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.
john robertson says:
July 9, 2014 at 8:21 pm
==================================
Aesop?
Red Baker says:
July 9, 2014 at 7:29 pm
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.)
/////////////////////////
But nearly half of that 0.7 deg rise happened before there was a significant rise in manmade CO2 emissions. The substantial rise in manmade CO2 emissions began around 1940.
I have not checked whether there is any hard data of the level of CO2 back in 1940 but it may well be about 300ppm (Mauna Loa suggests it was about 315ppm in 1959 and if the annual rise is about 1.5ppm per annum, that would suggest a figure of around 290ppm to 300ppm in 1940).
So what we have is a temperature rise of about 0.35 degC with a rise in CO2 from about 300ppm to 400ppm. That of course is provided that the temperature rise is real.
Is the globe really hotter than it was at the end of the 1930s. I suggest that we do not know, as the recent articles on the constant adjustment and readjustment of temperature records has shown. But if the US record is anything to go by, (ie., it is representative of the global trend not simply the Continental US), the answer may well be that the globally, there has in fact been little change in temps despite an increase in CO2 levels of about one third (ie., up 100ppm from about 300ppm to 400ppm)
The sensitivity to CO2 (if any) looks to be very low once one takes out natural cycles.
Personlly, I think that the observation by davidmhoffer (says: July 9, 2014 at 6:33 pm) is material.
Climate Scientists are not fully thinking through the implications that the pause brings. Last year in a conference Julia Slingo (one of the chief scientists at the UK Met Office) said that ‘we are not yet out of the water since there may be no return to warming before 2030’ Her language was that of a typical activist, not a scientist (why talk about not being out of the water as if the pause was causing some sort of problem for them?), but if she is correct that the pause will continue through to 2030 (and I have no confidence in what the UK Met Office may predict), the implications are significant. There will have been no warming for more than 40 years!!! During that time may be about 60% of all manmade CO2 emissions will have taken place!! This will suggest that sensitivity to CO2 is what? Very small!!
I know this is out of place, but did you heard of that :
http://www.infowars.com/murrieta-pro-tem-mayor-feds-ignored-towns-plea-for-help/
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/07/07/Protestors-Keep-Third-Round-of-Illegal-Alien-Buses-from-Murrieta-Border-Patrol-Station
http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-confirms-theyre-paying-to-ship-and-release-illegals-in-the-interior/
http://www.infowars.com/source-obama-gives-murrieta-area-ice-agents-temporary-leave/
http://www.infowars.com/murrieta-pro-tem-mayor-feds-ignored-towns-plea-for-help/ http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/07/07/Protestors-Keep-Third-Round-of-Illegal-Alien-Buses-from-Murrieta-Border-Patrol-Station
http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-confirms-theyre-paying-to-ship-and-release-illegals-in-the-interior/
http://www.infowars.com/source-obama-gives-murrieta-area-ice-agents-temporary-leave/
Dave says:
July 9, 2014 at 8:06 pm
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!
Well actually, there is! CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if it didn’t cause warming, we’d be living on a snowball. Check out Roy Spencer’s blog (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/misunderstood-basic-concepts-and-the-greenhouse-effect/)- has has a great explanation of why.
How much of annual CO2 gain in the atmosphere is human caused, and how much is from natural causes?
Anybody?
Mike Smith says:
So can anyone tell me which of these two conflicting studies are endorsed by that 97% consensus of climate scientists?
===
Indeed, both. The 97% consensus is that CO2 is a GHG and that temperatures have risen. There are very few, even in sceptic circles that would not agree with those points. It’s a false dilemma.
And they are the Borg.
With such diametrically opposed publication in the space of three days, seemed little more than an educated guess flailing.
===================
For some definition of “educated”, I suppose. Your use of the term seems a little generous to me.
I believe that’s called a SWAG.
The question is “Do 97% of the scientists believe it’s too late to stop CAGW or they believe we need to continue negotiations to stop CAGW or do they believe hard enough that Tinkerbell will come back?”
This belief thingy must be hard on 97% of the CAGWers.
cn
Let’s never forget that Thomson Reuters is judge and party in this debate (Sir Crispin Tickell “the snake” according to Wigley’s climategate emails anyone?), always presents the most alarmist Op-Eds in the Globe and Mail their flagship newspaper, including by Thomas Homer-Dixon, thedirector of CIGI an political institute funded by Balsillie, Rockefellers and Soros, Suzuki, former Greenpeace Tseporah Berman, supports puppet Justin Trudeau and his call for carbon tax in Canada, supports the Ontario Liberals imposing green energy wind turbines, gas plant cancellation at huge taxpayer cost, lined with Tides through propaganding during the robocall affair, defended Tides when Krause’s tax return analysis showed how Tides was involved in green lobbying in Canada etc…
Of course, the Woodbridge company, their private $17 billion investment company does not divulge the Thomsons green interests…
Limiting H2O emissions is the only way to solve the problem. We must drill a hole in the ground and pump all the oceans in it.
” Or does the apparent fear of climate change suit their political agenda, that possibly being to control their populations.
Michael Elliott.”
Micheal, I award you an A+ for this observation. In a cooling world, which is what the data says, if you take and convert tillable land from food production and turn it over to biofuel production, and if you take “cheap and dependable” coal, petroleum, and gas based energy and replace it with something that is neither cheap nor dependable, you have positioned the world to eliminate untold numbers of “poor” people through starvation, since they won’t be able to financially compete for the available food, and freezing, since they won’t be able to pay the heating bills to keep even one room warm enough to ward off hypothermia. Then you will be able to turn the land back into food production and fire up those dependable coal generators again because untold millions of “useless eaters” will no longer be generating carbon dioxide, since dead people don’t breathe.
CO2 is a sacrement in the religion of global warming. The skepticism of non-believers only strengthens the resolve of the believers. What is needed is strong resistance to prevent them from forcing their religious views on everyone else.
xyzzy11 says:
July 10, 2014 at 2:53 am
/////////////////////
We do not know what conditions were prevailing in the early stages of planet earth. and the early stages of the sun and its solar system.
We do not know whther there was ever a snow ball earth, and if so how and what caused the snow/ice to form and/or to melt.
The reality is that all of this is just speculation. We might have a better understanding in 30 or so years time, but don’t count on it.
Go to the International Carbon Bank’s CO2 Reduction Calculator
http://www.icbe.com/carbondatabase/reductions.asp
to see what a waste of money the idea is.
They do all the math. This calculator estimates the time and cost required to phase out CO2 production with renewable energy and carbon sinks. It tells you what each system costs, its lifespan, and how much CO2 you will save, and the tells you how much it costs per ton.
To give some perspective, the US alone produces 5.2 GT of carbon/year. If you want to play with math, find the cheapest method to reduce US consumption by 50% and see if you can do it for less that a quadrillion dollars. Seriously.
The crazy part is these are supporters of the CO2 reduction crowd.
Why does no one ever talk about the real cost of carbon reduction?.
The problem I see is their somewhat idiotic focus on a solution to a postulated problem. At best these “scientists” whose brainpower seems to be somewhat misguided should explain there’s an overall problem, and leave the solution sets for the adults. I realize I’m being g a bit short tempered but I’m getting a bit tired of the pontificating by individuals who can’t tell a cart from a horse.