UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond

[D-Penguin]

Sleepy
« Reply #1672 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.

ALSO there will never be stabilization as long as people on this planet keep reading and believing IPCC Reports.

The IPCC Pathways are based on the misuse of scientific studies statistically manipulated to create false conclusions.

The elimination of CO2e emissions will not stop the continuation of accelerated temperature rises and global heat energy balance.

WHY is the IPCC not be exposed for publishing 'false news'?

[sidd]

Re: The elimination of CO2e emissions will not stop the continuation of accelerated temperature rises and global heat energy balance.

Do tell ?

sidd

[Sleepy]

WHY is the IPCC not be exposed for publishing 'false news'?

I'd rather call them old news than fake, fake news never contains sources or verifiable links. Maybe not enough people are interested, especially economists and policy makers?

SR15 is out, have fun...
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Live conference going on here:
*youtu.be/12S3dKrxj7c

The press conference has now gathered 11200 views after a month.

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.

Three comments below that last quote you'll find this one:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1021.msg176086.html#msg176086

[gerontocrat]

CO2 emissions in 2018 are greater than 2017.

I see no reason not to assume emissions in 2019 will be greater than in 2018 and for several (many?) years after that - Increased coal use and growth of transportation (cars and trucks) mostly in Asia far exceeding phase out of coal elsewhere, and exceeding the effect of growth in renewable energy and EVs.

I also assume that the evidence on decline in the effectiveness of natural CO2 sinks will continue to accumulate.

"My prediction that belongs to me" is that by the end of the 2020's real money will start to be thrown at geo-engineering schemes and by 2035/40 those of us still extant will start to see how badly they screwed up.

Sometimes optimism is really good, but sometimes it is really dumb.

[D-Penguin]

Posted by: Sleepy
« on: November 02, 2018, 05:18:03 AM

I'd rather call them old news than fake...

I include propaganda in the 'fake news' category; any news 'constructed' to misinform.

[D-Penguin]

Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1682 on: November 02, 2018, 04:23:13 AM »

Do tell?

What is there to say?

[sidd]

Re:The elimination of CO2e emissions will not stop the continuation of accelerated temperature rises and global heat energy balance.

I was asking for supporting evidence for that statement.

sidd

[Sleepy]

Posted by: Sleepy
« on: November 02, 2018, 05:18:03 AM

I'd rather call them old news than fake...

I include propaganda in the 'fake news' category; any news 'constructed' to misinform.

Then you should be happy, since the only study you've posted so far to support your opinion was written by Oliver Geden and Glen Peters with it's first reference to Kevin Anderson and Glen Peter from 2016; "The trouble with negative emissions".

Glen Peters is also a lead author for AR6-WG3 (chapter three).

[wolfpack513]

Anecdotal observation from California.  Millions are being spent to repeal the gas tax: Prop 6.  People are losing it over 12 cents a gallon and this is CALIFORNIA!  Imagine what’s it’s going be like to even attempt some of these emissions reductions in the next 10 years. 

[Sleepy]

Gas prices in California is just below a dollar per litre (~9kr) if a certain search engine is correct? We are just below 1,8 here (~16kr). Diesel was 16,51kr last week at a local station.

[wolfpack513]

Gas prices in California is just below a dollar per litre (~9kr) if a certain search engine is correct? We are just below 1,8 here (~16kr). Diesel was 16,51kr last week at a local station.

Per gallon it’s about 74 cents.  The proposition would repeal 12 cents of the 74 cents, which was enacted last year.   Cox the Republican gubernatorial candidate is making this his big issue.  My point is to meet IPCC emissions reductions it’s going to take a transformation that the average citizen can’t even comprehend.  Freaking out about a 12 cents tax will seem laughable in 30 years.

[Sleepy]

You intended to write per litre, wolfpack? The lowest prices I found was around three dollars per gallon. But I think I got you point, I wouldn't mind doubling our prices (16,51kr/l diesel was the lowest here last week and not an average price) but also realize that most people here are still not there yet, if they ever will...

