HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Tuesday, December 15, 2015

 
The Paris climate conundrum — three facts and a question

by Gaius Publius



He's been to London and to Gay Paree. A fine live performance (source)



I'll publish a fuller analysis of the Paris climate agreement in due time — yes, climate negotiators in Paris did reach an agreement — but for those fresh to the news, I'd like you to put three facts together, then ask a question. Note: This is not a "give up" post. It's a "what the right next move" post. First, the three facts. 

1. World Leaders Agree — Two Degrees Warming Is Too Much

I'll let Bill McKibben tell this part of the story:
In the agreement, the world promises to hold the rise in the planet’s temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius. Heck, it promises to aim for 1.5 degrees, which is extraordinary. It’s what actually needs to be done; if we succeeded, it might just head off complete calamity. (We’re now at 1 degree above average pre-industrial temperatures, and considering what that’s already done in terms of melt, flood, and drought, 1.5 C will still be trouble, but maybe manageable trouble.)
He quotes the preamble to the Paris agreement (pdf):
Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C …
So that's fact one, and your first major takeaway. World leaders want to hold global warming to "well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels" and are shooting to "limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C".

2. If We Stop Emissions Today, 1.5 Degrees Is Still Guaranteed

If your car is moving at 60 mph and you slam on the brakes, will it stop instantly? Of course not. It will continue to move a certain amount. That "certain amount" in the world of DMV tests is called the "braking distance" for a given speed. You'd be foolish not to take it into account. If you put take a roast out of a hot oven and set it on a cool surface, it will continue to cook for a while, and a meat thermometer would show that. (Same with your hand, by the way, if you touch a hot stove. Done that.)

In the climate world, the tendency to continue to cook is called "in the pipeline" warming, and it reflects what they call "climate latency" — the lag between a force applied (a single-pulse emission of a greenhouse gas, say) and the final effect on surface temperature after equilibrium is reached. It's the temperature at equilibrium that counts, since that's the world we'll be living in. (Other temperatures, such as "global warming by 2100," are called transient temperatures, since they're on the way to something else.)

Turns out, if we stop today, most best-estimates of the equilibrium temperature — the temperature after everything still "in the pipeline" is accounted for — is 1.5°C. Let's look at just a few of the people saying this:

Scientific American (my emphasis throughout):
It is still difficult to say how much temperatures will rise by 2050 or 2100 due to the carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere known as the warming in the pipeline. There is a lag between any rise in CO2 levels and the heating that results, so the planet is locked in to further warming and to the chief repercussions such as further sea level rise. But the IPCC has released good estimates of the pipeline: the best case is that the average global temperature at the Earths surface will rise 1.5 degrees C by 2100, compared with 1990 levels. The worst case is 4.5 degrees C, and the most likely case is 3 degrees C.

In his own assessment of the numbers, Dana Nuccitelli, a physicist who writes at the Skeptical Science blog known for deep analysis of these matters notes that the 1.5 degrees C case would only be possible if the world stopped increasing emissions by 2020 and then began reducing them by 3.5 percent a year. As he notes, that scenario involves extremely aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
Skeptical Science:
[Climate skeptic (!) Christopher] Monckton, on the other hand, is calculating how much surface warming remains "in the pipeline" from the CO2 we've already emitted, due to the thermal lag of warming the oceans, and the fact that there is still a planetary energy imbalance. We can calculate this by instead plugging in the current CO2 concentration (390 ppm [at that time]) into the formula above:

dT = 0.8*5.35*ln(390/280) = 1.4°C

Since the surface air has warmed about 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels thus far, there remains approximately 0.6°C warming "in the pipeline" from the CO2 we've emitted to this point, roughly consistent with Monckton's calculations (0.7°C).
That was written in 2011, and we've certainly emitted a lot more since then, so the "pipeline"' number has moved. If you recalculate the formula with 400 ppm instead of 390, you get 1.526°C. Note that our emissions are also accelerating.

Finally, Dr. Michael Mann, from an interview I did with him in October 2014 (listen here). His best estimate of the "in the pipeline" number gives us a Stop Now equilibrium temperature of ... 1.5°C. Remember, the final number depends on the climate system reaching equilibrium — "settling down," in other words, after period of imbalance due to the force of new atmospheric CO2.

3. If We Never Stop Emissions, the In-the-Pipeline Number Keeps Going Up

And finally, to just say the obvious, the equilibrium number keeps going up with each new ton of atmospheric CO2 we add. Global carbon emissions are currently at 10 GtC (gigatons of carbon) per year. Our atmospheric concentration (ppm) is at 400 ppm and rising at more than 2.1 ppm per year. Our current "stop now" equilibrium number is already 1.5°C. We haven't stopped, and Paris, so far, isn't an agreement to stop emitting CO2, simply to slow down.

Those are simply facts. So...

Question: What Should We Do In Response?

This is the question. I don't mean "what should world leaders do in response?" We know what they will do — the best the owners of the world's wealth will let them.

The question is — what should we do, the ones who will be left behind when they take their corporate jets to Sweden and Canada forever, to inhabit their new, climate-safe homes and leave the wreck to us? We have time — I give us a window of 5-10 years unless truly catastrophic tipping points are reached. What should we do with that time?

I think the climate movement is clear on half the answer: We should do everything we can. I don't think it's as clear on the schedule: The press for the end result — zero emissions — has to start immediately and be pursued more aggressively than the "free market" will allow. Otherwise, the math is against us.


With that in mind, I challenge you — what next steps would you consider, assuming you chose to help, if you knew we had five years, and only that?

As I said, I'll have a fuller analysis of Paris in due time. These are the big ones, though; three facts and a question. (If your answer to the question tends toward the electoral, you might consider supporting this guy, the only viable candidate who seems to get it; adjust the split any way you like at the link.)

GP


.