Global climate deal won’t stop dangerous warming – study
LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) – Even if governments strike a pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions next year, they will still exceed levels thought necessary to stand a chance of preventing dangerous global warming, a study by Thomson Reuters Point Carbon showed.
…
But the study published by Point Carbon analysts on Wednesday suggested the temperature goal is out of reach because the build up of heat-trapping emissions already in the atmosphere means far more drastic action is required than governments are planning.
==============================================================
Unfortunately, both the study and the news release are behind paywalls, so I can’t cite them here. – Anthony
What is interesting though is that just a couple of days ago there was this story from real climate Raymond Pierrehumbert that said the exact opposite:
New research backs up the growing body of evidence that the only way to limit global warming in the long term is a serious cut in carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.
LONDON, 6 July, 2014 − Once again, US scientists have come to the same conclusion: there really is no alternative. The only way to contain climate change and limit global warming, they say, is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
It won’t really help to concentrate on limiting methane emissions, or even potent greenhouse gases such as hydrofluorcarbons, or nitrous oxide, or the soot and black carbon that also contribute to global warming. Containing all or any of them would make a temporary difference, but the only thing that can work in the long run is a serious cut in carbon dioxide emissions.
Raymond Pierrehumbert, a climatologist at the University of Chicago, combined new research and analysis and a review of the scientific literature. He reports in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences that although livestock emissions such as methane are – molecule for molecule – potentially more potent as global warming agents than carbon dioxide, there remains no substitute for reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
Source: http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/07/quick-fixes-wont-solve-co2-danger/
My personal viewpoint is that none of these people seem to have any real understanding of what they’re doing when it comes to carbon dioxide and what we should do or not do about it.
With such diametrically opposed publication in the space of three days, seemed little more than an educated guess flailing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He reports in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences that although livestock emissions such as methane are – molecule for molecule – potentially more potent as global warming agents than carbon dioxide, there remains no substitute for reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
So did millions of buffalo (bison) cause Global Warming?
Just asking… I get so confused by these points…
Climate negotiators may need to reframe their work the 2 degree goal just doesn’t appear to be achievable, no matter how strong the progress made in Paris next year,” said fellow Point Carbon analyst Ashley Lawson…
Oh good grief…of course it is….just have Ashley give a call to GISS
Billions of years ago, atmospheric CO2 was in the double digits, and plants thrived. Great forests grew for millions of years, in places (oil fields) like Saudi Arabia, and coal fields, like North America. CO2 was easy pickings, and the biosphere thrived.
Now, at a fraction of 1% of CO2, times are a little tougher. Everyone should do their part, and free a little carbon again…. For the good of the planet.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
We know for a fact the the dangerous limit that was set of 2 C or 2,000 Gt of carbon, if I remember it correctly, was a pull it out of your butt number according to the climategate leaked emails from Mann. So why should we believe any of this dribble!
The only way to contain climate change and limit global warming, they say, is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Yawn. In direct contradiction to the vast preponderance of evidence, they sing this refrain over and over and over and over and over.
And over.
Well as a community, they’ve backed themselves in to a corner.
They can’t explain high sensitivity in the context of the current pause without blaming it on some sort of lag. In other words, for sensitivity to be high, then it must be “in the pipe” and just hasn’t gotten to us yet because of the lag. Problem then becomes that if they maintain both high sensitivity and a lag to be true, then by their own math, it is already too late.
If they go the other way, and reduce their sensitivity estimates, then there’s no problem in the first place.
I’ve been noticing an increased number of papers that seem to take warming as inevitable and then focus on adaptation, or at least mention it. The message continues to evolve as the facts get in the way of pet theory, and different researchers are simply trying to cover their butts in different ways. The die hard believers are going with the “it’s in the pipe, we’re doomed no matter what” message and those who are starting to figure that the sensitivity estimates are way too high are going the adaptation route.
The camps will continue to fracture and divide themselves as alarmism slowly comes to grips with the actual physics.
Arghh!
