2 degree target – a matter of policy guesswork

Success of climate talks vital for 2°C target

From the Potsdam Institute – Achieving a global climate agreement soon could be crucial for the objective to keep global mean temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. The challenges of meeting the long-term target will otherwise increase drastically both in terms of the required emissions reductions and economic impacts. This is shown by the first comprehensive multi-model-based assessment of so-called Durban Platform scenarios, conducted by a team of international scientists led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) in Italy. The Durban Platform is the current negotiation track at the Warsaw climate talks that aims to reach a global climate agreement by 2015 to come into effect in 2020.

Success of climate talks vital for 2°C target
The Durban Platform was agreed on at COP17 and aims to reach a global agreement by 2015. Photo: UNclimatechange

  “The negotiations in Warsaw represent an important step in the negotiation process towards a climate agreement by 2015,” lead author Elmar Kriegler from PIK says. “While there are legitimate doubts about whether the Durban Platform negotiations can deliver on their promise, our analysis shows the importance of meaningful reductions in global emissions by 2020 to keep the 2 degree target within reach.” The later emissions get cut, the greater the necessary reduction rates to avoid more than 2 degrees warming, and hence the greater the impact on energy prices and economic growth.

“Even a delay of just 10 years of a climate agreement coming into effect would raise the economic challenges substantially, if emissions reduction efforts remained at their currently moderate level,” Kriegler says. The results are part of the comprehensive LIMITS project (Low Climate lmpact Scenarios and the lmplications of Required Tight Emission Control Strategies) on the implementation of 2 degree strategies in the major economies and will be published in a special issue of the journal Climate Change Economics. The scientists investigated a set of different outcomes of the Durban Platform negotiations process and their implications for reaching the 2 degree target with seven integrated assessment and energy-economy models to ensure the robustness of results.

Carbon dioxide removal could be key technology

Nonetheless there might be some flexibility for policy makers in implementing a global climate agreement towards the 2 degree target, according to the study. Translating the 2 degree target into emissions reductions requires choosing a maximum likelihood of temporarily overshooting 2 degrees that would still be tolerated. The choice of this tolerance level was found to have a significant effect on longer term emissions reduction requirements and economic impacts. However, the near term requirement of strengthening global climate policy was unchanged, as global emissions declined after 2020 in any scenario of global climate action coming into effect by 2020. In addition, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere in the 2nd half of the century could be a key element of implementing the emission pathways in the Durban Platform scenarios, for instance through technologies using energy from biomass combined with Carbon Capture and Storage. Plants absorb CO2 to grow and could be processed in biogas plants, with emissions captured and being stored underground.

This could be an option to compensate higher short term emissions with deeper emissions cuts in the long run, but at the expense of a higher likelihood of temporarily overshooting 2 degrees. At the same time, it would raise a number of concerns, because the CCS technology is not yet available for large-scale use and scaling up bio-energy comes with considerable risks by increasing the competition for arable land. “It is very risky to rely too much on removing CO2 from the atmosphere in the second half of the century,“ says Kriegler. “While we may need carbon dioxide removal even if global climate action is implemented in 2020, we would need much more of it if action is delayed further. Despite all these complexities, the message is fairly simple,” adds Kriegler. “In the longer term, there are a number of options to get to 2 degrees. But those will only remain on the table, if global climate action is substantially strengthened over the coming decade, so that global emissions decline after 2020.”

“This shows that the Durban Platform negotiations can still deliver an outcome consistent with the 2 degree target, but only if they can successfully implement global climate action on a long term target by 2020,” adds co-author Massimo Tavoni of FEEM. “Further delays in reaching an agreement would require much higher emission decline rates and would lead to much larger economic costs”.

Article: E. Kriegler, M. Tavoni, T. Aboumahboub, G. Luderer, K. Calvin, G. De Maere, V. Krey, K. Riahi, H. Rosler, M. Schaeffer, D. van Vuuren: What does the 2°C target imply for a global climate agreement in 2020? The LIMITS study on Durban Platform scenarios. To be published in a special issue of Climate Change Economics in early 2014.

More information on the LIMITS project: http://www.feem-project.net/limits/index.html

More information to the special issue:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 16, 2013 1:19 am

“Plants absorb CO2 to grow …… .”
Well, who would have thought that ……. .

David Chappell
November 16, 2013 1:28 am

It’s models all the way down…

Brian H
November 16, 2013 1:29 am

Since the 2 degree target was pulled out of a PR agent’s posterior orifice, it makes no difference. Like all the rest of the Warmist bushwah. Back to the Roman or Minoan Warm Period. What’s not to like?

November 16, 2013 1:31 am

A system of plants…
Absorbing C02 non-stop…
Spread across the USA…
Every American homeowner could participate…
And save the earth.

November 16, 2013 1:33 am

The 2 degree target is unattainable however much CO2 may be emitted.
The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is known to diminish as concentrations increase. This diminution effect is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.
Both skeptics and Global Warming advocates agree on this.
An earlier IPCC report, (TAR3), acknowledged that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has been in the IPCC reports. 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) .
Up to ~200 ppmv, the equivalent to about 82% of the temperature increasing effectiveness of CO2, is absolutely essential to maintain plant life and thus all life on earth. The current level of ~400 ppmv is already committed and immutable. At that level it amounts to 93% of the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere .
Thus only ~7% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a warming greenhouse gas now remains.
So there can only ever be a minor temperature reduction impact of any de-carbonization policy, controlling CO2 emissions. Whatever political efforts are made to de-carbonize free world economies or to reduce man-made CO2 emissions, (and to be effective at temperature control those efforts would have to be universal and worldwide), those efforts can only now affect at most ~7% of the residual future warming effect of CO2.
The rapid diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates, apparently nonetheless, it is well understood within the climate science community but it is certainly not much discussed.
So more CO2 in the atmosphere cannot inevitably lead directly to much more warming. And increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere cannot give rise to any dangerous temperature increase.
Thus de-carbonization policies could never have useful impact to realistically control any rising world temperatures and the future world climate. As the future temperature effect of increasing CO2 emissions is now so minor, therefore there is no possibility of ever reaching the political target of less than +2.0°C.
If the effect is again acknowledged by the IPCC it certainly would destroy any implication of impending catastrophe for global warming.

November 16, 2013 1:33 am

“global climate action … temporarily overshooting 2 degrees … climate agreement by 2015”
The hubris, it burns.

November 16, 2013 1:38 am

This is up there with the craziness of the film that is on TV right now called “Cloudy with a chance of meatballs” where the main character, in order to save the town from sardines, wants to turn water in to food. I guess as the film is animated and directed at kids, maybe the kids haven’t learnt what photosynthesis is yet.

November 16, 2013 1:39 am

A low carbon war with China should do the trick. Poland, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, maybe even Germany will have to be dealt with forcefully, while avoiding harmful emissions. Russia has nukes, Gazprom and long experience in international enforcement. Perhaps she can help.
Of course, once those guys have been defeated someone else will have to do all the heavy manufacturing. Those whirlygigs and solar panels won’t make themselves! But one problem at a time.

Robin Hewitt
November 16, 2013 2:01 am

Can we assume all the door security guards have been issued with pictures of Lord Christopher?

Peter Miller
November 16, 2013 2:08 am

Why do so many supposedly smart people – apart from the obvious financial considerations – choose to believe the findings of dodgy computer models, which were pre-programmed to produce scary results?
The amount of money which has been wasted trying to combat the effects of natural climate cycles beggars belief.

Neil McEvoy
November 16, 2013 2:09 am

The Durban Platform negotiations… the comprehensive LIMITS project…
Think of all the teams of time wasters, jetting around the world on these and myriad similarly useless projects. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if they retrained as plumbers or something?

November 16, 2013 2:35 am

edmh says:
November 16, 2013 at 1:33 am
“The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is known to diminish as concentrations increase.”
I think you mean; said to, not “known to” increase. There is no empirical evidence to prove that CO2 has any effect at all. Remember the “GHE” is still just an hypothesis.
The IPCC have pegged water vapour as a “strongly positive feedback mechanism”. Yet water vapour is a negative feedback mechanism. So the IPCC’s version of the “GHE” hypothesis with regards to the most powerful and most abundant of all so called “GHG’s” is entirely wrong.
This is not an hypothesis and is not something that can be questioned, water vapour is a negative feedback mechanism, period.
If they can be so wrong about water vapour and yet refuse to correct this error, why would they be correct about CO2?
There is no empirical evidence for the so called “GHE” and I don’t mean the fact that the atmosphere is warmer at the bottom than it is at the top. That is not a “greenhouse effect”.

Stephen Skinner
November 16, 2013 2:35 am

“the first comprehensive multi-model-based assessment”
From the people who brought you ‘gigo’, now, more worse than expected comes ‘GIGO’.

Nigel S
November 16, 2013 2:44 am

Robin Hewitt says: November 16, 2013 at 2:01 am (Lord M)
He’s in disguise again, second from right of picture with expensive laptop and smartphone. I hope the CO2 is going to stay sequestered in the carbonated beverages on his right.

Frans Franken
November 16, 2013 3:07 am

So they will start wasting more resources on CSS (Carbon Sequestration and Storage) after 2015 if no treaty is signed, thus proving that no treaty in 2015 will have higher economic impacts? It’s like accounting research on CSS as ‘subsidy on fossil fuel’, which they actually do in Europe. I’m not even talking about the waste of energy efficiency or the idiocy of pumping plant food away from plants. The disconnection from reality of these people is dizzying.

Ken Dean
November 16, 2013 3:08 am

These people are really on a disconect from reality. The blinkers are on and no amount of facts can get through. The egos that are going to take a hit when the truth becomes so obvious will be great to witness. The wailing that will follow will be music to the ears.

November 16, 2013 3:13 am

From; Spiegel online international ; April 2010
“Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research”
Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target
Climate models involve some of the most demanding computations of any simulations, and only a handful of institutes worldwide have the necessary supercomputers. The computers must run at full capacity for months to work their way through the jungle of data produced by coupled differential equations.
All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren’t terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets.
For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.
It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with. An amazing success story was about to begin.
‘Clearly a Political Goal’
Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, “life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible.”
But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”
Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

November 16, 2013 3:15 am

The front line.
M.Mann ” The aliens are coming to invade we must prepare for action”
Joseph Bloggs “When are they coming”
M.Mann ” In about 25 years time”
Joseph Bloggs ” How do you know?”
M.Mann ” I just do ”
Joseph Bloggs ” You have fairies at the bottom of your garden”
M. Mann “How do you know?”
Joseph Bloggs ” I just do”

Chuck L
November 16, 2013 4:33 am

What is ironic is that if they actually were able to meaningfully reduce world CO2 levels, that might be the impetus that accelerates the slide into a Little Ice Age or even a full-blown one. Imbeciles, all.

November 16, 2013 4:37 am

Basic sales psychology: create a sense of urgency.
I can let you have the “save the planet” insurance policy at a special knock down annual premium of $100 BILLION today, but if my boss finds out I’m doing this I won’t be able to give such a good price next week.

November 16, 2013 4:40 am

Burgularies have been rising exponentially in this district. I have it on good authority that premiums are going sky rocket next month.
If I was you I would not hestitate too long, it may cost you a lot more for the same cover.

See - owe to Rich
November 16, 2013 4:43 am

I always wondered what the baseline for the “2 degrees” was. So it’s pre-industrial? Well, which year shall we choose, and which temperature series? There aren’t any global series that go back far enough, but England is about half way from the equator to the pole on the “polar amplification” scale so let’s choose that, where luckily we have the CET series. 1721-1750 is a 30-year period of a length beloved of climate scientists and clearly just before the invention of the steam engine. So I propose that we use that as the baseline.
I’ll get back to you with some figures on that later (just need to modify one of my ‘R’ scripts).

November 16, 2013 4:44 am

The truth is they know the penny is starting to drop with the public and with Austraila and Japan jumping ship, the writing’s on the wall.
They’re desparte to get everyone to sign themselves up for legally binding , locked in agreements to give them $100bn PER YEAR , EVERY YEAR before the scam falls apart.

David S
November 16, 2013 4:44 am

I am fascinated with the warmists fascination with setting a target in degrees and using that to justify calling for reduction in CO2 emissions. The world hasn’t warmed for 15 years ( isn’t this what they want), so why should we do anything different? To use what is going on now as a justification for more action is not logical . The pause in warming is clearly a result of our inaction therefore we should continue it.
By focussing on the results that is the temperature the logical conclusion is that policy should not be changed as it must be working.
The fact that CO2 levels are rising so proves the lack of correlation that to continue to assume it does is either gross stupidly,gross stubbornness, or gross dishonesty.
A 10 year old child(whose mind hasn’t been corrupted by the Global Warming indoctrination being taught in schools could work it out.
If the anectodetal evidence is that there is no correlation then the model’s assumption that there is proves that the model is wrong. The only real proof that will validate the theory is what actually happens in real life. In this regard it fails miserably.
I consider that climate change is the scaremongers equivalent to going back to the drawing board except this theory too fail in the laboratory of real life.
When will these warmists admit they are wrong!

