How We Know that Global Warming is Accelerating and that the Goal of the Paris Agreement is Dead

[knocker]

Quote

Delayed response of climate makes human-made climate change a grave threat, especially  for young people. Governments will not make required changes to energy policies based on theoretical threats – there must be sufficient empirical evidence of harm to force action. Thus, delayed response makes it difficult to avoid near-term, growing, climate impacts, but it does not prevent achievement of policies that will lead to a hospitable climate with a bright future for young people. Time is running short, however, and effective actions at this point require a good understanding of ongoing climate change and the responsible mechanisms.

The proximate cause of ongoing global warming is Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). Earth is now absorbing more energy incoming from the Sun than the planet is sending back to space as reflected solar light and emitted thermal (heat) radiation. As long as that imbalance is positive – more energy coming in than going out – Earth will continue to get hotter. Factors that alter Earth’s energy balance are called climate forcings. There are two large human-made climate forcings: changes of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) and changes of aerosols. GHGs reduce heat radiation to space; thus, an increase of GHGs causes a positive energy imbalance, more energy coming in than going out, which causes warming. Aerosols reflect sunlight to space, which is a negative contribution to EEI that causes cooling.

https://mailchi.mp/caa/how-we-know-that-global-warming-is-accelerating-and-that-the-goal-of-the-paris-agreement-is-dead

[WYorksWeather]

This paper has certainly made waves. James E. Hansen is one of the most respected names in climate science, so the world should take notice of what he says.

It must be noted though, that other climate scientists are not convinced of the high-end equilibrium climate sensitivity (4.8C for CO2 doubling, which is at the high end of the IPCCs very likely range of 2.0-5.0C). Among them, Michael E. Mann, who is of course another of the climate science heavyweights.

I don't think it changes the fundamental calculations. Emissions need to start falling rapidly this decade whether ECS is 3C or 4.8C, and so far there's no sign of that.

[Downburst]

"Given global warming of 0.95C in 2010, the warming by 2030 will be about 0.95°C + 2×0.18°C + 0.4°C = 1.71°C. Global warming of 2°C will be reached by the late 2030s, i.e., within about 15 years. The added climate forcing – presumed to be our first Faustian payment – is, indeed, a BFD."

[cheeky_monkey]

On 11/11/2023 at 05:28, WYorksWeather said:

Emissions need to start falling rapidly this decade whether ECS is 3C or 4.8C, and so far there's no sign of that.

Until you stop giving China and India a free pass then you are p*****g into the wind im afraid

[Scuba steve]

3 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

Until you stop giving China and India a free pass then you are p*****g into the wind im afraid

We can’t even stop killing each other so no chance

[Methuselah]

5 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

Until you stop giving China and India a free pass then you are p*****g into the wind im afraid

Rubbish!

[WYorksWeather]

4 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

Until you stop giving China and India a free pass then you are p*****g into the wind im afraid

I didn't say anything about giving China and India a free pass? The 'emissions need to fall' statement refers to global emissions. Of course there is a question about fairness between countries, but that is more of a political / ethical judgement.

Of course co-operation with India and China would be helpful on this issue, but it is also important to consider historic emissions. The US, a country with a population less than a third that of China, has historic emissions amounting to about twice that of China. The UK and Germany, with a combined population just barely over a tenth that of China, are responsible for half of China's cumulative emissions. If China and India do start to see their emissions fall even 20 years from now, they'll have reached a peak far faster than Western countries.

Of course, if we can push other countries to go faster, we should. And any policies we do implement should aim to be reasonably fair both across and within countries. For a start, it is well known that rich countries have failed to meet our obligations under various treaties on climate finance for developing countries - we could start with that, for example.

There are some countries that show the way ahead - the wealthiest countries in the world are decarbonising the fastest, particularly in Northern Europe, because they can afford to do so. Most other Western countries have enough money to do so if they want to. And even some of the oil-rich petrostates in the Middle East could make a killing out of solar with the right investment.

 

[cheeky_monkey]

14 hours ago, WYorksWeather said:

 

Of course co-operation with India and China would be helpful on this issue, but it is also important to consider historic emissions. The US, a country with a population less than a third that of China, has historic emissions amounting to about twice that of China. The UK and Germany, with a combined population just barely over a tenth that of China, are responsible for half of China's cumulative emissions. If China and India do start to see their emissions fall even 20 years from now, they'll have reached a peak far faster than Western countries.

