Can the goals of the Paris accord be met?

Russell797 · Jan 16, 2018

Is it to late to hold global warming to below the internationally agreed to goal under 2C..or the more ambitious 1.5C?

According to this article some scientists estimate we have 10-15 years to have any chance at all and the measures necessary significantly exceed the current pledges made by the nearly 200 nations involved in the Paris agreement..

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-clima...&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

Jack Hays · Jan 16, 2018

The "goals of the Paris accord" are not worth meeting.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by ... - Bjorn Lomborg

www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-...

A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit. Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December's meeting.

A Climate Cure Worse than the Disease by Bjørn Lomborg - Project ...

https://www.project-syndicate.org/.../paris-climate-accord-too-expensive-by-bjorn-lo...

Dec 20, 2017 - The climate policies lauded in Paris at the One Planet Summit this month are essentially high-cost, low-effect gestures. While the EU will devote 20% of its budget this year to climate-related action, even fully achieving the accord's emissions targets throughout this century ...

longview · Jan 16, 2018

Russell797 said:
Is it to late to hold global warming to below the internationally agreed to goal under 2C..or the more ambitious 1.5C?

According to this article some scientists estimate we have 10-15 years to have any chance at all and the measures necessary significantly exceed the current pledges made by the nearly 200 nations involved in the Paris agreement..

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-clima...&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

Some of it depends on which Paris goals.
Some of the Paris goals are for the developed countries (Read USA) to send a bunch of money to the third world.
I don't think we will make that goal.
As to the temperature goal of below 2 C or even 1.5 C, very likely, for several reasons.
If we assume the forcing warming from the added CO2 is already with us, (there is little latency in forcing warming.)
then the forcing warming would be 1.73 X ln(405/280)= .638 C
Nasa also says that up to .3 C of the observed warming could be from increases in solar activity since 1880.
If we apply half of the Nasa Solar number (.15 C) plus the known CO2 forcing (.638 C), we get .788 C.
Since the observed warming is roughly (very roughly) 1.1 C, this only leaves .312 C to be assigned to unknowns.
The unknowns are about 1.39 times the known factors.
The remaining known forcing from 2XCO2 would be 1.73 X ln( 560/405) or .56 C,
if the same factor applies, the result would be .56 X 1.39= .78C plus the already measured 1.1 C for a total
of 1.88 C.
Now that is predicated or our actually being able to find and extract enough hydrocarbons, inexpensively enough,
to get CO2 levels up to 560 ppm. I frankly think hydrocarbons for liquid fuel will price themselves out of the
market long before then.

Russell797 · Jan 16, 2018

longview said:
Some of it depends on which Paris goals.
Some of the Paris goals are for the developed countries (Read USA) to send a bunch of money to the third world.
I don't think we will make that goal.
As to the temperature goal of below 2 C or even 1.5 C, very likely, for several reasons.
If we assume the forcing warming from the added CO2 is already with us, (there is little latency in forcing warming.)
then the forcing warming would be 1.73 X ln(405/280)= .638 C
Nasa also says that up to .3 C of the observed warming could be from increases in solar activity since 1880.
If we apply half of the Nasa Solar number (.15 C) plus the known CO2 forcing (.638 C), we get .788 C.
Since the observed warming is roughly (very roughly) 1.1 C, this only leaves .312 C to be assigned to unknowns.
The unknowns are about 1.39 times the known factors.
The remaining known forcing from 2XCO2 would be 1.73 X ln( 560/405) or .56 C,
if the same factor applies, the result would be .56 X 1.39= .78C plus the already measured 1.1 C for a total
of 1.88 C.
Now that is predicated or our actually being able to find and extract enough hydrocarbons, inexpensively enough,
to get CO2 levels up to 560 ppm. I frankly think hydrocarbons for liquid fuel will price themselves out of the
market long before then.

Do you think globally averaged temperature will reach 1.5C by the 2040s as stated in the article? 10-15 years of further emission guarantee it?

