Category: Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Study: Ambiguous pledges leave large uncertainty under Paris climate agreement

Study: Ambiguous pledges leave large uncertainty under Paris climate agreement

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

From the INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS and the “uncertainty monster hits both ways” department:

Under the pledges made by countries under the Paris Agreement on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions could range from 47 to 63 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) per year in 2030, compared to about 52 GtCO2e in 2015, according to a new analysis. That range has critical consequences for the feasibility of achieving the goal of keeping warming “well below 2°C” over preindustrial levels, according to the study published in the journal Nature Communications.

The pledges, known as National Determined Contributions (NDCs) lay out a roadmap of how individual countries will reduce their emissions, with the intention of adding up to a global emissions reduction sufficient to achieve the Paris targets. Yet the new study shows that these individual maps leave out key details that would enable policymakers to see if they are headed in the right direction.

“Countries have put forward pledges to limit and reduce their emissions. But in many cases the actions described in these pledges are ambiguous or imprecise,” says IIASA researcher Joeri Rogelj, who led the study. For example, some pledges focus on improving “emissions intensity,” meaning reducing the emissions per dollar of economic output, but assumptions about socioeconomic growth are often implicit or unknown. Other countries focus on absolute emissions reductions, which are simpler to understand, or propose renewable energy targets, which can be expressed in different ways. Questions also remain about how much land-use-related climate mitigation will contribute, such as reducing deforestation or preserving forests.

The study finds that the emissions implied by the current NDCs can vary by -10 to +20% around the median estimate of 52 GtCO2e/yr in 2030. A previous study, also led by IIASA, had found that that the emissions reductions set out in the NDCs would not put the world on track to achieve the Paris targets.

(a) Regional emissions contributions to global emissions and uncertainty under the full implementation of current NDCs. Shadings show the minimum–maximum range of emissions estimates per region; (b) Estimates of the magnitude of uncertainty induced in 2030 per source relative to the median estimate; (c) Average contribution to full uncertainty range in 2030 per uncertainty source with the 10 most important contributions identified by region; (d) As b but per geographical region. AFR, Sub-Saharan Africa; CPA, Centrally Planned Asia and China; EEU, Central and Eastern Europe; FSU, Former Soviet Union; LAM, Latin America and the Caribbean; MEA, Middle East and North Africa; NAM, North America; PAS, Pacific OECD; SAS, South Asia; PAS, Other Pacific Asia; WEU, Western Europe. Country borders use the simplified TM World borders, provided by Bjorn Sandvik (thematicmapping.org).

The new study confirms this finding. It shows in a quantitative way that in order to keep warming to below 2°C, countries should either increase the stringency of their NDCs by 2030 or consider scaling up their ambition after 2030 by a factor 4 to 25. If the ambition of NDCs is not further increased by 2030, the study finds no pathways for returning warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century.

“The new results allow us to more precisely understand what is driving the uncertainty in emissions estimates implied by the Paris pledges,” says Rogelj. “With this information at hand, policymakers can formulate solutions to remediate this issue.”

“This is the first global study to systematically explore the range of emissions outcomes under the current pledges. Our study allows us to identify the key contributors to the overall uncertainty as well as potential clarifications by countries that would be most promising to reduce the overall uncertainty,” says IIASA Energy Program Director Keywan Riahi, a study coauthor.

The researchers find that uncertainty could be reduced by 10% with simple, technical clarifications, and could be further reduced by clearer guidelines for countries on building their NDCs. The study highlights the importance of a thorough and robust tracking process of progress made by countries towards the achievement of their NDCs and the Paris Agreement goals as a whole.

###

Reference

Rogelj J, Fricko O, Meinshausen M, Krey V, Zilliacus JJJ, Riahi K (2017). Understanding the origin of Paris Agreement emission uncertainties. Nature Communications. [doi: 10.1038/ncomms15748] http://ift.tt/2se3i8U

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

June 6, 2017 at 12:07PM

Uncategorized

Reddit Debate about Brief SOS

Reddit Debate about Brief SOS

via Defeat Climate Alarmism
https://defyccc.com

A Reddit post linking to the Brief Summary of Science for the Climate Debate received an intelligent reply.  I thank its author.  Following is a complete rebuttal of this reply.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a plant food.

Intentionally misleading. Water is human drink, but people still die in floods.

You drown when concentration of water around you is 100%.  Atmospheric concentration of CO2 is less than 0.05%.  Everything becomes harmful when there is too much of it, but the current and foreseeable concentrations of CO2 are beneficial, not harmful.

For most of Earth’s evolutionary history, the CO2 concentrations were much higher than they are today or that they can reach in the foreseeable future. For example, the CO2 concentration in the Jurassic period was 3-6 times higher than it is today. The so-called “pre-industrial atmosphere” was anomalously impoverished in CO2.

Lie.

Truth.  Read about the Jurassic period.

CO2 plays a very minor role, except during ice ages. Further, it has a very narrow absorption/emission spectrum, and it is almost saturated even at low CO2 The amount of infrared radiation, temporarily absorbed by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, grows nearly logarithmically (i.e., very slowly) with increases in CO2 concentrations.

Probably a lie. Funny, I can’t find a single reference to this “fact” outside of climate deniers’ blogs.

Don’t rely on ‘probably’.  All the information is available in physics textbooks. Also, see absorption charts and graphs on the web.

Either way, the relative magnitude of the change doesn’t matter. If you have two opposing forces, one at +1000 and the other varies between +1020 and +980, they balance. If you increase the first to +1100, they are now significantly out of balance, even if the extra +100 isn’t all that big, relatively speaking.

There is always change in nature.  The relative magnitude matters.  A life example: if a little child pushes you, you might not notice that. If a 400 lb athlete pushes you, you fly.

Thus, the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has an extremely small warming effect, which is negligible compared with natural temperature fluctuations in any region.

Intentionally misleading. Yes, of course the difference between winter and summer is bigger than the effect of climate change. If it wasn’t, we’d be lit on fire when we walked outside.

Differences between day and night, between consecutive days, and between mean temperatures in the same seasons in consecutive years are much bigger than climatic warming.  The anthropogenic warming is smaller than the natural temperature fluctuations, and thus does not matter.

But when every winter is a bit warmer, glaciers recede and sea level rises.

Glaciers have been receding and sea level rising for thousands years without any anthropogenic influence.  Influence of the anthropogenic warming on these processes is so small that it is not even measurable.

When every summer is a bit warmer, droughts become more common, and crops fail.

We feel thirstier when it is warmer, but droughts do not become more frequent or severe with regional or global warming.  It is a myth (or fallacy), exploited by climate alarmists. Meteorology explains that it is other way around – local droughts cause local warming.  Further, warmer air can contain more water vapors, and droughts tend to be associated with lower temperatures, although this topic is much more complex. 

Even larger mean warming would be beneficial for human societies and the biosphere, especially as a buffer against natural temperature drops.

Lie. A big change either way will shift weather patterns in ways that hurt regional food production in some regions, leading to political instability.

“… will shift weather patterns in ways that hurt regional food” is a typical alarmist word play.  A string of words, producing vague, unverifiable, but ominous message.

There is no significant change in temperatures, but big increase in the agricultural productivity thanks to CO2 fertilization.

CO2 plays no role in heat retention in a greenhouse.

Strawman. Greenhouses have nothing to do with the “greenhouse effect”, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it exists.

Many modern people do not know that greenhouses have nothing to do with the “greenhouse effect,” but climate alarmists use this lack of knowledge to associate greenhouse effect with CO2 in the minds of people.

The sea level has been rising since the last glacial episode, which ended about 20,000 years ago. In the last few thousands of years, the sea level has been rising at the rate of 0.2-1.0 inch per decade,

Strawman. Yes, of course ice ages have a bigger effect than anthropogenic climate change. That doesn’t mean that we’re not having an effect on top of that.

We are having negligible effect on the sea level rise, and do not know even the sign of this effect.  For all practical purposes, we have no effect on the sea level rise.

and no acceleration has been detected in the last several decades.

Lie. Does this look like “no acceleration”?

The linked graph shows constant rate of the sea rise.  It shows no acceleration.

There are different opinions on whether discernible global warming would accelerate or decelerate sea level rises.

Bullshit. There are different opinions on whether or not unicorns exist. Don’t try to hide your lies behind “some say that…” or “there are different opinions”.

There are multiple physical effects through which significant global warming might affect sea level rise.  One of the effects is that more water, evaporating from the oceans, would condense, freeze, and accumulate in Antarctica.  This effect causes deceleration of the sea level rise.  Recently detected increase in the Antarctic ice sheet indicates significance of this effect.

The oceans are alkaline, which is the opposite of acidic. The freshwater in most locations is slightly acidic.

Intentionally misleading. The amount of H+ in the oceans has increased by 30% in the industrial age,

Even assuming Wikipedia article is correct, that constitutes pH change from 8.25 to 8.14, still far from the neutral pH=7. In other words, the ocean water is still alkaline, and is not becoming acidic.  For other opinions and estimates of the natural variability, see NIPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered II – Biological Impacts, p.6.3.

and it is literally dissolving some animals.

Your second reference refers to a lab experiment, not animals in their natural environment: “In a lab experiment, a sea butterfly (pteropod) shell placed in seawater with increased acidity slowly dissolves over 45 days.”  Climate alarmists are notorious for presenting selected experiments as what happens in nature, and presenting output of model runs as experiments.

Humans exhale CO2 with each breath.

Non-sequitor. We piss water with every wee, but that doesn’t mean that floods don’t exist.

Nobody calls water a pollutant.  Nobody attempts to regulate anthropogenic emissions of water. Climate alarmists call CO2 a pollutant, and attempt to regulate it.

Attributing hurricanes, droughts, and extreme weather events to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, or to any known global anthropogenic activity, has no scientific basis.

Intentionally misleading. But saying that they become more likely does. You can’t figure out which cigarette caused lung cancer either.

This argument just confirms the original statement.  Attributing weather events to anthropogenic CO2 emissions includes saying that they “become more likely”.

Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.  This is a true statement.  Nobody asks or attempts to find out which cigarette caused it, but it is easy to show persons who got lung cancer from smoking.  “Anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause (or make more likely) hurricanes” is a false statement.  But nobody asks climate alarmists to figure out which power plant caused a hurricane.

It has antecedents in the medieval witch hunts that included accusations of “weather cooking.”

Non-sequitor. Completely unrelated.

It is related to the ideology and politics of climate alarmism.

via Defeat Climate Alarmism https://defyccc.com

June 6, 2017 at 08:20AM

Uncategorized

Climate change a fascist, power driven, false religion

Climate change a fascist, power driven, false religion

via Ice Age Now
http://ift.tt/2qcAwB3

Normal climate variation has morphed to “climate change”.
________________________

Climate change a fascist, power driven, false religion

By Russell Johnson

If you or I develop a scheme to take people’s money and convince them with made up numbers that their investment is growing, the scheme would be quickly prosecuted as fraud.

But when governments and the UN back the same type of scheme –in this case labeled “climate change” – it transcends truth to become a fascist, power driven, false religion.

Normal climate variation has morphed to “climate change”.

•  “Climate change” wields eminent power over individuals and business.

•   “Climate change” requires vast sums of money spent for no gain.

•   “Climate change” attempts to destroy freedom and individual travel provided by hydrocarbon based fuel.

•   “Climate change” encourages oppressive government and extreme regulation to achieve required goals.

It is well past time everyone realizes that the climate-change movement is a government organized religion based on deceit and fraud.
____________________________

 

The post Climate change a fascist, power driven, false religion appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now http://ift.tt/2qcAwB3

June 6, 2017 at 08:05AM

Uncategorized

EPA’s Pruitt: Establish ‘Red Team, Blue Team’ of scientists to examine climate risk of CO2

EPA’s Pruitt: Establish ‘Red Team, Blue Team’ of scientists to examine climate risk of CO2

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Interviewed by Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the American people deserve ‘a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.’ Pruitt calls for the establishment of a ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ of scientist to examine ‘what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world’.

VIDEO

EPA ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2. And, you know there was a great article that was in the Wall Street Journal, about a month or so ago, Joel, called ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ by Steve Koonin, a scientist I believe at NYU. And, he talked about the importance of having a red team of scientist and a blue team of scientists and those scientists get in a room and ask what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world with respect to this issue of CO2. The American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
Breitbart News Daily
June 5, 2017

h/t to Harry Readme

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

June 6, 2017 at 07:51AM