[D-Penguin]

Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1687 on: November 04, 2018, 04:11:47 AM »

Re:The elimination of CO2e emissions will not stop the continuation of accelerated temperature rises and global heat energy balance.

I was asking for supporting evidence for that statement.

sidd

(A) The calculation of the CO2 flux at the atmospheric/oceanic interface across the oceans' surface is of immeasurable complexity. Maybe at some unforeseen future date scientists will be in a position to determine an 'average' flux value. The net flux is currently negative; there are large areas neutral and other areas positive. From all the peer reviewed papers that I have read there are no references to the rise in ocean temperatures that would be required to cause a change of state from net negative, to net neutral to net positive flux.

Only 2% of atmospheric CO2 comes into contact with the oceans' surface. A recent study has indicated that the up-take of heat by the oceans has been underestimated by 60%. As CO2 emissions tend to zero the molecular gas pressure from atmosphere to ocean decreases. The oceans move from absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere to releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere (de-gassing) as SST rise.

(B) The IPCC Pathways 'presume' a 'steady state' of the CO2 flux at the atmospheric/oceanic interface, a necessary presumption if it is deemed that the oceans will continue to have a net negative flux and thereby continue to act as a 'carbon sink' for atmospheric CO2.

As CO2 emissions tends to zero the argument presented is that global temperatures will stabilize and eventually fall slowly.

My opinion is based on the application of commonsense and logic to the known science of physics and chemistry as applied to scientific studies related to the CO2 flux at the atmospheric/oceanic interface. (A)

The IPCC Pathways model is based on peer reviewed scientific papers without the application of commonsense and logic as applied to scientific studies and related to the CO2 flux at the atmospheric/oceanic interface. (B)

I would suggest that it is the IPCC argument that requires supporting evidence in the above arguments to  justify the assertion that zero CO2 emissions will stabilize global temperatures.
 

[sidd]

Re: "As CO2 emissions tend to zero the molecular gas pressure from atmosphere to ocean decreases. The oceans move from absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere to releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere (de-gassing) as SST rise."

This is in the models already. Look at, for example

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/modern.shtml

or for a more technical description

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GB005400

Look at Takahashi's work, he has been compiling a dataset for at least thirty years.

"The IPCC Pathways 'presume' a 'steady state' of the CO2 flux at the atmospheric/oceanic interface"

Au contraire. They use the modelled work that goes back at least to the seventies. Look at Sunquist, for example. And even before Revelle and others had very good understanding of the process.

Upon reflection, perhaps you are referring to a much more serious problem, that of flux corrections. It was observed as early or earlier than the nineties that couple AOGCMs exhibitided serious drift problems in that they would gradually drift away from observed climatology unless corrections were applied to the fluxes (both mass and energy) between coupled components. But this has largely been solved and modern models do much better. For a discussion from 2006 see

https://agupubsonlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005JD006009

sidd

[D-Penguin]

Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1694 on: Today at 06:13:48 AM »

I am sorry but I do not understand your response to my posting.

This is in the models already. Look at, for example
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/modern.shtml
or for a more technical description
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GB005400
Look at Takahashi's work, he has been compiling a dataset for at least thirty years.

I do not see the benefit of revisiting papers that I read many years ago.

Au contraire. They use the modelled work that goes back at least to the seventies. Look at Sunquist, for example. And even before Revelle and others had very good understanding of the process.

They do not. There is no acknowledgement in the IPCC Pathways that the global net CO2 flux at the Atmospheric/Oceanic interface will change state from +ve to neutral to -ve as SSTs continue to rise beyond the date that CO2 emissions cease.

The oceans will not continue to act as a Carbon Sink when the global net CO2 flux changes state from -ve to neutral at the Atmospheric/Oceanic interface.
Where in the IPCC Reports is this fact acknowledged?
Where does the CO2 already in the atmosphere go to?
If the CO2 has no place to go to, the greenhouse gas effect will continue and so what will stop the continuation of AGW?

What happens to CO2 levels in the atmosphere as SSTs continue to rise and the oceans degas CO2 back into the atmosphere?

