Sunday, April 13, 2014

So Eli has found a revised final draft

So Eli has found a revised final draft submitted by the WGIII working group and there is also a copy on SCRIBD for the bunnies Sunday morning reading pleasure.

There are, of course, any number of take homes.

First that properly done mitigation is low cost, 0.06% of global GDP

Second that nations trying to do it alone will fail, raise costs

Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently. Climate change has the characteristics of a collective action problem at the global scale, because most greenhouse gases (GHGs) accumulate over time and mix globally, and emissions by any agent (e.g., individual, community, company, country) affect other agents
Third, that energy systems will have to be substantially altered
Scenarios reaching atmospheric concentration levels of about 450 ppm 1 CO2eq by 2100 (consistent with a likely chance to keep temperature change below 2°C relative to pre‐industrial levels include substantial cuts in anthropogenic GHG emissions by mid‐century through large‐scale changes in energy systems and potentially land use (high confidence).
Fourth that delay is the devil
Delaying mitigation efforts beyond those in place today through 2030 is estimated to substantially increase the difficulty of the transition to low longer‐term emissions levels and narrow the range of options consistent with maintaining temperature change below 2°C relative to pre‐industrial levels (high confidence)
Fifth that costs are not zero, but bearable, very bearable compared to the nothing at all, and even the adaptation only or primarily scenarios.  this is a bit tricky because the 0.06% annualized estimate corresponds (as is the habit for such) of 3-11% total in 2100

Of course, if you think the costs of a 580-650 ppm world are fine, the cost is less.  Good luck with that, and also of course there are some optimistic assumptions
Scenarios in which all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, there is a single global carbon price, and all key technologies are available, have been used as a cost‐effective benchmark for estimating macroeconomic mitigation costs
and, reading the next section of Table 2 reveals a very very optimistic take on the possibilities of carbon capture which, even including reforestation as it does, depends at least in substantial part on unproven technology.

And making everyone unhappy
Nuclear energy is a mature low‐GHG emission source of baseload power, but its share of global electricity generation has been declining (since 1993). Nuclear energy could make an increasing contribution to low‐carbon energy supply, but a variety of barriers and risks exist (robust evidence, high agreement).

GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal‐fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined‐cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated (robust evidence, high agreement).

Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technologies could reduce the lifecycle GHG emissions of fossil fuel power plants (medium evidence, medium agreement). While all components of integrated CCS systems exist and are in use today by the fossil fuel extraction and refining industry, CCS has not yet been applied at scale to a large, operational commercial fossil fuel power plant.
Finally on various methods of restraining emissions
Since AR4, cap and trade systems for GHGs have been established in a number of countries and regions. Their short‐run environmental effect has been limited as a result of loose caps or caps that have not proved to be constraining (limited evidence, medium agreement).
In some countries, tax‐based policies specifically aimed at reducing GHG emissions–alongside technology and other policies–have helped to weaken the link between GHG emissions and GDP (high confidence).

The reduction of subsidies for GHG‐related activities in various sectors can achieve emission reductions, depending on the social and economic context (high confidence).


Anonymous said...

Why on earth would we want to mitigate benefits?

guthrie said...

What benefits, scaredy anonymous?

effective mitigation is: said...

a fair tale

a fairy tale

none of the above

first: the albedo decreased lots

second: the permafrost release more ch4 everyday

third or thurd ? cows sacred or not make more turd's this days and they give a extra CH4 before slaughter by chinese and african's and 5 billion others

IV - or intra-ve.....the drop in global GDP if this reduction take place

of about 450 ppm in 2100?
well the killing of joe gallo don't change these emissions

you need to kill the surplus population that by 2100 are at least 9 billion people
2 billion more than now or three
if they reach 10,000,000,000

changes in soil use? said...

changes in water use?

changes in the global menu?

i don't like ratburger's von McDonald

John Mashey said...