There is no proof CO2 drives changing temps. Why does that fact get overlooked? Why doesn’t the target audience for these studies ask for that proof?
Science…Yeesh.
tz says:
July 9, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Incorporate lithium hydroxide into the cement at the edges or transitions of road to siding. That will “curb” CO2.
Well I give tz two As; one for originality and another for a sense of humor.
Hello, one can become very confused with all of the different scientists who each in very technical language are putting their own point of view. But as I understand it as CO2’s effect on the temperature is logerithemic. Now if that is so then the more there is , the less the heating effect.
I would think that rules out CO2 as a major player in this matter of Global Warming, which while it has continued to increase in the atmosphere, the actual temperature recorded by satillite, balloons and sea bouys tell us that since 1997 the tiny increase of only point seven Celsius from about 1880 has stopped, and that from 2002 a tiny decrease in the temperature has been detected.
Ground weather stations should be ignored as so many these days are subject to the “Heat Island” effect. While we are told that is allowed for, why bother. Today we have a far more accurate way of measuring things. Or is it because the Global warming lobby preferes the very iffy figures from the Ground based weather stations.
So why are so many “Western” governments still spending billions in apparent fear of Global warming, or its offspring Climate Change ? Is it a case that they are still being fooled by the output of the computers so beloved by the Climate scientists. Remember GIGO, garbage in/garbage out.
Or does the apparent fear of climate change suit their political agenda, that possibly being to control their populations.
Michael Elliott.
They are being fooled but don’t object because it does suit the agenda.
y experience is that when an otherwise intelligent person makes a huge blunder, the reason
is almost always not in their logic, but because their assumptions are wrong, and they never
think to question them. All these folks are totally convinced that “their scientists” are right. Bad assumption. Really, really bad assumption.
World temperatures have not risen or fallen significantly for nearly 18 years, so what are they concerned about. Nothing to see here, folks, please move along.
World temperatures have not risen or fallen significantly for nearly 18 years, so what are they concerned about. Nothing to see here, folks, please move along.
I just remembered? Getting old I suppose LOL. Plants gave oxygen to the atmosphere when there was non. Oh dear – and we are carbon based living organisms, and have to breath in and out CO2 to live. Like plants, but really we are nitrogen junkies as this and water vapor make up the bulk of greenhouse gases. I hope they don’t see N as a dangerous gas or we are stuffed.
There is a blog post here which seems to be the press release.
They aren’t contradicting Pierrehumbert’s contention that a serious cut in CO2 emissions is needed. They are just saying that present plans won’t achieve a target of 2°C.
“It found that to keep within 2 degrees, global emissions would need to decrease by at least 3 percent year-on-year, well above the 1.9 percent annual rate proposed by the European Union”
CO2 is not a problem.
What happened to “settled science?” Are peer reviewed papers contradicting themselves?
In the past 150 years CO2 has gone up 50%, from 270 ppm to 400; temp increased 0.7C. A doubling of CO2 from here, assuming that the above is a cause-effect relation, would mean a temp increase of 1.1C. (The CO2 effect is a declining function.) (Thanks, Warren Meyers.)
The IPCC economic growth studies predict a huge increase in globe-wide wealth to the year 2100 – from 12X to 20X+. That increase depends on cheap energy – fossil fuels. With that gigantic increase in wealth and the small increase in temps, it would be easy to deal with the tiny adverse effects of warming.
Dangerous warming trend? what dangerous warming is that? They keep saying it for 26 years now and not a shred of evidence that it is going to happen,has showed up.
Why is it always fossil fuels? Non-fossil hydrocarbon fuels, ethanol, bio-methane, wood, also produce CO2 and please don’t tell me that contemporary foliage knows the difference and quickly completes/renews the cycle.
