+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: So Paris Accord.... (/thread-16786.html)
So Paris Accord.... - Ashock - 06-02-2017
With all the lamentations and handwringing going on from the left over the US quitting the Paris accord, let's look at some interesting info. The below is a study done not by someone who does not believe in man-made global warming, but actually by someone who DOES.
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
Or you could read the wall of text:
Bjorn Lomborg
Get the facts straight
MENU
Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release)
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. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs).
Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals:
The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.
China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.
Overview in Celsius and Fahrenheit by the year 2100
Figure
The global temperature change from pre-industrial, for the Do Nothing (RCP8.5) scenario, for the global promises for Paris and for Paris extended for 70 more years, as run on MAGICC.
Comments from Dr. Bjorn Lomborg
What does this mean for the Paris Summit?
Dr. Lomborg said: “Paris is being sold as the summit where we can help ‘heal the planet’ and ‘save the world’. It is no such thing. If all nations keep all their promises, temperatures will be cut by just 0.05°C (0.09°F). Even if every government on the planet not only keeps every Paris promise, reduces all emissions by 2030, and shifts no emissions to other countries, but also keeps these emission reductions throughout the rest of the century, temperatures will be reduced by just 0.17°C (0.3°F) by the year 2100.
And let’s be clear, that is very optimistic. Consider the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, never ratified by the US, and eventually abandoned by Canada and Russia and Japan. After several renegotiations, the Kyoto Protocol had been weakened to the point that the hot air left from the collapse of the Soviet Union exceeded the entire promised reductions, leaving the treaty essentially toothless.
The only reason Kyoto goals were almost achieved was the global 2008 recession. Moreover, emissions were shifted from one country to another. The EU, the most climate-engaged bloc, saw an increase in its emission imports from China alone equaling its entire domestic CO₂ reductions. In total, 40% of all emissions were likely shifted away from the areas that made promises.
Negotiators in Paris are trying to tackle global warming in the same way that has failed for 30 years: by making promises that are individually expensive, will have little impact even in a hundred years and that many governments will try to shirk from.
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.”
What should countries do instead?
Dr. Lomborg said: “Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it.
The Copenhagen Consensus on Climate project gathered 27 of the world’s top climate economists and three Nobel Laureates, who found that the smartest, long-term climate policy is to invest in green R&D, to push down the price of green energy.
Subsidizing inefficient renewables is expensive and doesn’t work. The IEA estimates that we get 0.4% of our energy from wind and solar PV right now, and even in optimistic scenarios the fraction will only rise to 2.2% by 2040. Over the next 25 years, we’ll spend about $2.5 trillion in subsidies and reduce global warming temperatures by less than 0.02°C.
Copenhagen Consensus has consistently argued for a R&D-driven approach. Fortunately, more people are recognizing that this approach is cheaper and much more likely to succeed –including the Global Apollo Program which includes Sir David King, Lord Nicholas Stern, Lord Adair Turner and Lord John Browne.
You describe a 0.05°C reduction, but the UN Climate Chief, Christina Figueres, said Paris could lead to a 2.7°C rise instead of 4°C or 5°C. Why?
Christiana Figueres quote: “The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs.”
Dr. Lomborg said: “That entirely misrepresents the world’s options. The 2.7°C comes from the International Energy Agency and essentially assumes that if governments do little in Paris and then right after 2030 embark on incredibly ambitious climate reductions, we could get to 2.7°C.
That way of thinking is similar to telling the deeply indebted Greeks that just making the first repayment on their most pressing loans will put them on an easy pathway to becoming debt-free. It completely misses the point.
Figueres’ own organization estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total. To limit rises to 2.7°C, about 3,000Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced – or about 100 times more than the Paris commitments (see figure below). That is not optimism; it is wishful thinking.
Background about the Paper
What does the paper do?
The peer-reviewed paper takes the greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments (INDCs) and runs a climate model with and without them. The paper uses the MAGICC climate model, which has been used across all five IPCC reports and was co-funded by the US EPA. It is run with standard parameters. Sensitivity analysis shows that different assumptions of climate sensitivity, carbon cycle model or scenario do not substantially change the outcome.
The paper uses the same basic methodology of Tom Wigley, who analyzed the Kyoto Protocol in a much-cited paper in 1998. As with Wigley, the approach:
Identifies the baseline of emissions
Extrapolates the climate policy throughout the 21st century
Runs the baseline and emissions through a climate model, evaluating the impact of the climate policy in terms of temperature rise reduction.
Performs a sensitivity analysis across models and scenarios.
The Lomborg paper uses the best baselines for the three major emission reducers (China, EU and US makes up almost 80%) and estimates the impact of the rest, including Canada, South Korea, Russia, Japan etc. from Boyd, Turner, and Ward (2015). The UNFCCC says in their summary report that the CO₂ equivalent reductions are between 0 and 7.5Gt with a 3.6Gt best estimate. Almost all models find similar numbers. This paper uses 6.8Gt, which is a very optimistic estimate for Paris.
Where is the paper published?
The peer-reviewed paper is published in the upcoming issue of Global Policy journal (November 2015). You can access the article online here.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - Quark - 06-02-2017
Oh, so because it doesn't do enough we should ignore it.
Thanks, let's just let the world burn down instead.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - Ashock - 06-02-2017
(06-02-2017, 07:50 PM)Quark Wrote: Oh, so because it doesn't do enough we should ignore it.
Thanks, let's just let the world burn down instead.
It's not that it's not doing enough. It is doing practically nothing. 0.05 degree difference in 80 years if things are done perfectly? That's nothing at all. Meanwhile it involves crippling economic costs, especially to the US. Get a grip. Look at facts logically, not emotionally.
This is of course separate from the issue of global warming being human made in the first place. This is not about that.
The sky is not falling.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - kandrathe - 06-02-2017
I think the US will get there without Federal support. We need to cut back from (6000 mt) 2005 levels by 26-28%.
California is all in, and if the Blue east coast states follow suit to opt to converting to green energy we're well on the way. At the current 5 yr rate of green adoption (5%->9.5%) I would expect green to account for 15-17% by 2025.
![[Image: blog_co2_emissions_1990_2016.gif]](http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_co2_emissions_1990_2016.gif)
The goal is to get under 4300 mt by 2025.
The war on coal is a false narrative that oversimplifies what is happening in the energy economy. In blaming environmental regulations under the Obama administration as the sole reason for the recent turmoil in the coal industry, Trump and Pruitt are ignoring the fundamental market realities that are buffeting the industry. NG is cheaper, better on equipment and leaves no ash to deal with and risk ground (water) contamination.
![[Image: US_Gen_GenShare.PNG]](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/archive/april2017/images/US_Gen_GenShare.PNG)
If you project the trends forward, the Trump effect will be small.
Clean Power Plan implementation choices by states could affect electricity generation mix
U.S. energy consumption rose slightly in 2016 despite a significant decline in coal use
RE: So Paris Accord.... - Sir_Die_alot - 06-02-2017
(06-02-2017, 07:50 PM)Quark Wrote: Oh, so because it doesn't do enough we should ignore it.
Thanks, let's just let the world burn down instead.
Well that isn't hyperbolic at all.
It is in fact worse than nothing because, as Ashock points out, the cost is enough to significantly affect first world economies. If you impoverish people, those people are going to forgo the luxury that is environmentalism.
"Doing something" is too often a replacement for "being effective" when this and similar political hot topics grab popular attention. Paris looks more like an opportunity for politicians and other important people to "do something" so it is easier to avoid being accused of not "being effective".
At this point, we can be reasonably secure that dire climate predictions often made are significantly over stated at best. In fact, this forum is old enough it would be interesting to see such debates made here almost 20 years ago and what was expected versus what is. If I was more motivated right now I'd go topic hunting.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - Jester - 06-03-2017
(06-02-2017, 11:47 PM)Sir_Die_alot Wrote: At this point, we can be reasonably secure that dire climate predictions often made are significantly over stated at best.