 

 

this is a non sensical argument when talking about reducing emissions globally you cant change the past and give the biggest emitters a "free pass" based on what happened in the last 100 years ..so you are saying let them belch out co2  until they catch up to the historic per capita output of the historic output of western countries (who by the way were not aware 100 years or 50 years ago to the extent of damage that was being done) .. you seem to be happy to let China etc to keep increasing their emissions for the next 20 years as you state above ..this will only result in blowing through any ceiling of 1.5c or 2.5c or 5c ..tell me what difference it will make in the grand scheme of things when the likes of UK (whose emissions have been falling year on year since 1990) reach 0% emissions but the amount of emissions globally still keeps rising for the next 20 years?? ..its like clammering to the fire brigade to put out a fire in your shed whilst your happy to let your house burn down

[WYorksWeather]

On 15/11/2023 at 14:23, cheeky_monkey said:

this is a non sensical argument when talking about reducing emissions globally you cant change the past and give the biggest emitters a "free pass" based on what happened in the last 100 years ..so you are saying let them belch out co2  until they catch up to the historic per capita output of the historic output of western countries (who by the way were not aware 100 years or 50 years ago to the extent of damage that was being done) .. you seem to be happy to let China etc to keep increasing their emissions for the next 20 years as you state above ..this will only result in blowing through any ceiling of 1.5c or 2.5c or 5c ..tell me what difference it will make in the grand scheme of things when the likes of UK (whose emissions have been falling year on year since 1990) reach 0% emissions but the amount of emissions globally still keeps rising for the next 20 years?? ..its like clammering to the fire brigade to put out a fire in your shed whilst your happy to let your house burn down

Perhaps my comment wasn't clear. I said that even if they increased their emissions for the next 20 years they would still have peaked faster than we did. Not that I approve of that idea, as you're right it would completely break all of the climate targets.

I believe that all countries should reach peak emissions and then reduce them as fast as possible, especially this decade which has the most impact on future direction of travel. A decent emissions cut this decade gives more time to develop technology to resolve the hard-to-decarbonise areas.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that reductions should start earlier and proceed more quickly in the countries that have historically emitted the most. This is where the carbon budget idea comes in. There is a fixed global budget available for 1.5C and 2C. The 1.5C budget is nearly gone by most accounts, so focusing on the 50% chance of staying below 2C budget here gives a figure of 1,200 GT (billion tonnes) of CO2 according to a recent paper.

Globally, that is the remaining budget we can 'spend'. It makes perfect sense to me that those countries that have 'spent' more of the budget in the past should have to 'spend' less in the future, or else pay to offset their emissions with net-negative emissions, compared to those countries that have 'spent' less.

 

[Scuba steve]

Personally I don’t think I should have to pay for the sins of my forefathers ,it as simple as that in my view

[Sky Full]

12 hours ago, Scuba steve said:

Personally I don’t think I should have to pay for the sins of my forefathers ,it as simple as that in my view

The problem being that, whether they like it or not and whether they think it’s fair, or not, the many generations to come will be paying for the sins of THIS generation.  The people alive in the world today are the only ones in the history of this planet who are both fully aware of the damage being done, and are still just capable of restricting the damage if they take action now.  Failure to take action globally (not just country by country based on a league table of previous emissions) will condemn all future generations to a climate over which they no longer have control because the damage will already have been done.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Sky Full

[Sky Full]

If you still hope that the people in the world with the power to take the necessary action are genuinely planning to reduce fossil fuel use, it’s worth watching this documentary….
 

BBC iPlayer - Panorama - Why Are We Still Searching for Fossil Fuels?

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

Investigating why oil, coal and gas exploration is booming despite climate commitments.

There is no logic in searching for new oil and gas sources if the burning of all currently known deposits would tip the climate into irreversible warming.  We have to put the future climate security of the planet before the profits of the oil and gas companies.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Sky Full

[Optimus Prime]

13 hours ago, Scuba steve said:

Personally I don’t think I should have to pay for the sins of my forefathers ,it as simple as that in my view

But presumably you're more than happy to live a high standard lifestyle invested by the people who contributed least to anthropogenic climate change ?

[alexisj9]

3 hours ago, Sky Full said:

If you still hope that the people in the world with the power to take the necessary action are genuinely planning to reduce fossil fuel use, it’s worth watching this documentary….
 

BBC iPlayer - Panorama - Why Are We Still Searching for Fossil Fuels?

