In a nutshell: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the world is safe below a 2C rise. On the face of evidence, this statement is completely false. Safety means getting out of carbon ASAP, with reduction of 40% by 2020, as the island states have asked. It won’t happen: fossil fuel interests are too entrenched, and the UN hypocrisy demonstrates it.


The United Nations’ IPCC has claimed that the rise of global temperatures would be dangerous if, and ONLY IF it exceeded two degrees Celsius. This is an obvious overestimate, as I am going to show. If what I am saying is true, the IPCC is actually doing a disservice and working hand in hand, unwittingly (or not!), with the polluter-destroyers.

My reasoning is very simple: the global temperature rise is estimated variously at between .4 and .75 degree Celsius, so far. The exact number does not matter. What matters is that the rise in the polar regions has been up to 5C. Yes, a FIVE Degree Centigrade rise in some polar regions (both north and south, from Antarctica peninsula to north east Greenland) has already been observed.

Stop, and think, this is how science is done, and what science consists of. A global rise of roughly .5 Celsius  has led to a POLAR rise in temperature of TEN TIMES THAT. We have a POLAR HEAT MULTIPLIER effect of TEN. (OK,  some fine whine, object to the fine print; maybe only five times; even then, if the POLAR MULTIPLIER will change Polar temperatures only by a factor of 5, as some scientists suggested; it changes the drastic end result only be a factor of 2: half of drastic is still drastic!)

This Is Going To Get Much Much Worse. And Very Soon.

This Is Going To Get Much Much Worse. And Very Soon.

Question: what do you think will happen when the global temperature goes up two Celsius? Well, the polar temperature will go up, or could go up proportionally to ten times two, which is TWENTY. Twenty degree Centigrades. That means one can expect melting of the sea ice in the middle of the Polar night. All right, maybe not twenty, but ten (and we are already half way there in some parts).

Got it? OK, it’s a simplification, and a minimization, of course: plenty of non linear effects will kick in, as polar temperatures shoot up, like massive melting of the polar permafrost, releasing untold quantities of CO2 and CH4, plus warming of the superficial Arctic ocean, exploding gigantic amounts of methane clathrate hydrate deposits.

Les clathrates, énergie du futur ou bombe à retardement climatique ?

Methane Clathrate Hydrates
[© by Leibniz-Institut für Meereswissenschaften


To tell you how serious a threat methane clathrates are: although the methane deposits were discovered by oilmen in the seventies, they were carefully avoided. Why? Because oil companies thought that, in case of the piercing of a major methane clathrate field, the bubbles rising through the sea could lower the density of the water enough to sink the drilling boat! (Some have wanted to explain the so called Bermuda Triangle that way; it is known that giant tsunamis, 100 feet tall, have been caused by methane clathrate eruptions in the Atlantic.)

Methane Clathrate Hydrate burning. (There maybe more buried below sea and permafrost than all other fossil carbon combined; oil, gas, coal, etc.)


So the so far linear rise of temperature at the poles, already intolerable, could turn into a quadratic, or cubic curve. In which case, a two degree rise globally could lead to 25 degree Celsius at the poles. This has happened before, more than 15 million years ago.

In any case, the IPCC is doing bad science: good science consists, first, in good observations. The grossest observation shows that, on present observed facts, a global two degree rise will make the poles TEMPERATE. This is what the grossest, first order science say. The rest is wishful thinking, bull, that is, politics.

A first effect would be a rise of the seas of 75 meters (yes, 250 feet). One meter would flood hundreds of millions of people (however, the White House, the central headquarters of the CO2 holocaust, is 54 feet above sea level, so will not drown first, as it deserves).


The poles, as long as they are really cold, as they are now, are the refrigerator, the sun shades, the air conditioning, and the air circulation system of the planet. Once the poles have melted, they will be broken, and the planet will jump in its HOT MODE. Its Jurassic mode. That it has not seen in 100 million years. The biosphere as we know it, will, mostly, die.

This is the tragic truth. Yesterday’s holocaust will not be tomorrow holocaust. Yesterday’s holocaust was founded on the desperate nightmare of some people’s fathers, still immersed in tribalism, boosted by a misinterpretation of the theory of evolution (as Nietzsche had sort of pointed out, as he riled up against Darwin). Tomorrow’s holocaust will literally be global burning (global-burning = holo-caust) of some sort.

It is true that right now the colossal emissions of CO2 by developed countries are capped (in great part because of the colossal efforts of a few countries). But the USA is not cooperating. Islands nations have asked the developed ones to cut down 45% by 2020. It looks impossible, but it is totally doable, modulo some sacrifices.

Among the sacrifices, serious carbon tariffs on miscreants would be very effective (mis-creant = etymologically, those who believe wrongly: mis-believers). Tariffs are better than nuclear bombings. The connection? People, having to choose between drowning, starving, being parked like sick animals, and exacting revenge first, will exact revenge first. So it is.

Some will say: we have time. Oh, no. It is clearer and clearer that climate change can proceed at blinding speed. The very latest news (November 2009), from Canadian academics, is that the stepping into the glaciation of the Younger Dryas 12,500 years ago, took just a few months. Ireland (say) found itself, with the present climate of Svalbard (aka Spitsbergen), from one winter, to the next.


Patrice Ayme



Graph of emissions

Of course there are more than 5 billion people in developing nations, and the rich hides their consumption among their developing servants: a lot of the Chinese emissions are developed world emissions exported to China by crafty Washington, DC (for Washington, Diabolical Center? American politicians seem hell bound to occupy in world politics a place once owned by German politicians, several generations ago.)

“In one sense, the developed world owns a large fraction of the developing world’s emissions.” [John Finnegan, CSIRO.]


Before about 2002, global emissions grew by about 1% per year.

Then the rate increased to about 3% per year, the change coming mainly from a ramping up in China’s economic output, before falling slightly in 2008 as the global economy dipped towards the Great Recession.

Earth from space  




  1. A PROFITABLE, LIVE SAVING TRUTH « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Says:

    […] I have argued before in "2 C IS TOO MUCH! (To Claim 2 degree Celsius Global Rise Is Safe Is Bad Science!)", the refrigeration system of the planet is the poles, or more exactly, the ice, congregating at the […]


  2. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Martin Lack’s Lack of Environment, April 7, 2015.]

    The global emissions of CO2 are around 50 Gigatons, yearly (with 35 Gt just from burning carbon; the rest from land use, and land abuse).
    This does NOT take into account another 13% or so, supplementary contributions from other man-made greenhouse gases.

    The increased load of CO2 from human emissions is around 2%, a year, of its total content in the atmosphere. Half of this supplement goes into the ocean (acidifying it, and we are close to the danger point).

    Big Oil employs lots of smart educated scientists with PhD, or the like.
    Big Oil has another problem: new oil fields have a very bad ROI.

    Big Oil know all this. Big Oil knows AGW is real, and just a facet of an immense catastrophe. Some Big Oil companies have thus diversified (say in solar energy).

    So the resistance to curbing carbon burning comes mostly from other sources (coal, small operators, Koch brothers, etc.). They finance high profile deniers (such as Obama’s law professor at Harvard). It would be a huge amount of work to make society carbon free, and take out the fossil fuel rents. If all of society knew and understood the numbers I just mentioned, carbon burning would be phased out quickly.

    Meanwhile California is enjoying a megadrought directly connected to AGW, the greatest in at least 2,000 years..



  3. Camels in The Highest Arctic, Again, Soon. | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] I have advocated, years before anybody else, two degrees Celsius of warming is too much. (See 2C IS TOO MUCH.) The main argument there was that observations show a rise of five degree Celsius in Polar Regions […]


  4. Ice Sheets Melt: Academics Waking Up; New York Times In Denial | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] one degree Celsius; actually the reasoning was obvious since 2009, when I pointed out that “2C Is Too Much“). The new paper potentially confirms Hansen’s findings. As I said, the new paper tries […]


  5. The most beautiful dagger of them all! | Learning from Dogs Says:

    […] just one degree Celsius; actually the reasoning was obvious since 2009, when I pointed out that “2C Is Too Much“). The new paper potentially confirms Hansen’s findings. As I said, the new paper tries to NOT […]


  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to LfD]

    That the climate singularity would happen was long obvious, because:
    2 Celsius is TOO MUCH!

    Now we are only at .81 C above the chosen reference line. But the point is that polar regions react NON-LINEARLY. Rises of 5 degree Celsius there in averages have happened. Russia announced an overall rise of 2.6C… Already.

    I intended to write an essay showing the Gulf Stream is already shutting down. The crux is just a picture. Maybe I do that today.


  7. Non-Linear Cold Blob Rising Over North Atlantic | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Two Degree Celsius rise of temperature is indeed way too much: nonlinearity is upon us. Evil is always […]


  8. The changing North Atlantic. | Learning from Dogs Says:

    […] Two Degree Celsius rise of temperature is indeed way too much: nonlinearity is upon us. Evil is always […]


  9. Subtlety Pertains To Civilization | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] 2 Degree Is Too Much, as I said in 2009, but now, to my satisfaction, many are discovering this to be true (six years […]


  10. Save Earth? 1) Cut Fossil Subsidies! 2) Research | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] at COP 21 in Paris has been that the rich countries want to allow GLOBAL warming up to two degrees. That’s obviously insane, as I explained more than six years ago. It looks more insane than ever. The reason? The warming in polar areas is several times this. […]


  11. Burning Fossil Fuels Unifies World In Paris | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] years ago, I insisted that “2 C Is Too Much”. I am happy that this viewpoint has been adopted by the 195 countries gathered in […]


  12. Climate Changes: CO2, Islam, & The Eternal Return Of Fascism | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Want to see a real threat? Something really hot and hard? Here it is, spiking up, as I said it would, so long ago:  […]


  13. Gmax Says:

    Superb and prescient essay, even after all these years! Obama talked about just that today. I did a search bcs of it, using his words, and fell on you! We’ll done!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Obama has been OK on climate, considering, precisely, the climate in the USA. Perhaps he could have done more if he had publicized the ideas in my essay seven years ago. However, those ideas were iconoclastic, even for the UN’s IPCC, THEN! So not his fault here, he gets an A-…


  14. CLIMATE CHANGES: CO2, Islam, & The Eternal Return Of Fascism - NewsCream Says:

    […] to see a real threat? Something really hot and hard? Here it is, spiking up, as I said it would, so long ago. Check out the image […]


  15. Real Danger: Natural Runaway Warming Triggered By Man-Made Warming | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/2-c-is-too-much/ […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: