Ed Hoskins: Temperature reduction outcomes from de-carbonisation

Posted: December 24, 2014 by tallbloke in Accountability, climate, government
Tags: ,

Third in a trilogy of guest posts from Ed Hoskins. This one looks at how much temperature would be reduced if we committed economic suicide.

Temperature reduction outcomes from de-carbonisation
Ed Hoskins MAarch (Cantab)  BDS (Lond).

To quantify what might be achieved by any political action for de-carbonization by Western economies, the comparative tables below show the remaining effectiveness of each 100ppmv tranche up to 1000ppmv, with the total global warming in each of the five diminution assessments.  These estimates depend on the calculations set out in the following associated essay:

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-co2-on-temperature/

The table below shows the likely range of warming arising from these divergent (sceptical and IPCC) views, (without feedbacks, which are questionably either negative or positive: but probably not massively positive as assumed by CAGW alarmists), that would be averted with an increase of CO2 for the full increase from 400 ppmv  up to 1000 ppmv.Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 11.33.54The results above for countries and country groups show a range for whichever scenario of only a matter of a few thousandths to a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade.

However it is extremely unlikely that the developing world is going to succumb to non-development of their economies on the grounds of reducing CO2 emissions. So it is very likely that the developing world’s CO2 emissions are going to escalate whatever is done by developed nations.

These figures show that whatever the developed world does in terms of decreasing CO2 emissions the outcome is likely to be absolutely immaterial.

The table below assumes that the amount of CO2 released by each of the world’s nations or nation is reduced universally by some 20%: this is a radical reduction level but just about conceivable.Screen Shot 2014-08-07 at 12.40.39

The extreme, economically destructive and immensely costly efforts by participating western nations to reduce temperature by de-carbonization should be seen in context:

  • the changing global temperature patterns, the current standstill and likely impending cooling.
  • the rapidly growing CO2 emissions from the bulk of the world’s most populous nations as they continue their development.
  • the diminishing impact of any extra CO2 emissions on any temperature increase.
  • normal daily temperature variations at any a single location range from 10°C to 20°C.
  • normal annual variations value can be as much as 40°C to 50°C.
  • that participating Europe as a whole only accounts for ~11% of world CO2 emissions.
  • that the UK itself is now only about ~1.5% of world CO2 emissions.

As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the minuscule temperature effects shown above arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions. Thus the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.

The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile[i].

Professor Judith Curry’s Congressional testimony 14/1/2014[ii]:

“Motivated by the precautionary principle to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales.”

Professor Richard Lindzen UK parliament committee testimony 28/1/2014 on IPCC AR5[iii]:

“Whatever the UK decides to do will have no impact on your climate, but will have a profound impact on your economy. (You are) Trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem by taking actions that you know will hurt your economy.”

and paraphrased “doing nothing for fifty years is a much better option than any active political measures to control climate.”

As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling[iv] over the last seventeen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling[v] rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent warming[vi].

[i] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fr/2013/11/lomborg-spain-wastes-hundreds-of.html

[ii] http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275

[iii] http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/28/uk-parliamentary-hearing-on-the-ipcc/

[iv] http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3436241/the-inescapable-apocalypse-has-been-seriously-underestimated.thtml

[v] http://www.iceagenow.com/Triple_Crown_of_global_cooling.htm

[vi] http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/

Comments
  1. Richard111 says:

    Oh, well. I’m going slightly OT again. My latest argument offered to warmists is do you really believe that just ONE CO2 molecule in 35 in the atmosphere is responsible for increasing hurricanes? That ONE so called man made CO2 molecule produced by burning fossil fuels? What are these fossils man is burning? Long dead plants! Where did those long dead plants get the carbon from? From the atmosphere! Man is recycling the carbon just like termites, CO2 has no effect on climate. Non what so ever. Direct me to any paper that shows exactly how CO2 changes the DRY ADIABATIC lapse rate.
    Sorry. Rant off.

  2. […] These estimates depend on the calculations set out in the following associated essay: – Click here to read the full article […]

  3. catweazle666 says:

    All that work, and then this comes along…

  4. gallopingcamel says:

    Temperature drives [CO2] owing to Henry’s law governing the solubility of gases in liquids:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/