« PIOMAS December 2016 | Main | Global warming 2016: Arctic spin »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Elisee Reclus

Rob Dekker --

Do I detect just a bit of skepticism? Good for you!

Bur careful, you may just be driven off by jeers and catcalls by our more zealous friends here. Either that, or be forced to endorse some lunatic, expensive, ill-conceived geoengineering scheme that may just make things worse, when we cannot even agree as a species on reasonable measures to make things better.

We are indeed in uncharted waters, no one really knows what is going to happen. We can see from the data that things are changing fast, and we also know that unexpected changes of state can occur unexpectedly, but we have also learned that the Earth possesses multiple moderating feedback mechanisms that tend to stability. Our experience is that the world does recover, and does remain hospitable for life. How fast or how soon is unknown, and even that it will happen again is not certain, but that is a valid data point nonetheless.

So why counsel sober analysis and reasonable discussion based on facts? Because if we don't we start making ridiculous and unfounded statements, like so many we have seen in this thread, that will only give those maliciously opposed to the whole idea of AGW the ammunition they need to marginalize and dismiss us altogether.

Remember after the 2012 Arctic ice extent crash how a researcher made a comment that by 2013 the summer ice would disappear? Well, it didn't, and even though catastrophic climate events have been plaguing the Arctic since then, a new summer record has not been set. Does this mean there is no climate emergency? Of course not, the low-ice record is broken about every 5 years on the average, but it does get broken with alarming, if unpredictable, regularity. The decline continues and we certainly need to worry about it.

But an overly pessimistic prediction was gleefully seized upon by our enemies and turned against us, used to discredit and marginalize us in the political arena. Remember, our opponents are not just mistaken, they are planning to profit from the chaos of climate change as an investment opportunity. They are going to get rich selling comfortable seats on the lifeboats, they are not going to invest on keeping the ship afloat. They are expert in propaganda and misdirection. They have every incentive to speed the apocalypse along, they have the history of doing so in the past. And they are highly organized and funded.

Only science and truth can stop them, and Neven understands that. Indiscriminately crying wolf never works, even if the wolves are real.


Rob, you don't have to look hard to know what is coming and you don't have to read all the articles either. Just the headers.

When 2008/9 produced the lowest solar minimum since the Dalton Minimum a century ago, the fake skeptics were prophesying a new ice age. Hansen got a crew together and did the math. In 25 years our CO2 growth, at the pace at that time, would overcome a Maunder Minimum in 25 years.

So we didn't hit either a Dalton or Maunder, in fact it's just a slightly lower cycle with a slow start.

But the calculations are now out there. Unless we reduce CO2, right now, we will incur an additional warming equivalent to the difference between the Maunder Minimum "mini ice age" and the temperatures just prior to the industrial revolution.

It's not very hard to work out the consequences, the time frame or the fact that we're going to see that impact unless we drop to 0% emissions tomorrow.

A solar dimming mirror would impact the heat budget more than a solar minimum and be more controllable. But it would take 25 - 50 years to achieve it, starting right now.

We have no luxury whatsoever to do nothing, to try only one thing or to "wait and see".

My prediction? The people who need to know what to do will recognise that about 20 years too late to take the action needed.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...


That should have been one 25 years, not two. Wife calling for dinner, rushing.

Artful Dodger

Rob Dekker wrote | December 29, 2016 at 08:48

"Do you have any evidence that an ice free winter will occur 5 years after the first ice free summer?"

Hi Rob,

Well of course there is no evidence (given that we are talking about a future event ;^) but there is recent analysis supporting similar scenarios:

Bathiany S, Notz D, Mauritsen T, Rädel G, Brovkin V. On the mechanism of Arctic winter sea ice collapse. Journal of Climate. 2016 Apr 4;29:2703-19.

The authors examine the transition from a seasonally ice-covered Arctic to an Arctic Ocean that is sea ice free year-round under increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. They conclude that loss of Arctic winter sea ice area may occur roughly twice as quickly as the preceding loss of summer sea ice area for the same warming rate. In two of the models, several million square kilometers of winter sea ice are lost within only one decade.


P.S. CAPITAL work on the PV vs. Solar Shade business case analysis. This idea just SHOUTS out for its own blog post. Are you up for a Guest Authorship? 8^)

Rob Dekker

Lodger, thanks for the compliment on the ground based PV vs. Space based Solar Shade analysis.

I would be happy to turn that into a guest post (contingent upon Neven's approval). The "per m^2" analysis is pretty solid, but the "cost" analysis needs some more refinement.
However, give me some time, since right now I'm in the middle of moving (to a new house).

Regarding the Bathiany et al paper, thanks for finding that !
Interesting findings (of accelerated melt of winter ice after some threshold). Their model results hint at 2100-2200 for ice free winter Arctic, but what I find more interesting is that it seems to follow summer ice loss rate 2 C earlier, and some models (not all) suggest a faster rate of winter ice loss than summer ice loss at continued warming.

Considering that summer ice loss appears to follow global warming still quite linearly :
I'm not sure if the Bathiany et al paper provides enough evidence for expected accelerated winter ice loss.

Rob Dekker

Neil, Hansen has labeled the recent lull in solar activity (not yet a Maunder minimum) as "not insignificant" and he is right.
It will have contributed to a slow down in warming, but our CO2e increase is still outpacing reduction of solar activity.
I could present some calculations of forcing, but I don't think you and me are in disagreement about a Maunder minimum representing 25 years of rate of emissions of GHGs.


Rob D; Artful Dodger

I totally agree with the earliest possible global deployment of PV and any other systems of energy collection that will 'Mitigate' the emission of CO2 and CO2e.

Let's please put on one side the Solar Shade business, for the moment.

