JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Humans do Ultimate Paris Lockdown, CO2 hits record high anyway

The new figures from the Mauna Loa Observatory show humans are irrelevant

Despite the Ultra-Revolutionary-Carbon-Reduction-Program far beyond anything the UN has every dreamed of,  Global CO2 hit 417ppm. This is a record high since humans discovered test tubes but the 300 millionth time since life on Earth evolved.

It shows how all plans for carbon reduction known to mankind are futile. Obviously Ecoworriers want to take that failure and do more of it.

The world just broke a disturbing trend despite the global lockdown

Tracey Keeling

…the data reveals that two months of significantly reduced human activity did not make a dent in the damage we’ve done to the planet. It ultimately confirms that nothing short of wholesale systemic change will do – with the rejection of fossil fuels at the heart of that transformation.

 ”Surprised” is not the word. When the punters realize that empty streets and skies makes no difference, there could be a monumental crisis of motivation coming. Games up?

The Scientists Just Told Us Coronavirus Won’t Save Us from Climate Change

The National Interest

“People may be surprised to hear that the response to the coronavirus outbreak hasn’t done more to influence CO2 levels,” Ralph Keeling, a geochemist who runs the Scripps Oceanography CO2 program, said in a statement.

Daily emissions of CO2 were cut by an average of 17% worldwide in early April, but as COVID-19 lockdowns eased, the fall in emissions for the year as a whole is likely to be only between 4% and 7% compared to 2019.

Let’s just double this for five times as long, and never stop?

According to Scripps scientists, such small differences won’t reverse the devastating climate change course that the planet is currently on. However, if emissions reductions of 20% to 30% could be consistently achieved for six to 12 months, then the rate of CO2 increase on Mauna Loa would likely slow.

Roy Spencer predicted all this weeks ago:

The point is that given the large month-to-month variations in natural CO2 sources and sinks seen in Fig. 2, it would be difficult to see a downturn in the anthropogenic source of CO2 unless it was very large (say, over 50%) and prolonged (say over a year or longer).

Instead, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that the global economic slowdown this year due to the spread of the novel coronavirus will amount to only about an 11% reduction in global CO2 emissions. This is simply too small of a decrease in CO2 emissions to show up against a background of considerable monthly and yearly natural variability in the atmospheric CO2 budget.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (97 votes cast)
Humans do Ultimate Paris Lockdown, CO2 hits record high anyway, 9.4 out of 10 based on 97 ratings

214 comments to Humans do Ultimate Paris Lockdown, CO2 hits record high anyway

  • #
    James Murphy

    It’s funny how “positive” actions we take now are never quite enough to have any measurable impact, while any “negative” actions instantly kill polar bears and melt icecaps.
    Sisyphus must be having a good old laugh while he chases his boulder down the hill.

    Someone will blame the Australian bushfires…

    640

  • #

    Burning fossil fuel fuses carbon to O2.

    If there was ZERO natural warming, ~ 12 / 44th of the CO2 would go into oceans and land surface. The atmosphere only has enough energy to hold a certain amount of mass. Because CO2 weighs 44g / mol, and O2 32g / mol, the excess mass can not be maintained.

    CO2 ppm will continue to go up, because O2 goes down.

    We don’t have zero natural warming, we have geothermal warming and insolation-through-less-clouds warming.

    http://phzoe.com/2020/03/11/40-years-of-climate-change/

    Because of this more CO2 can freely exit the land and oceans.

    Correlationists then claim temperature rise due to CO2 rise, when causation is actually in reverse.

    365

    • #

      CO2 ppm will continue to go up, because O2 goes down.

      No, CO2 ppm is going up as a warmer ocean outgasses more.

      https://i.postimg.cc/MGtX0bmx/CO2-v-SST.jpg

      40

      • #

        Yes, indeed. The ocean is warmer for the reasons I stated.

        This doesn’t negate what I said.

        If we fused carbon to the ~20% of our atmosphere that is oxygen, we would have 200,000 ppm CO2 and 0 ppm oxygen. Correct?

        20

        • #
          Murray Shaw

          Would you not have to cease the Carbon cycle to achieve this. Would not the plant life explode with growth and Oxygen emissions as the level of CO2 rose.
          The Carbon cycle is ultimately in perpetual motion, and seeks its own balance. Are we not, at 417ppm still in the very low of historical levels, with levels as high as 4000ppm CO2 in the past million years. Why were those levels achieved without the assistance Om human activity?

          70

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Additionally,
          if we all layed down on our beach towels sunbaking, we would all be laying down.

          Later, if we got up, we would no longer be laying down.

          It’s intuitively obvious, as my thermodynamics teacher used to say.

          KK

          11

        • #

          You have absolutely no data for ‘geothermal warming’ in spite of your many assertions.

          You have no understanding of how TSI/insolation warm/cool the ocean and change the climate.

          You have no explanation for your thermal model of the crust.

          What you do have is GIGO.

          30

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Bob, anybody who has done a basic high school science course would know that geothermal warming is real at Earth’s surface. Unfortunately our instructor here has linked it to some exotic theory of atmospheric temperature balance.

            Then things get complicated, or weird.

            It essentially a small constant but it has become her guiding mission to educate everyone on the science of inner heat.

            30

          • #
            sophocles

            You have absolutely no data for ‘geothermal warming’

            Neither have you, to be able to just write her statement off.

            Bob: she’s right. Go check. Do your research first.

            There are many (hundreds) submarine (and aerial) volcanoes all along the Pacific plate edge. The seas off NZ have been unusually warm from both sunshine and geothermal activity for the last four or five years. There’s not so much round Australia but it gets pretty lively through Melanesia and Indonesia to the north. Krakatau is busy …

            That’s just the south west Pacific. Don’t automatically close your eyes and ears: start checking. (Oregon State Uni might be a good place to start looking.)
            Mt Ajax (off the west coast of the USA) has also been rumbling: the Warm Blob in the NE Pacific a couple of years ago was it’s contribution.

            You just have to ask the USNavy about Pacific submarine volcanoes. I think they’re still embarrassed about the USS San Fransisco and it’s 2005 encounter on its way from Guam to Australia. Fortunately, the sea mount wasn’t erupting at the time … ) :-D

            We all notice when one of the aerial ones clears it’s throat. For each aerial one there are probably a hundred or more (huge) submarine volcanoes — especially around the Pacific plate edge.

            40

          • #

            There are no measurements from the ocean floor that indicates OHC associated with ‘global warming’ came from the ocean floor.

            You have nothing. N O T H I N G! You have nothing but wishful thinking. Notice I didn’t say geothermal hydro-venting wasn’t real.
            -
            Some people seem to think I’m unaware of the fact that there are geothermal vents on the ocean floor. I know they exist, I tracked one.

            But, no one has any hard data about long-term changes in such venting to make any claims regarding geothermal forcing as dominate.

            Therefore Zoe Phin makes unsubstantiated assertions based on an incomplete model and insufficient data, just like CO2 theorists.

            It’s more like ignorance in, bold stupid assertions out.

            30

            • #

              Bob,
              Did you know that heated water becomes less dense and convects up? Why would you find it at the ocean floor?

              00

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                What’s the point?

                Please, we are all eager to learn.

                Tell us.

                KK

                00

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Bob, please, don’t ask Zoe to do the impossible.

                Just a simple experiment.

                The average human pumps out about 25 Watts at rest. Assuming there’s about 8,000,000,000 people on Earth’s surface the wattage from humans alone, let’s leave the animals and plant life for the moment, is about 200,000,000,000 Watts. Is that 200 billion watts.
                Zoe has not factored this in to whatever she’s doing.

                Every human has a skin surface area of say one square metre. This makes the average persons skin feel warm at 25 Watts per square metre.

                The core thermal transfer to the atmosphere is 0.09 Watts per square metre.

                Who wins Zoes heat race; humans, or the core.

                It’s all too complicated.

                KK

                00

          • #

            Bob,
            I measured net solar and compared it to upwelling + latent heat + sensible heat.

            Net solar doesn’t explain the changes to the surface temperature.

            You can believe the difference came from magic gases all you want, and I will just assume it came from below.

            How do you feel about lunar warming 2-3 degrees over a decade, when insolation didn’t change?

            http://phzoe.com/2020/04/12/lunar-warming/

            00

            • #

              Zoe, the ocean surface temp would be set by both heating from below and also from changes in cloud cover above. The question is “how much”. To make it especially hard to unravel, we not only have very little data but overriding everything are changes in wind patterns and currents that stir those surface waters (which change the SST) — both of which, to some extent, are driven themselves by cloud cover changes or by geothermal flux changes. Also currents and wind patterns themselves affect cloud cover and on it goes. Chickens and eggs everywhere and simultaneously.

              I’m very interested in the heat leaking out from the big ball of lava, but I would love some data.

              40

              • #

                Jo,
                I have a whole blog that has the data and the proper interpretation of it.

