Study: Doomsday clock is ticking – Green tech is 10x behind in meeting Paris Climate agreement

Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets

Green innovations must be developed and spread globally 10 times faster than in the past if we are to limit warming to below the Paris Agreement’s 2 degrees C target

DURHAM, N.C. – The global spread of green technologies must quicken significantly to avoid future rebounds in greenhouse gas emissions, a new Duke University study shows.

“Based on our calculations, we won’t meet the climate warming goals set by the Paris Agreement unless we speed up the spread of clean technology by a full order of magnitude, or about ten times faster than in the past,”

said Gabriele Manoli, a former postdoctoral associate at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, who led the study.

“Radically new strategies to implement technological advances on a global scale and at unprecedented rates are needed if current emissions goals are to be achieved,” Manoli said.

The study used delayed differential equations to calculate the pace at which global per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide have increased since the Second Industrial Revolution — a period of rapid industrialization at the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th. The researchers then compared this pace to the speed of new innovations in low-carbon-emitting technologies.

Using these historical trends coupled with projections of future global population growth, Manoli and his colleagues were able to estimate the likely pace of future emissions increases and also determine the speed at which climate-friendly technological innovation and implementation must occur to hold warming below the Paris Agreement’s 2° C target.

“It’s no longer enough to have emissions-reducing technologies,” he said. “We must scale them up and spread them globally at unprecedented speeds.”

The researchers published their peer-reviewed findings December 29 in the open-access journal Earth’s Future.

The analysis shows that per-capita CO2 emissions have increased about 100 percent every 60 years — typically in big jumps — since the Second Industrial Revolution. This “punctuated growth” has occurred largely because of time lags in the spread of emission-curbing technological advances, which are compounded by the effects of rapid population growth.

“Sometimes these lags are technical in nature, but — as recent history amply demonstrates — they also can be caused by political or economic barriers,” Manoli explained. “Whatever the cause, our quantification of the delays historically associated with such challenges shows that a tenfold acceleration in the spread of green technologies is now necessary to cause some delay in the Doomsday Clock.

Manoli, who is now on the research staff at ETH Zurich’s Institute of Environmental Engineering, conducted the new study with Gabriel G. Katul, the Theodore S. Coile Professor of Hydrology and Micrometeorology, and Marco Marani, professor of ecohydrology. Katul and Marani are faculty members at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment with secondary appointments in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Duke’s Pratt School of Engineering.

###

Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation (grants EAR-1344703 and EAR-1530233), and from the Duke WISeNet Program, sponsored by NSF grant DGE-1068871.

CITATION: “Delay-induced Rebounds in CO2 Emissions and Critical Time-Scales to Meet Global Warming Targets,” Gabriele Manoli, Gabriel G. Katul, Marco Marani. Earth’s Future. Dec. 29, 2016. DOI: 10.1002/eft2.2016EF000431

Advertisements

156 thoughts on “Study: Doomsday clock is ticking – Green tech is 10x behind in meeting Paris Climate agreement

    • Can’t somebody persuade the greenies to hold up the sky? Useless, but harmless activity. Hands up anyone who wants to save the planet, and keep them there.

      • The real harm though is the “shaping of minds” globally via education to perceive this is occurring and act accordingly, whatever the physical reality. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002467/246777E.pdf is a new UNESCO paper on what must be in textbooks.

        Sustainable development has very little to do with physical reality and hard science. It has everything to do with the behavioral sciences as those NSF grants, properly understood, show.

      • Henning, I prefer to call them ‘ Greens ‘, not Greenies. The term Greenies gives the impression they are sweet, innocent things, something they are not ( although perhaps mentally !! ).

      • I prefer to call them “Enviro-Nazis”. Hitler proved that if you feed lies to people over and over (and over and over and over), that they will eventually believe the lies. Harsh but historically accurate.

      • Melvyn …

        … I guess greenies weren’t pieces of snot from your nose, where you grew up as a kid !!!!!

        I must qualify that though by saying that real environmentalism is fantastic and a truly worthy cause. Modern phony kleptomaniacal environmentalism, not so much.

      • Melvyn Dackombe,

        The term Greenies gives the impression they are sweet, innocent things, something they are not ( although perhaps mentally !! ).

        In the world I come from, “greenies” are definitely not “sweet, innocent things.” They’re what you cough up from deep in your lungs when you’re sick. I think that’s more than appropriate.

        Also greens, as in collard, mustard, etc. are a regional staple and are good for you.

  1. Doomsday clock is ticking, we only have 10 months er 2 years, erm 400 days. Dammit how long are we meant to have now?

    • Well let’s see how long we have got, on that other WUWT thread before we saw that we have a new record high temperature 0.02 degrees higher than the last el nino year, 18 years ago. So at a miliKelvin per year, in the next century we should have about a tenth of a degree !
      I think we have time to adapt.

      • There’s way too much actual science that shows CO2 in the amounts being emitted are not a problem now or in the forseeable future. They’re either doubling down on stupid…or, it’s one last gasp to try to scare everyone into self-collapsing western civilization. It’s hard to tell which.

        Although it appears that common sense and actual science (rather than broken models and alarmist speculation) is winning some battles against the utter BS that is CAGW, without taking back the US government schools from the left, the successes will be short-lived. North Korea is likely watching how the US public schools and colleges work and are learning a lot.

        I’m still de-programming my kids and they are post-college now. Most of you will be glad to hear I’m actually making progress and this site is part of my arsenal.

      • I “adapted” yesterday. Spent 45 minutes on “hold” with my electric company to rescind a “green energy” sourcing option that was costing an extra $4.38 a month. They asked me why, and I told them.

      • J
        January 3, 2017 at 6:48 pm

        Well let’s see how long we have got, on that other WUWT thread before we saw that we have a new record high temperature 0.02 degrees higher than the last el nino year, 18 years ago. So at a miliKelvin per year, in the next century we should have about a tenth of a degree !
        I think we have time to adapt.

        Reading your post got me thinking, if each year (just about) has been “the hottest evvaah” since 1998, just how MUCH hotter has each year been to keep below the current record? Is this statistically significant enough to claim “the hottest ever” most years since 1998?
        Just asking.

        SteveT

    • Is anyone ever going to tell these fkwits that you can’t calculate the “carbon reduction” (ha ha, yes I really did type that) required to keep temperature restricted to 2 degrees without knowing the sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide ??

      Yeah, I know, when did that stop the collection of incompetents, assorted morons, fr@uds and kleptomaniacs.

  2. Easy. Let the sun shine on solar power plants 24 hours a day (and vertically in Germany). Increase the number of windy days tenfold.

    How to do that, I am not sure (nor is Gabriele Manoli), but that’s what the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society are for.

    • Get all the greens to face the wind turbines.
      That is enough air coming out to knock down mountains.
      And since it is all hot air, putting some of them around the solar panels in winter will stop the panels freezing over.

    • Fans of Wind Power could stand there and talk up a storm when one isn’t available
      Fans of Solar could ride Bicycle Powered Generators to energise Full Spectrum Sun Lamps at night

  3. Yeah, right… can you imagine how much *more* money will be required to achieve this?
    Can’t see it happening; “the times they are a changing”.

  4. I thought it was already too late, so why do we need to do anything?

    I hope they are correct about a climate catastrophe. I’m counting on the End of The World before my first Ferrari payment is due, oh… and that line of credit thingy in Las Vegas.

  5. Well we know this isn’t going to happen so I guess the only thing to do is what we should have been focused on all along…adaptation.

  6. TG, right anything for a buck mafia. The faster they go with useless (or harmfully incorrect) studies the more ground we will have to make to repair the damage.

    • Leonard Lane wrote
      “The faster they go with useless (or harmfully incorrect) studies the more ground we will have to make to repair the damage.”

      Look on the bright side, Leonard. Those papers will make a great mulch for all that “ground we will have to make.” What soil isn’t improved by loads of B.S.?

      • My ox team did honorable, healthy BS which made the garden very green. These ‘science’ guys produce toxic waste.

  7. “Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation”

    If any part of the swamp actually gets drained, I hope the NSF is included. The amount of money these guys flush down the toilette makes me weep. The waste is even worse when you even start to imagine what good could have been done with that money.

  8. The Doomsday Clock?
    I resent the progressives tying everything lately to some nuclear threat, directly or subliminally. Look at the latest “nuclear doomsday clock” speculation by the Moonbeam himself.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160127144457.htm
    The joke could be on all of us (for a few moments) if CERN should somehow manage to open a rift in the space-time continuum and spawn a black hole.

    • Just think of the fun it would have been had previous generations had Doomsday Clocks—changing the minutes till “Doom” every time pestilence and disease broke out, crop failures, a total eclipse of the sun. Actually, none of us would be sitting here now. The people would have crawled into caves and just given up and died.

  9. Anybody that does not realize that controlled Fusion will be the common power source from mid century on is D.A.F.T.

    Climate change is a truism; but catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is a total hoax! It is a non-sequitor to say that CAGW is imminent, so pay more taxes is certifiable,

    • I have wondered why current status of developmental science like fusion and molten salt nuclear is hard to find. I figure it’s about proprietary concerns, but it would be fascinating to see the current state of both techs.

      • The prospect of burning the waste from uranium fission is very promising also. If we can steer the “Turf Truckster” of energy development away from the blinding sun and wind detour and get back on the right road, society might just arrive at “Wally World” before it closes.

    • Nuclear fusion has been thirty years away for at least fifty years. I’m guessing it will still be thirty years away in another fifty.

      • Agreed, if you’re talking about Tokomak and the like. Disagree, if you’re talking about DPF, such as being brought forward by Dr Eric Lerner and team. Dense Plasma Fusion – look it up. With some luck at the materials end, and no more than 5 years, and no one being mysteriously knocked off (as this tech is an ultimate in distributed democratic access to energy, hence an existential threat to the PTB- Powers-That-Be) – we could see prototype inside 5 years and production units in 10.

      • So, Tiburon, are you talking about the Mr. Fusion Doc Brown installed on his DeLorean Time Machine? If so, I want one. “My house is powered by beer!”

  10. Manoli and his colleagues were able to estimate …. the speed at which climate-friendly technological innovation and implementation must occur ….

    Manoli:

    emissions-reducing technologies … { } We must scale them up ….

    FROM: Guglielmo Marconi, Enrico Fermi
    TO: Gabriele Manoli
    DATE: January 13, 2017
    RE: KNOWN OR REASONABLY LIKELY TO BE KNOWN SOON “Green Technology”

    Listen up, Signor Manoli. Read this slowly and maybe you will understand it.

    The time to scale up a technology is –> after it is viable.

    How can you WRITE SUCH

    THINGS??!!!!

    You are a disgrace to all those of Italian heritage!

    What the blockquote is the

    MATTER

    with you?? Someone has a knife to your throat, maybe?

    Per l’amor del cielo!

    Get out while you can still think!!!! Nothing is worth selling your soul for!

      • Members of the the House Ethics Committee? I really hope ‘they’ don’t get to D.T.

        Lottsa money involved. For lottsa folks.

  11. “The study used delayed differential equations to calculate the pace at which global per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide have increased since the Second Industrial Revolution …”

    Hmmmm? so they’re using a method where the future conditions depend on the derivatives of the past conditions…. so it should work really well in a closed system…. hmmmm?

  12. The first thing Trump can do to end this madness is cut off the National Science Foundation grants for environmental studies. As a taxpayer I am outraged.

    From the end of this article:
    Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation (grants EAR-1344703 and EAR-1530233), and from the Duke WISeNet Program, sponsored by NSF grant DGE-1068871.

    • This is a simple case of redistribution of wealth. IRS takes some of your wages, gives some to the NSF, gives some to a sub-unit, gives some to a university, gives some to a professor, gives some to a graduate student. Graduate student pays rent and buys pizza and beer. The beer is recycled.
      What’s not to like?

  13. “Radically new strategies to implement technological advances on a global scale and at unprecedented rates are needed if current emissions goals are to be achieved”

    Nah. We have chosen C. Business as usual.

    “It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.” – R.E.M.

      • I stand by my comments on a certain polar bear expert.

        (check out other sources on the effects of this year in Svalbard and Hudson Bay on the bears, not presented in certain places…).

      • Griff is the epitome of a troll, which is why I call him by the more accurate moniker of “Skankhunt42”.

        Remember, Skank, that the best way to fight a troll is to get them to say their name. You have mine ……

      • Even after being proven 100% wrong, Griff doesn’t back down.
        When you have a pay check to defend, you can’t ever admit to being wrong.

      • “I stand by my comments on a certain polar bear expert.”

        Yes, you would wouldn’t you, you vile, mendacious little scumbag?

        You really are utterly shameless and without any vestige of a conscience.

    • By popular request –
      (you have to squint to see it on left as it only has a few days data into 2017!)

      Yep, still a record low. Still no ice around Svalbard.

      PIOMAS data due out shortly is expected to show a worrying record low volume.

      HYCOM thickness data (yes, its modelled) shows very thin ice and continued export through the Fram of the remaining thick ice.

      Some of the experts out there (yes, experts) are predicting we’ve had another phase shift in the state of the ice and we’re in a whole new worrying state.

      but that needn’t concern you folk, I’m sure.

      • It won’t concern people who realize that statistical analysis of data is not a psychic prediction fest, that trend lines are just lines, trends can reverse, etc. When dealing with chaotic systems, all bets are off on the accuracy of predictions in most cases.

      • Skankhunt42, you are truly amazing. Focus on one single area/event, how does that pertain to the entire GLOBAL system?!?!? On average the areal extent of the Arctic ice mass has been dropping since 2000, however the areal extent of the Antarctic ice mass has been growing at a higher rate than the loss of Arctic areal extent since 2000. This is why the mean sea level has not changed appreciably, and definitely not as much as the apocalyptic lies spewed by the self-serving Al Gore.

        Oh yea, 4,000 years ago the Arctic was ice-free, and the polar bears survived quite nicely. I am sure that there were some not-so-healthy polar bears even back then (love that picture that pops up on MSN every once in a while), unfortunately all of those self-serving special interest groups did not have social media to spread the lies 4,000 years ago.

      • And please, Skank, provide us with the digitally modified picture of the polar bear on that tiny piece of ice floating in the ocean. At least I am giving you credit for NOT loading the one with the penguin floating in the Arctic (lol – now THAT was funny!!!!!).

      • “we’re in a whole new worrying state”
        Yes, we know what you and your ilk are worried about; you are worried that your climatist ideology and Warmunist gravy train will be ending soon, as well you should.

      • If you want us to worry, Griff, give us a reason to worry. There’s no obvious negative consequences from sea ice extent being under 13 million km2 this time of year.

      • One constant with the Griff. He will trot out whatever chart happens to support him today. When that chart stops supporting him, he will run and find a different one.
        Reality doesn’t matter, history doesn’t matter, heck even intelligence and integrity don’t matter.
        Paid trolls gotta keep to the message.

  14. Oh noes! Solution? Spend trillions of dollars before January 20! For SavingThePlanet, of course.

    • Seems to me the trick will be to identify and diffuse all of the economic and foreign policy time bombs that ‘the left’ has planted while in the oval office.

  15. The less generous side of my brain immediately suspects that some folks have been doing a bit of budgeting and discovered they have to earn research dollars ten times faster to be able to retire on the Riviera with an adequate supply of champagne. Perhaps the political earthquake in the US which funds most of this nonsense has led them to consider the possibility the taps may run dry soon. But this is all just me being suspicious. After all, as a skeptic I am apparently prone to believe in conspiracies.

  16. Think about how much we don’t know today, and imagine how much more we won’t know tomorrow…

  17. How about ending these junkets for the CAGW acolytes? Let them do it online. The carbon offsets would be huge.

  18. It would be interesting to see how their 401k/investments are distributed amongst green energy companies. Think about it ;-)

  19. Zero money for global warmists who want to save the planet this way, they won’t publish stuff which pollutes with CO2, they won’t travel anymore, they won’t cook food anymore or consume energy and reduced to living in caves eating raw fish, they will revert to Natural Conditions of Humanity pre-one million years because of course, they are forbidden to use fire, too. They better grow back the old fur coats humans had back then.

  20. The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over whing Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really 0.0. It has been shown that the original Plank effect calculations were too great by more than a factor of 20 because the calculations neglected to factor in the fact that doubling the amount of CO2 ine Earth’s atmosphere will slightly decrease the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect and would offset most of a warming effect that more CO2 would provide. The H2O feedbacks whold have to be negative not only because H2O is a net coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere but because the Earth’s climate has been stable enough for life to evolve and negative feedback systems are inharently stable and not positive feedback system’s. Besides, the radiant greenhouse effect, upon which the AGW conjecture is based, has not been observed in a real greenhouse, anywhere on Earth, on Venus. or anywhere in the solar system. It is fictitious and, since the AGW conjecture is based on it, the AGW conjucture is nothing better than science fiction. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in lapse rate in the troposhere but such has not happened. CO2 can be totally eliminated from the Earth’s atmophsere which will end life as we know it on this planet but it will have no effect on climate change.

    According to the Paris Climate Agreement. the program is to be paid for by the rich nations. The USA has a huge National Debt, huge annual deficits, and huge annual trade deficits making us a poor debetor nation struggling to avoid bankruptcy. So it is not our responsibility to develop and impliment any “green” technology. I myself am willing to own and drive an all electric car that is powered by a solar changing system but all of this would have to be provided to me, free of change what so ever, by of the rich nations of the world with an annual trade surplus. I am waiting to recieve the free equipment so I can do my part.

    • Spot on. No stable system has positive feedback. To believe in CAGW, one must also believe in young earth creationism and abiogenic hydrocarbon/carbon deposits.

      It really is a belief system.

      • Oooh, a step to far, abiotic hydrocarbons are a reality, or do you think the methane seas on Titan are made by decaying vegetation? Now if we accept that abiotic methane exists then one has to ponder as to whether longer chains are possible if methane is compressed and heated (has energy added).

      • bobl
        January 4, 2017 at 2:04 am

        Oooh, a step to far, abiotic hydrocarbons are a reality, or do you think the methane seas on Titan are made by decaying vegetation? Now if we accept that abiotic methane exists then one has to ponder as to whether longer chains are possible if methane is compressed and heated (has energy added).

        Regarding long chain hydrocarbons and including experimental proof, If you have time it is well worth reading and following the links at http://www.gasresources.net/introduction.htm which give a very thorough layman’s introduction for anyone prepared for a bit of work. There are a few complicated bits but these can be lightly skipped over without losing the thread of the argument. It is well worth bookmarking and reading when time permits. Warning, if you are curious, the introduction might ensnare you to spend time you hadn’t planned!

        SteveT

  21. Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation (grants EAR-1344703 and EAR-1530233), and from the Duke WISeNet Program, sponsored by NSF grant DGE-1068871.

    At least all the data and papers will be public domain. Right?

    Still. My question. Is it 10x or 5x or 20x? Where did 10x come from? Not science.

    • The 10X may have been provided by the people that gave us 350 ppm, NYC will be 20 ft underwater and 2C is a catastrophic temperature increase so, we’re all doomed.
      None of these beliefs are testable scientific constructs and therefore are nothing more than personal opinions about one of the many erroneous models. (no honest professional scientist would put his name on any of it.)
      Just an opinion and we all know about opinions, don’t we?

  22. There is something strange about this paper, coming from these authors. They are ecologists… land, air, water, biome topics in the CVs and publications. Nothing in this paper considers programs for increasing Plant CO2 sinks as a remediation, its all the urgency of emission prevention development and adoption.

    Strange, coming from these authors.

  23. The world has to adopt green technologies way faster, like ten times as fast.

    That’s nice. They should have held their breath. China and India are going to continue to increase their use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Germany and Japan are still building coal fired power plants. The world at large is not going to adopt green technologies ten times as fast. Period. End of story.

  24. Quote: Green innovations must be developed and spread globally 10 times faster than in the past if we are to limit warming to below the Paris Agreement’s 2 degrees C target

    Oh yes. The development and spread of green innovations will have a measurable effect on the weather will it?

    It’s like watching a congregation reciting the liturgy.

  25. The climate supremacists always need to put forth a super-urgent deadline for action, so people won’t have time to think about things too long. Supremacists of all stripes live off of the fear of those inferior types (e.g. “deniers” or “niggers” or “Jews”) among the low-information public to enlist public support (some call it “furor”) for a given cause. Rahm Israel Emanuel was [in]famous for saying that one “can’t let a crisis go to waste.” I’m sorry, it just ceases to work after a while.

  26. The climate supremacists always need to put forth a super-urgent deadline for action, so people won’t have time to think about things too long. Supremacists of all stripes live off of the fear of those inferior types (e.g. “deniers” or “niggers” or “Jews”) among the low-information public to enlist public support (some call it “furor”) for a given cause. Rahm Israel Emanuel was [in]famous for saying that one “can’t let a crisis go to waste.” I’m sorry, it just ceases to work after a while.

    • Woops I see he had an epiphany in May 2013 but it seemed pretty relevant today (the billions squandered not the hopeless sequestration nonsense)

    • “Published: 01:14 GMT, 26 May 2013 | Updated: 02:00 GMT, 26 May 2013 ”
      More HAD a rethink, 3 years + ago, for all the difference it made…

  27. If all the greens would Calm Down Dear and control their breathing, the output of CO2 would drop dramatically…

    • How can CO2 decrease due to slower breathing when the CO2 on breathes in is already in the air and included in the CO2 calculations for ppm? Taking existing CO2 out of the air temporarily and then sending it back out several times a minute has no effect on CO2 concentration, global warming or anything other than the continued existence of air breathing creatures.

      • Sheri,
        The air we breathe in is 0.04% CO2, when we breathe out it is around 5.0%+ depending on who and what effort they are expending.
        Just need to correct this in case warmists pick up and think all realists think it.

        SteveT

      • Steve T: If we ignore the insanity of cow methane, my understanding of the CO2 theory was humans are putting gigatonnes of CO2 in the air from fossil fuels long buried. That is causing an unnatural rise in the CO2 quantity of the atmosphere. While the state of CA seems worried about cows, the actual scientific theory more or less ignores natural sources that come from current living matter. It pretty much ignores people, animals and volcanoes on the theory that nature can handle this (unless including them is politically expedient). If this is wrong, then I have been misinformed as to the actual theory of global warming. If theory says everything that produces CO2 is a problem, then obviously the theory is broken. The earth is still here. My original statement was lacking. Apologies.

  28. Seems to me the conclusion to their study should have been…. “According to our calculations it is impossible to meet the Paris Climate Accord Agreement, therefore the best course of action is to plan on adapting to whatever change happens since it is too late to fight it”. That would mean cheap and reliable energy and a very robust economy.

  29. They’re worriting about the 2degrees – do they admit where this figure comes from and the lack of papers describing non-beneficial consequences? I guess not.

  30. There is a new study claiming that chicken are capable of greater logical reasoning than children.
    Perhaps the reason why many of the grown-ups still think that CO2 is so harmful.

    • People who study chickens have vivid imaginations. But then again, so do people who think CAGW is true.

  31. “Doomsday Clock” is argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem (appeal to fear). Which is just a logical fallacy.

    Regards
    Climate Heretic

    • There may be some validity to this story since NASA has come out and said that it is a bunch of nonsense.
      (cynicism …….)

    • This morning I read a story about two objects that are approaching the earth. One is a comet and will pass us by in about a week. The other is an object of unknown type that will cross the earth’s orbit in about 6 months. Neither object will come close to the earth.

      PS: It’s from MSN. That’s proof positive of it’s bogusity.

  32. But Green Technologies do not reduce CO2. That should, by now, be obvious to all.
    Germany is the poster child of the so called Green movement and has gone hell for leather on renewables but it has not reduced its CO2 emissions these past 15 years, and will not be reducing them any time soon. Indeed with the influx of more than a million migrants, it is going to have to radically increase its CO2 emissions as it builds infrastructure for these people, finds jobs for these people, and provides them with a Western life style. There will be a lot of energy consumed in all of that.

    Presently, unless a country has access to natural hydro or natural geothermal, the only technology that reduces CO2 is Nuclear.

    A switch from coal to gas is partial decarbonisation since energy is obtained by burning hydrogen and not simply from carbon itself. This is why the USA, that did not ratify Kyoto, has been the most successful developed nation in reducing its CO2 emissions.

    Until the energy storage problem is solved, so called Green technologies such as wind and solar cannot reduce CO2 since they are intermittent, non despatchable and require 100% back up from conventional fossil fuel generation which conventionally powered generation is not being used in its most efficient working form.

    • “richard verney January 4, 2017 at 2:26 am

      …finds jobs for these people,…”

      Germany, and many other EU countries could not do that in the 80’s when the EU did make a lot of stuff, so I don’t think eroding your manufacturing/industrial base (Don’t do what Thatcher did and place most economic “output” in “invisibles”, ie, the finance sector) while increasing population is going to result in jobs. What will result is slums, unemployment, disenfranchisement leading to a ripe environment for radical extremism. Oh wait!

      • I am not quite sure of the point that you make. Increasing population does not automatically lead to new jobs. Indeed, we may be standing on the threshold where jobs will fast disappear in the next 25 to 50 years as technology makes many workers redundant, Look at how the High Street has changed with internet shopping, bank closures due to ATMs, robots for car/industrial manufacture, driverless cars, driverless trains, driverless buses etc. Of course new jobs in new industries not yet thought of will come around, but things could look very different in a generation or two.

        But the point I was making with the migrants is that in Africa/the Middle East, the average CO2 per person is between 3 to 7 tonnes annually, depending on area. Germany on the other hand is about 13 to 14 tonnes per person. The consumerism of the West means that people living in Germany produce about twice or three times as much CO2, and that is based upon the required infrastructure already existing.

        By importing 1 million migrants (and this number will be swelled as family members later join), Germany has added about 14 million tonnes to its annual CO2 emissions. Globally this is an increase of about 8 million tonnes.

        I million people is a city, so Germany will have to build a new city (or equivalent) to handle these people. Extra trains, extra highways, extra roads, extra schools, extra hospitals, extra shops etc etc. Construction is CO2 intensive.

        All of this will inevitably add to Germany’s CO2 emissions. That is an inescapable fact. My point is that Germany has not reduced its C02 emissions these past 15 years and there is no prospect of it doing this any time soon. The idea that it could reduce CO2 emissions by 2030 to comply with its Paris ‘commitments’ is a non starter. I make no observation on humanitarian issues, just the consequence of this migration from a CO2 perspective and the impact on the Paris Accord.

      • I guess my point is in the EU zone many countries, German for instance, are dealing with the issues associated with the influx of migrants from Africa/Middle East etc where CO2 increases related to that is the least of their worries.

  33. Hmmmm…

    30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 have been made over just the last 20 years, with virtually no global warming trend to show for it..

    Contriving some post hoc ergo prompter hoc logical fallacy to assert some fake CO2 sensitivity narrative is not science, it’s an embarrassment.

    So let’s waste taxpayer money 10 times faster on failed wind and solar debacles, to tripple energy costs and severely hurt the world’s poor and greatly curtail economic growth.