The IPCC Report defines Four Pathways of 'Mitigation' to limit temperature increases to between 1.5deg.C to 4deg.C within a given timeframe. The CO2 and CO2e range is 450ppm to 1,000ppm associated with the related temperature increases.

The existing quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere and the additional quantity of CO2 to be added during the 'Mitigation' period will remain in the atmosphere for 1,000 years or more.

CO2 is currently 403ppm and the cause of increasing global warming.

How can 450ppm to 1,000ppm of CO2 in the atmoshpere limit global warming to 1.5deg.C or 4degC or even higher increases?

I do not understand the SCIENCE or the LOGIC of the arguement.

Any explanation would be very, very much appreciated.


Rob D

"Considering that summer ice loss appears to follow global warming still quite linearly"

Your link reference is to Average Monthly Sea Ice Extent and not summer ice loss. The summer minimum extent relationship to global warming is not linear.


D, I'll put it aside if you accept that our most direct method of reducing solar insolation moves from a potential 2050 inception to a likely 2100.

If you put that with your statement above and also to the fact that we are one El Nino away from 1.5C already and then 2C is not far, or long, behind it.

Let me reiterate. I'm not saying stop anything else like solar PV, but I am saying look at it ALL and NOW, not when it's so critical that we've already lost.

Rob D, when costing PV, you might want to also calculate the ~50 year viable useful life of a PV cell. That is vitally important to calculate because PV is not a long term solution, not by a long shot. It is, potentially, quite expensive and maintenance intensive.

To avoid accusations of "selling a pup", it's important to factor in the replacement schedule. 50 years is being kind, current manufacturers warranties are only 25 years with a 40 year useful life.

We can't present solutions which can be ripped apart and holes shown in them. That is worse, in some ways, than presenting no solution at all if we are going to influence the doubting masses.

On the Hansen calculations, he was using pre 2008 growth figures. Our CO2e output has jumped since then. If he were to do that again with current figures, assuming they stay stable, that 25 years would, I'm sure, be shorter.

Which kind of means that even low solar cycles from now for 25 years would still see the impact.

The other point I'd like to make, before putting a solar dimming solution to bed, is the assumption that it will have to be replaced constantly. I see no reason why a ceramic glass based solution should need to be replaced so regularly. Unless there is some degradation of ceramics I'm unaware of by particles and solar radiation.

michael sweet


To have the greatest effect we have to implement the lowest cost methods first. It is a waste of money to put up a solar shield if solar panels are cheaper to reduce carbon pollution. Every dollar for a solar shield could have installed at least 4x as much mitigation by solar panels.

Your claim that a solar shield would last forever without maintenance is incorrect. The orbits are not stable for anywhere near that long and something built so thin cannot withstand the solar wind for decades. Manufacturing the shield on the moon is absurd. The cost of building a moon manufacturing plant would exceed the cost of solar power with storage for the entire world. Ocean acidification is unaffected and worldwide drought is enhanced.

I do not see you citing peer reviewed articles supporting your claims. Hundreds of peer reviewed studies support using wind, water and solar power to provide all power in the world. See Jacobson 2015 and the cited references.

People who make these type of wild claims make it more difficult to convince the public that action really has to be taken about AGW.



I think that you might have read my comments, about the deployment of PV and 'Mitigation', out of context with the rest of my message.

The only disagreement we appear to have about a scenario that relies solely on 'Mitigation' is:
- You think this will delay the inception for reduction of solar insolation from the year 2050 to 2100
- I think there will be no reduction at all in solar insolation

Sole reliance on the 'Mitigation' scenario, in my opinion, leads to run-away global warming (the hockey stick graph). We will remain on this trajected path unless there is MITIGATION, SEQUESTRATION and REDUCED SOLAR INSOLATION. These critical components of required action cannot be considered in isolation on a 'wait and see if it works basis'.

According to the IPCC Report, the target is zero emissions for CO2 and CO2e by 2050 from anthropometric sources (include farming if you wish, it makes no difference).

The 'shelf life' for MOST of this CO2 and CO2e is 1,000 years at least!

How does an extra 34 years of greenhouse gas emmissions added to what is already there stop temperatures increases at 2deg.C?

Neil, I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet but do correct me if I am wrong.


michael sweet

With the greatest of respect to yourself, Rob D and Artful Dodger you are, in my opinion, completely missing the point. Beleive me, this is NOT a personal attack but a very, very serious questioning of your current position with regard to AGM.

I think it would really help to move the argument forward, at least from my point of view, if you could please explain to me how zero anthropomeric emissions of GHGs will stop or even slow down global warming?

If you can answer my question it will give me much greater hope for the future than I have at the present time. By nature I am an optimist and would like to remain an optimist :)

Artful Dodger

Hi Folks,

To wit, how best DO you spend TERRA-BUCK$ to power the planet and avoid climate catastrophy? China's State Grid is proposing a $50 Trillion world-wide electrical grid to make renewable energy available via HDVC, even when it's not windy on your side of the mountain or sunny on your side of the planet.

Certainly, Africa will be all-in for a Global power grid project: (click this image for the IEEE proposal)
Global Power Grid

Remember the Yuan is now a world-wide Reserve Currency ($$$=JOB$). So China and Africa gives us two regions separated by the required 8 time zones (120° longitude), then joined to the European Supergrid.

Now we just need one more somewhere in the America's. Oh say, I hear Mexico wants to build a wall solar farm, and make China pay for it.

Potentually, Hair-Force One remains grounded the U.S. declines to participate, so energy from Mexico may have to go South to Brazil and on to Antarctica, but that could also have advantages (beyond moving U.N. HQ to Brussels ;^)

More on Antarctica in my next comment...


P.S. Fish/D/George, the 1st rule when you're in a hole is "STOP DIGGING!" C02 cuts must come first. Deal with the cause, because Big Oil will just use solar shades as an excuse to burn more shit.