The prediction is, and has been for about forty years, that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause slow (but nearly irreversible) warming. Atmospheric CO2 has been consistently increasing. Temperatures have been consistently warming, at least approximately on pace with what was predicted. The surface is about 1 degree Celsius warmer than it was in the 1950s, and the last few years have been the warmest on record, decisively beating the 1998 peak that anchored the supposed "pause" in warming.
What grounds do you have for dismissing this?
-Jester
RE: So Paris Accord.... - Sir_Die_alot - 06-03-2017
(06-03-2017, 10:43 AM)Jester Wrote: What grounds do you have for dismissing this?
-Jester
So you inspired me to do at least a little digging in the Forum dust bin. I found this: http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/thread-9392.html?highlight=climate
which takes me here: https://web.archive.org/web/20040202030439/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=484490
Sadly that is incomplete but I was able to dig up this which looks like the complete article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3545437
Is the UK a frozen tundra yet?
I looked through a few others from this forum, but all the climate change links were similarly dead, and I'm not in the mood to dig through the web archive for EVERYTHING. Feel free to show me some "moderate" climate predictions like "We will gain 1 degree per 70 years!". Everything I can recall is similar to the above. More "the world/Europe/XYZcontinent is ruined in 20 years" and less margin of error level change.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - Lissa - 06-03-2017
(06-03-2017, 10:29 PM)Sir_Die_alot Wrote:(06-03-2017, 10:43 AM)Jester Wrote: What grounds do you have for dismissing this?
-Jester
So you inspired me to do at least a little digging in the Forum dust bin. I found this: http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/thread-9392.html?highlight=climate
which takes me here: https://web.archive.org/web/20040202030439/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=484490
Sadly that is incomplete but I was able to dig up this which looks like the complete article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3545437
Is the UK a frozen tundra yet?
I looked through a few others from this forum, but all the climate change links were similarly dead, and I'm not in the mood to dig through the web archive for EVERYTHING. Feel free to show me some "moderate" climate predictions like "We will gain 1 degree per 70 years!". Everything I can recall is similar to the above. More "the world/Europe/XYZcontinent is ruined in 20 years" and less margin of error level change.
Might want to pay attention to the first line of the NZ hearld's article, let me highlight the important bit you completely overlooked:
Quote:Britain is likely to be plunged into an ice age within our lifetime by global warming, new research suggests.
That doesn't mean within a decade, it doesn't even mean within 20 years, it means with 50 to 100 years. What the issue is that they're referring to is the shut down of the Gulf Stream, that warm current that flows northward from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic where said current then cools and sinks then makes its way back south to the Gulf of Mexico to be warmed again and head north again.
The Gulf Stream is the whole reason that Europe isn't a lot colder than it is (if you bother to look at map, GB is at the same latitude of Calgary CA where average temps typically get to 62 F during the summer and around 20 F in the winter for average highs which compared with London at 66 F during the summer and 41 F in the winter for average highs with Paris having similar temperatures). If temperatures continue to rise, the Gulf Stream will slow and then stop completely. At which point, Europe ends up going to temperatures similar to what is seen in the CA and Russia at those latitudes.
So, yes, if you bothered to actually learn something about the climate and climate change in general, you'd realize that the continued temperature rises in the arctic and antarctic will shut down the currents that high and low latitudes depend on to keep termperatures temperate. If effect, those currents shut down and a new iceage starts. It won't start immediately, but can occur quick enough that it can be seen to happen in 50 to 100 years.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - DeeBye - 06-04-2017
![[Image: earth_temperature_timeline.png]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png)
![[Image: Gi64Qtj.png]](http://i.imgur.com/Gi64Qtj.png)
RE: So Paris Accord.... - kandrathe - 06-04-2017
I don't believe that cartoon is in fact accurate. There is a risk that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels could trigger abrupt changes in the climate system—that is, changes so abrupt that they could seriously challenge the ability of humans, plants and animals to adapt. Ice core records can help us better understand this risk: they notably show that, during the last glacial period (around 100 000 to 20 000 years ago), temperature over the Greenland ice sheet could change by up to 16°C within a few decades.
