Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption

The Futility of reducing Man-made CO2 as the means to Control Climate

Ed Hoskins MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond)

Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 1

Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate DisruptionWith this nomenclature any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on Man-kind. So the Climate Change Alarmists can now back every horse whichever way it runs. Nonetheless all their policy recommendations are only ever intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions.

This is the BLINDING PARADOX of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global

Warming position. Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 2

Contents Recent of worldwide CO2 emissions Modelling the scale of future emissions till

2100 Assessing the Actual Temperature effect of

Man-made CO2 But the effect of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas

becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration

Actual temperature effects Justifying actions to reduce CO2 emissions,

particularly in Europe / UK / Australia.Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 3

Recent worldwide CO2 emissions


In October 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming clear. In essence he said:

“The Developing World is Not Joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so. The failure of worldwide action negates the unilateral action of any individual Nation”.



The current status 2010: Nations grouped according to CO2 emissions policies

emissions 2010 % population 2010 Legally committed EU (27) AU NZ 13.6% 7.6%Not Joining-in United States 18.5% 4.5%

RU JP CA 13.5% 4.4% China 25.1% 19.3%India 5.1% 17.5%KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID 10.9% 10.7%Rest of World(200+ Nations) 13.2% 36.0%



The graph shows:• the rapid escalation of Chinese emissions

since the year 2000, this continues apace.

• acceleration of emissions from India, which are set to grow substantially albeit from a low base.

• the inexorable growth of emissions from developing economies growing from a low base in 1965.

• a levelling off of developed economies but with an uptick in 2010 recovering from recession.


The growth of emissions from developing countries including China, India and other underdeveloped Nations continues. China is predominant and India is following on, probably at a greater future rate but to a lesser absolute extent by 2100.

These increases in emissions will totally negate any efforts, however strenuous, in the Developed World, where emissions have significantly stabilised already, even in the USA. Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 10

The effect of the maximum actions on CO2 emissions. Comparing the current emission rates with the IPCC stated temperature rise from added emissions of 1.2°C by 2100, (1.8°C business as usual “Scenario B1” versus 0.6°C if all world-wide emissions had stopped in 2000): • only ~14% of the worlds current 2010 emissions

(EU (27) AU NZ), are making any progress = ~ -0.168°C

• the maximum they might achieve is a 30% emissions reduction = ~ -0.0504°C

• The UK contributes only 11% of the emissions in this group amounting to ~ -0.00554°C by 2100.

• Australia contributes even less and its actions might amount to ~ -0.00355°C by 2100.


So adherent Nations have isolated themselves by their own self-immolating actions on the basis that it is

their duty to set an example for the world. However their actions alone can only ever give virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature,

and the rest of the world is not listening.

So the hysteria about catastrophic global warming is the creature of a limited number of developed Western Nations, whose Governments are persuaded by the Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption agenda. Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 12

Any effort at CO2 reduction by the few Joining-in and participating Nations is therefore folly.

The sooner this is realised, in spite of the huge academic and monetary capital already invested, the sooner the Western world can be released from its self-imposed, economically destructive straightjacket.


Modelling future CO2 emissions: assessing future emissions growth by Nation groups.


estimated emissions estimated % estimated % multiplier by 2100 CO2 emissions 2100 population 2100EU (27) AU NZ 1.0 5.4%6.5%(1.0 = Business as Usual)United States 1.2 8.5%3.8%RU JP CA 1.3 6.0%3.7%China 4.5 30.5% 18.7%India10.0 14.1% 18.9%KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID4.0 14.0% 9.3%Rest of World (200+ Nations) 5.0 21.5%39.2%


This speculative data set results in:cumulative

re-absorbed values m tonnes m tonnes ppmv difference

up to 1850 2,190,638 2,190,638 280

1850 – 2010 863,789 3,054,427 390 110

2010-2100 Business as Usual 1,336,653 4,391,080 560 170

2010-2100extra emissions 1,476,685 5,867,765 750 190





This estimated data set shows:• China as a whole approaching the CA RU

JP emissions level by 2100, even with its substantially larger population.

• India with a larger population approaches EU levels and the major developing nations may well surpass those levels.

• The rapidly developing Nations keep pace with China, and overtake the no growth Joining-in Nations.

• The rest of the developing world still lags behind but is approaching the business as usual level of the EU group of Nations taking action on CO2. Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 20

The reality puts the participation of the Joining-in Nations, EU (27) AU NZ, into stark perspective showing the insignificance of their efforts to reduce emissions in the context of the growth of emissions from the developing world. They reduce down from ~14% of world emissions in 2010 to ~5% by 2100.And of course if they do actually achieve any real CO2 reductions that will diminish the significance of their efforts even further.Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 21

Assessing the Actual Temperature effect of Man-made CO2


The IPCC asserts that all the recorded warming since 1850 (~0.7°C) and that it is wholly due to Man-made CO2. But there is a wider range of published and peer-reviewed opinion that differs on the actual level of the impact of Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

One well-accepted view is provided by CDIAC, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).


CDIAC figures can be transposed into parts of the 33.0°C total Greenhouse Effect, as follows:

Water Vapour ~95% of effect ~31.35°CAll Greenhouse Gases ~5% ~1.65°CCarbon Dioxide at 390 ppmv ~75% ~1.24°C

Natural CO2 ~86% ~1.07°C(50% emissions since 1850 Man-made)Current Worldwide Man-made CO2 ~14% of 390 ppmv ~0.17°C

Other Greenhouse gases ~25% ~0.41°CNatural ~0.29°CMan-made ~0.12°C



The CDIAC value of ~0.17°C is about 25% of the rise since 1850, equating to 50 / 50 Man-made / Natural CO2 and 50% due to recent higher solar activity. On the other hand, Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS, one of the topmost scientists involved in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cause, in a recent paper clearly asserts that:• 75% of the Greenhouse effect is attributable to

water vapour and clouds• 100% of the increase in CO2 emissions since

1850 (110 ppmv) is Man-made Following these numbers through and accounting for the effect of other Greenhouse gases results in a Man-made temperature rise between 1850 and 2010 of 2.21 °C.


As the reported temperature increase since 1850 is only ~0.7°C in total, surely Schmidt’s assertion

has to be in error. He clearly did not carry out the trivial sums that would have shown him that his figures exaggerate Man-made influence on temperature by more than 3 times the actual accepted level of warming since 1850.

So Gavin Schmidt, a premier scientist supporting the concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, markedly underestimates the influence of water vapour and clouds.


But the effect of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is ever more marginal with greater concentration


Remarkably, IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), actually acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in their report, but it is well disguised from any lay reader, (chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate). Even so the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well understood in the climate science community to reduce logarithmically as concentrations increase, according to the Beer Lambert Law.



CO2 effectiveness as GHG expressed as percentages

CO2 effectiveness as GHG expressed in °C


Although the IPCC accepts that this crucial effect exists, the UN panel certainly does not emphasise it. Like the Medieval Warm Period, that they tried to eliminate with the Hockey Stick graph in 2001, the panel knows that wide public knowledge of this fact would be utterly detrimental to their primary message.

The logarithmic diminution effect of CO2 as a GHG is the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming in earlier eons, when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several 1,000s pmmv.Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 32

So the IPCC does not explain the devastating consequences of the logarithmic diminution effect in their Summary for Policy Makers.Thus the IPCC is entirely misleading in its central claim for Policy Makers, when they say:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."


Thus any, unquestioning, policy making reader is unequivocally lead to assume that all increasing CO2 concentrations are progressively more harmful because of their escalating Greenhouse impact.

THIS IS NOT SO.

From the present concentration of atmospheric CO2 at ~390 ppmv, there is only ~12% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas remaining, even if emissions increase indefinitely.


Even if CO2 emissions increase indefinitely from the present position of a atmospheric CO2 concentration of ~390 ppmv, there can only be ~12% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas remaining. As the further effectiveness of CO2 is now limited to only ~12%, the widely held alarmist policy ambition to constrain Man-made temperature increase to 2°C could never be attained, however much more Man-made CO2 was emitted. So that much vaunted policy ambition has to be nonsense.Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 35

Calculating actual temperature effects accounting for the diminution in effectiveness of CO2 with increasing concentrations


Accounting for the diminution effect the actual temperature reductions achievable by the actions of the Joining-in Nations using the CDIAC estimates of temperature effects are as follows


These figures can be compared with the IPCC version which ignores the diminution effect shown below:


In either case the calculated achievable values are in the range of few hundredths to a few thousandths of a degree Centigrade. As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1⁰C, these miniscule levels the temperature effects for the efforts of the Joining-in nations are marginal, immeasurable and irrelevant. This is especially so as these minute changes have to be seen in the context of normal daily temperature variations at any a single location of 10⁰C to 20⁰C and which can usually be as much as 40⁰C to 50⁰C in the course of a whole year. Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 39

The IPCC carefully ignores the radical reducing effect of increasing concentrations of CO2 in its summaries and does not admit that there remains only about 12% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas from the current level of ~390ppmv, for whatever increase in CO2 concentration.

So any unquestioning, policy maker has certainly been lead to assume that all increasing CO2 concentrations are progressively more harmful for temperature increase because of their escalating Greenhouse impact. Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 40

Under the influence of the IPCC statements, much has been made by policy makers that it is essential to limit Man-made Global warming to less than 2°C.

However if the diminution effect is taken into account, whichever assessment of likely temperature increase from additional CO2 is used, that additional 2°C could never be attained by any Man-made additions of CO2 to the atmosphere however large. Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 41

The modelled increase of CO2 from 390 to 750 ppmv till a 2100 maximum using the CDIAC estimate of gives a further potential increase worldwide of only ~0.16°C and beyond that value only about 2%, a potential addition of only ~0.03°C remains.


Even if CO2 emissions increase indefinitely from the present position of a atmospheric CO2 concentration of ~390 ppmv, there is only ~12% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas remaining. As the further effectiveness of CO2 is now limited to only ~12%, the widely held alarmist / political ambition to constrain Man-made temperature increase to 2°C could never be attained, however much more Man-made CO2 was emitted.


Justifying actions to reduce CO2 emissions: particularly in the EU(27) and Australia


The question has to be asked as to whether the efforts of the few Joining-in Nations

to set an example to the worldcan ever be judged as worthwhile, considering the self-inflicted economic damage already occurring and certainly planned in future.This is all for the sake of reductions in World temperature that are undetectable and immeasurable. Or rather should their efforts at controlling CO2 emissions be regarded as the most pointless policy ever contemplated by developed and previously rational governments? Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 45

The marginal effects of any action on reducing CO2 emission by a small minority of Nations must raise the following question:

Is it possible that the massive efforts and extreme costs already being expended and planned and the immense risks to energy security anticipated for the future could ever be justified to partially reduce the Man-made CO2 emissions by a limited number of Western Nations for miniscule and doubtful effects on world temperature?


Are controls on CO2 emissions a rational way to save the World?andWhat precisely is the World being saved from?

a warmer world with higher levels of CO2 is probably a rather better, more productive world, with longer growing seasons and with less violent weather.Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 47

And as the remedies proposed are so vast and so onerous: • Where are the full cost benefit analyses?• Where is the open minded due diligence?• Have participating governments robust

contingency plans for when their lights go out?

• Do they understand that the world has already entered a period of natural cooling?


The political justification is weak, just one example, Jill Duggan, European Commission’s National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change and ex head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading. The competence and level of understanding of the administrators driving the global warming alarm became clear when she stated:

“she did not know what the costs of European action on Carbon Dioxide were nor how much effect European efforts would have on world temperature.”


Prof David MacKay author of Sustainable Energy - without the hot air and now the Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change justifies UK action on CO2 saying:

“Well, that's "the tragedy of the commons. You can always argue that it is fine for you to be antisocial because you are just one person. But there are other views of ethics, leadership, pollution. London doesn't have smog any more, and that's thanks to all 7 million people all following the lead of whoever went first”.


As the UK is still uniquely wedded to its costly policies supporting unreliable and uneconomic renewable energy via its 2008 Climate Change Act, the outcome in the UK is an unacceptable future for energy supply.

These policies are being pursued regardless of the costs, their ineffectiveness and the massive risk they cause to energy security, as can be seen in the government published graph below.Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 51


So the lights in the UK could go out any winter soon, after the riots of August 2011 imagine the chaos that will ensue.


Steve Holiday the Chief Executive of the National Grid has already clearly said:

“Era of constant electricity at home is ending”.

This has to be seen as the ultimate triumph of the Green movements. It is the retrograde step that they have always yearned for.

But Mark Lynas, a formerly committed Green Activist said:

“Our environment and energy problems are solvable - but can be tackled only with pragmatism, rather than ideological wishful thinking. You mustn't believe the lies of the Green zealots. I should know - I was one.”


Even the Huffington Post has come to the following realisation:

“Global leaders should give up their fixation on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Significant cuts will not happen voluntarily anywhere. Instead, leaders should be focusing on providing as much cheap, abundant, dispatchable power to their citizens as possible. And to make certain political leaders understand the need to eradicate energy poverty. Like it or not, the world economy runs on hydrocarbons … And that will remain true for many decades to come. Countries like Vietnam, China, and India, will never agree to any tax or limit on carbon dioxide.”


And George Osborne UK Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be beginning to appreciate the point:

“We're not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business.”

Even the European union is having second thoughts:

"It has to be seen clearly that there are risks associated to unilateral EU action. There is a trade-off between climate-change policies and competitiveness. Europe cannot act alone in an effort to achieve global decarbonization,”

A classic and interesting comment was recently made in The Register. It could not be put more succinctly:

“Binning green power would be like printing money - without inflation”.


References:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&NR=1http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId=7068669http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#datahttps://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2011/steep-increase-in-global-co2-emissions-despite-reductions-by-industrialised-countrieshttp://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period- http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q2second-commitment-period http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.htmlhttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdfhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/§http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Solar%20Cycle%2024%20-%20Implications%20for%20the%20Unites%20States%20David%20Archibald%20March%202008.pdfhttp://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/saturated-greenhouse-effect-fact.pdfhttp://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htmhttp://www.energytribune.com//articles.cfm/5961/The-Utter-Futility-of-Reducing-Carbon-Emissionshttp://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_know_the_cost_dont_know_if_it_works/8&redir_esc=&ei=VhewTeesHMa08QP1sfXqCwhttp://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/cc_act_08/cc_act_08.aspxhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19505.htmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8470256/New-figures-show-the-lights-may-go-out-sooner-than-we-thought.htmlhttp://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/3/the-third-world-ambition-of-the-uk.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010981/You-mustnt-believe-lies-Green-zealots-And-I-know--I-one.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-bryce/another-climate-change-meeting-looms_b_893750.htmlhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/07/no10_green_energy_policy_wobble_yes_or_no/http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/03/george-osbornes-speech-to_n_991872.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576638634143967012.html Futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions 57

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm

Documents

Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption