Human Emissions

CSS-57 The All CO₂, All the Time (ACO₂AT) narrative is the alarmist mantra. While there is no doubt that humanity’s CO₂ emissions have risen significantly, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are still close to historical, dangerous lows, and thankfully still rising. CO₂ is not a pollutant; it is an absolute essential requirement for life on this planet. The minor warming and plant fertilization/drought resistance enhancements we have experienced over the last few decades will continue to improve our planet’s ecosystems into the future. Our idiotological policy positions are the existential threat to humanity and our children’s future.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

There are no empirical datasets that show CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale, because the other forcings have always dominated the global climate. That is true for the past, present, and future. Our emissions (86%+ which are post-1950) and any potential CO₂ warming were easily dominated by the ocean cycles from 1945 to 1975 (even with aggressive homogenization (i.e.: data manipulation)). Those same ocean cycles contributed significantly to the 1975 to 2005 warming, the pause in temperature rise until the strong El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) pulse raised temperatures again in late 2015. The more recent temperature spike (2023+) is most likely a combination of another strong ENSO spike, the large Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcanic eruption (and increased stratospheric water vapor), aerosol reduction associated with more stringent shipping emission standards and solar activity increases associated with the Cycle 25 peak.

How do our CO₂ emissions affect our climate? They most certainly contribute to the rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. But that addition is neither linear nor smooth. There is a general correlation, but there are correlation deviations. Some of that CO₂ concentration increase is due to natural processes. The most obvious being temperature based oceanic CO₂ releases. As the ocean temperatures have risen out of the Little Ice Age (LIA, the lowest solar activity levels in the last 7,000 years), CO₂ concentrations have also risen. Solar activity peaked around 1950 and flattened out at the highest levels in the last 7,000 years (just coincidence (?)). Solar activity and ocean cycles are poised to cool the planet off over the next few decades. Global Cooling NOT Warming is in the Forecast (CSS-54), and CO₂ will have limited impact, as per its historical contributions (CSS-53 – CO₂’s Moneyball Moment).

Our emissions are headed in only one direction. All the money that has been wasted and will be wasted, has and will have only minor impacts on emissions and virtually no measurable impact on global temperatures and climate events (covered in CSS-53 above). World CO₂ emissions are headed higher, driven by China, India, Africa, etc. that want better lifestyles for their citizens. China’s emission growth will continue and India (which is now the world’s most populated country) is determined to match China. The minor reductions that Western Society can make (assuming we can afford to make them) will not come close to matching the undeveloped country’s growth. Canada’s contribution is meaningless on the world stage. Especially given that most of the countries around the world are not embracing the ACO₂AT narrative.

The ACO₂AT narrative is a simplistic, unscientific approach to an extremely complicated system (i.e.: our climate). So, should we be surprised that the IPCC, a political organization mandated to focus on anthropogenic climate change, would have some problems understanding, interpreting and applying the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method requires empirical data to verify any theory, hypothesis, etc. (in this case a narrative). The problem with a narrative, they never have that empirical data. Such is the case for the “Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency/next scary descriptor narrative. “The science” does not stop there. The models use a CO₂ Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) that is far from settled (1.8 to 5.6 °C, a 50% error range around the average). Not one of those models forecasts the Lower Troposphere temperature correctly (the Russian model comes close using the low end ECS (1.8 °C). Do you think the computer simulations (which have been self-acknowledged to run way too hot and use unrealistically high emission scenarios) would model the temperature better if they stopped ignoring the solar and ocean cycle forcings in their programming? All of this is covered in CSS-53 above. Note, those same inaccurate models are used in attribution studies (the latest attempt to justify the alarmist existence). According to the models every drought, hurricane, hot/cold snap, etc. is more likely and more intense due to climate change. If only the empirical data backed up that false premise. Might I suggest CSS-53 again?

I initiated this post after reviewing a short letter put together by Pav Penna, “CANADA’S CO₂ EMISSIONS IMPACT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”. The letter highlights the minimal effect Canada’s contribution will have on global temperatures. The temperature change is unmeasurable. Using the IPCC’s “best estimate”, Canada’s 2022 total emissions (548 Megatonnes) would have increased temperatures by 0.000247 °C (0.019 °C by the end of the century), meaning the vertical temperature gradient moved up 1.5 inches and the latitudinal temperatures moved north by 77 meters.  Where are the cost benefit analyses? Those estimates are based on the IPCC’s estimate of 0.45 °C per 1,000 Gt of CO₂ emissions (Section B.5.2 of their 2021 AR6 SPM report). Is that a reasonable estimate or another example of scientific malfeasance? Sadly, the second option is closer to the truth.

The IPCC should be aware that the CO₂/temperature relationship is exponential, not linear. They are not! CO₂’s ability to warm the planet decreases as CO₂ concentrations increase. Temperatures increased by roughly 8 °C from the depths of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) to our current 15 °C temperatures. Of that 8 °C rise, roughly 1 °C can be attributed to the CO₂ increase from 180 ppm to 360 ppm (a doubling). Where did the 1 °C value come from? Well, we know that the ECS (the temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO₂) is less than 1.8 °C (the lower end of the IPCC model range). When you factor in the solar and ocean cycle forcings and the overly aggressive homogenization algorithms, that number falls into the 1.0 °C range. Throw in some Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) and we are down in the 0.8 °C range. For easy math we will stick with the 1.0 °C value. Doubling CO₂ from 360 to 720 ppm will add another 1.0 °C if solar activity and ocean cycles have stopped acting on our planet. They have not and they will cool the planet over the next few decades.

There are three main supports put forward for the alarmist narrative. None of which have any scientific backing (i.e.: empirical data). The quick summary is below. A more detailed discussion is included in my OPPS-29 – Climate Change – “The Science” post.

1. There is no empirical CO₂/Temperature dataset that shows CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant time scale (a basic Scientific Method requirement).
2. The IPCC computer model projections are junk science. They are self-acknowledged to “run way too hot” and use unrealistically high emission scenarios. The Garbage Out half of the Number 1 rule in computer modeling (Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO), is fully applicable.
3. Extreme Weather Events based on empirical data, are statistically flat or declining on climate time scales (both in terms of numbers and magnitude). The only place they are increasing (outright or in the attribution studies) is in the models.

The alarmist claims are almost always devoid of sound science. They are outright lies or subject to some form of ignorance. Sadly, following the alarmist agenda will just lead to a bleak future for our children and grandchildren. We are not saving them; we are saddling them with a devastating debt burden (among other things).

For more perspective and more detailed analysis, you can also check out some of the following posts.

There is NO Climate Emergence (at least not from warming) – CLINTEL

Clintel Climate Intelligence

One Page Political Summary (OPPS)

OPPS-29 – Climate Change – “The Science”

Climate Change – “The Science”

One Page Summary (OPS)

OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science

The State of Climate Science

Climate Short Story (CSS)

CSS-53 – CO₂’s Moneyball Moment

CO2’s Moneyball Moment

CSS-54 – Global Cooling NOT Warming is in the Forecast

Global Cooling NOT Warming is in the Forecast

CSS-57 – Human Emissionshttps://climatechangeandmusic.com/the-holocene-solar-activity/