The greenhouse gas emissions guaranteeing that outcome will have been released within 10 to 15 years.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-climate-goal-doable.html#jCp

longview · Jan 16, 2018

Russell797 said:
Do you think globally averaged temperature will reach 1.5C by the 2040s as stated in the article? 10-15 years of further emission guarantee it?

The greenhouse gas emissions guaranteeing that outcome will have been released within 10 to 15 years.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-climate-goal-doable.html#jCp

Well first 1.5C above what, the GISS 1880 temperature, the GISS baseline, or some other number?
If we are basing this on the GISS 1880 temperature, we are currently at 1.1 C, and so would require
an additional .4 C to reach 1.5 C by 2040, or .18 C per decade.
The .18 C per decade is at least plausible, but is still assuming we will not be moving on to the alternatives,
in the next 22 years.

Russell797 · Jan 16, 2018

Jack Hays said:
The "goals of the Paris accord" are not worth meeting.

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by ... - Bjorn Lomborg

www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-...

A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit. Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December's meeting.

A Climate Cure Worse than the Disease by Bjørn Lomborg - Project ...

https://www.project-syndicate.org/.../paris-climate-accord-too-expensive-by-bjorn-lo...

Dec 20, 2017 - The climate policies lauded in Paris at the One Planet Summit this month are essentially high-cost, low-effect gestures. While the EU will devote 20% of its budget this year to climate-related action, even fully achieving the accord's emissions targets throughout this century ...

So according to Lomborg...the situation is hopeless...I tend to agree...especially if we don't try...If we just allow the natural progression and advancement of technology, then by 2050 or so we may have nuclear fusion reactors at the commercial scale and very large deployments of wind and solar electrical generation. Geothermal, wave action and who knows what. Even CO2 extraction from the air technologies. Maybe..

However, by then the global temperature will have exceeded 1.5C on it's way to 2C or above. We are very likely to reach 1.5C even if we ceased all emissions today..

So, I agree with Lomborg...but does that mean we should just throw our hands up in the air...and let the chips fall where they may.. 2 or 3C of warming by 2100?

I think the world should be attempting to limit the eventual outcome that doing nothing would ensure, whatever that may be.

longview · Jan 16, 2018

Russell797 said:
So according to Lomborg...the situation is hopeless...I tend to agree...especially if we don't try...If we just allow the natural progression and advancement of technology, then by 2050 or so we may have nuclear fusion reactors at the commercial scale and very large deployments of wind and solar electrical generation. Geothermal, wave action and who knows what. Even CO2 extraction from the air technologies. Maybe..

However, by then the global temperature will have exceeded 1.5C on it's way to 2C or above. We are very likely to reach 1.5C even if we ceased all emissions today..

So, I agree with Lomborg...but does that mean we should just throw our hands up in the air...and let the chips fall where they may.. 2 or 3C of warming by 2100?

I think the world should be attempting to limit the eventual outcome that doing nothing would ensure, whatever that may be.

Thankfully my optimism is based on reason.
Contrary to popular belief, oil the feedstock for refineries is not free.
It cost money to find where to drill, it cost money to drill, it cost money to extract, transport, and maintain the well.
all of these costs and others, are part of the cost of goods sold to get oil to a refinery.
Those cost are climbing, and this will make the alternatives more attractive from a price and profit perspective.
Long before 2040, refineries will realize a greater profit, by making their own feedstock from cheap surplus electricity.
People will pick the alternative fuel, when it is naturally the lowest cost one at the pump.

Russell797 · Jan 16, 2018

longview said:
Well first 1.5C above what, the GISS 1880 temperature, the GISS baseline, or some other number?
If we are basing this on the GISS 1880 temperature, we are currently at 1.1 C, and so would require
an additional .4 C to reach 1.5 C by 2040, or .18 C per decade.
The .18 C per decade is at least plausible, but is still assuming we will not be moving on to the alternatives,
in the next 22 years.

When you say "we" you are referring to the world of nations I presume. The global economy must do so. The U.S. economy accounts for about 15% of total CO2 emission.

I don't see the world shift to predominately alternatives happening in time to effectively hold to below 2C and certainly not 1.5C by mid century.

If we for the sake of argument assume a .10 C per decade rate of increase, similar to the past century taken as a whole, then by 2065 or so the 1.5C will be reached.

I don't think 1.5C can be avoided, since much of that 1.5C is already contained within the current unequilibrated radiative forcing.

Jack Hays · Jan 16, 2018

Russell797 said:
So according to Lomborg...the situation is hopeless...I tend to agree...especially if we don't try...If we just allow the natural progression and advancement of technology, then by 2050 or so we may have nuclear fusion reactors at the commercial scale and very large deployments of wind and solar electrical generation. Geothermal, wave action and who knows what. Even CO2 extraction from the air technologies. Maybe..

However, by then the global temperature will have exceeded 1.5C on it's way to 2C or above. We are very likely to reach 1.5C even if we ceased all emissions today..

So, I agree with Lomborg...but does that mean we should just throw our hands up in the air...and let the chips fall where they may.. 2 or 3C of warming by 2100?

I think the world should be attempting to limit the eventual outcome that doing nothing would ensure, whatever that may be.

Lomborg's point is that the actions under the Paris Accords have a negligible effect.

Russell797 · Jan 16, 2018

longview said:
Thankfully my optimism is based on reason.
Contrary to popular belief, oil the feedstock for refineries is not free.
It cost money to find where to drill, it cost money to drill, it cost money to extract, transport, and maintain the well.
all of these costs and others, are part of the cost of goods sold to get oil to a refinery.
Those cost are climbing, and this will make the alternatives more attractive from a price and profit perspective.
Long before 2040, refineries will realize a greater profit, by making their own feedstock from cheap surplus electricity.
People will pick the alternative fuel, when it is naturally the lowest cost one at the pump.

Yet, the Canadian tar sands operation, the dirtiest, most costly of all extraction processes is going forward, and now with the backing of the Keystone XL pipe line. I wish your optimism were reflected in the real actions of governments and the corporations who benefit from it all. We continue to head in the wrong direction if mitigation is to be taken seriously....It's full speed ahead for the fossil fuel industries along with their government subsidies...

We are going to slow global warming that way?...I think not...and not within the next several decades in time to keep global temp below 2C and for near certain 1.5C .

Russell797 · Jan 16, 2018

Jack Hays said:
Lomborg's point is that the actions under the Paris Accords have a negligible effect.

I agree, and so does nearly everyone....It's a start toward the elimination of fossil fuels..Not only do we need to stop emissions, we need to extract a significant portion of what has already been emitted if we are to keep global temp below 1.5C...

longview · Jan 16, 2018

Russell797 said:
When you say "we" you are referring to the world of nations I presume. The global economy must do so. The U.S. economy accounts for about 15% of total CO2 emission.

I don't see the world shift to predominately alternatives happening in time to effectively hold to below 2C and certainly not 1.5C by mid century.

If we for the sake of argument assume a .10 C per decade rate of increase, similar to the past century taken as a whole, then by 2065 or so the 1.5C will be reached.

I don't think 1.5C can be avoided, since much of that 1.5C is already contained within the current unequilibrated radiative forcing.

Oil is a global market, not just the US, which is why I said,
"People will pick the alternative fuel, when it is naturally the lowest cost one at the pump."
If the profit from the refineries making their own feedstock is greater than buying their feedstock,
they will be all over it, and not just in the US.

longview · Jan 16, 2018

Russell797 said:
Yet, the Canadian tar sands operation, the dirtiest, most costly of all extraction processes is going forward, and now with the backing of the Keystone XL pipe line. I wish your optimism were reflected in the real actions of governments and the corporations who benefit from it all. We continue to head in the wrong direction if mitigation is to be taken seriously....It's full speed ahead for the fossil fuel industries along with their government subsidies...

We are going to slow global warming that way?...I think not...and not within the next several decades in time to keep global temp below 2C and for near certain 1.5C .

Let me ask you a question, if the most costly of all extraction processes is considered viable,
what does that say about normal extraction?
We are past cheap easy oil, what remains is difficult and expensive.
The higher oil goes, the sooner it will price itself out of the fuel market.
I suspect organic oil will have other uses for a century or so, just not as fuel.

longview · Jan 16, 2018

Russell797 said:
I agree, and so does nearly everyone....It's a start toward the elimination of fossil fuels..Not only do we need to stop emissions, we need to extract a significant portion of what has already been emitted if we are to keep global temp below 1.5C...

I disagree, I think these type of agreements do little, and are simply feel good measures, at best.
At worst, they could muddy the water and slow market forces from working properly.

Surface Detail · Jan 16, 2018

longview said:
Let me ask you a question, if the most costly of all extraction processes is considered viable,
what does that say about normal extraction?
We are past cheap easy oil, what remains is difficult and expensive.
The higher oil goes, the sooner it will price itself out of the fuel market.
I suspect organic oil will have other uses for a century or so, just not as fuel.

There's plenty of economically extractable, albeit low EROEI, shale oil down there. And what about all the coal? Many climate scientists, e.g. James Hansen, reckon it would be environmentally disastrous to allow the extraction of all commercially exploitable fossil fuels. A lot of it needs to stay under the ground.

longview · Jan 16, 2018

Surface Detail said:
There's plenty of economically extractable, albeit low EROEI, shale oil down there. And what about all the coal? Many climate scientists, e.g. James Hansen, reckon it would be environmentally disastrous to allow the extraction of all commercially exploitable fossil fuels. A lot of it needs to stay under the ground.

Still not getting it, the real cost to extract the hydrocarbons will exceed their value.
People will still extract oil for plastics and medicine, because of the higher profit margin, but it's use as fuel will have run it's course.

Jack Hays · Jan 16, 2018

Russell797 said:
I agree, and so does nearly everyone....It's a start toward the elimination of fossil fuels..Not only do we need to stop emissions, we need to extract a significant portion of what has already been emitted if we are to keep global temp below 1.5C...

It is extremely unlikely temperature will rise more than 1.5C by 2100. Why? Because IPCC has grossly overstated climate sensitivity. In fact, any rise is likely to be considerably less.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

[FONT=&quot]". . . The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. . . . " [/FONT]

Russell797 · Jan 16, 2018

longview said:
Let me ask you a question, if the most costly of all extraction processes is considered viable,
what does that say about normal extraction?
We are past cheap easy oil, what remains is difficult and expensive.
The higher oil goes, the sooner it will price itself out of the fuel market.
I suspect organic oil will have other uses for a century or so, just not as fuel.

While I agree with you that the cost of fossil fuels will naturally increase as the supply of low cost sources dry up..That's just simple economics..

There is more going on the mere supply/demand economics however...Look at the roller coaster cost of gasoline and fuel oil over the past few decades..Prices have decoupled from supply/demand equation. Currently the cost of gasoline and oil are depressed due to the rising share of natural gas as a fuel source. The same dynamic is killing the coal industry. Other alternatives such as solar and wind will continue to force a downward price pressure on dirty fossil fuels. OPEC can play the game of price manipulation for as long as need be.

Soopairik · Jan 16, 2018

Obviously not.

Surface Detail · Jan 16, 2018

Jack Hays said:
It is extremely unlikely temperature will rise more than 1.5C by 2100. Why? Because IPCC has grossly overstated climate sensitivity. In fact, any rise is likely to be considerably less.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

[FONT=&quot]". . . The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. . . . " [/FONT]

That cannot possibly be correct. We haven't come anywhere near doubling the CO2 concentration, nor has the temperature reached equilibrium, and yet the temperature has already risen by about 1 °C from pre-industrial levels.

Jack Hays · Jan 16, 2018

Surface Detail said:
That cannot possibly be correct. We haven't come anywhere near doubling the CO2 concentration, nor has the temperature reached equilibrium, and yet the temperature has already risen by about 1 °C from pre-industrial levels.

That's because something other than CO2 has caused most of the increase.

Shaviv adds:

". . . So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate. . . ."

Surface Detail · Jan 17, 2018

Jack Hays said:
That's because something other than CO2 has caused most of the increase.

Shaviv adds:

". . . So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate. . . ."

But solar activity has been falling for the past few decades while the sea level has continued to rise. If Shaviv is correct, then greenhouse warming would have to be more, not less, potent in order to have cancelled out the amplified solar effect! Shaviv's work points to a higher, not lower, ECS.

longview · Jan 17, 2018

Russell797 said:
While I agree with you that the cost of fossil fuels will naturally increase as the supply of low cost sources dry up..That's just simple economics..

There is more going on the mere supply/demand economics however...Look at the roller coaster cost of gasoline and fuel oil over the past few decades..Prices have decoupled from supply/demand equation. Currently the cost of gasoline and oil are depressed due to the rising share of natural gas as a fuel source. The same dynamic is killing the coal industry. Other alternatives such as solar and wind will continue to force a downward price pressure on dirty fossil fuels. OPEC can play the game of price manipulation for as long as need be.

The prices are fuel products is still tied to the price of oil, OPEC can and will attempt to compete but remember when a Saudi Prince said
the price of oil will never again exceed $100 a barrel. He was likely correct but because at about $90 a barrel or less
the man made fuels will become viable, so oil will not have a market at that price.
It establishes an absolute ceiling for the value of oil for fuel.
When the natural cost of goods sold of supplying oil to the refineries, gets in that range, the greater profit will be
for the refinery to make their own feedstock.
The price roller coaster your mentioned is from the price of oil, and has hurt many in the oil refining/fuel distribution business.
They will not miss the ride from organic oil.

longview · Jan 17, 2018

Surface Detail said:
But solar activity has been falling for the past few decades while the sea level has continued to rise. If Shaviv is correct, then greenhouse warming would have to be more, not less, potent in order to have cancelled out the amplified solar effect! Shaviv's work points to a higher, not lower, ECS.

The solar activity as related to TSI, yes, but there are other ways the sun passes energy in and out of the earth.
We know gravity passes energy, because we can see the tides move around, it is real energy, yet we cannot measure gravity.
TSI itself likely has some spectrum gaps, if only from sensor linearity.
On the energy out side, it has only been a few years sine we knew that thunderstorms emitted gamma.

Russell797 · Jan 17, 2018

longview said:
The solar activity as related to TSI, yes, but there are other ways the sun passes energy in and out of the earth.
We know gravity passes energy, because we can see the tides move around, it is real energy, yet we cannot measure gravity.
TSI itself likely has some spectrum gaps, if only from sensor linearity.
On the energy out side, it has only been a few years sine we knew that thunderstorms emitted gamma.

Grasping at straws is what that argument sounds like. Solar gravity has nothing whatsoever to do with Earth's temperature variability.

Apply the inverse square law to Earth's distance from the Sun verses the diameter of the Earth...The far side of the Earth "feels" essentially the same gravitation from the Sun as does the near side..

And of course we can measure gravity..at Earth surface the accelleration is 9.8 m/s2. If you mean gravitational waves, then we can measure them too, but only from extremely massive events, many times the mass of the Sun. Gravitational wave do carry energy, but for the Sun just moving though space the energy "field" is astonishingly weak.

The only variables which impact on Earth's surface temperature are solar electromagnetic radiation, the Earth's albedo and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Thus, Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray hypothesis impacts on Earth's albedo...so in principle it can be a factor...but is it?

Can the goals of the Paris accord be met?

Russell797

Jack Hays

Traveler

longview

Russell797

longview

Russell797

longview

Russell797

Jack Hays

Traveler

Russell797

Russell797

longview

longview

longview

Surface Detail

longview

Jack Hays

Traveler

Russell797

Soopairik

Surface Detail

Jack Hays

Traveler

Surface Detail

longview

longview

Russell797