Professor Tim Flannery says no difference in global temperature “…for maybe a thousand years.”

Talking to Andrew Bolt today – Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery says that even if the whole world slashes its emissions we won’t know what difference it will make for maybe a thousand years.

He might be up for re-education if the Prime Minister hears of this.

It is all getting way past surreal.

8 comments to Professor Tim Flannery says no difference in global temperature “…for maybe a thousand years.”

  • val majkus

    There’s a post up at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog
    jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/what-percentage-of-air-is-human-sourced-c02/
    and my question was (not being a scientist)IN ANSWER TO THIS REPONSE
    Human contribution to [CO2] = 0.00117%, that is 11.7 ppmV per year, or 1.967 × 10-5 kilograms (0.00001967 kg). The current mass of CO2 per cubic meter of air is 0.000656 kg.

    The total change of temperature by carbon dioxide in the air is 0.1392 °K.

    Total ΔT = 0.1392 °K

    ΔT-No human contribution = 0.1264 °K

    ΔT-Only by human contribution = 0.0128 °K

    That’s all… The carbon dioxide is not a cause of global warming. Its total emissivity is ridiculously low.

    :)

    Nasif, thank you for that
    I’m no scientist so I have a stupid question
    where do you get those figures from?

    answer
    Yes, there are some sources on the human contribution of 11.7 ppmV:

    www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    www.qohel.com/2011/03/05/pricing-carbon/

    And from the IPCC AR4 report at:

    www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

    although one should make some simple calculations:

    Total: 880 Gtons per year.

    Human contribution: 26.4 Gtons per year.

    26.4 Gt / 880 Gt = 0.029, rounding up the cipher gives 0.03, that is 3%.

    The remainder numbers on my post were obtained by applying the following formula:

    ΔT = α (LN ([CO2] current / [CO2] standard)) / (4 * σ * T^3).
    ΔT is change of temperature, α is power flux by CO2 per degree Kelvin (the IPCC and AGWers prefer to call it “CO2climate sensitivity” –it’s an arbitrary quantity, but I introduce the value they handle, i.e. 5.35 W/m^2 K), [CO2] current is for the current concentration of CO2, [CO2] standard is for the concentration of carbon dioxide that the AGWers and the IPCC consider “normal” (another arbitrary constant), σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2 K^3), and T^3 is the standard absolute temperature to the third power (Tstd = 290 K).

    Here an example is:

    ΔT = 5.35 (W/m^2 K) (LN (390 ppmV/ 280 ppmV))/(4*5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2 K^3*(290 K)^3) = 1.773 (W/m^2 K) / 5.53 (W/m^2) = 0.32 K

    If I had an atmospheric temperature of 16.53 °C, the temperature of the carbon dioxide would be 16.85 °C.

    If I had a fraction of carbon dioxide of 560 ppmV, the temperature of that volume of carbon dioxide would be 290.67 K (17.25 °C).

    The problem with the IPCC and collaborators is that they use only the first portion of the algorithm:
    ΔT = α (LN ([CO2] current / [CO2] standard))

    This way, they obtain fictitious anomalies of temperature under different “scenarios”:

    ΔT = 5.35 (W/m^2 K) (LN (390 ppmV/ 280 ppmV)) = 1.77 °K (it’s valid to write ° before K).
    But this practice is easily debunked when one examine the units:

    ΔT = (W/m^2 K) (LN (ppmV/ ppmV)) = W/m^2 K. This is not units for temperature, but for rate of power flux per degree Kelvin. Pseudoscience, that is what it is.

    :)

    Does anyone have any comments
    If I understand what Flannery is saying he may be incorrect as to the amt of man made C02 and secondly the residence time of c02 in the atmosphere

    unfortunately in the interview those 2 questions (a) the amt and (b) what does he say the residence time is were not asked

    BUT he is the scientist and why

  • val majkus

    The other interesting interview between Andrew Bolt and Professor John Daley, CEO of the Grattan Institute, which is releasing a report which finds that our state and federal governments tipped $12 billion into emissions-cutting schemes that were close to useless, and which argues we should go for emissions trading instead:

    Bolt: To get to Julia Gillard’s target of cutting emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, how many more of these billions would we need to have spent…?

    Daley: Well, if you’re going to do the whole lot through rebate schemes, you’d have to spend in the order of about $300 billion …(Gillard’s emissions trading scheme) is a much more efficient way to go…

    Bolt: You say go to carbon trading, or emissions trading. Iin your report you of course have look at whether this is worth doing – you’ve looked at what you would get for your money. By how much will the world’s temperatures fall if we go to this emissions trading scheme that Julia Gillard recommends? You’ve no doubt looked at that.

    Daley: Well, it of course depends on what other countries in the world…

    Bolt: No, no, just ours, John. I’m just looking at us. Us alone.

    Daley: This is a classic collective action problem. If every country in the world looks at how much will their reductions make a difference, the answer for any individual country, even for the United States, even for China, is not that much.

    Bolt: No, no, I’ve got you. I’m very familiar with that argument, that if we don’t move, no one else will, and nothing’s done and it all goes to hell in a handbasket. What I’m trying to do is just get to the bottom-line facts: if we spend these umpteen billions on cutting emissions further, to the five per cent by 2020, how much will Australia’s action alone cut the world’s temperature by? That must be measured somewhere. That must be part of your report.

    Daley: Well, I think it’s not been measured anywhere because it’s not seen as being the right way to think about this.

    Bolt: Well it would be. People want to know the gain for the pain. Have a guess then.

    Daley: The reality is that no country in the world is cutting their emissions alone…So to what extent are we doing our fair share?…

    Bolt: Look, we’ve got that argument…. I’ll ask just one last time… If you don’t know just say so, but if you do know, I know it’s got all those caveats, but just tell us how much the world’s temperature will fall if we do what you recommend and what Julia Gillard plans.

    Daley: As I said, we haven’t run the numbers on how much it will make a difference if Australia acts completely alone.

    Bolt: You should have.

    Daley: The reason we haven’t done that is because Australia is not acting alone. Therefore it’s not a very helpful thing to analyse.

    blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

    I think I’m right; this is a tax grab to make the ‘smoke and mirrors’ which I expect Swan to release look more acceptable having regard to the fact they said they would return to surplus in 2012-13

    Is there any other reason that anyone can see?

  • pattoh

    You know Warwick putting it out at around 1000yrs is entirely appropriate for a Climate Nostradamis.

  • Flannery: paleoastrologist…

  • Mervyn Sullivan

    Sooner or later, those who subscribe to the IPCC’s mantra (that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is the key factor causing catastrophic global warming) are going to have to accept that they are wrong, or that they have been profoundly misled by the United Nations’ IPCC.

    Everyday, it seems that further scientific evidence comes to light that exposes the flaws and errors in the IPCC’s mantra.

    The only reason why such people currently refuse to even acknowledge or consider the possibility that carbon dioxide is not a key driver of global temperature, let alone climate change, is because the reputations, credibility, sense of judgment, and careers of too many people involved in politics, science and scientific institutions, universities, government agencies, the media, etc will be at risk.

    Also, to acknowledge that the IPCC is wrong would be an acknowledgment that they have all been victims of the world’s greatest hoax… the world’s greatest con… the world’s greatest fraud… the world’s greatest swindle of tax payers’ money around the globe.

    In particular, the implications for scientists promoting the IPCC’s mantra would be severe… their research papers and other publications would be deemed suspect if not unreliable… their positions in academia, etc would probably be terminated… and there could also be legal ramifications for some.

    Today, in Australia, those promoting the IPCC’s mantra need to seriously start thinking about the consequences of their actions… individuals like David Karoly and Tim Flannery… economists like Ross Garnaut… CEO’s like BHP’s Marius Kloppers and Westpac’s Gail Kelly. What will they say when the IPCC’s mantra is officially acknowledged to be false and discredited, as it will? Sorry?

  • val majkus

    (here’s the explanation – published in The Australian’s letters today)

    YOU report correctly that I said if humanity ceased emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, it would take centuries for their concentration in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial (1800AD) levels.

    This is, however, not an argument for complacency, or abandoning the target. Rather, it highlights the importance of avoiding every kilogram of greenhouse gas emissions we can, for once in the atmosphere they are extremely difficult to get out, and have long-term consequences.

    The importance of turning emissions trends downwards as soon as possible is emphasised by the relationship between emissions and temperature. If all major emitters adopt a similar level of effort to our 5 per cent reduction target in 2020 (or better) and continue to decarbonise thereafter, we’ll cap the temperature rise to no more than 2C later this century and temperatures will begin to drop at the end of this century.

    If we fail to achieve these targets, we’ll likely see temperatures rising by 4C towards the end of the century and it will still be going up at 2100. What we do in this decade will be crucial in determining whether we have a world we can live in at the end of the century.

    Professor Tim Flannery, Chief Climate Commissioner, Canberra, ACT

    Hmmm … I’m no scientist but …

  • Gerald Machnee

    Flannery is likely correct, but for the wrong reasons. If CO2 caused little increase then of course we will not notice the difference if we decrease the amount of CO2.