Artful Dodger

Pardon for the HDVC ref above, of course I meant HVDC, a high-voltage, direct current (HVDC) electric power transmission system (also called a power super highway or an electrical super highway ;^)

P.P.S. George:

"I'm too short for this shit" - Platoon - YouTube



Artful Dodger

Okay...Stop digging the hole. What do you mean? The hole is already there.

The hole is going to get bigger until you persuade everybody to stop digging. The IPCC hopes everybody will stop digging in 34 years time.

So, we have 34 more years of the hole getting bigger. Just how big will it get? I dunno, the Artful Dodger dunno and even the IPCC dunno.

Well, that's ok because when we do know how big the hole gets we can then spend the time and money...oh dammit, we've missed the boat because we are already critical and going catastrophic...what a pity the re-forestation scheme of all the deserts that I had in mind will take too long for the trees to grow.

Oh dear...what are we going to do now?

If only we had used those 34 years to include our best efforts to remove some of those pesky greenhouse gases and reduce direct solar insolation.

Oh dear...the mitigation idea cost 'trillions' but now it's going to cost 'zillions'.

Ha...Ha...Ha...I have the last laugh because I will be dead in 34 years (natural causes)...will you be so lucky?

PS. I will die in 'hope'...that your assessment of how to deal with AGM does not prevail and, of course, that the cosmic forces will transport me to a world of better understanding.

Rob Dekker

Lodger, that HVDC idea is really nice, but the cost (€1.15 million to €1.8 million per kilometer) is staggering.
Also, by itself it does not serve a purpose other than offset imbalance of the system. The same imbalance could be solved with distributed storage as well in a smart grid system :
Think of all local systems (like PV and plugged in electric car batteries) smartly delivering and taking local power.

It's not clear yet if that global HVDC system is cheaper than a smart grid system, but I guess time will tell.

Rob Dekker

D said :

if you could please explain to me how zero anthropomeric emissions of GHGs will stop or even slow down global warming?

Zero emissions will halt global warming, no doubt about that.
The level where is will halt depends on how fast we achieve zero emissions.
Using IPCC assessments, if we achieve zero-emission by 2050, global temperatures will stay within 2 C above pre-industrial.
If we lag on this, and level off in 2100, we can see global temps some 4 C above pre-industrial.
If we continue business as usual until 2100 and thereafter, we will cook this planet and everything on it.


D, yes I'd say we're on the same page. I believe in all too, but I also believe waiting for space based, instead of going for it right now, along with all the others, will do us in eventually.


Zero emissions will halt global warming, no doubt about that.

I'm wondering how you come to that conclusion. Regardless of the fact that we haven't felt the full impact of 400ppm CO2 or 480ppm CO2e yet, there is also the 30 year ocean signature.

There are articles and clear empirical evidence, that 90% of the current warming goes into the ocean and not into the atmosphere. There are also several articles which state that this heat is released after, potentially, 30 years.

So we have locked in warming for the next 30 years even if we stop, right now, today.

Then, for the next 30 years, we will lock in 480ppm CO2e into the oceans, whilst we "experience" the released warming of 360ppm CO2.

For the 30 years following that (up to 60 years from now), the heat sequestrated in the oceans under 480ppm CO2e will be released.

I'm really struggling to understand how reducing to 0% emissions, tomorrow, stops global warming in it's tracks.

At 480ppm CO2e the entire Cryosphere is going to state change, at +2C over preindustrial the entire Cryosphere is going to state change.

With the loss of the Cryosphere, the impact of the warming, already sequestrated in the oceans and the sequestration ongoing right now, will be magnified many times.

Every w/sqm of energy that falls into the atmosphere will have a greater and greater impact even at 0% emissions.

Yes it will limit the impact by falling to 0%, but stop Global Warming? Not as I understand everything I've read.

On the energy distribution question I'm leaning towards high pressure air (300 - 1000 bar). Have some thoughts on the creation and utilisation of it and it can be created and stored local to the renewable source and even moved to where it is required for when it is required. Sounds a lot like current fossil fuels really.

On the ice, I note that Extent is going to finish at the 2010 level at the end of the year. Or, put another way, equal to the lowest level recorded in the satellite era. However I expect volume to be lower. We've never seen Ice this thin over such an area before.

michael sweet


The most effective way to address a problem is to invest first in the cheapest method of reducing the problem. If you invest in solar dimming when it is much cheaper to build out solar panels you end up with a lot more carbon in the atmosphere. Since the goal is to reduce carbon in the atmosphere you have to invest in WWS first.

Read jacobson 2009 http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b809990c/unauth#!divAbstract. He gives the argument that Nuclear is not worth investing in because it is too expensive. (I note that geoengineering solutions are not even evaluated in this paper because they are too speculative). Geoengineering like you suggest is just 10 times more off base.

Your argument that we must pursue all avenues at the same time is simply incorrect. The best way forward is to pursue the cheapest path for the most benefit.

Your claims about the benefits of a solar shield appear to me to come from blog posts you have found on the internet. Find peer reviewed studies that sopport your wild claims about the benefits of a solar shield. Please provide an estimate of the cost for your completely speculative suggestion of a lunar base to build the shield from.

We currently have difficulty convincing people to build out wind, water and solar which will supply us with cheaper, usable power without pollution. Suggest two reasons you think the population would shell out the trillions needed just to begin to build the lunar base. Keep in mind that this money is just a hole in the ground where no immediate benefit is apparent.

You have not addressed the problems with your proposed "solution" relating to ocean acidification, drought and people thinking they can burn more fossil fuels because the shield will protect them from the problem. Ignoring major flaws in your argument does not make it stronger.