    You can almost smell the desperation of CAGW alarmists….

    They know the gig is up..

  34. The only limit to how fast new “green” technology can be taken up is how fast the greenies can shovel money from my wallet into their own.

  35. Looking at the article image, we are at more risk from the gunk under that thumbnail than anything CO2 can do to the, made up, climate.

  36. And what do you see, running through all of this cAGW stuff?

    Obsession with The Negative – no matter what happens or is projected to happen, hot or cold, storms or no storms, rain or snow, ice or no ice – its *always* bad. Always
    Classic symptom of depression

    Then roll that in with guilt, these bad things will not get you to Heaven that’s for sure. This is how mothers control their babies right through to how Kings/Queens/Governments control The People and the primary way mono-atheism works.
    But we don’t like feeling guilty, so we Pass The Buck. Even Obama, the very place where The Buck Stops, passes the buck. For everything for his own kid’s asthma right up to cAGW
    (That’s how peeps like Nick make a living, professional buck passers and see the ever increasing numbers of ‘Nicks’ in this (Western) world)
    This is how drunks classically behave. We all know that if someone wrecks their own car when DUI, they’ll deny it with every last breath in their body. Drunk = Depressed

    And what do we always see/hear if not ‘Consensus’ and ‘Computer Model’
    =Appeals to consensus and authority – my gang is bigger, better, stronger, cleverer than you.
    IOW, they cannot put a coherent arguement together or defend themselves logically so they call in the gang and or start throwing their fists around, actually or metaphorically. Ad-Hom anyone?
    Again, how drunks behave. Is anyone going to argue alcohol is not a depressant?

    Then more, the reaction to cAGW.
    Is it not to ‘as fast as possible’ race around building windmills and sunshine panels while demolishing (as in the UK) perfectly good coal fired power stations. Tipping point etc etc etc
    What’s that if not an over active startle response at work?
    Classically seen in dope-heads and another sigh of chronic & clinical depression.

    And cAGW is the latest in a long line of similar scares, a lot of us have seen & lived through them – starting with Global Cooling in the 70’s for me.

    The cause?
    Why are large, fairly formalised large meals finished off with coffee (stimulant) and even then, why do you find yourself falling asleep after said ‘large meal’?
    The major component of large meals nowadays= fries, rice, potatoes, bread oor whaet in all its disguises.
    Then, to get over the appaling taste of the mandatory vegetables, a large sugar & carb based dessert.

    The real problem is, we have no choice anymore over what we can eat – carbs is pretty well it.

    • “Peta from Cumbria, now Newark January 4, 2017 at 3:24 am

      Why are large, fairly formalised large meals finished off with coffee (stimulant) and even then, why do you find yourself falling asleep after said ‘large meal’?”

      Metabolism of food takes a huge amount of energy, so to sleep after a big feed, and let your body do what it does best, is all perfectly natural. That’s my excuse (No, it is fact). Our bodies are simply an “energy” factory for our brains…and that takes a lot of energy and generates heat. Ever wonder why we stand upright and our brains are so full of blood vessels…nutrients and COOLING!

    • The problem is that EVERYONE gets dragged into these investments, due to governmental mandates that impact the entire population.

      • On a more bright side, the study has revealed either 1) the environmentally righteous don’t invest enough of their own money to treat their scares, depression and guilt or 2) the environmentally righteous is an insignificant minority.

        Either way why should others finance the treatment via government funds? The US election proved the condition is not infectious.

  37. Given my total lack of respect for the incumbent socialist party ruling the Province of Alberta, Canada, and given that we now have a completely useless “Climate Leadership Plan” which will cost the taxpayers of Alberta countless billions over the next (God-knows-how-many) years, a good friend of mine summarized the situation very well:
    “Sounds like the carbon tax supporters have been doing a better job of informing the public about their side to the story than your “molecule of life” (a.k.a. CO2) gang. As usual, most politicians will support the causes that align with what the majority of the voters think – currently anti-greenhouse gas.”

    This is the true issue: How do we convince the masses of the true science, that being that the atmosphere is currently deprived of CO2, and that higher CO2 concentrations are extremely beneficial to plant (and therefore by default, animal) life, with minimal to zero impact to the climate.

    • It appears the gang green of Ontario has not only infected Alberta, it’s also spread to the nation’s capital. Only time will cure this disease.

      • Mr. Brisley, I do hope that you are right, and that the disease is cured before too much money is wasted.

      • Darrell, I hope it’s not too late…I understand Alberta is committed to shutting down coal and investing in wind. By the time the people realize this will double electricity prices with no effect on climate it likely will be too late, as was the case in Ontario.
        And I agree with you about CO2. That its benefits outweigh its perils, IMHO, is as obvious as cornflakes.