... perhaps you are referring to a much more serious problem, that of flux corrections...
Indeed. Your reflection was correct.

...this has largely been solved and modern models do much better...
Undoubted. However, the IPCC takes no account of this matter neither in its projected Pathways as with so many other forcing events that are ignored. Dangerous complacency!

[sidd]

From

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/modern.shtml

"Today, the average pCO2 of the atmosphere is ~7 ppm higher than the global ocean pCO2. "

When do you expect this number to reach zero and turn negative as the oceans begin to degas ?

sidd

[Sleepy]

D-Penguin, I really don't mind you posting or beeing concerned but you're a bit late to the party as you should have noticed by previous replies. This thread (by it's general nature) will of course open for many other different posts and perspectives but if you wish to discuss IPCC, or conservative scientists, or have general concerns over the impending destruction of spaceship Earth, there are many other and much older threads in here (I've been reading here since late 2013 and registered the first time in 2014), a few examples:

 When and how bad?
« on: April 03, 2013, 04:10:58 PM »
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,192.0.html

 Is the Earth F**cked??
« on: December 25, 2013, 06:36:22 PM »
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,702.0.html

 What if IPCC was proven to be a suicide pact?
« on: September 10, 2014, 11:55:22 AM »
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,987.0.html

 IPCC possible scenario: 9 C over next century or so
« on: October 15, 2014, 04:45:38 AM »
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1020.0.html

And finally this one, still highly active today:
 Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: October 30, 2014, 05:02:41 PM »
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.0.html

You will find many members disturbed by the IPCC or by the lack of mitigation. Some are long gone or just inactive and some are still here. One fool even re-registered (Me).

Three weeks to go until the next agony in Katowice.

[D-Penguin]

From

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/modern.shtml

"Today, the average pCO2 of the atmosphere is ~7 ppm higher than the global ocean pCO2. "

When do you expect this number to reach zero and turn negative as the oceans begin to degas ?

sidd

This is the most important question on the ASIF in my opinion (if it has been discussed in other threads I would be grateful if you could direct me to the link).

After reading many papers about CO2 flux (atmosphere/ocean) I have not seen the answer to this question or postulate of a SST that would lead to a neutral or negative flux. However, in a previous posting you implied that this matter had been taken into account in the IPCC pathways to limit AGW.

I do not know the answer to the question. So, I simply applied commonsense and logic to how this issue has implications related to limiting AGW and stabilizing temperatures at an acceptable level.

viz
SSTs will continue to rise and at some point in time the CO2 flux (atmosphere to ocean) will change from positive to neutral to negative and then degas CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Is this conclusion unreasonable and if so I would be very interested to know why?
 

[SteveMDFP]

From

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2854/modern.shtml

"Today, the average pCO2 of the atmosphere is ~7 ppm higher than the global ocean pCO2. "

When do you expect this number to reach zero and turn negative as the oceans begin to degas ?

sidd

This is the most important question on the ASIF in my opinion (if it has been discussed in other threads I would be grateful if you could direct me to the link).
 . . .

The concept has come up tangentially a few times.  The forum software's built-in search function leaves much to be desired.  However, Google indexes the forum, and one can specify a specific domain for a search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=pCO2+ocean+site:forum.arctic-sea-ice.net

This should get you a good start.

[Sleepy]

OT:
Drivers of future seasonal cycle changes in oceanic pCO₂
https://www.biogeosciences.net/15/5315/2018/

Posted it here:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,77.msg180441.html#msg180441

[sidd]

Something about this line of discussion tickled my memory, and eventually i refound and reread this paper from 1978

Climatic  Change, v1, issue 4, (1978) pp349-354
Ferren MacIntyre., "On the temperature coefficient of PCO2 in seawater"

" ... one ancillary problem can be disposed of quickly. This is the speculation that raising the surface temperature of the Earth a little will, by warming the oceans, force enough additional CO2 out of solution into the atmosphere to result in a runaway positive feedback. The idea is not implausible, but the numerical value of the temperature coefficient commonly quoted is far  too  large. "

The key insight is that the calculation must be done holding total C in ocean + atmosphere constant.

