Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond  (Read 365552 times)

silkman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1600 on: October 08, 2018, 09:05:40 AM »
The response in the early Monday morning press - mixed but entirely predictable:

Top story and opinion pieces in the Guardian

Lead news item on the BBC

Page 13 in the Times, just behind the new, first female, Dr Who

Nothing in the Daily Mail unless you track down the Australian edition story on the Great Barrier reef

WUWT was well prepared with a predictable response though.


Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1601 on: October 08, 2018, 10:22:40 AM »
The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation's member journal headline was hilarious:
clear-message-from-IPCC-15-degree target-still-attainable
 ::)
They were probably not among those ~450 viewers that watched the press conference live.

Personally, I would vote for banning all new ff-construction right now. But that. or rather those parts, was left to policy makers... So in essence, nothing new happened tonight.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1748
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1602 on: October 08, 2018, 12:06:12 PM »
But something did happened. Acceptance at the highest level. Acceptance is the first step.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Hefaistos

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1603 on: October 08, 2018, 12:50:19 PM »
IPCC states that "B4.1. There is high confidence that the probability of a sea-ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer is substantially lower at global warming of 1.5°C when compared to 2°C. With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming. Effects of a temperature overshoot are reversible for Arctic sea ice cover on decadal time scales (high confidence). {3.3.8, 3.4.4.7}"

One wonders about the timing. Currently, we're locked on 1.5C, so we likely to get one BOE within 100 years. In 3.3.8 they say: "The Arctic is very likely to have experienced at least one ice-free Arctic summer after about 10 years of stabilized warming at 2°C compared to after about 100 years of stabilized warming at 1.5°C"

They apparently haven't looked at our polls here at ASIF. :)

 
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 12:56:15 PM by Hefaistos »

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1748
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1604 on: October 08, 2018, 03:05:37 PM »
US economists win Nobel prize for work on climate and growth

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/08/two-us-economists-win-nobel-prize-for-work-on-climate-and-growth-william-nordhaus-paul-romer

Quote
Two American economists at the forefront of work on climate change and the role of governments in boosting growth have been jointly awarded the prestigious Nobel Memorial prize for economics.

The article is thin on the substance of work of these people. Anyone know any good links about their work?
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1605 on: October 08, 2018, 03:20:12 PM »
There is no (real) Nobel Prize in Astrology (or Economy).

But something did happened. Acceptance at the highest level. Acceptance is the first step.
But we've had acceptance at highest level for decades. In Sweden also along with huge amounts of positive thinking on mitigation for a decade, which still has led to zero emission reductions compared to the 90's. Which is the reason for my rolling eyes about that headline above (clear-message-from-IPCC-15-degree target-still-attainable) and also why I wrote this three years ago:
Maybe they are just trying to be positive.
But maintaining a positive attitude, while beeing lazy, will fail. It doesn't matter if you want to be successful in marathon, or be successful in mitigation.

Something like this would be better:




It's from this one (hope it's watchable elsewhere):
https://urplay.se/program/205843-ur-samtiden-baltic-sea-future-stabilitet-eller-kaos-vagval-for-klimatet
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1606 on: October 08, 2018, 08:51:15 PM »
Another way to read it, by Piers Forster:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049205023593230336.html
Quote
Too lazy to read our 30 page Summary For Policy Makers and report? Well here it is in tweets @IPCC_CH (1/n) where n is likely greater than 10 and less than 30 - now trying to thread them together - #twitterincompetence : real thing is here ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 810
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1607 on: October 09, 2018, 12:12:33 AM »
I read the summary for policy makers.  To be honest it reads like pure fantasy.

Instead I went and turned the CO2 Growth figures from NOOA into a chart.

Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1608 on: October 09, 2018, 04:06:24 AM »
Fresh from the NYT:

To Tackle Climate Change, a New U.N. Climate Report Says Put a High Price on Carbon
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/climate/carbon-tax-united-nations-report-nordhaus.html

"In its landmark report on the fast-approaching dangers of climate change, a United Nations scientific panel said on Sunday that putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions would be central for getting global warming under control....

"The concept of carbon pricing received another implicit endorsement on Monday from the Nobel Prize committee, which awarded Yale’s William D. Nordhaus a share of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science for, among other things, making a case that “the most efficient remedy for the problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions would be a global scheme of carbon taxes that are uniformly imposed on all countries.”"
----------------------------------------------------------

The article discusses the political difficulty of carbon pricing.  Somewhat disappointingly, it doesn't mention Hansen's proposal of rebating the revenue to the citizens.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1609 on: October 09, 2018, 07:16:09 AM »
it doesn't mention Hansen's proposal of rebating the revenue to the citizens.
That part would've been in the true spirit of Alfred Nobel. Equity, peace and improving human conditions. The fake nobel prize in economy is not, it was conceived by Sweden's central bank in 1968 to celebrate themselves.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1610 on: October 09, 2018, 08:18:57 AM »
An opinion piece written in 2010 by Peter Nobel:
The young cuckoo in the Nobel prize's nest
https://www.svt.se/opinion/gokungen-i-nobelprisens-bo
A couple of quotes, hopefully understandable to native English speakers:
They got her (Martha Nobel) written permission for the economic prize "under specified conditions", namely that the new prize in all official documents and statements would be divorced from the Nobel Prize by being termed "award in economic science to Alfred Nobel's memory."

Something must be wrong, when all economic prices except two are awarded Western economists whose research and conclusions focus on the events there and under its influence. I can imagine Alfred Nobel's sarcasm if he had been told about such laureates. He wanted his prizes awarded to those who made mankind the greatest benefit, all of humanity!

From yesterday:
Nobel Prize for the economics of innovation and climate change stirs controversy
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/roles-ideas-and-climate-growth-earn-duo-economics-nobel-prize
Quote
Nordhaus's model was relatively crude, but the IPCC relies on four newer, far-more-detailed IAMs to make its predictions about how emissions and the global economy will respond to various policy measures. Crucially, Nordhaus's work suggested that carbon emissions would plummet if governments could place a price on CO2 emissions. The European Union has tried to implement such a scheme in its EU Emissions Trading System.

However, this is where some economists object to Nordhaus's work. The debate underscores a rift between environmental economists on one side and ecological economists on the other. As does Nordhaus, environmental economists apply the tools of mainstream economics to the climate problem, so their models focus on economic growth as the measure of a policy's success. That approach is problematic, ecological economists say, because it leads to trade-offs to increase growth in the short term on the assumption that it will make it easier to deal with the increased environmental damage in the long term.

But, instead of spurring governments to take action against climate change, Nordhaus's approach has been used to justify putting it off, Steinberger argues. "His kind of analysis has been used to delay, delay, delay," she says. In 1992 Nordhaus published an analysis in which he identified 3 degrees Celsius as the optimum temperature increase for the growth of capital, although he has since modified that position.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 08:39:07 AM by Sleepy »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1611 on: October 09, 2018, 01:10:42 PM »
Sleepy
Thanks so much for exposing the economic prize & the economic prize committee.
Their selections in the past had given me pause, and caused me to doubt the whole Nobel Prize concept.
Terry

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 810
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1612 on: October 09, 2018, 06:30:48 PM »
It never fails to amuse me when scientists come up with a "carbon tax" as a way of "fixing" the fossil fuel issue.

Do they understand nothing about economies and how they work?  Introduce a carbon tax and it will introduce inflation, inflation increases wages and devalues the impact of the carbon tax.  Economies adjust to shocks like tax.

Then there is the other part.  Taxes are political.  Politicians are responsible to the people.  People vote.  It is no surprise that the most movement to get carbon out of the system has happened in China and the EU.  Why?  Because the EU commission and council are unelected, China can elect one party.  So what the "party" EU or Chinese wants, cannot be overruled by the people.

This is not the same in most of the rest of the world.  The most recent manifestation of that was in Australia.

Then there is the other factor.  Oil prices.  Check out the inflation adjusted figures.

Just how do we expect that a single "tax" is going to take care of that kind of fluctuation?  We already have so many taxes on fuels that adding another one is not going to make that much of a difference.  We have seen Oil more than double in price over a two year period, more than once.  How exactly we "tax" that kind of fluctuation so it will influence consumers is an interesting story, not one I'd like to defend.

Then we have the producers.  Tax their produce to reduce take up and they will simply increase production to the point where the price overwhelms the tax increase.  Especially where inflation has already rebalanced the budgets.  Making carbon fuels even cheaper.

Tax is an incredibly blunt instrument which is designed to be absorbed.  Otherwise how would governments ever get people to agree to tax rises without voting for the other guy???

There is only one way out of this.  Provide the alternative, make it appealing so that the mass market will buy in, then start to regulate (not tax), the carbon alternative out of the environment.  This is what Obama did.  I may hate a lot of his politics and also his attitude to the UK (even though I understand it), but I laud his achievements.

Every time I see people going on about taxing carbon I see a bunch of kids in short trousers, in the school yard, trying to fix the world's problems...  Given that I have Aphantasia, you can imagine just how evocative that image is to make it through.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1613 on: October 10, 2018, 07:22:34 AM »
Taxes are at the bottom on Meadows list.
http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/

Quote
PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM

(in increasing order of effectiveness)

12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards).
11. The sizes of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows.
10. The structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport networks, population age structures).
9. The lengths of delays, relative to the rate of system change.
8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the impacts they are trying to correct against.
7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops.
6. The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to information).
5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishments, constraints).
4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure.
3. The goals of the system.
2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises.
1. The power to transcend paradigms.

I think 3,4 & 5 are the really interesting one's.

Sleepy
Thanks so much for exposing the economic prize & the economic prize committee.
Their selections in the past had given me pause, and caused me to doubt the whole Nobel Prize concept.
Terry
Thank's Terry, not much exposing on my part. Peter Nobel's critisism is merely drowning in media. Or maybe purposely drowned? Remembering is a radical act.
Peter Nobel is still alive. Here's an even older and rarer one, since it's in English:
https://www.thelocal.se/20050928/2173
Quote
(Alfred) Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being, Peter says, reiterating his vehement criticism of the Nobel Economics Prize which he says Alfred Nobel would never have created.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1614 on: October 11, 2018, 12:21:03 PM »
Guest post at SkS.
https://skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_14b_Inertia_and_Inevitability.html
Quote
Inertia is your friend … until it isn’t.
Elevator Statement

Inertia delays the response …
  But for each CO2 level there is a guaranteed response …
        Be patient, the response is coming …
                     And when it finally comes there’s no going back.

Edit; adding a part of the text for the second image.
Quote
The red circle represents what Climate-Change deniers focus on (i.e., the current temperature anomaly), the blue circle represents what optimists focus on (i.e., the temperature we’ve locked in), and the black circle represents what the realists focus on, where we’re heading under current policies.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16923
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1615 on: October 14, 2018, 07:00:53 PM »
For decades James Hansen has been calling for more investment in tropical (& other) forests, but today while deforestation is 8% of the GHG problem & represents 23% of the cost-effective mitigation potential, it only receives 3% of climate mitigation funding. 

Homo sapiens is Latin for 'wise man', but I have my doubts:

Title: "By the Numbers: The Value of Tropical Forests in the Climate Change Equation"

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/numbers-value-tropical-forests-climate-change-equation

Extract: "About 8 percent of global emissions currently come from tree cover loss in tropical forests, but these same forests can provide 23 percent of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed before 2030. NDCs still fall far short of the total mitigation needed to keep 2030 emissions in line with a two degrees Celsius scenario, and about 7.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide can be mitigated annually through the management, protection, and restoration of tropical forests, mangroves and peatlands. That's equivalent to the total carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions of Russia, the European Union and Japan combined in 2014. This potential comes from the avoided emissions through stopping deforestation and degradation as well as the removal of atmospheric carbon that takes places through forest growth and restoration.

Despite this potential, forest-related finance, even for countries with high rates of deforestation, accounts for less than 3 percent of global climate mitigation-related development funding. To reach global climate goals it's critical that national and local actors alike double down on the proven strategy of reducing deforestation to mitigate climate change."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16923
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1616 on: October 14, 2018, 07:30:05 PM »
For those who aren't aware, the IPCC carbon budget time projections make a number of incorrect assumptions, including:
1. Policymakers will act so quickly that the budgets use TCR (Transient Climate Response) values rather that ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) values.  So as policymakers are not acting quickly, climate response will be higher than the IPCC projections.

2. Recent research indicates that the mean value for the current ECS of ~3C assumed by the IPCC is too low and is currently likely in the 3C to 4C range; which means again that the IPCC projections are too low.

3. Recent research confirms that both TCR and ECS increase with continued warming; thus as policymakers are acting slowly, the IPCC projections are again too low.

4. James Hansen has repeatedly warned that climate projections should consider the combined impact on climate sensitivity of abrupt ice mass loss from ice sheets and his ice-climate feedback mechanism, and per DeConto & Pollard this sizable feedback could begin in the 2040's, but currently all IPCC projections ignore this positive feedback mechanism. 
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2390
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 224
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1617 on: October 14, 2018, 08:11:34 PM »
ASLR, thanks, as always, for that article on forest loss and cc.

I plan to dig into it further later, but did you happen to notice if it said what the major causes of deforestation were?

As I recall, clearing land for cattle grazing and for growing soy and other crops mostly used to feed cattle was one of the main causes. I do wonder whether, in most sources on the subject, the GW effects of a meat-centered diet are greatly under estimated.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Red

  • Guest
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1618 on: October 14, 2018, 10:36:28 PM »
It's always fun to journey into the past to help get a feel for how we got to Paris. A few quips from Cory Morningstar's expose.
http://www.theartofannihilation.com/part-1-expose-the-2º-death-dance-the-1º-cover-up/
The Origins of 1ºC – United Nations 1990

“…eyond 1 degree C may elicit rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage.”

– United Nations Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases

In 1986, three international bodies, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), who had co-sponsored the Villach Conference in 1985, formed the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG), a small international committee with responsibility for assessing the available scientific information about the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the likely impact.

In 1990 the AGGG calculated what level of climate change our planet could tolerate, also referred to as “environmental limits.” These levels and limits were summarized in the document, “Responding to Climate Change: Tools For Policy Development,” published by the Stockholm Environment Institute.

The targets and indicators set limits to rates and total amounts of temperature rise and sea level rise, on the basis of known behaviour of ecosystems. The AGGG report identified these limits in order to “protect both ecosystems as well as human systems.” The report states that the objective is: “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human made] interference with the climate system.”

It adds: “Such a level should be achieved within a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.” Thus the report requires limits to both the total amount of change and the rate of change.

Further, they warned that a global temperature increase “beyond 1 degree C may elicit rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage.” A temperature increase of 2ºC was viewed as “an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly.” [For “non-linear,” read “runaway global climate change.”][2]
                                               ...............................

Hansen says Arctic sea-ice passed its tipping point decades ago, and in his presentations has also specifically identified 300-325ppm as the target range for sea-ice restoration (see slide image), as did the paper: Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2:217-231. This view, by perhaps the most eminent climate scientist in America, is reinforced by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, head of the Potsdam Institute who goes further stating “Our survival would very much depend on how well we were able to draw down carbon dioxide to 280 ppm”.

2008: Hansen – Where should Humanity Aim?

A further imbalance reduction, and thus CO2 ~300-325 ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago.

Assessment of Target CO2

PhenomenonTarget CO2(ppm)

1. Arctic Sea Ice                                 300-325

2. Ice Sheets/Sea Level                     300-350

3. Shifting Climatic Zones                   300-350

4. Alpine Water Supplies                    300-350

5. Avoid Ocean Acidification              300-350

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf

2010: Hansen: French National Assembly May 2010

Assessment of Target CO2

PhenomenonTarget CO2 (ppm)

1. Arctic Sea Ice                                 300-350

2. Ice Sheets/Sea Level                     300-350

3. Shifting Climatic Zones                   300-350

4. Alpine Water Supplies                    300-350

5. Avoid Ocean Acidification              300-350

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2010/May2010_FrenchNationalAssembly.pdf

                                         ................................
An excerpt from Climate Code Red: ‘350 is the wrong target: put the science first’ :

… But that is only half the story. Here’s what else Hansen et al. said (emphasis added) in their article in Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2:217-231:

“Equilibrium sea level rise for today’s 385 ppm CO2 is at least several meters, judging from paleoclimate history. Accelerating mass losses from Greenland and West Antarctica heighten concerns about ice sheet stability. An initial CO2 target of 350 ppm, to be reassessed as effects on ice sheet mass balance are observed, is suggested”

It is important to note that this paragraph is not about the Arctic sea-ice tipping point, it’s about Antarctica. Hansen explains in the same article that 350ppm is a precautionary target to stop global loss of ice-sheets, because the paleoclimate record shows 450ppm ± 100ppm as boundary for glaciation/ deglaciation of Antarctica. In the next paragraph, attention turns to the question of Arctic sea ice:

“Stabilization of Arctic sea ice cover requires, to first approximation, restoration of planetary energy balance. Climate models driven by known forcings yield a present planetary energy imbalance of +0.5-1 W/m2. Observed heat increase in the upper 700 m of the ocean confirms the planetary energy imbalance, but observations of the entire ocean are needed for quantification. CO2 amount must be reduced to 325-355 ppm to increase outgoing flux 0.5-1 W/m2, if other forcings are unchanged. A further imbalance reduction, and thus CO2 ~300-325 ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago.”

The central point is that Arctic sea-ice is undergoing dramatic loss in summer, having lost 70-80% of its volume in the last 50 years, most since 2000. Without summer sea-ice, Greenland cannot escape a trajectory of ice-sheet loss leading to an eventual sea-level rise of 7 metres. Regional temperatures in the Arctic autumn are already up about 5C, and by mid-century an Arctic ice-free in summer, combined with more global warming, will be pushing Siberia close to the point where large-scale loss of carbon from melting permafrost would make further mitigation efforts futile. As Hansen told the US Congress in testimony last year, the “elements of a perfect storm, a global cataclysm, are assembled”.

In short, if you don’t have a target that aims to cool the planet sufficiently to get the sea-ice back, the climate system may spiral out of control, past many “tipping points” to the final “point of no return”.

And that target is not 350ppm, it’s around 300 ppm.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4498
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 557
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1619 on: October 14, 2018, 10:46:23 PM »
ASLR, thanks, as always, for that article on forest loss and cc.

I plan to dig into it further later, but did you happen to notice if it said what the major causes of deforestation were?

As I recall, clearing land for cattle grazing and for growing soy and other crops mostly used to feed cattle was one of the main causes. I do wonder whether, in most sources on the subject, the GW effects of a meat-centered diet are greatly under estimated.
You can add palm-oil plantations to the list. Much of the palm-oil going into bio-fuel. A really big screw-up by environmentalists and enthusiastically picked up by the EU who financed a lot of these plantations in Asia.

And you can add chipboard to the list. As one who got caught up in this 25 years ago in the S Pacific (and put his family and himself in peril as a result) I can assure you at lot of hardwood forests are still being cut down to feed these industries.

And coffee
And bananas
And............
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1620 on: October 15, 2018, 01:12:46 AM »
So all we need to do is to return to 300-325 ppm and all will be right with the world. ::)


As soon as the elite join Elon and are enjoying their terraformed Martian gated communities, the rest of us, thanks to boring technology, will morph into later day troglodyte mole people, separated from the surface not just by miles of mud and discarded Tesla Brick, but by endless solar panels that stretch from GF1 to shining GF3, and the ruthless robots deployed to protect and polish this vast sea of endless energy.


As Autonomous Auto's race from Supercharger to Supercharger, their original purpose of transporting people has been subverted by their preening desire to show off under the admiring sensors of flirtatious young AI convertibles, often brazenly exposing their software.  E-Semis flex their 5th wheels as they languidly sip cooling fluids while sauntering between Giganta-GigaFactories where Alien Dreadnoughts assemble future generations of Autonomous Autos.



Eventually, with the Storms of our Grandfathers behind us. The venerable Keeling ReCurve will descend to 324 ppm, and all will be right with the world.


Terry ???






Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1621 on: October 15, 2018, 06:45:48 AM »
Yep, all aboard the Axiom.


Add override directive A113 and those aboard the Axiom will be just fine.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1622 on: October 15, 2018, 07:01:29 AM »
For those who aren't aware, the IPCC carbon budget time projections make a number of incorrect assumptions, including:
1. Policymakers will act so quickly that the budgets use TCR (Transient Climate Response) values rather that ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) values.  So as policymakers are not acting quickly, climate response will be higher than the IPCC projections.

2. Recent research indicates that the mean value for the current ECS of ~3C assumed by the IPCC is too low and is currently likely in the 3C to 4C range; which means again that the IPCC projections are too low.

3. Recent research confirms that both TCR and ECS increase with continued warming; thus as policymakers are acting slowly, the IPCC projections are again too low.

4. James Hansen has repeatedly warned that climate projections should consider the combined impact on climate sensitivity of abrupt ice mass loss from ice sheets and his ice-climate feedback mechanism, and per DeConto & Pollard this sizable feedback could begin in the 2040's, but currently all IPCC projections ignore this positive feedback mechanism.
Good points ASLR, they are weak on tipping points and the above also reminds me of Meadows bathtub analogy. What's also weak (mainly because it's on policymaker's desk?); issues related to climate migration and such.


Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16923
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1623 on: October 15, 2018, 05:49:58 PM »
ASLR, thanks, as always, for that article on forest loss and cc.

I plan to dig into it further later, but did you happen to notice if it said what the major causes of deforestation were?

As I recall, clearing land for cattle grazing and for growing soy and other crops mostly used to feed cattle was one of the main causes. I do wonder whether, in most sources on the subject, the GW effects of a meat-centered diet are greatly under estimated.

wili,

From the linked article, it appears that the heavy deforestation losses in 2017 came from human activities in post-conflict Columbia and due to fires in Brazil:


https://blog.globalforestwatch.org/data/2017-was-the-second-worst-year-on-record-for-tropical-tree-cover-loss?utm_campaign=gfw&utm_source=wriinsights&utm_medium=hyperlink&utm_term=gfwclimatebythenumbers_10_2018

Extract: "The rise comes despite declining deforestation rates, and is mainly due to fires in the Amazon. The Amazon region had more fires in 2017 than any year since recording began in 1999, causing 31 percent of the region’s tree cover loss according to University of Maryland data, which for the first time attributed specific instances of tree cover loss to fires."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16923
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1624 on: October 15, 2018, 06:00:16 PM »
Good points ASLR, they are weak on tipping points and the above also reminds me of Meadows bathtub analogy. What's also weak (mainly because it's on policymaker's desk?); issues related to climate migration and such.

Sleepy,

I assume that those two images both have pictures of yourself in their lower right hand corners.  If so it is nice to see you.

Best,
ASLR
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13827
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1625 on: October 16, 2018, 12:26:42 AM »
It's Time For The Adults To Take Charge — 100 Corporations Responsible For 71% Of Carbon Emissions
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/14/its-time-for-the-adults-to-take-charge-100-corporations-responsible-for-71-of-carbon-emissions/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Human Habitat Index

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1626 on: October 16, 2018, 02:00:28 AM »
It's Time For The Adults To Take Charge — 100 Corporations Responsible For 71% Of Carbon Emissions
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/14/its-time-for-the-adults-to-take-charge-100-corporations-responsible-for-71-of-carbon-emissions/

Let's assume that catastrophic temperature rise is baked in and an effort to rapidly decarbonize will remove the aerosol effect which will accellerate our demise.

In that case, the actions of the lead puppet of the power structure, are entirely rational.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1627 on: October 16, 2018, 08:56:57 AM »
Good points ASLR, they are weak on tipping points and the above also reminds me of Meadows bathtub analogy. What's also weak (mainly because it's on policymaker's desk?); issues related to climate migration and such.

Sleepy,

I assume that those two images both have pictures of yourself in their lower right hand corners.  If so it is nice to see you.

Best,
ASLR
Thanks, unfortunately my English isn't as good as this:



Just a short quote with some wise words from the end of that one:
When there is a conflict between what you say and what you do, what you do, will convey a stronger message.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 810
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1628 on: October 16, 2018, 09:53:44 PM »
For those who aren't aware, the IPCC carbon budget time projections make a number of incorrect assumptions, including:

For those of us who were watching RealClimate every day when Copenhagen was going on, the news was pretty grim.  The number of scientists who said they were _never_ going to contribute to an IPCC paper again were more than just one or two.

Their issue was this.  The draft document stated, pretty clearly,

Quote
"we're well beyond screwed and we needed to be acting on it 20 years ago".

The final document, "passed by the management", had a slightly different flavour.

Quote
Things are pretty bad but if you all hang with us and take these small baby steps we'll all get there in the end.

IPCC documents are political documents.  There is no point in fact checking them too closely.

BTW, for those who were not members of the British Army, "passed by the management" is a euphemism for piss poor beer....  As in "piss water" or water "passed" by the management...
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Human Habitat Index

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1629 on: October 17, 2018, 02:03:25 AM »
For those who aren't aware, the IPCC carbon budget time projections make a number of incorrect assumptions, including:

For those of us who were watching RealClimate every day when Copenhagen was going on, the news was pretty grim.  The number of scientists who said they were _never_ going to contribute to an IPCC paper again were more than just one or two.

Their issue was this.  The draft document stated, pretty clearly,

Quote
"we're well beyond screwed and we needed to be acting on it 20 years ago".

The final document, "passed by the management", had a slightly different flavour.

Quote
Things are pretty bad but if you all hang with us and take these small baby steps we'll all get there in the end.

IPCC documents are political documents.  There is no point in fact checking them too closely.

BTW, for those who were not members of the British Army, "passed by the management" is a euphemism for piss poor beer....  As in "piss water" or water "passed" by the management...

But has to be that way, if people find out the truth and "down tools", the resultant loss of aerosol effect means we start frying in a short period of time.

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer

ivica

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 885
  • Kelele
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1630 on: October 17, 2018, 10:06:00 AM »
Fits with the post by Sleepy, #1622, October 09, 2018.

Why Economists Can't Understand Complex Systems: Not Even the Nobel Prize, William Nordhaus by Ugo Bardi, October 14, 2018:

"Nordhaus' approach to climate change mitigation highlights a general problem with how economists tend to tackle complex systems: their training makes them tend to see changes as smooth and gradual. But real-world systems, normally, do what they damn please, including crashing down in what we call the Seneca Effect."

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16923
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1631 on: October 17, 2018, 04:15:32 PM »
...
BTW, for those who were not members of the British Army, "passed by the management" is a euphemism for piss poor beer....  As in "piss water" or water "passed" by the management...

While the picture shows the relationship between politicians and voter, the same arrangement is the origin of the term 'management overhead'.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16923
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1632 on: October 17, 2018, 04:41:33 PM »
When thinking about future GHG emissions from coal it is important to take a holistic viewpoint, and to consider how countries like Indonesia, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Pakistan and other Asian countries are trending (especially as China's Belt and Road Initiative shift coal consumption from China to its neighbors):

Title: "The Center of Coal Demand Keeps Shifting"

https://www.csis.org/analysis/center-coal-demand-keeps-shifting

Extract: "Coal accounted for 44 percent of energy-related CO2 emissions in 2016, even though it provided 27 percent of the world’s primary energy. The world needs to either curb coal use or develop technologies that limit carbon emissions from coal to meet its climate goals. In policy circles, this challenge is often framed around specific countries—the need for Germany, China, or the United States, for example, to reduce coal use. But this conversation, while essential, tends to underrate how much of the world’s coal challenge is now an Asian challenge. Unless Asia can find other energy sources to meet its needs, our efforts to curb CO2 emissions from coal will likely fail.

Asian demand is dominated by China, whose consumption has weakened in recent years (down 4 percent relative to the 2013 peak). But demand outside China is growing. In part, this is due to India, although its coal use is still less than a fourth of China’s. Among the countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), demand is falling in Australia, rising in Korea and remaining near all-time highs in Japan. Together with New Zealand, these countries make up 10 percent of regional coal demand—with modest growth.

The most dynamic part, however, is the rest: a group of countries that includes Indonesia, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Pakistan, and others (ordered by 2017 demand). Demand in that sub-group rose 45 percent in the last decade. Soon, this region could surpass the European Union, whose demand was 13 percent higher in 2017. Indonesia now consumes more coal than Poland, and in a few years, it might overtake Germany. Indonesia and Vietnam together use more coal than South Africa, and Vietnam’s coal use has more than quadrupled since 2007. Malaysia is a latecomer, but its coal consumption has more than doubled in the last 10 years—it consumes more coal than the Czech Republic, Spain or the United Kingdom. And demand for energy in these countries keeps growing—energy use per capita is low, and electrification rates and electricity consumption are rising.

This is the challenge in simple terms: while the world beyond Asia might reduce its coal consumption, demand keeps rising in Asia; and this demand growth is not concentrated only in China, or even China and India, but in several other emerging economies that see coal as an answer to their energy needs. The solution to this problem, however, is harder to see. The most common answer, to use more gas, is not quite working, and in several countries in Southeast Asia coal is being used because gas cannot compete or gas is being exported instead. Renewable energy holds great promise, but Southeast Asia needs to do more to scale up its renewable energy potential. China’s Belt and Road Initiative risks entrenching coal further, despite Beijing’s stated desire to maintain the initiative’s green and environmental credentials. Absent a more concerted effort to channel funds that support non-coal energy, the region will keep using more coal, and the world’s success elsewhere might easily be muted by Asia."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1633 on: October 17, 2018, 05:22:13 PM »
Russia's strengthening trade with India may provide some relief on the coal front. 6 new Russian Nuclear plants were recently signed for by India, and Yamal LNG may lower the cost of natural gas, making it increasingly competitive with coal.

The new Russia-China pipeline is due to be operational before the end of this year, and costs to China are said to be low. More gas = less coal?


Trump's attempts to isolate Iran will also serve to lower energy prices for those bold enough to make the purchase.

NordStream 2 is being constructed and may help to ween Germany from her coal consumption addiction.

https://tomluongo.me/2018/09/21/trump-folds-nordstream-2-logic/

Terry

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1634 on: October 17, 2018, 05:35:04 PM »
Fits with the post by Sleepy, #1622, October 09, 2018.

Why Economists Can't Understand Complex Systems: Not Even the Nobel Prize, William Nordhaus by Ugo Bardi, October 14, 2018:

"Nordhaus' approach to climate change mitigation highlights a general problem with how economists tend to tackle complex systems: their training makes them tend to see changes as smooth and gradual. But real-world systems, normally, do what they damn please, including crashing down in what we call the Seneca Effect."
A good one ivica, thanks. The first signs of a leaking hull on this ship was first noticed in the early 70's. A deliberate design.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

D-Penguin

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1635 on: October 18, 2018, 12:10:56 AM »
IPCC Special Report Global Warming of 1.5 deg C
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

Summary for Policy Makers

A. Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4

FIRST QUOTATION "A1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)"
NOTE Present level of global warming is defined as the average of a 30-year period centered on 2017 assuming the recent rate of warming continues.

SECOND QUOTATION "A1.1. Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence)."


Summary of Statements

A. Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4

THIRD QUOTATION "A1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate (high confidence)."

My Comments and understanding of the above quoted extracts:-
1. 2017 CO2 emissions were the highest on record. 2018 CO2 emissions are predicted to be higher than 2017.
2. On the assumption that 2019 and 2020 CO2 emissions are the same as the final figure for 2018, the global warming as referred to in the first quotation will be 1.1 deg C, towards the upper end of the range quoted.
3. The warming trend for 2006-2015 (10 years) of 0.87 deg C, as referred to in the second quotation, will produce a warming trend for 2016-2020 of 0.43 deg C (5 years).
4. Add 1.1 deg C to 0.43 deg C produces 1.54 degrees C of global warming by 2020.
5. The global warming is likely to reach 1.5 deg C between 2030 and 2052, referred to in the third quotation.

The first and second quotations are incompatible with the third quotations taken from the IPCC Report.

Is it the IPCC Report or my comments and understanding that require correction?

If the IPCC is wrong then this global dissemination of 'Fake News' would be a 'Crime against Humanity'. If I am wrong it is not important but at least I will have a better understanding of the future facing my children and grandchildren and so they too will be better informed and prepared for an uncertain future.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 12:19:45 AM by D-Penguin »

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3353
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 382
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1636 on: October 18, 2018, 02:28:33 PM »
Quote
3. The warming trend for 2006-2015 (10 years) of 0.87 deg C, as referred to in the second quotation, will produce a warming trend for 2016-2020 of 0.43 deg C (5 years).
This is a misunderstanding. 0.87 is the cumulative warming since pre-industrial, centered around 2010.
1.0 is the warming centered around 2017.
0.2 is the warming per decade, so supposedly we get to 1.5 by ~2040.

Arima

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1637 on: October 18, 2018, 03:12:22 PM »
Russia's strengthening trade with India may provide some relief on the coal front. 6 new Russian Nuclear plants were recently signed for by India, and Yamal LNG may lower the cost of natural gas, making it increasingly competitive with coal.

The new Russia-China pipeline is due to be operational before the end of this year, and costs to China are said to be low. More gas = less coal?


Trump's attempts to isolate Iran will also serve to lower energy prices for those bold enough to make the purchase.

NordStream 2 is being constructed and may help to ween Germany from her coal consumption addiction.

https://tomluongo.me/2018/09/21/trump-folds-nordstream-2-logic/

Terry

Regarding Indian energy scenario-

Russian nuclear plants signed for 6 plants. 2 already commissioned. 2 - construction in progress.
other planned sites face stiff local resistance for many years and is no starter.

India is investing heavy in renewables- Wind, Solar and also in hydro electric projects

but overall base plants are mostly coal and this will increase in coming years if more nuclear and hydro plants are not started.
LNG may provide breather in long term as well.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16923
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1638 on: October 19, 2018, 06:57:07 PM »
Many posters on the forum seem to think that if they identify some potential means to achieve the Paris goals that some international body will just implement it.  However, it has been pointed out for decades that the most practical first step on this path would be to increase energy efficiency; however, the linked article makes it clear that such a global policy has not yet been implemented and indeed that in 2017 the world's progress w.r.t. energy efficiency has slowed almost to a halt.  In other words: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

Title: "The huge, untapped potential of energy efficiency"

https://www.axios.com/energy-efficiency-potential-international-energy-agency-9e1cba5b-2161-4ba1-848b-063dded6727a.html

Extract: "A much larger investment in deployment of existing energy efficiency technologies and stronger policy measures would enable major progress toward meeting the goals of the Paris climate deal, the International Energy Agency said in a new report.

Why it matters: Nothing of the sort is happening right now, and in fact progress in energy efficiency is slowing, IEA warned."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16923
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1639 on: October 20, 2018, 07:56:22 PM »
Kate Marvel has written a fairytale about climate change:

Title: "Slaying the Climate Dragon"

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/slaying-the-climate-dragon/

Extract: "A fairy tale whose ending, still unwritten, is by no means guaranteed to be happy"

&

Title: "A Climate Scientist On 'Slaying The Climate Dragon'"

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/20/659122551/a-climate-scientist-on-slaying-the-climate-dragon

Extract: "Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at Columbia University and NASA, talks to NPR's Scott Simon about her fairy tale on climate change and reads passages from the story."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 810
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1640 on: October 22, 2018, 01:39:31 AM »
However, it has been pointed out for decades that the most practical first step on this path would be to increase energy efficiency; however, the linked article makes it clear that such a global policy has not yet been implemented and indeed that in 2017 the world's progress w.r.t. energy efficiency has slowed almost to a halt.

That is because energy "efficiency" is not and never was going to get us over the goal line.

If we produce plentiful carbon neutral energy, then what the hell does it matter what we do with it?  The only reason we keep on going into energy efficiency is because governments don't want to invest at the levels required to transition totally to carbon neutral energy.

People see "energy efficiency" as taking away their choice and walking all over their civil liberties.  Hence they vote for governments who give them more "choice".  Choice to go to hell in their own way, certainly, but it is how the political system works.

The actual way forward is to transition to carbon neutral electricity as fast as possible and then expand that generating capacity as fast as possible to meet the transition from other fossil fuel issues such as oil (gasoline and others) and heating (natural gas mainly).

People may be wilfully ignorant on climate change but they are not totally stupid.  They can see when governments are taking governmental problems and putting them on the people instead of providing solutions which allow the people to choose carbon neutral, before pricing carbon based technologies beyond the capability of most to afford it.

The approach is fundamentally different.  One works.  The other is doomed to failure.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4346
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1641 on: October 22, 2018, 02:14:28 AM »
Re: That is because energy "efficiency" is not and never was going to get us over the goal line.

It's a wedge, a silver BB. I for one am glad that every water heater and furnace and AC i replace is with one that's a lot more efficient than the one it replaces. That was a government mandate, and i like it, it saves me money. I don't wanna buy a less efficient one.

That's the way it's goin with cars too.

sidd


Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1642 on: October 22, 2018, 07:08:11 AM »
We better use every approach we can find. While the rest of the planet couldn't care less, my home consumes 1/3 of what it used to on pure electric heating and the electricity I purchase is wind generated, so I'm (somewhat) happy.

A follow up on Nordhaus and limits to growth by Chandran Nair:
http://www.chinawatch.cn/a/201810/18/WS5bc839fea310c0c381690d54.html
Quote
The recent awarding of the Nobel Prize in Economics to William Nordhaus was hailed by most mainstream outlets as a pro-climate action decision, but this shows how limited people’s appreciation of the threats arising from current models of growth truly are. The economic mainstream does not see perpetual growth as having any negatives in itself; the world economy can continue growing indefinitely, with tweaks on the margins to account for market failures and external costs.

But climate scientists know the world does not work like that. Climate and the ecosystem are not linear, but instead are bounded by thresholds. Pass a certain point, and the whole structure collapses. Most mainstream economists do not seem to understand this, and more worryingly assume that their economic model, in which growth is always good, needs to be exported to the rest of the world. An Asia with six billion people in 2050 cannot and should not be embracing an economic growth model that is at war with the planet and its inhabitants.

Edit; adding this one as well though it could go into many threads in here. It was also the only part of the meeting that I managed to watch live, by Jeremy Legget:
God, Man, Tech and Climate: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber paints a picture for the Club of Rome
https://jeremyleggett.net/2018/10/17/god-man-tech-and-climate-hans-joachim-schellnhuber-paints-a-picture-for-the-club-of-rome/
« Last Edit: October 22, 2018, 07:54:40 AM by Sleepy »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1643 on: October 22, 2018, 08:32:54 AM »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 810
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1644 on: October 22, 2018, 02:06:27 PM »
We better use every approach we can find. While the rest of the planet couldn't care less, my home consumes 1/3 of what it used to on pure electric heating and the electricity I purchase is wind generated, so I'm (somewhat) happy.

I'm happy that my home consumes about 1/10th of the energy it used to consume, no longer burns paraffin as a fuel and uses a wood burning boiler with wood from sustainable forests grown for the task of producing heating fuel.

This was my choice to insulate, replace windows with double glazing, to seal the house as far as possible from howling gales of sub Zero (C) temperatures in the winter.  I would use the electricity from the nuclear power station, 30 miles down the road, but it is prohibitively expensive to try and heat a very large stone built, 1850's era, town house on electricity.  Also my 16kw supply (the most they give to residential), was exceeded several times before I got the CH up and running again on wood.

I have no issue with doing everything we can.  I have a big issue with governments backsliding on investments they need to make by trying to make it our problem with reduction of consumption.

Going EV, the preferred choice of the governments to meet Paris, will MASSIVLEY increase our Electricity demand.  Something the governments are not provisioning for.  In the UK our supply has been decreasing to meet decreased demand, leaving the supply just larger than demand. 

Just how, exactly, will they transition to EV? 

Tell us to drive less?

What will they do for all that tax revenue lost?  It is the same issue with smoking.  They would love to be the government which crushes tobacco use, fame for a nanosecond, followed by a HUGE black hole in the budget.

My issue is not with driving greater efficiency and reducing consumption. That will continue anyway as we transition to newer and far more efficient technology in our consumption led economic model.  I am really concerned about where the responsibility lies for generating the capability to meet the Paris accord.  So that we can consume in line with the accord.

That is not and never will be, achieved by reduction in consumption alone.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1645 on: October 23, 2018, 07:21:26 AM »
Neil, how much one can save depends on the starting point and the annual mean temp, if you start off with a passive house in Kiruna you won't be able to save anything, except for the number of gadgets/appliances. My numbers are without extra insulation or replacing windows. Building codes have been improved here for new houses (55W/m² in the southerns parts of Sweden) but it matters little, when people use more energy with other appliances. The average house here still consumes 25MWh per year, so despite improved insulation and warmer winters it's the same as ever...

We are locked in at 1.5°C and in just 2-5 years we might be locked in at 2°C. Focus must be on getting emissions down, fast. Our corporations and governments have had thirty years now and accomplished nothing but growth. Growth in energy use is accelerating and resource use is projected to increase.
https://twitter.com/IEA/status/1051575599020601344
https://www.iea.org/efficiency2018/
http://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/raw-materials-use-to-double-by-2060-with-severe-environmental-consequences.htm

Our present system started in the early 70's and one thing (maybe the only thing?) that might change it, is ordinary people and kids like Greta above. When enough people realize what must change, corporations and governments must change.

Nothing will ever be accomplished by anything alone.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1646 on: October 23, 2018, 01:45:44 PM »
Global inequalities in CO₂ emissions
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-by-income-region
Quote
When aggregated by region we see that North America, Oceania, Europe, and Latin America have disproportionately high emissions relative to their population. North America is home to only five percent of the world population but emits nearly 18 percent of CO2 (almost four times as much). Asia and Africa are underrepresented in emissions. Asia is home to 60 percent of the population but emits just 49 percent; Africa has 16 percent of the population but emits just 4 percent of CO2. This is reflected in per capita emissions; the average North American is more than 17 times higher than the average African.

This inequality in global emissions lies at the heart of why international agreement on climate change has (and continues to be) so contentious. The richest countries of the world are home to half of the world population, and emit 86 percent of CO2 emissions. We want global incomes and living standards — especially of those in the poorest half — to rise. To do so whilst limiting climate change, it's clear that we must shrink the emissions of high-income lifestyles. Finding the compatible pathway for levelling this inequality is one of the greatest challenges of this century.

Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 810
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1647 on: October 23, 2018, 09:42:40 PM »
Neil, how much one can save depends on the starting point and the annual mean temp, if you start off with a passive house in Kiruna you won't be able to save anything

Agreed, but my point was not so much about people striving to make a saving individually.  My point was about Governments giving everyone a choice to use co2 neutral power by providing that power in quantity and sufficient to all needs.

This is not what governments are doing.  They keep putting this on us even though it is their job to make it possible to reduce our CO2 consumption as a simple choice.  Then they can punish us liberally for choosing not to.

BTW, I know Kiruna.  I can see what you are saying.  On the other hand we have a different problem in the middle of France, how to keep the heat out in the summer.  A much bigger problem than the cold out in the winter although that is also a concern.

Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1648 on: October 24, 2018, 06:19:39 AM »
Re: keeping the heat out; had that problem this summer as well. Luckily my PV was able to cope, just. What will hit us next? Cold or heat? Both like last winter/spring? Snow in October? Probably on Saturday. I still have to be prepared for all of it. Not complaining, a lot of other people have a lot worse on this planet.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

D-Penguin

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1649 on: October 26, 2018, 04:48:33 AM »
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1648 on: October 18, 2018, 02:28:33 PM »

Oren
This is a misunderstanding. 0.87 is the cumulative warming since pre-industrial, centered around 2010.
1.0 is the warming centered around 2017.
0.2 is the warming per decade, so supposedly we get to 1.5 by ~2040.


Thank you for the correction of my incorrect interpretation.

Notwithstanding the IPCC figures, I think that limiting AGW to 1.5 by 2030 - 2052, to avoid catastrophic consequences, is a very misleading statement.

Of course, we can interpret the statistical data as we like to confirm or substantiate an argument. Personally I would prefer to apply a little ‘common sense’ to the statistics rather than rely on ‘statistical analyses’ as is the case with the IPCC Report.

To me, the significant figures are the temperature anomalies of - 0.4 deg C in the 1900s and 0.9 deg C in 2017 representing a continuous upward and accelerated rate of increase in global temperatures combined with the anomaly of a 0.3 deg C rise for the period 2010 – 2015.

Based on these figures the increase in global temperature would be 1.6 deg C by 2025. Bearing in mind that the average global temperature for the period 1880 – 1910 was 13.7 deg C this would result in an average global temperature of 15.3 deg C by 2025.

The greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution are still contributing to present day AGW. 2018 is projected to record the highest level of greenhouse gas emissions. If greenhouse gas emissions ceased today I do not see how it would be possible to avoid the catastrophic effects of exceeding 1.5 deg C rise and beyond without removal and sequestration.