Note: AR5's discussion of CCS seem accurate: technology works, the issues are scale-up and economics. A challenge is fact that effective CCS is on same order of size as the existing oil business. Whether this is right or not, I've heard claims from (knowledgable) people that they know how to do it, and at $80/ton CO2 it's economic. The oil guys would be happy to do it, not the coal guys,k who couldn't.

That's different, say from fusion or magic to-be-named breakthroughs.

Mal Adapted said...

guthrie: gotta be this scaredy anonymous. A troll with a better memory would go somewhere it hasn't already been debunked. Trolls often have poor memories though, and rebunking is what they do.

Força Força Camarada Vasco said...

BY-NOTE: the Intertropical Convergence Zone and associated southward shift of polar jet stream .....
Abstract: Vegetation assemblages and associated disturbance regimes are ... Geochronology and paleoenvironment of pluvial Harper Lake, Mojave ...OR AMAZONAS OR INTERTROPICAL ZONE SHIFTS


The area of interest for this study lies in the Western pa
rt of the Amazon. Monthly and annual meteorological data
from 12 places were used, with daily data from eight rain
gauges and daily rainfall intensity records. Data were
presented from tests of water infiltration into the soil pe
rformed in the region. The results showed that the
Northwest part of the region was the rainiest, attaining a
nnual means of 3,333 mm at Iauaretê. In the Southern part,
beginning at 5°S, the mean values reached 1,952 mm, at
Rio Branco. Mean annual rainfalls ranged from 2,500 mm
to 2,200 mm, in the region. The lowest pluvial total w
as 1,365 mm, which occurred at Parintins in 1983, and may
be associated to the effects of a strong El Niño (82-83). In
years when La Niña was strong, rainfalls were above the
average and when El Niño was strong, they were below
the average. The rainiest period was from December to
April with means above 160 mm and the least rainy was fro
m May to September, August being the month with the
lowest rainfall. Close to Humaitá, annua
l rainfalls were less than 2,000 mm.
Additional Keywords: rainfall, soil erosi
on, erosive potential, Brazilian Amazon



the thermal input in rivers with glaciar or snow-feeding basins are going back to the 80's?


pluviometric variations in amazon basin or missus hip basins are going to the normal normal now?

Mississipi charley, over

Força Força Camarada Vasco said...

this is a nice but limited approach

to the remediation problem of c....

Abstract: August–July precipitation has been reconstructed back to AD 1724 for the Mohe region in the northern Greater Higgnan Mountains, China, using Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica tree-ring width. The reconstruction explains 39% of the variance in the precipitation observed from AD 1960–2008. Some droughts noted in historical documents are precisely captured in our reconstruction. Wet periods occurred during the periods of AD 1734–1785, AD 1805–1830, AD 1863–1880, AD 1922–1961, and AD 1983–1998; while the periods of AD 1786–1804, AD 1831–1862, AD 1881–1921, and AD 1962–1982 were relatively dry. Power spectral and wavelet analyses demonstrated the existence of significant 24-yr, 12-yr, and 2-yrcycles of variability. The results of the spatial correlations suggest that our reconstruction contains climatic signals for the southern Stanovoy Range and the northern Greater Higgnan Mountains. The positive correlations between the new reconstructed precipitation series and two precipitation reconstructions indicate that our precipitation reconstruction captures broad-scale regional climatic variations. A comparison between the weakening tendency of summer monsoon and the dry period of our reconstruction reveals that the annual precipitation in the Mohe region is partly influenced by the East Asian Summer Monsoon.

OnymousGuy said...

We are already at 473 ppmv CO2 eq and it is increasing faster than people are aware!


Anonymous said...

The rate of greenhouse forcing increase peaked in the mid 1980s.

exusian said...

"mitigate benefits?"

Ah, the "it's happening, and yes, we're the cause, but relax, it will be good for us" gambit.

As long as the "us" are well-off white people living in the right place with the right portfolio of investments and the right stockpile of assets.

As for the rest of humanity, or "them"?

Darwinism in action.

Anonymous said...


GDP per person increasing globally,
longevity - increasing globally
infant mortality - decreasing globally
income inequality - decreasing globally
agricultural production ( as measured by calories consumed per capita ) increasing globally.

If global wurming were actually significant, when would we expect to see anything get worse?

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Severe drought--increasing globally
Climate related losses--increasing globally

Average IQ of anonytrolls--definitely not increasing.

Aaron said...

Moulins are marching across Greenland. That is, Greenland below 1,500 meters is melting. We do not have to warm anything up; all we have to do is wait. If the ice at sea level melts/breaks up, then the ice currently supported by the sea level ice will fall to sea level where it is warmer. At this time there is enough heat in the system to cause real SLR over time.

The Earth's climate is not in equlibrium with the CO2 that we have already emitted into the atmosphere. We won't know the equilbrium temperature for the CO2 already in the atmosphere until ALL of the feedbacks come to equilibrium. This will take a while.

Today, I am particularly concerned about how loss of snow cover and sea ice result in both a change in albedo and a a loss of a condensing surface that allows water vapor to linger in the Arctic atmosphere.

I am not saying that we cannot survive AGW, I am saying that it will take a focus, determination, and working together that is no longer part of the global culture.

Para a Posteridade e mais Além said...

and algal blooms

red tides are better to catch 22 Infra red radiation than blue or green algal or cyanobacterial bloom's

survive ? some survive some die it's like in the ice age's

but the civilization survive's
the Syria and Assyrians say the global civilization is kapput

and the russians know the 1917 dilemna
feed the towns or feed the army?

feed the army is a better choice for civilizational survival

Anonymous said...

"Climate related losses--increasing globally"

Funny how the world is getting fatter and richer at the same time.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonytroll heard speeding down past the 50th floor of the Empire State Building: "So far, so good."

Para a Posteridade e mais Além said...

the world is getting richer?

well spend some money with us world

we need only 200 bi and ukraine 90 bi

we pay in ukranian brides and in italian bribes

imback said...

The table shown says 0.06% annualized cost to GDP in order to level off at 450 ppm, not 0.6%.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous#1 suffers from a common problem in the animal world, which is the inability to plan ahead. Or consider events, people or places outside his own sphere of existence. Because HE is currently prospering, that means it will go on forever, and everyone else is apparently prospering too.

Never mind the rapidly increasing extinction rates, nope, that won't touch him. He's not part of the world around him, see. He's above it.

Never mind there are people already being forced to emigrate to other countries because their own countries are nearly underwater. If it's not happening in his town, why, it's not happening at all.

Never mind the increasing illnesses (and spread into regions where certain diseases were previously unknown) and deaths to vulnerable people (children and elderly) as a result of shifting zones. If it hasn't happened where he lives, then it ain't happening. Nope. Not happening.

Anonymous said...

".rapidly increasing extinction rates..."

Nearly all species present today were here during the Eemian, the Last Glacial Maximum, and the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Strangely, most continued through. They appear to have a large tolerance of temperature variation. That stands to reason - species intolerant of variation, including temperature, are selected against during all the previous evolution.

The extinctions that we see in the Holocene appear to be more the result of direct human predation rather than indirect climate fluctuation.

The mega-fauna decline ( mammoths, sloths, etc. ) is consistent with the 'Clovis Point' cultures, whose new technology allowed them a great range of barbeque options - until they did them off.

The Dodo, the Pigeons, very nearly the Buffalo, etc. etc.

"...Never mind the increasing illnesses..."

Kinda interesting that respiratory and digestive illnesses
exhibit an inverse correlation with temperature.
The word 'Flu' we recall, stems from the Italian 'Influenza',
more completely 'Influenza di Fredo' meaning Influence of Cold.
Other factors are invoked, of course, but human mortality does peak in winter.

exusian said...

Anony1, we've already left the atmosphere of the Eemian, the Last Glacial Maximum, and the Holocene Climatic Optimum far behind, and Earth's climate is still in the process of catching up. Care to try for the Pliocene?

Oh, wait, homo sapiens, not to mention all of the domesticated animals and food crops that we depend on to feed 7 billion people, did not exist in the Pliocene.

Never mind, carry on with your ignorant protestations.