Download CO2 short - Digging in the Clay

The Futility of reducing Man-made CO2 emissions as the means to control Climate
Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption
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 Alarmist position.
Contents:
A recent history 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
A recent history of worldwide CO2 emissions
In October 20101 Prof 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.
Using information on National emission levels recently published by BP2 up until 2010 and well corroborated by the
Guardian3 and Google until 20094, re-emphasises Professor Muller’s point. For the sake of these notes the major emitting
Nations are grouped according to their attitudes towards CO2 control measures as follows:
CO2 emissions 2010
% world 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%
According to the BP data set the following graph shows the history of emissions growth since 1965.
The graph shows:

the rapid escalation of Chinese emissions since the year 2000, this continues apace.

the inexorable growth of past emissions from the developing economies from a low base in 1965.

acceleration of emissions from India, which are set to grow substantially albeit from a low base.

a levelling out 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 predominant5 and India is following on, probably at a greater future rate but to a lesser absolute extent by 21006.
These increases in emissions will totally negate any efforts, however strenuous, of the Developed World where emissions
have already been significantly stabilised, even in the USA.
E M HOSKINS MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond)
1
The real effect of the maximum feasible actions on CO2 emissions reduction that are being taken by this minority of
Nations and thus their influence on ostensibly reducing temperature has minimal effect. This becomes clear just by
comparing the current emission status against the most likely 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 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
show an example to the rest of the world. However their actions alone can only ever effect virtually undetectable
reductions of World temperature. And sadly,
The rest of the world is not listening.
The whole hysteria surrounding potentially catastrophic global warming is the creature of a limited number of developed
western Nations whose Governments are persuaded by the control Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate
Disruption agenda.
Could any effort at CO2 reduction by the few participating Nations be folly. If so 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 selfimposed, economically destructive straightjacket.
Modelling the scale of future emissions till 2100
A simple spread-sheet7 has been used to speculate about a probable level of Man-made CO2 emissions by 2100. Emitting
nations grouped according to their attitudes towards CO2 control, are used for this rough assessment. Each group or
Nation is allocated a straight-line multiplier from its current emission level to give an idea of its annual emission rate by
2100. The figure includes continuing Business as Usual (1.0) with no reduction of current emission levels for the coming
90 years.
estimated emissions
estimated %
multiplier by 2100 CO2 emissions 2100
EU (27) AU NZ (1.0 = Business as Usual)1.0
United States
1.2
RU JP CA
1.3
China
4.5
India
10.0
KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID
4.0
Rest of World (200+ Nations)
5.0
estimated %
population 2100
5.4%
8.5%
6.0%
30.5%
14.1%
14.0%
21.5%
6.5%
3.8%
3.7%
19.4%
18.9%
11.6%
36.1%
The use of this speculative data set results in:
re-absorbed values
m tonnes
cumulative
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
2010-2100 extra modelled emissions1,476,685
5,867,765
750
190
The significance of the cumulative emissions of the Joining-in Nations, EU (27) AU NZ, can be seen as the blue line,
assuming that they do not achieve actual reductions but still continue with Business and Usual.
E M HOSKINS MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond)
2
Accounting for world population growth to ~9 billion the resulting comparative emissions/head are:
According to this version of the data, China as a whole approaches the CA RU JP level of emissions by 2100, even with its
substantially larger population. India with a larger population approached EU levels and the major developing nations
may well surpass those levels. The rest of the world still lags behind but is approaching the business as usual level of the
EU group of Nations taking action on CO2.
The reality puts the participation of the EU (27) AU NZ in active CO2 reduction 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 CO2
reductions that will diminish the significance of their efforts even further.
Assessing the Actual Temperature effect of Man-made CO2
In spite of the IPCC assertions that essentially all the warming since 1850 is wholly due to Man-made CO2 emissions, there
is a wider range of published and peer-reviewed opinion that differs on the actual level of the impact of Man-made
additions of CO2 to the atmosphere.
One well-accepted view is provided by CDIAC, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre of the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE)8.
The CDIAC figures can be transposed into parts of the 33°C total Greenhouse Effect are as follows:
Water Vapour ~95% of effect
~31.35°C
Greenhouse Gases ~5%
~1.65°C
Carbon Dioxide at 390 ppmv ~75% non H2O GHGs
~1.24°C
Natural CO2 ~86% (assuming 50% emissions since 1850 Man-made)
~1.07°C
Man-made CO2 Current 2010 Worldwide ~14% of 390 ppmv
~0.17°C
Other Greenhouse gases ~25% non H2O GHGs
~0.41°C
Natural
~0.29°C
Man-made
~0.12°C
3
E M HOSKINS MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond)
The CDIAC figure of ~0.17°C for Man-made influence since 1850 is roughly a quarter of the measured temperature rise of
~0.7°C since then: it accords well with the notion that the temperature increase can be allocated roughly 50/50% solar
influence and 50/50% natural / Man-made CO2 emissions. A value in the region of 0.17°C for the effect of worldwide
emissions to date has been accepted in correspondence with Professor David MacKay, the chief scientific advisor of the
UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, DECC.
Another acceptable source from Geocraft 9 published in 2000 show an even lesser amount for additional Man-made CO2.
This results in a much lower figure for total Man-made influence to 2010 of ~0.039 °C.
On the other hand, Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS10, one of the topmost scientists involved in the Catastrophic
Anthropogenic Global Warming cause, in a recent paper clearly asserts that:

only 75% of the Greenhouse effect is attributable to water vapour and clouds

100% of the increase in CO2 emissions since 1850 (110 ppm v) 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, his result is in error. So this premier scientist
supporting the concept of alarming greenhouse warming markedly exaggerates the Man-made effect by more than
threefold than the actual rise and 15 fold the CDIAC Man-made temperature estimate. He obviously did not carry out the
trivial sums that would have shown that his figures grossly exaggerate Man-made influence on temperature.
But the effect of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration
Remarkably, IPCC Published reports 11, (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, well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total
Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate). The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well understood in the
climate science community to reduce logarithmically as concentrations increase, 12 13 14 according to the Beer Lambert
Law. The impact is shown here:
Although the IPCC tacitly acknowledges that this crucial effect exists, it certainly does not emphasise it. Like the
Medieval Warm Period, that they attempted to eliminate with the Hockey Stick graph in 2001, the panel knows that wide
public knowledge of the diminution effect with increasing CO2 concentration would be utterly detrimental to their
primary message.
The logarithmic diminution effect is the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming in earlier eons when CO2
levels were known to be at levels of several thousands pmmv.
So the IPCC does not explain these devastating consequences in their Summary for Policy Makers. Thus the IPCC is
entirely misleading in its central claim for Policy Makers, as 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."
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 were to increase indefinitely.
E M HOSKINS MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond)
4
Actual temperature effects
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 over the course of a whole year.
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 making reader has certainly been
lead to assume that all increasing CO2 concentrations are progressively more harmful for temperature increase because
of their escalating Greenhouse impact.
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 when 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. In fact the increase of CO2 from 390 - 750 ppmv modelled till 2100
maximum using the CDIAC estimate of gives a potential increase of only ~0.16°C and beyond that value only about 2%, an
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 policy ambition to constrain Man-made temperature increase to only +2.0°C
could never be attained, however much more Man-made CO2 was emitted.
So the much vaunted policy ambition of limiting temperature effect to no more than +2.0°C has to be nonsense.
Justifying actions to reduce CO2 emissions, particularly in the Europe / UK / Australia 15
The question has to be asked as to whether the efforts of these few Joining-in Nations to set an example, can ever be
judged as worthwhile, considering the self-inflicted economic damage already occurring and planned in future. Such
action can only ever achieve reductions in World temperature that are undetectable and immeasurable. And the effect
that is probably not influenced or controllable by any actions of Mankind, even if universally applied worldwide.
Or rather should the efforts of those Joining-in to control their CO2 emissions be regarded as some of the most pointless
policies ever contemplated by developed and previously rational governments?
The marginal effects of any action on reducing CO2 emissions by a small minority of Nations must raise the following
questions:
E M HOSKINS MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond)
5

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?

What 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, as was found in earlier warmer periods )

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 16?
It seems the political justification is weak, to give but a couple of examples, Jill Duggan, European Commission’s National
Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change and ex head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading. Thus the quality,
competence and level of understanding of the bureaucrats 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.” 17
Prof David MacKay author of Sustainable Energy - without the hot air 18 and now the Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK
Department of Energy and Climate Change justifies action by the UK on CO2 reduction 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”.
But the implementation of the UK Clean Air Act was tacking a qualitatively different problem, the particulate matter and
sulphur dioxide from domestic coal burning, which were the problem then were not normal and healthy constituents of
the atmosphere: they were correctly then considered to be true pollution.
So the outcome in the UK is an unacceptable future for energy supply, as the UK is still uniquely wedded to its costly
policies supporting unreliable and uneconomic renewable energy via its 2008 Climate Change Act 19. Such policies are
well down the line and are being pursued regardless of the costs, their ineffectiveness and the massive risk they will
cause to energy security. This can be seen in the House of Lords report on the Economics of Renewable Energy with its
published graph below20.
So lights in the UK could go out any winter soon21, after the riots of August 2011 imagine the chaos that will ensue.
A few interesting opinions follow:
Steve Holiday the Chief Executive of the National Grid has clearly said:
“Era of constant electricity at home is ending”. 22
This has to be regarded as the ultimate triumph of the Green movements. This is the retrograde step that
they have always yearned for.
But to quote Mark Lynas, a formerly committed Green Activist:
“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.” 23
E M HOSKINS MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond)
6
Even the previously alarmist 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.” 24
George Osborne UK Finance Minister seems to be beginning to appreciate the point 25:
“But Britain makes up less than 2% of the world's carbon emissions to China and America's 40%.
We're not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business.
So let's at the very least resolve that we're going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our
fellow countries in Europe.”
Even the European Union might be having second thoughts26:
"It has to be seen clearly that there are risks associated to unilateral EU action. There is a trade-off between climatechange policies and competitiveness. Europe cannot act alone in an effort to achieve global decarbonization,"
A classic and interesting comment was made by Andrew Orlowski in The Register. It could not be put more succinctly:
“Binning green power would be like printing money - without inflation”. 27
References
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&NR=1
2 http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId=7068669
3 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data
4 https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1
5 http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2011/steep-increase-in-global-co2-emissions-despite-reductions-by-industrialised-countries
6 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period6 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q2second-commitment-period
7 The spread-sheet with resulting charts can be made available for anyone else to make the simulations using alternate
input data.
9 http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
10 http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
11 http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
12 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/§
13 http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Solar%20Cycle%2024%20%20Implications%20for%20the%20Unites%20States%20David%20Archibald%20March%202008.pdf
14 http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/saturated-greenhouse-effect-fact.pdf
15 http://www.energytribune.com//articles.cfm/5961/The-Utter-Futility-of-Reducing-Carbon-Emissions
16
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/11/this-is-how-ice-ages-begin-warning-to.html
17http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_know_the_cost_dont_know_if_it_works/8&redir_esc=&ei=Vh
ewTeesHMa08QP1sfXqCw
18 http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/
19 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/cc_act_08/cc_act_08.aspx
20 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19505.htm
21 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8470256/New-figures-show-the-lights-may-go-out-sooner-than-we-thought.html
22 http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/3/the-third-world-ambition-of-the-uk.html
23 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010981/You-mustnt-believe-lies-Green-zealots-And-I-know--I-one.html
24 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-bryce/another-climate-change-meeting-looms_b_893750.html
25
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/03/george-osbornes-speech-to_n_991872.html
26
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576638634143967012.html
27 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/07/no10_green_energy_policy_wobble_yes_or_no/
E M HOSKINS MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond)
7