                But first a simple question for you:

                https://photos-eu.bazaarvoice.com/photo/2/cGhvdG86ZmxpcnN5c3RlbXM/2ec38f12-af93-5f46-9f55-bca22f504f3e

                What is the heat flux of just the water in this pot (bottom to top)?

                22

              • #

                “I’m very interested in the heat leaking out from the big ball of lava, but I would love some data.”

                It’s here:
                http://phzoe.com/2020/03/13/geothermal-animated/

                21

              • #
                Bill In Oz

                That animated map leaves out the Antarctic.
                Why ?

                10

              • #

                Bill, there is NO map. You can see shorelines due to large data constrasts. Imagination is necessary.

                Antarctica is purple at the bottom.

                20

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Hi Jo,

                To begin any analysis of the region Zoe is talking about it’s important to outline the controlling parameters.

                Just as a starter:

                Earth’s core of remnant energy is close enough to being at 6,000 °C.

                Next principal boundary is Earth’s surface and oceans which vary in temperature from minus 45 to plus 45 °C very roughly.

                Then we go to the upper atmosphere, say 11,000 metres altitude where the temperature is minus 38°C.

                After this we can look at space just outside of our atmosphere where a temperature equivalent could be stated as about minus 270.2°C.

                The core energy manifests itself at the surface as a constant average energy flow of 0.09 watts per square metre.

                Just what the intent of the analysis is I don’t know.

                But whatever it is, this is the starting point.

                KK

                02

              • #

                Jo,
                The reason I brought up the pot of water was to demonstrate the flaw in mainstream climate science (MCS).

                MCS would claim, by analogy, the top of the water temperature is set by radiation from the ceiling and backradiation from the GHGs.

                The conductive heat flux (CHF) through the water is ZERO, therefore “we can ignore” the stove.

                Should the stove warm up by one degree the top of the water will follow, CHF will still be zero and GHGs will take the credit for the warming.

                Usual skeptics might point out ceiling radiation changes or foggy steam chsnges, but they will agree with MCS that there is no stove.

                CHF = 0, and so the stove can be ignored. Even if CHF was 91 milliwatts, it is still ignored. But this measure is not meaningful. What is meaningful is the temperature deliveres by stove to the top of the water.

                I feel like the only sane person in a world gone mad.

                10

              • #
                Lucky

                Zoe #2.1.1.3.6
                Ocean temperatures depend on heat from Earth’s core as well as from sun:
                That argument makes sense to me, as a description.
                How would you put numbers into it? By showing that there is a substantial change in heat output of the core or by changes in venting perhaps. A big project for the makers of min-robot submarines.

                10

              • #

                Lucky,

                Geothermal + Net Solar = Upwelling Latent Heat + Sensible Heat

                The only shortcoming with my determination of geothermal, is that I can only see where it manifests at the surface. Not a problem for land, but a problem for the ocean. I can’t see the location of precise origin at the ocean bottom. It gets “washed away” to other areas by currents, and I only see where it rises to the surface.

                20

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      At this point 34 green ticks of approval for Zoe’s top comment.

      Amazing. Well done Zoe.

      http://joannenova.com.au/2020/06/humans-do-ultimate-paris-lockdown-co2-hits-record-high-anyway/#comment-2335990

      KK

      00

  • #
    td

    The latest figures from the New York Stock Exchange show that humans are irrelevant.

    173

    • #
      a happy little debunker

      The NYSE is an expression of economic confidence – rather than of human activity.
      However, like any self fulfilling prophecy increased economic confidence leads to increased human activity.

      The Corona virus response didn’t break Trump, Trump broke the Corona virus response!

      Cue the ‘resistance’ and their riots…

      42

    • #
      sophocles

      Mankind stopped emitting. The planet didn’t notice.
      If mankind got rid of mankind, the planet still won’t notice.
      Therefore the so-called Klimate Krisis is a farce — but we knew that anyway.
      Like everything else the Greens have come up with.

      40

    • #
      sophocles

      We’re also irreverent :-D

      30

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        Irreverent is good !
        There is far too much reverence slopping around
        From the acolytes of religions old & new.
        I was reading again this morning,
        Matt Ridley’s book THE EVOLUTION OF EVERYTHING
        And especially his chapter on the ‘Evolution of Religion’.
        It made me want to go & register a new church
        The EverLasting Holy Church of The Sacred Crop Circles”

        00

  • #
    Environment Skeptic

    This is my theory, and it is my theory that crappy Corona data is built on even more crappy Corona data (No Stephenson Screens are used) and is then be surgically botched on to fake carbon Dioxide molecules which then create a perfect vacuum so that in this perfect vacuum, the human mind will believe any equally vacuous data claims that are sucked into it, as it were. :)

    It is actually a disturbingly increasing trend in my opinion.

    213

    • #
      Environment Skeptic

      Cold in NT Darwin at the moment..Lack of CO2?
      https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=145.25,-24.10,1381/loc=131.133,-13.200

      From: https://www.eldersweather.com.au/news/531563
      “All states and territories had at least one location drop below 5.2 degrees on Monday morning, with the NT claiming the title of highest low temperature on the first morning of winter. This went to Yulara Airport near Uluru, with a minimum of 5.1 degrees.

      132

      • #

        Yes, here in the UK we must have had a lot of excess co2 in may causing very warm temperatures. Unfortunately the co2 must have suddenly dropped about 50ppm as so far in June it has been rather cold.

        120

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          It burns – yet is it CO2 or irony?

          Some noddy on the radio was breathlessly reading from a PR script – ‘hottest May on Earth EVER!’ – as I was looking at a UK website (netweather.tv) headline, Unseasonably cool… even mountain snow:

          “sleet and snow possible over higher parts of the Highlands”. Och aye Jimmy! “Temperatures rather disappointing for early June”. True that Willy! It’s also snowing on our Southern Alps as a cold blast roars up the country, with webcams showing snow halfway down the Remarkables, almost to lake level in Queenstown. Coronet Peak is reporting 20-40cm of new snow with a max temp today of -5°C.

          Thank you 417 ppm CO2 – more please!

          140

      • #
        Zigmaster

        It might be cold in NT at the moment but somehow the headlines in a few weeks time will report that the BOM will report that ” it was the hottest June evah!”

        60

  • #
    AndyG55

    What these drones see as a “disturbing trend” is in fact a boon for all life on Earth.

    Let us all hope that atmospheric CO2 continues to increase.

    Plants LUV CO2

    371

  • #
    Stephen Richards

    CO² scam has been proven so now we must look around for another human produced pollutant. Oh I know NOx. Yep, that’ll do. It’s only in parts per billion but hey the plebs and green t- shirts won’t know that

    261

    • #
      David Wojick

      We did NOx 20 years ago. One of the first fake shots in the war on coal. But they can do it again of course.

      251

      • #
        tonyb

        What is the matter with you people! Don’t you realise the huge danger you and your family are in every day from the deadly from dihydrogen monoxide molecule?

        “The dihydrogen monoxide parody involves calling water by an unfamiliar chemical name, most often “dihydrogen monoxide” (DHMO), and listing some of water’s well-known effects in a particularly alarming manner, such as accelerating corrosion and causing suffocation. The parody often calls for dihydrogen monoxide to be banned, regulated, or labeled as dangerous. It plays into chemophobia and demonstrates how a lack of scientific literacy and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears. The parody has been used with other chemical names such as hydrogen hydroxide and dihydrogen oxide.”

        150

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    “Despite the Ultra-Revolutionary-Carbon-Reduction-Program far beyond anything the UN has every dreamed of, Global CO2 hit 417ppm.”

    The dream is realised …

    5 November 2013: “The only way that a 2015 agreement can achieve a 2-degree goal is to shut down the whole global economy.”
    - Yvo de Boer, who was UNFCCC executive secretary in 2009

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PSPqp5opk1gJ:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-04/kyoto-veterans-say-global-warming-goal-slipping-away+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    100

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yup…Inter Planetary Climate Clowns got it wrong…again….

      It’s a bit like the massive joke that *is* socialism….no one has every done it “right” apparently, which is why it keeps failing….like IPCC models….

      51

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Why it was called a “carbon” tax when the CO2 molecule has twice as much oxygen as carbon?

    It should be called an oxygen tax.

    300

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    It does show the scale of human emissions when you see only an 11% reduction. Mind you, last month, and in Australia, was cooler than average, so maybe it did have an effect.

    632

    • #
      AndyG55

      You have ZERO EVIDENCE that CO2 has any affect on climate.

      Stop making childish anti-science comments that you know you cannot support with empirical science..

      Great to see that you think the Globe is cooling.

      Even though CO2 is still increasing at the same rate, UNAFFECTED by a huge drop in human emissions.

      392

      • #
        Strop

        Andy, to be fair to AGWers there’s not zero evidence. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore does have some ability to warm the globe to some extent. There’s evidence that the influence is minimal, but it doesn’t mean zero evidence of the other.

