‘Triple whammy’ threatens climate progress, says BBC News

Posted: June 26, 2019 by oldbrew in climate, News, Politics, Temperature
Tags: ,


These UN delegates won’t want to hear about the latest paper from Professor Zharkova et al, which forecasts a natural rise in global temperatures until 2600 that is much higher than the arbitrary 1.5C ‘target’ they think they can buy for themselves, at vast public expense of course, by playing around with the trace gas content of the atmosphere. But, secure in their echo chamber of man-made warming beliefs and the conviction they are somehow able to control the Earth’s climate, the chances are they either won’t hear of the new research or will ignore it anyway.

A “triple whammy” of events threatens to hamper efforts to tackle climate change say UN delegates, says BBC News.

At a meeting in Bonn, Saudi Arabia has continued to object to a key IPCC scientific report that urges drastic cuts in carbon emissions.

Added to that, the EU has so far failed to agree to a long term net zero emissions target.

Thirdly, a draft text from the G20 summit in Japan later this week waters down commitments to tackle warming.

One attendee in Bonn said that, taken together, the moves represented a fierce backlash from countries with strong fossil fuel interests.

There was controversy last December at the Katowice COP24 meeting in Poland, when Saudi Arabia, the US, Kuwait and Russia objected to moves to welcome the findings of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5C.

That study, regarded as a landmark, had two clear messages.

It showed that there were huge benefits in keeping temperature rises this century to 1.5C compared to a world that warmed 2C or more.

It also said that keeping the world below 1.5C was still possible, if drastic cuts in emissions were initiated by 2030.

To the frustration of a huge majority of countries, the objections of the four major fossil fuel producers, meant that the scientific report was not formally recognised in the negotiations.

The battle over the 1.5C report has carried over from Katowice to Bonn. Normally, this mid-year meeting is concerned with technical questions but this time the issue of the IPCC has re-emerged as a huge fault line between nations.

The Saudis are keen to highlight what are termed “knowledge gaps” in the IPCC report, that they believe hamper its ability to inform decision making at national or international level.

“We know that there are some hardliners that would try to downplay the seriousness and the actions that are required, that is their point of view,” said Carlos Fuller from Belize, the lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States.

“They recognise that they need to undertake major changes that they are not happy about.”

Many environmental campaigners see the Saudi pressure on the IPCC as part of campaign to discredit the science.

“The report shows the importance of striving towards 1.5C, that it is still achievable, and there is an incredible urgency to act vigorously and quickly,” said Dr Jeni Miller from the Global Climate and Health Alliance.

“This report was requested by the UN, by these countries themselves, so to not accept the findings of the report is a rejection of science, and if you are rejecting the science there is not a way forward to address this problem.”

Full report here.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    It might help if they understood that climate change is the norm, not the exception.

  2. Stephen Richards says:

    These people are downright dangerous. Politicians across the globe are trying to save the planet with our money by taking more and more of it from us.

  3. cognog2 says:

    Carlos Fuller’s comment claiming the the rejection of the IPCC report is “a rejection of science” is another example of the GreenBlobs accusing its opponents of something that they indulge in themselves.
    It is the IPCC and the GreenBlob which has been rejecting the science in furtherance of their agenda.

    Meanwhile, here in the UK Teresa May is attempting to push through Parliament legislation which will costs us all dear in compliance with this political agenda of the Greens, oblivious of the really true science which has been essentially banned from the Main Stream Media.

  4. oldbrew says:

    It’s a classic ‘idée fixe’: used in psychology to refer to an irrational obsession that so dominates an individual’s thoughts as to determine his or her actions.

    https://www.britannica.com/art/idee-fixe

    They have forgotten about convection…

    “Greenhouse effect” is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

    Trace gases like CO2 can’t cause any reduction of convection in planetary atmospheres.

  5. hunterson7 says:

    The climate consensus is not able to function in a world of independent Nations and free people.
    The climate consensus only rules where freedom is suppressed.

  6. Phoenix44 says:

    Where the BBC has gone unforgivably wrong is not in decreeing that the “science is settled” but in then segueing into the belief that the politics and economics are also settled.

    So we have this extremist view of the issue that assumes that we must do anything and spend anything to stop Climate Change. But there has been no actual debate and very little real work done that justifies that conclusion. And unlike “the science” it is entirely right that different views are heard on what we should do and how we value the present and the future, adaptation versus avoidance.

    The BBC (and Sky and Channel 4) are conflating science and the solutions to the problems the science identifies to justify and then push their own political views.

  7. stavro says:

    oldbrew says: June 26, 2019 at 11:26 am

    They have forgotten about convection
    ————————————
    Exactly how does convection remove heat from the earth to the vacuum of space??
    Direct radiation from the ground is one part. BUT GHGs absorb some of this. GHGs therefore have to re-radiate this to space.
    GHG warm by absorbing radiation. However the mfp for collision with other gas molecules mean that this heat is transferred to non radiative gasses. The collision mfp only becomes insignificant much higher in the “atmosphere” and radiative transfer becomes significant. Higher still and the mfp for radiation allows more radiation to space and hence off this earth.
    More ghg – the higher the space transfer gets – but the colder the GHGs so less heat radiated.

    where does convection fit in here. Only as far as convection can occur but it still requires a ghg to get rid of the heat. O2 and N2 are insignificant radiators.

  8. The AGW craze was/is based on faulty science.And is now completely politicised.

  9. stpaulchuck says:

    “as part of campaign to discredit the science”

    there is no certifiable science in the prediction quango. The tea leaf readers refuse to publish their computer code, data, and other items REQUIRED by true science for use in falsifying the proposition. What little we do have is totally incompetent. Some 95% of the predictions are unable to predict TODAY’s climate/weather. And yet, we the skeptical are the bad guys.

