Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond  (Read 313484 times)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16373
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1650 on: October 19, 2018, 06:57:07 PM »
Many posters on the forum seem to think that if they identify some potential means to achieve the Paris goals that some international body will just implement it.  However, it has been pointed out for decades that the most practical first step on this path would be to increase energy efficiency; however, the linked article makes it clear that such a global policy has not yet been implemented and indeed that in 2017 the world's progress w.r.t. energy efficiency has slowed almost to a halt.  In other words: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

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

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

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

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

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16373
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1651 on: October 20, 2018, 07:56:22 PM »
Kate Marvel has written a fairytale about climate change:

Title: "Slaying the Climate Dragon"

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

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

&

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

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

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

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1652 on: October 22, 2018, 01:39:31 AM »
However, it has been pointed out for decades that the most practical first step on this path would be to increase energy efficiency; however, the linked article makes it clear that such a global policy has not yet been implemented and indeed that in 2017 the world's progress w.r.t. energy efficiency has slowed almost to a halt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert A. Heinlein

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3766
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1653 on: October 22, 2018, 02:14:28 AM »
Re: That is because energy "efficiency" is not and never was going to get us over the goal line.

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

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

sidd


Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1654 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.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1655 on: October 22, 2018, 08:32:54 AM »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1656 on: October 22, 2018, 02:06:27 PM »
We better use every approach we can find. While the rest of the planet couldn't care less, my home consumes 1/3 of what it used to on pure electric heating and the electricity I purchase is wind generated, so I'm (somewhat) happy.

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

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

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

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

Just how, exactly, will they transition to EV? 

Tell us to drive less?

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

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

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

Robert A. Heinlein

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1657 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.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1658 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.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1659 on: October 23, 2018, 09:42:40 PM »
Neil, how much one can save depends on the starting point and the annual mean temp, if you start off with a passive house in Kiruna you won't be able to save anything

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

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

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

Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1660 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.

D-Penguin

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1661 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.


gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1662 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

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1663 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.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1664 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.

RealityCheck

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1665 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

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1666 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!

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1667 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.

sark

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 75
  • not a scientist
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1668 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

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1669 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.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1670 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.

D-Penguin

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1671 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 »

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« 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.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1673 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

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1675 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

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1676 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

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 897
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1677 on: October 31, 2018, 03:29:50 AM »
New nuclear.... Cheap!!

Also UK will be going doing in CO2 soon (thanks to brexit)
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1678 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.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1679 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.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16373
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1680 on: October 31, 2018, 06:33:03 PM »
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."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

D-Penguin

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1681 on: November 02, 2018, 03:09:41 AM »
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

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3766
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1682 on: November 02, 2018, 04:23:13 AM »
Re: The elimination of CO2e emissions will not stop the continuation of accelerated temperature rises and global heat energy balance.

Do tell ?

sidd

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1683 on: November 02, 2018, 05:18:03 AM »
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
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1684 on: November 02, 2018, 10:18:28 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2018, 12:41:59 AM by gerontocrat »
"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)

D-Penguin

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1685 on: November 04, 2018, 12:28:17 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2018, 12:34:44 AM by D-Penguin »

D-Penguin

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1686 on: November 04, 2018, 12:31:38 AM »
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

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3766
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
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

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1688 on: November 04, 2018, 05:27:20 AM »
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).
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1689 on: November 05, 2018, 12:15:34 AM »
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

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1690 on: November 05, 2018, 04:38:43 AM »
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.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1691 on: November 05, 2018, 06:13:34 AM »
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

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1692 on: November 05, 2018, 06:38:25 AM »
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...
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

D-Penguin

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1693 on: November 08, 2018, 02:06:29 AM »
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

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3766
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1694 on: November 08, 2018, 06:13:48 AM »
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
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 06:52:34 AM by sidd »

D-Penguin

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1695 on: November 09, 2018, 12:04:49 AM »
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

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3766
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1696 on: November 09, 2018, 06:13:04 AM »
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

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1198
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1697 on: November 09, 2018, 07:10:58 AM »
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.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

D-Penguin

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1698 on: November 11, 2018, 04:34:18 AM »
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

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1052
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1699 on: November 11, 2018, 05:04:13 AM »
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.