        There hasn’t been a “huge drop in human emissions”. Estimates are of around 11%, with a short drop of 20% for maybe one month. Still not huge and that means still 80% emissions so the total CO2% was going to increase as it was still greater than estimated natural sinks. I’m not familiar with northern hemisphere horticulture, but I expect through April deciduous vegetation is still sparse while southern hemisphere deciduous vegetation is becoming sparse. Perhaps a period of less uptake of CO2.

        511

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘ … does have some ability to warm the globe to some extent.’

          So sayeth a lukewarmer. No offence, but surely the hiatus has falsified AGW theory?

          81

          • #
            Strop

            Hi el gordo. My comment above doesn’t state and shouldn’t imply a position. I’m just saying there is at least some evidence. Just like there’s counter evidence, such as the “hiatus” you refer to.
            I would argue that AGWer’s conclusions are wrong on the whole of the evidence. Just saying there’s not “no evidence”.
            Playing devil’s advocate, I would suggest a hiatus doesn’t disprove AGW. But yes, it casts doubt on the AGW theory. CO2 isn’t the only factor is an overall system of climate that is to a degree poorly understood. There might have been a factor that was equally cooling to CO2 warming.

            45

        • #
          AndyG55

          “therefore does have some ability to warm the globe to some extent.”

          NO.

          That is just an anti-science theory based purely on conjecture.

          Warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

          131

        • #
          AndyG55

          There has been a huge drop in CO2 emission amounts..

          … or are you saying that total human emissions are tiny anyway. ;-)

          81

          • #
            Strop

            Maybe we need to clarify what “huge” is.

            The estimated drop in emissions (Jo’s info above) is 17%.
            Other reports indicate some places have had daily drops of 26%.

            Referring to Roy Spencer’s article he had noted an 11% drop, but I’m not clear on whether that’s what the annualised prediction is. Rather than a peak drop on any day. I think it’s annualised. He also has a CO2 model which suggests we’d need a 43% drop to reach a point of where we’re not being a nett contributor if CO2 to the atmosphere. That sinks are taking up 57% of our emissions. (If I’ve interpreted his article correctly).

            So I’m thinking a drop of somewhere between 11% and 26% (various estimates) is not a “huge” drop. Particularly in the context we supposedly need a 43% drop to stop increasing CO2 and to stop the Mauna Loa figures from increasing. If we’re responsible for them increasing.

            If you have estimate figures that show the drop is likely X% then we can agree or disagree “huge” on some numerical level. But if your “huge” comment was simply your impression based on the roads are quieter in your suburb then where not likely to resolve a difference of definition of “huge”.

            57

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              A pointless discussion, because it’s not a discussion but chronic Verbalism.

              That says something about why you are commenting here.

              61

              • #
                Strop

                Yes KK, I agree that it was pointless. Not for the reason you suggest though. It was only pointless because of the way it was received.

                I provided some figures and context, which were relevant.

                You’re implying something with your comment about my reason for posting. It’s a bit too vague for me so please explain what you think my reason is.

                22

            • #
              sophocles

              Human emissions of CO2 are only 4% of overall CO2 emissions, if that.

              It’s why our shutdowns for covid seemed so ineffectual. We are ineffectual.

              30

          • #
            AndyG55

            So you ARE saying that the amount of human released CO2 is small and irrelevant and has no measurable affect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

            Well done !

            You are finally getting there. :-)

            81

            • #
              Strop

              “You are finally getting there” is a bit condescending. Particularly as I haven’t changed anything in what I’ve been saying.
              I maintain that the drop in our CO2 emissions as a result of covid-19 is not “huge”. I gave some percentages per Jo’s info etc and suggested you might like to give your % figure.
              At this point you can:
              a) say you agree with the estimates above and that you think they qualify as “huge” (in which case it’s just simply that you and I have a different opinion of “huge”, c’est la vie)
              b) note the estimates above and say “yeah, maybe huge was an overstatement”
              c) nominate your % figure for reduced emissions (I can then say, oh, they’re that high. That is huge.)
              d) admit you went with “huge” as a hunch and that it was not based on any actual figure

              35

              • #
                AndyG55

                So 10%-20% of human emissions is not a HUGE amount. ?

                Ok. I can live with that. ;-)

                Drop in the bucket.. immeasurable effect…

                Thanks again for confirming that the drop in human CO2 emissions, FAR MORE than could be achieved by any implementation of wind or solar…

                … has had no effect on the NATURAL rise of atmospheric CO2.

                See.. you are learning.

                81

              • #
                Strop

                Thanks again for confirming that the drop in human CO2 emissions, FAR MORE than could be achieved by any implementation of wind or solar…

                … has had no effect on the NATURAL rise of atmospheric CO2.

                See.. you are learning.

                That’s all your commentary/interpretation of our discussion, and seems to be you’re implying I had a different opinion to you on that and have now come around. Funny thing is we weren’t even discussing those aspects and surely I can disagree with a statement of “huge drop” or “no evidence” without implying that I think we’re causing warming, or our co2 emissions are significant, or that you and I disagree on anything else not being discussed.

                Cheers.

                44

              • #
                AndyG55

                If you disagree with the “no evidence” statement, it is up to you to produce said evidence.

                Maybe you still have more to learn. ;-)

                But it seems we both agree that human CO2 is insignificant in the scheme of climate things.

                91

              • #
                JanEarth

                Strop

                You are on a path to nowhere…Andy is incapable of reason. His idea of arguing is him sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling liar liar pants on fire…then he runs around yelling ” I won “… even if you agree with him.

                C’est la vie indeed.

                413

              • #
                robert rosicka

                All anyone has to do to silence Andy is show him the proof that CO2 is changing the climate through heating the earth .
                Now that’s the sort of proof I started looking for years back but all I can find is theories, models and a 97% consensus meme .
                Sure plenty have come up with a few ideas but none have held up to scrutiny.
                And if TDEF was around he would also be asking the same question but possibly adding more why it can’t .

                Footnote where is TDEF ? Hope he is ok .

                100

              • #
                Annie

                RR…I was also wondering where TdeF had got to.

                40

              • #
                Bill In Oz

                And WXCycles ?

                33

              • #
                AndyG55

                Jan still hasn’t learnt either.

                Oh dear. !

                She still thinks science is done by ranting, not by evidence.

                51

              • #
                AndyG55

                Evidence…. You know, Like scientific papers.. not models

                “We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8)

                7) happens to be “CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2″

                This paper looks at the phase relationship between CO2 emissions, changes, and temperature…

                And found CO2 is tracking temperature, not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

                00

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘ … still greater than estimated natural sinks.’

          Objection your honour, a recent paper suggests that Gaia works in mysterious ways.

          ‘This percentage of CO2 taken up by the oceans has remained relatively stable compared to the preceding 200 years, but the absolute quantity has increased substantially. This is because as long as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises, the oceanic sink strengthens more or less proportionally: the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more is absorbed by the oceans — until it becomes eventually saturated.’ Science Daily

          70

          • #
            Strop

            What I said above does not contradict that and vice versa. Oceans increasing its CO2 take up as CO2 increases in the atmosphere is not negated by my nett sink comment.

            35

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘ … we supposedly need a 43% drop to stop increasing CO2 …’

              Okay, I’ll ponder that.

              50

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘According to the WMO, since 1990, there has been a 43% increase in total radiative forcing (the warming effect on the climate) by long-lived GHGs. CO2 accounts for around 80% of this, according to figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, quoted in the WMO bulletin.’ Bioenergy Insight

              The increase in total radiative forcing is intriguing, you imagine a buildup of GHGs is a player. Perhaps the sun was more active.

              40

              • #
                Strop

                My reference to 43% was referencing a basic CO2 model Roy Spencer produced. See his article linked in Jo’s post. I referenced it to give context to what might be considered “huge”, in that a cut that is greater than our supposed nett contribution to atmospheric CO2 above sinks might be a point of reference for huge. It’s also relevant to the overall discussion about why we have apparently continued to see higher CO2 numbers from Mauna Loa.
                Not sure if a coincidence that you’ve found a 43% radiative forcing figure, while you were contemplating Roy’s 43%. The two 43% are different topics or percentages of measurements of completely different entities.

                As for CO2 being a player or whether it was the sun being more active. I quite liked an alternate possibility suggested in one of Jo’s blog posts which suggested less cloud cover was a possible cause. (4% less cover from memory).

                23

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘ … less cloud cover was a possible cause.’

                That makes sense, a quiet sun increases low cloud cover. Something to do with cosmic ray bombardment and if you’re interested, Svensmark and CERN is worth following up.

                Roy is a lukewarmer so I won’t hang around splitting hairs over the origin of 43%, suffice to say it has nothing at all to do with humanity.

                30

              • #
                Strop

                Yes, I’m quite familiar with the Svensmark stuff.