November 16, 2013 4:55 am

Henry Galt says:
November 16, 2013 at 1:33 am
“global climate action … temporarily overshooting 2 degrees … climate agreement by 2015″
The hubris, it burns.
hubris => audacity, brass, presumption, conceitedness, chutzpah, self-importance
I’m having trouble coming up with a better word for the stupidity and outright gall of these fine folks who believe they can control the climate. I bet if I went back and looked at the press releases and reports from previous serious climate negotiations I’d find the same or similar words of serious desperation of having to do something now or life as we know it, if not all life, on the earth would be destroyed. Except the “nows” would be in the past. Besides, as I understand it from our wise leaders, if we got to 400 ppmv CO2 all life would end.
“Never underestimate the power of human stupidity”

November 16, 2013 5:01 am

This video explains very succinctly the misinformation used regarding food, flooding, poverty and a plethora of other information that explains why those goals are such an unreliable fantasy. They rely on total misinformation regarding how the planet has been functioning very well over the last fifty years and longer. The video below answers a lot of flase claims made by AGW enthusiasts.
From The Institute of Public Affairs Aus.
The Iframe Link, as I do not know which one will work the best on this page.

November 16, 2013 5:02 am

The CO2 obsession is more and more just a cover for rent seekers to get their slice of the $ billion per day bounty of the climate industry.

November 16, 2013 5:04 am

Sounds a lot like 1984 ‘Double Speak’

November 16, 2013 5:05 am

See – owe to Rich says: where luckily we have the CET series.
Good point.
Now we see the reason for the urgency to act NOW !!

Tom J
November 16, 2013 5:19 am

I think, as the last 17 years have shown, that nature has pretty much all ready taken care of any 2 degree rise in temperature all by herself.
I’m tempted to say that maybe those self centered, money grubbing, ambition lusting, overly networked delegates might be more concerned about a 2 degree drop at this stage.
But, then we couldn’t do anything about that either.

November 16, 2013 5:29 am

“What does the 2°C target imply for a global climate agreement in 2020? The LIMITS study on Durban Platform scenarios.”
Finally, some reference to a limit, not a target. Except that it’s referring to “Low climate IMpact scenarios and the Implications of required Tight emission control Strategies”. I guess a target is reachable (2°C or die! 2°C then die?) whereas a limit is something never to be met.

November 16, 2013 5:53 am

I assume, Potsdam clinics can help lots of people…..

November 16, 2013 6:42 am

Good grief. Silly people getting all dressed up to discuss a silly subject in various tones of seriousness. How do they keep from laughing????? Monty Python would be so proud. It tops his Holy Grail script by miles and miles.

November 16, 2013 7:11 am

Notice the total lack of foresight as to the future of energy and its emissions? Does anyone relly believethat 25 years from now we will be manufacturing anything other than electric cars? Or that nuclear power will prevail as the best means of power production (currently cheaper than either coal or gas and will remain so)? I think it more realistic to worry about CO2 levels becoming too low.

November 16, 2013 7:14 am

Action by 2020 is not required. Bill Gates summed it up nicely, where he said if you need a larger reduction, then shouldn’t you focus on the long term goal rather than the short term goal. Saying that more emissions reductions now makes later reductions more manageable doesn’t mean that you have achieved success. With China, India, and other developing countries at 60% of global emissions and growing, the key is as Roger Pielke Jr said, make clean energy so cheap that other countries will flock to it. That will not happen if you are passing subsidies and mandates at higher prices. Any emissions by 2020 is minor compared to the longer term emissions.

November 16, 2013 7:20 am

Psst – Pamela… re: Monty Python… “their”, not “his”.
But I agree – watching this charade is highly entertaining for me. All this fuss and bother and money and stress for nothing. Literally, for nothing. No warming. No increased storms or droughts or floods or flying spaghetti monsters or anything. The same would be accomplished if everyone in the world simply started digging holes and filling them up again.

November 16, 2013 7:37 am

To quote the “Despicable Me” minions: WHAAAT ???
You would swear that it was 2003, not 2013

