Canadian debate on climate change

[Snow_Miser]

I agree. This is horrible. The guy DIED.  As long as someone is not physically looking

to hurt/kill you or your family you never say something like this. period. 

 

Phil Jones later admitted that he "had written some awful emails." I wouldn't be surprised if he was referring to this one as being one of the awful emails.

[Jonger]

There are many people who would like to see Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts dead, in fact there was a fake announcement of Goddards death not too long ago. Wishfull thinking I guess.

[blizzard1024]

There are many people who would like to see Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts dead, in fact there was a fake announcement of Goddards death not too long ago. Wishfull thinking I guess.

 

Demonstrates that climate "science" is not science anymore.... its political advocacy and also a big money maker for some. They are rooting for it to get warm! 

[nflwxman]

Demonstrates that climate "science" is not science anymore.... its political advocacy and also a big money maker for some. They are rooting for it to get warm!

Why not talk about science rather than just bash "sides"then? Seems like you are engaging in the exact thing that you are attempting to disparage.

[Sundog]

Demonstrates that climate "science" is not science anymore.... its political advocacy and also a big money maker for some. They are rooting for it to get warm!

Seems to me that all the money is in perpetuating the status quo. I don't see pro AGW people/entities raking in the billions every quarter like fossil fuel producers do.

[skierinvermont]

I agree. This is horrible. The guy DIED.  As long as someone is not physically looking

to hurt/kill you or your family you never say something like this. period. This shows

how insane the warmist bunch have become. Some want to see people who opposed their

views die(or just go away).... They will be throwing a party if something happens to Anthony Watts...god forbid.

Anthony Watts and company have really made a lot of headway in challenging the

authoritarian view by the warmist elites. Are they always right? No...but they

are challenging the  real climate crowd...skeptical science and others.  Science

is supposed to be about uncertainties AND debate with DATA proving or disproving

theory. NOT models. anyway....it must kill them that the "watts up with that" website

gets way more hits than any other climate website!!!  

 

The bolded is a huge leap of logic and bias on your behalf. 

[TerryM]

The poll numbers seem strangely skewed. I've been back in Canada for just less than 10 years and have come across 2 Global Warming Deniers. Admittedly I'm usually in Ontario as opposed to Alberta & tend to associate with with an educated crowd that is embarrassed to have either Ford or Harper leading the masses.

Everyone in my age group remembers the weather they grew up with & all are concerned for what lies ahead. The Canadian Government has been very effective at muzzling climate scientists and this may be paying dividends for the Tar Sands Industry & the policies they need to succeed. 

I spoke with Mike Hulme, formerly based at the University of East Anglia, Thursday evening and he was of the opinion that climate gate, while actually a non-event, had so poisoned the politics that a world consensus on a strategy to halt Global Warming is no longer possible. His fears now appear to be evenly split between the horrors of runaway warming and the insanity of last minute attempts at Geo-Engineering. I'm not sure that I disagree with him.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

There are many people who would like to see Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts dead, in fact there was a fake announcement of Goddards death not too long ago. Wishfull thinking I guess.

 

I think if people like Watts and Goddard went away it would be a very good thing for the world. I'll leave it at that.

[Jonger]

The poll numbers seem strangely skewed. I've been back in Canada for just less than 10 years and have come across 2 Global Warming Deniers. Admittedly I'm usually in Ontario as opposed to Alberta & tend to associate with with an educated crowd that is embarrassed to have either Ford or Harper leading the masses.

Everyone in my age group remembers the weather they grew up with & all are concerned for what lies ahead. The Canadian Government has been very effective at muzzling climate scientists and this may be paying dividends for the Tar Sands Industry & the policies they need to succeed.

I spoke with Mike Hulme, formerly based at the University of East Anglia, Thursday evening and he was of the opinion that climate gate, while actually a non-event, had so poisoned the politics that a world consensus on a strategy to halt Global Warming is no longer possible. His fears now appear to be evenly split between the horrors of runaway warming and the insanity of last minute attempts at Geo-Engineering. I'm not sure that I disagree with him.

Terry

The weather is no different in SW Ontario today than it was 40 years ago.... Anyone who doesn't follow daily and monthly departures can't distinguish between a 70℉ average month and a 70.5℉ month. SE Michigan has warmed 0.5℉ since the 1970's. You live at the same latitude and just down wind of my location... I know Toronto weather well.

[LakeEffectKing]

 

I think if people like Watts and Goddard went away it would be a very good thing for the world. I'll leave it at that.

 Other than questioning the sensitivity of CO2 on the climate, Watts leads a far greener lifestyle than probably 95% of us....so I think you are letting your narrow minded emotions drive your comments.

[donsutherland1]

You do realize that at least several of us here have actually read the entirety of many of the emails, have read the research referred to in them, are familiar with the subjects of the emails, the authors of the emails, and have read various interpretations of the emails. You won't find a single poster who has done the above due diligence - not even tacoman or ORH - that thinks the emails cast serious doubt upon the conclusions of peer-reviewed climate science. In short, your opinion on the matter is worthless and you should defer to those with more familiarity than yourself. 

I agree. The e-mails were taken out of context. If the text is presented in full and in context, the conclusion is quite different from what some suggested it was. The e-mails do not undermine the major conclusions regarding AGW.

 

One witnessed a similar issue of taking material out of context when the IPCC's draft report was made public. For example, WUWT declared a "game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing" stating:

 

Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

 

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/

 

But something was missing in the WUWT account. Moreover, the missing context was material. The closing paragraph from Chapter 7 stated:

 

Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that he cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

 

All said, there was no "game-changing admission." Instead, the draft reaffirmed the main conclusion of earlier IPCC reports finding that human activities are the principal driver of the observed climate change (a conclusion that was maintained when the report was formally released in September). The report explained that it is "extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s."

 

In sum, context and completeness both matter. That applies both to findings and uncertainties.

[TerryM]

The weather is no different in SW Ontario today than it was 40 years ago.... Anyone who doesn't follow daily and monthly departures can't distinguish between a 70℉ average month and a 70.5℉ month. SE Michigan has warmed 0.5℉ since the 1970's. You live at the same latitude and just down wind of my location... I know Toronto weather well.

40 years ago I was courting my 3d wife in California. I can't imagine what this would have to do with recollections of weather conditions in Canada in the 50's. We had this discussion 2 years ago when I was so new to this board that I believed you to be someone who was open to learning about the very evident changes that had taken place here over a relatively short period of time.

The important message from my earlier post was that Mike Hulme, one of those who's E-Mail was stolen in the "Climate-Gate" mess, now considers this to have been the blow that ended any possibility of national governments coming together to reduce global CO2 emissions.

Without any international restrictions on burning FF we are left with 2 possible outcomes. Either the conclusions of a few hundred years of scientific inquiry into global warming are wrong, and we face no ongoing problems, or science got it right and we'll be forced to attempt ever more dangerous experimentation with geo-engineering to mitigate against rising temperatures, rising sea levels and the acidification of the oceans.

My snowshoes and cross country skies don't work well on grass and the ice yacht fleets seen in old photos from Toronto Harbor would simply sink today. The ait where we used to use to congregate while walking across the ice to high school can now only be reached by boat. Those of us that took this shortcut are very aware of the changes that AGW has brought & no amount of propaganda can change these memories.

 

Terry

[Jonger]

The weather is no different in SW Ontario today than it was 40 years ago.... Anyone who doesn't follow daily and monthly departures can't distinguish between a 70℉ average month and a 70.5℉ month. SE Michigan has warmed 0.5℉ since the 1970's. You live at the same latitude and just down wind of my location... I know Toronto weather well. 40 years ago I was courting my 3d wife in California. I can't imagine what this would have to do with recollections of weather conditions in Canada in the 50's. We had this discussion 2 years ago when I was so new to this board that I believed you to be someone who was open to learning about the very evident changes that had taken place here over a relatively short period of time. The important message from my earlier post was that Mike Hulme, one of those who's E-Mail was stolen in the "Climate-Gate" mess, now considers this to have been the blow that ended any possibility of national governments coming together to reduce global CO2 emissions. Without any international restrictions on burning FF we are left with 2 possible outcomes. Either the conclusions of a few hundred years of scientific inquiry into global warming are wrong, and we face no ongoing problems, or science got it right and we'll be forced to attempt ever more dangerous experimentation with geo-engineering to mitigate against rising temperatures, rising sea levels and the acidification of the oceans. My snowshoes and cross country skies don't work well on grass and the ice yacht fleets seen in old photos from Toronto Harbor would simply sink today. The ait where we used to use to congregate while walking across the ice to high school can now only be reached by boat. Those of us that took this shortcut are very aware of the changes that AGW has brought & no amount of propaganda can change these memories.   Terry

You are too smart for this folksy anecdotal nonsense. Facts are facts, +0.5 degrees Fahrenheit in 40 years.

 

So how accurate are those childhood memories? This isn't meant as an insult, probably 90% of older people say the same thing you are.

 

[donsutherland1]

The important message from my earlier post was that Mike Hulme, one of those who's E-Mail was stolen in the "Climate-Gate" mess, now considers this to have been the blow that ended any possibility of national governments coming together to reduce global CO2 emissions...

 

 

 

IMO, there really was no near-term prospect of a global policy consensus to address climate change. Even as the scientific consensus has grown stronger, policy must deal with interests that range far beyond science (some of which would see their status quo threatened when science is given greater weight), along with the complicating factors of ideology and history. I do believe there was opportunity for the developed world to have been able to do more than it has, but the inertia that had to be overcome was substantial. Needless to say, there are opportunity costs associated with the policy evolution that has occurred.

[Jonger]

IMO, there really was no near-term prospect of a global policy consensus to address climate change. Even as the scientific consensus has grown stronger, policy must deal with interests that range far beyond science (some of which would see their status quo threatened when science is given greater weight), along with the complicating factors of ideology and history. I do believe there was opportunity for the developed world to have been able to do more than it has, but the inertia that had to be overcome was substantial. Needless to say, there are opportunity costs associated with the policy evolution that has occurred.

 

I think 550ppm is the max concentration we will see before stabilization, a few decades of wobble and then it should start to fall. Faster vegetation growth should prevent a 550ppm world from holding without additional co2 being emitted. 

 

There just doesn't seem to be much research into post-fossil fuel CO2 levels, everyone seems to assume the biomass will draw down co2 at 280ppm rates.

[donsutherland1]

I think 550ppm is the max concentration we will see before stabilization, a few decades of wobble and then it should start to fall. Faster vegetation growth should prevent a 550ppm world from holding without additional co2 being emitted. 

 

There just doesn't seem to be much research into post-fossil fuel CO2 levels, everyone seems to assume the biomass will draw down co2 at 280ppm rates.

 

A lot will probably depend on the combination of countries' development paths and conservation efforts. Technological advances have made fossil fuel extraction feasible in cases where such options were previously unavailable at earlier stages of technology. At least some countries, either worrying about energy supply dependence and/or commercial market opportunities will likely be more aggressive in extracting fossil fuels. At the same time, some countries might well pursue policies that place development far ahead of forest conservation. Nations act in their interests, and their interest aren't homogeneous. Some would be less adversely impacted by climate change than others. Some have differing economic exposure to possible energy supply disruptions. Some seek to raise their per capita incomes to levels achieved elsewhere in the world. Some states face long-term fiscal pressures and that could preclude the financing of alternative frameworks to help other states develop more balanced development-conservation paths than might otherwise be feasible. At least for me, there are too many variables to speculate on a possible level and timing of stabilization.

[TerryM]

You are too smart for this folksy anecdotal nonsense. Facts are facts, +0.5 degrees Fahrenheit in 40 years.

 

So how accurate are those childhood memories? This isn't meant as an insult, probably 90% of older people say the same thing you are.

 

terry.jpg

Since you seem insistent on a 4 decadal  period of reference let's look at the Great Lakes ice coverage.

 

The trendline for Lake Michigan has gone from ~53% coverage in 1972-73 to ~34% in 2012-13

The trendline for Lake Huron has gone from ~79% coverage in 1972-73 to ~59% in 2012-13

The trendline for Lake Erie has gone from ~95% coverage in 1972-73 to ~72% in 2012-13 

The trendline for Lake Ontario has gone from ~43% coverage in 1972-73 to ~18% in 2012-13

The trendline for Lake Superior has gone from ~85% coverage in 1972-73 to ~38% in 2012-13

From EnvironmentCanada

 

40 years is a short time period, but even over this span the lakes have lost between 24% and 58% of winter ice. It's difficult to imagine that anyone wouldn't have noticed - unless blinded by ideology. People don't notice 1/2 degree temperature rises, but they do notice not being able to ice fish at a favorite cove any more or not being able to take short cuts because they're no longer frozen. Lake Ontario has less than half the ice it had a mere 40 years ago. Do you really think that no one noticed?

 

Terry

[Snowstorms]

Since you seem insistent on a 4 decadal  period of reference let's look at the Great Lakes ice coverage.

 

The trendline for Lake Michigan has gone from ~53% coverage in 1972-73 to ~34% in 2012-13

The trendline for Lake Huron has gone from ~79% coverage in 1972-73 to ~59% in 2012-13

The trendline for Lake Erie has gone from ~95% coverage in 1972-73 to ~72% in 2012-13 

The trendline for Lake Ontario has gone from ~43% coverage in 1972-73 to ~18% in 2012-13

The trendline for Lake Superior has gone from ~85% coverage in 1972-73 to ~38% in 2012-13

From EnvironmentCanada

 

40 years is a short time period, but even over this span the lakes have lost between 24% and 58% of winter ice. It's difficult to imagine that anyone wouldn't have noticed - unless blinded by ideology. People don't notice 1/2 degree temperature rises, but they do notice not being able to ice fish at a favorite cove any more or not being able to take short cuts because they're no longer frozen. Lake Ontario has less than half the ice it had a mere 40 years ago. Do you really think that no one noticed?

 

Terry

 

There has been next to nothing in terms of changes in temperatures across Southern Ontario in about the last 70-100 years. Precipitation values haven't changed at all in the the past century or so. Most of the temperature changes that have occurred are mostly visible at night which can be blamed for urbanization and the Urban Heat Island effect and albedo effect which in turn has an effect how the ice coverage behaves across the Lakes (sunlight reflection, low level cooling, etc). This change has effected the overall yearly mean temperatures which is why it may seem we have seen a substantial warming trend but if you analyze the raw data its mostly confined to the night.  The 1920s thru the early 1940's were quite warm like the 80's and 90's were across Ontario, though I cant speak for the rest of Canada as I haven't analyzed the raw data yet. Canada has warmed in the past 50 or so years but mostly because of the warming across the far north whereas much of the southern regions haven't really changed much if at all.   

[Jonger]

Since you seem insistent on a 4 decadal  period of reference let's look at the Great Lakes ice coverage.

 

The trendline for Lake Michigan has gone from ~53% coverage in 1972-73 to ~34% in 2012-13

The trendline for Lake Huron has gone from ~79% coverage in 1972-73 to ~59% in 2012-13

The trendline for Lake Erie has gone from ~95% coverage in 1972-73 to ~72% in 2012-13 

The trendline for Lake Ontario has gone from ~43% coverage in 1972-73 to ~18% in 2012-13

The trendline for Lake Superior has gone from ~85% coverage in 1972-73 to ~38% in 2012-13

From EnvironmentCanada

 

40 years is a short time period, but even over this span the lakes have lost between 24% and 58% of winter ice. It's difficult to imagine that anyone wouldn't have noticed - unless blinded by ideology. People don't notice 1/2 degree temperature rises, but they do notice not being able to ice fish at a favorite cove any more or not being able to take short cuts because they're no longer frozen. Lake Ontario has less than half the ice it had a mere 40 years ago. Do you really think that no one noticed?

 

Terry

 

2012 and 2013 winters were absolutely WAY above the 2000-2010 winters. Can I base all past summer weather during the 1930's? Would that be a fair comparison?

 

If you want to argue that the last two winters were the product of sudden climate warming, then what happened the previous 10 years? I used the 100 year averages too, not 1980-2010. Also, these are using semi-contentious post GISS adjustments, so the 100 year average usually yields debatable higher modern temps.

 

[TerryM]

There has been next to nothing in terms of changes in temperatures across Southern Ontario in about the last 70-100 years. Precipitation values haven't changed at all in the the past century or so. Most of the temperature changes that have occurred are mostly visible at night which can be blamed for urbanization and the Urban Heat Island effect and albedo effect which in turn has an effect how the ice coverage behaves across the Lakes (sunlight reflection, low level cooling, etc). This change has effected the overall yearly mean temperatures which is why it may seem we have seen a substantial warming trend but if you analyze the raw data its mostly confined to the night.  The 1920s thru the early 1940's were quite warm like the 80's and 90's were across Ontario, though I cant speak for the rest of Canada as I haven't analyzed the raw data yet. Canada has warmed in the past 50 or so years but mostly because of the warming across the far north whereas much of the southern regions haven't really changed much if at all.   

If you are blaming Urban Heat Island effect for ice coverage on the lakes how do you account for the huge drop in Lake Superior coverage?

Terry

[Jonger]

If you are blaming Urban Heat Island effect for ice coverage on the lakes how do you account for the huge drop in Lake Superior coverage?

Terry

 

UHI only affects land datasets... But no chance it affects ice.

 

One really sucky winter will effect ice coverage, if we had this discussion 2.5 years ago, you wouldn't be able to play that card.

[Jonger]

Actually things were warmer before the hiatus that doesn't exist.

 

[Snowstorms]

If you are blaming Urban Heat Island effect for ice coverage on the lakes how do you account for the huge drop in Lake Superior coverage?

Terry

 

Based on my research and analysis the AMO and PDO tend to have a huge effect on how the temperatures and precipitation behave across Ontario with NAO, AO, EPO, etc as secondary anomalies. Again, urbanization has an effect on the Lakes as the water levels have been affected in the past 50-100 years as the population grew substantially which effects the Ice Coverage. Here's Lake Superior; 

 

 

 

Its quite visible to see once the AMO shifted back in the early 90's, Great lakes Ice coverage dropped substantially whereas the 70's which featured some really cold winters across the region had relatively high ice coverage. The albedo effect determines how much sunlight is reflected back to the atmosphere and this is especially crucial during the Winter as urbanization expands night-time temperatures are effected the most. The 1920's thru the early 1940's were just as warm as the mid 80's till mid 2000's across our region. 

 

For example; 2000-01, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, second half of 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 were below normal winters across the region temperature wise; whereas the rest were above esp 2011-12 and 2012-13. I suspect ice coverage to once again be dominant in the next decade, as these winter anomalies illustrated in my sentence above have huge implications on how much ice there is and how it develops across the Lake. 

[skierinvermont]

I think 550ppm is the max concentration we will see before stabilization, a few decades of wobble and then it should start to fall. Faster vegetation growth should prevent a 550ppm world from holding without additional co2 being emitted. 

 

There just doesn't seem to be much research into post-fossil fuel CO2 levels, everyone seems to assume the biomass will draw down co2 at 280ppm rates.

 

It is false that there is not research into post-fossil fuel Co2 levels and that the assumption gross primary productivity will be unaffected by CO2 concentration (a process known as CO2 fertilization). 

 

The AR5 includes an entire section on CO2 fertilization and an entire chapter on biogeochemical process related to climate change. I suggest you read them. 

 

An extensive summary of field and model based CO2 fertilization experiments is provided. The CMIP5 mean is for a massive 1.0 Pg of Carbon storage per ppm of CO2. It is the largest carbon feedback to changes in CO2 concentration and temperature. It is an even stronger feedback than ocean storage.

 

In fact, figures from Table 6.1 would appear to indicate that, when excluding the effect of land-use changes (probably primarily deforestation) more CO2 has been stored in the land than in the ocean the last 9 years. The cause of this is likely primarily CO2 fertilization, and rapid growth of young forests.

[Jonger]

Based on my research and analysis the AMO and PDO tend to have a huge effect on how the temperatures and precipitation behave across Ontario with NAO, AO, EPO, etc as secondary anomalies. Again, urbanization has an effect on the Lakes as the water levels have been affected in the past 50-100 years as the population grew substantially which effects the Ice Coverage. Here's Lake Superior; 

 

X-201106151001385781.jpg

 

Its quite visible to see once the AMO shifted back in the early 90's, Great lakes Ice coverage dropped substantially whereas the 70's which featured some really cold winters across the region had relatively high ice coverage. The albedo effect determines how much sunlight is reflected back to the atmosphere and this is especially crucial during the Winter as urbanization expands night-time temperatures are effected the most. The 1920's thru the early 1940's were just as warm as the mid 80's till mid 2000's across our region. 

 

 

The 1970's were WELL below the 100 year average, while the 1990's were +1.0C ABOVE the 100 year average, the 2000's were exactly normal.

 

That chart starts at the coldest period of the 20th century in the midwest and ends at a point that was more representative of average (2000-2010).

[Snowstorms]

The 1970's were WELL below the 100 year average, while the 1990's were +1.0C ABOVE the 100 year average, the 2000's were exactly normal.

 

That chart starts at the coldest period of the 20th century in the midwest and ends at a point that was more representative of average (2000-2010).

 

Yeah if you look at the raw data the 1960s and 1970s featured very cold winters and the mid 80s thru the 90's were quite warm but you can trace it back to a similar warm period back in the late 1920's and 1930's. 

 

The 2000's have virtually no change, few cold winters, few warm winters, in an otherwise stable decade of temperature trends across the Great Lakes region. 

[Jonger]

It is false that there is not research into post-fossil fuel Co2 levels and that the assumption gross primary productivity will be unaffected by CO2 concentration (a process known as CO2 fertilization). 

 

The AR5 includes an entire section on CO2 fertilization and an entire chapter on biogeochemical process related to climate change. I suggest you read them. 

 

An extensive summary of field and model based CO2 fertilization experiments is provided. The CMIP5 mean is for a massive 1.0 Pg of Carbon storage per ppm of CO2. It is the largest carbon feedback to changes in CO2 concentration and temperature. It is an even stronger feedback than ocean storage.

 

In fact, figures from Table 6.1 would appear to indicate that, when excluding the effect of land-use changes (probably primarily deforestation) more CO2 has been stored in the land than in the ocean the last 9 years. The cause of this is likely primarily CO2 fertilization, and rapid growth of young forests.

 

That was pretty much what I was alluding to, thanks for clarifying it.

[Jonger]

Yeah if you look at the raw data the 1960s and 1970s featured very cold winters and the mid 80s thru the 90's were quite warm but you can trace it back to a similar warm period back in the late 1920's and 1930's. 

 

I have no idea how the AMO affects Michigan weather, so I'll stay out of that one. I just know that the 1970's were highly abnormal in comparison to most of the 20th century. Supposedly suspended aerosols are responsible, but that theory has always been tough for anyone to agree on.

[skierinvermont]

2012 and 2013 winters were absolutely WAY above the 2000-2010 winters. Can I base all past summer weather during the 1930's? Would that be a fair comparison?

 

 

You have misunderstood his statement. He was using trend lines, not merely subtracting the end point from the start point. Now you've gone off on a ridiculous off-topic tirade because you didn't read his statement. Do you really think Terry is so stupid as to simply subtract 2012-13 from ice coverage in 197x?

 

As the chart above from Snowstorms shows, there has been a long-term decline in ice coverage over the last 40 years with a phase-shift possible in the early 90s possibly related to the AMO. AGW has is likely responsible for some or most of this decline, along with weather variables such as the AMO. 

[skierinvermont]

That was pretty much what I was alluding to, thanks for clarifying it.

 

And this trend is projected to continue. CO2 fertilization of plant-life is a massive negative feedback on CO2 concentration in CMIP5 models.

 

Your claim that there is no research or that this effect is not included or that we will magically stay below 550ppm is baseless.