                As for splitting hairs. The two 43% are measurements of two completely different things. The source isn’t the issue. It’s that they mean different things despite having the same number.

                If you didn’t read Roy’s article then so be it. If you dismiss Roy’s stuff then I hope that’s because you read it and see where it’s wrong and not just dismiss it because you classify Roy as a “lukewarmer”.

                Found that cloud cover article by Jo. No doubt you’re familiar with it, but linking it just in case.
                http://joannenova.com.au/2019/11/new-study-settles-it-global-warming-and-the-pause-was-driven-by-changes-in-cloud-cover-not-co2/

                22

            • #
              el gordo

              A warmer sun would naturally generate more CO2, nought to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

              https://www.mpg.de/research/sun-activity-high

              60

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Conversely it could be viewed as an immediate offshoot of the increase in ocean volume over the last four years that has resulted from global warming melting both ice caps and the attendant diminution of glaciers.
              A six month survey done in 2019 found that there were no glaciers remaining in Thailand.
              The increased ocean volume has the potential to absorb more atmospheric CO2 and scientists have begun to speculate that melting the polar caps may in fact bring about a reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels and remove the problem.
              Certainly an interesting concept awaiting disconfirmation at the 97% level of confidence.

              KK

              41

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Hi Strip, I know how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere.

          But there are factors

          21

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Sorry, Strop.

            The process outline is:

            a. Solar UV incoming is absorbed by ground and water and whatever else is there.

            b. The degraded UV is turned around and moves from ground upwards as IR and is absorbed by water predominantly, natural origin CO2 and a small amount by human origin CO2.

            c. All of this “absorbed energy” is sorted in the first 10 metres or so above ground level and after that convection can occur with the warmed air rising.

            d. From there all the way up to about 14 km the air behaves as a coherent gas with possibly a bit of rain.
            At the critical altitude CO2 is able to give off energy which heads to space.

            e. The cooler air can then descend.

            The important thing is that CO2 is part of the larger air mass which is so much greater in thermodynamic relevance than the small component of CO2.

            KK

            100

            • #
              AndyG55

              And that is why there will never be any measured warming from atmospheric CO2. :-)

              All proven by the Connelly father/son combination using something like 2 million balloon data points.

              90

            • #
              Strop

              Funny thing is Keith, nothing you have written here disputes, supports, or adds to anything I have written above. Yet you described a post above as pointless and chronic verbalism.

              34

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Strop,

                It’s an unusual situation where the comments a person makes has no effect on the amount of useful discussion. To put that in a positive context, scientifically, it could be taken to a laboratory equipped with the necessary sound monitoring scanners capable of detect horrea in its most pungent form. Horrea, on its own, is usually innocuous but if multiples of two of these molecules combine it produces the “di” variant which can be explosive. Commonly known as “diahorrea” it is rare but could possibly be on the increase. Once started it’s hard to stop until all the Verbalism is eliminated from the system. There’s absolutely no connection between the blogg clogging comments that are so frequently found here and the issue of increasing horrea levels.

                All the best.

                And please wash your hands as you leave.

                41

              • #
                James Poulos

                Strop… what an appropriate identifier.

                40

              • #
                Strop

                At least I’ve been trying Keith. It’s not my fault that a couple of commenters imply things I’m not even discussing, or that you write paragraphs doing exactly what you’re accusing me of.

                I’ll give it a go again.

                Jo posted a piece about reduced emissions during covid-19 lockdowns and how reduced CO2 is not reflected in the Mauna Loa measurements.
                Andy said we’ve had “huge” reductions in emissions during the lockdown and was suggesting that this means our emissions are not a factor.

                My contention was that it’s not correct to say “huge” reductions when looking at the figures Jo posted and the CO2 model Roy Spencer produced (linked by Jo). I contend that because our emissions cuts during lockdown are still comfortably above the cut required to stop our adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

                Why did I bother offering that perspective. Because to my thinking the information was being misinterpreted and used to draw a conclusion I didn’t agree with. I offered data to support that.

                I don’t disagree with the position that CO2 is not the driver of climate change. But surely I’m allowed to validly point out the information in the blog story doesn’t support the comment that followed. I do so not to unravel any objection to CO2 being a climate driver. But to hopefully help keep arguments against CO2 being our enemy logical and factual. I think both sides of the climate debate should use factual or logical commentary. Including those who on the whole I agree with.
                Granted the numbers in Jo’s post are estimates and Roy’s model is just a model. But it’s based on more than a sense of what’s huge and some basis for a reasonable discussion.

                If the responses had been “the estimated figures in Jo’s article and Roy’s article are wrong because of X, and Roy’s model is wrong because of Y, then great. I can be corrected.

                But all I got back was stuff that Mostly didn’t relate to the point, no opposing data, and also you telling me that I’m not contributing to the discussion and that I’m all verbalism. Ironically you’ve used lengthy posts to do that.

                Unfortunately you’ve now drawn me into having to do a lengthy post. Hope it was worth me writing it and you reading it. That it clears things up a bit.

                32

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                And Strop says;

                “That it clears things up a bit.”

                Absolute confirmation.

                You don’t intend contributing usefully.

                You’re a blogg clogger.

                But Jane Arth supports you though; maybe you could set up your own blogg together.

                32

              • #
                Bill In Oz

                Strop at this time of hyper vigilance by some skeptics here
                Such subtle distinctions are considered to be of no significance.

                And by the way, KISS is important:
                The global & economic social lock downs of the past few months reduced CO2 output by a huge amount.
                That’s a fact.
                But Mauna Loa Observatory measurements of CO2 showed a continuing increase in Atmospheric CO2.
                That’s fact.

                Clearly humanity has very bloody little impact on the level of global atmospheric CO2.
                I’m sure you agree.

                22

              • #
                Strop

                Thanks for the advice Bill.

                To keep it simple, what was the cut in emissions caused by covid-19 lockdowns? Do you have a figure or is “huge” the official measurement?

                Did you read Roy Spencer’s article on why we’re not likely to see it showing up much in the Mauna Loa measurements?

                I’m basing my comments on his CO2 model and the cut in emissions figures in Jo’s and Roy’s articles. These suggest the cuts aren’t sufficient to stop a nett contribution to atmospheric CO2. If those numbers and model are wrong then feel free to offer the alternative. If facts and figures show my comments are wrong then great.

                So far the critics of my comments are not offering alternate figures to support the criticism. Instead they’re getting personal.

                34

              • #
                AndyG55

                Anyone who thinks a 10-20% reduction in emissions is NOT a huge amount, needs to actually look at the numbers.

                If it was an increase the alarmists would be screaming from the rooftops. !

                30

    • #
      James Poulos

      By your own acknowledgment – if it had an effect over 2 months then where is the existential crisis from climate change?

      190

    • #
      AndyG55

      Seems that the highly beneficial rise in atmospheric CO2 is nearly totally NATURAL.

      That is what the science and the response to the huge drop in human released CO2 is showing us.

      Wouldn’t you agree.

      Or would you continue to DENY the maths and the science, and just rely on your fantasies.

      170

      • #
        WXcycles

        We already knew the human contribution was only ~3.75% per year, so not really surprising that a drop in human energy consumption led to almost no difference in CO2 output, the natural environment does 96.25% of the annual CO2 production rise. Apparently the Gaia is the main culprit … what to do? … what to do?

        How about nothing?

        133

    • #
      AndyG55

      Current grid supply

      NSW wind and solar ZERO%

      Vic wind and solar ZERO%

      SA wind and solar ZERO%

      Qld wind managing 2%

      THANK GOODNESS for FOSSIL FUELS. !

      562

      • #
        TedM

        I’ve been watching that on the Nemwatch Widget since Friday afternoon, and am waiting for “Tony from Oz” to post on it.

        82

      • #
        PeterS

        So how big do the batteries have to be if we continue the emissions reduction madness regardless of whether LNP or ALP are in government? Of course it would not be possible to continue down that road indefinitely because the cost would be in the hundreds of billions, both in terms of the amount of solar and wind farms required, and the size of the batteries. Needless to say there is a solution that ought to satisfy both camps; nuclear power. Unfortunately, there is still too much scaremongering there so neither party will do it. So, the obvious choice is to stick to coal as the primary source of power for the grid for the foreseeable future. Time to make that a national security issue, which it is anyway, and legislate that coal must be used as the primary source for power, and that any state not complying will have their share of the GST cut significantly until they do something to rectify the imbalance. Of course, PM Morrison is gutless and would not even consider going down that road, or something similar. As a result we will continue to stumble along until something extraordinarily nasty happens, as if things are not already nasty.

        91

        • #
          Robdel

          No need for something truly extraordinary. Just no more electricity for about a week. That will do it.

          40

          • #
            PeterS

            It might but I think it would require several such episodes to get through the think heads of so many voters.

            40

        • #
          Serp

          Brilliant PeterS, the GST thing; necessarily the RET legislation will be repealed and references to decarbonization excised from all policy documents and we won’t need an AEMO or a CEFC and all the other parasites on the renewables host. The sunlit uplands beckon…

          10

      • #
        • #
          yarpos

          I wonder in how many other walks of life we would consider not using an affordable , reliable system in favour of an intermittent, unreliable system only held up by government subsidies and $ shell games. Seems what no sane person would normally do becomes the preferred model when it comes to so called RE and EVs.

          90

      • #
        ivan

        Andy, it is better to consider it as Concentrated Biomass rather than fossil fuel being used in the remaining coal fired power plants.

        100

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        CBM.
        :-)

        11

    • #
      Peter

      Australia has been colder for about 4 months.

      92

      • #
        dinn, rob

        D-Day coming in; million expected to visit D.C.; we-ll probably burn some fossil fuel this weekend.

        40

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Mostly east coast? In the west we seem to be enjoying the warmer winters that, along with the cooler and more humid summers, have been a notable feature of the last three years. Currently no need to turn on any heating in Perth.

        30

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘ …. last month, and in Australia, was cooler than average …. ‘

      CO2 has no impact on temperatures, but precipitation is another matter.

      http://www.co2science.org/articles/V23/may/a10.php

      23

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      So, None of you can distinguish between weather, 1 month of cooler than average temperatures vs climate, continued rises in temperatures year after year.

      None of you are able to explain why the observed temperature rises over the last 100 years is completely natural, none of you can admit that combusting fossil carbon will have any effect on anything, and none of you can quote anything other than the former tobacco lobby and now anti climate change Heartland Institute, which is nice for you, but proves you are being duped.

      620

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        Fitz, so many people have already done so for years.
        And you’ ignore all of them
        I doubt anybody will bother this time.
        Your demand is just more time wasting grand standing.

        133

        • #
          Evidence Please

          Bill, I think Peter means peer reviewed stuff, that’s how science works.
          He’s shoved evidence at you from all the major scientific bodies only to get conspiracy theories in response.

          310

          • #
            AndyG55

            Yet he cannot produce ANY that contains actual real evidence

            Just like you, he remains EVIDENCE-FREE

            You remain clueless how real science actually works, having never seen any.

            102

            • #
              Evidence Please

              I’ve just said the evidence has been shoved under nose for ages, please read .Hiding YOUR evidence in blog land ,thinking that’s how science progresses, is amateurish.

              210

              • #
                AndyG55

                And yet you STILL produce absolutely nothing..

                You really are living up to your EVIDENCE-FREE title.

                Do you realise how cognitively devoid you look !

                81

              • #
                sophocles

                Everything Fitzroy has produced supposedly as evidence has been papers on models, and about models. That’s not scientific evidence at all.

                Andy is right.

                30

          • #
            AndyG55

            “none of you can admit that combusting fossil carbon will have any effect on anything”

            “peer reviewed stuff”

            You mean the 1000′s of Peer-review papers with actual MEASUREMENTS of the massive benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 on plant life.

            Now, still waiting for that paper showing empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            100

          • #
            James Murphy

            In my experience as a scientist turned engineer, people who use the phrase ‘that’s how science works’ in relation to peer review are either ignorant, or wilfully ignorant on the topic.

            101

            • #
              Evidence Please

              James
              So what would you replace the scientific method with?
              Peer review replaced by public thumbsey review ?.

              35

              • #
                AndyG55

                You are welcome to produce some of your “peer-reviewed” science which has empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2

                Or you could just remain, as always, EVIDENCE-FREE.

                42

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Evidence Please:
            So you say the Sir Isaac Newton*, James Clerk Maxwell, Josef Stefan, Ludwig Boltzmann, Anders Ängstrom**, John Tindall, and Albert Einstein can be ignored as they weren’t peer reviewed. Neither was Charles Darwin of whom you may have heard.

            * He explained the effect of gravity WITHOUT invoking the CO2 level.

            **The Ängström unit is still used in the natural sciences and technology to express sizes of atoms, molecules, microscopic biological structures, and lengths of chemical bonds, arrangement of atoms in crystals, wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, and dimensions of integrated circuit parts. The atomic (covalent) radii of phosphorus, sulfur, and chlorine are about 1 ångström, while that of hydrogen is about 0.5 ångströms. Visible light has wavelengths in the range of 4000–7000 Å. ÄNGSTRÖM disagreed with Aarhenius.

            91

            • #
              Evidence Please

              G3
              All those guys’ works were upheld by subsequent investigation.
              The scientific method at work.

              The sceptics’ work ?, not upheld
              The scientific method at work.

              23

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                More horrea.

                31

              • #
                AndyG55

                Climate science….. empty

                You keep proving it by not producing any.

                You remain EVIDENCE-FREE, nothing unusual about that, is there.

                You don’t know what “science” is.

                41

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘ … temperature rises over the last 100 years is completely natural … ‘

        The MWP was warmer than this modern climate optimum. RWP was even hotter and going back to the Holocene Max there is evidence that CO2 does not cause global warming.

        You can’t skirt around paleo climate history and hope to graduate.

        120

      • #
        AndyG55

        And you can’t distinguish between FACT and fantasy.

        FACT there is no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming

        Anything else is FANTASY.

        What else could possibly cause
        the slight but highly beneficial warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years?

        61

      • #
        AndyG55

        “None of you are able to explain”

        And you are totally incapable of producing one skerrick of empirical evidence to back your continued FANTASY of warming by atmospheric CO2

        https://i.postimg.cc/9z3X4LYv/SolarActivityProxies.png

        https://i.postimg.cc/prm1bvG6/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif

        https://i.postimg.cc/qq4VtvSR/Soon-Connolly-2015-NH-Temps-and-TSI.jpg

        All TOTALLY NATURAL.

        131

      • #
        AndyG55

        Poor peter.. still stuck on the tobacco industry meme. PATHETIC.

        How about you actually produce some empirical evidence to back up your baseless conjecture of human force climate change.

        90

      • #
        AndyG55

        ” continued rises in temperatures year after year. “

        Again with the deliberate LIES and MISINFORMATION

        There was no warming from 1980-1997

        And no warming from 2001-2015

        Temperatures are now FALLING since the peak of the last major El Nino event, especially in the Arctic..

        61

        • #
          AndyG55

          Currently wind and solar combined can only manage 3% of electricity supply in Victoria,

          And wind is contributing absolutely ZERO in NSW

          Talk about a dead horse.

          This “renewables” non-energy farce has to stop !

          111

      • #
        yarpos

        Yes everyone esle is being duped but the BOMs constant adjustments to the past record, and consistent mismanagement of its own weather stations to its own standards, is completley justifed and beleivable. Yes your reality is clearly the only possible reality, I see it now.

        110

      • #
        James Poulos

        Peter Fitzroy,

        Because it is the null hypothesis with about 4 billion years of natural variation and geological evidence to back it up.

        Yet you claim 100 years of adjusted data proves otherwise.

        90

      • #
        Zigmaster

        The issue with the climate change / global warming argument caused by CO2 argument is onus of proof. So when someone claims a sceptic needs to show proof or evidence that the warming of the world is not caused by burning fossil fuels and not dangerous , I ask why?
        Up until the mid 90s before global warming theory became mainstream and part of the global political armoury essentially everyone was blissfully unaware that the climate was doing anything other than following a natural cycle that seemed to follow some trend that had evolved over eons. When it came to power generation everyone was happy with their circumstance. Developed countries had powered their economies with fossil fuels and virtually eliminated poverty whilst developing countries were hoping to emulate such evolutionary progress and do the same. The burning of fossil fuels was helping to achieve a global economic nirvana based on a modern capitalist system that even communist regimes were at least to a large part adopting. The reason that climate varied over time up or down was potentially a topic of discussion for academics but never a serious issue requiring political interference.
        The world was tracking forward to a period of unprecedented economic expansion with more people being lifted out of poverty and starvation than any other time in history.
        Then along came global warming theory which without a shred of evidence beyond a basic lab experiment projected that if we didn’t reduce CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels the world would warm dangerously and the world as we knew it would end. To prevent that we had to stop burning fossil fuels and decarbonise ( decarbondioxidise) or else the world would end as we know it. There was no proof or evidence, the only evidence being discredited over time and every prediction made being disproved as critical time lines came and went. Attempts to analyse historical data to bolster the attempted proofs needed to be rejigged to fit in the narrative. The evidence that increased CO2 emissions would cause runaway dangerous global warming and even if that part of the theory was accepted that we had the technical and practical solutions to do something about it, never amounted to more than pure speculation and even with dubious fiddling, moderation and adjustment has never quite fitted the theoretical expectation.
        This was so evident by around 2010 that the global warming theory had to morph into climate change on the basis that this would continue to provide reason for dramatic societal change.
        Wow! If global warming theory was struggling to find validation through corroborated real world evidence climate change evidence was even more opaque. The only evidence put forward to suggest a causal link between CO2 and climate change is commentary by so called experts who show floods , fires , hurricanes etc happening without any consistent evidence that these are more or less frequent and if they are that there is a causal link with CO2. They don’t even try to tie it to any lab experiment , they just say it is true because it is happening.So we are now 25-30 years down the road so that AGW believers have had plenty of time to have validated the cause and effect of their theories. It is well past the time to put up or shut up.