  38. The exit exam for enviro academic programs counts the number of doomsday statements in the essays and multiple choice answers. Alarming headline writing is also a core course requirement.

  39. Does anyone know if there is a source which records or lists all the “tipping points” which the IPCC or others have forecasted and which have come and gone, replaced by new climate deadlines or new ‘tipping points?’

  40. Wow. delayed Differential Equations! Should fit well on the line going forward for an iteration or two in the inherently non linear iterative nature of the dynamic fractal chaos and strange attractors that swirl around the thing we call climate.

  41. Green schemes are no longer dipping into your wallet, they need to skip the middle man and go right to your bank account.

  42. Patrick

    I see that you are still looking at this post. I fully agree with the point that you make at Patrick MjD January 4, 2017 at 9:40 pm .

    The Article is on the Paris Accord and future reduction of CO2 emissions. Even today, it is obvious the the Paris Accord will achieve nothing. The First and Third biggest CO2 emitters (China and India) are not committed to curbing their emissions, to the contrary they are allowed to increase their emissions and will do so significantly between now and 2030.

    Of those that have commitments under the Paris Accord the two biggest players are the USA and Germany. We know that Trump wants to bring back jobs, help the coal and steel industry, and embark upon infra-structure building. This will create a lot of CO2. We know from the Trump election that the USA will not be reducing its CO2 emissions.

    That leaves Germany, and we know from the migrant crisis that Germany will also not cut its CO2 emissions. Like the USA, Germany is going to have to embark upon a period of infra-structure building and consumerism. This will emit a lot of CO2.

    So all the four big global players will not be reducing CO2 emissions. To the contrary, all four will increase their CO2 emissions.

    In fact, unless France, changes its recent policy, France will also be increasing its CO2 emissions. Last year France decided that it would close its nuclear power stations. Nuclear is the only form of energy production that does not emit CO2. If France proceeds with closing nuclear power stations over the next 15 years, it too will inevitably increase its CO2 emissions.

    It is obvious that the Paris Accord is dead in the water. There is absolutely no way that any of the big players will reduce CO2 emissions.There is nothing binding about the Paris Accord. It is a good job that there is no penalty for failing to meet commitments since non of the major players has a cat in hells chance of meeting its commitments..

    • Excellent post, and thank you! Economic confidence in the US has increased substantially since Trump “won”. Ford have reversed their plan to open a factory in Mexico and expand their Detroit operation (Could due to what Trump said about taxes). Ford *JUMPED* at the opportunity…

      Australia lost that edge in 2007 with Rudd(erless), and then the other pantomime PM from the wastelands of Wales(UK).

      2017 will be interesting.

      • 2017 will be interesting.

        As regards FORD, what other politician could have achieved that result, and so quickly? I cannot recall another example where a lone politician, or even a government, has openly stood up to a multi-national and achieved that sort of volte face.

        It shows the power of the man, how others perceive him, and his potential. The fact that he is prepared to stand up to MSM, and not be shackled by MSM should also not be under-estimated. This is a freedom that other politicians have not enjoyed. It all bodes well for America.

  43. ‘Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets’:

    “Based on our calculations, we won’t meet the climate warming goals set by the Paris Agreement unless we speed up the spread of clean technology by a full order of magnitude, or about ten times faster than in the past,”

    “Radically new strategies to implement technological advances on a global scale and at unprecedented rates are needed if current emissions goals are to be achieved,” Manoli said.

    “Sometimes these lags are technical in nature, but — as recent history amply demonstrates — they also can be caused by political or economic barriers,” Manoli explained. “Whatever the cause, our quantification of the delays historically associated with such challenges shows that a tenfold acceleration in the spread of green technologies is now necessary to cause some delay in the Doomsday Clock.“

    DURHAM, N.C. – The global spread of green technologies must quicken significantly to avoid future rebounds in greenhouse gas emissions,

    ”caused by political or economic barriers,” Manoli explained.

    But since ‘Tenfold jump in green tech [is] needed to meet global emissions targets.’ and Manoli’s interests in technology is restricted to
    _____________________________________________

    ‘DURHAM, N.C. – The global spread of green technologies must quicken significantly to avoid future rebounds in greenhouse gas emissions,’

    Leaves the questions:

    – who pays for ‘Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets’

    – who who does the ‘Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets’

    – will Manoli surprise with unexpected

    “Radically new strategies to implement technological advances on a global scale and at unprecedented rates are needed if current emissions goals are to be achieved,”

    – or just shut up.

Comments are closed.