"It appears that fears of positive feedback in ocean-atmosphere warming were exaggerated ten-fold by a thermodynamic misunderstanding. For once, Nature seems to be on our side. "

MacIntyre neglects the deep ocean, which is ok for his treatment for timescales no more than a century or so.

Nice paper.

To return to the point that models include these considerations, Fig 12.42 and 12.43 in IPCC AR5 WG1 make the point explicitly for longer term (until 2300) projections, long tail even in RCP 2.6 with negative emission tech.

And IPCC points out that:

"Due to the long time scales in the deep ocean, full equilibrium is reached only after hundreds to thousands of years"

far beyond any projections.

sidd

[Sleepy]

We would need to burn all available fossil fuels to produce enough oceanic warming to ignite a possible hyperthermal amplification, or runaway greenhouse effect. Hansen wrote about that in 2013.

[Sigmetnow]

As it relates to global progress in action on climate change, I believe this good news belongs in this thread, as well!

Democrats won the majority of the U.S. Congress’ House in the mid-term elections last Tuesday, which means they will take over the leadership of House committees.  Scientists and climate-change believers are coming on board!

House Dems plan to bring back committee on climate change

Democrats are reportedly planning to revive a House committee on climate change after winning back control of the House.

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was dissolved by Republicans in 2011 after the GOP took control, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will ask Democrats to reconstitute it, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The special committee, which was started by Pelosi, was not authorized to advance legislation, but the panel held hearings to address concerns about climate change, extreme weather events and global warming.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/415723-house-dems-plan-to-bring-back-committee-on-climate-change

All eyes on top Democrat to bring science back to science committee

Environmentalists are hoping that Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) will bring science back to the House science committee when she takes over as chair in the next Congress.

Johnson, if elected chair, will be the first woman with a degree in a STEM field to hold the position since 1990. She was the first registered nurse elected to Congress when she won her first term in 1993, and she’s served as ranking member on House Science, Space and Technology Committee since 2011.

The Democrat will represent a significant shift from the previous chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

Smith introduced controversial bills including the Secret Science Reform Act and worked in tandem with the Trump administration to introduce heavily criticized policies on science transparency to the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/415589-all-eyes-on-top-democrat-to-bring-science-back-to-science-committee

 
Congress gains an influx of scientists as GOP science committee head leaves
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/10/congress-gains-scientists-lawmakers-midterm-elections

Also posted in the Trump Assaults on Science on the Science board, and What’s New in Climate Change Acceptance and Action.

[D-Penguin]

Something about this line of discussion tickled my memory, and eventually i refound and reread this paper from 1978

Climatic  Change, v1, issue 4, (1978) pp349-354
Ferren MacIntyre., "On the temperature coefficient of PCO2 in seawater"

I would prefer not to comment on a paper on Climate Change that is 40 years old.

To return to the point that models include these considerations, Fig 12.42 and 12.43 in IPCC AR5 WG1 make the point explicitly for longer term (until 2300) projections, long tail even in RCP 2.6 with negative emission tech.

And IPCC points out that:

"Due to the long time scales in the deep ocean, full equilibrium is reached only after hundreds to thousands of years"

far beyond any projections.

sidd

You are confusing the short-term (within a lifetime) and long-term (over millennia) Carbon Cycles.

[sidd]

Re: " prefer not to comment on a paper on Climate Change that is 40 years old"

Perhaps you are aware of a calculation which improves or overturns MacIntyre ?

sidd

[sidd]

Here is a more recent (2012) review by Zeebe on ocean carbon:

doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105521

Rather good, i thought. But Zeebe usually is. He has good stuff with Wolf-Gladrow out there.

sidd

[Sleepy]

EIB climate survey
Assessing citizens’ sentiments towards climate change
http://www.eib.org/en/surveys/citizens-climate-change-survey
About Swedes (I'm a minority here, in more ways that this...):

Below the EU average with 63% of Swedes describing themselves as concerned or alarmed when thinking about climate change, Swedes are less concerned about the impacts of climate change than their fellow Europeans. The survey also reveals that they are less aware of the dangers of climate change than the average EU citizen, with only 51% of Swedes considering that climate change has already become a threat to humanity, against 59% for the EU average.

