We’ve already posted on how China is moving right along now as the big kahuna of CO2 emissions, now it seems there’s some despair over the inability to miss the imagined 2°C target set by wishful thinkers.
From CSIRO: The widening gap between present emissions and the two-degree target
Carbon dioxide emission reductions required to limit global warming to 2°C are becoming a receding goal based on new figures reported today in the latest Global Carbon Project (GCP) calculations published today in the advanced online edition of Nature Climate Change.
“A shift to a 2°C pathway requires an immediate, large, and sustained global mitigation effort,” GCP executive-director and CSIRO co-author of the paper, Dr Pep Canadell said.
Global CO2 emissions have increased by 58 per cent since 1990, rising 3 per cent in 2011, and 2.6 per cent in 2012. The most recent figure is estimated from a 3.3 per cent growth in global gross domestic product and a 0.7 per cent improvement in the carbon intensity of the economy.
Dr Canadell said the latest carbon dioxide emissions continue to track at the high end of a range of emission scenarios, expanding the gap between current trends and the course of mitigation needed to keep global warming below 2°C.
He said on-going international climate negotiations need to recognise and act upon the growing gap between the current pathway of global greenhouse emissions and the likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
The research, led by Dr Glen Peters from CICERO, Norway, compared recent carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and gas flaring with emission scenarios used to project climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“We need a sustained global CO2 mitigation rate of at least 3 per cent if global emissions are to peak before 2020 and follow an emission pathway that can keep the temperature increase below 2˚C,” Dr Peters said.
“Mitigation requires energy transition led by the largest emitters of China, the US, the European Union and India”.
He said that remaining below a 2°C rise above pre-industrial levels will require a commitment to technological, social and political innovations and an increasing need to rely on net negative emissions in future.
The Global Carbon Project, supported by CSIRO and the Australian Climate Change Science Program, generates annual emission summaries contributing to a process of informing policies and decisions on adaptation, mitigation, and their associated costs. The summaries are linked to long-term emission scenarios based on the degree of action taken to limit emissions.
…. We need a sustained global CO2 mitigation rate of at least 3 per cent if global emissions are to peak before 2020 and follow an emission pathway that can keep the temperature increase below 2˚C …
==================================================
That, of course, is completely nonsensical non sequitur.
Before anyone rushes out to buy-up big on low energy light bulbs or cuts their wrists, please be aware that information on the CSIRO website “…. is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice …is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research … may not be accurate, current or complete …. is subject to change without notice … should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something … ” and that ” …You accept all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this site and any information or material available from it …” etc.: http://www.csiro.au/en/Legal-Notice-and-Disclaimer.aspx
Is that a 2°C goal … as in get the climate predictions anywhere within 2°C?
If so, yes, I think it is ambitious. So far they are out by somewhere from 0.2 to 0.9°C, so even if we do not have cooling, within another 15-20years they could well begin to exceed that limit. They certainly will within 5 decades.
bikermailman
‘harrywr2, the Chinese have a coming demographic crisis worse than that of Japan, the US, or Europe. They already have a surplus of ~30 mln adult males. By mid century, real population crash, analogous to Russia after the fall of the USSR. For now, people need to worry about what they’ll do with all those excess young men.’
I find it fascinating that they don’t appear to have foreseen this coming; unbelievably sad for all those baby girls killed at birth 🙁 War anyone?
Mark and two Cats
Pick a number, any number. Don’t tell anyone incase you need to change it.
I’ve worked with and negotiated with Chinese on several occasions, One thing is constant. They NEVER do anything that does not benefit them. So the folks in DOHA will have to deal with that. Which means no ‘buy in’ from China without buckets of money. Now, since we’re presently BORROWING our budget FROM China, it will be mighty hard to convince the Chinese that they can be bought off with their own money if only the lend it to us…
@Beesaman:
Exactly. Right now we’ve got a load of folks demanding about $1.5 Trillion MORE taxation for a promise of “cuts” that never happen (and are only measured against a hypothetical larger future budget anyway, so are not even reductions in any actual expenditure). Why? Because they think that they can keep the economy going with fictional numbers forever. They can’t.
There is a real fundamental underlayment of actual product. More tax means less investment means less product. Less product means less wealth to be spread around. So there just isn’t going to be any payolla. Not in any real way.
The only problem is that the Gov’t Lackies will be the last ones to feel the bite. The first will be the minimum wage folks (via inflation) and then the business folks (who will lay off more workers and move more work to China and India) resulting in ever less tax revenue. Figure it will take about 3 years for the “stuff” to fully hit the fan. THEN the folks feeding at the public trough will start to notice.
Unfortunately, California is already there… San Bernardino has declined to pay a required payment into the Calif. Public Employee Retirement System, since they are bankrupt. CalPERS has sued them. The whole thing is going to court. They are one of 4 Cities (and a couple of counties) who are bankrupt. More on the way. We just voted to raise taxes (on the thesis that “Tax beatings will continue until business morale improves”…) and drive more productivity out of the State. Oh, and we did “Cap and Tax” too, for good measure… So some California Public Employees are going to either lose their pensions, OR be let go (if the city is required to pay CalPERS instead of fund current operations). Either way, one group or the other gets whacked.
California is in worse condition than Greece, in some ways. But at least it’s starting to whack the folks at the public trough… Today, San Bernardino, tomorrow Sacramento? (I’d not be buying any California Muni Bonds any time soon…)
“george e. smith says:
December 3, 2012 at 10:17 pm”
LOL I think the bread robbing reference might be lost on a few colonist at this site! I gave up on NZ polotics when I discovered Helen Clark was a fundamental initiator in the destruction of the health system in the 80’s, when the people who sold Post Bank to ANZ Bank were the same people who setup Kiwi Bank, and then sold that off. When NIWA started to get the Aussie BOM to vet temerature data and so on…
[snip -you’ve been a bit too abusive here take a 72 hour time out – Anthony]
2C max or the world fries or not. The tropical water cycle feed back would see no real increase in that zone. That leaves the temperate and polar regions, 2c in polar regions subtracted from minus 30c would possibly not be noticed even by polar bears. 2c in the temperate zones with the extra CO2 would mean longer growing periods and an increase in land area for food production.
I have a problem in that I can not see the problem of 2C.
To quote Albert Einstein “I fear the day that technology will surpass human interaction, The world will have a generation of idiots”!
Mark and two Cats
You’re right, there is no simple answer to this question . All the computer models assume various levels of ‘feedback’. At current C02 concentrations, from pre-industrial levels up to about 1000 parts per million (ppm), the effect of C02 is ‘logarithmic’. This means that the temperature increase will be the same for a doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm as it will be for a doubling from 400ppm to 800ppm. Note that at low concentrations this logarithmic relationship breaks down (for very low concentrations the effect is linear and at intermediate levels it is a square root function).
Let us take the no-feedback case. The IPCC tell us that all other things being equal, if we just double the concentration of C02 without changing anything else, then a doubling of C02 would lead to a surface warming of 1.2 Deg. Celsius. So we can calculate the change in surface temperature (dTs) for a change from initial concentration (Co) to a higher concentration (C) from the formula
dTs = 1.73 * ln(C/Co)
…You just wanted a simple answer didn’t you, rather than all this maths? But we are nearly there. Putting in your values of an increase from 320ppm to 394ppm gives
dTs = 1.73 * ln(394/320) = 1.73* 0.208 = 0.36
So the temperature rise, due to C02, is 0.36 Deg. Celsius.
The no-feedback case therefore doesn’t present any catastrophic problems for humankind. The current rate of increase in C02 levels is about 2ppm, according to Mauna Loa measurements. At this rate of increase it will take 200 years to double the level of C02 from 400ppm to 800ppm; in which time the oil and gas will have run out and the problem solves itself.
A rise of a fraction of a degree over 200 years is certainly not catastrophic, probably beneficial. It all depends on the ‘feedback’ . This is the ’known unknown’.
I cannot understand how this “stefanthedenier” has not yet been banned / snipped. He has already broken most of the policy rules: vulgarity, insults, off-topic nonsense, trolling, excesive posting… but then, it’s not my call…
“Dr Canadell said the latest carbon dioxide emissions continue to track at the high end of a range of emission scenarios, expanding the gap between current trends and the course of mitigation needed to keep global warming below 2°C.”
While CO2 continue to “track” the high end of IPCC senarios the REAL WORLD temperatures failed to rise even to the levels predicted with the most draconian cut senarios. In fact they failed to rise AT ALL.
Yet Dr Canadell is still crapping on about the “need” to keep global warming down as if he hasn’t even noticed.
Incredible !
Plus, stefanthedenier seems to practice lots of banning in his own blog (which he linked in his last response) with the very few visitors that dare comment, and defends nonsense like most of the ocean’s temperature is below 4ºC, something so easy to demonstrate as absolutely wrong… this guy is the definition of a troll.
… and now I should get a huge facepalm for confusing a few facts… 🙁
eo,
China in the next five years will commission some 273 GW of additional coal fired power plants ( see the Jan 2012 report of the National energy Technology Laboratory of the US department of energy). Cars, bridges, steel bars and other materials used in US and Europe are made in China.
China coal fired construction slowed dramatically in 2012. Wind+Hydro is kicking in big time. The Chinese will build enough coal fired plants to keep up with demand, but no one knows how fast that demand will grow. Surely double digit growth rates don’t last forever.
US Cement Consumption runs around 100 million tons per year. Chinese cement consumption is running at around 2 billion tons per year. If we say they have roughly 4 times the population then per capita they are using 5 times as much cement.
If takes around 1/4 ton of coal to produce 1 ton of cement. So the chinese are burning roughly 500 million tons of coal to produce domestic cement.
US Steel Consumption is about 100 million tons. China’s domestic steel consumption(excluding exports) is around 700 million tons. Works out to roughly 1.75X US per capita steel consumption.
It takes about 3/4 ton of coal to produce a ton of steel. So the Chinese are burning roughly 500 million tons of coal to produce domestic steel.
About the only ‘energy intensive’ building material the Chinese aren’t consuming more of then the average American is aluminum. The last I checked per capita aluminum consumption in China is running at around 70% of US per capita Aluminum consumption. Maybe they are better about recycling beverage cans. I don’t know the reason.
They have had a building boom in the last 10 years beyond any building boom the world has ever seen. They also have had a ‘baby bust’ for 20+ years beyond any baby bust the world has ever seen. The boom will have to stop at some point.
Here is a recent article quoting Chinese Steel Industry executive
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-08/30/content_15719171.htm
“The rapid development of the industry, based on increasing output, has gone. For the next 10 to 15 years, the domestic steel demand will stay at a level of 600 million to 700 million tons a year,”
97% + 2ºC. Almost at 100% BS.
stefanthedenier says:
December 3, 2012 at 6:03 pm
You really don’t mind making a fool of yourself, do you?
Man’s co2 output levels will eventually flatten then decrease and it won’t be because of carbon taxes and other fraudulent schemes. It will be because of technological advances like nuclear fusion, more use of nuclear power, cheaper and more efficient solar power, greater energy efficiency etc. all driven by market forces and not by damaging, artificial scams.
To Nylo:
Supplying facepalm! See link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1wqciODsC8
Whenever I see a nice round number, like 350 PPM or 2ºC, my BS alarm goes off. In my experience, calculated numbers rarely come out neat like that. Plus, why 2ºC? How is that related to the presumed climate impact? Are there fewer Sandys if the temperature is +1.9 and more if it is +2.1? I don’t think the numbers are that fine.
So, they have been picked for political reasons, as usual.
I would like to see something on how , who and where this magical 2 degrees are to be measured’ Or will they be calculated by models??
Sonja
I feel quite comfortable waiting whether that temperature increase will in fact manifest itself. It’s about 40 years too early to spend any money on it.
But the effect CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is ever more marginal with greater concentration
The widely held alarmist policy ambition to constrain Man-made temperature increase to +2.0°C has to be scientific nonsense as it could never be attained, however much more Man-made or natural CO2 was added to the atmosphere. And this could be why!!
The IPCC Published report, (TAR3),
(http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar…),
acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. The information is contained in their last report, but it is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).
The logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2 is the likely reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming in earlier eons, when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.
According to figures published by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, CDIAC in 2010 the total (natural and Man-made) CO2 warming effect at 390 ppmv causes ~1.24°C of the 33°C greenhouse effect and according to the logarithmic diminution process at 390 ppmv this CO2 level has already taken up ~88% of CO2’s effectiveness as a Greenhouse gas. Thus the maximum CO2 warming effect can only be 1.24°C / 88% = ~1.41°C: so only an additional 12% or ~+0.18°C remains.
In the context of normal daily temperature variations at any a single location of 10°C to 20°C and which can usually be as much as 40°C to 50°C over the course of a year and as the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the temperature diminution effects for all the excessive efforts of the Nations committed to CO2 reduction are marginal, immeasurable and irrelevant.
Although the IPCC tacitly acknowledges that this crucial logarithmic diminution effect exists, it certainly does not report or emphasise it. Like the Medieval Warm Period, that the IPCC attempted to eliminate with the Hockey Stick graph in 2001, the panel knows that wide public knowledge of the diminution effect with increasing CO2 concentration would be utterly detrimental to their primary message.
The IPCC certainly does not explain these devastating consequences for the CAGW theory in their Summary for Policy Makers. And thus the IPCC is entirely misleading in its central claim, as they say:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
So any unquestioning, policy maker is irrevocably lead to assume that all increasing CO2 concentrations are progressively more harmful because of their escalating Greenhouse impact. But that is not so.
From the present concentration of atmospheric CO2 at ~390 ppmv, with only ~12% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas remaining. This can only give rise to a maximum rise of a further of ~0.18°C. Thereafter beyond 900+ pmmv the effect of increasing levels of CO2 can only ever be absolutely minimal even if CO2 concentrations were to increase indefinitely.
beesaman says:
December 3, 2012 at 3:54 pm
…. I also bet that there are a lot of scientists worried about bigger and bigger cuts to their funding as the public purse empties and soon enough the green funding will start to suffer as folk realise the truth….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I were a climate scientist or ANY University scientist, I would start really worrying about the crazies if we hit the economic cliff and it is coupled with a major cooling in the climate and resulting food shortages.
Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) have already crossed the line in the sand. They should thank goodness the far right is generally Christian and therefore not as prone towards anti-social behavior as the far left. If the left ever figures out they have been had I would not like to be sitting in a University in a big city.
This was presented on the PBS News Hour, yesterday Dec 3rd. Gwen Eiffel interviewed Coral Davenport, another journalist from the National Journal. Out of this interview come such gems as:
GWEN IFILL: And if we go past it, what happens?
CORAL DAVENPORT: It’s a big point.
The two-degree mark is the point at which the polar ice sheets will melt, leading to rapid sea level rise. It’s also a point at which many areas of the world will no longer be able to grow food.
So, it’s likely that we could see price spikes, food shortages. These are the kinds of things that will set off a lot of other rapid and potentially catastrophic chain reactions.
Full interview at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/july-dec12/climate_12-03.html
This is the degree of rabid alamism that is being presented as ‘fact’, on the PBS News Hour – Ugh!
Please, Please! Do Not Contribute Money to PBS!
MtK
bikermailman says:
December 3, 2012 at 4:54 pm
harrywr2, the Chinese have a coming demographic crisis worse than that of Japan, the US, or Europe. They already have a surplus of ~30 mln adult males. By mid century, real population crash, analogous to Russia after the fall of the USSR. For now, people need to worry about what they’ll do with all those excess young men.
_________________________________
My husband just mentioned a Prof. of demographics at Boston University many years ago said an excess of young men almost always devolves into revolution.
A recent article How Testosterone Drives History
“A new book by a German researcher explores the role that the hormone, which is more present in males, plays not just in mindless aggression, but also the kinds of real-life revolutions that change history”