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
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.
Hey, Raquel Welch was there One Million Years B.C.!
Sad to see ETH get a math mental wanker join their research staff.
the study assumes that warming is related to emissions but the data do not show the required correlation for such a causal relationship.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2845972
ps. of course correlation does not imply causation but it is still a prequisite to a causation theory.
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).
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
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?
They just said it’s unattainable….parties over
Closing time? I couldn’t stop my mouse, appologies…….
@oss, miscommunication, one of the biggest problems in our lifetime.
I hope they don’t want us to go down the path of the South Australian Government.
Too much wind power that switches off in a storm precipitates uncontrollable outages that spread to other suppliers.https://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/-/media/BE174B1732CB4B3ABB74BD507664B270.ashx
Except that’s not what happened.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/finkel-sa-wind-farm-faults-known-solved-in-europe-10-years-ago-59393/
Griff will keep trotting out his paid propaganda as long as he’s paid to.
Mendacious to the end, right Skanky?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well at least one warmist is having a rethink about all the billions squandered-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331057/Why-I-think-wasting-billions-global-warming-British-climate-scientist.html#ixzz4UkzGwPX2
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…
And he promotes that very silly idea of carbon capture.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Doomsday Clock” is argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem (appeal to fear). Which is just a logical fallacy.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Professors are….
Looks like AGW will be in vain anyway.
How is this for alarmism?
Mysterious rogue planet, on collision course with Earth, could destroy all human life in 2017″
Give the greenies something to run around about maybe:)
http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/mysterious-rogue-planet-on-collision-course-with-earth-could-destroy-all-human-life-in-2017/ar-BBxS2yr?li=BBqdg4K&ocid=mailsignout
What a lot of rot:)
Cheers
Roger
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.
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.
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..
The jig is up too, and it’s time to pay the piper.
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.
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.
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 environmentally righteous are free to invest their own money into it. Where is the problem, eh?
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.