Mike Maguire
November 16, 2013 7:59 am

Aggressive actions now can result in changing their position as quickly as possible.
From the current “man made climate change is causing all these weather extremes”; to “cuts in CO2 emissions are starting to reduce global warming”.
Then, they can be honest and tell you that global temperatures have stopped rising………….of course, giving credit to these actions and justifying the need for continued actions.
Only thing is that with high latitude cooling, similar to what we saw in the 50’s-70’s(which may increase this decade), severe/extreme weather increases from the meridional temperature disparity increasing.
This will allow for an interpretation that we need more aggressive actions, as it will take more time and more money to get the climate under control and back to the way it was before man messed it up.
Even if we head towards another “Little Ice Age”(which would likely cause a spike in extreme weather) there will always be something to blame on man and always be some reason for aggressive actions by humans to offset bad things that humans caused in our atmosphere/oceans.
I think humans actually do waste massive amounts of natural resources and pollute greatly……….but the main effect from CO2 is from a booming biosphere, greening of the earth and explosive plant growth, crop yields and world food production.
The law of photosynthesis is no theory. Let CO2 continue to increase and play its key role as atmospheric fertilizer, benefiting plants and the animal world(which eats plants or something else that ate plants)……………….and use our resources to fight real pollution and lessen the waste of natural resources, especially the irreversible draining of our limited supply of ground/aquifer water that is spelling out the real catastrophe for the next generation.

See - owe to Rich
November 16, 2013 8:21 am

OK, I’m “back” with those CET figures.
1721 to 1750 mean is 9.36 (degC)
1958 to 1987 mean is 9.43
1982 to 2011 mean is 10.02
The first one is my baseline figure. The second one is a local minimum, and the lowest since the First World War, and only minutely warmer than the baseline from the 18th century.
The third one shows an increase of 0.6degC over 24 years but is, in a slightly trivial sense, a local maximum. That is, 1983 to 2012 is cooler (by 0.005), and 1984 to 2013 is going to be cooler still (I’ll give you an odds on bet on that with 2 months to go).
So I’ll give you my policy, for when I become prime minister. I shall adopt a “wait and see” cautious approach. Given that we are now 0.66degC warmer than pre-industrial times, and we (apparently) wish to limit it to 2 degrees, I shall wait until we breach the 1 degree barrier, which would occur if a 30-year period had mean 10.36 or higher. And then I shall act.
Don’t ask me what action I will take, but act I shall.
It is not inconceivable for this to happen, since 12 of the last 30 years have been above that 10.36 value. But I don’t think it will. In fact I think, just a guess of course based on cycles and solar weakness, that it will not happen before 2035-2064. If it does happen then, so we know it in 2064, and I am prime minister and incidentally the oldest man who has lived in recent times, then I SHALL ACT.
I’d be happy to read any comments on my prognostications.

gopal panicker
November 16, 2013 8:24 am

not to worry…its been cooling slightly the last few years.

November 16, 2013 8:36 am

Chuck L: “… that might be the impetus that accelerates the slide into a Little Ice Age or even a full-blown one.”
And that’s the only thing to keep in mind. We accept that ice ages happen. And if we then accept that CO2 causes temperature, we also accept that we can control the weather. By which, our only known possible defense against an ice age is to figure out how much coal we need to burn to stave one off.
The alternate idea that maybe we will have runaway and destructive warming for which we have not one shred of historical evidence to have occurred is a nonsense. If these people were rational, and actually believed AGW as science, then we would be discussing fossil fuels as a defense against freezing. In a similar vein, the same discussions we have about possible defenses of killer asteroids. But let’s say that we can have runaway heating: Then at what level? What is the provable range of CO2 that keeps the planet from bursting into flames or turning into an ice cube.
That this is not being discussed, at all, simply demonstrates that the people involved are trying to make a dime of apocalyptic hysteria, or that they are so misanthropic that they don’t give a fig about destroying the bioload and biodiversity of the planet so long as they can punish men for the sin of existing.

November 16, 2013 8:39 am

See – owe to Rich: “So I’ll give you my policy, for when I become prime minister. I shall adopt a “wait and see” cautious approach.”
I’d vote for you just as I vote for any and every prudent politician. But then, being a prudent sort doesn’t win elections.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – HL Mencken

November 16, 2013 9:34 am

Peter Miller:
When people choose to believe the findings of dodgy computer models this seems to be a result of repeated applications of the equivocation fallacy on the part of climatologists. An “equivocation” is an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of this argument. By logical rule, one cannot draw a proper conclusion from an equivocation. To draw an IMPROPER conclusion is the equivocation fallacy. The equivocation fallacy deceives people because an equivocation looks like a syllogism but isn’t for while the conclusion of a syllogism is true, the conclusion of an equivocation is unproved. For details on the equivocation fallacy in global warming arguments, please see the peer reviewed article at ( http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 ).

