The executive secretary for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) says major progress has been made in the fight against global warming, and staying within a 2 degree temperature rise is still possible.
Speaking at a press event in London ahead of next month’s crucial climate talks in Paris, Christiana Figueres claimed that individual agreements were already in place that would restrict warming to 3 deg C if fully implemented. It is widely accepted among the scientific community that a 2 deg C temperature shift is the limit the planet can tolerate if the worst effects of climate change are to be avoided.
“There’s nobody out there that wants a 3 degree world,” said Figueres. “Nobody.”
“We are not giving up on a 2 degree world. In fact, we’re staying under 2 degrees. And what we’re doing is we are building a process that is going to get us there.”
After the debacle of the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009, significant progress has been made in expanding renewables globally and taking important steps towards decarbonisation. The shale gas revolution in the US has decreased demand for coal there, and Figueres says China’s coal use is estimated to peak around 2020.
Where developed and emerging nations clashed in 2009, there now appears to be greater consensus in the run up to Paris 2015. Draft agreements have been in progress for over a year, and between 80 and 100 heads of state will be in attendance at the conference when it begins on November 29. This contrasts with previous summits where heads of state have arrived at the end of talks, by which point any chance of agreement has often already been scuppered.
Much of the heavy-duty groundwork has already been laid, and 155 INDCs (intended nationally determined contributions) are already in place, covering 88 per cent of global greenhouse emissions. According to Figueres, these agreements are the foundation of a path to 3 deg C change, and Paris will help cement them in place and extend them beyond 2030. But she admits that more is needed if we are to stay within the 2 degree limit, and this is another aspect of the Paris talks.
Alongside the main agreement – which even if talks are successful will not come into force until 2020 – a “ratchet mechanism” to progressively increase efforts is also on the agenda. Part of the summit will also look at measures that can be taken before the 2020 start date. Known as Workstream 2, it will focus on the immediate action required to steer us from the worst effects of climate change.
In this respect, Figueres believes that science and technology has a key role to play. She says humanity’s ingenuity – and the increasing flexibility of capital to embrace new technologies – can shift us to a path that ultimately leads to carbon neutrality and an ecologically balanced planet.
“We continually underestimate the power of technology, the speed with which capital can move over, and above all, we underestimate human ingenuity,” Figueres said. “So I think one of the most powerful outcomes of Paris is that it’s going to focus human ingenuity on what seems now as an absolutely invincible challenge.”
“It is not invincible. If we have already brought the extended temperature from 4-5 deg C to under 3, we already have evidence that we can do this.”
“It is not invincible. If we have already brought the extended temperature from 4-5 deg C to under 3, we already have evidence that we can do this.”
Once again a completely unsupported statement. To justify this we require several unavailable pieces of information:
1) CO2 is the major driver of climate change. The current pause suggests that there is at least one other driver of equivalent strength to CO2. In a dynamic system if your input variable has a consistent behavior, in this case a rise in atmospheric concentration of CO2 of around 1.6 ppm per year (Mauna Loa figures), but your output variable makes a step change of more than 50%, in this case a global temperature rise of around 0.12°C/decade from 1951 to 1998 dropping to around 0.05°C/decade after 1998 (IPCC AR5 WG1 figures) something else is happening.
2) The current rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is entirely manmade. Isotopic measurements suggest that a portion is manmade, which is reasonable considering we burn fossil fuels. We also know from historic proxy records that CO2 levels vary without man burning fossil fuels.
3) The sensitivity of the climate to CO2 levels, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS). This number is currently derived from various computer models and is generally being revised downwards over time. If it is 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, taking 350 ppm as a starting point it will take more than 200 years at the current rate of CO2 increase to achieve a global temperature increase of 2°C.
So we are apparently basing world policy on three unknowns.
Best regards
Roger
“If we have already brought the extended temperature from 4-5 deg C to under 3, we already have evidence that we can do this.”
What nonsense! All she is saying is that, as they have learned a bit more, the original extreme predictions of the climate models have reduced by tweaking the climate models. And, if the IPCC reports on the huge uncertainties involved in the models are correct, they will go down even further.
The fact is that carbon dioxide has continued to increase at a very steady rate so the trillions of dollars that hadve been spent trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions have been totally wasted. And her solution is to squander even more money trying to reduce the concentration of a gas that does not cause dangerous global warming but certainly benefits agriculture and reduces desertification.
The sooner this nonsense ends the better. And, as engineers are very familiar with the use of computer models and the need for them to make accurate predictions, they should lead the fight against people making wild predictions on the basis of unproven computer models fed with inaccurate input data.
If those who are skeptical of the scientific facts would simply re-examine their prejudiced analysis (founded on misinformation), they may see that the more likely error in the view quoted above is that Figueres’ belief is a bit too optimistic. That is very unfortunate for all of Earth’s inhabitants, especially poor humans and vulnerable ecosystems that cannot adapt quickly enough.
Anthropogenic warming is real, it’s here and if we don’t act quickly enough your grandchildren may curse the day you nailed your colours to the mast of myths. (what were you thinking, denying the urgency of the situation?)
“The September average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 0.90°C above the 20th century average. This was the highest September temperature on record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.19°C. September’s high temperature was also the greatest rise above average for any month in the 136-year historical record.”
“While business-as-usual would see a 4.5 degrees rise in temperature, current proposals would only reduce warming to 3.5 degrees, according to Climate Interactive.” – If we are very lucky. Personally, I’m not at all comfortable with leaving our ‘legacy’ to luck.
David,
“(founded on misinformation)”, please can you be more specific? As I am taking information from the IPCC WG1 I find it difficult to see this as misinformation. What I do consider misinformation is that the information from the working groups of the IPCC does not appear in the summary for policy makers.
Best regards
Roger
Everybody makes mistakes Roger. The sum total of all the errors you see in the ‘modelling’ does not in any way call into question the established scientific facts. You are “too busy on the proof” of what you mistakenly believe to be the case. (AGW is just a theory and it’s wrong?!) It’s high time you changed your mind.
“By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/exxons-climate-lie-change-global-warming
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/03/3718146/misleading-un-report-confuses-media-paris-climate-talks/
“A very misleading news release from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) — coupled with an opaque UNFCCC report on those pledges, which are called intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) — has, understandably, left the global media thinking the climate talks in Paris get us much closer to 2°C than they actually do.”
David,
“established scientific facts” Once again these mythical scientific facts.
Please can you tell us these facts in your own words. Maybe there will be something there to make me change my mind.
Best regards
Roger
Prompted by a point an a graph labeled Hansen 1984 I thought that I would delve a little into the history of CO2 and AGW. I searched back to a report by the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee from 1983. This is available as a download online:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18714/changing-climate-report-of-the-carbon-dioxide-assessment-committee
The first point I noted in the executive summary was,
“8. Results of most numerical model experiments suggest that a doubling of CO2 , if maintained indefinitely , would cause a global surface air warming of between 1 . 5 °C and 4 . 5 °C. The climate record of the past hundred years and our estimates of CO2 changes over that period suggest that values in the lower half of this range are more probable. (Chapters 4 , 5)”
30 years later after vast amounts of expensive research the IPCC AR5 came up with the same figures! Can anything change, or is it the case as with fundamental physics and string theory that groupthink has taken over and original thought is no longer possible?
The CO2 level estimates were also interesting,
“The median estimate for passing 600 ppm is 2065. For the year 2000, the most likely concentration is 370 ppm , with an upper limit of about 400 ppm.”
The Mauna Loa annual average for 2000 was 369.52 ppm! I would be proud to make a 25 year plus prediction that close.
Figure 1.12 is a pre Hockey stick temperature chart from 1880 to 1980 showing a steady temperature drop from 1940 to 1980.
The ECS validation is also interesting,
“The available data on trends in globally or hemi spherically averaged temperatures over the last century, together with estimates of C02 changes over the period , do not preclude the possibility that slow climatic changes due to increasing atmospheric CO2 projections might already be under way. If the climate has warmed about 0.5°C and the preindustrial CO2 concentration was near 300 ppm , the sensitivity of climate to CO2 (expressed as projected increase of equilibrium global temperature for a doubling of CO2 concentration) might be as large as suggested by the upper half of the range indicated earlier , i.e. , up to perhaps 4.5°C , if the preindustrial C02 concentration was well below 300 ppm and if other forcing factors did not intervene , however , the sensitivity must be below 3°C if we are to avoid inconsistency with the available record (see Figure 1.13).”
From the Law Dome ice core the preindustrial CO2 levels were around 275-280ppm so figure 1.13 gives an ECS of around 2.
There is a lot more interesting reading about the predicted effects of climate change on agriculture, sea levels, etc. along with a lot of uncertainties that still have not been resolved/improved.
Climate science along with fundamental physics does not appear to have moved along in the last 30 plus years. In both cases I think that we must be missing something fundamental!
Best regards
Roger
Andrew,
A list of phrases is not scientific facts, they are beliefs.
Facts require data and causality not conjecture and coincidence. Looking at some your list:
Sea level rise-
Indeed a significant problem according to the House of Lords:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/sea-levels-have-risen-by-8-foot-since-1990-bbc/
Global temperature rise-
Almost flat for the last 18 years. Central England Temperatures are falling:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Shrinking ice sheets-
Declining Arctic sea ice-
Apparently not:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/27/geophysical-research-letters-shock-finding-in-2014-more-multiyear-ice-than-previous-nine-years-arctic-winter-0-5-1-5c-colder/comment-page-1/#comment-1051995
Decreased winter snow cover in the northern hemisphere-
Try telling that to these snowmen:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/19/autumn-halftime-central-europe-record-cold-shatters-dwd-prediction-of-warm-fall-cologne-shatters-cold-record/#sthash.s6qXcpWb.hLPtg66g.dpbs
https://wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/historischer-oktoberschnee-2015-bis-ins-flachland-dauert-die-kaeltewelle-in-europa-an/
Please try and keep some credulity in your journalism.
Best regards
Roger