World
headed for 10°C degree rise…
New
paper by David Wasdell
Executive
Summary
Let
us first summarise the analysis of the basis for a carbon budget
embedded in the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC AR5 WG1:
*
The adoption of a transient temperature response to cumulative carbon
emissions, instead of the full equilibrium impact, allows a higher
carbon output before the critical 2°C target is breached. No
reference to the substitution is made in the text of the SPM.
*
Treating the relationship between temperature response and cumulative
carbon emissionsas a linear, straight-line function also inflates the
available carbon budget by some 10 years’ worth of emissions at the
current rate.
*
Removal of all visual representation of the current value of the
cumulative carbon emissions, reduces the clarity of the present
situation.
*
Failure to link the total cumulative carbon emissions to the
equivalent concentration of the airborne concentration of CO2 adds to
the obfuscation of the presentation.
*
Limiting the extent of climatic response to the fast feedback
(transient or ‘Charney’) dynamics masks dependency on the
function of climate sensitivity. This hides uncertainty in the
modelling ensemble at the expense of portraying a grossly
underestimated temperature response and a massively inflated carbon
budget.
Secondly
we note the consequences of applying a robust value for the Earth
System Sensitivity:
*
The temperature response to the proposed ceiling of allowed carbon
emissions is 5.4°C, not the 2°C indicated in the SPM.
*
The temperature response to the current set of emission-reduction
pledges is c. 10°C, not c. 4°C as indicated in the SPM.
*
The temperature response to which we are already committed at the
present level of cumulative carbon emission is 3.9°C (+ effect of
non-CO2 GHG emissions) not 1.5°C implied in the SPM
*
The budget of c. 300GtC of available carbon emission before breaching
the 2°C policy target is seen to be an illusion. In reality the
carbon account is already overdrawn by c.288GtC.
*
All the above figures should be treated as conservative
underestimates as we move from the stable conditions of the Holocene
into the far-from-equilibrium, rapid change and enhanced sensitivity
of the Anthropocene.
*
Recognition of the sensitivity of global climate dynamics to small
changes in average surface temperature implies that the degree of
safety assumed in the policy target of limiting increase to no more
than 2°C above the pre-industrial value, is a delusion.
*
Avoiding dangerous climate change is no longer possible. Limiting its
intensity requires restriction of the target temperature increase to
no more than 1°C.
*
Achieving that goal requires reduction in the atmospheric
concentration of greenhouse gasses to around 310 ppm of CO2e (from
the current value of some 450 ppm CO2e).
On
these grounds the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC AR5 WG1 should
be rejected as not fit for the purpose of policy-making. It is a
compromise between what is scientifically necessary and what is
deemed to be politically and economically feasible. It is a document
of appeasement, in active collusion with the global addiction to
fossil sources of energy.
The paper is available HERE
SIGNIFICANT increases in greenhouse gas concentrations: http://survivalacres.com/blog/ghg.html
ReplyDeleteThe big question: Is anyone acknowledging the TOTAL effect of these increases?
"RE "the big question": Apparently NOT !! Thermal forcing due to increased CH4 has ALREADY risen to 400 times that of CO2 forcing. Forcing due to increased NOx emissions (mainly due to industrial agriculture) have ALREADY exceeded direct CO2 forcing by 870 fold (times). And STILL, NO one gives a rats ass, a flying fuck nor even a wee wank. Bye bye bipeds.
Delete