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?