I think is is difficult to know the variation in average daily temperatures 20000 to 100000 years ago. The cartoon portrays misleading vast stretch of time with little variation. Based on severe volcanic events impact on climate we know extreme variation in temperatures were happening. My interest is in the science of the tipping points, like killing off corals, or shutting down the Gulf Stream. I have some concern that the rapidity of change will overwhelm naturally occurring corrections to extreme conditions.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - Jester - 06-04-2017
(06-03-2017, 10:29 PM)Sir_Die_alot Wrote: I looked through a few others from this forum, but all the climate change links were similarly dead, and I'm not in the mood to dig through the web archive for EVERYTHING. Feel free to show me some "moderate" climate predictions like "We will gain 1 degree per 70 years!". Everything I can recall is similar to the above. More "the world/Europe/XYZcontinent is ruined in 20 years" and less margin of error level change.
If you're looking for scientific views, the obvious place to start is the IPCC. From the 2014 report:
Quote:Relative to 1850–1900, global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) is projected to likely exceed 1.5°C for RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence). Warming is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence), more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5 (medium confidence), but unlikely to exceed 2°C for RCP2.6 (medium confidence).
... where the various RCPs refer to different emissions scenarios. Note that all of these are talking about warming by a few degrees (2-6 is the usual range for the do-nothing scenario), not Mad Max or The Day After Tomorrow or whatever other nonsense. (Not to minimise the relevance: 2 degrees of warming would be bad, and 6 degrees would be extremely bad, especially for the billions of relatively poor people living around the equator.)
If you're looking for people making non-apocalyptic (but nevertheless deeply worrying) claims about climate change on the Lounge, just read through the historical climate change threads. Plenty to find there, if you're looking to find sensible views, not just hunting for stuff to laugh at. And, of course, Pete used to post here, and so the average quality was much higher.
-Jester
RE: So Paris Accord.... - roguebanshee - 06-04-2017
(06-04-2017, 04:28 AM)DeeBye Wrote:This one fairly succintly summarizes my view of the people against doing something about these things. Even if climate change should turn out to be a very elaborate hoax, the things done to fight it are still overall beneficial to all of us and especially the comming generations.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - kandrathe - 06-04-2017
Overall, my philosophy when it comes to the "commons" is that if you, or your horse makes mess it's your responsibility to clean it up.
The trouble with the cartoon is it doesn't consider the costs. For example, we can drastically reduce hurricane deaths by moving people and communities 200 miles from the coast. Pretty much impossible in costs and not politically feasible. We have made progress on reducing co2 with a thriving economy due to technology. I'm a big advocate of sensible transition to clean energy, but not by neo-Luddite destruction of the economy.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - eppie - 06-05-2017
(06-02-2017, 06:33 PM)Ashock Wrote: With all the lamentations and handwringing going on from the left over the US quitting the Paris accord, let's look at some interesting info. The below is a study done not by someone who does not believe in man-made global warming, but actually by someone who DOES.
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
Or you could read the wall of text:
Bjorn Lomborg
Bjorn Lomborg is an economist. He has no idea about global warming.....sometimes he says it doesn't exist, another time he says it exists but that it isn't caused by humans, another time he accepts it is being caused by humans but he has issues with the wat we spend money to counter it.
A typical climate sceptic (I would use the word religious nutcase for someone who systematically shows he doesn't understand science).
Lomborg is a person not to be trusted. I have followed his work allready for a long time, and he rarely says something sensible.
(06-04-2017, 01:40 PM)kandrathe Wrote: Overall, my philosophy when it comes to the "commons" is that if you, or your horse makes mess it's your responsibility to clean it up.
The trouble with the cartoon is it doesn't consider the costs. For example, we can drastically reduce hurricane deaths by moving people and communities 200 miles from the coast. Pretty much impossible in costs and not politically feasible. We have made progress on reducing co2 with a thriving economy due to technology. I'm a big advocate of sensible transition to clean energy, but not by neo-Luddite destruction of the economy.
Most good calculations show that investing in a green economy actually is good for the economy and can make you earn money.
The problem is that the people who are now in big oil and coal will have take losses....and other people will have more chance of making money.