Furthermore, the survey highlights some generational gaps, with 59% of the millennial generation (18 to 34 year-olds) believing global warming is due to human activity and only 37% of the ageing population (55+) sharing this view.

[AbruptSLR]

It's a good thing that this forum has a thread on Adapting to the Anthropocene:

Title: "Climate change is getting too big and divisive to solve"

https://www.axios.com/climate-change-too-big-divisive-8f611e2b-f181-4e8f-b3a2-497bac77f2bb.html

Extract: "America’s divisive politics and the sheer math of cutting heat-trapping emissions indicate the world’s prospect of substantively tackling climate change is getting out of reach.

Why it matters: We often talk about this issue as though big solutions are coming sooner or later. But in fact, it’s a big “if,” not “when,” America and the world will do anything close to what scientists say is needed to avoid the worst impacts of a warmer world.
…
What's next: Why we should focus more on adapting to a warmer world"

See "Adapting to the Anthropocene" at:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1308.0.html

[gerontocrat]

"Shock, horror, amazement". BAU continues unabated

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/g20-nations-still-led-by-fossil-fuel-industry-climate-report-finds

G20 nations still led by fossil fuel industry, climate report finds
Coal, oil and gas subsidies risking rise in global temperatures to 3.2C, well beyond agreed Paris goal
Climate action is way off course in all but one of the world’s 20 biggest economies, according to a report that shows politicians are paying more heed to the fossil fuel industry than to advice from scientists. Among the G20 nations 15 reported a rise in emissions last year, according to the most comprehensive stock-take to date of progress towards the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

The paper, by the global partnership Climate Transparency, found 82% of energy in these countries still being provided by coal, oil and gas, a factor which has relied on a doubling of subsidies over the past 10 years to compete with increasingly cheap wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.

The G20 nations increased subsidies for fossil fuels from $75bn (£58bn) to $147bn (£114bn) between 2007 and 2016, although they pledged to phase them out more than 10 years ago.

Governments have said they will change, but on current commitments the world is on course for a 3.2C rise in average global temperatures, more than double the lower Paris threshold of 1.5C

,

[Sleepy]

Report on NET's:
https://nas-sites.org/dels/studies/cdr/

A quote from the summary recommendation:

The nation should launch a substantial research initiative to advance negative emissions technologies (NETs) as soon as practicable. A substantial investment would (1) improve existing NETs (i.e., coastal blue carbon, afforestation/reforestation, changes in forest management, uptake and storage by agricultural soils, and biomass energy with carbon capture and sequestration) to increase the capacity and to reduce their negative impacts and costs; (2) make rapid progress on direct air capture and carbon mineralization technologies, which are underexplored, but would have essentially unlimited capacity if the high costs and many unknowns could be overcome; and (3) advance NET-enabling research on biofuels and CO 2 sequestration that should be undertaken anyway as part of an emissions mitigation research portfolio.

What this report really tells us in plain language, is that we are too late to the party.

[Sleepy]

MCC has updated their carbon clock according to SR15:
https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html

What a relief. 

[gerontocrat]

MCC has updated their carbon clock according to SR15:
https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html

What a relief. 

But does one believe the special report when it apparently says (according to the MCC) ?

The Special Report of October 2018 presents new figures: The atmosphere can absorb no more than 420 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 if we are to stay below the 1.5°C threshold.

So do we have 9 years of BAU left (as MCC say) ?

However, since around 42 Gt of CO2 is emitted globally every year—the equivalent of 1332 tonnes per second—this budget is expected to be used up in just over nine years.

[Sleepy]

A face displaying eyes glancing upward, indicating an eye-roll. This is used to show disdain, contempt or boredom about a topic.
https://emojipedia.org/face-with-rolling-eyes/

One can also express it like MCC did in their tweet:

A few more years left for effective climate protection, but in terms of climate policy, we look back at a lost decade

Every day is a day lost. Not overly optimistic.

[gerontocrat]

A face displaying eyes glancing upward, indicating an eye-roll. This is used to show disdain, contempt or boredom about a topic.
https://emojipedia.org/face-with-rolling-eyes/

One can also express it like MCC did in their tweet:

A few more years left for effective climate protection, but in terms of climate policy, we look back at a lost decade

Every day is a day lost. Not overly optimistic.

Is there an emoji to tell the reader that one is asking totally pointless questions?

[Sleepy]

Isn't that typically British?

[Pmt111500]

MCC has updated their carbon clock according to SR15:

So do we have 9 years of BAU left (as MCC say) ?

Rather we're at 9 years overshoot (Copenhagen, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference). But that's just me and my skis and ice skates talking

[gerontocrat]

MCC has updated their carbon clock according to SR15:

So do we have 9 years of BAU left (as MCC say) ?

Rather we're at 9 years overshoot (Copenhagen, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference). But that's just me and my skis and ice skates talking

It just got a few years worse.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/15/brazil-foreign-minister-ernesto-araujo-climate-change-marxist-plot

Brazil's new foreign minister believes climate change is a Marxist plot
Ernesto Araujo has called climate science ‘dogma’ and bemoaned the ‘criminalisation’ of red meat, oil and heterosexual sex
The 51-year-old diplomat – who has never served as an overseas ambassador – claims unnamed leftist politicians have hijacked environmentalism to serve as a tool for global domination.

“This dogma has been used to justify increasing the regulatory power of states over the economy and the power of international institutions on the nation states and their populations, as well as to stifle economic growth in democratic capitalist countries and to promote the growth of China,” he wrote in a post last month.

His (The President's) pick as agriculture minister is the head of the farming lobby, Tereza Cristina Dias, who conservationists have nicknamed the “Muse of Poison” due to her enthusiastic support for relaxing controls on agro-toxins.

She and her colleagues are said to be gutting the responsibilities of the environment ministry before its new head is appointed. The environment institution is likely to be so subservient that insiders joke there will soon be two agriculture ministries in Brazil.

[Sleepy]

So do we have 9 years of BAU left (as MCC say) ?

Rather we're at 9 years overshoot (Copenhagen, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference). But that's just me and my skis and ice skates talking

Not just yours.

A face displaying eyes glancing upward, indicating an eye-roll. This is used to show disdain, contempt or boredom about a topic.
https://emojipedia.org/face-with-rolling-eyes/

One can also express it like MCC did in their tweet:

A few more years left for effective climate protection, but in terms of climate policy, we look back at a lost decade

Every day is a day lost. Not overly optimistic.

[gerontocrat]

Whoops.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/16/climate-change-champions-still-pursuing-devastating-policies-new-study-reveals

Policies of China, Russia and Canada threaten 5C climate change, study finds
China, Russia and Canada’s current climate policies would drive the world above a catastrophic 5 C of warming by the end of the century, according to a study that ranks the climate goals of different countries.

The US and Australia are only slightly behind with both pushing the global temperature rise dangerously over 4C above pre-industrial levels says the paper, while even the EU, which is usually seen as a climate leader, is on course to more than double the 1.5C that scientists say is a moderately safe level of heating.

The study, published on Friday in the journal Nature Communications, assesses the relationship between each nation’s ambition to cut emissions and the temperature rise that would result if the world followed their example.

The aim of the paper is to inform climate negotiators as they begin a two-year process of ratcheting up climate commitments, which currently fall far short of the 1.5-to-2C goal set in France three years ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07223-9.pdf

Warming assessment of the bottom-up
Paris Agreement emissions pledges
Yann Robiou du Pont 1 & Malte Meinshausen 1,2

