UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond

[gerontocrat]

Global inequalities in CO₂ emissions

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.

[Sleepy]

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.

[Sleepy]

Let's be fair to Nordhaus and add his own words from 1975 and a quote from page 23:

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.

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.

[RealityCheck]

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.'

[D-Penguin]

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!

[Sleepy]

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:

[sark]

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

[Sleepy]

Thanks for adding the Caldeira study, sark. Couldn't remember who wrote about a ~10 year delay when I made my comment earlier.

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.

[Sleepy]

https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1056475408026222592

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...

[D-Penguin]

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

[Sleepy]

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.

[gerontocrat]

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).

[Sleepy]

We don't even have a government.
https://www.euronews.com/2018/10/29/swedish-social-democrat-leader-lofven-gives-up-attempt-to-form-government

The stronger ones are in the Americas.
https://twitter.com/octavio_ferraz/status/1055566020201594882

Bye Paris.

[Sigmetnow]

Japan’s space agency yesterday launched the Ibuki 2 satellite, to help measure each country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

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/

[NeilT]

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.

[DrTskoul]

New nuclear.... Cheap!!

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

[Sleepy]

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.

[Sleepy]

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.

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

[AbruptSLR]

The linked articles indicate that Bitcoin mining could become a major contributor to global warming within the next few decades:

Title: "Study Fingers Bitcoin as Major Climate Change Culprit"

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/study-fingers-bitcoin-as-major-climate-change-culprit-65011

Extract: "Researchers predict that activity around the digital currency could single-handedly push warming above 2 °C within 30 years, but other experts say the conclusion is flawed."

See also:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8

Extract: "Bitcoin is a power-hungry cryptocurrency that is increasingly used as an investment and payment system. Here we show that projected Bitcoin usage, should it follow the rate of adoption of other broadly adopted technologies, could alone produce enough CO2 emissions to push warming above 2 °C within less than three decades."

[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.