Climate Change Parts
- Climate is Changing
- CO2 is the Reason
- Politicians Have the Solution
It’s Changing
Without a doubt climate is changing.
There was a move a few years back to change the discussion from “global warming” to the more politically correct meme “climate change” just so no one could reasonably deny it was happening.
Depending on one’s time frame, global warming is happening too. The questions are why and for how long?
Is CO2 the Reason?
An increase in CO2 is likely part of the answer but what part? And why the slowdown vs what the models predicted?
Nature.Com discusses Making Sense of the Early 2000s Warming Slowdown.
Climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing. This mismatch focused attention on a compelling science problem — a problem deserving of scientific scrutiny.
Nonetheless, let’s assume the models are correct and that 1950-1970 and 2002-2014 did not happen.
Let’s also assume there was no data manipulation anywhere.
How Fast is the Sea Rising?
Please consider How Fast is the Sea Rising?
Between 1900 and 2016, the globally averaged sea level rose by 16–21 cm (6.3–8.3 in). More precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm (3.0 in) from 1993 to 2017, which is a trend of roughly 30 cm (12 in) per century.
Let’s assume 100% of the ocean’s rise is due not only to CO2 but manmade CO2 and as a result the oceans will rise by a foot in the next 100 years.
Existential Threat of Our Time
On February 3, I noted Climate Change Moves to the Forefront of Biden’s Legislation
“It’s long past time for the Senate to take a leading role in combating the existential threat of our time: climate,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Allegedly, the existential threat to mankind is a 1 foot rise in the ocean over the next 100 years.
Cheaper to Deal With it Now
On January 28, I noted John Kerry’s Straw Man Arguments for Wasting Money on Climate Change
John Kerry: “There are countless economic analyses now that show it’s now cheaper to deal with the crisis of climate than it is to ignore it. We spent $265 billion 2 years ago on 3 storms, Irma, Harvey, and Maria … We’re spending the money, folks. We’re just not doing it smart” pic.twitter.com/ZGXFCwqZhz
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 27, 2021
Kerry blamed 4 hurricanes on climate change as if throwing any amount of money at the alleged problem would have stopped the hurricanes.
Some claim I took Kerry out of context. Play it yourself to see.
Where is the CO2 Coming From?
CO2 Stats
- Please note that the US reduced its carbon footprint from 6.13 billion tons in 2007 to 5.28 billion tons in 2019.
- Meanwhile, China increased its footprint from 6.86 billion tons in 2019 to 10.17 billion tons in 2019.
- In the same timeframe, global output rose from 31.29 billion tons to 36.44 billion tons.
- In 2007, the US accounted for 19.6% of the total global carbon footprint.
- In 2019, the US accounted for only 14.5% of the total global footprint.
A Word About Cherry Picking Data
Cherry Picking?
What the hell do you think is going to happen when everyone in China and India using mostly coal want higher standards of living?
You reaffirm the big problem ahead is totally outside US control.
Yet, Biden, AOC, etc. think the US can solve this with dollars
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) February 15, 2021
For pointing out that the US only accounted for 14.5% of the total global footprint, not only was I accused of cherry picking the data it led to charges of me being a racist.
This comment kicked it off: “Mish, please alter the graph. You can’t show that China is a major polluter or in any way shape or form, a bad actor, because that is racist.”
That I believe was sarcasm but many others jumped on the boat.
Take this comment for example.
What verges on racism is believing that the billions in China, Africa, South America don’t have the right to pollute at the same rate as those of us in the developed world. And what verges on willful ignorance is discounting what climate scientists say are the consequences of introducing so much CO2 into the atmosphere.
AOC’s New Green Deal
Please recall AOC’s Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing.
Here’s another amusing reader comment
You keep equating the estimated cost of the green new deal with the cost of getting to net zero emissions. That is incorrect, there are a ton of expensive proposals in the green new deal which have nothing to do with carbon emissions.
OK. What portion of AOC’s plan does one want to assign to carbon?
67%? 50%? 33%?
$90 Trillion Solutions
In 2015, Business Insider noted A Plan Is Floating Around Davos To Spend $90 Trillion Redesigning All The Cities So They Don’t Need Cars
The $90 trillion proposal came from former US vice president Al Gore, former president of Mexico Felipe Calderon, and their colleagues on The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.
A Word About Scientific Consensus
The scientific consensus when I was in grade school was the threat of global cooling.
Teachers discussed plans to dump charcoal on the ice to warm the earth as a solution. https://t.co/vwqVwphF4e
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) February 17, 2021
Politicians Have the Solution?!
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter.
Climate change is ongoing for hundreds of millions of years.
I never said otherwise.
I do question the extreme emphasis on CO2, noting lies, coverups, and insane hype.
What I am sure of:
Politicians like AOC, Al Gore, John Kerry are hucksters incapable of solving anything. https://t.co/7rUsUcoLW7
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) February 17, 2021
Let’s review the key point: In 2019, the US accounted for only 14.5% of the total global footprint.
Key Questions
- How much money are we willing to spend to reduce our 14.5% and falling percentage of carbon emissions?
- What would it cost to cut that by half in 10 years?
- Assuming we could cut that in half in 10 years, what would it do to total carbon output?
- By what force do we get China, India, and all the developing economies in the Mideast and Africa to reduce their carbon output?
- Assuming we achieve number 4 peacefully by some sort of economic buyout like cap-and-trade what is the cost to the US?
- What about inflation?
- Sure, China is producing goods for the US and EU but do we want that to stop? When? Why? How? Cost?
- Does not China, India, Africa, etc., have the right to improve their standards of living?
- What do the above points imply about the US standard of living?
- How the hell do we pay for this?
Looking ahead over the next 100 years, the US is a minor part of the carbon problem.
I have yet see AOC, John Kerry, any Mish reader, or anyone else address any of the above 10 questions in detail, and I am sure that set of questions is incomplete.
Final Questions to All Those Demanding Government Do Something
What the hell are you doing?
The #1 thing someone can proactively do eliminate their carbon footprint is to stop breathing.
Since that seems a bit impractical, the #2 thing someone can do is not have kids.
Anyone up in arms about carbon ought to not have kids, not eat meat, not drive a car, not have a TV, not listen to the radio, and in general not do much of anything.
Instead, most demand the government do something. What?
Until someone can put a realistic price on this while addressing my 10 questions, forgive me for not agreeing that a total rise in the ocean of 3 inches in the last 20 years is the existential threat of our time.
GM to Phase Out Gas-Powered Vehicles by 2035, Carbon Neutral by 2040
One day after Kerry’s ridiculous rant, I noted GM to Phase Out Gas-Powered Vehicles by 2035, Carbon Neutral by 2040.
Assuming one believes CO2 is a problem, this is the way problems are solved.
GM is not doing this to save the world, it is doing this because market forces mandate a change.
Similarly, solar power will come into play as storage technology improves.
The free market, not populist ideas will solve real world problems.
Bonus Geopolitical Q&A
Q: What happened when Merkel went along with the Greens and did away with nuclear?
A: Germany imports more coal-based energy from neighboring states and is more dependent on Russia for natural gas.
Q: Is wind and solar ever going to make a serious dent in China’s growing energy demands.
A: No
Q: What happened in France when Macron pushed through a gas tax to support the Green movement?
A: How quick we forget the Yellow-Vest Revolt that went on for months.
The Real Threat
The “existential threat” is politicians seeking $90 trillion solutions to hyped-up problems.
Mish
Since when did gross assumption become “statistically significant empirical data” and therefore scientific data?
Amazing to me that the sun, whose behavior still surprizes us, is totally discounted. We have a pollution problem, overconsumption of resources, etc. Many ways to improve without any mention of co2, warming, climate shift, etc. Pollution & overconsumption of annual resources are easy to see & try to mitigate.
co2 does not control the climate. But it is essential for all life on the planet. Releasing co2 via burning fossil fuels is one of the greatest things we can do for the planet. Restoring a healthy co2 balance that supports all life. Without co2 there is no life- at all. co2 is definitely not carbon pollution. To suggest that is very dangerous and disingenuous.
Even worse. Why the total lack of information regarding the fact that the Earth has toyed with an extinction event NINE TIMES during the past 1 million years due not to too much CO2 but because of TOO LITTLE in the atmosphere? Why indeed unless of course it destroys the political narrative. Deiberately only parts of the story are being told.
For 160 million years the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been falling and removed from the Carbon Cycle. During the first half of the current Ice Age atmospheric CO2 levels fell to 180ppm or put another way 20ppm above the concentration at which photosynthesis is compromised and plant die and as a consequence all the rest of life dies. The very recent and very short lived uptick in CO2 is helping avoind a disaster…yet there are lunatics out there with no knowledge of the real place of CO2 for life and the planet want to be paid money to remove CO2 from the atmosphere faster?
Mish, I join truthseekers above compliment to your posts on climate change. In an older post someone showed a graph from link to ncdc.noaa.gov. Those data shows an incredibly strong correlation of CO2 and temperature over 800’000 years.
link to ncdc.noaa.gov.
My question now was whether the data also shows that as presumed CO2 is somewhat a precursor and temperature follows or whether the data shows the opposite and temperature is more of a precursor and CO2 following. So I downloaded the data and analyzed it.
I admit it is not a strictly scientific result as the periods are not equidistant. But as best conclusion (with such a quick analysis) is that temperature is more of a precursor and CO2 is following. Correlation is slightly increasing with temperature as precursor and is declining a little more rapidly with CO2 as precursor:
Why might this be important? In those 800’000 years rising temperature seems to lead to higher CO2 (and not higher CO2 to higher temperature) and vice versa. One reason certainly is that CO2 is less stored in the oceans at higher temperatures. Now starting with the industrialisation for the first time we have a man made increase in CO2. If CO2 is not such a big driver (and precursor) for higher temperatures as always presupposed then the man made effect on CO2 might be much less important than widely accepted and correlation of temperature and CO2 will be lower. This is maybe one reason that the temperature increase observed is smaller than forecasted by main stream climate scientists.
Interesting that you never read things like this. But for billions of CO2 taxes it is much better to never ask things like this.
Your observation on temperature and CO2 IS correct. What you are seeing is the degassing of the oceans as they warm. When they cool they absorb more CO2.
Atmospheric CO2 increase FOLLOWS temperature rise, not the other way around as the Nobel Prize winning genius Gore says. You saw it, it is there in the data.
Also regarding the greenhouse properties of CO2, well, physics is very clear about the absorption spectra of CO2 vs Water Vapour with Water Vapour being the MAIN greenhouse gas ( By the way the Greenhouse Effect is still only a theory never having been proven). Double CO2 in the atmosphere and the effect will be negligible? Why? Because unless the progressives get their way and trash physics then the absorption frequencies in the infra read are already swamped by water vapour which is also not only more effective as a greenhouse gas per molecue but also 5x the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Another interesting empirical data based fact is that geological history confirms the physics. Back in the Cambrian the atmospheric level of CO2 was around 7000ppm yet the planet did not burn up as the doom mongers screech about for a few hundred PPM. Indeed there is no corellation whatsovever between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface temperature over geological time.
Parting shot. The Carbon Cycle has been out of sync now for 160 million years. If the average of atmospheric CO2 over geological time is considered then it will be found to be 2500ppm which is what the concentration was when the vegetables we eat ( the angiosperms) evolved. That is why commercial greenhouse growers pump CO2 because 410ppm is nowhere near the level that those plants want. They were designed for higher levels of CO2.
The problem we are facing today is that the science is being actively corrupted by politics and it is not easy to pull the two apart. Science which does not sing from the revolutionary marxist hymn book is silenced. Add to that in the West, devoid of a religion we actually have people who would be disappointed and indeed angry if it can be proven conclusively that the cause of the recent WELCOME warming is the big shiny thing in the sky just doing it’s thing.
WHY with clear evidence that human society flourished and there were no great disasters befalling man as a consequence of the Minoan Warming, The Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, which were on average warmer than today should the current warming be treated with anything other than celebration?
In lieu of a world war reset, the global machine is looking for a massive modernization effort that spends gobs of money(credit) and generates inflation and makes wealthiest even richer. Krugman said we needed to pretend Mars was attacking. This is the same. Even if Global Warming were true that switch is thrown and we cannot reset it back to 1976. By the time countries actually institute anything to address global warming we will all be in the grave
Mish, this is one of the best posts I’ve ever read here.
This is what you have wrong: Both the Eddy cycle (1,000 years) and the Suess/Devries solar cycle (206 years) can each increase or decrease the Earth’s average temperature by 1 degree C. The latest cold point of the Eddy cycle was in the year 1700. The Earth’s average temperature has increased 1 degree C per century since then. This rate of increase was the same before and after the Industrial Revolution. These temperature changes are well documented to have changed phase 25 times since the last ice age.
A few thoughts-
” According to my research, carbon pricing really is not about the climate or ‘nature’ at all, but more related to institutional public images and profit through financialization of nature in the current era of neoliberal capitalism.”
Well, that was a list of points from 1-4 when it was compiled. Interesting feature in this platform’s software.
The Climate change narrative is all about subjugation and taxation. Mish is right on with his analysis.
The cause of the 21st century “pause” in global warming is cyclical and was predicted. In 2000, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation entered the cool phase. This cools the Earth’s average temperature by several tenths of a degree C. The cool phase will last for 30 years. In 2009 the Seuss/DeVries solar cycle entered the cool phase. This will cool the Earth by 1 degree C for 33 years, plus or minus one standard deviation. There is a mountain of physical evidence to support the proof of these cycles, among others. The climate models did not predict this cooling trend because the climate modelers are deniers of the climate science which indicates that nearly all of the climate change we are experiencing is cyclical. If the climate modelers admitted that the cooling trend is cyclical, they would also have to admit that all the warming trends we have seen are also cyclical. There is no physical evidence which indicates that the changing climate is due to increases in CO2. The increase in sea levels are due to the Earth entering the warm phase of the Eddy cycle in the 1850’s, which was the end of the Little Ice Age and the beginning of the Modern Warm Period. However, the warm phases of the Eddy cycle are becoming less warm and shorter, and the cool phases of the Eddy cycle are becoming colder and longer. This indicates that the Holocene interglacial warm period is coming to an end.
Like the general perspective of your post, but would not be quick to discount the human factor going forward. The estimated population of the planet has increased from about 1 billion to 7.8 billion during the last ~220 years and collectively we’ve done a lot (from changing the surface of the planet to increasing cloud cover via air travel and general aerosol loading to dumping thermal energy (heat) into the atmosphere).
To riff on what they say in investing, past performance may not indicate future results.
The bottom line: Americans are not convinced about the human CO2 significance argument. They are brilliant in their collective judgement. CO2 hypothesis has failed. Models are continuing to be wrong. Between planet degassing and the cosmic environment, tremendous arrogance is needed to think your computer model is relevant.
Thanks Mish for laying it out for all the readers.
At the risk of becoming the resident Graph-o-Nazi, something should be said about that “Warming Slowdown” graph at the top of the posting.
It does not show climate. Well, it does, but you have to intuit climate from it.
Here’s how:
Put a dot on the left on the 1950 axis where the temperature was measured to be in 1950. That dot will, presumably, be near the center of the gray area.
Do the same for 2010.
Put a dot on each of those years to best represent the predicted temperatures at those two times. Maybe in the middle of the predictions’ values?
Do the same for 1980. Two dots in 1980, that is, one for measured temp, the other for predicted.
Now put similar pairs of dots on 1965 and 1995.
Draw two smooth curves between the measured/predicted dots.
Those two curves show the measured and predicted climate-temperature for those 60 years.
All the jagged ups and downs are best called “weather”. They reflect things like El Ninos and perhaps sampling errata.
If it makes you uncomfortable extrapolating anything important from 5 samples, it should. That’s why researchers have been madly trying to piece together accurate measurements from times before satellites have provided reliable data for their tiny bit of the whole-Earth’s cover.
Stop playing the victim, Mish. Yes, I’m sure some people said some things that hurt your feelings when you put your climate opinions forward, but that happens with most subjects.
You jumped right on the “frozen windmills” meme like a little bitch loving every moment of the “those pointy-head scientists didn’t think of this” stupidity – only to discover that if you’d either waited a few hours for the reality kickback, or just used your mediocre noodle, you’d have figured out that Fox News/Abbott memes have a tendency to deteriorate quickly.
As one commentator noted, the derision that would be poured on a climate scientist would be a degree of magnitude more on this board if s/he spouted simplistic nonsense about economics then you received.
I fully agree with your comments on Mish’s knee-jerk “blame the wind turbines” reaction, however, posting here is somewhat like being a guest in a man’s home.
Just a thought.
I’m sure I’ll be kicked off pronto – frankly surprised this stayed up so long.
Let’s blame central banks. Without fiat currency and borrowing it into existence, consumerism would not have been able to purchase as many disposable products as they have.
Link disappeared….love your analysis, spot on. And there is so much more to the weather. link to thunderbolts.info
And Perseverance has landed!
Did you notice how the NASA talking head kept referring to Mars as “this habitable planet”. Talk about spin.
No I didn’t see that because I was watching it on French TV because there was no lag as there was streaming from my computer. Sounds like the talking head went overboard a bit. Mars is definitely not habitable yet.
So the libertarian answer is always the same. There is no crisis. Do nothing. Let the individual suffer bear all the risks and events from these risks. By this libertarian logic we should not have done anything about anything in the history of time. Vaccines ? Nope. Let ’em all die. Libertarian logic says all government is bad.
I’m hoping Biden will offer better subsidies for people to go solar at the homestead. I should have done it in 2018….had it all planned…but my partner objected to the measly 50K I was going to borrow to make it happen. There was a discussion and I was persuaded to wait.
What can I say. If momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.
Few questions I have seen asked but not answered:
What IS the optimum temperature and co2 levels for this planet?
Does co2 lead temperature increase or does temperature increase cause more co2 in atmosphere?
If sea level rise is an issue why do the rich keep buying and building houses and resorts on the shores and islands?
I will believe its an issue when the rich start treating it like an issue and not another opportunity to get more, with or without their hands in the taxpayers pockets
They are the canaries in coal mine. When they leave the coasts and islands then the danger is real but its fine till then.
“What IS the optimum temperature and co2 levels for this planet?”
The 280 ppm level we had in 1750 looks pretty good if you’re a human….plants might disagree, but who listens to them.
“Does co2 lead temperature increase or does temperature increase cause more co2 in atmosphere?”
That looks pretty clear. CO2 causes temperature increase, all other variables held constant….they aren’t always constant, however.
“If sea level rise is an issue why do the rich keep buying and building houses and resorts on the shores and islands?”
Because some of those islands are really lovely places until a Category 5 blows in.
I can tell you that the trend is already starting to change, with regards to the real estate buying behavior of rich people. But change comes slowly, and St. John is still a very nice place to hang out and drink frozen Mango daiquiris.
And since Maria and Irma…….island real estate prices are are down…..just not down to my personal price point. I check periodically, and wish for more hurricanes….Oops, did I say that out loud.?
What is the optimum temperature and CO2 levels for the planet?
The planet don’t care.
There have been 4.6 billion years with life forms on Earth.
Oddly enough, those life forms that developed in those past times were best suited to the then existing climactic conditions.
When climactic conditions changed, those life forms died out.
It’s been much hotter, and much colder than it is now.
55 million years ago the first primates developed.
195,000 years ago, homo sapiens first appeared.
About 5000 years ago, large scale civilizations appeared.
So one would guess that trying to maintain the climate as similar as possible to the recent past few millenea would be the ideal for humans.
So we have had a pretty narrow slice of climactic conditions that have llowed people to flourish.
“If sea level rise is an issue why do the rich keep buying and building houses and resorts on the shores and islands?”
Because the government pays them to rebuild there when they get wiped out by floods or hurricanes.
Bought a few GLD for another fun trade. The dollar is in an uptrend, but it’s a weak-ass trend so far. Gold is stretched a lot to the downside, if you believe in reversion to the mean.
Inflation signs are everywhere. The calculus for gold depends on what you fear most….inflation, or opportunity loss in some hotter asset. jmho.
Imho the biggest threat to any risk asset at the moment would be a big correction in stocks, which would take everything down…but since that looks a few months away in the worst case., gold might have time to make a move.
Gold is weak for many reasons….strong dollar, fomo behavior in bitcoin and stocks both….even the rising bond yields….but I like this for a short term bottom.
…I think we re both TOO OLD to understand what ‘s going on….maybe you won t admit it but as far as I am concerned it is definitely ALL beyond my grasp!…..Is gold undervalued? the US$?, the crazy Yen, the fckn Euro maybe? Who knows, in this artificially created and manipulated Central Banks, make believe world, everything is possible….. You know Eddie, I really AM happy I passed ‘Cape Horn’ a couple of years ago, had a fantastic life….and my fckn middle finger to everything that comes next….
Mebbe so. It’s a complicated mess…no argument from me, brother.
I am afraid there is ONLY ONE general solution to safeguard our pathetic existance : BUY BITCOIN !
existEnce.. ….ain t it fckn hard to be a perfect polyglot?
It’s the old ‘rainmaker’ scam updated for the modern world.
In the 1800s when a town / region was in a drought a rainmaker (shaman) would appear and tell the people he could make it rain if they gave him some money to perform a dance and a prayer to god. When they gave him money, if it rained, he claimed the credit and with happy customers spreading the good word moved on to the next region. If it didn’t rain, he’d tell them it was because the gods were more displeased that imagined and that he needed more money (ie double down on failure) and more prayer. Eventually it would rain or the townspeople would realize it was a scam (after giving more and more money) and run him out of town.
With climate change if we give 1.9 trillion and things get better (or not worse) they will claim all the credit and say we need to remain vigilant (ie continue paying). If things get worse they will say they underestimated things and that doubling down will get climate change under control. Rinse / repeat until we all realize the scam for what it is.
All old white men are racists by the current definition of racism . No exceptions. As the lucky (but completely undeserving) recipients of unbelievable privilege, there is no way we could NOT be racists….
Please report immediately for your mandatory diversity training.
Guilt tripping is a Democrat thing. Used to be a bug, now it’s a feature.
“Guilt tripping is a Democrat thing. Used to be a bug, now it’s a feature.”
While I do agree in part, seeing Trump’s campaigning in 2015, I went so far as to complain that the aftermath of him getting elected would be a swing to the opposite.
White men now have a stigma, I hate it, I saw it coming and I can’t say I blame them as I recall angry mobs chanting “Jews will not replace us” and a president asked to make a statement to assure the public said “There are very fine people on both sides”….and then there was “stand back and stand by”.
He threw a stink bomb in the room and left us to deal with it.
“If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you micro-aggress us, shall we not revenge?”. – (Act III, scene I).”
Yep, old white guys are always being victimized.
You just gave me a micro-aggression. Mish, block him immediately! I demand it!
Bidens climate plan is $1.7t over 10 years. link to joebiden.com . But that number doesn’t shock the conscience the way AOC’s $90t plan does.
Exactly. Biden is somewhere in the middle. Exactly why he was elected. Mish and others keep trying the Republican playbook of labeling. It doesn’t really work anymore because Replicants and Libertarians answer is to do NOTHING.
As previously mentioned, you are missing the big picture. Gates, Schwab and the other nutjobs are using gloBull warming to make the UN the One-World Govt, using the argument that no one country can stop the climate from changing, so we all need to surrender our sovereignty to the UN to save the world. If it sounds nutty, it is, but these people truly believe they are God on earth. The politicians/CB’s/MSM know the system they’ve concocted is coming to an end, and they believe they can preserve their perks and power by throwing in with the nutjobs, and the great unwashed surfs can be sacrificed.
We all like to think changes will happen gradually, but there are tipping points where changes happen rapidly and there is no going back. We know very little about such things as the global ocean circulation current and it’s possible endangerment by rapidly melting Greenland ice (there’s a reason why Ireland is relatively warm when compared to Hudson Bay at the same latitude). We don’t really understand the present air circulation as affected by the jet stream and Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells and the effect on rainflall, temperature and climate.
So here we are, charging forward, pushing CO2 and CO2 equivalents which are know to affect the temperature to some of the highest levels in the history of the world, without understanding that we have been in a sweet-spot of climate in the world’s history that has allowed the billions of people to survive. There were many long periods of time in the world’s history where human life would not have been possible so we are fortunate. Check out “Canfield ocean” and the “Boring Billion” on google. There are a lot of bad end states that can happen.
As a people, we think we hit the home run, whereas really we were born on 3rd base. And we don’t really yet understand the rules.
“there are tipping points where changes happen rapidly and there is no going back. “
There are also tipping points that can pass completely unnoticed, and the major effects still won’t be felt for hundreds of years. I think might be looking at some of these here. That isn’t any less scary to me…..maybe more scary.
It’s the ‘no going back” part that still applies. Irreversible climate change.
It is quite likely that at some point in the future mankind can look back and ask why we didn’t do more when we could have. But at that point it won’t matter much.
I don’t think you are racist, ignorant yes, set on your 100 year old ways yes.
“How much money are we willing to spend to reduce our 14.5% and falling percentage of carbon emissions?”
“Looking ahead over the next 100 years, the US is a minor part of the carbon problem.”
The market to lower CO2 is not just the US. There is pressure all over the world to move to green energy. The choices are: lead or follow. AOC is picking lead.
“GM is not doing this to save the world, it is doing this because market forces mandate a change.”
Market forces LOL. Just a few month ago GM was all in to suing CA (with) Trump to keep them from enacting their emissions regulations, now they are ok with them. Did market forces changed in a couple of months or did the president change? Keep also in mind that Tesla is creating a market thanks to all the subsides they have gotten. Market forces? Please spare me your libertarian way of thinking that has no basis in reality.
As per my post in another topic I attended a college “Control Theory” lecture in the early 1970s regarding the greenhouse effect. At that time, as per the lecture, the jury was out as to whether this might lead to a global cooling or a global warming. It is beginning to look like it is leading to an overall warming but that is not to say the trend will be straight up. There may well be dips in the trend along the way. I have to say that I don’t buy into the argument that we should do nothing because of emissions from China and India. Every country should be doing whatever they can to reduce their carbon footprints. The developed countries of the world got a free pass during their developing years due to the fact that everyone was blissfully unaware of the damage being done.
Some of your takeaways are spot on.
The current scientific consensus on climate is questionable for a variety of reasons, the main one being that if you don’t go along with the narrative Kerry is flogging, you can’t even get published.
Climate models have been given too much credence. Some of them especially, like the doom-and-gloom RCP 8.5 from AR5, published by the IPCC in 2014. Short explanation….it’s totally bogus.
The AR5 reports were rushed to publication and had a lot of very questionable conclusions that don’t fit the data. However, some of the less dire predictions seem to be pretty close to the mark, like RCP 4.5……which is bad enough, btw.
None of the IPCC models take natural warming or cooling events into account at all. This is shortsighted. This is what explains the cooling you pointed out that doesn’t quite fit the narrative.
We still have what is probably bad science getting a lot of press. The most reliable piece of information the climate scientists have ever come up with….that we get a 3 degree rise for every doubling of CO2…is now being challenged as being on the low side…..I see no reason to believe that doubling CO2 will give a 4.5 or 5 degree rise, as some are now positing. It’s based on cloud science, which needs to be replicated, but won’t be.
So put me down for someone who thinks global warming is an existential threat, but is being somewhat overstated, with respects to the short term effects.
Sea level rise is not even going to be as a bad as Kerry says it is. And it will be dealt with.
Agriculture in many places is not going to be affected in a catastrophic way. In areas where agriculture is a marginally successful activity, we will have problems.
It is reasonable to think about spending money on getting more water to farmers, rather than subsidizing green energy.
It is reasonable to think about ways to increase resilience to the many climate related weather events, rather than subsidizing green energy.
However, we do need to cut our carbon emissions. I expect that will be market driven, but not by GM and their electric cars. It will be driven by demand destruction, which is already in progress. As cost of production goes up, producers can’t sell oil at a price consumers can afford….so consumers find ways to use less fossil fuel. There is plenty of room to reduce demand in a world full of waste.
I don’t think politicians are capable of making the right decisions to avoid climate disaster over the long haul. Humans have a short time horizon, both personally and politically. The green new deal is an ad campaign for a new conduit scheme to put government money into the usual pockets.
Renewable energy is not all bad….but it falls way short of providing for a civilization like the one we have going….peoople who can do math have figured this out already.
Nukes, good ones (not the plutonium fast breeder reactor kind) are a short-term viable solution…much progressive is being made in this area. If we could tap thorium as a fuel, it might take us out into the future a few hundred years. Not sure that one will be figured out, but I hope it is.
Meanwhile, the world still runs on oil…..production goals are still rising, not falling, in spite of the Biden and Kerry lip service to accords and our willingness to give Kerry a very large carbon footprint to reduce our collective carbon footprint.
Melting ice could also be attributed to underwater volcanoes that could stop erupting at any time and thus allow ice to form and sea levels to drop. It would be fun watching the show if we start measuring sea levels dropping. I imagine there are props in place to prevent that from ever happening.
Judith Curry says that natural effects expected over the next several years favor cooling…..which will probably make some of the more drastic short term predictions being made by climate alarmists fail to come true.
This is bad, because it give climate deniers leverage to discredit legitimate climate science.
What is troubling is that we now have these social memes driving the science, which is putting the cart before the horse. We need to try to understand the real story, not some view distorted by emotion and social media driven groupthink.
Thank you for a very balanced commentary. I am a practicing engineering and I have a physics degree and I am often appalled at the levels of ignorance in discussions like these, so I appreciate your knowledgeable and practical comments.
Wow, thanks.
Now that was unexpected.
There’s so much more to the weather, Earth is not an isolated system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g4NbhgpgRU&t=39s
Actually, it’s probably going to be worse and happen faster than the initial models have shown, unless there are many and more rapid remediation actions taken quickly. I’m not going to bother linking you all to the experts, they’re out there if you care to do the research.
I’ll just say, I’m glad that the climatologists and related scientists don’t try to dabble in economics.
The USA is responsible for a very substantial amount of the CO2 that China produces as it has offshored most of its industrial base to there. The plastic salad shooters along with most of the other crap purchased at WalMart comes from China.
The current electrical grid cannot function or sustain itself through any weather anomaly. Imagine adding just a few or 10 million EVs. Need to go somhere get any old 69 F150 Ford and go tow that frozen Tesla.
link to youtube.com
What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? 0.04%
Why no mention of the over-arching goals coming out of the WEF, UN, IMF, being bankrolled by Gates and other psychotic billionaire’s? Only someone with their head in the sand does not see the connected dots between the Great Reset/4th industrial Revolutions/Green new Deal/Build Back Better and gloBull warming/population control (now being enabled by Coronadoom).
Global Depopulation – Two Paths, One Destination –
link to zerohedge.com
Population and climate cycles obviously go back more than 50-100 years, which is typically what you see from the climate propagandists.
Population and civilizations generally rise during warming cycles, and contract during cooling cycles. More granularly, populations decline as they become more prosperous, and poorer populations have more kids because they need more working hands, and caregivers for parents that don’t have social security and welfare. These parents also need to account for higher death rates of impoverished kids.
First of all, this planet does not BELONG to the fckn (up) Sapiens Ape! All throughout evolution, disasters DID happen, it will be pretty difficult to avoid them in the future despite all fckn technology…. and please don t be too smug, our impressive 100 years of ‘modern development’ is only, or not even, a nanosecond within a universal context ! In the meantime, our one and only beautiful planet is being destroyed by 8 bln, and ticking, crazy predators, and although we might colonize the fckn moon and other barren rocks, NOTHING is guaranteed , the C pandemic being a great example ! Let’s enjoy while we can, WITHOUT creating green dictatorships serving, as usual, the happy few like, Musk, Bezos, Gates and other admirable mfckrs ….
Guess what else will affect climate over time? The Earth’s moon and plate tectonics.
The moon is slowly moving away from earth. The moon affects ocean tides which affects ocean currents which affects coastal temperatures, which affect climates.
Plate tectonics are making the Atlantic Ocean larger, slowly pushing up the continental shelving . This will affect water depths on the coast which will affect water temperatures, which will affect air temperatures around the coasts which affects the climate.
I’m very concerned about this, our climate could be dramatically affected, coastal land, air currents, as well as fish/wild life…in a million years.
“I’m very concerned about this, our climate could be dramatically affected, coastal land, air currents, as well as fish/wild life…in a million years.”
Just food for thought, in the next million years, there likely will have been a minimum of 5000 major earthquakes along the San Andreas fault and Los Angeles will be neighbors with San Francisco 10 million years.
“According to the inventor of the entire field of paleoseismology, Kerry Sieh, big quakes like this occur on the southern San Andreas every 45-230 years and we haven’t had one in 161 years.
“We are certainly within the window of when that earthquake is going to happen. I’d be very surprised it didn’t happen within the lifetime of children in primary school today,” Sieh told us.”
“Ten million years from now, Dr. Dietz wrote, “Los Angeles will be abreast of San Francisco.” And in another 50 million years, he added, Los Angeles will have moved up the west coast into Alaskan waters.”
Courageous post Mish. I remember reading “The Limits to Growth” in 1972 in which reputable scientists predicted the collapse of civilization due to running out of oil, metals, farmland and just about everything and the timeline was for it to happen in the early ’80s. It was a rigorous report using computer projections and it was believable. Their prediction didn’t happen. Instead of famines we got an increasing prosperity in most of the world. In the ’80 we heard about how Global Warming would make the deserts expand, the poles melt and the seas to cover cities by in the 2000’s. Al Gore, seeing a good opportunity, came out with his movie and made millions but all his predictions were wrong. When the predictions did not come true there popped up new models predicting explaining away why the former predictions didn’t come true. Instead of less snow and more deserts the new models say more snow and less deserts. When the failed predictions started to be noticed it was necessary to shut out all anyone who questioned the narrative even scientists who did not toe the line enough. Consequently most green projects are not green at all. The US has lowered it’s CO2 production but much of that was achieved by moving the heavy industry to other countries for example. Most of what we wear and use are made using fossil fuels. Changing to all electric will do nothing for that. The Earth is warming but it is taking its’ own good and no matter what we do other countries want to become rich too and they will burn oil to do so. It’s better for us to adapt. We live in a post-truth era where facts count less than hype however post-truth does not mean post-reality. In the end reality wins out.
The earth warms and cools. It’s currently entering another cooling period that will at least rival the the little ice age of the early 1700’s.
That’s a misrepresentation of the Limits to Growth study. It predicted that resource extraction of various kinds would peak in the early to mid 21st century and then begin to affect growth in a meaningful way.
Guess what. We’re very much still on track for that to happen.
I ask that because the graphs styles and presentation were completely different. It was 1970’s computer graph format which is not very clean or sophisticated.
I found a copy of the original study from 1972 here:
The graphic I put up is from one of several more recent looks at what Meadows and this team came up with….the chart is newer, but based on Meadows work. It is explained here.
Gail Tverberg has written about this very eloquently. From some years now.
Donella and Dennis Meadows wrote a book updating the original Club of Rome study, in 2004. Basically is shows that Limits to Growth got it pretty right, not wrong.
link to amazon.com
Yes they updated the 1972 book. Looking through the old version it would put about now where the world is peaking in resources but clearly that is not the case. Back in 1985 the Third World should have been facing grave food shortages. It is not. The metals graphs should be showing major problems now but commodity prices are low. There are few shortages. I suspect that the 2004 update had a lot to do with reinforcing the narrative. Looking through it it seems they moved the graphs thirty years into the future so it fits the narrative better but maybe I am just being cynic.
Re: Your PDF of the original Club of Rome copy. Blast from the past, for sure, for sure. Far out, man. Phhhffft. … Have another toke.
Summed up: Malthusians get their first computer. And soon the computer proves how very right they have been and will be.
Page 169 and earlier seem to have their predictions in graph form.
The “food per capita” part of this graph is concerning, desertification was likely not factored.
A large part of the immigration caravans from Guatemala and Honduras is the fact that their agriculture has gone to hell, droughts are increasingly common.
IMO, we should be more concerned with agriculture than we are, America’s aquifers are drying
The Ogallala Aquifer has been depleted by 10% since 1950, that’s an estimated 600 years of rainfall to replenish, We’re screwed if rain/wind patterns negatively affect rainfall enough to increase demand from that aquifer with no alternative water sources.
Currently, 30% of all water for U.S. agriculture comes from it, if we double or triple consumption to offset loss of rain ….bad news.
It is the burgeoning overpopulation of Central America that is the overarching problem.
Most of these countries won’t hit peak population until late in this century.
The median age in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Honduras is in the mid 20’s. They couldn’t feed these people if their ag was doing great, and you’re right, it isn’t.
” Looking through the old version it would put about now where the world is peaking in resources but clearly that is not the case. “
Don’t be so sure. What has changed is mostly the outlook for oil….and it remains to be seen exactly how long the current uptick in supply will persist. I think it’s an open question.
And low prices don’t always mean endless supply. It isn’t that simple. Demand is very variable….for an example, we have this sweet spot for oil now….where both buyers and sellers can both do okay….but at lower prices producers go broke….and at higher prices demand can fall off fast.
Looks like you meant to respond to Doug, the quote’s his.
The first study in 1972 I distinctly remember it said things falling apart in the ’80s . They did an update called “The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update” published in 2004. Did that graph come from the update?
Yes, sorry.
Look at commodity prices. Look at energy costs (without taxes). They are not shooting upward as was predicted. Energy and commodity prices went into a decade long doldrum in the 80’s. Today there are places that do have hunger of course but overall it is better than in the 70’s. We do have population pressure and the increase in wealth around the world has put pressure on the environment but the Club of Rome projections were based on running out of food, metals and oil and that has not happened. Also if you believe the Club of Rome projections so much then you must also believe that the collapse is just around the corner so the market should be the least of your worries. Investing in real estate would be the stupidest thing to do if we only have five or ten years before it falls apart so maybe you believe less in the Club of Rome’s projections than you think.
“you must also believe that the collapse is just around the corner so the market should be the least of your worries.”
Limits to Growth said nothing whatsoever about the speed of collapse.
It merely pointed out the unassailable fact that unlimited yoy growth is a fantasy, and that we are approaching the limits to growth. I find that this POV fits very well with the facts on the ground today…….and the general path the US economy is tracking, and the rest of the world as well.
” Investing in real estate would be the stupidest thing to do if we only have five or ten years before it falls apart so maybe you believe less in the Club of Rome’s projections than you think.”
Remember Rome? Most people who lived in ancient Rome never even realized Rome was in collapse, it happened so slowly on the scale of human life. Just like now, it was experienced by individuals in different ways, depending on how one was affected personally. We can only see the collapse clearly with the benefit of hindsight.
My father lived to be 4 years older than I am now. I might be lucky enough to live another 20 years or so…..for whatever reason, it looks to me like I have been lucky enough to live at the absolute zenith of what we call Western Civilization.
I had friends who were aware of the Club of Rome study and Peak Oil Theory and global warming who laughed at me for buying real estate nearly a dozen years ago now…..they are still waiting for collapse, but I’m a few million bucks better off.
I believe in investing for one’s old age, It gets here quick and it can last a while, especially for our distaff, who generally outlive us by a decade or more.
My first rule of investing is as follows:
People who invest in SOMETHING almost always do better than those who invest in NOTHING.
“Hear that Mr Anderson? … That is sound of inevitability”
Feel free to split hairs, parse data and angrily berate each other, I’ll be too busy sorting sectors and companies for good investment/trade ideas according to inevitability.
Free market wins every time. albeit the powers that be will fight change, namely Big Oil, or the big three, but this Texas crisis was an eye opener.
Takeaways
1 – Wind is now cheaper than nat gas
2- Wind was more reliable than nat gas (in this situation)
3 – Wind appeases the left’s climate concerns while cutting consumer costs and benefitting domestic land owners vs OPEC.
I’m looking at companies like VWDRY, right now it’s in a pullback from all time high’s, also looking at QS, even though the “evil” George Soros just bet big on it, he does have a good track record.
Don’t even get me started on my missed opportunity in TSLA.
I wanted in with TSLA when it IPO’d, but pro-oil guys scared me out of it years ago.
I am NOT recommending these stocks, just generally pointing out there are opportunities here…..the Climate change debate is over, it’s really happening, and it appears alternatives aren’t just appealing for the left.
According to the climate change experts, what’s predicted from climate change is whatever current weather phenomena we’re experiencing. Whenever bad weather hits anywhere, it’s the new normal weather pattern because of climate change.
Doesn’t matter that what happened in Texas wasn’t predicted. Now that it’s happened, the theory is changed so it predicted it. And from now on, this will be normal for Texas.
….there s that new word since Biden, for me it is new anyway, we even haven t got a translation in dutch, it is WOKE …..looks like you ain t WOKE Mish ! … I admit not to be WOKE myself, don t want to be ….
You are 100% correct in your comments and position on so called climate change. We have had little ice ages in the past and are still alive and kicking. This is your best post for a while.
“… so called climate change …”
Strictly quoted for posterity, people actually still say this.
Amen,
The predictions of global warming are always far worse than what actually happens.
I have yet to meet a ‘climate scientist’ who understands global warming more than I do. I don’t know what the requirements are for being a climate scientist, but they seem to be so general, anyone can claim to be one.
One major factor that doesn’t seem to be taken into account is as the earths surface warms, it will cool the earth at a very rapid pace. The amount of radiative heat transfer from a surface is proportional to the surface temperature raised to the 4th power. So, a small increase in temperature results in a rapid increase in the rate of cooling. Predictions of temperatures rising 10 degrees is insane to anyone who understands the physics.
Stefan Boltzman Law….and whatever happened to the Second law of Thermodynamics namely we’re all going to freeze to death because of increasing entropy?
Please don’t bring up science in a discussion of climate change. That just muddies the water. Passion only allowed.
“Stefan Boltzman Law….and whatever happened to the Second law of Thermodynamics namely we’re all going to freeze to death because of increasing entropy?”
A worthwhile debate in, say, a few hundred million years, provided we’re not extinct.
Entropy wins–in the end, the sun will go out, and you’ll definitely freeze your ass.
The earth can warm because we currently have an external heat source that sends us energy which is trapped by the atmosphere.
A 10 degree C temperature increase in temperature is nothing in the scale of the energy of the sun, but it would destroy the mass survivability of billions of people.
Do you think the sun would miss those billions?
Nerdiness here. As our Sun runs low on hydrogen to fuse to helium (in about 5 billion years), it will swell to a red giant swallowing up Mercury and Venus (possibly out to the Earth’s orbit). Then it will blow off it’s outer atmosphere and become a white dwarf. So no worries about freezing for quite a while! 😉
“its”, not “it’s”. Apologies!
Need I say again that we export our carbon emissions to places like China when they do the heavy lifting of making the bric-a-brac that fills our lives?
Our demand creates their emissions. As is true with everone else that buys from China.
That cannot be denied.
It is all linked in this world.
I think constantly blaming AOC when the issue of green energy comes up is playing on social stratifications. It’s an attempt to play up her progressive association. She just got elected to Congress and has nothing to do with the windmills and solar farms in Texas, but she’s good at generating clicks and polarizing an issue. So why do it? It may not be racist but its not something good either
AOC is a moron. I’ve never heard her utter anything intelligent. She’s elected by what’s arguably the dumbest congressional district in the country. How they voted for her after she drove away Amazon is testament to how dumb they are.
I’m no fan of AOC, but that doesn’t mean the attack on her are fair
The attacks on AOC are simply things to boost her popularity. I believe that the plan is to keep attacking her in the hope that her power grows, and she ends up doing enough stupid things to decrease the power of the Democrat Party. It’s the same highly effective strategy the Democrats used on the Republicans in reverse. They attacked Trump, boosting his popularity, until he eventually tore the Republican Party apart, and they lost both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
So Republicans and AOC are in league?
Sometimes it is better to think before you hit the reply button. I compared the situation to Trump and the Democrats. If you think Trump and the Democrats were in league, then I guess your reply makes sense. If you think that Democrats despised Trump, but benefited in the end from Trump gaining power, then perhaps my post meant something else.
Graduated cum laude from Boston University in foreign relations and economics and has no common sense.
Free market is a good allocator of resources in most cases, but it fails terribly when it comes to things like pollution. And Global warming is a pollution issue, jut co2 pollution.
CO2 isn’t pollution. Pollution is a completely different problem.
“…Global warming is a pollution issue, [just] CO2 pollution.”
It is much more nuanced than you make it out to be. There have been times in Earth’s prehistoric past when atmospheric CO2 was very high compared to what it is now. If mankind somehow could remove all CO2 out of the atmosphere, plants would all die. Zero CO2 in the atmosphere would therefore be bad. CO2 is not a pollutant in the conventional sense of being a poison in the environment.
For a thought exercise, let’s accept that mankind is responsible for forcing CO2 into the atmosphere faster than would naturally occur. At exactly what point does that qualify as pollution? Is there zero tolerance for any non-natural change? Should we forcibly limit the Earth’s human population to achieve this? Should we allow a group to set some level of CO2 emissions which they deem to be okay when their models are meanwhile still not doing a good job of predicting how this unfolds? What if we enter a more active volcanic period where volcanoes naturally spew lots of CO2 into the atmosphere? Would that be okay because it is not man-made?
For my part, I do not trust politicians to make good decisions with this complex issue. They will take our money, yes; but we will almost certainly not be better off for it. With poorly defined costs and benefits, even regulations passed with the best of intentions are very likely to eventually become another unhelpful extraction racket, and those regulations will give certain individuals yet another tool to extract rent as gate keepers, based on little more than political connections and graft.
What? Co2 gets absorbed by trees. But we’re cutting the trees down . We’re burning fossil fuels that represented trapped carbon and releasing it as Co2 into the atmosphere.
You absolutely can let the free market work, and it works perfectly, when dealing with things like CO2 and pollution. All you have to do is add a cost into the system to offset the cost to society that isn’t otherwise included. In the absence of that, the resource of “the environment” is free, and is not accounted for correctly by the free market, which is your point. However, if you approximate the cost to society, and add it into the system, then the free market will do a fantastic job.
If you want to reduce air pollution, you have two options. One is to regulate it. The other is to tax it. Regulation has two disadvantages. First, it costs money. Second, it leads to an inefficient solution. All companies must meet the regulations, including some for who reducing the pollution is inexpensive, and other for whom reducing it is very expensive. Worse, the creation of regulation is subject to lobbying efforts, further making the process both expensive and inefficient, as well as unfair.
Letting the free market solve it by adding a tax to represent the damage to society has multiple advantages. First, rather than costing money, it produces revenue. Second, businesses can creatively address the problem, and companies that can reduce it inexpensively will reduce their pollution more than they would in a regulatory environment, when those for whom reducing it is very expensive will reduce it less. How do you know the cost to society? You approximate it, and see what happens. If the drop in pollution is not as great as you like, you raise it. In the end, you get the reduction you need, and since it is allocated more efficiently, the cost to the economy is significantly less than the cost of regulation. Even better, the costs flow through, to places you don’t think of, making the allocation even more efficient.
I’ve yet to see a cogent argument put forth disputing co2 and climate change. Where are scientists putting forth the contra argument. So ar we have nothing but crackpots. And the cost of not acting is miniscue compared to the environmental damange we’re experiencing
“so far”
Free market is terrible at allocating the costs of environmental damage
No one is denying increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, in of itself, causes global average temperatures to go up. What Mish is saying is the threat from it is overblown.
Here, I’ll put one forward, as a scientist. I know this BS goes on, I know that most of the “scientists” that I’ve worked with were just as useless on average as a “non-scientist”.
Here you golink to nature.com
Most of it can not be reproduced, because most scientists are useless. I’ve known this since graduate school when in my 4th year I was graduating and tried to get advice on a topic from my advisor, and all of the senior graduate students and post docs. Useless effort.
The reproducibility crisis is finally being acknowledged and hopefully being addressed but it will take time but in the end BS loses.
How can you know what the cost is of doing nothing now vs doing something in the future when we don’t have any idea how bad things will get and in what time frame (not a single model in the last 40 years has been right about where we are now in 2020).
It’s just scare mongering to claim we need to spend lots now to save money later. Most reasonable people don’t mind spending money if there is an actual plan. The problem is there is ZERO plan with the 90 trillion (or whatever number the gov’t wants) they want to spend. No measurable plan that guarantees anything. It’s just give us money to fight climate change and we’ll do something.
You don’t need an argument. Just look at all the things Al Gore said would happen by now and did not.
I’m denying it. Global temperature is primarily affected by the sun. If we go into a solar minimum, no amount of CO2 will stop the temps dropping.
If you want to read a very comprehensive dismantling of the CO2 dogma, please read “The Neglected Sun” by Sebastian Luning and Sebastian Vahrenholt.