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.

Direct Removal of Carbon Dioxide from Air Likely Not Viable

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110509114200.htm

Technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are unlikely to offer an economically feasible way to slow human-driven climate change for several decades, according to a new report. The American Physical Society has released a new assessment -- Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals -- to better inform the scientific community on the technical aspects of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

this little tidbit at the end is a real eye opener..

The physical scale of the air contactor in any DAC system is a formidable challenge. A contactor through which air flows at two meters per second and that removes half of the CO2 from the contacted air will capture about 20 tons of CO2 per year for each square meter of frontal area. A 1,000-megawatt coal power plant emits about 6 million metric tons of CO2 per year, and to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as fast as this coal plant emits CO2, such a system would have a total length of about 30 kilometers if it were based on structures 10-meters high. Large quantities of construction materials and chemicals would be required.

30 km long? hey.. how about we replace the coal plant with a much more viable nuclear plant and call it a day?

UN Scam

The proposed "cap-&-trade" bill contained provisions allowing the President of the US to "intact laws or regulations necessary" to curtail CO2 if the temperature increased by the UN mandated 2 degrees or if the mandated CO2 level was exceeded. Both of which were shown to be exceeded even with significant negative trends in CO2 release. Thus a scam to make us live like hermits in caves, or pay atrocious taxes and processes on energy sources. What were they going to do with the money?

My way.. or no way

while there are a few groups who are truly interested in making things better for all, a lot of the environmental groups have the mindset of my way or no way, which is something that will never work, for anyone.

all of our environmental issues are man made, so therefore man must be included in the equation of fixing things, else it is unworkable. but that simple logic seems to escape a great many.

climate

Climate Change wasn’t the pollution issue, no, it was a CO2 death threat to billions of children, a mistake and a criminal exaggeration as history is already calling it. And now, after 25 years of needless panic, we see former climate change believers urging law makers to have the leading scientists and leading news editors subjected to criminal charges for a false war against a false enemy.
Explain how countless thousands of consensus scientists somehow out numbered climate change protestors? Explain how we are supposed to believe the saintly scientists and flippantly condemn our children to a CO2 death when it was the scientists themselves who made radical environmentalism necessary in the first place when they supposedly polluted the planet with their cancer causing chemicals and pesticides.
Explain why we should trust the saintly scientists when they also produced cruise missiles, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate control?
Still supporting the climate change mistake at this stage of the game is not only environmentally irresponsible, it verges on psychotic.
And the new denier is anyone who still thinks the voting majority of now “former” climate change believers, will now suddenly reverse course, trust the scientists and politicians and media and now vote YES to personal lifestyle sacrifice and taxing the air to make the weather colder.