I think your claims make people much less willing to listen to proposals to work on actual solutions to AGW. There is no chance your suggestions will be acted on. You claim WWS cannot resolve the problem without apparent peer reviewed data to support your claim.

Please cite some peer reviewed papers to support your wild claims. I note that Jacobson 2009, linked above, has hundreds of citations that suggest WWS can substantially address the problem.


FishOutofWater here:

Ocean acidification and hypoxia are already impacting the Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats, permafrost melts and the organic carbon, CO2 and methane levels rise in the Arctic seas. There are a number of recent articles about Arctic ocean acidification that show impacts of acid sensitive species such as pteropods.

We must rapidly reduce CO2 emissions to stop the kind of catastrophic marine chemistry changes that caused the global marine extinction event at the end Permian. We really don't want to live next to seas that produce toxic sulfurous gasses.

Solar shades will not solve the problems caused by the rapid burning of earth's carbon stores.

We are dealing with a rate problem. The earth has withstood much higher CO2 levels in the past but when rates rose rapidly they were frequently associated with mass extinction events. This is both a problem of rapid global warming and rapid changes in chemistry caused by release of carbon stores.


One sentence summary: "Ocean acidification caused the second phase of mass extinction in the Permo-Triassic, due to a rapid and large injection of carbon which overwhelmed the buffering capacity of the ocean. "

michael sweet

Reviewing Jacobson 2008 https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf, the key factor to consider in comparison of solar PV to solar shading is figure 3. This figure calculates the amount of CO2 emitted because of delays in installation of the fastest technology.

Solar and wind are the fastest technologies to install. Since a new method of reaching orbit has to be developed first to reduce launching costs by a factor of at least 100, it would be decades before a system of solar shading could be built. Solar and wind can be built immediately. Delaying the installation of wind and solar to develop a solar shade would result in more CO2 being emitted.

Jacobson does not consider cost in his evaluation of different technologies in this paper.

Rob Dekker

Michael Sweet,
Thanks for bringing up the cost of 'delay' of CO2 mitigation (although I believe you meant "table 3" in the Jacobson paper, not "figure 3").
Any delay in climate mitigation means that more CO2 is emitted that stays in the atmosphere, so this is a real and present issue.

More reason to employ ready technologies like wind and solar ASAP, with the caveat that we need to replace these technologies after their lifetime. But needless to say, we need to do that for every mitigation technology.

D said

Zero emissions will halt global warming, no doubt about that.

I'm wondering how you come to that conclusion.

Mmm. Given the lag time due to (mostly ocean) heat buffer, "Halt" may not be the correct expression.
The point is that global warming will stop only when we stop emitting.


michael sweet

I am very mindfull of the potential costs and risks of any form of geo-engineering to influence atmospheric change.

I read the Jacobsen 2009 paper shortly after it had been accepted and went online. I remember it well because it was one of the first I read when I became interested in the subject of Global Warming and the condition of sea ice in the Arctic.

In a previous comment I referred to Solar Shade and had in mind a 'localised' or 'targeted' application to reduce direct Solar Insolation in the Arctic Ocean region; as opposed to, a 'global' application located in space.

Notwithstanding the above comments, our main difference of opinion is how to stop AGM at 2deg.C above pre-industrial level.

You think that this can be achieved solely by reducing the emission of anthropomeric greenhouse gases (mitigation). I disagree with you.

I disagree with you because I do not understand the SCIENCE or the LOGIC of your arguement.

High levels of CO2 and CO2e in the atmosphere equate to high global temperatures
(Yes or No?)
The current level of CO2 is 404.7ppm
(Yes or No?)
At the current level of CO2 significant feedback mechanisms are created
(Yes or No?)
The feedback mechanisms accelerate AGW
(Yes or No?)
The correct answer to the above 'Yes or No' questions is 'Yes' and I will gladly give references to cited papers to confirm, if you are not convinced.

Zero additional emissions of CO2 and CO2e does not reduce the current level of 404.7ppm that is already in the atmosphere, the cause of feedback mechanisms and accelerating AGW.

It is now impossible to STOP AGW at 2deg.C unless CO2 and CO2e are removed from the atmosphere (Sequestration) and the planet receives less heat (Reduction of direct solar insolation).


I do most strongly agree with you that 'Mitagation' is a most urgent necessity.

However, to deny or delay the earliest implementation of the development and deployment of 'Sequstration' and 'Direct Solar Insolation Reduction' systems massively increases risk and costs; In my opinion, the message that you are putting out is very mis-leading and very dangerous.

Artful Dodger

Hi folks,

Okay, here's the situation: We've got two "D"'s here.

One is a clearly a troll, ie:


The other "D" is George / FishOutOfWater, who is a long-time commenter of good standing:


So then, a few things:
1. Appologies to George/F-O-O-W for confusing you with this "Other D",
2. Neven, time to use your Admin Powers to reset George's Username properly.
3. "Other D" now on IGNORE.



Artful Dodger (and his platoon)

I am not a 'Troll'.

I am (just for the record):-

- A post-doctoral graduate from a UK university that has an international ranking in my subject area. The subject area is a science/technology based discipline.

- A past Visiting Fellow, by invitation, at a UK university responsible for mentoring PhD students, assessment and moderation of doctoral theses.

- A past UN appointed consultant for sustainable physical development on location in Africa.

- A retired Architect who, in practice, specialised in the design and implementation of sustainable systems and physical development at local, regional, national and international level.

Our home is powered entirely by Pv and wind turbine. We grow much of our own food and do not eat meat.

I will always defend your right and the right of all to express a personal point of view. Indeed, most of our scientific and technical developments have emanated from the 'intuative leap' based, of course, on knowledge and experience. However, this 'right' comes with an attached 'responsibility' to be courteous and tolerant with those who hold a different point of view.

I do not take umbridge with your points of view but I do at the way you express your ideas. In many ways you remind me of Viddaloo who had many interesting things to say, like yourself but the attitude and way in which these were expressed was unacceptable; particularly when another persons point of view was mis-represented.

In my opinion, your actions on this blog have been discourteous and intolerant.

To suggest that a bonafide contributor to this blog is "now on IGNORE" is arrogant.


Lodger, I guess you’ll also need to put me on “ignore” now then too? Am I trolling? I don’t believe I have “ever” trolled on climate change and I’ve been in the viewing and understanding mode a hell of a lot longer than many of the people I argue with.

The “other D” is arguing the same argument I am. You didn’t listen when I pointed out the Hansen calculations; just, basically assumed I was wrong.

Let’s put it this way. If a simple reduction in solar output to the levels of a Maunder Minimum, can delay the rise in temperature at current emission levels, by 25 years, then the reduction by global dimming might give us a century because it reduces a hell of a lot more w/sqm than a Maunder Minimum because the fluctuation of the solar output is very small compared to direct reflection of solar energy.

This is one of the reasons I get really frustrated with the Climate Lobby. Total fixation on a single thing. Followed by “holy shit” when the environment changes and step changes force a different focus. I was not joking when I said Greenpeace would have the cleanest planet 2 Billion people had ever seen. A pity for the other, estimated, 7 Billion who “didn’t make it”.

Personally I was just throwing out ideas and following them up, because it’s 100% crystal clear that simple CO2 emission reduction is not going to cut it. Even if we get down to 0% which is a total fantasy land fairy story, given the current political commitment and the state of our technology. We have absolutely NO technology, at this time, to replace truck CO2 emissions, Bus CO2 emissions or, even worse, shipping CO2 emissions. Unless there is a 130,000bhp solar powered shipping solution out there I’ve never heard of. I don’t count Hydrogen at this time; it takes more energy to create than we gain in CO2 emissions from using it. A clear case of not doing either the simplest or even most effective thing to solve the problem.

Whilst I laud the dedication to reduction in CO2 emissions as an ongoing goal; I respectfully submit that this was a goal to be achieved in the 20th century. For the 21st century, given that failure, we need to be thinking laterally. We can no longer believe that “only” reducing CO2 emissions to 0% is a viable course to a human viable biosphere.

Remember when I said “how do you get it over to people that when they are impacted the time for action was 100 years ago”?

My next challenge, following that one, is “how do you get it over to the climate lobby that we no longer have the luxury of doing one thing at a time”??

Because we simply don’t! If that message is trolling and it puts me on the “ignore” list. Then I have one more sad event in my climate watching life to add to add to all the others.


Rob D

You have mis-quoted me (perhaps a typo).

It was YOU that said:
"Zero emissions will halt global warming, no doubt about that."

I said:
"Zero emissions will NOT halt global warming"

This is the point on which we disagree.


Lodger thinks he is special because hes been around for very long and has a lot of wit and blah blah, but in this very interesting conversation you guys are maintaining he has not produced much of value and has added distraction acting momentarily as a troll. Please ignore him and continue with dicusssion. FOOW Rob and the other D were putting valid and interesting arguments here
Really interesting stuff


And Neil :)

michael sweet

Nielt and D,

As referenced in Jacobson 2009, the best path forward is the cheapest, fastest at the time. That is wind, water and solar (WWS). It would be a waste of money to put significant resources into a solar shield. Your assertions that everything must be done at the same time do not withstand close evaluation.

Neither of you has cited any peer reviewed resource to cost out your proposals. With no cost projections the cost has to be presumed to be too high. Jacobson has several papers online at the Solutions Project that detail the costs of his plans using WWS to power the world. Speculation that the cost of putting material into orbit can be decreased by two orders of magnitude (!??!) are not data.

Skeptics point to wild proposals like the ones discussed here for a solar shield to make all climate scientists look bad. You are hurting the cause of trying to do something about AGW.

If you cannot find a peer reviewed study to support your wild claims about a solar shield you should take that to mean that it is impractical. Unsupported internet postings do not count.

This argument has gone in circles for most of the time. Nothing new has been posted recently. I will not post again until the supporters of this impractical scheme provide peer reviewed references to support their wild claims about solar shields.

If all emissions were to stop today, the ocean would continue to absorb CO2 and the atmospheric concentration might begin to go down. It is not clear yet if the release of CO2 from natural sources would be more important than the sink of CO2 into the ocean. Hansen has commented on this extensively in his writings. The 350.org people rely on this mechanism to get CO2 back down to 350 ppm. Since you do not provide references I will not also. Google it.



Climate Lobby...Frustration. Tell me about it! On second thoughts please don't, it will only lead to more frustration.

What I find to be even more disturbing are the scientists who produce brilliant individual work but allow themselves to become complicit and compromised by the IPCC. viz. 'Pathways' to halting AGW at 2deg.C above pre-industrial level by bringing anthropomeric CO2 and CO2e emissions to zero.

Like you, I also believe this is a totally unrealistic objective within the available timeframe and in any event will not stop AGW increasing at an accelerated rate.

The reason why the IPCC position is compromised is because:-

1. Feedback is not included in its deliberations' on the grounds that there is insufficient data to reasonably quantify these effects.

This is bad scientific methodology. If known effects cannot be quantified a model should include a constant and importantly the likely margins of error BUT certainly not ignored.

Furthermore, there ARE observed effects that HAVE been quantified. The most important effect to have significant consequences, is the high additional thermal loading of the biosphere resulting from the loss of Albedo directly attributal to loss of Arctic Sea Ice...back to the 'Arctic' again.

Oceanic forcing will probably kick in hard at about the same time as maximum loss from Albedo.

2. Only peer reviewed and cited papers that are four or more years old are accepted for consideration.

Because of 1. and 2. above the IPCC is well behind the curve of events and this alone discredits its projections.

Interestingly, a recent ICPP WP (Working Party) paper downgrading the 'level of confidence' for the preferred 'Pathway' from 66% to less than 50%, adding that negative CO2 activity, sequestration in other words, might now be required. Surprise, surprise!



Thank you for your comment, much appreciate.

After the distraction of the Artful Dodger and his 'Troop' (whoever they are). The debate can now proceed, I hope, in a more constructive direction. That is of course if there is sufficient interest :)


michael sweet

You are sounding very much like the Artful Dodger; perhaps one from the ranks of his 'Troop'?



Last paragraph typo error correction...IPCC (not ICCP).

Rob Dekker

Pre-industrial CO2 was at 280 ppm.
A doubling of CO2 (to 560 ppm) will cause a global 3.7 W/m^2 TOA forcing.

With equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3 C/doubling, this suggests that if we stop emissions today (at 400 ppm), that the planet will warm to about 3 * (400-280)/280 = 1.28 C above pre-industrial (linear interpolation applied which is not exact on the log relation).

We are now at about 1.0 C above pre-industrial, which means there is some 0.28 heating still in the pipeline (which I think is what D was talking about).

Also, Michael Sweet correctly pointed out that CO2 levels may actually fall a bit if we stop emitting, due to ocean absorption of CO2 (currently not in balance either).
That would lower the equilibrium temperature a bit more.

There has been no evidence presented that global warming will continue unabated (even if we stop emitting today) as D and Neil appear to argue.

Rob Dekker

The takeaway argument is that the sooner we stop emitting, the smaller the equilibrium temperature of our planet will be.

And there the argument is that we should invest in the methods that have the highest mitigation effect per dollar invested. And at this point that is PV solar, wind and geothermal.
And specifically NOT a space based solar shield because it costs too much per ton CO2 mitigated.

Rob Dekker

One more note :

I do not like the recent ad hominum comments like mentions of "Climate Lobby" and "IPCC position is compromised" and "Artful Dodger and his 'Troop' " and calling each other a "troll".

Let's keep it civil, gentlemen. Stick to math, or cite scientific papers instead of making unsupported assertions.


Rob, I'd love to keep it civil. However I do have a legitimate gripe. I was arguing the case for the economic drivers for PV and EV on renewables, before this site existed. The "climate lobby" was shouting about TAX, TAX, TAX, driving the deniers into a frenzy.

I note Obama used the economic method and the regulation method and not the TAX method. He got more done than any president before him. What did the "climate lobby" do to him? They vilified him for using the wrong words and doing the wrong thing.

Where has the TAX ranting got us? I humbly submit Trump. You think for the next 8 years we're going to see reductions in the US? I suspect not.

Go figure.

So when I talk about my frustrations, I was not trolling and I was not trying to delay. I was trying to get people to see that we need to MOVE FORWARD right the hell NOW, on all fronts. Cost cannot be seen as a factor any more. If we can't sell the cost we need to sell the opportunity of the spend.

Wind will never get the money that coal does because it is simply not enough. PV, tidal and HDR Geothermal, yes, but not wind.

We all hate the subsidies on Coal but they are there because they produce jobs and wealth for companies. PV subsidies, up until the financial crisis, were beginning to replace this. In the end they were the first real cut after the crisis.

You say I've produced no study. I've told you to take Hansens work and turn it on it's head. It produces all the figures you require. I don't care about costing. This is no longer a money thing, per se, this is a survival thing.

I note people can come on the blog and say "move to a war footing to remove CO2" and it is accepted as both possible and an acceptable method. Because it talks about CO2 emission mitigation.

As a minor study of human behaviour, I respectfully submit that moving to a war footing with everyone having their lives restricted, without having made the case for the catastrophic impacts of 2C and above AGW, is a fantasy. People are less likely to vote for that than they are to vote for Clinton.

On the 0% emissions and the halting of CO2 rises. I have an issue with this too. A warming planet already has an increasing CO2 signature. The oceans actually absorb less CO2 as the planet warms, exacerbating the problem. I didn't mention the mitigating factor of the oceans because there is growing evidence that the oceans are beginning to reduce their CO2 uptake. It will take another 3 decades for the studies to produce the results. But the trend is beginning.

As for warmth and ongoing CO2? I noted that our CO2 emissions, from 2013, were flat, if not reducing slightly, globally. I also note that 2015 and 2016 saw the largest jumps in CO2, either side of 1998, that we have ever recorded. Granted the El Nino helped a bit, but something boosted that CO2 figure and it was not increased emissions from the human element.

I've noted that the heat signature from a huge El Nino tends to be incorporated into the base temperature scenario within about 1.5 to 2 decades. We have now overwhelmed the 1998 temperature spike in the baseline and it was done on CO2 emissions much lower than we have reached today.

Meaning we have, at max, 2 decades before we reach 1.5C.

Let's be realistic here. You are not going to go from 3ppm increase to 0ppm increase in those two decades. That's FACT, not surmise. Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, the CO2 ppm signature has risen, not fallen.

That doesn't mean we have to stop trying, it means we have to TRY HARDER. But there is an element of realism which is missing here.

If we can't stop we have to kick start sequestration. Not now but 10 years ago. Nobody was talking sequestration 10 years ago because of CCS and the "case for coal".

More than 10 years ago I argued the case for making PV and EV an economic initiative which drove GDP growth and made the Renewables industry a darling of the stock market. Years later it began only to be smacked down by the financial crisis.

Today I'm arguing for a 3 way mitigation strategy. Reduce CO2, Sequestrate CO2, Reduce energy input from the Sun.

I'll still be here, making my case, 20 years from now.

Here's my prediction.

CO2 ppm increase will still be over 1.5 every year.
We will have a baseline heat of 1.5C over preindustrial.
El Nino years will be flirting with 2C over preindustrial levels
People who fight for core climate changes will start to talk about a multi pronged attack on warming.

What am I going to do now? I'm going to go and revisit my personal ideas on multi stage high pressure compression of air, by a method which blends the power of the piston compressor and the inline through flow of the multi stage turbine. Plus my ideas on orbital mechanics to take that high pressure air and use it later.

I'm going to step out and forget what I'm saying for a few years or so. I throw these ideas out for consideration. I get the response I expect. What I do is called "blue sky thinking" in the business world. I have been met with an accountancy response. Accountants never create anything, although they do often make the critical funding for creations.

Remko Kampen

"We all hate the subsidies on Coal but they are there because they produce jobs and wealth for companies."

Anyway, the lesser subsidized renewables industry now provides more jobs than all fossils (coal, oil, gas) combined.


Hear hear! Remko.

That is where solar panels will hit people minds, especially wanting better jobs. I can't see it any other way, renewables are rising economies. Alas Trump only sees them as an "eyesore".


To: Rob Dekker | January 02, 2017 at 06:49

"There has been no evidence presented that global warming will continue unabated (even if we stop emitting today) as D and Neil appear to argue."

I beg to differ.

On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead

V. Ramanathan* and Y. Feng

Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved July 24, 2008 (received for review May 1, 2008)


Also note the approved date. The situation is worse now than then.

I selected this paper because of the breadth of cover and extensive references. There are more recent papers.

At the end of the paper, the 'HighWire Press-hosted articles citing this article' are informative.


Rob D

At the stabilization Temperature, about 10 years after zero CO2 and CO2e emission date, temperatures continue to rise at approximately 0.2deg.C per 10 year period.

The IPCC reference to limiting temperature rise of 1.5/2.0deg.C above pre-industrial level, really means 'Stabilization Temperature' because it does not take into account the heat storage committed accumulation to the zero emission date.

The 'Equilibrium Temperature' will be reached when all the 'Committed Heat Gain' created by forcing has been released and the total heat load of the planet is in balance with the Solar Flux.

CO2 will remain in the atmospere, dependent on association, from between 1,500 and 8,000 years.

Rob Dekker

Thanks for that paper, D.
I calculated warming from CO2 alone and arrived at 1.3 C.
The authors of this paper removed aerosol cooling (assuming we will clean up the atmosphere) but kept non-CO2 GHGs at the same level, and arrive at 2.4 C.

To be honest, if we clean up our aerosol emissions, we probably also want to clean up black carbon, and methane, and ozone, and NOx etc so in the end the 1.3 C for CO2 alone may be more realistic.

But regardless of how much warming we will get in the end, let it be noted that if we stop emitting, then the temperature increase is limited.

So the longer we wait the higher the temperature will get.
Waiting thus has consequences, which was also what Michael Sweet pointed out earlier.

Rob Dekker

D, our last posts crossed. Your explanation (about equilibrium temperature) is correct. It seems that we are all in agreement now that if we stop emitting now, that global warming will stabilize to some equilibrium temperature.

And as long as we keep on emitting, that equilibrium temperature will continue to go up.


Rob, you force me to make another comment.

Your point is that we must take the cheapest and most effective measure to reduce CO2 emissions to 0% as fast as possible and everything else is a sideshow.

My point is that whilst reducing CO2 emissions to 0% is critical, other mitigating factors to remove CO2 and to reduce the energy entering the atmosphere and the CO2 sequestration zone (not the sea or the land), are critical to the survival of humanity as we are currently constituted today.

I'm wondering which part of the Abstract of that article you were not conversant with?

The observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the preindustrial era has most likely committed the world to a warming of 2.4°C (1.4°C to 4.3°C) above the preindustrial surface temperatures..

That is "observed" or to put it another way, what has happened and been recorded so far.

The estimated warming of 2.4°C is the equilibrium warming above preindustrial temperatures that the world will observe even if GHG concentrations are held fixed at their 2005 concentration levels

So we'll see 2.4 regardless. Now if I read the IPCC statements, over 2C is catastrophic warming.

Yes they excluded aerosols, but as we're removing them faster than we are removing CO2 (not at all), expect that impact to be nearer to the upper end.

About 90% or more of the rest of the committed warming of 1.6°C will unfold during the 21st century

So, yes, if we stop CO2 at 2005 levels we'll see equalisation around 22xx some time long after a few billion people are dead of famine and territory wars.

The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries

Comforting to know that if we just stop CO2 at 2005 levels we'll still be flooded out, hit by bigger storms etc, etc.

Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C.

Remember that this was based on 2005 levels, rising at circa 2ppm pa. In the last two years alone we will have seen (I'm sure when the figures come in), 6ppm rise. In the 11 years since that figure was set at 2005 we have emitted more than 25ppm CO2, additional, over the 2005 baseline of the article, into the atmosphere.

Honestly how you can turn even the abstract of that article into "stop CO2 now" as the best, fastest and cheapest option I have no idea.

Personally I would have thought that introducing CO2 reduction means right now alongside reductions in CO2 emissions would have meant that by the time we finally stopped emitting CO2, we would immediately go into reduction mode faster and faster as we turned the entire efforts to reduction rather than both reduction and stopping emitting.

But then I'm not a scientist, don't write articles and only read them.


NeilT | January 03, 2017 at 11:18

Thank you so much for taking the time to so accurately precis the Article that I referred to in my comment.

D | January 03, 2017 at 06:46


I reference my comment and the link simply for the convenience of any other contributor that my be following or wishing to contribute to the debate.