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

Investigating why oil, coal and gas exploration is booming despite climate commitments.

There is no logic in searching for new oil and gas sources if the burning of all currently known deposits would tip the climate into irreversible warming.  We have to put the future climate security of the planet before the profits of the oil and gas companies.

Don't know if it's mentioned in this documentary, as haven't got time to watch it yet, but one reason is it used as currency by the big players.

[Scuba steve]

3 hours ago, Optimus Prime said:

But presumably you're more than happy to live a high standard lifestyle invested by the people who contributed least to anthropogenic climate change ?

In that statement you are correct I live a very good life through hard work and In my first 5years of life I lived in a tenement building with no bathroom and outside loo so I will carry on

[Methuselah]

4 hours ago, Sky Full said:

If you still hope that the people in the world with the power to take the necessary action are genuinely planning to reduce fossil fuel use, it’s worth watching this documentary….
 

BBC iPlayer - Panorama - Why Are We Still Searching for Fossil Fuels?

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

Investigating why oil, coal and gas exploration is booming despite climate commitments.

There is no logic in searching for new oil and gas sources if the burning of all currently known deposits would tip the climate into irreversible warming.  We have to put the future climate security of the planet before the profits of the oil and gas companies.

Agreed. But I'd be happy with more nuclear power, as it's both clean and safer than either oil rigs or coal mines.

[WYorksWeather]

Have to agree with most of the above. I think the right thing will happen eventually, but likely too late to prevent radical changes in climate in my lifetime. I'm a bit of a pessimist about what the world will look like by the time I'm middle aged (I'm in my early-mid 20s).

[Mucka]

Copenhagen Recorded the Coldest November of the Century

ETURBONEWS.COM

---

Denmark experienced its coldest November night in 30 years with a temperature of -15 degrees Celsius. Copenhagen also br...

 

[WYorksWeather]

2 hours ago, Mucka said:

Copenhagen Recorded the Coldest November of the Century

ETURBONEWS.COM

---

Denmark experienced its coldest November night in 30 years with a temperature of -15 degrees Celsius. Copenhagen also br...

 

How about some non-cherry picked data. Source is linked at the bottom (emphasis mine):

"Year-to-date, 11.1% of the Earth’s surface has experienced average temperatures that are a local record high. In addition, none of the Earth’s surface has been record cold year-to-date."

https://berkeleyearth.org/september-2023-temperature-update/

This is naturally a bit outdated - we'll have to wait for the final yearly update early next year.

What you've just posted is not even a record, so wouldn't even figure in these totals, but however you count them, whether you do daily records, monthly records, annual records, at city or regional level, national level, or global level, the one consistent factor is that warm records outnumber cold ones, by an enormous margin.

 

 

[Scuba steve]

13 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:

How about some non-cherry picked data. Source is linked at the bottom (emphasis mine):

"Year-to-date, 11.1% of the Earth’s surface has experienced average temperatures that are a local record high. In addition, none of the Earth’s surface has been record cold year-to-date."

https://berkeleyearth.org/september-2023-temperature-update/

This is naturally a bit outdated - we'll have to wait for the final yearly update early next year.

What you've just posted is not even a record, so wouldn't even figure in these totals, but however you count them, whether you do daily records, monthly records, annual records, at city or regional level, national level, or global level, the one consistent factor is that warm records outnumber cold ones, by an enormous margin.

 

 

Cherry picked data  ? lol 

[LetItSnow!]

I'm at a point where I think that the government, whatever you want to call it, big oil etc - It's all so performative when they have these agreements. It's still being talked about as if it's a future issue. It's here. It's been here for a while. Another point I'm not sure on (I'm not a scientist) is that even if all emissions stopped today, warming would still increase from the CO2 that's already been put there. I am not saying we shouldn't curb our emissions (**** that really, we should be drastically cutting them), but I am saying that we are at a point where even reducing emissions is not going to save us. We need to be having a bigger conversation about things we can do to alter the atmosphere in whatever ways we can, like spraying the atmosphere, planting more trees (especially in urban areas where it's been proven to lower temperatures) etc. We need to act now. If we focus on fixing, then it can give us more room to actually curb the emissions. There's a fear I've heard, saying that if we do my idea that it'll lull people into not changing (It's not people we really are talking about honestly - it's the mega-rich) but I disagree. Unless you believe in a tough love approach I guess? I'm also so tired of uneducated/misinformed people on the internet who so quickly brush aside heat records and all sorts year after year and month after month, but the moment a local daily record low goes it's a sign that the times are turning. And it's usually a demographic who don't have to worry about the consequences. I don't really care if they disagree with me to be honest because it's happening. The warming is absolutely undeniable and it is sad.

