2024 Data shows +1.6°C

2024 Data shows +1.6°C as the average of daily ground level temperature anomalies above preindustrial. Since 2023 was +1.5°C while 2021 and 2022 were both below +1.2°C I've added the 5 year rolling average as a trend line to graph 1. This is currently below +1.4°C.

This data is from Copernicus because it is the quickest publisher of data that I know of. Their graph is the second published here. It shows that the temperature increase caused by El Nino mid 2023 did not fade away mid 2024 after El Nino was over. We appear to be stuck at a new higher range of temperatures.

Note that the Copernicus data has a baseline of 1991-2020 so in order to adjust for levels above preindustrial 1850-1900 I've adjusted by +0.88°C for graph 1.

Update:
2023/24 temperatures shouldn't have increased that much. ENSO shows how strong El Nino warming (red) and La Nina cooling (blue) were. As we can see, the most recent El Nino wasn't very strong, but it resulted in record high temperatures that haven't reduced at all even though La Nina has sort of started. This looks more and more like a step change in global overheating. I wouldn't be surprised if we never drop below +1.5C ever again.

Net Zero Angers Me

Net Zero Emissions is mostly used by people who haven't got a clue as to what it is and what it will do, but they use it like it is some sort of magic that will fix this climate chaos. So here are some vital clarifications.

Emissions are a mix of all sorts of mostly gases, but the only one that really matters is carbon dioxide. Methane is second on the list but a long way back as it is growing at a much slower rate and there is a massively less of it. So carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and forests is what matters.

Then we have Net Zero vs Neutrality. These are both the same globally, but for each country Net Zero ignores exported emissions. Neutrality includes all those emissions produced when manufacturing imported goods, Net Zero doesn't. So for the rich and powerful nations Net Zero allows them to look better when actually doing worse. Closing down the Port Talbot steel furnaces and replacing that steel with imports is a classic example. Imported steel will still cause emissions from foreign furnaces, plus emissions from transporting the steel to the UK. Net Zero emissions goes down for the UK while emissions Neutrality goes up. UK politicians don't mind that global emissions have been increased because UK Net Zero emissions have fallen: a political trick.

The other trick is to pretend that achieving Net Zero requires difficult and expensive human run capture of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It doesn't. Human activity has increased carbon dioxide levels from about 280 ppm to 420 ppm. This is so different from the preindustrial stable levels that carbon dioxide is being naturally sequestered at a far greater rate. This extra removal amounts to about half the emissions caused by human activity. In other words, the natural world by storing extra carbon dioxide in the oceans and slightly increased plant growth is doing half the job of reaching Zero emissions, never mind Net Zero. Net Zero can be reached by cutting global emissions in half. If we go further than half then we move into Net Negative territory and start reducing levels of carbon dioxide, which reduces temperatures and starts to fix the climate crisis.

And in case you haven't noticed, global Net Zero only balances what goes up with what comes down, so what is already up there stays up there. In other words achieving Net Zero globally keeps all that increased temperature and climate chaos in place. It doesn't fix anything. It only stops it from getting any worse. Which is why the world needs Global Net Negative emissions.

Fixing Climate in Plain Language

Reversing Climate Change isn’t easy, or we’d already have done it. After years of sifting through the science, turning raw data into climate models, and rethinking basics: I’ve concluded that we need to look at the problem from a completely different perspective. We need to turn climate change on its head. We need to change our focus away from limiting emissions by people and concentration on limiting fossil fuel production by companies.

If fossil fuels stay in the ground they never become emissions. So let’s ration the global total of carbon extracted by big business. This carbon ration would have to start at current levels and be reduced steadily to sustainable levels as quickly as possible, while still leaving time for alternative forms of energy to be developed.

Note that this carbon ration or quota has to be a global total because we are fixing a global problem. The question then becomes how does the carbon quota get allocated to those big businesses? The rule has to be that no business is allowed to extract carbon from the environment without having an appropriate matching amount of quota. The big businesses will have to acquire a tonne of carbon extraction quota before they can extract a matching tonne of real carbon. So this quota has value.

My proposal is that big carbon extraction businesses would have to buy this quota on the open market. If they can afford to buy quota they can extract carbon. If they can’t buy matching quota then they can’t extract carbon.

Obviously this proposal will have to be agreed by all countries and appropriate laws adopted by them. But why should countries bother? They will want to because they will be allocated the quota free, which they can then sell on the open market. Countries stand to make a lot of money.

I suggest that countries be allocated their split of the quota based on their population. This would not only be the fairest way of allocating quota, it will also move wealth to developing countries.

Climate Science Split

 It seems to me that respected climate scientists are split into two camps. Am I wrong?

I think of them as Old School and New School. 

The Old School says that because CO₂ (Carbon Dioxide) does not react in our atmosphere with any other gases, all the CO₂ added by burning fossil fuels stays up there nearly forever. This means that there is a fixed budget of how much CO₂ can be produced before the blanket of CO₂ gets thick enough to raise temperature above the Paris Agreement limits. The speed at which CO₂ is added doesn’t matter, only the total added. Hence the fixed Carbon Budget.

The New School says that if that was the end of the story a fixed budget would be true, but there is Natural Sequestration that needs to be added, or rather subtracted, from the equation.

To use the well-worn bathtub analogy. The Old School says that there is only a fixed amount of CO₂ that can be added before the bathtub overflows. While the New School says that the bathtub has a drain, and the bath plug isn’t blocking it. The drain is only removing half the amount of CO₂ being added by the taps, but this has a dramatic effect on how quickly the bathtub fills. It also means that if the CO₂ taps are turned off then the bathtub will start emptying and drop to the old level.

