From the EUROPEAN GEOSCIENCES UNION and the “doom is always just a few years away” department
Deadline for climate action
Act strongly before 2035 to keep warming below 2°C
If governments don’t act decisively by 2035 to fight climate change, humanity could cross a point of no return after which limiting global warming below 2°C in 2100 will be unlikely, according to a new study by scientists in the UK and the Netherlands. The research also shows the deadline to limit warming to 1.5°C has already passed, unless radical climate action is taken. The study is published today in the European Geosciences Union journal Earth System Dynamics.
“In our study we show that there are strict deadlines for taking climate action,” says Henk Dijkstra, a professor at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and one of the study authors. “We conclude that very little time is left before the Paris targets [to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C] become infeasible even given drastic emission reduction strategies.”
Dijkstra and his colleagues at the Utrecht Centre for Complex Systems Studies and at Oxford University, UK, wanted to find the ‘point of no return’ or deadline for climate action: the latest possible year to start strongly cutting greenhouse-gas emissions before it’s too late to avoid dangerous climate change. “The ‘point of no return’ concept has the advantage of containing time information, which we consider very useful to inform the debate on the urgency of taking climate action,” says Matthias Aengenheyster, a doctoral researcher at Oxford University and the study’s lead author.
Using information from climate models, the team determined the deadline for starting climate action to keep global warming likely (with a probability of 67%) below 2°C in 2100, depending on how fast humanity can reduce emissions by using more renewable energy. Assuming we could increase the share of renewable energy by 2% every year, we would have to start doing so before 2035 (the point of no return). If we were to reduce emissions at a faster rate, by increasing the share of renewable energy by 5% each year, we would buy another 10 years.

The researchers caution, however, that even their more modest climate-action scenario is quite ambitious. “The share of renewable energy refers to the share of all energy consumed. This has risen over the course of over two decades from almost nothing in the late nineties to 3.6% in 2017 according to the BP Statistical Review, so the [yearly] increases in the share of renewables have been very small,” says Rick van der Ploeg, a professor of economics at Oxford University, who also took part in the Earth System Dynamics study. “Considering the slow speed of large-scale political and economic transformations, decisive action is still warranted as the modest-action scenario is a large change compared to current emission rates,” he adds.
To likely limit global warming to 1.5°C in 2100, humanity would have to take strong climate action much sooner. We would only have until 2027 to start if we could increase the share of renewables at a rate of 5% a year. We have already passed the point of no return for the more modest climate-action scenario where the share of renewables increases by 2% each year. In this scenario, unless we remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it is no longer possible to achieve the 1.5°C target in 2100 with a probability of 67%.
Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, by using ‘negative emissions’ technology, could buy us a bit more time, according to the study. But even with strong negative emissions, humanity would only be able to delay the point of no return by 6 to 10 years.
“We hope that ‘having a deadline’ may stimulate the sense of urgency to act for politicians and policy makers,” concludes Dijkstra. “Very little time is left to achieve the Paris targets.”
###
Please mention the name of the publication (Earth System Dynamics) if reporting on this story and, if reporting online, include a link to the paper
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1) There isn’t a shred of evidence that CO2 can increase temperatures by 1.5C, much less 2.0C.
2) There isn’t a shred of evidence that increasing temperature by 2.0C would be bad.
3) If temperatures did increase by 2.0C we would still not be up to the average temperature for the last 10K years.
I dunno, I have barely been able to live with the 100 degree F change in climate here in Boston between january and yesterday. I am sure that 3.6 degrees F would be a total catastrophe.
I’ve barely been able to stand the suspense of the last ten years of being on the edge of thermodynamic Armageddon . I don’t think I can handle another 35 years !!
Would that be climate change math?
2035 is only 17 years off.
Rounding error.
Near enough for government work.
Absolutely Mark. Put someone out in the wilderness away form the howling press. Turn the planets themostat up 3 1/2 degrees F and they would easily survive the summer and enjoy the respite in the winter. Not to mention they would eat better and find more fire wood to warm their hut. It’s all this barking at the moon about doom and gloom that will raise your stress levels and kill you. Not the temperature. Easy IPCC the snowflakes are about to riot in their safe zones. Some of them are gonna get hurt long before they melt.
“We hope that ‘having a deadline’ may stimulate the sense of urgency…..”
Sales strategies 101: create urgency in the mind of the customer.
A ‘strict’ deadline too.
…or else we will be put on ‘Double Secret Probation’!
… with a riding crop raised in readiness for the spanking.
Steady on there, James. That sounds a bit like something from a novel by Rajendra K. Pachauri, former IPCC chairman who liked his global warming hot and sweaty.
This time we really, really, really mean it.
Exactly. Perhaps first play in every lefty’s playbook, “The Chicken Little Reverse.”
Isn’t this actually 1.5 or 2 C from the temperature in 1880? If so, they are talking about an additional 0.7 C on top of 0.8 C that has already occurred being catastrophic.
“Isn’t this actually 1.5 or 2 C from the temperature in 1880? …”.
As a droll comment a little while back said, if and when the +1.5C “limit” is approached habitual data up-adjustments may start going into reverse.
manalive
Well, you see, until about 2-1/2 years ago, when they suddenly noticed that their predictions were not alarming enough people sufficiently enough to destroy the world’s economies, the CAGW propaganda machine decided to “reset” their baseline to 1850. But, until 2-1/2 years ago, the world’s CAGW propagandists NEVER got upset with the original “baseline” of 0.0 at the conveniently low point of mid-1970!
Yes, that is correct–unlike the assessments about wilderness survival under a 2 C scenario above.
A total waste of time this article is.
Sal, here’s a doomy video to an old song on predicting the future to keep us entertained.
I was already looking for this video – you beat me to it.
This video contain content from SME, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
Well, whatever it is, they don’t want everyone to know about it.
I suddenly lost interest at “Using information from climate models.”
My model says that if we could eliminate this alarmist nonsense at the rate of 10% per year we would be rid of it before we reach the tipping point of ubiquitous, absolute, utter stupidity. Think of the children…
Better make it a set amount of reduction or we’ll end up in Xeno’s Paradox of only eliminating 10% of an ever shrinking number.
… similar to my first reaction to their mention of climate models. What was that? — after about a couple sentences of the abstract? Nah, I don’t have ADD — I have Climate Repulsion Associated with Pseudoscience syndrome (CRAP, for short).
Along with: according to the Guardian or NY Slimes, and key words…may, might, could, should, etc,etc. which appear in EVERY so called study that we pay for.
Reminds me of:
Green Day
Do you have the time to listen to me whine
About nothing and everything all at once
I am one of those
Melodramatic fools
Neurotic to the bone
No doubt about it.
Sometimes I give myself the creeps
Sometimes my mind plays tricks on me
It all keeps adding up, I think I’m cracking up
Am I just paranoid, or am I just stoned?
Complete Basket Case
….only 17 more years….from your lips to God
We have already passed the point of no return
Yet another prediction fails to materialise. I.e. Do not worry comrades, if we persevere, perfect communism will be reached. Just keep the faith.
True. If the 5-year plan fails, make a 17-year plan.
Mods my previous comment I entered my email in the name part. Please do not publish that. Sorry
[Done. .mod]
So they’re using information from climate models, which are inaccurate? What can go wrong?!
Isn’t the year 2100 an arbitrary selection? If we just move the date to 2120, we give ourselves an extra 20 years.
Tom,
Yes, picking an even number (based on when we think Christ was born), in a decimal system of counting, is not unlike believing in lucky (7) and unlucky (13) numbers — superstition! I guess we could call this the Y2.1K disaster, with probably less impact than the forecast Y2K apocalypse.
My doctor told me I only had a month to live. When I told him I couldn’t pay him for the visit he gave me another month.
Bhu-dump! Tish!
I went to the doctor the other day.
He said I was fat. I said I wanted another opinion.
He said “OK. You’re ugly too!”
(The unparalleled Rodney Dangerfield.)
My wife is such a bad cook we find bones in our French Toast.
(another Rodney gem)
Possible, if you use fertilized eggs.
Society will never reach the desired proportion of “renewables”, as it would collapse with any widespread reliance on wind and solar. There is no way, given current or foreseeable technology, to actually build wind and solar installations using only wind and solar.
Technically they could but not even close to being realistic. It doesn’t take an engineering degree to figure out the time, cost, land area, and logistics to match the current electrical grid energy delivery system is unrealistic.
Airplanes, long-haul trucking, etc. ad infinitum.
I’m guessing that if our civilization is around 80 years from now, abundant clean energy will not be the problem. We will have developed so many civilization ending technologies, we will have set ourselves back to proverbial stone age. Remember the early days of “global cooling” we learned about on the first earth day? Perhaps not that many of you. There were those even then as now that fervently believed we needed to reduce the population by 90% to save our “Mother”. Their descendants are the ones to be concerned about. Remember we haven’t developed a single technology that hasn’t been used. Personally I’m looking forward to global warming. Perhaps is will melt some of the “snowflakes.” Apolologies if I’m cribbing an earlier post.
Has anyone told the Germans that as soon as they make bats extinct with their windmills the German ECO system will collapse?
Role of bats in our ecosystems
https://www.google.com/search?q=Role+of+bats+in+our+ecosystems&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab
According to my models, they have reached the point of no return. Mosquitoes will become the dominant intelligent species in central Europe in 43.6 years +/- 3 months.
Why do you think they would necessarily wind up with an intelligent species?
Something like 75% of the power from the grid would have to be devoted to replacing components of the grid. Think of all the jobs that would create!
Paris and deadlines were the driving key words for this form fit, mail order study.
“We find that cumulative CO2 emissions from 2015 onwards may not exceed 424 GtC and that the
Point of No Return (tipping point) is 2035 for the policy scenario where the share of renewable energy rises by 2% per year. Pushing this increase to 5% per year delays the Point of No Return until 2045. For the 1.5 K target, the carbon budget is only 198 GtC and there is no time left before starting to increase the renewable share by 10 2% per year”
Downloadable pdf available online at
https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2018-17/esd-2018-17.pdf
The analysis is based on the TCR “carbon budget” based on the Matthews 2009 study of the “proportionality of temperature with cumulative emissions. Believe it or not THIS PROPORTIONALITY IS BASED ON A SPURIOUS CORRELATION. Please see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcr-transient-climate-response/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/27/spurious-correlations-in-climate-science-2/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/ecs-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/
Something wrong with their Climate Cuckoo Clock, if they have to keep re-adjusting it.
The world will end mañana! Only mañana is always in the future.
Free beer tomorrow
Clyde
Here in RealistWorld, for this world-saving (TM) task, we have no word with quite the same sense of emergency urgency as mañana.
Auto
“World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns”
If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change
Source: The Guardian November 9, 2011
OM Golly Gosh!
It’s worse than we thought.
Extinction of Grauniadistas is now inevitable.
And should likely prove permanent.
Ahhhhhhhhhh.
Auto
“We hope that ‘having a deadline’ may stimulate the sense of urgency to act for politicians and policy makers,” concludes Dijkstra. “Very little time is left to achieve the Paris targets.”
Reminds me of the nuclear fusion joke: Nuclear fusion is just 10 or 20 or 30 years away, and it always will be.
We have “very little time left” to act on climate change, and we always will….. Sigh.
Is the “point of no return” a new name for the “tipping point”. Not only do they move the goalposts, they change the language.
“permanent change of state” would be next if it weren’t too sciencey for the general public.
Predicting catastrophes is a Strange Attractor that causes people to move to a new mental state round which all things eschatological swirl. It is interesting that as the strange attractor settles into different stable domains, the solution is invariant: “Give me more money and I will make it go away.”
The more some things change, the more other things stay the same.
The tipping point is defined as when our climate starts to cool but we’ve done nothing drastic to reduce CO2. At least if they had the Paris garbage in place, they could tout a “win”.
The point of no return is used to depict a distance greater than half way towards a goal, as in it’s closer to your destination than the return trip would be.
Or in aircraft terms it means you’ve flown farther away from base than your fuel reserves will allow you to return.
However every day into the future is a point of no return to the past.
rocketscientist
Top comment.
The moment the founding fathers set sail for America was their point of no return.
There is no such thing as a tipping point, it’s just courage.
Socialist greens are cowards.
This falls right in line with other apocalyptic forecasts for the end of civilization. https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1002422/Apocalypse-2040-MIT-computer-model-civilisation-world-end-Club-of-Rome
“The point of no return?” In other words, the Tipping Point that has not occurred in 4.5 billion years of climate change!
Point of no return?
So even if we reduced CO2 to 0ppm, the climate would be stuck and couldn’t come back to the perfect climate we have right now?
MarkW
Aha!….the greens have outfoxed you there. Cunning devils.
The point of no return, or in their parlance, the tipping point, suggests that we can tip forward into the future, or tip back into the past.
Their preferred option is, of course, to tip back into the past where technology is but a romantic memory, instead we all grub for food from the gutter and obey the diktat’s of our lords and masters, which is of course them.
Am I overly cynical these days?……must be getting old, and wise, which makes me redundant by today’s standards.
Hold the wise bit. Just old and cynical.
And I thought that the definition of a ‘Cynic’ is
– a realist whose rose-tinted glasses have been knocked off by facts.
Auto
PS – Age is just a number, until your knees tell you otherwise.
Auto
Knees……….Ouch!
Enjoy your knees. You will miss them when they are gone.
Clyde Spencer
‘The tipping point’ – “the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point”. The book seeks to explain and describe the “mysterious” sociological changes that mark everyday life. As Gladwell states: “Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread like viruses do”. (My emphasis).
From The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference – Malcolm Gladwell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point
Climate Change myth, a virus, I like that.
You contract it from drinking tainted Kool-Aid.
rocketscientist
There’s an untainted Kool Aid?
Kansas: The Point Of Know Return
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-R8gHj_7v8&w=560&h=315%5D
That “consensus” amongst the climate alarmists spans a very wide range. Wonder why they are so certain they can foresee a very cloudy fuutre so precisely. They give it away “It’s to scare the public into action.” Next question: By my estimates long before 2035 arrives, the molten salt nuclear revolution will have arrived, duw to both its low carbon chaacteristic and especially, its low cost, and also its inherent safety and resistance to nuclear proliferation. Conclusion – quit running your mouths about doom and start pushing molten salt technology, you morons.
No, “THEY” really want to get rid of the riffraff first. Except for those “THEY” need for worker bees. Even though I’m not rabidly anti-fission, I certainly agree one of the thorium solutions would be a far, far better option.
Don’t these guys ever spend any time examining the feasibility of replacing fossil fuels with low density, non-dispatchable renewables such as wind and solar? It’s just not possible unless we all agree to start starving a major portion of the Earth’s population. NEWS FLASH: hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on renewables and they contribute a paltry 3.5% of the world’s energy needs. They have had zero measurable effect on CO2 emissions overall, especially if you consider the huge amount of fossil fuel spent on mining the raw materials for renewables as well as the production of cement, steel and plastic.
If … could … might … and Savannah State COULD win the NCAA Basketball tournament this year IF each of their players brings their game up to the level of a NBA Lottery Pick by late February.
“If governments don’t act decisively by 2035…”
— They’re getting smarter. Our “time to act” used to be issued only in five year increments. But when you issue 17 year increments, it’s not as obvious that we’re on an automatic rolling extension compared to a five year rolling extension.
But rest assured, that automatic renewal will come as reliably as for your XM radio subscription.
Isn’t it supposed to be the year 2535 ?
As that song goes …
If man is still alive …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yesyhQkYrQM
Evidently, we have 10,000 years.
and a billion tears. Mostly of the alarmists, we skeptics are too busy laughing at the doomsayers.
It asks if man is still alive in the year 2525 but then goes on to discuss 3535, 4545, 5555, 6565, 7510, 8510, and 9595
before saying:
“Now it’s been 10, 000 years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man’s reign is through”
So we’ve got some time left 🙂
John Endicott
That was my point. 🙂
Did they use one of the INCMN(#) Russian climate models? Its the only one of dozens that comes close to actual warming over the past 50 years or so. Nope, they used the average of the CHIMP 5 set of 35 or so models – which runs hot.
One would think that if there were 35 or so climate models and one replicated observations and the others didn’t, the science community would focus on the model that worked best and move on from there. If one is concerned about a tipping point, run the best model and see what is says. This seems not to happen in the world of climatology.
Three statisticians on a hunt. Stat 1 keeps the record, Stat 2 shoots at the duck and misses left. Stat 3 shoots and misses right. “A hit!” claims Stat 1.
The curves can’t be averaged any better, and in any case will not even make the same predictions the next time the algorithms are twiddled.
Besides a model’s not being evidence of any real process (except for self-consistency if it weren’t also be twiddled), CO2 simply lacks the fundamental/inherent capability to be the driver of the average global temperature. That’s water’s job, with the rest of the atmosphere to help heat transfer.
Turn the ship around!!!! We’re gonna sail off the edge!!! The window has closed!!!
Whew!
What’s next?
The only thing that went up was my utility bill. Maybe they got the numbers mixed up. At this rate, ” children just won’t know what a warm house is in the winter”.
At what point can we assume reality? For instance, let’s recognize that the public consensus is that radical action is NOT necessary, and therefore there is no political urgency. Sorry guys, you were unconvincing. Therefore, we need to change the strategy from mitigation to adjustment. Will this finally happen in 2035?
And based on that, what will you recommend?
I mean, as long as we’re on our way to hothouse earth anyway, do we really need all those windmills? Isn’t that ALL a colossal waste of money, given that we have no expectation of them preventing catastrophe? We’re on our way to hothouse earth, remember? Maybe we need to ensure that electricity is less expensive so that those vulnerable poor people I keep hearing about will be able to afford air conditioning. And if we’re going to have the expense of moving our cities inland, we’d better not blow our wad funding futile and meaningless gestures, like solar energy plants, and making gas out of corn. At a minimum, can we stop subsidizing construction in New Orleans?
I would submit the threat to New Orleans is not a higher gulf as it is a lower New Orleans. Perhaps we can save it by lowering the earth’s temperature until the ground under NOLA is permafrost.