Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?  (Read 17278 times)

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #100 on: April 27, 2020, 09:54:22 PM »
The world is on lockdown. So where are all the carbon emissions coming from?

...
global CO2 emissions are on-track to drop by … about 5.5 percent.

...

A 5.5-percent drop in carbon dioxide emissions would still be the largest yearly change on record, beating out the financial crisis of 2008 and World War II. But it’s worth wondering: Where do all of those emissions come from? And if stopping most travel and transport isn’t enough to slow down climate change, what will be?

Transportation makes up a little over 20 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, according to the International Energy Agency. (In the United States, it makes up around 28 percent.) That’s a significant chunk, but it also means that even if all travel were completely carbon-free (imagine a renewable-powered, electrified train system, combined with personal EVs and battery-powered airplanes), there’d still be another 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions billowing into the skies.

So where are all those emissions coming from? For one thing, utilities are still generating roughly the same amount of electricity — even if more of it’s going to houses instead of workplaces. Electricity and heating combined account for over 40 percent of global emissions. Many people around the world rely on wood, coal, and natural gas to keep their homes warm and cook their food — and in most places, electricity isn’t so green either.

Manufacturing, construction, and other types of industry account for approximately 20 percent of CO2 emissions. Certain industrial processes like steel production and aluminum smelting use huge amounts of fossil fuels — and so far, Schmidt says, that type of production has mostly continued despite the pandemic.

The reality is that emissions need to be cut by 7.6 percent every year to keep global warming from surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels


https://grist.org/climate/the-world-is-on-lockdown-so-where-are-all-the-carbon-emissions-coming-from/
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

blumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #101 on: April 28, 2020, 01:51:08 PM »
Beautiful and scary visualisation:

A Brief History of CO2 Emissions

Link >> https://www.reddit.com/r/VisualChemistry/comments/g8v5fs/a_brief_history_of_co2_emissions/

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #102 on: April 28, 2020, 03:00:56 PM »
Below some excerpts from Why ‘Carbon-Cycle Feedbacks’ Could Drive Temperatures Even Higher. It is a nice summary so do read it.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-carbon-cycle-feedbacks-could-drive-temperatures-even-higher


1

last September at the National Institute for Space Research in the Brazilian research city of Sao Jose dos Campos. Atmospheric chemist Luciana Gatti was rushing to tell her colleagues the result of her latest analysis of carbon dioxide emissions from the Amazon rainforest, which she had completed that morning.

For a decade, her team had been sampling the air from sensors on aircraft flying over the world’s largest rainforest. Their collating of recent results showed that, perhaps for the first time in thousands of years, a large part of the Amazon had switched from absorbing CO2 from the air, damping down global warming, to being a “source” of the greenhouse gas and thus speeding up warming.

“We have hit a tipping point,” Gatti almost shouted, caught between elation at her discovery and anguish at the consequences. ... But now it no longer mattered if it was a wet or a dry year, or how many fires there were, the sink had become a source.

...

The scientists are warning that past climate models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not fully reflected the scale of the warming that lies ahead as carbon sinks die. These revelations are coming from three areas of research:

1 Studies such as Gatti’s in the Amazon, showing forests turning from sinks to sources of CO2;

2 A new generation of climate models that incorporate these findings into future projections of climate change, and whose early outputs are just emerging;

3 Recent revelations that ecosystems are releasing rising volumes of methane, the second most important greenhouse gas and of vital importance for temperatures in the next couple of decades.

The extra emissions, known as carbon-cycle feedbacks, could already be making the prospect of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius — the target agreed to in the Paris climate accord in 2015 — all but impossible.

...

Non-tropical forests remain largely in carbon “sink” mode. But other tropical rainforests appear to be following the Amazon in moving toward becoming carbon sources. Wannes Hubau, now at the Royal Museum of Central Africa in Belgium, reported recently that “overall, the uptake of carbon into Earth’s intact tropical forests peaked in the 1990s” and has been declining since. The jungles of tropical Africa began showing increased carbon losses around 2010, he found.

Another big concern is the impact of thawing permafrost. ... One recent study in northern Canada found thawing had reached depths “already exceeding those projected to occur by 2090.”


2

The risks of such rapid runaway carbon releases to the atmosphere have been worrying ecologists for a while. That worry is now being reinforced by the projections of a new generation of climate models designed to factor in how ecosystems respond to climate change.

Until now, most climate models have largely confined themselves to assessing how our CO2 emissions warm the air, and how that warming interacts with physical feedbacks such as reduced ice cover, elevated atmospheric water vapor, and changes to clouds. This remains a work in progress. I wrote here on Yale Environment 360 in February how new field research suggests that the ability of clouds to keep us cool could be drastically reduced as the world warms, pushing global heating into overdrive.

When ecological feedbacks have been included in the models, it has mostly been in a very simplistic way. But new models being developed for the next IPCC assessment of climate science are changing that.

...

Even a scenario that is “reasonably consistent with currently enacted climate policies” could deliver up to 5 degrees C of warming rather than the current estimate of 3 degrees. This, Betts says, is “because the upper end of possible feedbacks results in 40 percent more CO2 in the air than previously supposed: 936 parts per million [ppm] by 2100, compared to a prediction without the carbon-cycle feedbacks of 670 ppm.” (Current levels are 415 ppm, and pre-industrial levels were around 280 ppm.)

3

The growing concern about CO2 feedbacks comes on top of alarm about trends in atmospheric levels of the second most important greenhouse gas, methane. These are more than twice pre-industrial levels, and after a decade of stability until 2007 they have been rising again sharply. The National Oceanic and Space Administration (NOAA) estimated this month that methane levels in the atmosphere reached a record 1,875 parts per billion in 2019, after the second largest year-on-year leap ever recorded.

How come? Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway, University of London, says isotopic analysis shows industrial emissions such as those from fracking remain important sources of methane. But the major reason for the recent upsurge is microbial emissions, mostly from the tropics.

...

None of this methane increase is built into even the new climate models with carbon-cycle feedbacks. These models mostly assume that methane levels in the air will remain stable. But the concern is growing that, even if technology can reduce industrial emissions, a warmer world will drive a continuing surge in methane levels — and more warming as a consequence.

Methane typically lasts in the atmosphere for only a decade – much less than CO2. But while it is there, it packs a big warming punch. Measured over 20 years, each molecule of methane emitted has 84 times more warming effect than each molecule of CO2.

Climate models conventionally assess the warming impacts of greenhouse gases over a century. This effectively tunes them to emphasize the importance of C02, and relegates methane to an also-ran. But if they were tuned to the shorter timeframe, methane would appear almost three times more important.

It seems odd that this shorter timeframe is rarely adopted, given that the world risks exceeding its two-degree warming limit by 2050.
As Nisbet puts it, if natural ecosystems keep pumping out more methane as the world warms, “it may become very difficult to meet the Paris goals.”

*

Bottom line: we need lots of real carbon and methane reductions this decade.

In fact you can already argue that we have passed the tipping points. If we stopped emitting today we would still be in a world that keeps warming thus pushing up the methane emissions from the tropics and northern sources.

We would still have the amazon and northern permafrost as carbon sources.

We would still have ocean acidification get worse for decades etc.

So we cannot rely on markets to fix it, or technology to fix it.
We need real action which also includes sacrifices. Especially the historical big emitters (see vid above) should invest in going zero first and export those technologies but most won´t because they are captured by the carbon economy.

Hope is important but we have only 1 planet so we are going to have to live here anyway.

So we can´t give up hope anyway...but we need real action and then we have to hope for the best effects from that. 

We already gave the younger generation a huge set of problems to solve and i hope we make the AGW problem as small as we can this decade.

(Just imagine being born now or say 2010 and at age 20 figuring out how we got in this mess. It would piss me off.)
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #103 on: May 05, 2020, 10:34:27 PM »
With the actual values of CO2, CH4, N2O and SF6 for January 2020 (see the posts in the individual threads) there is an annual increase (Jan 2020 vs. Jan 2019) of 2.83 ppm CO2 eq (20 y) or 2.67 ppm CO2 eq (100 y).
This increase is mainly driven (2.37 ppm) by CO2 itself.
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #104 on: May 05, 2020, 10:57:04 PM »
I add the graph for the NOAA gases (20y and 100y CO2 equivalents) from 2000 to 2020.
Please note that the linear fit does not perfectly match the data. The increase is of exponential nature (see my post in the CO2 thread from today).
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2401
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 20397
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #105 on: May 06, 2020, 04:57:13 AM »
Thank you for that Stephan. Would it be possible to extend your graph to pre-industrial years, when CO2 ppm was 280?
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #106 on: May 06, 2020, 07:21:35 AM »
I do not have the resources for that at the moment. My spreadsheet starts (apart from CO2) around 2000, using the NOAA data. I am not sure whether I would be able (as a layman) to find reliable and comparable data for earlier years, especially before Keeling started his experiments in 1958...
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

Steven

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 633
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #107 on: May 09, 2020, 11:23:10 AM »
I add the graph for the NOAA gases (20y and 100y CO2 equivalents) from 2000 to 2020.


That graph doesn't make sense.

I suspect you've been using GWP multipliers in your calculations.  But those can only be used in the context of emissions, not in the context of concentrations.  The GWP approach can not be used to calculate the CO2 equivalent for the entire atmospheric amount of CO2/methane/N2O etc.  The only meaningful way to do that is to calculate radiative forcing and use a logarithmic transform, e.g. see here.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this topic on this forum.  I think the source of confusion is a poorly written wikipedia page that discusses two very different definitions of "CO2 equivalent": one definition for emissions and another one for concentrations.  Discussions on GWP and 20-year timescales etc are only relevant to the former definition but are not related to the latter definition.

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #108 on: May 09, 2020, 08:28:41 PM »
Steven,
I know that and I am aware of that. There has been already a lengthy discussion about this topic maybe two pages above in this thread.
Anyway, if there would be a formula (but as far as I can remember there is none) to add concentrations of greenhouse gases into a "global GHG CO2 equivalent" I would recalculate my spreadsheet and present it again. If not, I will keep it for myself from now on. The smart thing about this formula would be that the easily available concentrations of the different gases could be directly converted into one CO2 equivalent.
If there is anybody to help me out - you're welcome.
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

Steven

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 633
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #109 on: May 10, 2020, 12:33:20 PM »
Anyway, if there would be a formula (but as far as I can remember there is none) to add concentrations of greenhouse gases into a "global GHG CO2 equivalent" I would recalculate my spreadsheet and present it again. If not, I will keep it for myself from now on. The smart thing about this formula would be that the easily available concentrations of the different gases could be directly converted into one CO2 equivalent.
If there is anybody to help me out - you're welcome.

There are formulas in the NOAA link I posted:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

see especially Table 1.  The CO2 equivalent concentration (in parts per million) can be calculated by using this formula:

CO2equivalent = 278 exp( RF / 5.35)   

where RF = radiative forcing.  For example, for the year 2018 that gives the following values for CO2 equivalent concentration:

• CO2 only:  407 ppm  (RF = 2.044)
• CO2 + CH4 + N2O:  465 ppm (RF = 2.755)
• CO2 + CH4 + N2O + halogenated gases:  496 ppm (RF = 3.101)

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #110 on: May 10, 2020, 01:15:52 PM »
Thank you Steven. I saw that calculation and the formula (thank you for that link), but I thought it could be simpler than that.
Anyway, I will introduce these formulae into my spreadsheet and I hopefully will end up with the same results (excluding CFC etc.) as presented in Table 2 of that link.
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #111 on: May 10, 2020, 09:36:57 PM »
Said and done.
I recalculated the data, now turning from CO2 equivalents into Delta radiative forcing. I checked my calculations with the NOAA table. It worked well for CO2, CH4 and N2O. I didn't find any conversion formula for SF6, therefore I used a factor from the fourth IPCC assessment report https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html where I found the factor 0.52 (*10-3) with which the SF6 concentration shall be multiplied to give its additional warming potential. As SF6 has a very low in concentration it does not really matter. The distribution among the gases are:
CO2 74 %
CH4 18 %
N2O  7 %
SF6   0.2 %
In addition I could add the years 1979-2001 for all four "NOAA gases" to my spread sheet. :)

I hope you are satisfied with the attached graph:
(linear fit again doesn't work perfectly due to the acceleration of the concentration)
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #112 on: May 15, 2020, 10:27:09 PM »
NOAA has updated the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index through the end of 2019.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/



Quote
AGGI2019 = 1.45
CO2 equivalent = 500 ppm


Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #113 on: June 05, 2020, 09:47:27 PM »
More radiative forcing of the "NOAA gases" (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6) in Feb 2020 than in Jan 2020 or in Feb 2019.
The values [W/m²], change to Jan 2020 and change to Feb 2019:
CO2 2.132   (+ 0.012)    (+ 0.031)   
CH4 0.519   (± 0.000)    (+ 0.003)
N2O 0.204   (± 0.000)    (+ 0.002)
SF6  0.0053 (± 0.0000)  (+ 0.0002)
sum 2.861   (+ 0.012)    (+ 0.036)
The relative annual increase is 1.27 %
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2401
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 20397
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #114 on: June 06, 2020, 03:58:47 AM »
Thanks for the updates Stephan.

Please note: ±0.000 = 0  ,  so your e.g. N₂O 0.204 is stated as an absolute analytical value with no error margin. That is incorrect.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #115 on: June 06, 2020, 08:16:59 AM »
nanning,
I do not want to put too many digits to that value, therefore the "interpretation" shall read as follows: The increase is (much) smaller than 0.0005 W/m², which means that this small change is irrelevant to the total of 2.861 W/m². The same "interpretation" applies to CH4.
In addition, my spread sheet calculates the sum including all (hidden) digits. Therefore the total sum contains all these little changes of the individual values.
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #116 on: June 22, 2020, 08:15:59 PM »
But at first it dropped. Why is that?

Collapse of the Soviet Union and their allies.
Future looked so bright when the wall fell (no more cold war!) and this was a bonus. And then we went BAU for dollars or something.

Also there was a leveling off of methane concentrations from around 1997 to 2007.  Methane concentrations have increased again since 2007, when fracking tight shale for oil and natural gas really took off.

It will be interesting to see if methane concentrations decrease later this year since much of the US and Canadian fracking decreased in May and looks to be reduced through 2021 with the oil oversupply and Covid recession demand destruction.

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 426
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #117 on: June 23, 2020, 09:12:30 PM »
It will be interesting to see if methane concentrations decrease later this year since much of the US and Canadian fracking decreased in May and looks to be reduced through 2021 with the oil oversupply and Covid recession demand destruction.

Considering methane leaks are a feature of fracked wells, and considering that the frackers have even less free cash than usual for properly abandoning their wells, I  do not expect methane pollution to drop appreciably.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #118 on: June 24, 2020, 12:45:27 AM »
It will be interesting to see if methane concentrations decrease later this year since much of the US and Canadian fracking decreased in May and looks to be reduced through 2021 with the oil oversupply and Covid recession demand destruction.

Considering methane leaks are a feature of fracked wells, and considering that the frackers have even less free cash than usual for properly abandoning their wells, I  do not expect methane pollution to drop appreciably.

Abandoned wells leak less methane then wells that are actively venting and flaring the cheap gas because it's in the way of the oil that the producers can sell.

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #119 on: July 06, 2020, 09:47:28 PM »
More radiative forcing of the "NOAA gases" (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6) in Mar 2020 than in Feb 2020 or in Mar 2019.
The values [W/m²], change to Feb 2020 and change to Mar 2019:
CO2 2.137   (+ 0.005)    (+ 0.033)   
CH4 0.520   (+ 0.001)    (+ 0.003)
N2O 0.204   (+ 0.001)    (+ 0.003)
SF6  0.0053 (+ 0.0000)  (+ 0.0002)
sum 2.868  (+ 0.007)   (+ 0.040)
The relative annual increase is 1.41 %
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #120 on: July 08, 2020, 11:02:56 AM »
Delayed emergence of a global temperature response after emission mitigation

A major step towards achieving the goals of the Paris agreement would be a measurable change in the evolution of global warming in response to mitigation of anthropogenic emissions. The inertia and internal variability of the climate system, however, will delay the emergence of a discernible response even to strong, sustained mitigation. Here, we investigate when we could expect a significant change in the evolution of global mean surface temperature after strong mitigation of individual climate forcers. Anthropogenic CO2 has the highest potential for a rapidly measurable influence, combined with long term benefits, but the required mitigation is very strong. Black Carbon (BC) mitigation could be rapidly discernible, but has a low net gain in the longer term. Methane mitigation combines rapid effects on surface temperature with long term effects. For other gases or aerosols, even fully removing anthropogenic emissions is unlikely to have a discernible impact before mid-century.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1

Interesting paper. Open access.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #121 on: July 08, 2020, 08:09:18 PM »
Quote
Previously, Tebaldi and Friedlingstein7 (hereafter TF13) have quantified the expected delayed detection of climate mitigation benefits due to climate inertia and variability. They found that for global mean surface temperature, emergence would occur ~25–30 years after a heavily mitigated emission pathway (RCP2.6) departs from the higher ones (RCP8.5 or RCP4.5). At the time of writing, that translated into 2035–2045, where the delay was mostly due to the impacts of the around 0.2 °C of natural, interannual variability of global mean surface air temperature (GSAT, see “Methods”), and the general inertia of a climate system out of equilibrium. They also showed that for smaller (but more policy and societally relevant) regions, where natural variability is intrinsically higher, the detection time occurs a decade or more later.

More recently, Marotzke8 (hereafter M18) investigated the range of near-term warming rates under very strong climate mitigation (RCP2.6), and found that in over a third of 100 realizations (members of an initial condition ensemble, i.e. identically forced simulations differing only by internal variability), the world would still warm faster until 2035 than it has done for the past two decades (i.e. a higher 15-year trend for 2021–2035 than for 2006–2020). He warns that we might face what they term a hiatus debate in reverse, where the most well-known indicator of climate change (global mean surface temperature, or GMST; see methods for the distinction between GSAT and GMST) continues to rise even after massive, international efforts to mitigate emissions. This might, in turn, present a substantial challenge for communication and science-policy interactions.

Lots of articles use RCP 8.5 and there is the claim that we are not on that pathway. I wonder about 2.6. That does not look to feasible either.

But even if we would do the max we would still have a 15 year lag of effects in which the damage to the arctic north and glaciers worldwide compound.

And many goals aim for 2050 or so which is way beyond that date.

So maybe we are stuck with 4.5ish territory.

I am interested in both the claim that 8.5 is of the table (might be just emission projection?) and whatever exists on 2.6 vs 4.5.

RCPs:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z


 

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2401
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 20397
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #122 on: July 09, 2020, 05:37:52 AM »
kassy, are the rising permafrost emissions, possible subsea methane bursts, rising lake emissions and lost forest-sinks etc. included in our radiative forcing path?
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #123 on: July 09, 2020, 03:45:16 PM »
They are about our human emissions so basically those are not in there (there is something for land cover change but have not looked into that , they probably don´t have much simulation runs with a dead Amazon and knock on effects).

It is one reason not to dismiss any RCP8.5 based papers out of hand. Our contribution + feedbacks might mean they are closer to the true situation anyway.

The one thing that is problematic is that they never defined dangerous criteria or points we should not cross.

Last century i always thought of it as simply maintaining a climate which saved the Arctic Ice and Greenland and prevented the permafrost from flipping because those were the big concerns.

I think a 1C target would have worked (and it is such a simple number) but that would cost too much or so they thought.



 

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #124 on: July 09, 2020, 08:45:23 PM »
The energy mixes assumed in the RCPs were extremely pessimistic on renewables.  The RCPs were drafted in the early 2000s when renewables were much more expensive than fossil fuels.  Now renewables are cheaper than both new build and operating coal, and new natural gas.  As a result, more money is being invested in renewables then in fossil fuel plants.  Some fossil fuel plants are being shut down and being replaced with renewables at a savings to the rate payers.

Skepticalscience has a great article on the RCPs:

https://skepticalscience.com/rcp.php?t=3

Quote
The Beginner's Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways

By G. P. Wayne

Welcome to the Beginner's Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways. Arranged in three parts, you can access each part by clicking on the tabs below. Part 1 provides background to the scenarios used by climate scientists. Part 2 describes the development of RCPs, and Part 3 provides a quick reference to many of the key parameters and data (there’s also a further reading list at the end). The guide is also available as a PDF.

Here are some images from that article related to energy trends:



Quote
Figure 13: Development of primary energy consumption (direct equivalent) and oil consumption for the different RCPs (van Vuuren et.al. 2011). The grey area indicates the 98th and 90th percentiles (light/dark grey) (AR4 database (Hanaoka et al. 2006) and more recent literature (Clarke et al. 2010; Edenhofer et al. 2010). The dotted lines indicate four of the SRES marker scenarios

    “For energy use, the scenarios underlying the RCPs are consistent with the literature— with the RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP6 again being representative of intermediate scenarios in the literature (resulting in a primary energy use of 750 to 900 EJ in 2100, or about double the level of today).

    “The RCP8.5, in contrast, is a highly energy-intensive scenario as a result of high  population growth and a lower rate of technology development”. (van Vuuren et.al. 2011).



Quote
Figure 14: Energy sources by sector (van Vuuren et.al. 2011)

    “In terms of the mix of energy carriers, there is a clear distinction across the RCPs given the influence of the climate target. Total fossil- fuel use basically follows the radiative forcing level of the scenarios; however, due to the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies (in particular in the power sector), all scenarios, by 2100, still use a greater amount of coal and/or natural gas than in the year 2000. The use of oil stays fairly constant in most scenarios, but declines in the RCP2.6 (as a result of depletion and climate policy).

    The use of non-fossil fuels increases in all scenarios, especially renewable resources (e.g. wind, solar), bio-energy and nuclear power. The main driving forces are increasing energy demand, rising fossil-fuel prices and climate policy. An important element of the RCP2.6 is the use of bio-energy and CCS, resulting in negative emissions (and allowing some fossil fuel without CCS by the end of the century)”. (van Vuuren et.al. 2011).

While we are currently somewhere between 2.6 and 8.5, current investments in energy infrastructure that will dictate future energy trends are much closer to the RCP2.6 scenario, even though the mix is much more weighted to renewables than bioenergy with CCS.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #125 on: July 09, 2020, 08:58:42 PM »
kassy, are the rising permafrost emissions, possible subsea methane bursts, rising lake emissions and lost forest-sinks etc. included in our radiative forcing path?

Many of the projects about emissions from permafrost, methane bursts, etc... are based on RCP8.5 model runs.  Reading the papers, you see that the projections of increased emissions are much lower for RCP 4.5 or RCP 2.6.  And the amount of methane from the Arctic is much less than what's emitted in the tropics, much of it coming from fossil fuel extraction and agriculture.

Here's today's view of methane emissions from Copernicus, the North Pole view.  Note that many parts of the Arctic Ocean over the ESAS are free of sea ice now, Siberia is burning up, etc...  Yet those areas are below the global average methane concentration.

https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/charts/cams/methane-forecasts?facets=undefined&time=2020070800,3,2020070803&projection=classical_north_pole&layer_name=composition_ch4_totalcolumn





kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #126 on: July 10, 2020, 02:56:08 PM »
Thanks Ken! Table 4 from the Skeptical science link seems like a good starting point.
Will get back to this later.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #127 on: July 15, 2020, 03:27:48 PM »
Well that was an interesting read and it also gave me a slight headache.

First i went to look around RCP2.6.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10584-006-9172-9.pdf

Quote
Abstract

On the basis of the IPCC B2, A1b and B1 baseline scenarios, mitigation scenarios
were developed that stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at 650, 550 and 450 and –
subject to specific assumptions – 400 ppm CO2-eq. The analysis takes into account a large
number of reduction options, such as reductions of non-CO2 gases, carbon plantations and
measures in the energy system. The study shows stabilization as low as 450 ppm CO2-eq. to
be technically feasible, even given relatively high baseline scenarios. To achieve these lower
concentration levels, global emissions need to peak within the first two decades. The net
present value of abatement costs for the B2 baseline scenario (a medium scenario) increases
from 0.2% of cumulative GDP to 1.1% as the shift is made from 650 to 450 ppm. On the other
hand, the probability of meeting a two-degree target increases from 0% –10% to 20% –70%.

And chopped the rest.

Bolded.

1) We need to do it this decade. If all the countries in the world had united for a real concerted push that would help. Real reductions not pledges. But we do not really see that and many are not on board.

2) The GPD vs the target shift. And general discussions of GPD % costs. This would be so much more honest if somewhere in the process they actually calculated the costs of the knock on damage. So going for 450 costs more on the short term but we would gain so much by actually hitting the 2C target instead of way overshooting it.

Economics has been used to kick the can down the road. Yeas in some scenarios a little later mitigation is cheaper. But then we are not sure if it works or how well it works or if we cross some important treshhold in between that is not something to bank on.

Of the 4 scenarios this is the one we should aim for and next decade will tell if we do.

Next up 8.6 but i will put that in a different post.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #128 on: July 15, 2020, 03:59:25 PM »
RCP 8.6

Mostly using quotes from. Probably better to read the whole thing on the link.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario

Explainer: The high-emissions ‘RCP8.5’ global warming scenario

In this article, Carbon Brief examines how the emissions scenario underlying RCP8.5 was developed and how it has subsequently been used in the academic literature and media. According to the researchers who developed it, RCP8.5 was intended to be a “very high baseline emission scenario” representing the 90th percentile of no-policy baseline scenarios available at the time.

The creators of RCP8.5 had not intended it to represent the most likely “business as usual” outcome, emphasising that “no likelihood or preference is attached” to any of the specific scenarios. Its subsequent use as such represents something of a breakdown in communication between energy systems modellers and the climate modelling community.

...

Rather than starting with detailed socioeconomic storylines to generate emissions and climate scenarios, as had been the case with the SRES scenarios, the energy systems modeling community decided to start by creating scenarios of future “radiative forcing” for climate modelling not associated with any particular unique socioeconomic or emissions scenario. Radiative forcing is a measure of the combined effect of greenhouse gases, aerosols, and other factors that can influence climate to trap additional heat.

Each RCP provides only one of many possible pathways to that level of radiative forcing. The researchers developing the RCPs also stressed that they were not intended to be “the final new, fully integrated scenarios” but rather would simply focus on future concentrations of greenhouse gases and other radiative forcings used as inputs into climate models.

Four pathways were developed based on their end-of-century radiative forcing: RCP2.6 (indicating a 2.6 watts per metre squared – W/m2 – forcing increase relative to pre-industrial conditions), RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5.

The selection of these four pathways was a result of a number of different priorities. These included having scenarios that spanned the range of future emissions and concentrations projected in scientific literature, but also being sufficiently distinct from one another.

Unfortunately, the development of the socioeconomic pathways took much longer than originally foreseen, and the RCPs were never turned into fully integrated scenarios in time for the publication of the AR5.

This left them as useful tools for modelling different potential climate outcomes, but lacking any consistent socioeconomic assumptions that would allow researchers to examine the likelihood of different no-policy baseline and mitigation scenarios. For example, Moss and colleagues specifically state that “RCP8.5 cannot be used as a no-climate-policy reference scenario for the other RCPs because RCP8.5’s socioeconomic, technology and biophysical assumptions differ from those of the other RCPs.”

...

In their paper outlining the development of the RCP scenarios, Prof Detlef van Vuuren and colleagues explained that they include “one mitigation scenario leading to a very low forcing level (RCP2.6), two medium stabilisation scenarios (RCP4.5/RCP6.0) and one very high baseline emission scenarios (RCP8.5).”

They suggest that “RCP8.5 should be seen as a high emission scenario” while “RCP6.0 can be interpreted as either a medium baseline or a high mitigation case”. This suggests that the authors say no reason to consider RCP8.5 a more likely “business as usual” outcome than, say, RCP6.0.

RCP8.5 was specifically selected as a high-end baseline scenario, and was not intended to be portrayed as the most likely “business as usual” no-policy outcome. The researchers emphasise this point in their paper, showing how the emissions in each scenario compared to the range found in the energy modelling literature at the time.

...

As van Vuuren tells Carbon Brief:

“RCP8.5 was never meant to be a business-as-usual scenario, but as a high-end scenario, consistent with the highest emissions scenarios in the literature.

“Clearly, RCP8.5 is a possible no-climate policy world. But it is surely not the only one, and in terms of the level of GHG emissions, it is not the most likely. One can only get that high by a combination of factors, e.g. high population growth and a lot of coal use (as in the original RCP8.5 scenario) or high economic growth and strong reliance on fossil fuels (in the current SSP5 version). But an emission level leading to a forcing level of around 6-7 W/m2 can be achieved by many more scenarios, not only by medium assumptions for many factors (RCP6.0) but also by high population growth and low economic growth or the exact opposite.

“In other words, even if the specific RCP6.0 scenario is not necessarily more likely than any other scenario, a forcing level in that order-of-magnitude might be more likely based on the central limit theorem.”

...

Kassy: Then this is cute:

As Peters tells Carbon Brief:

“All scenarios will look like they are on track in the early years, as they are always set to the same base year. I don’t think it is possible to say, with aggregated CO2, if we are on track with any scenario in particular.”

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario

One more post coming.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #129 on: July 15, 2020, 04:46:06 PM »
From the 2.6 link 2 posts above:

Quote
4 Stabilizing GHG concentration at 650, 550, 450 ppm: central scenarios
4.1 Emission pathways and reductions
Under the central baseline, B2, worldwide primary energy use nearly doubles between
2000 and 2050 and increases by another 35% between 2050 and 2100. Most of this growth
occurs in non-annex I regions (about 80%). Oil continues to be the most important energy
carrier in the first half of the century, with demand being mainly driven by the transport sector.
Natural gas dominates new capacity in electric power in the first decades, but starts to be
replaced by coal from 2030 onwards due to increasing gas prices. As a result, coal becomes
the dominant energy carrier in the second half of the twenty-first century.
Energy-sector CO2
emissions continue to rise for most of the century, peaking at 18 GtC in 2080. Total GHG
emissions12 also increase, i.e., from about 10 GtC-eq. today to 23 GtC-eq. in 2100 (Fig. 3).
Figure 3 also shows that compared to existing scenario literature; this baseline is a medium-high emission baseline. As a result of decreasing deforestation rates, CO2 emissions
from land use decrease. At the same time, CH4 emissions, mostly from agriculture, increase. The GHG concentration reaches a level of 925 ppm CO2-eq., leading to an increase
in the global mean temperature of 3 °C in 2100 (for a climate sensitivity of 2.5 °C).

That bolded part of the scenario looks very unlikely with current developments. And this
is only the 2.6 scenario.

So that leaves us with the 2 others.

One question is how to rate the 8.6 research. Ideally if you had enough computing power you could calculate anything for all four and see where the thing you were researching was not an issue or emerging as a problem.

I think i will just go back to my simple version.

1 Given the fact the IPCC experts forgot to actually define dangerous the public aka me is going to do that.

2 Back in the last century we figured we should prevent the Arctic ice from collapsing so we would not get into trouble with Greenland or feedbacks from the permafrost. Antarctica would not come into play ever.

But we have Arctic ice which will have a hard time surviving the next decade. Lets ignore Greenland. Permafrost is a source not a sink and Antarctica is looking iffy.

This all in the time frame where our RCPs can´t distinguish themselves from their brethren.





Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Simon

  • New ice
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #130 on: July 15, 2020, 09:12:58 PM »
Given that the RCP values refer to radiative forcing of all greenhouse gases in 2100, and given that the rf value now is 3.2 And assuming a steady increase as seen in recent years, the nearest pathway is RCP6.0.

RCP8.5 was imagined as a very high end scenario but one which is not actually impossible but one that would depend upon increasing greenhouse gas emissions and a huge failure of our main CO2 sinks, namely biomass and oceans.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #131 on: July 16, 2020, 06:57:37 PM »
Keep in mind that RCP 2.6 is a scenario with a peak above 3.0 w/m2 and then a decrease in the later half of the century back down to 2.6 w/m2.  Given the rate at which renewables are replacing coal and natural gas plants and the coming transition from gas to electric vehicles, RCP 2.6 is still very possible.

Also, RCP 4.5 is currently possible too.  This article was written before the Covid recession and the oil and natural gas gluts that are currently stifling further investment in fossil fuel infrastructure.  (It also uses the new SSP scenarios, which are an update over the RCPs).

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/3c-world

Quote
Our business-as-usual projection of 3C of warming — rather than 4 or 5C — is a testament to the progress in global decarbonization over the last few decades. It also reflects the fact that rapid growth in coal use during the 2000s was not necessarily characteristic of longer-term energy use trends. The world has taken concrete steps to move away from coal in the past decade, and this progress should be reflected in our assessment of likely emissions pathways — and their resulting climate impacts — going forward.

The worst case outcomes of ten years ago appear far less likely today. But there is also a risk of overenthusiasm about progress; there is still an ever-growing gap between current emissions and what would be needed to limit warming below 2C. With every year of continued emissions growth and increased deployment of clean energy, we make both low warming (<2C) and high warming (>4C) increasingly unlikely.

Quote
IEA CPS emissions in 2040 are in-between the SSP4-6.0 and SSP2-4.5 scenarios, and are in the bottom 15% of all the baseline scenarios in the SSP database. The SPS scenario is a bit below SSP2-4.5, and lower than any baseline scenarios — though this is not necessarily unexpected, as baseline scenarios exclude current commitments that have not yet been translated into policy.

Quote
The recent UNEP Emissions Gap report provided an estimate of combined emissions from all greenhouse gases — including land use change — in the year 2030 under both current policy and under a scenario where countries meet their Paris Agreement nationally determined contributions (NDCs). UNEP’s current policies scenario has 2030 GHG emissions of 60 GtCO2e. This falls between SSP2-4.5 (57 GtCO2e) and SSP3-6.0 (62 GtCO2e), and is well below SSP3-7.0 (69 GtCO2e) and the worst-case SSP5-8.5 (71GtCO2e). UNEP projects 2030 emissions of 54 GtCO2e if all Paris Agreement NDCs are met.




Simon

  • New ice
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #132 on: July 16, 2020, 08:17:17 PM »
Thanks for that. I am pessimistic however that governments will institute the policies necessary even for a RCP4.5 scenario.

We have to close down all use of gas, oil and coal in a very short timeframe, twenty years or so. The zero carbon emitting alternatives exist and are plentiful. No problem now with the technology. It’s just government who stand in our way.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3924
  • Earth will survive AGW...but will Homo sapiens?
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 641
  • Likes Given: 381
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #133 on: July 17, 2020, 12:17:42 AM »
Ken:
Do those studies saying >4C is very unlikely take into account the feedbacks and tipping points 3° warming is likely to kick in?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

bluice

  • Guest
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #134 on: July 17, 2020, 01:02:26 PM »
Keep in mind that RCP 2.6 is a scenario with a peak above 3.0 w/m2 and then a decrease in the later half of the century back down to 2.6 w/m2.  Given the rate at which renewables are replacing coal and natural gas plants and the coming transition from gas to electric vehicles, RCP 2.6 is still very possible.
The first step to recovery is to acknowledge there is a problem. Renewables are not replacing fossil fuels. They haven't even stabilized global CO2 emissions.

Only the economic crash after Covid-19 pandemic has stopped emission growth. Unless structural changes are made globally, emissions will continue to grow once economy recovers.

Then there are emissions from land use, agriculture, collapsing carbon sinks...

--
GLOBAL ENERGY GROWTH IS OUTPACING DECARBONIZATION

After a three-year hiatus with stable global emissions
from 2014 to 2016 (Jackson et al. 2016, Le Quéré
et al. 2018, IEA 2018), CO2 emissions grew by
1.4% in 2017 and 2.1% in 2018 to 37 Gt (billion
tonnes), and are expected to continue to grow in 2019


...growth in energy use
from fossil fuel sources is still outpacing the rise of
low-carbon sources and activities

--

https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/GCP_2019_Global%20energy%20growth%20outpace%20decarbonization_UN%20Climate%20Summit_HR.pdf

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2387
  • Likes Given: 2035
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #135 on: July 17, 2020, 01:13:18 PM »
Indeed. Renewables are partially replacing fossil fuel additions, and just in the electricity sector. It's a good thing, but so very far from decarbonization. A long way ahead.

bluice

  • Guest
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #136 on: July 17, 2020, 01:38:28 PM »
Exactly, while we need a steady drop in global emissions year after year to avoid the worst outcomes.

It's easy for us to get distracted from the big picture because in the US and EU emissions have been falling.

Globally, emissionwise, developed countries lose their relative importance as their emissions fall and global emissions rise.  This makes it ever more important to focus on the developing world.

Picture from the report linked to my earlier post


Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #137 on: July 17, 2020, 08:27:20 PM »
Renewables only became cheaper than fossil fuels in some areas starting in 2018.  With costs of renewables continuing to decline, they are becoming cheaper than fossil fuels in more areas.  And given that it can take two years for a new wind or solar farm to come online, and five to ten years for a fossil fuel plant, it will take some time for the full impact of the cost reductions in renewables to be seen.

We're already seeing it in new investments.  Investments in renewables are now outpacing investment in fossil fuel infrastructure.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/renewable-energy-trillion-investment-opportunity-surpass-oil-first-time-goldman-2020-6-1029318482?utm_source=energy+news+network+daily+email+digests&utm_campaign=cefb1504a8-email_campaign_2020_05_11_11_46_copy_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_724b1f01f5-cefb1504a8-89260815#

Quote
Goldman Sachs says renewable-energy spending will surpass oil and gas for the first time ever in 2021 — and sees total investment spiking to $16 trillion over the next decade
Ben Winck
Jun. 17, 2020

Green-energy investing will account for 25% of all energy spending in 2021 and, for the first time ever, surpass spending on traditional fuel sources like oil and gas, Goldman Sachs said in a Tuesday note.
Should the US aim to hold global warming within 2 degrees Celsius, the pivot to renewable energy sources will create between $1 trillion and $2 trillion in yearly infrastructure spending, the team of analysts added, or an investment opportunity as big as $16 trillion through 2030.
While past economic downturns halted efforts to lift clean energy initiatives, the coronavirus recession "will be different," the firm said.
Green technologies "are now mature enough to be deployed at scale," and the transition can benefit massively from cheap capital and "an attractive regulatory framework," according to Goldman.

In the US, electric utilities are retiring coal plants early and replacing them with renewables.  Becuase they can save lots and lots of money.  It's cheaper to build new renewable power plants than to operate existing coal fired power plants.  And that trend is spreading around the world.  It's estimated that $141 billion can be saved by replacing coal with clean energy by 2025.

https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/replacing-coal-with-clean-energy-can-save-up-to-141-billion-by-2025/76886624

Quote
Replacing coal with clean energy can save up to $141 billion by 2025

Out of 2,500 coal plants, the share of uncompetitive coal plants worldwide will increase rapidly to 60 per cent in 2022 and to 73 per cent in 2025

ETEnergyWorld July 10, 2020

New Delhi: Replacing coal with clean energy can potentially save electricity customers around the world $141 billion by 2025, according to a report by US-based Rocky Mountain Institute launched in collaboration with Carbon Tracker Initiative and the US-based environmental organisation Sierra Club.

Utilities are increasingly skip the "bridge" of replacing coal with natural gas and just jumping strait to solar or wind.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/02/more-utilities-bypassing-natural-gas-bridge-and-going-straight-to-renewables/

Quote
More utilities bypassing natural gas bridge and going straight to renewables

Utilities that are transitioning away from coal are starting to view the creation of a natural gas “bridge” to renewable energy as an unnecessary step.
July 2, 2020 Jean Haggerty

Utilities that are transitioning away from coal are starting to view the creation of a natural gas “bridge” to renewable energy as an unnecessary step. Last week utilities in Arizona, Colorado and Florida announced plans to close one or more of their coal plants and build renewables without adding any new gas-fired generation.

There are many more examples I could post of renewables replacing operating fossil fuel plants.  And the trend will accelerate in the future as the costs of renewables continue to decrease.


GoSouthYoungins

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1417
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #138 on: July 17, 2020, 08:56:50 PM »
Wind farms can't make wind farms. A drilled oil field can provide enough energy to drill a new field (or make a wind farm). Basically the energy comes from fossil fuels originally. If the energy is used to build a solar panel rather than spin a turbine, maybe it is more efficient, but the foundation is always fossil fuel energy.

Industry relies are fossil fuels. Manufacturing, mining, and practically everything else can't be run on wind or solar. These renewables are great at providing addition electricity to a grid that has a base load maintained on fossil fuels. This is the lowest of the low hanging fruit. And we are barely succeeding at that.

The transition will always seem to be at hand in the next decade or two. But it will never happen (until society collapses). It is impossible.
big time oops

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3257
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 587
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #139 on: July 18, 2020, 04:45:03 AM »
Ah, another fact free post
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9612
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3805
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #140 on: July 19, 2020, 12:08:52 AM »
These renewables are great at providing addition electricity to a grid that has a base load maintained on fossil fuels. This is the lowest of the low hanging fruit. And we are barely succeeding at that.

The transition will always seem to be at hand in the next decade or two. But it will never happen (until society collapses). It is impossible.
The UK National Electricity Grid is due to be capable of running entirely on renewable energy by 2025. The bosses are happy with this target.

Now if you had said that it is unlikely that the world will reduce CO2 emissions by 7% a year every year from now to 2030 you might have had some people agree with you.

And that is definitely all I'm going to say about that
"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)

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4370
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2477
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #141 on: August 04, 2020, 12:41:45 AM »
'Worst-Case' CO2 Emissions Scenario Is Best for Assessing Climate Risk and Impacts to 2050
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-worst-case-co2-emissions-scenario-climate.html

The RCP 8.5 CO2 emissions pathway, long considered a "worst case scenario" by the international science community, is the most appropriate for conducting assessments of climate change impacts by 2050, according to a new article published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Long dismissed as alarmist or misleading, the paper argues that is actually the closest approximation of both historical emissions and anticipated outcomes of current global climate policies, tracking within 1% of actual emissions.

"Not only are the emissions consistent with RCP 8.5 in close agreement with historical total cumulative CO2 emissions (within 1%), but RCP8.5 is also the best match out to mid-century under current and stated policies with still highly plausible levels of CO2 emissions in 2100," the authors wrote. "... Not using RCP8.5 to describe the previous 15 years assumes a level of mitigation that did not occur, thereby skewing subsequent assessments by lessening the severity of warming and associated physical climate risk."

The commentary also emphasizes that while there are signs of progress on bending the global emissions curve and that our emissions picture may change significantly by 2100, focusing on the unknowable, distant future may distort the current debate on these issues. "For purposes of informing societal decisions, shorter time horizons are highly relevant, and it is important to have scenarios which are useful on those horizons. Looking at mid-century and sooner, RCP8.5 is clearly the most useful choice," they wrote.

The article also notes that RCP 8.5 would not be significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, adding that "we note that the usefulness of RCP 8.5 is not changed due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Assuming pandemic restrictions remain in place until the end of 2020 would entail a reduction in emissions of -4.7 Gt CO2. This represents less than 1% of total cumulative CO2 emissions since 2005 for all RCPs and observations."

Christopher R. Schwalm el al., "RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2 emissions," PNAS (2020)
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/07/30/2007117117

----------------------------------
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #142 on: August 05, 2020, 12:24:09 AM »
'Worst-Case' CO2 Emissions Scenario Is Best for Assessing Climate Risk and Impacts to 2050
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-worst-case-co2-emissions-scenario-climate.html

The RCP 8.5 CO2 emissions pathway, long considered a "worst case scenario" by the international science community, is the most appropriate for conducting assessments of climate change impacts by 2050, according to a new article published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Long dismissed as alarmist or misleading, the paper argues that is actually the closest approximation of both historical emissions and anticipated outcomes of current global climate policies, tracking within 1% of actual emissions.

"Not only are the emissions consistent with RCP 8.5 in close agreement with historical total cumulative CO2 emissions (within 1%), but RCP8.5 is also the best match out to mid-century under current and stated policies with still highly plausible levels of CO2 emissions in 2100," the authors wrote. "... Not using RCP8.5 to describe the previous 15 years assumes a level of mitigation that did not occur, thereby skewing subsequent assessments by lessening the severity of warming and associated physical climate risk."

The commentary also emphasizes that while there are signs of progress on bending the global emissions curve and that our emissions picture may change significantly by 2100, focusing on the unknowable, distant future may distort the current debate on these issues. "For purposes of informing societal decisions, shorter time horizons are highly relevant, and it is important to have scenarios which are useful on those horizons. Looking at mid-century and sooner, RCP8.5 is clearly the most useful choice," they wrote.

The article also notes that RCP 8.5 would not be significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, adding that "we note that the usefulness of RCP 8.5 is not changed due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Assuming pandemic restrictions remain in place until the end of 2020 would entail a reduction in emissions of -4.7 Gt CO2. This represents less than 1% of total cumulative CO2 emissions since 2005 for all RCPs and observations."

Christopher R. Schwalm el al., "RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2 emissions," PNAS (2020)
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/07/30/2007117117

----------------------------------

A close read of the study shows that it didn't take into account economic considerations, such as the fact that renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels.  And it's also missing the point that emissions up through the 2020s are very close in all scenarios.  Here's a figure from the paper that shows that fact:



For future projections, they rely on the IEA assessment of Government policy decisions, ignoring the impacts of the energy transition underway.  And let's not forget how badly the IEA has been at forecasting the pace of the energy transition.


kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #143 on: August 05, 2020, 03:33:51 PM »
See the picture attached to this post to see that current emissions are much more close to 8.5:

The attached image is just a reminder that thru 2019 our CO2 emissions were still closely tracking the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario.

or as they said: Long dismissed as alarmist or misleading, the paper argues that is actually the closest approximation of both historical emissions and anticipated outcomes of current global climate policies, tracking within 1% of actual emissions.

and

The article also notes that RCP 8.5 would not be significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, adding that "we note that the usefulness of RCP 8.5 is not changed due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Assuming pandemic restrictions remain in place until the end of 2020 would entail a reduction in emissions of -4.7 Gt CO2. This represents less than 1% of total cumulative CO2 emissions since 2005 for all RCPs and observations."


Eyeballing the graph i am not sure you can claim that it's also missing the point that emissions up through the 2020s are very close in all scenarios.

This is more evidence that we are not doing enough.

Of course the energy transition will knock a big fat part of the tail of 8.5 but that does not mean we are actually in the clear.

It would of course really help if we actually defined safe limits , or our actual goals for limiting the damage by AGW.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1204
  • Likes Given: 1063
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #144 on: August 06, 2020, 03:55:33 PM »
Losing the remaining Arctic sea ice and its ability to reflect incoming solar energy back to space would be equivalent to adding one trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, on top of the 2.4 trillion tons emitted since the Industrial Age, according to current and former researchers from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego.

At current rates, this roughly equates to 25 years of global CO2 emissions.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-loss-arctics-reflective-sea-ice-will-advance-global-warming-25-years

So this exactly the sort of thing we try to avoid. And the effect should build as we lose ice along the way.

Can we avert this at our current rate? With actual realized global reductions because that is how the planet counts? I doubt it.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 831
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #145 on: August 06, 2020, 05:51:57 PM »
Losing the remaining Arctic sea ice and its ability to reflect incoming solar energy back to space would be equivalent to adding one trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, on top of the 2.4 trillion tons emitted since the Industrial Age, according to current and former researchers from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego.

At current rates, this roughly equates to 25 years of global CO2 emissions.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-loss-arctics-reflective-sea-ice-will-advance-global-warming-25-years

So this exactly the sort of thing we try to avoid. And the effect should build as we lose ice along the way.

Can we avert this at our current rate? With actual realized global reductions because that is how the planet counts? I doubt it.

Posted to wrong thread? Its an old story and a bad paper.

They've only looked at the summer and ignored the winter and generalised from the summer to a year round effect. Loss of ice in winter is cooling, not heating and its a dominant effect not a trivial one. This is a number for what would happen if the ice were removed in April, kept in a cold store in Svalbard over the summer, and then replaced at the end of September.

This is a common mistake and a common alarmist cherry pick. Ice insulates and when it goes missing the effects are opposite in winter to what they are in summer.

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #146 on: August 06, 2020, 07:45:33 PM »
More radiative forcing of the "NOAA gases" (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6) in Apr 2020 than in Mar 2020 or in Apr 2019.
The values [W/m²], change to Mar 2020 and change to Apr 2019:
CO2 2.159   (+ 0.022)    (+ 0.035)   
CH4 0.520   (+ 0.000)    (+ 0.004)
N2O 0.205   (+ 0.000)    (+ 0.004)
SF6  0.0053 (+ 0.0000)  (+ 0.0002)
sum 2.889  (+ 0.021)   (+ 0.045) (rounding difference)
The relative annual increase is 1.58 %
« Last Edit: August 06, 2020, 07:54:00 PM by Stephan »
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

Simon

  • New ice
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #147 on: August 06, 2020, 09:42:30 PM »
But isn’t the total greater than that, about 3.2W/m2 ?

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html


Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #148 on: August 07, 2020, 06:48:09 AM »
Yes, you're absolutely right.
As I only monitor the four gases whose concentration NOAA regularly publishes (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6) their sum is smaller than the sum of all greenhouse gases. Therefore I talk about the "NOAA gases" in my first sentence.
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

Simon

  • New ice
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #149 on: August 07, 2020, 08:09:29 AM »
The rcip pathways are based on the total greenhouse gas radiative forcings which now stand at about 3.2W/m2 or so. I think I am right in saying this.