James Hansen, et al have issued a study titled “Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions. The authors say that unless CO2 reduction begins right away and aggressively the next generation and the one after that will have to spend a $535 trillion to make Earth habitable. This $535 trillion is not the $trillions that the warmers want to spend to bring CO2 emissions to a net zero by 2050 or 2100 (depending on which warmer group is talking). The $535 trillion is for removing atmospheric CO2.
The Hansen et al study says the global temperature will melt glaciers and consequently sea level will rise 6 to 9 meters (approximately 20 to 30 feet). Using models, the study determined a temperature rise due to a rise in atmospheric CO2 and then determined that the glaciers will melt which is the big threat. The authors conclude that the current interglacial period would match the Eemian interglacial period which occurred about 125,000 years ago. That period is believed to have experienced a 6 to 9-meter sea level rise. The chart below, from Wikipedia shows the current interglacial period, the Holocene and the Eemian and other interglacial periods. Note that the scale is more or less logarithmic and not linear.
A tangential observation—this chart shows that the Globe’s temperature has been much hotter than at present. Also, the Pleistocene running from about 1 million years ago to about 20 thousand years ago shows glacial and interglacial periods. The peak temperatures are the time of the interglacial and the rest are the times when some part of Earth was covered by advancing glaciers. Were there SUVs and fossil fuel powered plants putting out CO2 that caused the glaciers to melt?
Posted in AGW, Antartica, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Ice Melt, Interglacial periods, Paris Agreement, Sea Level
The picture below shows in color the concentration of air pollution in North America. The lower US seems to have three notable pollution sources according to the color scale shown in the lower left of the photo. Roughly locating these three sources would be in California in the Western US, Chicago area in the Great Lakes region, and Baltimore to Boston along the I 95 corridor.
Now for a look at Asia and the middle East.
According to these maps, the above one shows where most of the air pollution originates.
The following from the Science website is some information about these pictures. While the text is from November last year, the picture map shows the situation in real time. These are for July 16, 2017.
By Dennis NormileNov. 28, 2016 , 3:15 PM
China’s air is notoriously toxic: Each year, it contributes to the premature deaths of some 1.6 million people. Concerned about how such pollution was affecting his family, Beijing-based data scientist Yann Boquillod founded AirVisual Earth, an online air pollution map that uses data from satellites and more than 8000 monitoring stations to display global air pollution in real time. The AirVisual Earth interactive maps prevailing wind patterns and shows color-coded concentrations of PM2.5—airborne particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter that can penetrate deep into the lungs. Users can zoom in, tilt, and spin the globe for better viewing. The air pollution visualization was crafted “so people really understand how bad it is,” says Boquillod, who hopes an informed citizenry will pressure governments and communities to clear the air. AirVisual also delivers 3-day air pollution forecasts for 6000 cities to smartphones, and it recently began selling low-cost monitors people can use to track indoor and outdoor air pollution. “People want to share that data,” Boquillod says.
The pictures are screen captures. You will have to go to the Science site link here to move around the globe.
I am not a fan of the 2.5micron particles stuff. Another study suggest that there is no evidence for it being considered a vehicle for killing massive numbers of people. See Junk Science links to see why I say that. This is a good map for chasing black carbon and other aerosols.
The New York Magazine posted, “The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells. Some observers think that this posting is so bizarre that it must be a parody; meant to be something like a posting on the ONION.
I have been planning to discuss some information about CO2. When I read Part V of Mr. Wallace-Wells essay subtitled “Unbreathable Air”, I had to make it part of the discussion to illustrate why some consider the New York Magazine’s posting is a parody. Wallace-Wells notes:
“Our lungs need oxygen, but that is only a fraction of what we breathe. The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.
Where is he getting his information? Let’s look at what experts have to say about CO2 .
CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist say that the TLV is 5,000 ppm. The Threshold Limit Value (TLV) is the level which a worker can be exposed to day after day for a lifetime without adverse effects. Concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), will make some people feel drowsy according to some sources. Levels of 70,000 to 100,000 may cause suffocation. So, Wallace-Wells’ value of 1000ppm is truly a laughable statement. Perhaps anyone who reads the “Uninhabitable Earth” will experience a cognitive decline of 21%.
The Manhattan Contrarian posted “Looks Like Global Action On “Climate Change” Is Dead by Frances Menton. There is not much in the posting that I have not already covered. However, there are two things that do standout that I want to pass on. Menton’s posting is relative to the members of the G 20, that have just reaffirmed their support for the Paris Agreement in the Summary statement at the end of the G 20* meeting. The US did not join in the reaffirmation.
Menton notes that Russia’s intended reduction is based upon their CO2 emissions in 1990 before they collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union.
“Then they closed down all that inefficient Soviet industry. According to a graph at Climate Action Tracker here, by 2000 their emissions were down by almost 40% from the 1990 level, and they have only crept up a little from there since.”
That was their ploy back in the days of the Kyoto Pact, too.
Posted in AGW, China, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Coal, Environment, EU, IPCC, Kyoto, Paris Agreement, President Trump, Renewable Energy, United Nations
The UAH satellite global temperature measurement cooled off to an anomaly of +0.21C in the month of June. The peak global temperature resulting from the El Nino, is now on its way to normal. The May global temperature reversed the downward trend by increasing but this was more than offset by the 0.23 C drop in the month of June. Many postings are arguing that the PAUSE has resumed. I will leave that alone for several months before commenting.
This anomaly is the lowest since July 2015.
I believe we are in for some global cooling, but it may still be several years away. I have mixed feelings about this. The world will become a harder place for many people if this results in reduced food crops and much higher costs for keeping warm. Ask those people in Europe that can no longer afford the high cost electricity in the winter that has resulted from imposing wind and solar energy on them. Cold weather is the real climate killer, not the fantasy of higher temperatures that the warmers spout. But the good part would be is it should put a stake in the heart of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory.
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.55 +0.73 +0.38 +0.84
2016 02 +0.86 +1.19 +0.52 +0.99
2016 03 +0.76 +0.99 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.86 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.45 +0.71
2016 06 +0.32 +0.47 +0.17 +0.38
2016 07 +0.37 +0.43 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.53 +0.32 +0.50
2016 09 +0.45 +0.50 +0.39 +0.38
2016 10 +0.42 +0.42 +0.41 +0.46
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.36
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.23
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.33 +0.09
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06
2017 04 +0.27 +0.29 +0.26 +0.22
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.32 +0.09 +0.39
A posting in the WSJ titled “Change Would Be Healthy at U.S. Climate Agencies, such as mentioning margin of error!” illustrates the way that the EPA and NOAA along with the compliant media have been misleading the public about global temperatures. Holman Jenkins, a member of the WSJ editorial board wrote:
“The year 2016 was the warmest ever recorded—so claimed two U.S. agencies, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Except it wasn’t, according to the agencies’ own measures of statistical uncertainty.
Such fudge is of fairly recent vintage. Leaving any discussion of the uncertainty interval out of press releases only became the norm in the second year of the Obama administration.
Statisticians wouldn’t go through the trouble of assigning an uncertainty value unless it meant something. Two measurements separated by less than the margin of error are the same. And yet NASA’s Goddard Institute, now under Mr. Hansen’s successor Gavin Schmidt, put out a release eclaring 2014 the “warmest year in the modern record” when it was statistically indistinguishable from 2005 and 2010.
Solar Cycle 24 is on its way to a “minimum” . That Minimum will probably be in late 2019 or early 2020. The video illustrates several issues that are newsworthy.
- Global Temperature measurements made by satellites are often consider the “gold standard”. Two organizations make and report their interpretation of these measurements. The UAH and RSS organizations have typically reported very nearly the same temperatures but separation of the values occurred with RSS now giving higher readings. A major part of the separation is based how to correct for the drag that these satellites encounter as the circle above the Earth.
- And a small point. When the narrator says that Cycle 24 Sunspots were “relatively high” he is comparing the Sunspot level now. However, it might cause some people to think that he means as opposed to other Solar Cycles–which by and large is not true.