November 16, 2013 10:03 am

2 degrees warmer, I wish.
The historical natural cycle is trending away from the school of calamitous intent, AKA GIGO.
The emperors new clothes are still being admired in the sycophantic high court, but outside the emperors butt is freezing in the breeze.
Rotten fruit and vegetables may soon cloth the entourage if they do not cover up very soon.
Dishonesty uses stupidity as cover, the UN has failed miserably, we must defang it and bury its corpse. A large, ominous headstone, of lest we forget the darkness bureaucracy brings.
Forget the madness of crowds and mass hysteria, this one-CAGW is down to the idiocy of the parasitic class.
Design by committee.
Committee’s of the unfit,unable and voluntarily nonproductive.
The UN has for years been a dumping ground for the dangerously stupid,political liability relatives of those in power.Sooner or later this many dangerous fools will cause massive damage to their host.
In hindsight,it is stunning that we could have believed that unelected,unaccountable appointees would behave in any other way, than the UN has done.
Rule 1 of bureaucracy….extend our reach..expand the bureau.

November 16, 2013 10:05 am

“Durban Platform negotiations can still deliver an outcome consistent with the 2 degree target, but only if they can successfully implement global climate action on a long term target by 2020.”

In other words, agree to let us control your economy and we promise that if you like your climate you can keep your climate.
Is anyone else tired of politicians masquerading as experts and making promises they know they can’t keep?

Janice Moore
November 16, 2013 10:38 am

Earth to PIK: Get lost!
(and this is exactly what the world IS saying these days in Poland — bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!)

Salvatore Del Prete
November 16, 2013 10:43 am

They are not in climate reality , the temperature trend is likely going to be down not up and CO2 has next to nothing to do with it.
The question that has to be answered and it is basic is, if CO2 does change the climate why does it follow rather then lead the temperature ? Add to this the lack of any warming in response to CO2 increases over the past 17 years, no tropospheric hot spot, no increasingly zonal atmospheric circulation, it leaves one amazed as to how steadfast they are in pushing this. This article being yet another example.
I hope they continue to push AGW theory as hard as possible so when the reality comes probably during year 2014, as the maximum of solar cycle 24 finally passes by and the prolonged solar minimum once again becomes firmly entrenched a climate response to this solar condition will start to really take hold. .
The blip in solar activity is surprising, I did not expect solar flux readings to exceed 170. I was thinking the average solar flux reading from Aug. 2013-Dec. 31,2013 would be around 110. I am way off.
The saving grace however is the AP index is not following the solar flux, at least so far. The AP index for Nov. is still only around 6.0 very low, while the UV index for the shortest of wavelengths 0-105 nm is running around 140 units still quite low given this is likely the maximum of this solar cycle.
To my way of thinking the AP index and UV light index show how solar activity is being translated to the earth and thus the climate system, in contrast to solar flux which is showing the activity strength on the sun itself.
If the activity on the solar surface does not translate to the earth then the activity in itself is of no consequence to the earth and it’s climate.
Therefore although solar activity has been in a blip of activity ,it really has not translated to the earth, meaning prolonged solar minimum conditions are still being experienced on the earth, despite the recent pick up in solar activity.
What this tells me is if solar activity is the main factor in climate change then the sub-solar activity which commenced in year 2005 -today should really start to manifest itself in the climate system of the earth post within six months of solar cycle 24 maximum ending. This is enough time, in my opinion to tell us if a solar influence is out there.

November 16, 2013 12:18 pm

Salvatore: “The question that has to be answered and it is basic is, if CO2 does change the climate why does it follow rather then lead the temperature ?”
“Sure, it’s impossible that CO2 was the sole, sufficient case for millions of years. But it’s completely different now.”
Based on just basic scientific induction, it’s impossible to state that CO2 is ‘the’ sole, sufficient cause. But whether it’s special pleading (fallacy) or a legit argument for it to be a sole, sufficient cause ‘now’ depends on the ancillary details. If such details exist, I’m certainly unaware of them. But if they do not exist at all, then it’s just pure irrationality that is a hopeful refutation of the historical data we have available.

November 16, 2013 12:29 pm

“Even a delay of just 10 years…”
Yep, lock down the agreements quickly so that it’s legally binding – that’s what they are trying to do. By the time anybody comes up for air after that, they’re hoping there’ll be another warming period that they can hide behind, because this one has evaporated on them, or some other catastrophe they can “scare” us with.
They are losing influence with every passing year and are in panic mode now. With various countries wising up and pulling back, they are seriously running low on time – for themselves, for the money, for the power. Can’t wait for the crunch.

November 16, 2013 1:39 pm

The possibility of future world food shortages if the climate cools is a far, far more likely disaster in waiting than any slight warming of the globe.
CO2 is an essential plant requirement and the FACE experiments around the world are gathering real actual data from high CO2 ;levels in the open field and under entirely natural conditions,
[ FACE / Free Air CO2 Enrichment ]
The increased levels of atmospheric CO2 over the last two and a half decades is thought to have accounted for about 20% of the increase in the small grain crop yields over achieved over that period by plant breeders and better farm technology
The optimum for most grain crops is 700 PPM of CO2
I have said this before and will say it again;
The World’s farmers can very likely and quite adequately feed the estimated global population of somewhere north of 9 billions by 2040/50 IF CO2 levels continue to increase and IF global temperatures continue to warm.
IF CO2 continues to increase but global temperatures decline even slightly then the world’s farmers might perhaps still be able to feed the Earth’s 9 billions plus by 2040 / 50. Just!
IF somehow through total stupidity a way is found to reduce global CO2 levels AND the climate cools then there is most likely a very good chance that there will be periods of global food shortages and possible starvation on a scale never seen before in human history by the middle of this century..
And that is only a half a lifetime away.
The so called delegates to the COP obviously have never experienced hunger or an empty belly, in fact far from it and just the opposite as they no doubt gorge themselves on the luxurious food selections of that COP.
They are totally ignorant and worse, near criminal in their disdain for and neglect of the consequences of a possible future global food shortage if the world cools and CO2 levels remain static or even falls and the then likely prospect of empty bellies amongst possibly hundreds of millions of poorest of Earth’s future citizens.
If they in their totally arrogant self serving ignorance somehow manage to reduce or negate the vital and critical role of increasing CO2 levels on the adequacy of humanity’s future food supplies then god help humanity.

November 16, 2013 1:49 pm

so that global emissions decline after 2020.
And the billions still living in third world poverty? Shall we pay their rulers 100 billion a year to keep them there? Isn’t this really what it is all about? Keeping the poor poor so that the rich can live without fear of a 2C rise in temps?

November 16, 2013 2:01 pm

climategrog says:
November 16, 2013 at 5:05 am
See – owe to Rich says: where luckily we have the CET series.
Good point.
Now we see the reason for the urgency to act NOW !!
Yes indeed:/sarc

November 16, 2013 2:06 pm

fred berple: “Keeping the poor poor so that the rich can live without fear of a 2C rise in temps?”
Air conditioning is expensive, you know. Have some pity for the pampered.

Bill H
November 16, 2013 2:17 pm

So…. Who found the thermostat? And what do we have to pay for them to stop plying with it?
The Circus is in town… Bring out the clowns..

November 16, 2013 2:26 pm

” … Keeping the poor poor so that the rich can live without fear of a 2C rise in temps?”
The rich don’t really fear a 2C degree rise in temperature. This entire episode has been to strengthen the power of the various governments around the world as well as the UN’s role as a ruling body. The entire enterprise is one of forcing socialism upon a world that has seen (recall the USSR or look at North Korea) that socialism does not work.
This has never really been about climate at all.

Rhoda R
November 16, 2013 3:41 pm

I doubt that they are really worried about negotiating CO2 limits – what they really want to negotiate is the amount of money the developed nations are going to cough over to the the ‘developing’ nations.

Robert of Ottawa
November 16, 2013 4:52 pm

A fine example of institutional hijacking:
This is shown by the first comprehensive multi-model-based assessment of so-called Durban Platform scenarios, conducted by a team of international scientists led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) in Italy.
Enrico Mattei is one of my personal heroes; he WAS Hydrocarbon Man! Google him.

Robert of Ottawa
November 16, 2013 5:28 pm

The inspired Dave Stephens say on November 16, 2013 at 1:31 am

A system of plants…
Absorbing C02 non-stop…
Spread across the USA…
Every American homeowner could participate…
And save the earth.

Brilliant. The green cult has been a suburban ritual for 60 years! I need do no more than tend my green suburban lawn and do I get a government energy saving program pay check? And I save the Earth too! Double-plus-good.

Robert of Ottawa
November 16, 2013 5:33 pm

The Royal Ontario Museum nails it on November 16, 2013 at 1:39 pm
The possibility of future world food shortages if the climate cools is a far, far more likely disaster in waiting than any slight warming of the globe.
No further comment is necessary.

Robert of Ottawa
November 16, 2013 5:41 pm

I was listening to the CBC science program today (mea culpa, I do once a week listen to the CBC). I was listening to an ornithologist who was very obviously interested in ornithology. She was studying migration habits of some birds from Iceland, I think. The details aren’t important to this story.
Her whole presentation was couched in terms of the affect of the (non-existent) global warming (which was taken for granted in this program segment) on the migratory habits and breeding success of these birds.
It is obvious that if you want a grant for some obscure, but to you important, research, you slide the global warming angle into your research grant application.

Keith Minto
November 16, 2013 6:49 pm

Robert of Ottawa says:
November 16, 2013 at 5:28 pm
…… I need do no more than tend my green suburban lawn…. savin

Sorry, not allowed to cut the lawn unless you sequester the cuttings deep underground 🙂

November 16, 2013 7:11 pm

I really hope someone is taping these conversations:
“The monsoons are getting too monsoony. We need to dial back the rainyness back to pre-1970 levels when CO2 emissions were less humany.”
“No, we should be worrying about the dry deserts becoming more deserty. We need to bring back the rainyness to pre-1970 levels!”
“More rainyness!”
“Less monsoonyness!”

November 16, 2013 7:37 pm

How can these climate change charlatans talk about controls over human activity CO2 emissions when nobody actually knows how much CO2 is being emitted from all the various sources?
GHG emissions cannot be effectively controlled when there is no accurate identification of their sources. It does not make sense to blame the rise in atmospheric CO2 solely on human activity if there is no reconciliation of emissions with real atmospheric measurements.
The reality is that no such reconciliation can be done at present.
It’s all been guess work so far, using statistics and arithmetic calculations using the Greenhouse Gas Indicator. Nothing has been measured by actual instrumentation except for the Mauno Loa CO2 measurements. It is still not possible to reconcile the atmospheric CO2 concentration with human activity CO2 emissions. And until this can be done it is insane blaming one source as the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Carbon-equivalent emissions are currently assessed by ‘‘bottom-up’’ methods, which are made up from a variety of local statistics such as fuel consumption or numbers of cows. When these measured ‘‘bottom-up’’ emissions are rolled up to a global scale, the amounts can disagree by factors of two or more when compared with direct atmospheric measurements.

Adrian O
November 16, 2013 11:16 pm

The 2C target was picked according to Rahmstorf out of thin air by him
When they knew that the Medieval Warm was 2C warmer than now.
Der Spiegel has an article on that.
If it was safe for the Medieval Warm, it would be safe for us, the thinking went.
Then came Mike Mann and his stick, trying to erase the climate history with nonsensical models.
So people started to forget what 2C stood for.
In fact the ice record shows the Minoan High, 3500 years ago, a time of great prosperity, as 3.5C warmer than now…

November 17, 2013 12:55 am

‘the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) in Italy. ‘
simply question if ‘the cause ‘ was to disappear tomorrow, for what ever reason would that be good news , as the planet is no longer going to burn , or bad news , as the reason for their existence goes, for this places ?
Its not just Turkeys that would not vote for a Christmas style event .

November 17, 2013 6:41 am

If the rich are so concerned about a 2 degree rise in temperarure, why do they expend so much time, money and co2 in travelling to tropical climes for their holidays?

November 17, 2013 7:01 am

LOL!! The 2 Degree Solution…. What a joke.
Humans have burned through about 1/2 of fossil fuel reserves and global temps are about 0.2C (RSS/UAH) above Holocene Avg of 14C…. Oh, the humanity…..
Lindzen/Choi’s climate sensitivity of .6C now seems the most supportable projection based on all empirical evidence to date. Even if L/C were off by 100%, that would only be 1.2C, which is still well below the CAGW zealot’s target of 2C.
Why is this silly disconfirmed hypothesis still taken seriously and why do stupid govts continue to rob taxpayers of their hard-earned money to waste $trillions on this ridiculous disconfirmed hypothesis.
CAGW’s clay feet are starting to crumble. Australia is setting a good example for others to follow.
17 years and 3 weeks of no warming trend and counting….. What will be the magic number before freedom and reason are restored? 18 yrs? 19 years? Certainly 20 years should do the trick, should it not???

Ulric Lyons
November 17, 2013 7:36 am

Adrian O says:
November 16, 2013 at 11:16 pm
“In fact the ice record shows the Minoan High, 3500 years ago, a time of great prosperity, as 3.5C warmer than now…
What the ice core proxy shows at 1300-1200 BC is exactly the opposite of what happened in the temperate zone:

November 17, 2013 7:46 am

These politicians and their actions are sickening. They might as well be working on how to rid the world of witches, warlocks and werewolves.

Ulric Lyons
November 17, 2013 10:26 am

No one has any legitimate business discussing the future climate whilst they have the World turned upside down. Arctic warming happens under more negative Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, that can only be global cooling, as the Antarctic sea ice extent shows since 2008:

%d bloggers like this: