Researchers Say UN Climate Goals Impossible
International negotiators at a recent UN climate conference held in Bangkok repeated the demand that global warming this century be limited to no more than 2˚C. But while those attending the UN boondoggle stuck to the climate alarmist party line, results from a newly published Canadian government climate study concluded that “it is unlikely that warming can be limited to the 2˚C target.” The modeling based paper found that reaching the stated IPCC goal would require that greenhouse emissions “ramp down to zero immediately,” which means shutting down the global economy and banning the automobile. Moreover, starting in 2050 scientists would need to actively remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, requiring a rush to implement controversial and possibly dangerous geoengineering programs. Why does the global warming lobby continue demanding the impossible? Perhaps it is because global warming isn't about climate change at all.
As reported by Eli Kintisch in “U.N. Goal of Limiting Global Warming Is Nearly Impossible, Researchers Say,” the study by scientists with Environment Canada, a government agency, fed their model various scenarios of future greenhouse gas concentrations out to the year 2100. This new model represents the latest set of scientific guesswork about how Earth's climate system works. As the Science article explains:
Previous modeling efforts have already highlighted the difficulty of reaching the 2˚C goal. But the new study is unique in several ways. Most important, it relies on the first published results from the latest generation of so-called Earth System climate models, complex programs that run on supercomputers and seek to simulate the planet’s oceans, land, ice, and atmosphere. The model in this study, Canadian Earth System Model 2, also incorporates updated data on volcanic eruptions, and it simulates in a more sophisticated way the biosphere’s ability to take in or emit carbon.
In the simulation scenario with the most carbon emissions, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rapidly climbed to 920 ppm, and average land surface temperature rose by 4.9˚C above 2005 levels. Even in a scenario in which emissions cuts caused CO2 levels to peak at 450 ppm in 2050—not significantly higher than today's 390 ppm—temperatures rose by 2.3˚C by the end of the century. Bottom line, even shutting down global industry won't prevent temperatures rising above the 2˚C IPCC goal.
Results from the Canadian earth system model (CanESM2)
As can be seen from the graphs above, all the simulated scenarios cause marked rises in temperature and precipitation. The future scenarios are based on new sets of speculative concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols called representative concentration pathways (RCPs). One of the scenarios even calls for the use of unproven and highly questionable geoengineering carbon sequestering technology. According to V. K. Arora et al., the authors of the Canadian study, their new computer plaything indicates an inescapably warmer and wetter future.
The response of the second-generation Canadian earth system model (CanESM2) to historical (1850–2005) and future (2006–2100) natural and anthropogenic forcing is assessed using the newly-developed representative concentration pathways (RCPs) of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols. Allowable emissions required to achieve the future atmospheric CO2 concentration pathways, are reported for the RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. For the historical 1850–2005 period, cumulative land plus ocean carbon uptake and, consequently, cumulative diagnosed emissions compare well with observation-based estimates. The simulated historical carbon uptake is somewhat weaker for the ocean and stronger for the land relative to their observation-based estimates. The simulated historical warming of 0.9°C compares well with the observation-based estimate of 0.76 ± 0.19°C. The RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios respectively yield warmings of 1.4, 2.3, and 4.9°C and cumulative diagnosed fossil fuel emissions of 182, 643 and 1617 Pg C over the 2006–2100 period. The simulated warming of 2.3°C over the 1850–2100 period in the RCP 2.6 scenario, with the lowest concentration of GHGs, is slightly larger than the 2°C warming target set to avoid dangerous climate change by the 2009 UN Copenhagen Accord. The results of this study suggest that limiting warming to roughly 2°C by the end of this century is unlikely since it requires an immediate ramp down of emissions followed by ongoing carbon sequestration in the second half of this century.
Setting aside the questionable accuracy of yet another CO2 driven computer climate model, the more interesting thing here is that climate change alarmists seem to have resigned themselves to the catastrophic future envisioned in their own fevered dreams. In essence, they are like petulant children telling the rest of us “you don't believe us but you'll be sorry when the climate goes to hell!” Never mind that recent studies find that a warmer climate could be better for humanity as a whole.
Indeed, the people of the world have listened to the IPCC and their ilk, and have come to the conclusion that the predictions of environmental Armageddon are overblown and unsubstantiated. Many people have decided that it's best to do nothing about global warming. Around the world, politicians are finding it harder and harder to waste money on programs seen as largely discredited by the public. The US Congress—not noted for taking courageous stands on anything recently—dropped language banning contributions to the IPCC from its last budget resolution. However, ScienceInsider is reporting that Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) is planning on reintroducing a bill barring the government from supporting any meetings aimed at negotiating a global treaty on climate change.
Tornado damage near Birmingham, Alabama, not caused by global warming.
The recent outbreak of tornadoes across the American South was also attributed to global warming, even though NOAA officials said that there is no link between speculative global phenomenon and local sever weather like tornadoes. “There really is no scientific consensus or connection,” said Greg Carbin, the warning coordination meteorologist at NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma, “Jumping from a large-scale event like global warming to relatively small-scale events like tornadoes is a huge leap across a variety of scales.” In fact, there has been a decline in severe tornadoes over the last half century. The facts didn't prevent an airhead spokeswoman for the Nature Conservancy from publicly linking the tornadoes to global warming.
At the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century global warming true believers find themselves in retreat on all fronts. Rising oil prices have people everywhere demanding real solutions to the world's energy problems—not unworkable green, feel-good schemes. As governments around the world tighten their budgetary belts, international parasites who have lived off squandered UN billions in the past are finding funding much more difficult to come by. Still, those personally invested in climate change continue to demand global sacrifice in an attempt to achieve the impossible.
Warm-mongering climate researchers and the yammering bureaucrats of the United Nations continue to issue fatuous statements. These are eagerly spread by the mindless news media, which is always on the lookout for the next big disaster. Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General and global uber-idiot, recently predicted that more Japanese style nuclear disasters would happen because of global warming.
Ban proposed a strategy for improving nuclear energy security worldwide, including strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unsurprisingly, though established independently of the UN, the IAEA reports to both the UN General Assembly and Security Council. The Canadian report makes it clear: the warmists know we can't stop climate change, no matter how hard humanity tries. But that doesn't really matter, because the global warming scare is not about climate—it is about a grab for power and social engineering on a grand scale.
Tragically, catastrophic natural events have recently claimed thousands of lives and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Sensible people recognize that life is not hazard free and no government program will make it so. Is it any wonder that the public is turning its collective back on those hawking disaster as cover for hidden social agendas? Besides, in the face of real natural disasters, the invented future calamities of the warmists pale to insignificance.
Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.