I am long since past my 'sell-by-date' for writing of cited Articles and now, like you, only read them! LOL.



Typo error penultimate paragraph:
Not 'my' but 'may'
Add after ...to contrbute to the debate 'and help continuity.'


Okay, I don't receive automatic notifications for comments following guest blogs, so I wasn't aware of this heated discussion. I assumed it had ended, as there's a new blog post up, and of course, we have the wonderful ASIF for all this banter and ranter. And I have the mother of all colds.

Let me just echo Rob Dekker's words about staying civil and not starting a nuclear troll allegation war.

And I'm also not happy about the two D's, but I believe there's even a third one. Thank you, George, for always stating you're FishOutofWater.


Neven | January 03, 2017 at 22:44

"...we have the wonderful ASIF for all this banter and ranter."

I am the 'D' that posted the following comment:-
D | January 03, 2017 at 06:46

If you consider the above comment and other comments that I have posted as "banter and ranter" then I truly do despair.

"Let me just echo Rob Dekker's words about staying civil and not starting a nuclear troll allegation war."

This is the comment that was posted that started the troll reference:-
Artful Dodger | January 01, 2017 at 07:34

This is the comment I posted in reply:-
D | January 01, 2017 at 17:34

There was no accusation by me, in my reply, that anybody was a troll.

NOTE: NeilT was also implicated in Rob Dekker's comment that you refer to and he made no accusation that anybody was a troll.

This is the only Blog that I have ever subscribed to and did so because of my long standing interest in the subject matter, its relevance to AGW, its informative and civil contributions.

If you consider my comments as uncivil and an attempt at "starting a nuclear troll allegation war." then, again, I do truly despair.

On a more general note, if you would prefer discussion about AGW, the understanding of the processes and possible solutions not to be discussed on your Blog, then please say so and I will stop posting.

I too grow weary watching the train crash in slow motion but always live in hope.

A hot toddy and teaspoon of honey works wonders for me :)

On a more general note, if you would prefer discussion about AGW, the understanding of the processes and possible solutions not to be discussed on your Blog, then please say so and I will stop posting.

I'm just saying the ASIF is better suited for this kind of discussion, probably read by more people, and better preserved, so to say.

One of the reasons I'm taking a sabbatical, is because I want to be able to read and think about the things you discuss again (although it won't change my mind about what has to be done for any solution to even stand a chance). Right now I just parse the first two sentences of long comments and go: Right, no time for this. Even though I know how important it is.

For 'perfect' judgement I would have to read exactly who said what. It would be much easier if you guys don't let the heat get to your heads.

BTW, it's always funny that as soon as you take a rest, your body says: Time to get sick, we can afford it now! :-D

Two more days and I'll be back on my feet. Luckily, it's just a cold, albeit a tough one.


Neven, take more than two days brospeh: these trolls are just playing old school chess and if they lose they have no pride and daddys shelter to hide behind anyway.

The world is greedy: that is just what it is so chill or the old blood pressure will rear it's head. Greed really just means a panicked means toward survival! Now add the groupthink concept and then propaganda and resource orientated legalised monsters and voila!

These people are all churn economics- if you've got real estate they will (try and) conjure it... pay no mind!!

Old school chess is just picking a victim and trying to rush them: but they have none left including their own kids ;>


By 'real estate' I of course imply: "internet address space"!


Neven get well soon. I was sick most of November. I always get sick when I'm working with a lot of people who take the flu vaccine. GSK (who make it), was the worst I've ever experienced. Needless to say it was "free" so about 60% of the people took it.

I do try to keep things shorter but when you are trying to cover many points raised it just gets longer and longer.

Yes the forum is better, but, I think, the blog is more visible. Some things need to be visible.

Susan Anderson

If you are angry or feel the need to attack someone, please take it somewhere else. As Neven said, a dedicated discussion topic is the proper place for it. Neven's sea ice blog has always been thoughtful and considerate, not for a small group of people to insist they are more right than others. As things get worse, some of us feel we are more right than others, but if we think about it, we could realize that those "others" might feel the same about us.

If that doesn't work, perhaps some tolerant volunteer (not one who is wholly focused on being "right") could provide a geoengineering article here where those wanting to go at it can do so without undermining the basic interest and civility that has dominated this conversation for so many years.

I personally agree with this: "Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad: You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse" (Raymond T. Pierrehumbert) but I am open to the certainty that at some point it will happen anyway. What happens is people get desperate, they don't accept the need to change everything, they manipulate, and they discover it can't be maintained and makes things worse. So delay and manipulation multiplies irresponsibility. But honestly, that's just me. I'd love a miracle, but my experience is that magic thinking backfires.

Bill Fothergill

@ Susan

Thanks for posting that link Susan - it should be mandatory reading for everyone. I knew that Prof Pierrehumbert was seriously opposed to any form of geoengineering - other than sequestration - but I couldn't remember how I came to know this. (Probably something he had written on Real Climate.)

However, it speaks volumes for the quality of the comments attracted by the article, that the top-rated comment was a dig at Ray_Pierre regarding the use of "unscientific language". Where is someone with a rapier wit when you need it?


Hi Jim,

Remember the little discussion about La-Nina we had?

Here is a very nice forecast:


Mr Gregory includes La-Nina, which presence should not only be judged by temperature grids. Something like someone "put a lid" on very strong El-Nino last spring, there was a sudden steep downward trend in ENSO temperatures, and there was a very significant big blue event in the Arctic.... At any rate it is a very good classic forecast, which misses the sea ice aspect of things. Namely there is a doughnut hole warming around the North Pole with deeper freezing
over the Northern Continents, as a result, the cold center vortices have moved Southwards affecting the jet stream and other general circulation patterns. You may like this...

The comments to this entry are closed.