This is the reason why the oil lobby groups (which have 100s of times more budget than climate scientists) still try to blind us and make us think climate change is not true.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - FireIceTalon - 06-05-2017
This is the second or third thread on climate change (denial) he's made in the last few months. Especially in light of the fact that the question of global warming has long been answered in the scientific community. He was incorrect in the other ones, and he's incorrect in this one. As this point it's safe to say that Ashock's threads qualify as spam rather than as legitimate discussion-starters. It's an utter joke that my thread gets locked, but this piece of shit science-denying, propagandist thread is still allowed to remain open. Not a surprise though. Libbies have more in common with fascists then they will care to admit, if they aren't outright sympathetic towards them in many ways.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - Ashock - 06-05-2017
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/05/delingpole-revealed-the-real-reason-trump-pulled-out-of-paris/
RE: So Paris Accord.... - kandrathe - 06-05-2017
(06-05-2017, 08:45 AM)eppie Wrote: Most good calculations show that investing in a green economy actually is good for the economy and can make you earn money.Overall, true.
The problem is that the people who are now in big oil and coal will have take losses....and other people will have more chance of making money.
This is the reason why the oil lobby groups (which have 100s of times more budget than climate scientists) still try to blind us and make us think climate change is not true.
But, since the advent of human settlements burning wood in fireplaces and hearths, stoves, then coal fired generators, then internal combustion engines, no one paid anything towards the cost of air pollution, going then into (fresh/ocean) water and ground pollution. Nature has acted as a sponge sequestering a big amount of human activity up to a tipping point, which we've clearly passed (due to the ever rising amount of GHG's).
We need to transition to cleaner energy. But, I don't believe we can leap directly to 100% clean energy without massive economic disruption (like epic, we're all gonna drop everything and build some huge energy pyramids type disruption).
Much of the foot dragging in the USA is at regional power producing giants, like Dominion, Duke, First Energy, Exelon, NextEra, Southern Company, and American Electric Power. We probably cannot wait for the customers served by them to rally, or the State legislators to stand against their lobbying power. External political and investor pressure needs to help nudge them towards a cleaner, cheaper energy future. Mostly we need to target the old and dirty power plants for closure, and provide incentives for cost effective renewable plants.
RE: So Paris Accord.... - Ashock - 06-07-2017
(06-05-2017, 08:42 PM)kandrathe Wrote:(06-05-2017, 08:45 AM)eppie Wrote: Most good calculations show that investing in a green economy actually is good for the economy and can make you earn money.Overall, true.
The problem is that the people who are now in big oil and coal will have take losses....and other people will have more chance of making money.
This is the reason why the oil lobby groups (which have 100s of times more budget than climate scientists) still try to blind us and make us think climate change is not true.
But, since the advent of human settlements burning wood in fireplaces and hearths, stoves, then coal fired generators, then internal combustion engines, no one paid anything towards the cost of air pollution, going then into (fresh/ocean) water and ground pollution. Nature has acted as a sponge sequestering a big amount of human activity up to a tipping point, which we've clearly passed (due to the ever rising amount of GHG's).
We need to transition to cleaner energy. But, I don't believe we can leap directly to 100% clean energy without massive economic disruption (like epic, we're all gonna drop everything and build some huge energy pyramids type disruption).
Much of the foot dragging in the USA is at regional power producing giants, like Dominion, Duke, First Energy, Exelon, NextEra, Southern Company, and American Electric Power. We probably cannot wait for the customers served by them to rally, or the State legislators to stand against their lobbying power. External political and investor pressure needs to help nudge them towards a cleaner, cheaper energy future. Mostly we need to target the old and dirty power plants for closure, and provide incentives for cost effective renewable plants.
I started this thread strictly on the topic of the uselessness or to be more accurate, destructive uselessness of the Paris accords. However, as we have diverged.....:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/delingpole-global-warming-is-myth-58-scientific-papers-2017/
RE: So Paris Accord.... - Ashock - 07-03-2017
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/global-warming-the-imminent-crisis-that-never-arrives/