Climate scientist admits key climate change metric is just something experts 'chose': 'Symbolic marker'
By: Chris Enloe (TheBlaze)
Yes, the 2°C target for mitigating climate change is an arbitrary number chosen for influencing governmental policy. That is why the International Panel on Climate Change exists. The IPCC was specifically created by a political body for the purpose of lobbying itself. The 'fix' was in when the IPCC was established. It's like a game of Jeopardy; the IPCC already had the desired answer and has been working to create the correct question.
The 2°C target wasn't a random number picked out of someone's back pocket. But the science used to support that 2°C target is fraught with errors, flimsy extrapolations, questionable assumptions, and, frankly, political motivations. The basic idea is pretty simple. If they can't dazzle with brilliance then they baffle with bullshit.
You know, we can observe the Earth from space. It's quite possible to directly measure patterns of greenhouse gas emissions, physical properties of the atmosphere, the heat budget of the planet, and a host of other climate related phenomena. There isn't any need to guess, we have the ability to observe. But our priorities have been moon missions, space telescopes, asteroid defense, and flying helicopters on Mars. The existential crisis of climate change has not been a priority for global space activities. And the United States isn't the only space faring nation. Whatever happened to NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory?
We shouldn't kid ourselves. Climate change is all about the money. We're planning to spend trillion$ on guesswork while assiduously avoiding spending billions$ to observe the problem. The less we know, the more public money can be spent. Science is only being used to baffle with bullshit. Don't ignore that so-called climate scientists are holding the shovel.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report in 2018 warning of the catastrophic effects of global warming if global temperatures reach 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
"Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C," the IPCC said.
"Poverty and disadvantage are expected to increase in some populations as global warming increases; limiting global warming to 1.5°C, compared with 2°C, could reduce the number of people both exposed to climate-related risks and susceptible to poverty by up to several hundred million by 2050," an IPCC summary report for policymakers claimed.
What did Berardelli say?
Speaking on CBS' "This Morning" Berardelli explained the 1.5 degrees Celsius is only important because it's the number scientists chose — at least for right now.
First, Berardelli warned what will happen when global warming reaches an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
In the next 5 years, it is somewhat likely that we will hit 1.5 degrees Celsius — briefly, temporarily — that's 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit of warming since pre-industrial times. It's likely to happen during an El Niño year, that's when it's really warm in the Pacific [Ocean]; so, natural variations on top of climate change. Then it will go back down. But, you know, this is really a sign that humanity isn't doing very well in managing our global greenhouse gas emissions. And at 1.5 degrees Celsius, it's not like we're gonna fall off a cliff where things are all of the sudden get catastrophic. But things will progressively get worse at a must faster pace. The intensity of these extreme weather events will pick up. We will see compounded events: heat waves on top of sea-level rise on top of large hurricanes and impactful hurricanes. And so things will get worse and worse if we breach [1.5 degrees Celsius].
Then Berardelli revealed why the metric is only a "symbolic marker."
"Yeah, because humans chose it," he said. "It's not a tipping point. It's not like we're gonna fall off a cliff. It's just that things will get progressively worse and worse at a faster clip."
Tags
Who is online
114 visitors
We shouldn't kid ourselves. Climate change is all about the money. We're planning to spend trillion$ on guesswork while assiduously avoiding spending billions$ to observe the problem. The less we know, the more public money can be spent. Science is only being used to baffle with bullshit. Don't ignore that so-called climate scientists are holding the shovel.
Whatever happened to NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory?
Still there apparently. Reported record high carbon dioxide in June, 2020
No, NASA's OCO-2 did not observe record high carbon dioxide in June, 2020. NOAA ain't NASA. And Mauna Loa ain't in space. NASA doesn't have anything to do with the Keeling curve.
Apparently you've been baffled by bullshit.
This...is not bullshit.
Paywall, could not read it.
Knew it would not make a difference anyway.
Cheers.
Should we address obesity by finding different ways for people to consume the same number of calories?
The spike in atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 shown in your graph is a direct result of this:
Electrifying everything doesn't address over consumption. We may reduce our consumption of fossil fuels but that will require consuming more of everything else.
If the world completely switches to electric vehicles then we'll reduce our consumption of oil by 40 pct. And we'll find new ways to consume the oil that won't be used for fuel. Big oil isn't going away anytime in the foreseeable future.
Instead of spending more public money on consumption, we should be consuming less and spending less.
I read the WaPo article. The WaPo article doesn't mention NASA or the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. The WaPo article presents info from Scripps and NOAA. The article includes an image of the Keeling curve which is produced by the Mauna Loa Observatory.
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory was supposed to make the Mauna Loa Observatory obsolete. But there hasn't been anything useful concerning global warming reported by the NASA OCO-2 program. NASA's effort has only been a money pit.
Sure, that and global warming are exactly the same thing.
Over consumption are major contributors to both obesity and climate change. Failing to address the root cause of over consumption won't change anything.
The root cause of overconsumption is overpopulation.
That contention is not supported by the increase in per capita carbon emissions as shown in @1.1.4
Yes, there are a lot more people. But those people are also consuming a lot more. The increase in per capita carbon emissions is a direct result of increased per capita consumption. Reducing per capita carbon emissions to the same level as 1900 (by reducing consumption) would reduce current carbon emissions by two thirds, even with a lot more people.
Reducing per capita consumption would cause the global economy to collapse because our economies are dependent upon mass consumption. And reducing per capita carbon emissions by two thirds means there wouldn't be a need for wind turbines or solar panels, either.
A handful of interesting articles. Kind of dry and unemotional reading.
I'm sure there is money to be made. There always is. But I don't think most of the concern over the climate is about the money. I worry about our environment, but not because I can make money off any remedy.
We're attempting to address the environment without changing anything. We're depending upon miracles of science to allow us to continue to do everything while solving environmental problems.
We've created an economy that depends upon mass consumption. Science has become a tool that allows selling more stuff. The obvious solution to climate change is to stop consuming fossil fuels. But we are unwilling to give up anything that depends upon fossil fuels. We're relying on miracles to avoid giving up anything; we're trying to protect mass consumption. So, yes, it's all about the money.
Never ceases to amaze me that the climate deniers can say with a straight face that 7+ BILLION people have zero effect on the environment.
Because it's so much easier to keep one's head buried in the sand rather than deal with reality.
That's certainly part of it. The other part is that left wingers were the first to suggest global warming so the right wing naturally says it can't be true.
Well global climate change is making it easier to find sand to stick your head in so it's great for the deniers.
" Humans are driving the transformation of drylands into desert on an unprecedented scale around the world, with serious consequences."
" While land degradation has occurred throughout history, the pace has accelerated, reaching 30 to 35 times the historical rate, according to the United Nations . This degradation tends to be driven by a number of factors, including urbanization , mining, farming, and ranching. In the course of these activities, trees and other vegetation are cleared away , animal hooves pound the dirt, and crops deplete nutrients in the soil. Climate change also plays a significant role, increasing the risk of drought ."
Desertification is caused by human activities unrelated to burning fossil fuels. However, both are driven by exploitation for money incentivized by over consumption.
con·ser·va·tion --- prevention of wasteful use of a resource.
Desertification requires deforestation, expanding agriculture plots and maintenance, tapping into or depleting natural resources, ect., most, if not all of which require fossil fuels to achieve. Especially on a large scale. Climate change has a significant effect on the desertification process.
Still working for the fossil fuel industry I see.
No, that's incorrect. Desertification requires a disruption of the water cycle. The eastern half of the United States demonstrates that deforestation does not result in desertification.
Climate change is a factor in desertification because of disruptions in the water cycle.
Eliminating fossil fuels won't affect exploitation and depletion of natural resources. Here's an all-electric excavator loading a hybrid electric truck. The electric power cable is visible at the base of the excavator.
Electrifying all of the world's ground transportation will cut oil consumption by 40 pct, at most. And we'll find new uses for the oil that won't be used for fuel. Big oil isn't going away in the foreseeable future.
Do a little research into the causes of desertification and you will find all the factors I mentioned (but not limited to) all contribute to desertification.
And you base your speculation on what exactly?
Half of current oil production is used to produce fuel. Air transportation won't be switching away from oil-based fuels in the foreseeable future and the demand for air transportation is increasing. And there are a number of industrial needs for fossil fuel that can't be adequately performed by electrification.
Electrification of light vehicles will increase demand for lighter, stronger materials. Oil that won't be used for fuel will be used to produce polymers, carbon fiber, and, perhaps, materials that haven't been developed yet. Reducing demand for oil-based fuel will increase demand for oil-based construction materials. Carbon emissions from oil will decrease but the demand for oil will continue unabated. Big oil isn't going away anytime soon.
The 7+Billion people is the key number
This isn't that complicated. Flora converts Co2 into breathable oxygen. Humans spread out, cut down/destroy the flora which causes the Co2 levels to rise. Co2 *IS* a greenhouse gas, we have known that for a very long time.
So. More humans - more industry - less flora - increased Co2 levels = ever increasing global temp averages.
Apparently for some, it is complicated.
So why is climate change politics advocating that we consume more?
Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas. In fact, carbon dioxide isn't the most potent greenhouse gas.
It's not just the specific greenhouse gasses. It's also the concentrations of those gasses. The concentration of CO2 has shown a constant and significant average increase over the years.
As has nitrous oxide, ozone, and fluorinated gases. Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas.
Fifty years of chlorinated fluorocarbon gas emissions resulted in concentrations sufficient to degrade the stratospheric ozone layer. But those CFC emissions were also contributing to global warming. The replacement HFC gases don't degrade the ozone layer but are still contributing to global warming.
CFCs replaced ammonia as a refrigerant. Ammonia has a global warming potential of zero; ammonia is not a greenhouse gas. Science provided a solution that ultimately proved to be a bigger problem. And the motivation for replacing ammonia was money; not environmental concern.
Yes, and? No one said CO2 was the only greenhouse gas. But CO2 is the greenhouse gas that is most produced by human activity. In fact, CO2 makes up 80% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Ammonia is still used as a refrigerant, especially in industries. CSF were originally touted as a replacement for ammonia before its effect on the ozone was known. As for HFCs, it's use is being phased out as a means to combat climate change.
And as warming continues, methane is released from tundra and ice (24% more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but very short lived in the atmosphere compared to CO2). The sheer mass of it, however, will initiate a snowball effect (called a tipping point)
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is the most potent greenhouse gas produced and used commercially; about 24,000 times more potent than CO2.
The argument is that CO2 atmospheric concentrations have increased by about 140 parts per million over the last 150 years because of industrial activity and use of fossil fuels. An equivalent atmospheric concentration of SF6 to cause the same amount of warming would be 6 parts per billion. Man made greenhouse gases in concentrations below detection limits can also be significant contributors to greenhouse warming.
Attention has been focused on CO2 because the gas is relatively abundant and is easily detected. And the solution is straightforward; stop burning fossil fuels. The problem is that no one wants to give up anything. Governments don't want to change economics based upon mass consumption. People don't want to change their lifestyles. We're searching for miracles so we don't have to change anything about how we work, how we live, and what we do.
The KT boundary should mark a huge spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane. Yet the climate did not runaway. The Earth is too far from the Sun to become another Venus.
The reconstructed climate history of the Earth is replete with tipping points. In fact, recurring tipping points appears to be normal climatic behavior for planet Earth.
The concern is motivated by how a tipping point would affect human lifestyles and economies. We're trying to maintain human civilization in it's current state. We're trying to avoid changing anything about how we live, work, and play. But human history is replete with tipping points, too. The Industrial Revolution was a human tipping point that drastically altered human civilization. We're rapidly approaching another human tipping point as drastic as the Industrial Revolution and we've chosen to bury our heads in silicon sand to avoid changing anything.
So. More humans - more industry - less flora - increased Co2 levels = ever increasing global temp averages.
So how do you solve that problem?
Switching to clean energy and getting away from fossil fuels would be a damn good start.
Less humans.
Culling everybody with a sub 100 IQ and a propensity for violence?
You mean a large number of [[delete]?]