This is one of the most important points about the global “climate consensus” that is never discussed. Thank you for writing about it in such an accessible way, Roger. The arbitrary and fixed goal of 2 deg C relative to this time period, rather than a dynamic goal based on balancing risk reduction with cost, shows that the whole enterprise is not about “following the science” but rather about using the authority of science to achieve political goals.
And of course what could possibly go wrong with world policy guided by the 21st century imperialism, climate obsession, combined with the modern metasis of Malthus, where the our "leaders" openly talk about some need to depopulate the Earth...
Dear Roger, we can add to your list the Great Blizzard of 1888, which wiped out cattle herds all through the Great Plains and nearly beggared Theodore Roosevelt while he was ranching out west. The eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 killed 36,000 people in the short term but it also caused a global "volcanic winter" with all the attendant hardships world-wide. And I believe the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is still the worst natural disaster in US history, with something like 12,000 dead. So to paraphrase Queen Elizabeth II, the second half of the 19th Century was not an era on which we should look back with unalloyed affection. Or rose-colored glasses either.
The 1877-78 El Nino was caused by the American "Long Depression" of 0ct 1873-Mar 1879, and the volcanic-induced El Nino from the VEI5 Askja eruption of March 29, 1875.
ALL El Ninos are caused by a decrease in the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and during depression (or recession ) years, temperatures always rise because of the decrease in the amount of industrial SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
For VEI4 and larger volcanic eruptions, when their SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid) injected into the stratosphere eventually settle out, some coalesce with industrial SO2 aerosols in the troposphere, flushing enough out to cause temperatures to rise above the pre-eruption temperature and form an El Nino (because of the less polluted air). This occurs ~18-30 months after the date of an eruption, and is commonly seen, unless quenched by another eruption.
Google "A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change"
Also see: "The Definitive Cause of La Nina and El Nino events"
I posted this because of the tremendous suffering that occurred during the 1877-78 El Nino, when global atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels were very low.
Currently, due to "Clean Air " and Net-Zero efforts, we are reducing atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels so that in the very near future we will again experience the disasters of the 1877-78 El Nino, unless they are immediately halted (although we may already be past the point of mo return!).
What is interesting to me is who determined the shift from risk to degrees? Can that thinking be traced? If we understood better how “ideas about things” become entrenched, we could possibly protect the world from future bad ideas.
Excellent piece, sir. Facts are often inconvenient to narratives. The “control the climate” push seems so deeply embedded in the US administrative state, however, that I doubt they will make a difference here. Who needs facts when one has his certainty, after all.
I am referring to your first footnote. You keep saying that there is a difference in definition, but I have the impression it's a matter of attribution. They use the same 1.x °C as the key indicator, but the UN framework attributes all this to anthropogenic factors. More precisely greenhouse gasses, in their case.
The IPCC refers to natural and anthropogenic causes. But remains vague on details.
If the framework and IPCC had different definitions but similar ideas on attribution/causation the framework and IPCC should work with a different increase in average global temperature.
From the book reviews: “A hero of the Left, Davis is part polemicist, part historian, and all Marxist.
Dale Peck, Village Voice”
I’ll take your word that Davis has accurately described the situation in the 1870s regarding the intersection of El Niño events and the ruling elite’s role in exacerbating the catastrophic consequences of El Niño during that decade.
I was going to buy the book and read it myself until I saw the political and philosophical orientation of the author and publisher. I really don’t want to put any money into their pockets or in the case of Davis his estate, as he passed away in 2022.
The ability to adapt to a changing climate is being hampered by Neo-Malthusian elites who are determined to restrict access to affordable, reliable, and abundant sources of energy regardless of the human suffering inflicted.
I need to mention that Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever was the first person that I heard point out that since 1880 the global temperature has increased about 1.1 degrees C and that during that time human wellbeing has increased enormously.
This article is a good follow up to the questions that a few of us asked Roger about what the optimum temperature of the earth is and what the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere is. The baseline of the late 19th century seems somewhat arbitrary and it may be an unusual time in climate history.
"It clearly shows that per 10th of a degree of avoided warming, we save, we prevent risk, we prevent suffering. And that’s pretty powerful."
How does he quantify suffering based on 1/10 degree of warming? That's as fallacious as the idea that we know the global surfact temperature to 1/10 degrees C.
Even if you could measure it, what about the other side of the ledger? What about the harm done by making energy more expensive and less reliable? Imagine the kinds of draconian policies you’d need to implement to prevent any further warming. Talk about suffering….
The reality is that "climate concern" has been a fabrication. Warming has increased, not decreased, health, safety, wealth, as well as biomass globally. Climate policies have failed to decrease CO2, their stated goal. Climate policies have increased suffering, increased slavery, decreased wealth for the many, concentrated wealth to the few.
This is one of the most important points about the global “climate consensus” that is never discussed. Thank you for writing about it in such an accessible way, Roger. The arbitrary and fixed goal of 2 deg C relative to this time period, rather than a dynamic goal based on balancing risk reduction with cost, shows that the whole enterprise is not about “following the science” but rather about using the authority of science to achieve political goals.
And of course what could possibly go wrong with world policy guided by the 21st century imperialism, climate obsession, combined with the modern metasis of Malthus, where the our "leaders" openly talk about some need to depopulate the Earth...
