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.
B-but… Mary [Walcott] of Salem said that we could rid ourselves of sin if we could just burn some more witc–. Whoops. Sorry, I got confused there for a moment. This is a COMPLETELY different idea.
‘Cuz, like, science and stuff.
Tell them to stop breathing for an hour,and CO2 will not change. Nor will the weather. Kill all the trees and plants though and we will have less oxygen?
Ooops…climate change made me forget how to spell. That’s Walcott.
Off to demand climate reparations! 🙂
Once you embrace a false premise, there are no limits to what you can predict – or do.
Red Baker
Why do you link CO2 and temp?
There is no proven link between trace concentrations of CO2 and temp.
Rinse your mouth before the loo laid gets deeper inside you!
Koolaid
Spellcheck
Translation: Oh I am not saying we have to eliminate methane from dairy and beef cattle, deeply cut advanced agriculture because of nitrous oxide from crops, make refrigeration and air conditioning practically illegal, set up spy satellites to check for people building fires in their homes in Alaska, and destroy inexpensive shipping by regulating diesel engines out of existence. I am not saying that.**
**ref: “Apophasis … is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. The device is typically used to distance the speaker from unfair claims, while still bringing them up. For instance, a politician might say, “I don’t even want to talk about the allegations that my opponent is a drunk.” ” wik
I cannot believe that these people actually believe the essence of their aims. Any physicist can see that the CO2 reduction aims are futile and any economist can predict accurately on the economic changes that will befall us all should we let these people have their way.
Therefore, if these people know these things, it stands to reason that they are malevolent and have a hidden agenda.
I believe that agenda is UN Agenda 21 which makes very few bones about destroying capitalism and sees AGW as an agent to do just that.
Read my blog at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Cheers
Roger
Reblogged this on Aussiedlerbetreuung und Behinderten – Fragen.
I think they meant resistance is futile.
The collective rules.. I mean the consensus is …
To me its just more glibbering climb down.
CO2 is warming the planet catastrophe comes… no warming…. catastrophe late but still coming… still no warming CO2 way up… never mind, it wouldn’t do any good anyway.
Esop did this story years ago. The Grapes were green anyway.
Good thing I could not reach them.
I can handle it. I grown used having contradictory yet absolute truths being constantly shouted at me.
Curbing C02 is futile but for a different reason. Either way, we agree that curbing C02 is futile. Consensus!
Eve, with the heat on in southern Ontario. Because it is 10C, feels like 9 C and that is way too cold for me.
I like that analogy John R, keep them coming.
Well it is 5C in Armidale, NSW, we had a quick shower of sago snow, but the suns shining. Is it 10C in Ontario now, your summer?
we definitely need regulations and taxes on the most important GHG of all… water vapor. It is the other “pollutant” from hydrocarbon fuel combustion. Water capture and sequestration from returning to the hydrologic cycle has the potential of saving the Earth from a Venus-like hell. Is there a water vapor Keeling Curve that can be pointed to as evidence of mans damaging dumping of water vapor into the atmospere? /sarc/
Joel, LOL.
Had the so called experts, learnt all the coal-circle as well as a minor facts re energy due to Earth’s natural forces, they would have stopped their political nonsense.
So called experts in my book is any “expert” showing lack of Theories of Science criteria as well as lack of knowledge of what it takes to present a valid argument with all needed premises for the argument to be true, and to prove that valid argument with true not corrected figures all way up to a solid conclusion.
Instead the same so called experts tries to invent the wheel once again blaming humans for Natural forces which changed this Earth more than once with higher CO2 with and without warmer “climate” (as comments above shown) The alarmists are working with theories BEFORE tectonical plates were known let alone accepted.
As was printed in Science 2010:
“Slowing climate change requires overcoming inertia in political, technological, and geophysical systems. Of these, only geophysical warming commitment has been quantified. We estimated the commitment to future emissions and warming represented by existing carbon dioxide–emitting devices. We calculated cumulative future emissions of 496 (282 to 701 in lower- and upper-bounding scenarios) gigatonnes of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels by existing infrastructure between 2010 and 2060, forcing mean warming of 1.3°C (1.1° to 1.4°C) above the pre-industrial era and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 less than 430 parts per million. Because these conditions would likely avoid many key impacts of climate change, we conclude that sources of the most threatening emissions have yet to be built. However, CO2-emitting infrastructure will expand unless extraordinary efforts are undertaken to develop alternatives. ” Future CO2 Emissions and Climate Change from Existing Energy Infrastructure, Steven J. Davis,Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.Ken Caldeira Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA, H. Damon Matthews Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West; Science 10 September 2010: Vol. 329. no. 5997, pp. 1330 – 1333.
But all warmists theories has one and the same origin for their theories. Might not know it but the roots of their theory was presented long ago. By a Swedish scholar btw….
Arrhenius Svante, Naturens värmehushållning : Föredrag, Stockholm Norstedts 1896
Arrhenius Svante, Les atmosphères des planèts. : Conférence faite le 8 mars 1911.; Paris 1911
Arrhenius Svante, Klimatets växlingar i historisk tid, Stockholm 1915
Arrhenius Svante, Uber den Einfluss des atmosphärischen Kohlensäure-gehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche. Stockholm, 1896. Bihang till K. Sv.Vet. akad. handl. Bd. 22: Afd.1: no 1.
Arrhenius Svante, Uber die Wärmaebsorption durch Kohlensäuer und ihren Einfluss auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche. Stockholm 1901 Vet. Akad. K. Sv., Öfversigt af förhandlingar. 58(1901): No 1: [4].
Arrhenius Svante, Die Chemi und das moderne Leben / von Svante Arrhenius ; Autorisierte deutsche Ausgabe von B. Finkelstein. Mit 20 Abbildingen im Text. Leipzig : Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1922
The only thing proven is that Arrhenius theories been disproven
and
that so called experts of today tend to lean to Fallacies in argumentation instead of Theories of Science
So can anyone tell me which of these two conflicting studies are endorsed by that 97% consensus of climate scientists?
Doomed, I tell you, self- annihilation, the only solution.
The horror, the horror.
Hi Bushbunny, 10C was the projected night low but I see that it is now 9C. It is always 2 degrees lower were I live so here it is 7C. Yes, this is summer now in Ontario, with no coal plants and with a new bill to come, outlawing them forever. Because we have to protect the environment.! I will be so happy in Nov to go back to the Bahamas.
Hi Eve I have a friend in Ontario, but it is 5C today, goes down minus at night. But during the day, most of our daytime WINTER temps go up to 20 C, but in Sydney, not where I live I’m 3500 absl on the Northern Tablelands, which is a temperate region and high plateau. But 10C during summer, I bet the tomatoes don’t fruit!
never mind, China still isn’t playing ball!
10 July: South China Morning Post: China and the US still far apart on climate responsibilities
by Li Jing and Kwong Man-ki in Beijing
China and the United States laid bare their core differences in drafting a new global treaty on combating climate change yesterday as they renewed pledges to fight global warming by signing partnership pacts on cutting emissions.
China’s chief climate official, Xie Zhenhua and his US counterpart Todd Stern spelled out the disagreements between the world’s top two carbon emitters on how to contribute to emissions reductions after 2020.
The pair were briefing journalists separately in Beijing on the sidelines of the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.
Xie, vice-chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said responsibilities should differ from rich to poor countries, while Stern, the US special climate envoy, said Washington favoured each country deciding what it was capable of doing.
“We have different historical responsibilities. We are in different development stages, and we have different capacities,” Xie said.
Stern said the US was not against the idea of responsibilities being based on each country’s capabilities, but that the “bifurcated two categories” of developing and developed nations set in 1992 was unacceptable.
***”I’m seeing Xie many times every year, and we understand each other’s position very well … It’s one of those conversations that just goes on and on, doesn’t stop,” Stern said.
The issue has become one of the major stumbling blocks to negotiating a new global climate treaty involving more than 190 nations next year in Paris.
Despite their differences, China and the US signed eight new pacts on tackling climate change on Tuesday including agreements on projects demonstrating clean coal technologies such as gasification, and recovering oil from captured carbon…
(ANONYMOUS) A senior climate adviser to the Chinese government said Beijing was considering setting an absolute cap on carbon emissions between 2016 and 2020.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1550595/china-and-us-still-far-apart-climate-responsibilities
let’s call the whole thing off! here’s what Reuters had behind the paywall:
9 July: Reuters: Global climate deal won’t stop dangerous warming – study
The study mapped possible Paris outcomes against the maximum amount of the gases that a U.N. panel of scientists this year said the world could emit and still have a two-thirds chance of keeping to 2 degrees.
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.
“That kind of commitment is just not on the table right now,” said Point Carbon analyst Frank Melum.
“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. (Reporting by Ben Garside, editing by William Hardy)
http://www.trust.org/item/20140709151937-40up2
I wonder what they are putting in the water these days. I believe it was the lead water pipes that did for the Romans. If people do not have access to gas and electricity they will burn wood, coal, anything they can find, which will create serious trouble.
If it’s looked at in an objective way, it really isn’t that difficult to square the circle you’ve attempted to sketch, Tony.
Pierrehumbert says: ‘The only way to contain climate change and limit global warming, they say, is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.’
Will these cuts be deep enough to ‘contain climate change and limit global warming?’
No. The pact will not reduce carbon emissions sufficiently.
Study by Thomson Reuters Point Carbon: ‘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’
I might be an idiot, but I’m not stupid 😉