Three weeks ago, Mr Victor and Mr Kennel admitted in Nature that the 2 °C "warming target" is a plain idiocy. In the climate alarmist movement, even such obviously valid observations turn out to be immensely controversial.
So Stefan Rahmstorf published another memo on RealClimate.ORG,
(Incidentally, neither Rahmstorf nor a single other participant of the RealClimate.ORG exchanges knows that the units such as joules and kelvins are written in lowercase letters. So the answer to the question "Are you smarter than a 5th grader, climate scientist?" may very well be "No.")
There are advantages and disadvantages of the joule ocean target and the kelvin surface target. The heat is said to be "hiding" in the ocean so clearly, if we carefully trace the heat in the ocean, we should be able to see all of it. The resulting curves for the total heat should be smoother and more predictable, and therefore a better basis for a "climate planning".
On the other hand, with this methodology, it indeed becomes obvious that they're trying to build plans on a quantity whose value doesn't matter to anyone. No one cares what the temperature is 500 meters beneath the sea, especially if the expected temperature changes are even smaller than those on the surface. Some goals based on the "surface temperatures" are seemingly more relevant for the people and the most important ecosystems.
But all these people are totally incapable of understanding that
the whole philosophy of their "climate planning" is totally defective.Whether you try to plan the climate in joules or kelvins, you won't change the facts that
- it is irrational to enact laws that "repel" the society from a particular number of excess joules or excess kelvins because there doesn't exist any glimpse of scientific evidence that something special is happening at/near these randomly chosen numerical thresholds
- people aren't even in full control of the number of these joules or kelvins, so any "climate plan" saying that "we won't surpass a threshold" is inevitably just a guess that may be right or wrong. If it turns out to be right, the "climate plan" is useless because the planned threshold was higher than the reality; if it turns out to be wrong, the resources spent to stay below the threshold are wasted because nothing really changes at that threshold.
The Stalinist lyrics of the musically cute Czechoslovak song from the 1950s is a sequence of hardcore left-wing clichés that have been plagiariazed by Al Gore so I don't have to translate it – you've heard this junk many times.
Their closest soulmates, the actual Stalinists in the 1950s, had the slogan
We'll command the wind and the rain.In late 1989, we would like to add an extra verse:
Poručíme, větru dešti.
We'll command the wind and the rain.Needless to say, it was just weeks before Nicolae Ceaușescu was informally executed so months later, these folks couldn't command the wind and the rain even in Romania. However, the Romanians and others failed to execute tons of Nicolae Ceaușescu's soulmates so these dangerous assholes are again planning to command the wind and the rain not only in Bucharest but in many other cities – really the whole globe, if you ask them.
But tomorrow only in Bucharest.
Poručíme, větru dešti,
zítra už jen v Bukurešti.
Comrades, why aren't you satisfied with a realistic temperature target, i.e. to ask your nurse to regulate the temperature in your own room in the psychiatric asylum? And just f@ck off of the rest of the world where you have absolutely no business to harass, preach, and oxidize.
The fact that all this climate panic pseudoscience is controlled by left-wing extremists is obvious in every other detail. For example, Rahmstorf's newest article ends with these comments:
[p.s. I am grateful that David Victor has apologized to me for comparing it to "methods of the far right" that I introduced him as a "political scientist" in my previous post (as in fact he is in the intro to his interview). This matter is now settled and forgotten, with no hard feelings.] - See more at: URLIn the real world, David Victor had nothing to apologize for because by his description, he has (unintentionally) overstated the value of Mr Rahmstorf as a human being by several orders of magnitude and Mr Rahmstorf should have been flattered.
The comments under Rahmstorf's article tell you quite something about what sort of people the RealClimate.ORG fans are. The first one by Mr Greisch says
Politicians can misinterpret anything they want to.which is sort of true but it's not celebrated by anyone because the likes of Rahmstorf and his readers are imagining, and often rightfully so, that they are actually controlling the politicians. So it's explicitly or effectively the climate alarmists who are misinterpreting anything they want. But the second comment is more interesting:
Limiting ocean heat content to 10^24 Joules will open serious problems of measurement, even within factors of 10. Perhaps that’s the idea? “Let’s argue about measurements, not consequences.”?Fantastic! It's wrong according to Mr Harrison to talk about measurements. No one in proper science can possibly care about the measurements, right? What matters are the consequences that don't have to be connected with any empirical data. As a notorious alarmist openly wrote, it's not about the truth at all – it's about something plausible. ;-)
The next commenter Mr Lynch "finds this entire discussion disturbing" and would prefer CO2 emission targets only, sort of openly admitting that the emissions' relationship with the temperatures is so noisy, unreliable, and weakly correlated that it effectively doesn't exist. Someone mentions that Roger Pielke Sr has proposed the ocean heat content as a metric and asks whether he's still alive. He immediately appears in the next comment, capitalizing joules as well.
Some other comment only says "We have to act.", clearly showing that the difference between joules and kelvins is too much of a detail for the author but he or she is sure about the main point, that the sky is falling, anyway. Two more comments sort of support the joule target.
Thankfully, these nuts have largely run out of steam in the recent 5 years. Thankfully, Poland is decided to veto some new wave of carbon regulation in the EU (hopefully, many many others will join Poland: it seems that the Baltic States have joined so *all* the post-socialist EU countries oppose the climate deal now; Britain and Cyprus are in between but may join the full opposition, too) which may be effectively joining the example of Australia. This whole thing seems to be fading away. But it is fading away so frustratingly slowly and these individuals continue to be so incredibly dangerous...