Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond  (Read 484494 times)

Red

  • Guest
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1600 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10474
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3945
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1601 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

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1602 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1603 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1604 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19207
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2130
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1605 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19207
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2130
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1606 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18884
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1607 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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1608 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1609 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1610 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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1611 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1044
  • Kelele
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1612 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19207
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2130
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1613 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19207
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2130
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1614 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

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1615 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1616 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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1617 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 »
Remember...it's all about the Jet Stream you dummy...just a personal reminder!

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2460
  • Likes Given: 2176
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1618 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

  • New ice
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1619 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19207
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2130
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1620 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19207
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2130
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1621 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1622 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

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5820
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 815
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1623 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1624 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1625 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1626 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1627 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1628 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1629 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1630 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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1631 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.

Remember...it's all about the Jet Stream you dummy...just a personal reminder!

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10474
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3945
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1632 on: October 26, 2018, 09:58:48 AM »
Global inequalities in CO₂ emissions

Quote
When aggregated by region we see that North America, Oceania, Europe, and Latin America have disproportionately high emissions relative to their population. 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. T

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.

Meanwhile,

India China and Indonesia, to name but a few, are increasing their use of coal substantially for a good few years yet. It looks like the probable new President of Brazil is going to open the Amazon to every rape and pillage entrepreneur. Most of the growth in CO2 emissions will not come from the rich countries - not even the USA. The rich countries might even reduce their CO2 emissions a little bit. (Trump can slow the changes that are happening but not stop them). Perhaps the UK will manage to increase CO2 emissions a bit due to the Government going hell for leather to develop Fracking (if Brexit does not wreck our economy).

All the talk about keeping climate change down to +1.5 is, in my not very humble opinion, a sick joke.

ps: I was watching a programme on the BBC yesterday and they brought up Easter Island as a demonstration of how all civilisations have built-in self-destruction -  as all societies cannot stop themselves from exhausting the resources required to maintain that civilisation.
"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)

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1633 on: October 26, 2018, 11:21:20 AM »
Yes, 1.5°C is locked in since Paris and soon we will be locked in at 2°C. Also, 3°C was the optimum temperature according to Nordhaus in the early 70's.
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.



Still, this silly old fool will give it a couple of more years for some magic to happen, because I don't like the evolutionary solution. Stupid humans ought to be smarter than that.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1634 on: October 26, 2018, 12:17:38 PM »
Let's be fair to Nordhaus and add his own words from 1975 and a quote from page 23:
Quote
According to most sources the range of variation between climatic is in the order of ± 5°C, and at the present time the global climate is at the high end of this range. If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3°C above the current average temperature, this would take the climte outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years. Within a stable climatic regime, the range of variation of ± 1°C is the normal variation: thus in the last 100 years a range of mean temperature has been 0.7°C. On the other hand, studies on the effects of carbon dioxide on global temperature indicate that a doubling in concentration would probably lead to an increase in surface temperature of between 0.6 and 2.4°C.

Edit; adding the summary as well.
Quote
To summarize, we have indicated what the efficient program for meeting certain carbon dioxide standards is in a long-term energy model. These indicate that for reasonable standards (limited to between a 50 percent and a 200 percent increase in the atmospheric concentration) the program appears feasible. Moreover, it is a program which requires no changes in the energy allocation for the first two 25 year periods, and only in the third period, centering on 2020, do modifications in the allocation take place. These modifications take the form of reducing the fossil fuel use in the non-electric sector, and replacing it with non-fossil fuels.
Moreover, it appears that the efficient programs have rather high implicit shadow prices on carbon dioxide emissions but that the total effect on energy prices and the total cost of meeting the energy bundle of goods is relatively small. It appears that a rise in the final price level for energy goods of in the order of 10 percent is the range of estimates for the three programs investigated here.
Subject to the limitations of the model used here, then, we can be relatively optimistic about the technical feasibility of control of atmospheric carbon dioxide. If the control program is instituted in an orderly and timely way, the world energy system can adopt to controls of the magnitude examined here without serious dislocations. It remains to be determined what a set of optimal controls would be, and how these controls could be implemented.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2018, 12:27:52 PM by Sleepy »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

RealityCheck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1635 on: October 26, 2018, 06:10:24 PM »
The linked article entitled 'Zero carbon energy system pathways for Ireland consistent with the Paris Agreement' describes some the unique aspects of Ireland's energy and GHG situation; and why it serves as a useful case study.

https://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2018.1464893

Abstract:
'The Paris Agreement is the last hope to keep global temperature rise below 2°C. The consensus agrees to holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to aim for 1.5°C. Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution (NDC) will represent a progression beyond the party’s then current NDC, and reflect its highest possible ambition. Using Ireland as a test case, we show that increased mitigation ambition is required to meet the Paris Agreement goals in contrast to current EU policy goals of an 80–95% reduction by 2050. For the 1.5°C consistent carbon budgets, the technically feasible scenarios' abatement costs rise to greater than €8,100/tCO2 by 2050. The greatest economic impact is in the short term. Annual GDP growth rates in the period to 2020 reduce from 4% to 2.2% in the 1.5°C scenario. While aiming for net zero emissions beyond 2050, investment decisions in the next 5–10 years are critical to prevent carbon lock-in.

Key policy insights

Economic growth can be maintained in Ireland while rapidly decarbonizing the energy system.

The social cost of carbon needs to be included as standard in valuation of infrastructure investment planning, both by government finance departments and private investors.

Technological feasibility is not the limiting factor in achieving rapid deep decarbonization.

Immediate increased decarbonization ambition over the next 3–5 years is critical to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, acknowledging the current 80–95% reduction target is not consistent with temperature goals of ‘well below’ 2°C and pursuing 1.5°C.

Applying carbon budgets to the energy system results in non-linear CO2 emissions reductions over time, which contrast with current EU policy targets, and the implied optimal climate policy and mitigation investment strategy.'
Sic transit gloria mundi

D-Penguin

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1636 on: October 28, 2018, 02:37:17 AM »
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond

There is much posting about mitigation and the efficacy of various political policies and technical solutions to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (mitigation) and thereby limit global warming to a temperature of 1.5 deg C above pre-industrial level with the assertion that the global temperature will then stabilize at some point.

The temperature anomaly is now 0.9 deg C above pre-industrial level and an additional 0.6 deg C is already 'locked in'; add to this the last four years of record levels of CO2 emissions, of which 2018 will be the highest recorded, feeding into the GHG effect.

How would the IPCC answer the question, 'How will it be remotely possible to limit GW to 1.5 deg C by 2030?'; even the answer to that question would not address the reality of the situation.

Yes, reduce carbon emissions to zero as soon as possible BUT THE REAL QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? How do you stop temperatures continuing to rise? The greenhouse gases that cause AGW are still there and will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and more!
Remember...it's all about the Jet Stream you dummy...just a personal reminder!

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1637 on: October 28, 2018, 06:19:58 AM »
It will take some 40 years for the current emissions to play out if I recall correctly. Since we are already in the danger zone for natural feedbacks (Levermann is a nice picture), many scientists are now seriously talking about SRM, like Hansen recently and some like Kevin Lister are talking about getting back to 0.5°C. Read the pdf here:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1021.msg162177.html#msg162177
Adding the interview from that one:

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

sark

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 493
  • not a scientist
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 201
  • Likes Given: 77
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1638 on: October 28, 2018, 06:38:24 AM »
the 40 year lag thing was fleshed out by a modeling study.. 100 gigatonne release of co2, then no more additions

Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002
I am not a scientist

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1639 on: October 28, 2018, 07:14:01 AM »
Thanks for adding the Caldeira study, sark. Couldn't remember who wrote about a ~10 year delay when I made my comment earlier.
Quote
Using conjoined results of carbon-cycle and physical-climate model intercomparison projects (Taylor et al 2012, Joos et al 2013), we find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1640 on: October 28, 2018, 07:22:03 PM »
https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1056475408026222592
Quote
What does it take to stay below 1.5°C with no or limited temperature overshoot: * CO₂ emissions down 50% by 2030 (40-60% interquartile range) * Net-zero by 2050-2060 * Around 10GtCO₂ (net) negative emissions by 2100 Let that sink in...
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

D-Penguin

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1641 on: October 28, 2018, 11:09:24 PM »
the 40 year lag thing was fleshed out by a modeling study.. 100 gigatonne release of co2, then no more additions

Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002

I am of the opinion that the above is very misleading. There can be no stabilization of global temperatures without CO2 removal (CDR) from the atmosphere. The IPCC makes 'passing' reference to CDR.

Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union
Oliver Geden ORCID Icon, Glen P. Peters ORCID Icon & Vivian Scott ORCID Icon
Received 01 Jul 2018, Accepted 10 Oct 2018, Published online: 26 Oct 2018

ABSTRACT
In principle, many climate policymakers have accepted that large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement’s mitigation targets, but they have avoided proposing by whom CDR might be delivered. Given its role in international climate policy, the European Union (EU) might be expected to lead the way. But among EU climate policymakers so far there is little talk on CDR, let alone action. Here we assess how best to ‘target’ CDR to motivate EU policymakers exploring which CDR target strategy may work best to start dealing with CDR on a meaningful scale.

The Reference section of the Article is comprehensive.

The full Article is free of scientific 'jargon', the message is clear and can be read at the following link:-

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2018.1536600

Mitigation is of importance but CDR is critical
« Last Edit: October 28, 2018, 11:25:52 PM by D-Penguin »
Remember...it's all about the Jet Stream you dummy...just a personal reminder!

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1642 on: October 29, 2018, 04:16:34 AM »
There have been extensive discussions and posts about NET's in here D-Penguin.
But there will never be any stabilization as long as people on this planet keeps electing morons like Trump and Bolsonaro, science and math are blunt tools there.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10474
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3945
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1643 on: October 29, 2018, 08:04:57 PM »
Today was budget day in the UK. As far as climate change it is "business as usual", i.e.
- economic growth in the same way as before is the priority,
- no new money for environment projects,
- the abolition of credits for EV purchases will not be overturned,
- the abolition of feed-in tariffs for solar energy produced by households purchases will not be overturned,
- the stop to on-shore wind energy will not be overturned,
- other environmental investments will continue to decline (by 56% last year),
- planning rules for fracking will be "streamlined.

Mind you, the leader of the opposition in his speech managed 2 1 minutes of criticism on government's environment policies, and even managed to link them to the IPCC Special Report. (The Government was very glad when it became yesterday's news).
"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)

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18884
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1645 on: October 30, 2018, 04:13:37 PM »
Japan’s space agency yesterday launched the Ibuki 2 satellite, to help measure each country’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Quote
Measurements from Ibuki 2 will track carbon dioxide, methane and carbon monoxide concentration changes over months, seasons and years, helping scientists identify patterns in variability. Compared to Ibuki’s capabilities, the new satellite introduces a new technique to measure carbon monoxide, and will be able to detect smaller quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Ikubi 2 will be able to locate greenhouse gas sources geographically, identifying cities and industrial zones responsible for carbon pollution.
...
Ibuki 2 will also have the ability to automatically identify clouds as it flies around the Earth, allowing the satellite to instantly focus its observations over cloud-free areas to avoid corrupted data — a first-of-its-kind capability for an environmental spacecraft, Abe said.

According to Setouchi, Japan started the Ibuki project after the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to help countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
...
Japan is the fifth-leading carbon-emitting country in the world, according to Setouchi.

Ibuki 2 will help global policymakers gauge how countries are implementing tenets of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, which aimed to limit the global average temperature well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement’s signatories agreed to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius in a bid to curb concerns about rising sea levels and other extreme weather caused by global warming.

“The conclusion of the Paris Agreement obligates countries to report their greenhouse gas emissions,” Setouchi said. “Using observation data from the Ibuki 2 that launched today, I expect we can evaluate each country’s emissions and reductions. This will make the mandatory reports on greenhouse gas emissions in the Paris Agreement more transparent.” ...
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/10/29/japan-launches-satellite-to-study-human-causes-of-climate-change/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1646 on: October 31, 2018, 12:00:47 AM »
Today was budget day in the UK. As far as climate change it is "business as usual", i.e.
- economic growth in the same way as before is the priority,

Actually the UK is pretty much in line with Paris already, having, by most measures, already reduced CO2 emissions to the required level.

In the UK there are two challenges now.

1. remove the last of the Coal power stations.  This is in progress and we are delivering offshore wind and new Nuclear to do that.

2. replace the old and expiring Nuclear power stations with new Nuclear to keep a baseline power supply without requiring to dip into coal.

Gas fired power will remain the fast acting contingency until enough CO2 neutral power is available.

The UK also has the opportunity to use taxation to drive users from FFV to EV, driving down CO2 emissions even more.

Over the water in mainland EU, it is a very different story.  France is not too bad, Germany is struggling, the Nordics are well on the way to being carbon Neutral but then there are all those former East Bloc countries with ageing and creaking coal powered electricity systems.  Nobody really wants to get into Russia for too much more gas because it gives Russia too much power over them.  Seen in winter before.

The countries who desperately need investment in clean energy simply don't have the money to spend.

Whilst the UK does not need further stimulus to meet the Paris accord, the EU desperately needed the UK to mitigate all those other countries who can't get there.  The UK was on a path to radically reduce more CO2 so that Germany, Italy and all the East Bloc countries could get a pass on the UK coat tails.  That is no longer an issue and the UK only has to look after the UK promises.

So we have more important things to do with our money.  Not that we get any kudos for what we have already done....  Just more criticism.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1454
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1647 on: October 31, 2018, 03:29:50 AM »
New nuclear.... Cheap!!

Also UK will be going doing in CO2 soon (thanks to brexit)

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1648 on: October 31, 2018, 07:43:28 AM »
the Nordics are well on the way to being carbon Neutral
Not according to Swedish EPA.
https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Sa-mar-miljon/Statistik-A-O/Vaxthusgaser-konsumtionsbaserade-utslapp-Sverige-och-andra-lander/
Picture including consumption based emissions attached below.
Updated in depth analysis from 2017 (unfortunately in Swedish):
https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Om-Naturvardsverket/Publikationer/ISBN/6700/978-91-620-6782-3/
In domestic emissions there are some slight drops but hopefully we'll get a much more positive updated analysis shortly for 2018, but after looking out the window I'm not overly positive about that.

Edit; forgot to add the standard phrase, we use ~40% Nuclear, ~40% Hydro and ~10% Wind.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 08:20:41 AM by Sleepy »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1649 on: October 31, 2018, 07:49:23 AM »
Trends of the EU’s territorial and consumption-based emissions from 1990 to 2016
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-018-2296-x
Attaching Fig4.
Quote
Fig. 4 Kaya identity decomposition of key factors affecting the annual changes in territorial emissions: Gross Domestic Product (GDP), energy intensity (Energy/GDP), and carbon intensity (CO2/Energy). The cross term represents a small interaction effect between the different terms. Data sources: European Environment Agency (2018), Peters et al. (2017), own calculations
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.