Tuesday
Nov102015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The size of the prize
Nov 10, 2015 Climate: WG3 ;)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldtravelandtourismcouncil/13996196945Bjorn Lomborg has a new paper out today in the journal Global Policy. Taking a leaf out of Christopher Monckton's book he assesses the effect that all the policy measures promised at Paris are going to have on global temperatures. As the press release explains this effect is small/tiny/minute/barely discernable:
- ...if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
- Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
- US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
- EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.
- China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
- The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.
Is that another bout of Lomborg derangement syndrome I hear from our green friends?
The paper should appear here.
Reader Comments (111)
"In a tit for tat response, they might ask more questions about prizes and attributions in climate science.
Bribery and corruption in football and sport generates huge amounts of media and public interest, but the media seem quite happy with climate science, thinking the IPCC is a good independent referee." golf charlie
I agree with your viewpoint but I fear that there is an element of wishful thinking.
not banned yet
"The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate recommends that all developed and emerging economies, and others where possible, commit to introducing or strengthening carbon pricing by 2020, and should phase out fossil fuel subsidies."
That isn't to save the planet, it's because big business, particularly big oil is sitting on billions/trillions of dollars of carbon credits they didn't pay for. Now that the global warming turned out to be a fantasy, they're going to fix it.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/article192167.ece
Carbon credits bring Lakshmi Mittal £1bn bonanza
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming.
The scheme grants companies permits to emit CO2 up to a specified "cap". Beyond this they must buy extra permits. An investigation has revealed that ArcelorMittal has been given far more carbon permits than it needs. It has the largest allocation of any organisation in Europe.
GC/Tiny
"wishful thinking"
Possibly, but do the Russians have a seat at COP21?
Any and every country has a seat at COP21, the whole idea is that it's global. Putin may well decide that AGW is a western fraud but he'll happily let the West make all the commitments. If he does agree to anything it will be a) years in the future and b) un policed. If they'd cheat in athletics, what would they do for business? Remember even Germany has been telling porkies over pollution.
CO2 is a handy stick we are fashioning for our enemies to beat us with. It's naive to think they won't use it.
“How can he reconcile that idea with climate, chaotic system as described here?” Douglas 3:18 AM.
================================
Lomborg allegedly is a ‘lukewarmer’, he may believe it’s possible to set a global thermostat, on the other hand he may be merely humouring the committed by using the IPCC’s own flawed logic against it.
Jeepers, this is harsh.
There seems to be a slight discrepancy in the figures quoted in the article in this post:
"if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100."
◾"China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100".
even if these pseudo solutions concocted by the usual "progressive" selfenriching parasites moved the anomaly 1 full degree downwards in a century it is very much questionable if we should go for that?
5 degrees in 500y, and in 500y we are for certain over the crest down to the new iceage, demanding solutions to warm up the earth.
aTTP, it was a bit harsh of the unelected IPCC to endorse the Hockey Stick Graph, yet the IPCC has never apologised for the carnage caused. Not even to other climate scientists, saddled with his legacy.
Lomborg. Is that it?
A man who has never published anything credible.
A man who avoids peer review like the plague.
A man who despite this has a whole website dedicated to his errors and lies (I use that word deliberately).
Take a look.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
No doubt this "piece of work" will appear there soon. They seem to find it toooo easy to debunk the guy.
I feel sorry for you.
Actually no not really...;-). Laughable. The clue is in the term "Political Scientist". Wise up FFS and stop spotting imaginary conspiracies against your denial.
Too true aTTP. To be compared to that loon Monckton is truly sad.
However in Lomborg's case it is true. At least Monckton is just genuinely stupid.
"carbon trading" is, not to put too fine a point on it, a scam.
Everyone here is a bunch of reactionaries. Who could not be stirred into action to cut their carbon footprint upon learning that Britain can reduce global temperatures by two thousandths of a degree at a cost of 32 billion pounds by 2100 according to Lord Stern
That assumes that Britain meets all the carbon reduction targets enshrined in law which I am sure everyone here is empowered to do now they realise the huge impact that can be made for the global good.
Post...don't mention renewables and last Wednesday evening
Tonyb
Yes, but I'm sticking - for the moment - with my first impression that this was intended as an insult. AM couldn't have intended it otherwise, surely?
@Nov 10, 2015 at 9:57 PM | Unregistered Commenter Derek
I agree with your assessment of the highly complicated maths involved here, it does not add up ^.^
Hopefully the culprit will realise his error and post a correction :)
Tonyb, try not to mention the Holey Hockey Stick of climate science either. Or the Medieval Warm Period. Or the pause/hiatus thingy. Or the Poley Bears, trudging across miles of ice that isn't even there according to the President of the United States.
Bjorn Lomborg really seems to scare the 'homogenised adjustments' out of climate scientists.
I'd pay to see aTTP debate Monckton.
The Kyoto Protocol made no difference to the observed rate of atmospheric CO2 increase nor will COP21; the entire enterprise is a laughable waste of time and money.
@ not banned yet
> I'd pay to see aTTP debate Monckton
Yes, that would be good blood sport, but only if I got to pick the "moderator"
Now it's on Lomborg's FB page where there is further discussin
I certainly wouldn't waste my time, but even if we did, he'd probably run away and send in his clerk, like he did the last time we had a discussion.
Why?
All you'd get is Kenny telling Monckton how he's misinterpreting what Kenny said, not that Kenny's really bothered about that, and that, though he's not really bothered about having the debate in the first place, if Monckton really wants to debate him then the least he can do is stop lying about what Kenny said, not that it really bothers Kenny, before Kenny finally flounces out of the room with his fingers in his ears, screaming about lying bastards deliberately twisting his words.
The arithmetical error is not Lomborg's (see his paper online) but a Bish bish (misquotation). The Bishop, though much respected by (most of) the congregation, is not infallible on matters of energy and climate.
Oh, and I followed Cocoa the Clown's link to the site that's all about Lomborg too. Wow. These people are seriously pathetic. You should all go have a look. It's pretty thin gruel and, as usual, Lomborg is only debunked because they say he's debunked. On some laughably irrelevant issues as well. But it does give you an insight into the mentality of these people.
Laurie Childs
Your description of Kenny sounds all too plausible, if his usual behaviour on here is anything to go by.
aTTP/onbyaccident: Lomborg's numbers are very close to MITs numbers. Lomborg had 0.017 of saved warming, MIT gets "about 0.2"
http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/other/special/2015Outlook
Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our 2014 estimates.
Correction: "Lomborg's numbers are very close to MITs numbers. Lomborg had 0.17 of saved warming, MIT gets "about 0.2"
Les,
Hmm, not quite. The MIT number is 0.2 less than their 2014 estimate, not 0.2 less than the RCP8.5 estimate.
Their 2015 estimate is
So, a central estimate of 3.7C by 2100 relative to the 1860-1880 mean. The RCP8.5 mean averaged over 2081-2100 is 4.31C relative to the 1850-1900 mean. So, no, Lomborg's numbers are not close to the MIT numbers.
Mike,
I try hard not to get too annoyed by the typical misrepresentations presented here by yourself and others, but I don't always succeed.
aTTP: Hmmm. Not quite. From the MIT paper. Perhaps you should read it again, and pay a little more attention?
Impacts of Emissions Reduction Proposals for COP21:
Based on intended COP21 contributions, we estimate 64 Gt CO2‑eq emissions in 2050—about 13 Gt less than our 2014 Outlook estimate, which only considered Copenhagen–Cancun pledges.
Under the proposed cuts, the emissions path still far exceeds levels consistent with the 2°C goal often used as a target in climate negotiations.
Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our 2014 estimates.
Les,
Yes, I did read it. Maybe you should try paying a bit more attention. The 0.2 in the MIT result is relative to their 2014 estimate. The 0.17 from Lomborg is relative to RCP8.5. The MIT 2014 estimate is not the same as RCP8.5. Therefore their 0.2 is not consistent with Lomborg's 0.17. This is obvious, right? I even gave you the numbers. The MIT 0.2 relative to their 2014 estimate is about 0.6 relative to RCP8.5. 0.6 is quite a bit bigger than 0.17. Of course there are various averaging issue that could change this a little, but not enough - I don't think - to make Lomborg's 0.17 relative to RCP8.5 somehow about the same as MIT's 0.2 relative to their 2014 estimate.
aTTP: MIT was comparing Paris COP21 promises, to future temperature rises. As was Lomborg. They come up with very similar numbers.
MIT: Assuming the proposed (Paris) cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our 2014 estimates.
Lomborg: the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
Thanks for tidying up Les' errors aTTP. Not here frequently enough to get annoyed but some of these people do spill over into better blog sites with their deceptions and misrepresentations. Tiring. Can't wait for the frenzy of lies and stupidity that await us from the deniers & "skeptics" when Paris really kicks off.
Question though is why you bother - in my experience these people either don't understand or do not want to understand.
And thanks for the Lomborg error site link Onby. Quite a load of work; was not aware. Massive respect to LaurieC though who seems to have read the whole site overnight and formed her prescient (if not surprising) conclusions
\sarc ;-)
Les,
Yes I know that's what he's claiming, but his numbers are relative to RCP8.5. Lomborg did not do as he claimed. He did not assume that the Paris cuts are extended through to 2100 but not deepened further. He assumed that China's emissions continued rising and he assumed that the EU and the US would typically have rising emissions beyond 2030. You just need to look at his figures to see this. In other words, he's ignoring all the other pledges, considering only the cuts between now and 2030, and then assuming everything carries on rising again after 2030. It's no wonder his got such a small number relative to RCP8.5. If he had done the same as MIT and still compared it to RCP8.5, his number would probably have been closer to 0.6, than to 0.2.
YouKnowNothingBishHill/aTTP: There is no error on my part. I have quoted both parties, and given links. Both MIT and Lomborg have stated directly that promises for the COP21 amount to 0.17/0.2 deg of warming saved, relative to not making those emissions cuts, and both state only if those cuts are extended through 2100.
The fact that neither of you seem to be able to comprehend this is quite telling.
Les,
In fact, you should read Joe Romm's post about this. He's showing that the INDCs are likely to lead to around 3.5C which I think is relative to something like the 1860-1880 mean. This is very similar to the MIT's 3.7, and quite a bit lower than the RCP8.5 of around 4.5C. So, yes, we all know that the INDCs are not going to do as much as some might like, but the impact is likely to be a good deal greater than that implied by Lomborg who has essentially assumed that we get to 2030 and then simply give up.
Just to clarify, everybody agrees that the proposed cuts will not prevent 1°C of global warming in the next century.
Some think it's because the cuts have no discernible effect.
Some think it's because the cuts have very little effect.
But all commenters here agree that the proposed cuts won’t make a meaningful difference.
So where’s the debate?
Who cares about the precise figure Lomborg gets - all agree that COP21 won't remove the need for adaptation.
And as adaptation costs money and CO2 reduction costs money - we should obviously scrap the pointless policy.
Welcome to the Sceptic side Onbyaccident and ...and Then There's Physics.
aTTP: You do have comprehension problems. Lomborg states:
Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
He states directly that the cuts continue through to 2100, same as MIT. Both Lomborg and MIT are comparing promises made to COP21, and extending them to 2100.
Both come up with similar results, 0.17 vs 0.2.
Not sure how you can continue to deny this.
Les,
They might both state this, but a glance at Lomborg's paper would show that he certainly doesn't do this. Try reading it and looking at Figures 3, 5, 7, and 9. In only one case (US optimistic) does he assume that emissions remain flat after 2030. In all other cases he assumes they either continue rising beyond 2030, or start rising again beyond 2030.
None of the so-called Lomberg errors are actually errors which is very easy to tell if you bother to read that list of extremely subjective and petty nitpicks. But of course alarmists only read the headlines. I doubt any of them read the body of AR5 which cannot identify anything unusual happening with climate anywhere except (perhaps) at the Arctic and even that has been ruled out now thanks to the Arctic recovery. In fact I doubt any of them even realise there is an energy crisis looming thanks to the scaremongering. Heads in Lalaland the lot of them!
It's wonderful how Lomborg's name affects a certain type of commentator. They foam at the mouth, bite the carpet, and are reduced to frantic ad homs. It's a useful diagnostic test - it saves you from bothering further with anything else they say.
...and Then There's Physics, did you interpret “the emissions reductions promised until 2030” to mean that the emissions would flat-line from the Kyoto Protocol?
That interpretation means ever increasing reductions to match the growth in population and the economy. Such an interpretation is unrealistic. No-one has promised that so why would it be the main focus of the paper?
Indeed if you read the paper Lomborg explicitly says he isn’t modelling ever increasing reductions.
He does say that he looks at that unrealistically optimistic scenarios in the supplementary information. But you reference figures that aren’t in the supplementary information.
Les Johnson statesI agree. It tells me that you haven’t actually read the paper.
Bob Ward's response to Lomborg's paper is here:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/51319-2/
I came across this thanks to a snarky tweet from Dominic Hinde, sadly yet another Edinburgh University alumni who thinks the ice sheets are melting.
It is hard to credit that supposedly intelligent and knowledgeable people are quibbling over two numbers which are totally meaningless but at least you are doing it with gusto ^.^
Don't tell me.... you actually think global temperature records mean something as well, oh dear.
aTTP at 9.31 refers to Joe Romm’s blog post of Nov 3 “Misleading U.N. Report Confuses Media On Paris Climate Talks”. Romm uses Climate Interactive’s Climate Scoreboard Tool to show the INDC submissions (if fully implemented) will result in 3.5°C as against the 4.5°C in the non-policy “No Action” Scenario. This is six times the claimed maximum impact of 0.17°C claimed in Lomberg’s new paper.
Who is right?
What struck me first was that Romm’s first graph, copied straight from the Climate Interactive’s seem to have a very large estimate for emissions in the “No Action” Scenario producing. Downloading the underlying data, I find the “No Action” global emissions in 2100 are 139.3 GtCO2e, compared with about 110 GtCO2e in Figure SPM5(a) of the AR5 Synthesis Report for the RCP8.5 scenario high emissions scenario. But it is the breakdown per country or region that matters.
For the USA, without action emissions are forecast to rise from 2010 to 2030 by 40%, in contrast to a rise of just 9% in the period 1990 to 2010. It is likely that emissions will fall without policy and will be no higher in 2100 than in 2010. The “no action” scenario overestimates 2030 emissions by 2-3 GtCO2e in 2030 and about 7-8 GtCO2e in 2100.
For the China the overestimation is even greater. Emissions will peak during the next decade as China fully industrializes, just as emissions peaked in most European countries in the 1970s and 1980s. Climate Interactive assumes that emissions will peak at 43 GtCO2e in 2090, whereas other estimates that the emissions peak will be around 16-17 GtCO2e before 2030.
Together, overestimations of the US and China’s “No Action” scenarios account for over half 55-60 GtCO2e 2100 emissions difference between the “No Action” and “Current INDC” scenarios. A very old IT term applies here – GIGO. If aTTP had actually checked the underlying assumptions he would realise that Romm’s rebuttal of Lomborg based on China’s emission assumptions (and repeated on his own blog) are as false as claiming that the availability of free condoms is why population peaks.
Links posted at http://manicbeancounter.com/2015/11/11/attp-falsely-attacks-bjorn-lomborgs-impact-of-current-climate-proposals-paper/
If this link works:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/lomborg-if-we-emit-more-well-warm-more/
You'll discover Lomborg has been fiddling the stats as usual.
ATTP notes that : " some of his assumptions just seem utterly bizarre. Somehow he thinks we will reduce emissions until 2030, and then start increasing them again. Well, sure, if we do that then the difference between RCP8.5, and what we actually do, might be small, but that’s almost certainly not the intent. It’s well known that warming depends largely on total emissions. The goal of emission reductions is to reduce total emissions, not simply emissions until 2030...... , the bottom line seems to be that Lomborg has assumed that we’ll start increasing emissions beyond 2030 so that total emissions will be similar to that for RCP8.5, and hence that the emission reductions planned to 2030 are going to be ineffective.
Well, sure, if we do increase emissions beyond 2030, then they certainly will be ineffective. However, this is certainly not the intent and even if they’re not going to be as effective as some might like, they’re almost certainly not going to be as ineffective as Lomborg suggests."
No wonder Baroness Worthington is on the warpath.
I have just drawn a little video sketch that pokes a bit of fun at Ken Rice. Just a little change of pace. Have a laugh.
The link is here:
https://youtu.be/NEBgSc0RetM
Douglas - proposed motion:
"This House can see no distinction between Climate Science and Astrology"
:-)
Douglas,
I'm guessing that the irony of how you've described that video is somewhat beyond you?
Russell, you say "Somehow he thinks we will reduce emissions until 2030, and then start increasing them again."
Which is correct. That is what is being proposed in Paris.
If you also want to propose that we then increase reductions beyond the Paris deal so as we ignore the effects of economic growth and population growth... well then - you have to add in the extra costs of doing that.
You can't have it both ways. You either look at the Paris proposal (as Lomborg has done) and take the costs involved. Or you look at something else and look at the costs involved in that.
You seem think that looking at something other than the Paris deal and yet not using the costs of the Paris deal is “fiddling the stats as usual”. That seems like a mistake to me. But I’m willing to learn so:
1) Please clarify why you think further reductions to emissions are entirely cost free?
2) Why do we not just do those reductions and forget about all the expense to 2030?