        It should not be up to sceptics to have to do anything. The court should rule the case against CO2 the plaintiff has not been proven not only beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities.

        90

    • #
      yarpos

      Following you other lecture/rant about weather vs climate, how can you claim an effect for something that cant even be measured at the global/climate scale?

      70

      • #
        AndyG55

        “rant about weather vs climate”

        And yet the next slightly warm day or warm summer he will be ranting all about “climate change” rather than weather

        I don’t think he realises just how much cognitive malfunctionality he radiates in his every post.

        81

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Finally, the contention of this article is that CO2 production should have had an effect on the global measurements, far larger than what was seen. Can you supply the modelling which supports this argument? I’m guessing not.

      516

      • #
        AndyG55

        It isn’t having ANY measurable effect whatsoever….

        The peak last year had no effect,

        The big dip in human emissions this year.. had no effect

        DATA, not models……

        What don’t you comprehend….. apart from basically everything.

        121

      • #
        AndyG55

        It is great to see you actually conceding that human released CO2 has no measurable affect on atmospheric CO2 changes. :-)

        Maybe you are finally waking up to reality !

        101

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        What modelling? Why can’t we rely on actual temperatures?

        Perhaps you should confound us sceptics by raising evidence that the Earth wasn”t warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (which, as we all know, was named by Tobacco conspirators before tobacco was in use anywhere). Perhaps you can point out anytime (30 or more year intervals please) between 10,000 years ago and 1855 A.D. when the temperature dropped despite the CO2 level remaining the same. Perhaps you would like to explain why glaciers in Austria/Italy and Norway are melting*
        and exposing ancient artefacts.
        You might also explain why the Milankovič cycles don’t explain the cuurrent warming**.

        *HINT Glaciers don’t melt if temperatures are dropping. Something to do with the Melting Point of Ice. (See also polar ice).
        ** HINT; the only cycle that results in an actual increase in incoming heat to the Earth is the Orbital Eccenticity (where the variation might result in (about) 6% extra energy reaching the Earth, but this is void because we are only (roughly) halfway through that cycle, and we have at least 40,000 years to go.

        70

    • #
      Murray Shaw

      But I hate cold weather Peter, it slows plant growth and will eventually lead to crop failure and widespread starvation, taken to its extreme.

      20

  • #
    Jerry

    The lack of evidence lockdowns actually worked is a world scandal
    There is still not a shred of real proof that the planet’s reckless stay-at-home experiment made any difference

    SHERELLE JACOBS
    DAILY TELEGRAPH COLUMNIST

    82

    • #
      PeterS

      Even if the lockdowns did help to some degree, we should have removed all restrictions by now. The recent and forthcoming protests on the use of excessive force by certain police officers (which by the way is still occurring elsewhere as shown by more recent news) exposes the hypocrisy of maintaining even partial lockdowns any longer.

      71

    • #
      RickWill

      Of course home quarantine was not required. Taiwan proved that:
      http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries&highlight=Taiwan&show=25&y=highlight&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7#countries
      Providing borders were closed early enough and there was a fast and effective contact tracing process, there was no need to home quarantine and next to zero economic impact.

      If borders were not closed early then home quarantine where possible was essential. Sweden and Brazil are beginning to provide the clear proof on the effectiveness of lockdown. Neither country has ordered home quarantine and both these countries have accelerating cases while most countries that home quarantined non-essential workers and those able to work from home now have much lower number of new cases and are beginning to ease quarantine restrictions:
      Sweden
      http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries&highlight=Sweden&show=25&y=highlight&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7#countries
      Brazil
      http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries&highlight=Brazil&show=25&y=highlight&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7#countries

      The USA was doing OK until riots commenced. There are signs tdaily cases are on the rise again.

      51

      • #
        MrGrimNasty

        Sweden deaths are clearly declining, Brazil looks pretty flat apart from a bad day or 2.

        Brazil has a low death rate/million compared to many countries (e.g. better than Canada).

        Sweden had 2 very specific problems – care homes and dense immigrant community housing, neither of which would have been significantly affected by a lockdown. The ‘architect’ of their policy says he would do the same again (although the MSM put a dishonest slant on the reporting of this to make it sound like he agreed he got it wrong/caused too many deaths – he didn’t) but with modifications to provisions around care homes and communication/enforcement of the immigrant community.

        The MSM has it in for right-wing Brazil, just as they do for Trump, and the same MSM desperately wants Sweden to fail.

        The excess deaths and suicides numbers caused by lockdowns are already beginning to mount up in the UK – some hospitals are dealing with more attempted suicides than CV19 cases, it’ll be a decade or more before the true slaughter caused by lockdowns becomes apparent. Remember, the vast majority of lives saved by lockdowns were actually lives extended by a few months – people who would have died shortly anyway. Crazy economic damage for hardly any gain.

        “We listened to scientists who relied on flawed models and thought only in narrow terms about deaths due to the virus.”

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8393269/DR-MAX-MIND-DOCTOR-Help-forgotten-victims-mental-illness-late.html

        And of course further into the future an economically devastated world will be far less able to save lives in famines, natural disasters etc.

        And on top of that, CV19 is still here, still a problem for the vast majority uninfected supposedly, whereas the infected will soon likely be susceptible again. Lockdown is a monumental disaster of a policy.

        62

  • #
    Jeremy

    The measured increase of CO2 says more than this – because the increase this year was virtually the same as last year. Spencer blames the absence of CO2 effect on variability. His interpretation is inconsistent with the IPCC, which claims that increasing CO2 is due entirely to man’s emissions of CO2. You can’t have it both ways. Either it is or it’s not.

    The numbers are now in and the results are damning. The increase of atmospheric CO2 during the COVID shutdown, when man‘s emissions of CO2 were sharply reduced, wasn’t just similar – it was almost *indistinguishable* from the CO2 increase in the preceding year, when man’s emissions of CO2 were much greater. See figures here:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2020/06/05/the-energy-202-how-carbon-levels-hit-a-record-high-even-as-emissions-fell-during-coronavirus-pandemic/5ed91ba688e0fa32f82327d2/

    Understanding what this shows doesn’t require rocket science. For CO2 to increase exactly the same in two years when man’s emissions of CO2 were quite different would be impossible – unless the CO2 increase wasn’t caused by man’s emissions.

    Dear ABC: Stick this in your pipe and smoke it.

    341

    • #
      yarpos

      The alarmist left can spin doctor anything away, so this annoying persistant CO2 level will be easily dealt with. These are the people that can talk about the non melting Artic (and even get stuck in it) and wring their hands over accelerated sea level rise that never accelerates. CO2 will only take a little mumbling and hand waving.

      181

  • #
    Ruairi

    The warmists are falling from grace,
    For accusing the whole human race,
    Of a high ‘carbon’ count,
    Though our puny amount,
    Leaves no recordable trace.

    181

    • #
      dinn, rob

      the cooling rain comes on apace
      to our carbon-based home in space;
      we make a big deal of big deals bloating
      and into the swamp sink or go floating

      70

  • #

    What gets me in all of this is the absolute sheer and utter cluelessness of the average person.

    In their 97% droves they all wring their hands and say that we just MUST reduce CO2, and they actually know where the bulk of it comes from, you know, cars and fossil fuelled power plants, both coal and natural gas.

    And yet in the 97% droves cluelessness, they cannot even see with their own eyes that the Governments that THEY (the 97% clueless droves) actually elect are doing ….. absolutely nothing to stop those cars and shut down those power plants immediately, IF this problem is as bad as they all keep telling us it is.

    I mean, just how long has this been going on, and just how long has nothing been done?

    Bread and circuses!

    Tony.

    221

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Tony, the current Australian government
      Publicly, for electoral purposes,
      Is a complete ‘Believer’ in Gore bull warming.
      But privately it is a complete agnostic.
      Thus it thus squatting on a barbed wire fence
      And wondering how to minimise it’s painful squatting.

      77

    • #
      PeterS

      Tony, we get the government we elect and hence deserve. That’s how our form of democracy works, or more to the point, doesn’t work at least some of the time. The buck stops with the voters. In stark contrast, in a dictatorship, such as China, the buck stops with the non-elected government. Given both major parties here are on the same bandwagon with regards to emissions reductions (no point talking about how they differ in degree – that’s like comparing two methods of sending a person to their death; the end result is still the same) voters have the option to voice their protest at the ballot box by voting for a minor party that doesn’t agree with the emissions reduction nonsense. That way we could end up with that minor party dictating terms and conditions to one of the majors in order to form government. The other option is for people to voice their opposition by the exact same technique used by the protesters against excessive force by police. Neither option appear to be taken seriously by the people. Hence, we get the government we deserve. Just as the issue on excessive force by police has been gradually exposed by significant events culminating in the recent action leading to protests all around the world, something similar will be necessary on the emission reductions front. A number of blackouts would provided such a catalyst. Until then we as a nation will continue to stumble around the issue.

      100

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘ … we get the government we elect and hence deserve.’

        And the people have chosen wisely.

        ‘Until then we as a nation will continue to stumble around the issue.’

        Our forefathers gave us the Senate to settle these thorny issues, people power is to be found amongst the unelected swill. As we speak the two party system is breaking down, the battle of labour against capital has become a thing of the past. What will take its place?

        50

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Well, Trump has answered that question by starting the crushing of the current communist attempted revolution in America.

          Can’t wait to see the money men behind the communist insurgency exposed and jailed…they could even face capital punishment.

          Interesting times…..

          82

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          el gordo:
          You are forgetting that when the Constitution was drawn up, and for many years thereafter, the majority of those elected had experience in the real world. There were engineers, military men, scientists, lawyers (a minority), shearers, train drivers etc.
          You might not have agreed with them but they often (except Eddie Ward) made sense. Now we have lawyers and politicians.

          Gresham’s Law: Bad Money drives out Good. (i.e. money of less intrinsic value is used where the more valuable is hoarded).
          El Gordo’s Law: Bad politicians drive out the good, and we are left with 2 short planks of Pyne.

          80

          • #
            Bill In Oz

            But Graeme at least Pyne is now departed
            With his huge golden handshake
            For more lucrative places to ply his wares.

            23

      • #
        yarpos

        I dont think we do get the government we deserve Peter.

        The missing link is an IQ test to be able to vote, drive and most importantly breed. Compulsory voting is also aproblem when half the population are really unable to understand or care about what is going on around them.

        64

        • #
          PeterS

          All true, hence we get the government we deserve. It’s more of an expression of reality resulting from our form of democracy rather than a statement of the root problem. A number of things have to be done to promote a better form of democracy, many who will object violently. The minimum age for voting for example ought to be increased not decreased.

          22

          • #
            Murray Shaw

            As Richo says, the mob will always work you out. Took two terms to finally rid ourselves of the RGR mob, but only because of the bitter and twisted Windsor and the easily led Oakshot siding with Gillard. That wasted three years but then the mob got behind Abbott in a landslide to make sure that did not happen for a second time. Then blow me down Turnbull raised his head for the second time, could you believe it, and the mob almost preferred BS, but we were saved by one Nats won seat from that ignominy, and the Libs saw the futility of persevering with MT and got rid of him for a second time, and again the mob rejected BS.
            Yeah, reckon the mob usually gets it right!

            10

    • #
      Mal

      Most people dont know they are a carbon based organism.
      They don’t know they breathe in 400 parts per million of co2 and breathe out 10,000parts per million of co2 as part of the biological process that keeps them alive
      The best way to see if they are prepared to take action against human co2 emissions is to see if they are prepared to stop breathing out!

      120

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        Mal, I playfully use that line of thought on my nieces (millennial wokees born & educated in the Land of Oz) whenever they bring up the ‘we have to take action NOW Uncle Greg!’ climate cuckoo call.

        Perhaps their classes on ‘political’ science, media and gender studies might have benefited from a lesson or two on biology or chemistry or geology – y’know, so-called ‘hard’ physical/tangible sciences. But what do I know, I’m just an old fella who breathes in, breathes out, breathe in, breathe out…

        (so many placards I’ve seen from around the world recently have the infamous woke-text, ‘I cant breath’, on them, d’oh!)

        40

    • #
      Richard Ilfeld

      Fraid it can’t be helped, Tony.
      Though denial of nature and how its assets self distribute is a consistent meme of the woke, the
      awful truth is that half of us are below an average level that, as you imply, is no great shakes to begin with.
      It’s never been a secret that a lot of folks are ripe to be lead, and often the loudest do the leading.
      Thus the classic problem of governance, where democracy is the worst system of government possible, except
      for all the others.
      The suggestion that it would take a couple of weeks without power, and an inability to turn the grid back on, to convince
      the masses that the people putting in alternative power were totally daft is probably not far from the mark.
      But please keep up the good work. You are getting through to some of us and providing good ammunition and backup to others.

      30

  • #
    a happy little debunker

    The new figures from the Mauna Loa Observatory show humans are irrelevant

    alternatively,

    Humans shown the new figures from the Mauna Loa Observatory are irrelevant

    102

    • #
      Murray Shaw

      Problem for Mauna Loa observatory is it is only 50Km from the perpetually erupting Kilauea volcano.
      Can you believe it!

      20

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        Please Murray !
        Don’t you mention that fact.
        It might upset St. Greta and her legion of children.

        00

  • #
    dinn, rob

    Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, speaks out
    We the NFL, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of Black People. We, the NFL, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest. We, the NFL, believe Black Lives Matter. #InspireChange https://twitter.com/NFL/status/1269034074552721408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1269034074552721408&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fnfl-condems-police-brutality-and-racism-says-it-was-wrong-not-listen-kneeling-players

    22

    • #
      Richard Ilfeld

      It was also wrong pretending that the athletes coddled into their professional careers as “students” were contributing to the progress of academia.
      It is wrong that siphoning off a billion dollars of public funds to build a stadium that is occupied virtually rent-free helps a community.
      Or that there is any semblance of morality in bribe-seeking nomadic owners….do St. Louis lives matter, or San Diego, or Oakland?
      The one thing that talks in America is capital. The NFL has created many black millionaires. Where is the effort to direct the stewardship of that capital?
      And if that’s ‘not the league’s responsibility’ then why is this?

      Well, at least it’s a welcome distraction. Almost every stadium is having to install solar panels and engage in other green silliness. A building I sometimes
      attend chose to install “waterless toilets”. The are busy on game days ( happens when you sell beer) and they are not an improvement.

      What do solar panels, waterless toilets, Climate change and Black Lives matter have in common? I’m glad you asked.

      Like African Americans, ordinary people are assumed by the progressive left to have no agency, thus be in need of the wisdom of the weird left to manage our lives.
      And the progressive cares as little about the real problem of black people as the do the real science of climate change, or, for that matter, the real impacts of the current pandemic. They care about the levers of power.

      Goodell doesn’t give a cr*p about anything but protecting his owners revenue streams and his own rather excessive compensation package.
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2017/12/07/how-roger-goodells-200-million-payday-compares-to-americas-top-ceos/#4a551a5a49cb

      Not my go-to guy on civil rights.

      41

  • #
    Maptram

    As it has been previously said on this site, Australia is a land of droughts, flooding rains and heatwaves. Newspaper articles going back 100 or more years refer to such events. So the climate is droughts, flooding rain and heat waves. So if the alarmists were correct and we all use power generated by solar panels and windmills, and drive electric vehicles so that the CO2 levels drop and the droughts, flooding rains and heatwaves stop, presumably they are replaced by average rainfall and average temperatures, so no droughts, flooding rains or heatwaves, that would be a change in the climate in many places. So what the alarmists demand, reducing CO2 output to stop climate change, could create climate change.

    100

    • #
      RickWill

      My understanding is that 350ppm CO2 is the perfect value. That is when climate is also perfect. Perfection is not constantly average; rather it is gently varying between seasons with enough steady wind to power the wind generators; enough sunshine to power the solar panels and just enough cloud to bring the occasional steady rains to farmland and gentle snow to the ski resorts. No heat waves, no firsts, no freezing unless at the poles, no droughts, no cyclones, no tornados, no hurricanes, no typhoons, no earthquakes, no volcanic eruptions, no tsunamis, only tiny hail. So a lot happens when the CO2 drops from the current dangerous level of 417ppm down to the perfect 350ppm.

      70

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        :-)

        But you forgot the Sarc/
        At the end Rick.

        25

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          Rick, thankfully no quakes nor volcanoes today (though it is only 4pm) yet the ‘gentle snow’ is still falling, causing vehicles to slide off roads, the closure of numerous highways & alpine passes, and sub-zero temps with even COLDER wind chill/apparent temps. Glad I’m up north in a pair of boardies & T-shirt!

          https://www.rnz.co.nz scroll down to ‘Snow falling in parts of Otago’.

          80

        • #
          Annie

          He didn’t need the sarc/…

          30

      • #
        Another Ian

        But that perfection is not reported in the newspapers etc of the time when the CO2 levels were that low.

        So how is it going to happen if we were to get them back to that low?

        50

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Such indeed is their mythical delusion.
      Their fairy tale for ‘adult’ children.
      That is why presenting the facts
      Of the BOM’s incompetence
      And the ABC’s propaganda is so important.

      46

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Major discrepancy here.
    Keeling/Scripps (my bolding):

    Daily emissions of CO2 were cut by an average of 17% worldwide in early April, but as COVID-19 lockdowns eased, the fall in emissions for the year as a whole is likely to be only between 4% and 7% compared to 2019.

    Spencer (my bolding):

    The point is that given the large month-to-month variations in natural CO2 sources and sinks seen in Fig. 2, it would be difficult to see a downturn in the anthropogenic source of CO2 unless it was very large (say, over 50%) and prolonged (say over a year or longer).

    Jo’s headline:

    The new figures from the Mauna Loa Observatory show humans are irrelevant

    This headline is not backed up by any source you have quoted, nor any other sentence you say, and it’s the opposite of what the facts and your quoted experts do say. (The industrial emissions are double the annual atmospheric increase.) Can you edit the fake news headline so it matches the facts please? Human activity is very relevant in the decadal trend of atmospheric CO2.
    Plus there is a lot of energy used early in the supply chain and a lot of value added relative to energy at the last step of the supply chain in retail, but it was the retail end which shut down leading to most of the economic impact, while all the energy for keeping industry running further back in the chain was mostly maintained. The epidemic response attacked the distribution primarily, not the production in the manner that Greens advocate.

    This was the sentence which more accurately conveys what you meant:

    It shows how all plans for carbon reduction known to mankind are futile.

    It’s mostly true because although nuclear is a successful low carbon alternative, nobody seems to have any major plans to use it. (The fission bogeyman still lurks in the shadows and the ITER fusion reactor is a science experiment not a power plant.)
    If we’re going to tell it how it is, we cannot conflate the reality of the carbon cycle with the economic value-add of retail or the feasibility of “green energy”, they’re very different things.

    61

  • #
    Environment Skeptic

    It’s mostly true because although nuclear is a successful low carbon alternative, nobody seems to have any major plans to use it. (The fission bogeyman still lurks in the shadows and the ITER fusion reactor is a science experiment not a power plant.)

    By far the greatest toxic dangers are the massive permanent tailings dams, the ultra toxic nature of the reprocessing, the megaloanthropic spent fuel pools (swamps)…. and so on….

    In short, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Paralyzingly obvious.

    When processing, reprocessing, tailings dams, and spent fuel swamps heavy metal precipitation etc are dialed into consideration, the nuclear option is the most polluting on earth.

    35

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Wow: Southern Sydney must be a death zone….there has been a nuclear reactor there for over 40 years.
      Admittedly a small one and mostly medical isotopes (very radioactive) are produced.

      You must be distressed that China, India, France and the UK (among others) want to increase nuclear capacity.
      I suggest you do some reading about nuclear. Try the Canadian CANDU reactors (as bought by several countries) which do not produce plutonium for bombs. (They can also use some thorium).
      Then, perhaps, look up the advantages claimed for Molten Salt Thorium reactors and their ability to ‘burn up’ radioactive by-products. Then, if you want to go further, try the Homogeneous reactors (around since the 1940′s but useless for nuclear bombs) such as Russia is trying as small scale (170MW) units. **
      And you have no idea what half life means. Something with a half-life of 250,000 years or more would be less reactive than your mobile phone.
      It is Paralyzingly obvious that you don’t know very much but believe the boogeyman is coming to get you.

      **(They have the advantage of not blowing up regardless of any control failure – USA trial in the early 1950s trying to make a bomb out of one. Their other advantage is that they can burn up a lot of nuclear waste).

      60

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      ES,
      CRAP.
      Geoff S

      30

  • #
    • #
      yarpos

      sure, how many kW at the wheels?

      30

    • #
      AndyG55

      LOL, it would help if they could get their units of density correct !

      Also, Platinum or Tungsten have around twice the density of Thorium, does that mean it will produce twice the power.. why aren’t we using it. ;-)

      Basically, I’m saying that the author is CLUELESS !!

      Fantasy from beginning to end.

      62

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Notice how it’s always 10 years away ?

        60

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          RR:

          What an improvement. Most “breakthroughs” used to be 30 years in the future, now it is only just after your money has disappeared.
          By the way, what has the density to do with the energy content? Does that mean that a hydrogen bomb is less powerful than an atom bomb?

          50

          • #
            robert rosicka

            Graeme with batteries or Thorium it’s always 10 years which is a bit like the pubs that advertise free beer tomorrow knowing tomorrow never comes .
            As for density the more tech you can make your idea sound the more suckers get conned into investing I suppose .
            Mind you I’m sure in a 100 years our energy will come from a different source than it does today but at the moment coal and oil are King until tomorrow.

            50

          • #
            AndyG55

            “what has the density to do with the energy content?”

            You would have to ask the writer of the article.

            He was the one using Thorium’s density as a purveyor of available energy,

            …. then getting the units wrong to boot.

            “Thorium has an insane density of 11.7 grams per cubic meter, which is why it’s actually able to store 20 million times more energy than coal.”

            The guy is a ignorant loon, living in a little fantasy!

            50

  • #
    R.B.

    People may be surprised to hear that the response to the coronavirus outbreak hasn’t done more to influence CO2 levels

    Nah. If the Greens came to power, the rate of CO2 rise using the Keeling method would still be determined by NH SST long after most of the population went back to living like in pre-IR times.

    If the oceans froze over, CO2 will still be going exponentially up because 9 out of the past 10 years have been the hottest eva.

    51

    • #
      AndyG55

      A 10-20% global reduction in CO2 emissions, has zero measurable affect on the increase of atmospheric CO2.

      Australia’s contribution to global CO2 emissions is around 1+%.

      ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we do in Australia will make one smidgen of difference to the steady beneficial rise in atmospheric CO2.

      21

  • #
    Crakar24

    What if find interesting is if co2 is the long lived gas (circa 1000 years) as we have been told then if all emissions ceased they should remain stable for that period ergo we cannot reduce co2 levels.

    Obviously the above was then as it is now a crock hence why the cult members like strop turn up trying to defend why they are still going up but even this position is impossible to defend. If our emissions are totally what is driving the rise then reduction MUST be seen in the data, as this is not apparent we now have to contend with simplistic models and linguistic gymnastics about the word “huge” as they fumble around trying to maintain their faith in a dying religion

    20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Holy shit. The corona virus won’t save us from climate change, And it took a scientist to tell us that.

    So much for science. Tell your children to study underwater basket waving instead of science. It will be in demand when the GBR dies and the world is sucked into to vortex where Australia used to be.

    30

  • #
    Howard Dewhirst

    But I thought human emissions alone were responsible for climate change – according to the IPCC. Does this mean that natural CO2 emissions dwarfs human emissions? And does that mean reducing our emissions to zero (which can’t happen as we live and breath) will not stop climate change?

    20

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Yes Howard. That’s exactly what it means.
      Better start practicing breath reduction
      So the CO is less
      And the planet can survive .
      Sarc/

      00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Dear Jo,

    You say,

    The new figures from the Mauna Loa Observatory show humans are irrelevant
    Despite the Ultra-Revolutionary-Carbon-Reduction-Program far beyond anything the UN has every dreamed of, Global CO2 hit 417ppm. This is a record high since humans discovered test tubes but the 300 millionth time since life on Earth evolved.

    It shows how all plans for carbon reduction known to mankind are futile. Obviously Ecoworriers want to take that failure and do more of it.

    Yes, but this is not news. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration does not correlate to emissions of CO2 from human activity (i.e. anthropogenic CO2).
    In some years almost all of the anthropgenic CO2 and in other years almost none of the anthropgenic CO2 seems to accumulate in the atmosphere.

    Part of the discrepancy results from imperfect accounting of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions; for example, some of the emission may be recorded late
    (a) so is absent from the record of the year of its release
    and
    (b) is added to the record of the following year.
    All such problems are overcome by applying a 3-year running mean to the annual data. However, application of a 5-year running mean is applied to the data to obtain an apparent correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and emissions of CO2 from human activity.

    Promoters of e.g. the Paris Accord apply a 5-year running mean to the annual data to obtain apparent correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and emissions of CO2 from human activity. This is a ‘fudge’ in support of their narrative because there is no known physical reason for such an ‘adjustment’.

    Assuming the Covid-19 lockdown lasts about a year and subsequent economic recovery takes about another year, then the existing standard ‘fudge’ (i.e. application of an unjustifiable 5-year running mean to the data series) will also ensure continuation of the apparent correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and emissions of CO2 from human activity. Simply, the ‘fudge’ will disguise the fact that “The new figures from the Mauna Loa Observatory show humans are irrelevant” to the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    In summation,
    promoters of e.g. the Paris Accord ‘cook the books’ to create an apparent correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and emissions of CO2 from human activity, and their recipe is sufficient to conceal the reality you report which is that “The new figures from the Mauna Loa Observatory show humans are irrelevant” to the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Richard

    10

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Mauna Loa sits on the side of huge bloody volcano spewing out CO2 all the time.
      Time to give Mauna Loa stats the big flick.

      00

  • #