    —————
    “Meanwhile, conservatives are said to have rejected science if they won’t believe that taxes control the weather.” from moonbattery.com

    ———- [and this right from the “ultimate authorities”]
    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

  10. stpaulchuck says:

    oldbrew says:
    June 26, 2019 at 11:26 am
    ——————–

    right on oldbrew! Every time I point out the fallacy of Green House Effect I get massive blowback from the warmists. Some segue off into rants about CFC’s and all sorts of other unimportant non issues. While the Earth may warm up some three or four degrees, and perhaps humans are making a contribution to that warming, on the whole I call BS on the entire construct – especially the predicted final values. There have been so many papers on real world observations coupled with historical accounts and empirical data from ice cores, etc., that anyone who still thinks my backyard grill and my pickup truck are going to set the world on fire is a certifiable nutter IMAO.

  11. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Stephen Richards said ‘Politicians across the globe are trying to save the planet with our money by taking more and more of it from us.’
    To mis-quote Karl Marx: this looks like the beginning of the ‘Dictatorship of the Climatariate’. (feel free to use this phrase!)
    Wikipedia says “the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state of affairs in which the working class hold political power.” Damn clever of the UN, isn’t it!

  12. oldbrew says:

    Re the Tony Thomas link:
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/06/green-lunacy-at-the-parkville-asylum/

    While the ‘urban peasantry’ are consigned to the margins of economics, the self-styled elites will no doubt be carrying on as before – plus a lot more. In this ‘ideal’ future that is :/
    – – –
    How to survive the Climate Cult
    http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2019/06/17/how-to-survive-the-climate-cult/

    Taking the pessimistic view.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Stavro: Exactly how does convection remove heat from the earth to the vacuum of space??
    It removes it to high in the atmosphere here, as you correctly point out, “radiative transfer becomes significant”.

    More ghg – the higher the space transfer gets – but the colder the GHGs so less heat radiated.
    How do you reconcile this with the observations which show that OLR has increased rather than decreased?

  14. Stavro,

    “where does convection fit in here. Only as far as convection can occur but it still requires a ghg to get rid of the heat. O2 and N2 are insignificant radiators.”

    It seems to me that you answered your own question. It takes significant radiators to cool the atmosphere significantly. O2 and N2 remove (part of) the heat from the surface (convection), and this heat must be transferred to the radiative gases to be radiated to space.

    However, the most important mechanism is evaporation and removal of latent heat from the surface. Both H2O vapor and clouds are significant radiators. Clouds also reflect the incoming solar radiation and that complicates things immensely. Even at constant global cloud cover, very small changes in latitudinal (or seasonal or diurnal) cloud distribution can have profound effect on the energy balance.

    It is very hard to isolate the effect of CO2 change alone (at this atmospheric composition). IMO, on the face of it, more CO2 should have a cooling effect on the surface. It is probably very small and easily overwhelmed by other factors.

  15. tom0mason says:

    Whatever CO2’s err-umm ‘cloche effect’?, err…’Polytunnel effect’? maybe ‘glasshouse effect’?, ‘Greenfinger effect?’, …

    The secret is to banging those molecules together (especially water 😉 😉 ).

    Sun, water, CO2, a little nitrogen plus a few minerals and there’s life.
    The UN-IPCC wish to curtail life.

  16. oldbrew says:

    Judith Curry asks:
    Whatever happened to climate scientists using the IPCC and National Assessment Reports in their analyses, either to support their arguments or otherwise refuting specific statements in these Reports? It seems that only scientists of the non-alarmist persuasion are citing these Reports any more.

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/27/truth-in-testimony-and-convincing-policy-makers/

    So-called climate scientists, or some of them at least, have veered off into non-science homemade propaganda.

  17. oldbrew says:

    Eliminating fossil fuels from US power sector would cost US$4.7 trillion, study shows

    That would amount to US$35,000 per household, or nearly US$2,000 a year for a 20-year plan, according to the study, which called the price tag for such a project “staggering”.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3016374/eliminating-fossil-fuels-us-power-sector-would-cost
    – – –
    Plus industry would be unable to function as it needed to, amongst other dire outcomes.

  18. oldbrew says:

    UN report on 1.5C blocked from climate talks after Saudi Arabia disputes science
    Published on 27/06/2019, 4:15pm

    There will be no further formal discussions of the IPCC’s findings at the UN after Saudi Arabia fought to undermine the findings of the global scientific community.
    . . .
    Saudi Arabia, the US, Kuwait and Russia also refused to endorse the report’s findings at the last round of talks in Katowice, Poland, last year, despite support from almost the entire community of nations.

    Alden Meyer, policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the agreed text as “very weak” and added little more than what had already been agreed.

    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/06/27/un-report-1-5c-blocked-climate-talks-saudi-arabia-disputes-science/
    – – –
    The world has not yet totally disappeared down the climate rabbit hole.

  19. edhoskins says:

    When will people realise that any CO2 reduction policy should also be seen in a longer-term context:
    · The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
    · According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial and the world had already been cooling quite rapidly since before Roman times, in fact since ~1000 BC.
    · At 11,000 years old, our Holocene interglacial, responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors, is coming to its end.
    · The weather gets worse in colder times.
    · The world will very soon, (on a geological time scale), revert to a true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York.

    The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly scared about, both for the biosphere and for man-kind.

    Spending any effort, let alone GDP scale costs, trying to stop the UK’s 1% of something that has not been happening for 3 millennia seems monumentally stupid.

    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2018-bp-data/
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/

  20. Steve Borodin says:

    The moves represented a fierce backlash from countries with BRAINS. Fixed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s