That's just my outsider perspective on it. I'm tired and also sad of being anxious every summer about the next dystopian heatwave to afflict the continent. We've been very lucky with our records being so short lasting! Maybe we won't be so lucky soon. And this was a bit of a rant but I think it's justified. Move this to another page if it's not correct for this thread. 

[LetItSnow!]

1 minute ago, Scuba steve said:

Cherry picked data  ? lol 

To be fair, the title says the coldest November of the century which to the average reader implies an exceptional event, but it's really just that the temperature is the lowest since 1993 - for the minimum, not for the overall month. Impressive? Yes! But not quite the coldest November. That would be like me saying February 2021 was the coldest for half a century because it got down to -23C. It's true for the February minimum, but actually it wasn't the coldest February since that time. Hopefully that makes sense.

[Mucka]

32 minutes ago, LetItSnow! said:

To be fair, the title says the coldest November of the century which to the average reader implies an exceptional event, but it's really just that the temperature is the lowest since 1993 - for the minimum, not for the overall month. Impressive? Yes! But not quite the coldest November. That would be like me saying February 2021 was the coldest for half a century because it got down to -23C. It's true for the February minimum, but actually it wasn't the coldest February since that time. Hopefully that makes sense.

Tuesday night marked record low temperatures in various places. Copenhagen experienced its coldest November night in a hundred years, with the Frederiksberg district recording -7.7 degrees, the lowest since 1919.

Over the past 150 years since records began in 1873, there have been only 13 instances of temperatures hitting -15 degrees Celsius in November, with the most recent occurrence being in 1993.

[LetItSnow!]

13 minutes ago, Mucka said:

Tuesday night marked record low temperatures in various places. Copenhagen experienced its coldest November night in a hundred years, with the Frederiksberg district recording -7.7 degrees, the lowest since 1919.

Over the past 150 years since records began in 1873, there have been only 13 instances of temperatures hitting -15 degrees Celsius in November, with the most recent occurrence being in 1993.

Misread that! However, I still don't know why people are disagreeing with the claim of it being cherry picked though. I have commented that the depth of cold to our east at the moment is very impressive but it also does not negate the fact that a lot of the world is well above average and 2023 will likely be the warmest year ever recorded. It all comes to the same point.

[Mucka]

50 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:

How about some non-cherry picked data. Source is linked at the bottom (emphasis mine):

"Year-to-date, 11.1% of the Earth’s surface has experienced average temperatures that are a local record high. In addition, none of the Earth’s surface has been record cold year-to-date."

https://berkeleyearth.org/september-2023-temperature-update/

This is naturally a bit outdated - we'll have to wait for the final yearly update early next year.

What you've just posted is not even a record, so wouldn't even figure in these totals, but however you count them, whether you do daily records, monthly records, annual records, at city or regional level, national level, or global level, the one consistent factor is that warm records outnumber cold ones, by an enormous margin.

 

 

Tuesday night marked record low temperatures in various places. Copenhagen experienced its coldest November night in a hundred years, with the Frederiksberg district recording -7.7 degrees, the lowest since 1919.

I would say that was more a record than a lot of the headlines we see about a Max temp date records being broken where records in many cases only go back  a few decades or even less.

If it is cherry-picked then so are all the "Global Boiling" statistics.

The thing is urban spread and cites account for a couple of Celsius extra ambient heat that comparisons with records going back over a century don't account for.

We have 24/7 heated homes and massive industry etc giving off unaccounted for latent heat that simply did not exist when these old records were made.

Sure there has been some warming, we are in an interglacial period after all, but not to the extent being portrayed by how data is correlated data to show warming these days.

We are told the fastest warming place on Earth is the Arctic and we have been told for decades that the Arctic would be sea ice free in the summer and the same things a re repeated today without a trace of self reflection or irony as they were all those years ago.

When the head of UN uses hyperbole like "Global boiling," you know it is about fear propaganda and not science.

All the wealthiest industrialists and corporate heads and global elite in the World didn't suddenly have an epiphany, become moral, and get down with Gaea Earth overnight. they found a way to make themselves self appointed arbiters of truth and dictate how we should live with less freedom and less wealth and less independence while they live in opulence and rule over us.