to show that reducing or adding concentration causes cooling or warming in water bodies. It’s speculation and confirmation bias.
“you don’t think that physics work the same for every body of mass.”
Its just that you have ZERO comprehension of physics or how it works
That’s puts you, seb, in the VERY IGNORANT section of society.
Since it was Schellnhuber who “invented” the 2° target to keep the politicians happy (and subsequently admitted as much) and also happens to be the founding director of their Institut, perhaps they should have had a word with him before spouting more pointless platitudes.
Incidentally, if we are all to go onto vegan diets all that will happen is we will replace CO2 emissions with increased methane emissions, a much more potent global warming gas. Allegedly.
Looking at BEST (where zeke and mosh are hired as a pseudo-scientists) we find that all the funding comes from far-left socialists globalists, including 1/4 million from “anonymous”. http://berkeleyearth.org/funders/
They are heavily paid operatives of the “climate change ” agenda.
We can also see just how manically awful their data fabrication and manipulation is.
Nothing coming from that particular bunch of LIARS should be considered as anything except rabid propaganda.
BEST’s Muller is also a Planet X/Nibiru proponent. And a SOCAL wingnut to boot.
This is fun
(after the ads.)
Howsyerfather is an activist clown as well. Once said he would have a vasectomy to save the planet
Great idea, though, and might actually have a positive effect on future generations.
Hasn’t anyone told them that their “theory” is shit to begin with?