Dear Roger, we can add to your list the Great Blizzard of 1888, which wiped out cattle herds all through the Great Plains and nearly beggared Theodore Roosevelt while he was ranching out west. The eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 killed 36,000 people in the short term but it also caused a global "volcanic winter" with all the attendant hardships world-wide. And I believe the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is still the worst natural disaster in US history, with something like 12,000 dead. So to paraphrase Queen Elizabeth II, the second half of the 19th Century was not an era on which we should look back with unalloyed affection. Or rose-colored glasses either.
Excellent
There really needs to be a rigorous assessment of the climate of 1850-1900 👍
This is a good book when Behringer sticks to the history part
https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/925
There is nothing more ludicrous and non-scientific than the “burning embers” diagrams that assumes any warming is bad.
The LIA was the worst climatic point in the last 10k years of human history and all warming to date has been 100% beneficial.
That is science.
Since we are still much cooler than previous optimums as laid out by Paul Homewood in the following post, there is no emergency.
There is not even mild concern today.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/12/23/hottest-in-125000-years/#more-69953
The 1877-78 El Nino was caused by the American "Long Depression" of 0ct 1873-Mar 1879, and the volcanic-induced El Nino from the VEI5 Askja eruption of March 29, 1875.
ALL El Ninos are caused by a decrease in the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and during depression (or recession ) years, temperatures always rise because of the decrease in the amount of industrial SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
For VEI4 and larger volcanic eruptions, when their SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid) injected into the stratosphere eventually settle out, some coalesce with industrial SO2 aerosols in the troposphere, flushing enough out to cause temperatures to rise above the pre-eruption temperature and form an El Nino (because of the less polluted air). This occurs ~18-30 months after the date of an eruption, and is commonly seen, unless quenched by another eruption.
Google "A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change"
Also see: "The Definitive Cause of La Nina and El Nino events"
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
I posted this because of the tremendous suffering that occurred during the 1877-78 El Nino, when global atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels were very low.
Currently, due to "Clean Air " and Net-Zero efforts, we are reducing atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels so that in the very near future we will again experience the disasters of the 1877-78 El Nino, unless they are immediately halted (although we may already be past the point of mo return!).
What is interesting to me is who determined the shift from risk to degrees? Can that thinking be traced? If we understood better how “ideas about things” become entrenched, we could possibly protect the world from future bad ideas.
NASA and the IPCC are fiddling the data, surely you don't trust their numbers??
Excellent piece, sir. Facts are often inconvenient to narratives. The “control the climate” push seems so deeply embedded in the US administrative state, however, that I doubt they will make a difference here. Who needs facts when one has his certainty, after all.
I am referring to your first footnote. You keep saying that there is a difference in definition, but I have the impression it's a matter of attribution. They use the same 1.x °C as the key indicator, but the UN framework attributes all this to anthropogenic factors. More precisely greenhouse gasses, in their case.
The IPCC refers to natural and anthropogenic causes. But remains vague on details.
If the framework and IPCC had different definitions but similar ideas on attribution/causation the framework and IPCC should work with a different increase in average global temperature.
“Late Victorian Holocausts”. Oh dear. Davis had a great deal of insight in the 1990s, but unless Verso chose the title, the clickbait is revolting.
From the book reviews: “A hero of the Left, Davis is part polemicist, part historian, and all Marxist.
Dale Peck, Village Voice”
I’ll take your word that Davis has accurately described the situation in the 1870s regarding the intersection of El Niño events and the ruling elite’s role in exacerbating the catastrophic consequences of El Niño during that decade.
I was going to buy the book and read it myself until I saw the political and philosophical orientation of the author and publisher. I really don’t want to put any money into their pockets or in the case of Davis his estate, as he passed away in 2022.
The ability to adapt to a changing climate is being hampered by Neo-Malthusian elites who are determined to restrict access to affordable, reliable, and abundant sources of energy regardless of the human suffering inflicted.
For those that have an Audible subscription, several of the books by Davis are free, including this one.
Brilliant analysis! It is amazing that we don’t more carefully evaluate the baseline time period in our long term climate forecasts.
"The West" is repeating bad behavior with the less privileged parts of the world, seems likely by history.
I need to mention that Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever was the first person that I heard point out that since 1880 the global temperature has increased about 1.1 degrees C and that during that time human wellbeing has increased enormously.
This article is a good follow up to the questions that a few of us asked Roger about what the optimum temperature of the earth is and what the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere is. The baseline of the late 19th century seems somewhat arbitrary and it may be an unusual time in climate history.
"It clearly shows that per 10th of a degree of avoided warming, we save, we prevent risk, we prevent suffering. And that’s pretty powerful."
How does he quantify suffering based on 1/10 degree of warming? That's as fallacious as the idea that we know the global surfact temperature to 1/10 degrees C.
Even if you could measure it, what about the other side of the ledger? What about the harm done by making energy more expensive and less reliable? Imagine the kinds of draconian policies you’d need to implement to prevent any further warming. Talk about suffering….
The reality is that "climate concern" has been a fabrication. Warming has increased, not decreased, health, safety, wealth, as well as biomass globally. Climate policies have failed to decrease CO2, their stated goal. Climate policies have increased suffering, increased slavery, decreased wealth for the many, concentrated wealth to the few.