I share your view that “… none of these people seem to have any real understanding of what they’re doing when it comes to carbon dioxide and what we should do or not do about it.” What these types completely ignore is the fact that there has been no warming at all for the last 17 years while carbon dioxide kept increasing. The latter is supposed to cause warming according to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory but nothing is happening. If your theory predicts warming and nothing happens for 17 years you know that this theory is worthless. It belongs in the waste basket of history, along with phlogiston, another wrong theory of warming. The only greenhouse theory that can handle this is MGT (Miskolczi greenhouse theory) and it predicts exactly what we see: addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not warm the atmosphere. They still don’t get it and as the results CMIP5 future warming threads have an [upslope], predicting warming, while the real twenty-first century temperature temperature curve is a horizontal straight line. It is pretty easy to see where that stupidity comes from. Their built-in model code requires that increasing carbon dioxide must create global temperature increase when this in fact is untrue as the experience of the last 17 years demonstrates. Not only are they wrong to predict twenty-first century warming, they are also wrong about AGW. We are talking of the laws of nature here and they cannot be turned on or off. If carbon dioxide has not caused warming during the last 17 years, it never has caused any, and that specifically rules out the existence of anthropogenic global warming or AGW.
, What I still find completely aggravating is that because I can’t bring myself to swallow whole this kind of self-contradictory BS(Bad Science), every celebutard and climate charlatan who can manage to get themselves in front of a camera and/or microphone feels entirely justified in claiming that I must be mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, flat-earther moron.
Granted I have admitted on an uncounted number of occasions, here and elsewhere, that I don’t “know” , or even have much of a clue really, what the climate is doing and even less so why it might be doing it, but I do possess a 2.5 -3 sigma IQ and over the last decade I have spent way more of my rapidly declining time on this planet than I could really afford to waste, rummaging through the continuing deluge of PR “climate science” searching for any hint that anyone else out there was any better situated in that regard than myself. So far the results have been fruitless.
And although I consider myself to be a fairly serious epistemological hardcase, I don’t “deny” that CAGW might still be a possibility, but the probability, at least of the C part, that it’s something that demands immediate and drastic action seems to be dwindling precipitously, at least IMHO. There are others out there who would disagree with me vehemently on this, but if we were forced into a nose to nose debate of the proposition, none of us would have much in the way of real evidence to support our arguments, at least if you apply the evidentiary standards that used to prevail in science. I suggest I still would be a winner on points because, unlike the fearmongers, I don’t demand that the world enter into a suicide pact with itself in a hopeless attempt to rectify a death spiral “crisis” whose very existence is completely dubious.
Anthony W. as quoted;
“With such diametrically opposed publication in the space of three days, seemed little more than an educated guess flailing”.
“seemed little more than an educated guess “.
_________
I think you are being extremely generous to the promoters of those claims with that comment .
I have seen this sort of thing in my previous day job in corporations that were beginning to come apart at the seams.
It might not be too long before we see warmunist circular firing squads executing their own apostates.
Remember Holdren’s ‘unofficial’ White House opinion that the brutal winter just past was caused by global warming. UK climate expert Dr Viner also said children would not know what snow was.
Holdren versus Viner at ten paces. Somebody has to to shoot somebody for so gravely embarrassing the Warmunist movement. One way or the other. Best would be both.
Popcorn futures are rising.
Centinel2012 says:
July 9, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Spiegel on Line
April 2010.
Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target.
[quoted ]
Rule of Thumb
The story of the two-degree target began in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Administration politicians had asked the council for climate protection guidelines, and the scientists under Schellnhuber’s leadership came up with a strikingly simple idea. “We looked at the history of the climate since the rise of homo sapiens,” Schellnhuber recalls. “This showed us that average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution. To be on the safe side, we came up with a rule of thumb stating that it would be better not to depart from this field of experience in human evolution. Otherwise we would be treading on terra incognita.”
As tempting as it sounds, on closer inspection this approach proves to be nothing but a sleight of hand. That’s because humans are children of an ice age. For many thousands of years, they struggled to survive in a climate that was as least four degrees colder than it is today, and at times even more than eight degrees colder.
This means that, on balance, mankind has already survived far more severe temperature fluctuations than two degrees. And the cold periods were always the worst periods. Besides, modern civilizations have far more technical means of adapting to climate change than earlier societies had.
[ much more ]
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html