This is a simplification since the drain doesn’t quite work like that and will not work as efficiently in future. The Natural Sequestration drain is roughly half CO₂ removal being by ocean absorption, the other half by plants. Both of these mechanisms will probably become less efficient, but not stop completely.

This split has resulted in both versions being included in the IPCC Assessment Reports. It also seems to have resulted in Climate Change models some of which include Natural Sequestration, but some don’t. Since Natural Sequestration amounts to an amount just over half of annual CO₂ emissions, this is a major omission.

Deadly Disinformation - The Lethal Climate Lie of Net Zero Carbon

 

Net Zero Carbon will destroy the planet. Not because it is better than doing nothing, but because we think it is enough. By thinking that it is worth striving for we don’t question the fundamentals.

It is like driving down the motorway in a borrowed car that has been rigged. We think that the accelerator and brake will allow us to control things in an emergency, but… When we take our foot off the accelerator the car carries on going at the same speed, and the brake does nothing. There is trouble ahead on this road and we can do nothing to avoid it. We will crash and die.

Net Zero Carbon is exactly the same. We are fooled into thinking that this difficult global objective is worth striving for because it is sufficient to save us. It won’t. Net Zero Carbon is the point where greenhouse gas emissions are balanced by sequestration. Emissions minus sequestration equals zero. Everything stops. But it stops at a new high level of overheating. If we are lucky that will be only +2°C, (the better +1.5°C is already lost). But that new elevated overheating stays. It is locked in. That is the accelerator pedal which keeps the car travelling just as fast. There are no brakes, so overheating still carries on trashing the planet. Ice melts, seas rise, storms, droughts and wildfires rage. And there is no way to put the demons back in the box.

Only Net Negative Carbon applies the brake. If more carbon is sequestered than emitted then greenhouse gas levels falls, as does overheating.

But everything I hear on the media only talks about Net Zero Carbon. That’s because Big Oil lobbyists have polluted the Paris Agreement and COPs as well as our atmosphere. The real science has been muzzled. And that will drive the planet we’ve borrowed to destruction.

Climate Correction 80:20

 The outline of a new piece I'm working on. What's missing?

The 80:20 Rule of Thumb

Correcting the climate is a huge project that no one can plan out completely, but the 80:20 rule of thumb applies and keeps on turning up in my exploration of solutions. The rule of thumb that any project can be 80% completed with 20% of the total effort, but the remaining 20% will take 80% of the effort fits in many ways. This paper probably covers only 20% of what needs to be done, but probably solves 80% of the problem.

Define the Problem

The 80:20 ratio crops up again. It turns out that when all the contributing factors producing the overheating and stressing the climate are compared, about 80% is down to just carbon dioxide.

Why Can’t Current Policies Work?

Flawed Objectives

The objectives of the Paris Agreement are fundamentally flawed because they lack ambition. They do not aim to return temperature rise and climate to what it used to be before industrialisation. The Net Zero Carbon objective will balance carbon dioxide levels at a new high level and a new high temperature. Even if the more difficult +1.5°C target was attained, it will be maintained. So the ice in Antarctica and Greenland will still carry on melting which will eventually flood all coastal cities. The objective should be more ambitious and say that the temperature increase should peak at +2°C (preferably +1.5°C) and then decrease back to the stable preindustrial levels by Net Negative Carbon.

Disunity

The climate change problem is global so needs a global solution. Current outcomes from the various COPs trying to stick to the Paris Agreement objectives fragment global efforts into national efforts. And the brutal fact is that each nation has to compete with its rivals with the winner being the nation still using the most fossil fuel.

State the Objective

We will return the global climate to preindustrial ranges. That is the climate that has been relatively stable for about 10,000 years, allowing human civilisations to thrive. Part of this objective would be to stop global overheating peaking above the Paris Agreement of +2°C and preferably below +1.5°C.

Copy What Works

Our ozone layer used to have holes poked in it by CFCs. This would have allowed ultraviolet radiation to beat down unfiltered, causing a lot more than deeper suntans.

Plan the Solution

80% turns out to be roughly the amount our carbon dioxide need to be reduced by.

Where Does This Get Us?

This will get us beyond Net Zero Carbon into Net Negative Carbon territory. But even by 2100 we still don’t get back down to preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide. For that we need another 20%, which will probably take another 80% of effort.

Geoengineering

This is tempting, but dangerous. Imagine a seesaw or a balance, with all the weight of the imbalance caused by excess carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on one side, and geoengineering on the other side. If the pressure from geoengineering is caused by a process that is temporary, such as pumping gases or aerosols into the atmosphere, that pumping has to continue forever. Because if geoengineering ever stops the effect of the greenhouse gases will be uncontrolled and will rapidly push temperatures to dangerous levels.

There is another example with rivers. We have found that the engineering of rivers by straightening them has caused flooding problems. To stop flooding more engineering has been required to store floodwater. So these days rivers are having the old meandering riverbeds restored so that the natural processes can turn the river into a self-managing stable system.

XR Disruptive Action or Not?

Obviously the global problem needs a global solution. That requires diplomacy but even more so, it requires political will. China would actually be one of the first to climb on board as they are taking climate change seriously: many would say not seriously enough. XR's first demand is to Tell The Truth. This is because the Big Oil camp are still peddling lies and distractions. The various COPs trying to implement the Paris Agreement are battles between climate activists and Big Oil lobbyists. They should be following the science, but that gets obscured. The current agreement is that each country will do what they can to achieve Net Zero emissions by whatever date they choose. The current plan is not working: it never would. Even if achieved, Net Zero leaves temperatures elevated and ice melting, so we need the target to be Net Negative.

Then comes the other bit of truth that is hidden. Natural Sequestration removed a lot of CO2, slightly more than half of what we emit. So Net Negative is achievable by reducing emissions to somewhat more than half. I say 75% others say 80%. Obviously not immediately but in a steady managed way.

Then the scheme that worked before needs to be copied. CFC production was phased out to save the ozone layer. Similarly fossil fuel production needs to be phased down to sustainable levels. When done globally country won't be pitted against country in keeping fossil fuels going.

All this needs political commitment, which needs minds to be changed. Disruptive protests do at least stop people ignoring the issue and pretending that everything that needs to be done is being done. It isn't.

IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report

 The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report is due to be issued tomorrow. 

I predict that it will not say the following headline truths that desperately need to be understood.

1) Neither Net Zero Carbon nor the tougher Carbon Neutrality will stop the ice melting. If achieved they will leave any Carbon Dioxide we have added to the atmosphere up there. So average temperatures will stay at the elevated level that is melting Greenland and Antarctica. So we need to achieve Net Negative Carbon aka Carbon Negativity in order to reduce Carbon Dioxide level back to near normal.

2) Trying to control emissions isn't working and is highly unlikely to ever work, because it is the wrong end of the supply chain. We should be concentrating on controlling, rationing carbon extraction: limiting the global total of carbon extracted and burned. This ration needs to be steadily reduced down to sustainable levels.

3) Because currently the oceans and land naturally sequester about half the Carbon Dioxide we emit, the sustainable level of globally extracted carbon is not zero, but about a quarter of current levels. This is a level that fossil fuel and Big Oil should be able to live with. They might even increase profits because supply and demand will increase prices.

Martin Corney

 Methane leaks are easy to fix, and would make more money

Both the EDF and Ember, a UK-based energy thinktank, said there was no justification for fossil fuel companies being allowed to use carbon offsets as an alternative to cut methane emissions directly. This was partly because it was affordable to act onsite and partly because methane could not be minimised using offset projects that were meant to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, a different gas.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/27/methane-emissions-incredibly-cheap-to-cut-without-needing-offsets-safeguard-mechanism-inquiry-told

After COP27. Fixing the climate is still possible

 After COP27. Fixing the climate is still possible if both sides compromise, by following the science and logic. Both sides; the fossil fuel industry and climate activists believe they are fighting for survival, with their backs against the wall. Fossil fuel send in their lobbyists to get the politicians and decision makers on side, while climate activists send in their protesters to use ever more extreme measures to get them to do what they want. Both sides see this as a zero sum game. One side wins and the other side loses – complete victory or annihilation. But a win-win compromise is possible, if we follow the science. If we don’t, then if fossil fuels win, that is certain annihilation for at least half the planet’s population, but if climate activists stopped fossil fuels completely, the result might not be very different.

We needs a fresh perspective, using established ideas in a new configuration, to create a plan that puts climate change back in Pandora’s Box.

To reduce extreme climate events we need a plan that doesn’t just halt global overheating, but cools things back down to safe levels.

The plan must also be acceptable to many different parties, all with very different demands, so compromise will be necessary.

The plan must be rigid enough to be certain to work, while being flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances.

I believe that a global cap and trade market for the extraction of carbon by fossil fuel and similar organisations is the key to the solution. Cap and trade is already in use for carbon emissions, but only in limited circumstances. Capping carbon extraction with a global quota would be comprehensive and efficient. This is why the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty has received so much support from organisations like the World Health Organisation, the Vatican, and the European Parliament – it addresses the supply of carbon in fossil fuels, not the consumption and consequent emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Note that it was phasing out the supply of CFCs that meant the Montreal Protocol worked to save the ozone layer. It was not persuading consumers to stop buying aerosol cans with CFCs in that solved that atmospheric problem. Limiting the supply is far more efficient and certain than trying to limit the demand.

What about Big Oil? This is where we have to start compromising. We now know that Big Oil has been using its massive wealth to spread denial, delay and distraction about climate change so they can carry on business as usual. They still have massive lobbying power, which can scupper any plan that looks like driving them out of business. To them it’s a matter of survival – an existential threat. Luckily the plan allows them to survive, but with reduced volumes. This is where Big Oil needs to compromise, but increased prices for a smaller supply might even increase their profits. The science as to why fossil fuels in smaller volumes can still be extracted and burned is that CO₂ is sequestered naturally in large quantities, mostly in the oceans. If levels of fossil fuel extraction are reduced to well below where their CO₂ emissions balance natural sequestration, (Net Zero Carbon), then more CO₂ will be drawn out of the atmosphere than is added to it, and we start to reduce atmospheric CO₂ and consequently start to cool the planet. According to the scientists at Climate Interactive, fossil fuel extraction needs to reduce to about 20% of current levels. This reduction would happen gradually but inexorably, so that markets can adjust to replace the lost energy with renewables and efficiency savings. The reduced quotas would be totally predictable for decades ahead, and so can be planned for by any competent government.

What about helping the developing nations which are disproportionately impacted by extreme climate events? They arguably need to be compensated for the damage, partially caused by heavily industrialised nations emitting most of the CO₂. It’s debatable who is most responsible, after all, there is hardly anyone on the planet who isn’t at least indirectly responsible for CO₂ emissions. Also, because of that natural sequestration mentioned earlier, hardly any really old CO₂ emissions are left in the atmosphere. So let’s take a different approach that avoids the blame game. Let’s use the cap and trade market this plan is built on to move wealth around. That global carbon extraction quota that will be traded has value. Every barrel of oil that is extracted from the ground will need the extracting organisation to have purchased matching quota from the market. What if that quota starts as the common right of every person on the planet? Selling that quota to the market will spread wealth to developing nations, which will create a more stable world. It might be necessary to allocate the quota to countries, based on their population size, rather than giving it directly to individuals. Although, especially in the developing world, phone based financial transactions are very common.

This plan has several advantages over the Paris Agreement and the various COP arrangements. Because it is global plan it is not dependent on how efficiently each nation performs, although each nation would have to audit the organisations extracting carbon in their boundaries. The global carbon extraction quota can be extended to cover forestry and other sources of carbon. In fact it would need to, since otherwise carbon sources such as peat present too tempting a target.

What if nations refused to join or left this market? Sanction for those who don’t join would have to be extensive, and to make it more difficult to leave, the market should be organised like a trade treaty, with independent courts having jurisdiction higher than national courts. This already happens under treaties such as in EFTA or CPTPP.

Offsets are a bit of a problem. Carbon quota offsets probably need to be divided into permanent and temporary CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage).

This plan for a global carbon extraction quota market would replace nearly all other CO₂ emissions reduction measures, since few other measures are necessary. Cement production is the biggest other source of CO₂ emissions. This could of course be included by treating the carbon in the CO₂ emissions as needing quota.

What about other greenhouse gases? CO₂ is the main problem, overshadowing all other greenhouse gases, both in terms or radiative forcing and rate of growth. So controlling CO₂ in the carbon cycle is the key objective. This might change if too many feedback tipping points kick in. As global temperatures increase, we dance closer and closer to the tipping point cliff. This cliff is more like a series of crumbling ledges than an abrupt edge. If too many ledges crumble, all bets are off. So the sooner we retreat from the cliff edge, by cooling the planet, the better.

At current EU carbon quota prices of about €50 per tonne, this carbon market would be worth about half a trillion dollars each year, or over $60 per person. This would put about $5 on to the price of a barrel of oil, so about 5%. A small price to pay to save the planet. This price will of course change over time as the carbon quota reduces but will depend on future demand for fossil carbon. Arguably, this control of supply is just a more extreme form of what OPEC does, to keep the price high by rationing supply.

The Net Zero Carbon Fraud

 

COP27 is starting - but if we stick with the Net Zero Carbon confidence trick I need never plant another tree to sequester carbon – because it’s pointless.

Net Zero is only the peak of the CO2 hill. The point where we have maximum CO2 in the atmosphere, and shortly after, reach maximum temperature increase – unless we are unlucky and feedbacks take over. But what are the plans beyond Net Zero. COP26 etc don't go any further. In which case we keep the temperature increase reached at the top of the hill. There are no plans to remove extra carbon. In fact, if you read the text carefully, you see that fossil fuels keep on being produced and burnt at a rate that balances natural sequestration - plus all other sequestration efforts such as regenerative agriculture, tree planting etc. All that carbon capture effort just adds to the amount of fossil fuels that can be burnt - up to the balance of Net Zero. So in the end, the only gain is that we don't go beyond whatever high temperature increase is reached. And we just have to hope that feedbacks don't take off uncontrollably. What we should be demanding is that we come back down the other side of the hill and reduce atmospheric CO2 back to normal, along with reducing temperatures and extreme climate events. We need Net Negative Carbon, and I have a plan to do it.

So this is what the Paris Agreement is trying to achieve.

While China will only agree to this.

And what we should be demanding is this.

Only with this, or something similar, can we start to return temperatures to where they should be, and climate to what we need to prosper.

 

Khaos added to the Carbon Bathtub

 

Khaos added to the Carbon Bathtub

The CO₂ bathtub analogy illustrates how understanding flows is vital to understand how global overheating works, and how to counter it. Imagine this bathtub holding all the excess CO₂ in the atmosphere. A tap representing our CO₂ emissions is adding CO₂ to the bath faster than the plughole is letting CO₂ out by natural sequestration. So the level of CO₂ in the bathtub is steadily rising. To complete the analogy, the goddess Khaos (Chaos) is taking a bath and splashing around. The fuller the bath gets, the more she splashes. But what gets splashed, are extreme weather events; hurricanes, floods and droughts. The fuller the bathtub gets, the more likely the splashes are to get over the rim of the bath. I think that adding Khaos to the analogy sorts out the limitation of the bathtub appearing to reach a single level where it overflows. That level might be the point where climate feedbacks kick in irreversibly.

If climate feedbacks do kick in irreversibly, then all bets are off and nothing can be done to avert catastrophe. For me it’s a matter of faith that we have not yet reached that point, and that global overheating can be reversed (see my blog page). No scientist can prove that we have reached the point of irreversible climate feedbacks until we are well past that point. This is because of Chaos Theory and the associated uncertainty.

Big Oil Thrives – So Does the Planet

There is a possible Climate Change compromise where Big Oil can still do business, and the climate returns to something like normal. I used to think that Big Oil had to be closed down. Science learns from its mistakes. I made a mistake and have learned.

My initial climate model assumed that carbon emissions had to fall to zero in order to stop global overheating and catastrophic climate change. This would mean that fossil fuel companies would be put out of business. No wonder they were fighting back with every dirty trick in the book. But I was wrong. I had overlooked the natural sequestration of carbon on land and more importantly by the oceans.

This was an easy mistake to make, and I’ve seen a number of scientific papers that make the same mistake. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a persistent gas with no natural processes that act to change it into something else. Other gases like methane react in the atmosphere to turn into other gases and so have a half-life, of about a decade for methane. Carbon dioxide stays there forever- except it doesn’t. That was the mistake.

When plants grow they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is also absorbed by water. Rain water is actually weak carboxylic acid because the water has absorbed carbon dioxide. This is why it eats caves into limestone. The oceans also absorb carbon dioxide. This is natural carbon sequestration, but how big is the effect?

Two Percent Saves the Day

Historically, before the industrial revolution pumped all this carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it is generally accepted that the level of carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm. This was for a normal, stable, balanced carbon cycle. It is now well over 410 ppm. I made a guess that the further out of balance, the further away from normal, the larger the quantity of carbon dioxide and carbon naturally sequestered. When I crunched the numbers this graph seemed to confirm my guess.

Since around 1950 it looks like somewhere between 1.5% and 2% of excess carbon dioxide is naturally sequestered.

The consequences of this are that where our carbon dioxide emissions should be increasing ppm by about 4 every year, the measured amount is only increasing by about 2 ppm.

This why the world can reduce carbon dioxide levels, and global overheating, by reducing carbon emissions to only something like 20% to 25% of current levels and not to zero.

The following graph illustrates this, and forms the core of my plan to reverse global overheating and climate chaos.

So the demand from climate activists needs to be that carbon emissions globally, are reduced to sustainable levels as quickly as possible.

My preferred method to achieve this is with a Global Carbon Extraction Quota, as detailed in my plan.

Methane and Climate Change – What Does The Science Say?

In the media there has been a lot about methane from cows being a growing danger because of its contribution to global overheating and climate change. There has been huge expenditure, measuring how much methane cows burp, and whether feeding them seaweed reduces methane emissions.

It’s an understandable concern, because methane is a far stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Also methane has been highlighted as a problem in the latest UN IPCC Assessment Report. But what do actual measurements of atmospheric methane tell me? More graphs now. – I’m all about graphs!

From NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

The above graph stacks the Greenhouse Radiative Forcing (what humans have caused) from all the different long lasting greenhouse gases. It looks like they are all rising, but this is deceptive. The following graph takes the same data, but splits each gas into its own separate line.

CO2 is Carbon Dioxide, CH4 is Methane

I think this shows more clearly that warming from methane is hardly increasing at all. The villain of the piece is carbon dioxide, the only greenhouse gas that is rapidly increasing in the amount of warming it does.

So why all the media concentration on methane and cows? And why emphasis methane in the IPCC AR6? I think that the BBC series Big Oil vs The World tells us. Methane is clearly yet another diversion from Big Oil. They did after all get rid of the UN IPCC authors of AR5. Big Oil funded favourable politicians to power in the USA, who successfully lobbied to replace the IPCC scientists Big Oil didn’t like. This explains why AR6 overemphasises the importance of methane.

The danger of methane released by the melting of permafrost in a feedback loop is a different and real issue. And one more reason to start climbing down this dangerous ladder we are climbing.

Net Zero Carbon and Zero Carbon - What’s the difference?

 Net Zero Carbon and Zero Carbon

–        What’s the difference?

–        Does it matter?

–        Is there a better way?

Of course it matters, because these are wildly different things, with hugely different consequences.

Net Zero Carbon is the aim of many countries, who following COP26 are saying that their collective individual efforts will meet the aims of the Paris Agreement, to keep global overheating below +2°C and hopefully below +1.5°C.

There are a number of different problems about each country managing their own efforts with no overall binding global plan, and the option to drop out like Trump did. But the main problem is that even if everything goes as hoped, the world remains in a dangerously overheated state: temperatures never drop back down again. Net Zero means that CO₂ (Carbon Dioxide) emissions balance sequestration: additions balance subtractions. So CO₂ levels remain high, keeping temperatures high. It’s like climbing a poorly supported ladder that is only just in balance. The higher you climb, the more dangerous it is, and the more likely disaster is to happen. The safe thing to do is climb back down the ladder. But with Net Zero Carbon we stay balanced high on the ladder. Zero Carbon means we climb back down the ladder, to the very bottom and stay safe.

These three graphs from my Climate Model illustrate the global situation. Note the difference between the 2050 deadline that most have agreed, and the 2060 deadline which China has said they will follow.

Graph of Net Zero Carbon by 2050

Graph of Net Zero Carbon by 2060

Graph of Zero Carbon

As can be seen, the delay of just ten years pushes the temperature increase above +2°C. Also it takes a very long time to get to Zero Carbon, even reducing emissions by 5% of the previous year each time. In fact because this is an exponential progress we never get to zero, just closer. But Zero Carbon does bring the temperature back down again.

Don’t take these graphs as being set in stone, they are illustrative, like all models. In reality, achieving a uniform reduction in the real world, with each country doing its own thing, is nearly impossible under the COP26 agreement rules.

There is another problem with the Zero Carbon approach. Is it realistic to expect a complete switch away from fossil fuels? Is it even necessary? My final graph suggests that as far as bringing temperatures back down to a safe level goes, there is a safe middle way which still allows some use of fossil fuels.

Reducing to 25% of Carbon

This doesn't reduce temperatures as quickly as with Zero Carbon. Also temperatures still go above +2°C. But that can be changed by reducing carbon more quickly as follows.

Reducing to 25% of Carbon More Quickly

A better, more certain way, of ensuring carbon emission limits are achieved is required, but that I have already outlined in Pages on this Blog.

 

The Cliff Edge at Beachy Head – Climate Tipping Points

My grandparents used to live nearby, so as a child I often visited the cliff at Beachy Head, going just close enough to look over the edge at the lighthouse so far below. As an innocent child I didn’t know that this was also an infamous spot for suicides.

This cliff edge is a perfect analogy to the dangers of climate tipping points. We are on a suicidal rush of increasing fossil fuel consumption, which is driving us at full speed towards a cliff. Our top scientists have been telling us for decades that we have to stay at a safe distance from the cliff. But those same scientists can’t tell us what a safe distance is – because they can’t know.

Do you see that piece of cliff where the grass is like a lower ledge? That is where the cliff has started to crumble. I remember those ledges and wanting to climb down onto them. My grandparents wouldn’t let me. My weight was small back then and I might have been safe, but my grandparents, being wiser, said to stay away from it. Climate tipping points are like that ledge. If they are crossed and fail, they will go quickly and catastrophically. Which is why we need to stay away from them by a safe distance. No one can predict when that ledge will collapse – because we can’t know.

Edit: I should have made it clearer that the higher temperatures get, the closer we are to edge. Net Zero means that we stay balancing along the very edge, halted at the highest temperature rise, jumping up and down on the ledges. Only Net Negative takes us further away from the edge and to safe and stable ground.

 

From: Big Oil CEO

To: Media Shaping Team

Climate Change Strategy – Strictly Secret – NDA Required Before Reading

Our industry faces an existential threat. Our fossil fuel extraction projects face being shut down or at least limited to a small percentage of current output. This will have a serious impact on our profits and so must be countered at all costs.

To investigate the impact on the world of burning increasing levels of fossil fuels we have hired some of the top scientists, (all have signed NDAs). The news is bad. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide and methane will increase world average temperatures because of the greenhouse properties of these gases. This will change the climate of the world to be more chaotic, with longer and more frequent droughts, but also heavier infrequent rain causing flooding.

The good news is that these changes will happen slowly, so most people won’t notice. But eventually people will be so disturbed by the destruction of their homes by wildfires and food shortages causing starvation that politicians will be forced to act. Your task is to delay the inevitable measures for as long as possible so that business can continue as usual.

Delay – The overall strategy is to delay and postpone control measures: so we need to detail exactly what we most fear as an effective plan and so must stop happening. The most effective way of countering and reversing climate change will be to globally ration the extraction of fossil fuels down to well below the level of carbon naturally sequestered by absorption in oceans and land. The following steps will be followed to delay this happening.

Denial – Following the example of the tobacco industry the first obvious step is to deny that anything bad is happening. We have more money than our opponents and can fund research to confirm that everything is normal. The climate is easily confused with the weather by most people, and weather is far more variable than the initial climate changes, so this is an easy first step.

Doubt – The scientific evidence will grow that global heating is happening and even linked to climate changing. But although people think science is a certainty, our advisors tell us that there is always a level of uncertainty. This can be played on to cast doubt. Small discrepancies can be cherry-picked and used to cast doubt on all the science. We just need to shout loudest. Hurricane frequency is a good example of where particular geographical locations and time periods can be chosen to show nothing is changing.

Democracy – Politicians will be bought. Many have big fossil fuel industries in their constituencies and will support keeping those jobs and those votes without funding from us, but pay them anyway, to keep our options open. Note here that coal constituencies are most vulnerable to us because coal is the worst fossil fuel and the first to be rationed out of existence if we fail. In the USA we are lucky that the system is so easily rigged. We have successfully supported the candidates in primaries we prefer, which nearly always got them selected and elected. Political influence will also give us lobbying power which will enable us to shape even the personnel of the IPCC.

Duplicity – Don’t worry. No one cares about truth anymore. Alternative facts are all the rage, and you will use them prolifically. Shower the world with so many facts that no one will be able to tell truth from fiction. Now that we have replaced the difficult scientists writing IPCC reports with our own choices this is working well. AR5 contained dangerously available and visible information. AR6 is far more opaque and cluttered so that only specialists will see anything that might harm our cause. World leaders will be kept well in the dark.

Diversion – There are so many ways that we will divert attention, mostly covered below under disinformation, but the main thing is to shift the attention away from fossil fuel companies and our products. This is best done by concentrating on emissions. Since the greenhouse effect is caused by emitted gases, it’s easy to focus attention on emissions and the emitters. This nicely shifts the blame away from us suppliers to the consumers. Since there are billions of consumers who mostly cause emissions indirectly by everyday activities and purchases this will be an extremely effective strategy. The probability of the majority of individuals feeling guilty enough to change their purchasing choices to eliminate fossil fuels is vanishingly small and no real threat. And anyway the production and supply chain for all products is so scattered with fossil fuel use that individuals can’t have that choice. So always talk about emissions, never extraction. The Paris Agreement is an excellent example of this, where although greenhouse gases are mentioned there is not a single mention of fossil fuel, coal, oil or gas.

Division – Exploit it. Encourage it. We are stronger than the liberal greens because we have a united purpose – profit – and far more money than them. They have multiple organisations competing against each other for funding and supporters. Keep it that way, divided. Even encourage new organisations and groups so as to increase their division. Nations should also be kept divided. Nations naturally compete against each other and their governments are only interested in national advantage. This made it easy for us to ensure that every nation signing up to COP agreements decides their own targets and timescales, and that they can easily be reversed. No country will willingly let another gain economic advantage. This has been well exploited to ensure that no country will cut fossil fuel consumption faster than their competitors. Net Zero Carbon by 2060 for China has got many to question why their target dates are sooner. I expect many to change to 2060.

Deception – Net Zero Carbon was well done. It sounds like effective action but we know it means business as usual. We held off the danger of Net Negative Carbon very well. The unattainable CCS technology being held up as the Net Zero balancing force also plays into the general delay strategy. Keep on the good work of hiding the knowledge that about half our emissions are naturally sequestered. If that was well understood, and that Net Negative Carbon was easily achievable, we would be in serious trouble and extreme NDA sanctions will be applied to those who fail me.

Doomism – As things get worse and worse, as temperatures keep on rising, as droughts become more frequent and prolonged, as wildfires become more destructive, as floods become deeper and stronger, as food production fails and millions starve, many will give up. We will encourage this, since this sector of the population is no threat to us, and will even resist those who think they can defeat us and reverse climate change by limiting fossil fuels.

Disinformation – This is a very rich field of possibilities, closely linked to Diversion above. Social media opens opportunities to spread disinformation because there are very few checks. But even the conventional media will publish disinformation. Not only will the media we have direct influence over publish our version of information, media that might seem hostile to us is run by journalists with no scientific background – they are nearly innumerate. They are incapable of telling our misinformation from the truth and so will publish it, if we disguise the source, enough for it to look legitimate.

-------------

While a satirical work of fiction, this also holds facts and well researched frauds. So how much is fiction?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0cgql8f/big-oil-v-the-world

Record UK Heatwave

The UK just had a record breaking heatwave, and the future predictions are for worse.

But surely the Paris Agreement and the 26th COP agreement will save us all? 😉

There are a few problems with COP26; nation is pitted against nation in order to keep using fossil fuels as long as possible to preserve their economy - (China wins with a 2060 target), Net Zero Carbon fixes CO2 levels at a new overheated level when they need to reduce, and money for the climate crippled countries hasn't appeared.

My Reversing Climate Change scheme addresses all these weaknesses. 

Can you think up a better one?

 Bonn Climate Change Conference

Truth, Lies and Catastrophe

Everybody lies: mostly to themselves.

The truth is out there, but it’s terrifying.

We all know that we are mortal and doomed to die. But every day we hide that truth from ourselves in order to see tomorrow. This habit, of hiding from tomorrow’s truth, is necessary for continued survival, but is now killing our planet.

I was going to include a mass of hyperlinks and references to the locations of where I’ve found the truth, but with the internet being available to nearly everyone, that is not necessary. And anyway, verification of truth is a necessary skill in the modern world. The internet is peppered with truth and lies. Distinguishing between them is difficult: but if we are to grow up and leave childhood’s “Trust Daddy” behind us, that’s a skill we must learn.

I like life, and want to see as much of it as possible. Intelligent life on our planet is unique in our galaxy. That’s the implication of the Fermi paradox. It could continue for another billion years if James Lovelock’s guesstimate is right. We are on a path that will eliminate all life from this planet within a few hundred years, but we can change direction if we look the truth of catastrophe squarely in the face.

How do I decide what’s true? Science helps me. As I write this I’ve a trail camera taking video clips of everything that visits the birdbath in my garden. I’ve been doing this every month for the past year and recording every visit in a spreadsheet. This is data that tells me not just which bird species visit but which just come for a drink and which actually bathe. Why do I do this? Well, as well as being a long time birdwatcher, I’m trained in using data scientifically.

People tend to think that science is fixed: full of facts set in concrete. But the great thing about science is that it’s always questioning old beliefs in order to find new truths.

Even great scientists like Einstein get things wrong. He believed that the universe had always existed and so added a fudge factor to his relativity equations to make it so. When the big bang beginning of the universe was discovered he said this was the biggest mistake of his life.

James Hansen is known for his vital testimony about climate change in 1988 and his activism for mitigating global warming. He is cited as claiming that if carbon dioxide levels are reduced to 350 ppm climate change will be stabilised. This would be returning levels to those of 1990. I checked this out by looking at the history of ice melting in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic. The graphs tell me that drastic melting started just before 1980, when levels were about 340 ppm. The graphs also tell me that true stability started breaking down after 1900 when levels rose from the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to 300 ppm. So where do our current levels above 420 ppm actually need to drop to? Who’s telling the truth?

Everywhere I look at climate change information I detect the fell hand of fossil fuel lobbying manipulation. Even the terms climate change and global warming have been chosen to seem unthreatening. Change could be good or bad. Warming seems harmless, even desirable in the cold northern climes where most decision makers live. If the more realistic terms of climate chaos and global overheating had been used would we now be acting differently? Or what if climate catastrophe and global burning were the terms in use? It is now known that fossil fuel lobbying even determined the very name of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Our current hope of containing climate change is invested solely in the Paris Agreement. We know that the driver of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. Search the text of the Paris Agreement and the following words are missing; fossil, fuel, coal, oil and gas. The agreement only targets emissions, never extraction: which is inefficient, being too late in the process. No wonder there has been absolutely no change in the trend of increasing carbon dioxide and overheating.

Net Zero Carbon by 2050 is the target set by the UK. This is obviously the wrong target. If there is already too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and it keeps on increasing, we need Net Negative Carbon – and globally.

Denial, Distraction and Delay. Fossil fuel lobbyists have mostly given up denying that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change. But they are still doing what they can to delay the necessary changes that will limit their carbon throughput. It seems that the current strategy is to distract with misinformation and misdirection. Hence no mention of fossil fuels in the Paris Agreement and a Net Zero Carbon target instead of the Net Negative Carbon required. We also see schemes such as tree planting promoted, even though they have no hope of sequestering enough carbon to offset fossil fuels.

Why do fossil fuel companies keep on lobbying for measures that will destroy us? They are not necessarily evil or mad people bent on destruction: they have no choice. Directors have to maximise short-term profits and keep share prices high. When BP tried a Beyond Petroleum strategy of switching investment away from exploration for new fossil fuel reserves to investment in renewables the share price plummeted and they did a rapid U-turn. They are trapped by market forces on this road to destruction.

Methane is another increasing greenhouse gas hitting the headlines, but with misinformation about it being caused by cattle. At worst about a quarter of methane emissions are caused by agriculture, a lot of which is from cattle, but at least half of methane emissions are caused by fossil fuel extraction, either directly or by leakage.

How bad will it get? The true answer is that nobody knows for sure. The relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and increasing heat is well known and predictable because it is a linear relationship. The difficulty comes with trying to predict the effect of numerous feedbacks which are not linear. As an example: increasing temperatures melt more arctic ice which exposes more sea to warming, which melts more ice. This is an exponential relationship like all feedbacks and so is difficult to predict. And the elephant in the room that no one mentions is increasing atmospheric moisture forming clouds. Clouds are by far the biggest greenhouse factor: without them Earth would freeze solid, as would Venus. This is where the Venus effect becomes important. In the early days of our solar system both Mars and Venus were water worlds like Earth. Mars was too small to hold on to its atmosphere and so froze. Venus developed so much cloud that the greenhouse effect boiled all the water and has now created a lifeless planet with a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead. This is the path we are on if we continue unconstrained fossil fuel extraction: total extinction of all life on Earth and hence in our galaxy.

I don’t want catastrophe to happen. I’ve been a conservationist for ages. So how can we stop it happening? The obvious first step is to limit fossil fuel extraction. If that isn’t done, then the only other path to survival is geoengineering. Geoengineering is the desperation last hope.

Aren’t we already limiting fossil fuel extraction by limiting emissions? No, this is another lie. Fossil fuel extraction has continued virtually unchanged, and so have emissions. It might seem a logical thing concentrate on limiting emissions, and country by country, but it is bound to fail because it is too little, too late in the process. There are too many loopholes, such as exporting emissions to a different country. Only a global solution can fix our global problem, and only by focussing on the production of fossil fuels can we realistically control carbon. We’ve done it before under the Montreal Protocol to phase out the manufacture of CFCs and so we saved the ozone layer. That hole in the ozone layer is nearly mended already.

 

Do people check out facts to find the truth? Well I’ve included a deliberate falsehood above. Can you spot it?

 

 

Our Climate Change Cul-de-sac

or The Wrong Trouser Leg

When I contemplate just how ineffective the COP26 agreement is, it seems the world is still driving at full speed down a climate change cul-de-sac towards a terminating brick wall. The major participating countries with their independent plans have a wide variety of agreed targets and timescales for net zero carbon emissions, none of which are adequate. But of course they are inadequate. Any country that agreed to an adequate plan would be at an economic disadvantage to the others. Worse than that, any country on a change of government can change the plan or even do a complete U-turn. The global warming problem doesn’t have a global solution for the global problem and so is bound to fail.

I’m reminded of Terry Pratchett’s book Jingo and the trousers of time. The hero Sam Vimes makes the right decision, chooses the right trouser leg and saves the day, but he is kept in touch with the disaster that happens in the alternate universe where he made the wrong decision and took the wrong trouser leg of time. I feel like I’m in the wrong trouser leg in this multiverse and I want to change legs.

So what’s happening in the right trouser leg of time where good decisions were made?

Firstly it was agreed that a global plan was needed with a global limit on carbon emissions that reduces year by year to sustainable levels. At first this carbon ration starts at current levels and reduces slowly since this change is going to be difficult to adjust to. Then the rate of reduction speeds up as everyone adapts to a lower but totally predictable level of carbon ration.

Secondly it was recognised that the place to control carbon emissions from fossil fuels is at the beginning of the supply chain from producer to consumer. The complex network of fossil fuel extraction and distribution has so many branches that it is nearly impossible to control at the point of emission. Just think of all the gas that is flared from oil wells. It’s far more efficient to include all carbon at the point of extraction.

So now we have the idea of a global ration for carbon extraction from the geology of our planet. And the extraction of carbon by fossil fuel organisations is limited by that ration. But how is the ration distributed fairly? In my vision it is decided that every person on the planet has an equal right to a fair share. For practical reasons the carbon extraction ration is actually distributed free to every country in proportion to their population. This ration is then sold on a global market so that every fossil fuel extracting organisation can buy the quantity of ration they need to match extracted carbon. No one is allowed to extract geological carbon without adequate ration. This ration is controlled with block chain computing and is open to all to see and is part of the audit process for all fossil fuel extraction organisations.

Countries, especially developing low carbon countries, get a lot of revenue from this system and the world becomes a more equitable and stable place with fewer wars and refugees.

Because countries do not control the carbon emission plans, just the way they adjust by switching to non-carbon energy sources, it is impossible for countries to mess up the system. Countries are responsible for regulating and monitoring any fossil fuel extracting organisations based on their soil, and any disputes are settled by an independent dispute settlement system as with most trade agreements.

There is also a parallel but completely separate system for rationing organic carbon extraction. This is to control carbon extracted by forest clearance, peat extraction and similar activities. The reason they are separated is to allow for carbon sequestration either geologically or organically. This is needed because organic sequestration of carbon in the short-term carbon cycle is so fragile that the possibility of the carbon being released suddenly by sequestration woodland burning down needs to be catered for.

The final important item is that the right leg of the trousers has a net negative carbon target instead of net zero carbon. This is because we are starting with an atmosphere that already has far too much carbon in it, and so is way out of balance. And that imbalance is getting worse all the time. Net zero sounds great, balanced, a “what goes up must come down” situation, but it’s not going to fix the imbalance, only net negative carbon will put things back like they were. But the good news is that because the balance of carbon in our atmosphere is so badly out, about half of the excess carbon we emit is naturally sequestered by natural process on land and sea. So the sustainable levels target of carbon extraction for the next few decades turns out to be between 10% and 25% of current levels if we want to keep below +2°C of global warming. 10% of current levels could even keep us close to +1.5°C.

If only I could somehow get into that right trouser leg of time. Well just maybe we can back out of this cul-de-sac and take a better path.