Under the bottom-up architecture of the Paris Agreement, countries pledge Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs). Current NDCs individually align, at best, with divergent
concepts of equity and are collectively inconsistent with the Paris Agreement. We show that
the global 2030-emissions of NDCs match the sum of each country adopting the least stringent
of five effort-sharing allocations of a well-below 2 °C-scenario. Extending such
a self-interested bottom-up aggregation of equity might lead to a median 2100-warming of
2.3 °C. Tightening the warming goal of each country’s effort-sharing approach to aspirational
levels of 1.1 °C and 1.3 °C could achieve the 1.5 °C and well-below 2 °C-thresholds, respectively.
This new hybrid allocation reconciles the bottom-up nature of the Paris Agreement
with its top-down warming thresholds and provides a temperature metric to assess NDCs.
When taken as benchmark by other countries, the NDCs of India, the EU, the USA and China
lead to 2.6 °C, 3.2 °C, 4 °C and over 5.1 °C warmings, respectively

[D-Penguin]

Re: " prefer not to comment on a paper on Climate Change that is 40 years old"

Perhaps you are aware of a calculation which improves or overturns MacIntyre ?

sidd

FluxEngine: A Flexible Processing System for Calculating Atmosphere–Ocean Carbon
Dioxide Gas Fluxes and Climatologies
JAMIE D. SHUTLER , et al... in final form 22 June 2015

A more realistic Model for given parameters and variables.

Why do you ask for scientific references to substantiate logic and commonsense?

Are you of the opinion that any of the IPCC Pathway temperatures are now achievable and sustainable without removal of CO2 from the atmosphere combined with sequestration?

AGW began with CO2 at 280 ppm. What is your reasoning that AGW will stop if tomorrow CO2 emissions cease at 410 ppm?

[sidd]

Pacala now claims we can suck CO2 out of atmosphere at 100$/ton or less

https://e360.yale.edu/features/negative-emissions-is-it-feasible-to-remove-co2-from-the-air

sidd

[Sleepy]

Why do you ask for scientific references to substantiate logic and commonsense?

Maybe because your commonsense has been corrected since your first post in here, a month ago?

You are too busy finding an enemy (in earlier posts) and therefore you are your own. Finding and fighting enemies is deeply rooted in our culture. We need to step out of that mindset if we ever want to solve these issues. Young children do not have that:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890461/

Anthropocentrism is not an initial step in conceptual development, but is instead an acquired perspective, one that emerges between 3 and 5 years of age in children raised in urban environments.

We truly are our own enemies.

[gerontocrat]

Pacala now claims we can suck CO2 out of atmosphere at 100$/ton or less

https://e360.yale.edu/features/negative-emissions-is-it-feasible-to-remove-co2-from-the-air

sidd

We are currently emitting circa 42 billion tons of CO2 per annum, of which about 20 billion will become part of our atmosphere.

So, if Pacala is right, to suck out just this year's atmospheric CO2 increase out of the atmosphere would cost -
US$ 100 x 20 billion = US$ 2 trillion?

And does $100 per tonne include putting it somewhere?
And where do you put 20 billion tonnes of CO2 (or 5 billion tonnes of carbon) per annum ?

ps:- If my arithmetic is wrong please correct it.
pps: I have read the article and I agree with much of it except the direct capture stuff. "We have the technology, we can rebuild it (the planet) !"

[Archimid]

And where do you put 20 billion tonnes of CO2 (or 5 billion tonnes of carbon) per annum ?

Back into the ground I guess.

In a my imaginary utopia that CO2 is sent to Mars to start terraforming Mars instead of "venusforming" the Earth.

Imagination is free, might as well deceive myself with it.

[D-Penguin]

Why do you ask for scientific references to substantiate logic and commonsense?

Maybe because your commonsense has been corrected since your first post in here, a month ago?

You are too busy finding an enemy (in earlier posts) and therefore you are your own. Finding and fighting enemies is deeply rooted in our culture. We need to step out of that mindset if we ever want to solve these issues. Young children do not have that:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890461/

Anthropocentrism is not an initial step in conceptual development, but is instead an acquired perspective, one that emerges between 3 and 5 years of age in children raised in urban environments.

We truly are our own enemies.

Is it not one of the purposes of this forum to learn from the knowledge of others? You will also note that I acknowledged my mistake and expressed my appreciation for the correction.

The point that I made in my first posting, not withstanding the incorrect inference that I referenced in the IPCC Interim Report, remains unanswered.
viz
The IPCC Pathways determined by the reduction of CO2 emissions to zero over different time scales to stabilize global temperatures is misleading and dangerous. Is it not the  expressed responsibility of the IPCC to advise, on an inter-governmental basis, the options and consequences of policy to avoid  catastrophic global warming?

The point that I made in following postings was that if tomorrow CO2 emissions were reduced to zero, this would not prevent the continuing rise in global temperatures. When invited to substantiate this statement, I replied that the application of logic and commonsense was sufficient.
viz
AGW began with CO2 at 280 ppm. What is your reasoning that AGW will stop if tomorrow CO2 emissions cease at 410 ppm?

To me, it just sounded rather churlish to ask for a scientific justification of the above statement. However, if I am mistaken in my 'commonsense' approach, I would be very happy to be corrected and thereby increase my knowledge of the AGW problem.

Your reference to 'Anthropocentrism' is uncalled for and inflammatory. I am surprised that the Moderators allowed your posting to stand.

[Sleepy]

Good bye.

[Sleepy]

A bit more on why we are our own enemies.
Peter Kalmus:
https://twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1063612976639295488

Over almost 2 decades and with $6 trillion the U.S. could have solved climate breakdown.

Evil is stupid. And look where we are now. Come on, humans. Burning fossil fuel causes climate breakdown. So let's stop burning the stuff!

I don't think many people realize the opportunity cost of the oil wars, in terms of time and money wasted and the connection to climate.

[Sleepy]

Pacala now claims we can suck CO2 out of atmosphere at 100$/ton or less

https://e360.yale.edu/features/negative-emissions-is-it-feasible-to-remove-co2-from-the-air

sidd

The Times They Are A Changin'
Pacala 2004:
Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies

Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world’s energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO₂ to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration. Every element in this portfolio has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale. Although no element is a credible candidate for doing the entire job (or even half the job) by itself, the portfolio as a whole is large enough that not every element has to be used.

Fig1 is outdated too, we are over those figures.

[oren]

The point that I made in following postings was that if tomorrow CO2 emissions were reduced to zero, this would not prevent the continuing rise in global temperatures. When invited to substantiate this statement, I replied that the application of logic and commonsense was sufficient.
viz
AGW began with CO2 at 280 ppm. What is your reasoning that AGW will stop if tomorrow CO2 emissions cease at 410 ppm?

D-Penguin, your common sense approach makes sense, but two counter-effects undermine it:
* The Earth is much warmer than it was at 280 ppm, so part of the warming effect has already been "equalized". 410 ppm does not necessarily mean more warming - it depends whether we have reached a new equilibrium already. (We haven't though).
* Natural sinks will draw down some of the CO2 in the atmosphere each year, so actual zero emissions will result in a slow downtrend of CO2 concentration. (But these sinks are shrinking and natural emissions are rising,, so we should hurry up).

So warming will continue only for a relatively short time. How long? That's beyond my pay grade.
OTOH, actual zero emissions is something that is very hard to achieve, so don't hold your breath.

[rboyd]

Policies of China, Russia and Canada threaten 5C climate change, study finds

"New study shows China leading world to 5.1C of global warming, US to 4C and EU to 3.2C".

A good read, as is the academic paper it reports on. This is of course based on somewhat conservative estimates of climate sensitivity so things are probably worse than these numbers. The rich country numbers are flattered by being based upon production, rather than consumption, emissions. The EU would be significantly worse based on consumption emissions (e.g. cheap stuff from China etc.).

The next step is the outright acceptance of geo-engineering/ghg removal technologies as the only answer (just like the financiers, fossil fuel lobbies and other elites want).

The only way real action will happen is with a climate emergency that can be utilized for the best outcomes (e.g. disaster capitalism and not wasting a crisis) by those in power - who tend to have the biggest part of their wealth and lifestyles dependent upon ever-lasting growth. As in 2008, they will strive to have everyone else pay the costs and feel the pain of the transition/collapse. It wont work for them in the long-term, but they don't want to believe that.