Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement goals

Well well well, the Dicaprio Foundation gives birth to something.~ctm

Public Release: 5-Feb-2019

New open-access book presents 2 years of research on how to best tackle climate change and its negative effects, funded by the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation as part of its new One Earth initiative

Springer

191986_web
In October of 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its starkest warning yet: the consumption of fossil fuels, the reckless destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems, and the release of powerful greenhouse gases have already caused around 1.0 °C of warming above pre-industrial levels. Credit Springer International Publishing

In October of 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its starkest warning yet: The consumption of fossil fuels, the reckless destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems, and the release of powerful greenhouse gases have already caused around 1.0 °C of warming above preindustrial levels.

“Science is showing us the way forward, but you do not need to be a scientist to understand that climate change is the defining issue of our time. If our world warms past 1.5 °C, our way of life will profoundly change for the worse. Why not manage the transition in a way that is orderly and equitable? Human beings caused this problem, but with our vast knowledge and ingenuity, we can also fix it. We are resilient. We can adapt. We can change,” writes Leonardo DiCaprio in the foreword to the newly published book funded by his foundation. Published by Springer as an open access resource, Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals is freely available and can be read here.

Based on state-of-the-art scenario modelling, the book provides the vital missing link between renewable energy targets and the measures needed to achieve them. Its robustly modelled scenarios indicate how to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2050, globally and across ten geographical regions. Therefore, it clearly demonstrates that the goals of the Paris Agreement are achievable with current technology, and are beneficial in economic and employment terms.

The research presented in the book provides a ground-breaking new framework by offering a feasible roadmap for achieving–and surpassing–the targets set by the Paris Climate Agreement. The findings are the result of two years of research and modelling by leading scientists from the University of Technology Sydney, the German Aerospace Center, and the University of Melbourne, and were funded by the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation as part of its new One Earth initiative.

The book is an essential read for anyone who is responsible for implementing renewable energy or climate targets internationally or domestically, including climate policy negotiators, policy-makers at all levels of government, businesses with renewable energy commitments, researchers and the renewable energy industry.

The lead author is Dr Sven Teske, Research Director of the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS-ISF). Dr Teske has 25 years’ experience in technical analysis of renewable energy systems and market integration concepts. He was also authoring a chapter for the IPCC Special Report Renewables. Together with his international research team, he presented his ground-breaking new framework from this book at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

###

From EurekAlert!

Sven Teske (Ed.)
Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals
Global and Regional 100% Renewable Energy Scenarios with Non-energy GHG Pathways for +1.5°C and +2°C
2019, ISBN 978-3-030-05843-2 (Open access book, you can download it for free on springerlink.com)
Also available in hard cover 978-3-030-05842-5 (coming soon)

0 0 vote
Article Rating
106 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NorwegianSceptic
February 6, 2019 12:09 am

”…you do not need to be a scientist to understand that climate change is the defining issue of our time…’
——
‘..you are not a real scientist if you believe that climate change is the defining issue of our time…’

– There, fixed!

Gerry, England
Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
February 6, 2019 6:06 am

It could be argued that is it defining since combatting the great myth will end our techological progress, end our good standard of living, end capitalism, end the western economies and probably end a lot of people’s lives.

NorwegianSceptic
Reply to  Gerry, England
February 6, 2019 6:26 am

Sad but true, but let’s leave ‘scientist’ out of it – (F@ascist is more precise I guess…..)

Hot under the collar
Reply to  Gerry, England
February 6, 2019 7:18 am

They should have titled their book: ‘It’s Worse Than We Thought! Send Money Immediately To Avoid Climageddon!’

Craig
Reply to  Hot under the collar
February 6, 2019 8:37 am

“We can change,” writes Leonardo DiCaprio”

Why don’t you show us all what that looks like, Leo.

Bryan A
Reply to  Craig
February 6, 2019 12:31 pm

Hmmm…Lets see…
Living in a small enough house that it can be heated by body heat alone…
Walking to work…
Walking to shopping…
Not flying anyplace anymore…
Zero plastics…
Zero rubber…
Zero synthetics…
Zero wood burning…
Zero private automobile ownership (beyond the Golf Cart)…
Zero private jet ownership!!!
Zero private plane ownership…
Zero trucking products around the nations…
Zero anything that unreliable electricity can’t produce, heat, transport…
……

Joel Snider
Reply to  Gerry, England
February 7, 2019 2:31 pm

‘It could be argued that is it defining since combatting the great myth will end our techological progress, end our good standard of living, end capitalism, end the western economies and probably end a lot of people’s lives.’

Behavior-based extinction.

John the Econ
Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
February 6, 2019 7:20 am

“…you do not need to be a scientist to understand that climate change is the defining issue of our time.”

But not being one helps.

E J Zuiderwijk
February 6, 2019 12:11 am

Don’t trust anything climate-related that claims to be ‘robust’.

Wally
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
February 6, 2019 12:58 am

Don’t trust any climate related claims that aren’t observable.

Alasdair
Reply to  Wally
February 6, 2019 3:15 am

Don’t trust any climate related claims if it has the “EurekAlert” tag attached to it.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Alasdair
February 6, 2019 4:18 am

Just chisel their blatant lies into their tombstones as epitaphs and lock them away until they need them. Make sure such things are never forgotten.

That’s a lot of climate hucksters wearing white coats and celebrities to cater for, but at least it’s creating jobs. Something DiCraprio probably never had.

February 6, 2019 12:19 am

I’d guess that it just contains a series of advertising pitches for various renewable energy schemes with all the downsides left out.

E J Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 6, 2019 12:27 am

It’s a manual for building the successor to the Spruce Goose.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
February 6, 2019 4:36 am

Unfair comparison. The Spruce Goose flew, albeit briefly.

Joel O'Bryan
February 6, 2019 12:38 am

“Well well well, the Dicaprio Foundation gives birth to something.”

Let’s hope Leo DiCaprio has that climate baby in New York State ….
https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/andrew-cuomo-signs-bill-updating-new-yorks-abortion-law/

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 6, 2019 3:22 am

Let’s be reasonable, now. What could possibly be more credible than a Leonardo DiCrapio eBook publicized by EurekAlert! ?

Thank you Leo! Thank you! You are the savior of The Planet!

Ein Volk, One Earth, Ein Führer!

Sommer
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 6, 2019 6:26 am
petermue
Reply to  Sommer
February 6, 2019 9:23 am

And there’s Scientology behind DiCaprio …

Pixie
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 6, 2019 9:26 am

Yeah he and Danny Boyle are personally responsible for trashing the island Ko Phi Phi Leh after the movie The Beach…

alastair gray
February 6, 2019 12:42 am

Gotta fix theses pesky chinooks in Alberta cos thats what Leo thinks is global warming.
If I could get a free copy of the book I,d review it. Until then Ican only agree with Steven Wilde.

R Shearer
Reply to  alastair gray
February 6, 2019 6:57 am

I heard they had -40 in Edmonton the other day.

Ron
Reply to  R Shearer
February 6, 2019 8:33 am

Obviuosly predicted by climate models.
Warmer winters in Edmonton equate to -40 temps.

Phoenix44
February 6, 2019 12:48 am

Making anything less efficient makes us poorer. Always will. Employing more people to do the same thing is less efficient and so makes us poorer.

So the claims are simply false. We cannot move to 100% renewables without becoming much poorer and without increasing in unemployment.

Maybe we should because Climate Change will make us poorer than not moving now, but to claim we can change without losing wealth is to be an economics-denier.

Espen
February 6, 2019 1:08 am

They forgot to mention that Teske is a Greenpeace activist.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Espen
February 6, 2019 1:58 am

Thank you Essen, an important detail to know. This activist also seems to have spent 25 years studying how to integrate renewable energy into, presumably, the real world. So, 25 years of failure judging by the absurd costs and zero worthwhile results then.

David Chappell
Reply to  Espen
February 6, 2019 2:57 am

“Dr Teske was the Renewable Energy Director at Greenpeace International for 10 years. Where, Sven was the project leader for five editions of the World Energy Scenario “Energy [R]evolution: A sustainable World Energy Outlook”.
Sven represented the renewable energy program of Greenpeace International at the UNFCCC Climate Conferences from November 1994 (COP 1 in Berlin) until December 2014 (COP 20 in Lima / Peru).

Jean Meeus
February 6, 2019 1:09 am

“The consumption of fossil fuels, the reckless destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems, and the release of powerful greenhouse gases have already caused around 1.0 °C of warming above preindustrial levels.”

Preindustrial levels? That was the time of a cold period, the so-called little ice age.
Do the climate alarmists want that we return to such a period?

commieBob
Reply to  Jean Meeus
February 6, 2019 5:36 am

How about the majority of warming since preindustrial times has been a rebound from the Little Ice Age. It can’t be plausibly explained by anthropogenic CO2, so they also have to invoke “the reckless destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems”.

As it becomes more obvious that CAGW science is bunk, the claims become more extreme.

Ivor Ward
February 6, 2019 1:13 am

State-of-the-art + robust = BS

There! The new climate change formula.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Ivor Ward
February 6, 2019 6:01 am

+10

You beat me to it.

snikdad
February 6, 2019 1:13 am

‘ the release of powerful greenhouse gases have already caused around 1.0 °C of warming above preindustrial levels.’
around 1degC since pre-industrial times? aleady?

David Chappell
Reply to  snikdad
February 6, 2019 2:52 am

And has anyone actually noticed?

Rhoda R
Reply to  David Chappell
February 6, 2019 9:03 am

Yes! More and better crops to start with.

February 6, 2019 1:15 am

Human Beings on this planet are aware of the problem that climate change faces. With the awareness of its impact, technology has to be adopted to curb this menace. We need to check our daily activities ranging from consumption of natural resources, saving the waste or recycling it and various other small things it can be taken care will have a profound impact on mitigating the climate change.
https://www.meetingsint.com/conferences/blockchain

J.H.
February 6, 2019 1:20 am

“Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals”…. What would they be? The total destruction of industrialized Western civilization?

Ron
Reply to  J.H.
February 6, 2019 8:39 am

Venzuala should give you a snapshot of their objective.
Sean Penn would be proud.

knr
February 6, 2019 1:21 am

So they have created faster BS , not better , just faster

Phil R
Reply to  knr
February 6, 2019 8:50 am

Capitalism is the road to Socialism. Communism is Socialism in a hurry.

malkom700
February 6, 2019 1:22 am

The quick elimination of fossil fuels is really impossible for political reasons, geoengineering and new technologies can be a temporary solution. The phasing out of fossil fuels will be done gradually, but this alone would not be a fast enough process.

steve case
Reply to  malkom700
February 6, 2019 3:29 am

malkom700 …at 1:22 am
The quick elimination of fossil fuels is really impossible for political reasons, geoengineering and new technologies can be a temporary solution…

Solution? A solution implies that there’s a problem. Well there is a problem alright, it’s the people who think we can power the world’s economy with wind mills, solar panels, and squirrel cages.

malkom700
Reply to  steve case
February 6, 2019 9:00 am

Wind mills, solar panels, and squirrel cages are not new technologies.

John Endicott
Reply to  malkom700
February 6, 2019 11:05 am

Name these “new technologies” you speak of, more importantly name how close they are to being usable.

malkom700
Reply to  John Endicott
February 6, 2019 1:30 pm

Really, I just want to believe they will be useful. Fortunately, I am not personally against interest.

MarkW
Reply to  malkom700
February 6, 2019 8:05 am

The elimination of fossil fuels (quick or not) is impossible for economic reasons.

Hugs
Reply to  MarkW
February 6, 2019 10:37 am

Impossible if human life is to be saved. Ecoloonies want to kill ppl.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Hugs
February 6, 2019 1:46 pm

…. true, so why don’t they just do it then. Themselves, one by one.

John Endicott
Reply to  malkom700
February 6, 2019 11:08 am

The quick elimination of fossil fuels is really impossible for political reasons, geoengineering and new technologies can be a temporary solution

a temporary solution to a non-existent problem. Prove the problem is 1) real and 2) something man can do anything about (with no assertions of things not in evidence).

Flight Level
February 6, 2019 1:25 am

Sorry Mr. DiCaprio, I can’t really comprehend how and why :
“If our world warms past 1.5 °C, our way of life will profoundly change for the worse. ”
Would you care to explain ?

What I know however is that, unless obviously cold is the new hot, freezing rain can lead to cancellation of birth certificates.

joe
February 6, 2019 1:38 am

I’ll consider global warming if Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore, Obama, Ocasio, and all Dem members of Congress agree to:
a) never again fly in an airplane
b) never again ride in an internal combustion engine car
c) pay full price for any electric car they might use (no subsidy)
d) charge said electric car with solar panels. No hooking up to the grid to charge
e) live in ONE house or apartment of 1600 sq ft or less ( to reduce their footprint)
f) set the air conditioning for 85F.

Only then will I consider global warming.

A C Osborn
Reply to  joe
February 6, 2019 2:04 am

I still wouldn’t as the facts are not there.

joe
Reply to  A C Osborn
February 6, 2019 4:18 am

After they do the above I’ll consider global warming….

OK, I’ve considered it and now I’m going to do nothing.

Which is exactly what China, India, and the global climate change crowd are doing. Why are THEY doing nothing themselves? Cause it’s about wealth redistribution. And as any true socialist will tell you the leadership is more equal than others.

MarkW
Reply to  A C Osborn
February 6, 2019 8:06 am

He did say consider, not agree.

John Endicott
Reply to  A C Osborn
February 6, 2019 10:46 am

Considering it doesn’t mean agreeing with it after consideration.

Bottom line: If they want people to take what they say about global warming seriously, they first have to live like it’s as serious as they claim. If they’re not walking the walk why should anyone listen to them talking the talk?

Michael Lemaire
Reply to  joe
February 6, 2019 3:53 am

an addition to point d): solar panels that have been manufactured with renewable energy (e.g. other solar panels), delivered by solar panel charged electric trucks, themselves manufactured in solar panel run factories… ad nauseam (you get the idea)

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Michael Lemaire
February 6, 2019 5:25 am

A good science fair analysis project -show if it a solar panel can actually be manufactured using solar energy in a sustainable process. Unfortunately, the conclusion I think won’t be liked by the judges, teachers, etc.

Edim
February 6, 2019 1:41 am

https://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
comment image

This the best short article regarding Paris, but also Kyoto and countless other “agreements”.

“This didn’t work in Kyoto, it didn’t work in Copenhagen, it hasn’t worked in the 18 other climate conferences or countless more international gatherings. The suggestion that it will make a large difference in Paris is wishful thinking.”

“Wishfull thinking” is very mildly put. I have no words for it.

DonS
Reply to  Edim
February 6, 2019 7:07 am

“asinine assertion.”

Newminster
February 6, 2019 2:05 am

“Based on state-of-the-art scenario modelling,”, more often known as “computer-based guesswork”!

I’ll give di Caprio his due — whether he is a nincompoop or not he is putting his money where his mouth is and I don’t see any evidence that this is self-aggrandisement on his part. Unlike some we could name.

All we need is someone to sit him down and join up the dots for him and he might end up spending his money more productively. And where he leads others would almost certainly follow.

knr
Reply to  Newminster
February 6, 2019 2:46 am

Tax right-off !
Or still a fraction of what he spends on travelling on his private jet .

iflyjetzzz
Reply to  Newminster
February 6, 2019 3:57 am

He’s not spending his money. He’s spending OPM (other peoples’ money) that is raised by the foundation. He may have provided a slight bit of seed capital, but I’d bet you a dollar that he’s now billing the foundation and/or the foundation’s paying for a great deal of his expenses associated with the foundation.

In a nutshell, it’s just another scam.

As soon as he has his private jet and yacht crushed into scrap ‘for the good of the earth’, I’ll believe he’s sincere. That’s not selling them, that’s destroying them so that they cannot further ‘pollute’ the earth with CO2.

Steve O
February 6, 2019 3:34 am

” We are resilient. We can adapt.”

— Except to a 1.5 degree increase in the average global temperature… To that we can’t adapt. We’re not resilient enough. I mean, there aren’t even roads going into the parts of Canada where farmland could otherwise be developed.

BobM
Reply to  Steve O
February 6, 2019 8:47 am

If “pre-industrial” is taken as around 1800 or so, the warming to date is little more than recovering from the cold climate of the LIA. All beneficial.

Even a 2 degree C rise (3.6 F) in the 300 years from 1800 to 2100 means about a degree F change per human lifetime, essentially imperceptible. History has shown that society has easily (eagerly?) adapted to that, and created the highest living standards ever.

Bill E
Reply to  Steve O
February 6, 2019 9:16 am

Infrastructure depreciates. Over the next century, we will have to replace almost everything, whether the climate changes or not. Most things wear out in a lot less than a century. Even now, the average American relocates several times in their lifetimes.

In places where the population is increasing, new roads will get built.

Serge Wright
February 6, 2019 3:40 am

” If our world warms past 1.5 °C, our way of life will profoundly change for the worse”

The temperature warms by around 10 degrees C or more during the course of each morning between sunrise and midday and life continues. The daily maximum also increases by 10 degrees C or more over a 3 month period from the end of winter to summer and life continues. The annual range of maximum and minimum temperatures at any given place on the earth’s surface can vary by up to 60 degrees C over a 6 month period and life continues.

Despite these facts, we are told that a 1.5 degree rise over 100+ years will wipe out all life on earth. And, if you consider that we are already 2/3 of the way to 1.5 degree C and the biosphere, human population and food production has all increased significantly during this initial 1 degree warming, the real alarmist story is that a further 0.5 degree warming spead over the next 30-50 years will wipe out all life on earth, including the bits that increased during the initial 1 degree warming.

Good job guys !

malkom700
February 6, 2019 3:50 am

In the current situation, the situation needs to be realistically assessed. The right does not believe the leftist scientists, it is understandable. It is therefore necessary to examine what consensus exists between right-wing scientists. So those whom anonym would ask would also indicate their political orientation.

MarkW
Reply to  malkom700
February 6, 2019 8:08 am

The right doesn’t beleive a scam that has no data behind it.
The right also notices that many of those who are pushing the scam have been vocal in their desire to use the scam to promote socialism.

malkom700
Reply to  MarkW
February 6, 2019 9:06 am

Does this mean that the right does not dare to know the opinion of right-wing scientists? Today we know only the opinion of right-wing trolls.

John Endicott
Reply to  malkom700
February 6, 2019 11:01 am

In true science, opinions don’t matter (just look at the scientific method, no where in it will you find a step labeled “opinion”). What matters is data and evidence.

malkom700
Reply to  John Endicott
February 6, 2019 1:34 pm

It’s a fundamental mistake. In the current situation there is no need for any evidence, only one percent probability, so much danger.

John Endicott
Reply to  malkom700
February 6, 2019 11:11 am

In the current situation, the situation needs to be realistically assessed.

good luck with that.

It is therefore necessary to examine what consensus exists

consensus is politics, not science. you are already barking up the wrong tree for any kind of realistic assessment.

dennisambler
February 6, 2019 3:51 am

Probably still blames global warming for the iceberg that sank the Titanic….

iflyjetzzz
February 6, 2019 3:52 am

Does the book mention banning private jets and private yachts? IF they’re serious about reducing CO2, how about starting there?

I would love to see some group push for banning them, as I suspect that all of this concern about CO2 would rapidly disappear as the uber wealthy push back on losing their expensive toys which have gigantic carbon footprints.

iflyjetzzz
Reply to  iflyjetzzz
February 6, 2019 4:04 am

… and add in that no private house/condo/apartment can be larger than 1000 square feet, which probably larger than most housing in the pre-industrial revolution.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  iflyjetzzz
February 6, 2019 4:54 am

Actually, small jets are not as inefficient as most people imagine. 20pmpg is possible, which at 400mph or more is actually quite remarkable. Provided they use the full seating capacity, anyway. If it’s one guy in a 10-seater, then yes, that is wasteful at 2mpg.

Yachts, well, depends on how they are operated. In principle a displacement hull boat is a very efficient vehicle for its capacity. Not so using a planing (speedboat) hull though. A true sailing yacht (which is often not what’s meant by ‘yacht’ in this context) is a very efficient vehicle even when partly engine propelled.

Ian Wilson
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
February 6, 2019 5:15 am

If you take the latest passenger aircraft such as the 737Max/A321Neo/787/A350 then the MPG per passenger mile is usually a lot better than 120 (gallons per passenger mile) . An aircraft also needs no infrastructure requiring continual maintenance such as roads or railways between airports. If the need for travel is accepted, then air travel is the most economic/efficient in terms of energy use when the journey exceeds ~500miles.

John Endicott
Reply to  Ian Wilson
February 6, 2019 10:58 am

An aircraft also needs no infrastructure requiring continual maintenance such as roads or railways between airports.

Not exactly true, it has an infrastructure, just of a different kind – a network of radar and air traffic control towers particularly in more heavily flown airspaces (such as over major metropolitan areas)

AGW is not Science
Reply to  John Endicott
February 6, 2019 11:54 am

Not to mention runways (thick enough to take thee weight of fully loaded planes taking off and landing) and airline terminals (including massive parking facilities) occupying huge amounts of land and which ARE infrastructure requiring continual maintenance.

And…

“MPG per passenger mile is usually a lot better than 120 (gallons per passenger mile)”

WHAT?!

Alan the Brit
February 6, 2019 3:54 am

“Based on state-of-the-art scenario modelling”?

No such thing!

MattS
February 6, 2019 4:38 am

“One Earth initiative”

There you have the intent, clearly stated. One earth. One race, one government. Globalism.

Nothing to do with protecting plants and animals.

Coach Springer
Reply to  MattS
February 6, 2019 5:04 am

Anti-diversity.

Ian Macdonald
February 6, 2019 4:42 am

I don’t imagine it mentions that less than 1% of world energy is provided by wind and solar, several percent by hydro and biomass. Or that over 90% of the world renewables budget goes on wind and solar.

But, probably does promote wind and solar as the champion performers among renewables. :-/

February 6, 2019 4:46 am

If sea levels rise a meter or more by 2100 the billion dollar resort dicaprio is building in Belize will be awash or underwater .

old construction worker
February 6, 2019 4:49 am

Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation: I would like to see it’s and Leonardo DiCaprio stock holdings.

Curious George
Reply to  old construction worker
February 6, 2019 8:14 am

Shouldn’t it be Leonardo DiCaprio Most Scientific Foundation?

EdeF
February 6, 2019 4:57 am

Recommendation #1: Take away Leonardo’s private airplane jaunts to Timbutu and back.

PeterinMD
February 6, 2019 5:12 am

Once California goes 100% renewable energy sources, there won’t be enough energy to produce movies, he’s dooming his own industry to the dust bin. Good for him, I won’t ever watch another one of his movies any way.

I agree with many others that have already commented here that once all the doomsayers give up their other worldly possessions, that the common man can’t afford, than I will start to believe they are serious. Doesn’t mean that I will will change my mind on Human Induced Climate Change, it’s all natural. The hubris is strong in this rabble!!!

troe
February 6, 2019 5:31 am

We have to achieve the 5 Year plan! Climate madness is a joke stacked on a parody wrapped in satire. We see the humor in what others see as a personal defining cause. It’s like Leo and others went to a Marx Brothers movie and decided to base their lives on it’s premise. The climate spoof like the plot in a comedy is secondary to it’s purpose. Can we see Leo champagne glass in hand jetting over the huddled masses freezing through a brown out.

I support taxing all non-essential (actors) earners being taxed down to the average per-capita income.

Tom Abbott
February 6, 2019 5:35 am

Leonardo, the global temperature has dropped about 0.6C since Feb. 2016. Catastrophe is a little bit farther away now. That should ease your mind a little bit.

michael hart
February 6, 2019 6:22 am

“If our world warms past 1.5 °C, our way of life will profoundly change for the worse.”

Yeah, yeah. Or rather, no, no. But it used to be the case that the, equally totally arbitrary, number of +2.0 °C was the number below which we could put our feet up and get on with life, concerning ourselves with real problems. Whenever something turns out to not be a problem or sign of approaching doom, then the goalposts seem to get moved. Strange, that.

“Why not manage the transition in a way that is orderly and equitable?”

We already are with a BAU approach, or at least that is clearly the best we’ve found so far. Unless you prefer Venezuela…

“Human beings caused this problem, …”

It isn’t a problem, and no we didn’t. Most if not all of that warming is natural warming as we came out of the little ice age, which is also considered to have been very beneficial for humans and agriculture.

This foundation claims to have spent 2 years doing research, only to come up with the same old same old canards. What a complete waste of money.

Bruce Cobb
February 6, 2019 6:26 am

“The consumption of fossil fuels, the reckless destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems, and the release of powerful greenhouse gases have already caused around 1.0 °C of warming above preindustrial levels.”
Boom! There it is, right off the bat – three huge Climate Lies, all couched within the Biggest Lie of all time. I guess if you’re going to lie, lie big – in fact, the bigger the better. Goebbels 101.

Dale S
February 6, 2019 6:39 am

If you use enough ellipses, Leonardo actually sounds sensible:

“If our world warms past 1.5 °C… why not manage…? We are resilient. We can adapt.”

The world, as he said, has in fact warmed about 1.0C past the not-really-pre-industrial 19th century, and has done so not only without any visible harm but concurrent with a massive and continuing capitalism and fossil-fueled improvement in the standard of living beyond the dreams of past ages. In industrialized nations, we have never been *less* vulnerable to the vagaries of climate, which has never produced constant temperatures or failed to produce extreme weather events.

The idea that going beyond 0.5C of further warming — half as much as we’ve already experienced with no noticeable ill effects — leads to our life “profoundly changing for the worse” isn’t remotely supported by the impact literature, such as it is. What’s actually projected is that future generations far richer than ourselves will be slightly less wealthy than they would have been in a society where magical unicorns provide the power that fossil fuels does for us. The only thing on the table with the potential to profoundly change our lives for the worse is extreme climate mitigation policies or geo-engineering attempts gone wrong.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Dale S
February 6, 2019 12:28 pm

” The only thing on the table with the potential to profoundly change our lives for the worse is extreme climate mitigation policies or geo-engineering attempts gone wrong.”

BINGO!

The only REAL “climate change” related catastrophe will be if these idiots get their pet “policies” introduced. All pain, no gain, economically destructive and far worse than useless even IF the BS “climate science” was right (and it’s NOT).

bullfrex
February 6, 2019 6:57 am

“Its robustly modelled scenarios indicate how to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2050, globally and across ten geographical regions.”

Um….wait….I am pretty sure AOC stated we only have 12 years left….don’t these people talk to each other?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  bullfrex
February 6, 2019 12:41 pm

I seem to remember us only having about 10 years left about 20 years ago, or something like that. Clearly, this is a sales/snow job, not remotely related to reality or ACTUAL “science.”

After the 12 years when we’re still using plenty of fossil fuels and putting plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere and nothing dramatic has happened (AGAIN/YET), the goalposts will simply be pushed out another 10 or 12 or however-many-sounds-sciency years.

It’s kind of like that old joke – “I went to the doctor and he said I only have 6 months to live.” “I told him I couldn’t pay his bill and he said “I’ll give you another 6 months.””

John W. Garrett
February 6, 2019 6:59 am

Eulogy For Roger Andrews

by Francis Menton

“…To figure out how much storage capacity you would need for some jurisdiction to get through a year with nothing but wind and solar power sources, it takes quite a bit of data accumulation and detailed work. But it does not take any advanced math — just simple arithmetic of the type you learned in elementary school. You need to find data on the total electricity used in that jurisdiction over the course of a year; data on the capacity factor over the course of a year of existing wind and solar sources; and data on a day-by-day history of generation and consumption, so that you can run cumulative surpluses and deficits for different times of the year. Just this past November, Andrews did exactly this detailed work for the two cases of Germany and California. The conclusion in the cases of both Germany and California was that it would take approximately 25 TWH (that’s “terawatt hours” — trillions of watt hours) of storage to get through a year. Using optimistic battery prices of about half the current market, Andrews was then able to put a cost on this endeavor: about $5 trillion for one set of batteries for either Germany or California. I reported on this work in the post titled “How Much Do The Climate Crusaders Plan To Increase Your Costs Of Electricity — Part III” on November 29, 2018…”

AGW is not Science
Reply to  John W. Garrett
February 6, 2019 12:47 pm

AND I’ll bet that still doesn’t include allowance for batteries to be insufficiently charged when needed, for losses in capacity over time, due to cold temperatures, etc. ad nauseum. Not to mention their ACTUAL (as opposed to “projected” useful life and the cost of wholesale REPLACEMENT on a CONTINUAL basis.

LMFAO. Might as well try to run you car with Duracells.

D Anderson
February 6, 2019 7:36 am

“Science is showing us the way forward,”

Right, “science” says a world wide socialist government is the way forward.

This constant conflating of science and politics is dragging down the reputation of science in the minds of average people.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  D Anderson
February 6, 2019 12:49 pm

“Pseudo-science is showing us the way BACKward.”

There, fixed it for ’em.

MarkW
February 6, 2019 8:02 am

powerful greenhouse gases have already caused around 1.0 °C of warming above preindustrial levels

So, CO2 is 100% responsible for the warming from the bottom of the Little Ice Age?
Thank you CO2.

Of course much of that warming occurred long before CO2 levels started rising. But when you are doing propaganda, facts don’t matter.

william matlack
February 6, 2019 8:04 am

This study was put together by Leading scientists. Arent they always Leading scientists? Never seen a report by Following scientists. Always leading types. Every one of them. What a profession.

Lee L
February 6, 2019 9:31 am

I mean, I do wonder where diCaprio’s next World Cup party will be held and how all his friends will get to the event.

Of course, in 2014, I’m sure all the attendees were living in Rio so there were no travel emissions and the yacht was solar powered. Right?

http://www.celebsonyachts.com/leonardo-dicaprio-holds-world-cup-party-on-the-5th-largest-superyacht-in-the-world/

All Hail Climate Ambassador Leo ‘chinook’ diCaprio!

(Calgarians will recognize that moniker).

Rocketdan
February 7, 2019 1:03 am

For those who haven’t found the book yet, it is available for free in PDF or ePub formats at Springer’s website. You can search for the title and select the source at springer.com. It appears to be modelling run amuck.

February 7, 2019 11:29 pm

As even the” Warmers ” now agree that the MWP did actually happen, even if they pretend despite the world wide facts that it was only a local thing. . Now consider this, as it got colder the temperature would have dropped say 2 degrees C., so at the end of the 300 year Little Ice Age, about 1880 , it would be reasonable to expect the temperature to rise about 2 C degrees.

So what do we have , why about .7C from that date. . So we can expect about 1.3 C more to bring us back to what it was during the MWP.

So why all of this talk about if it goes past a mere .5C the world as we know it, will come to a end.

Does that mean that anywhere in the world before moving either North or South, we should obtain permission for such a journey. . Sounds like the old USSR, where they had internal passports.
Here in Australia we can and do travel from say Hobart, a cold place to live in, its as far South as you can go before Antarctica. , to Cairns which is almost on the Equator. While initially as one gets off the plane, the heat is hot, we do survive it.

Perhaps the warmer s should be told that humans evolved in Africa, and therefore we can and do handle heat. We will complain of course, and air conditioners are nice, but we would survive without them.

If the Green “Scientist would leave their air conditioned offices, fossell fuelled of course, and go to the hotter parts of the world, they might stop worrying about a half a degree Celsius increase.

MJE

%d bloggers like this: