The size of the prize

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.

Comments

[Kevin Marshall]

Russell @ 2.26am
aTTP is wrong as usual. Lomborg looks at the impact of the INDCs, with commitments only going up to 2030.
The thinking that you and aTTP demonstrate is of the world acting as unitary decision-maker, who its changing the plans. What is happening in Paris is an attempt to bring together nearly 200 countries to control emissions until 2030. The marginal impact of the INDCs is what Lomborg looks at. To decry make assumptions about plans that might be formulated sometime next decade is utter nonsense.

[...and Then There's Physics]

Kevin,

aTTP is wrong as usual.

Okay, why don't you put your money where your mouth is. Which bit of what I said was wrong? Specifics would be nice.

In fact, I'll even summarise what I said :
the reason that Lomborg only found a small difference between the INDCs and RCP8.5 was because he assumed that, post 2030, we would increase our emissions so that total emissions by 2100 were close to those predicted by RCP8.5.
Okay, which bit of that (or anything else I've said) is wrong. Ideally, specifics, rather than your normal tactic of claims that I'm wrong (as usual) without pointing out why (and, yes, you have never really done this, despite what you might claim - strawmanning is a term you should familiarise yourself with).

Okay, I'm being a bit silly here, as I genuinely don't expect you to respond in a remotely reasonable fashion. I thought I would ask anyway, and you are more than welcome to prove me wrong.

[Douglas]

@Nov 12, 2015 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Douglas,
I'm guessing that the irony of how you've described that video is somewhat beyond you?

Ha ha Ken
You simply prove my point. Now do run along like a good chap.

[...and Then There's Physics]

Douglas,
Oooh, was I being a bit too vitriolic?

[Onbyaccident]

Well Kevin Marshall. It appears that aTTP was right. Over a day now. No response to back up your waffle. A common technique. Have seen and experienced it too often.

He has provided details. You haven't.

Here's your chance. Specifics mayhaps?

[...and Then There's Physics]

Onbyaccident,
Not hugely surprised. My expectations these days are pretty low ;-)

[Kevin Marshall]

aTTP

Your statement is wrong in three aspects.

First you quote Joe Romm who uses the ClimateInteractive computer model. Their BAU emissions scenario for 2100 in about 25% higher than the IPCC AR5 RCP8.5 scenario that Lomborg uses. Under ClimateInteractive's BAU, China has emissions peaking at 42.7GtCO2e, Lomborg at about 23GtCO2e. Romm’s modelled reduction in emissions is very little to do proposed actions to control emissions growth. Mostly it is in switching from a sky-high forecast to RCP8.5. Lomborg is consistent, and you Ken repeat somebody else’s lack of understanding. You would have found this out on my blog post if you had actually read and comprehended what I said before commenting.

Second and third, is the claim that Lomborg

assumed that, post 2030, we would increase our emissions so that total emissions by 2100 were close to those predicted by RCP8.5.

The INDC submissions make policy proposals through to 2030. In most areas they are not being controlled at the moment and mostly these submissions are just playing with numbers. Without aggressive policies covering nearly 200 countries, post 2030 global emissions will rise. Many countries believe that such policies will conflict with more important policies such as maintaining political stability and strong economic growth to eliminate poverty - hence the playing with numbers to distract. It is naïve to believe that every result of human actions is the result of collective and conscious human design and when put into practice leads to totalitarianism. Your view on the world is both false and morally wrong.

Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter)

[...and Then There's Physics]

Kevin,

First you quote Joe Romm who uses the ClimateInteractive computer model.

So what?

Under ClimateInteractive's BAU, China has emissions peaking at 42.7GtCO2e, Lomborg at about 23GtCO2e. Romm’s modelled reduction in emissions is very little to do proposed actions to control emissions growth. Mostly it is in switching from a sky-high forecast to RCP8.5.

Shall I repeat again what I said. The reason Lomborg found only a small difference between the INDCs and RCP8.5 is because he assumed that we would increase emissions beyond 2030 so that by 2100 our total emissions would be similar to those projected by RCP8.5. Nothing you've said contradicts this statement. I've also asked you where you get that China has emissions peaking at 42.7GtCO2e and you haven't provided a link. I've searched the ClimateInteractive site and can't find it. You've also ignored that Lomborg's 23GtCO2e excludes land use. This, however, isn't all that relevant to what I've said since the main point I've made is that he is assuming that by 2100 we would emit - in total - about the same as RCP8.5 and hence our warming - by 2100 - would be similar to that projected by RCP8.5.

You would have found this out on my blog post if you had actually read and comprehended what I said before commenting.

I did read your blog post. I've read all the blog posts that you've written about me. They're mostly untrue or irrelevant. That you would accuse me of attacking Lomborg (which I have not done) while attacking me is a little odd.

Your view on the world is both false and morally wrong.

This statement reflects entirely on you, and not on me at all. Since you do not know me, or my view of the world, it is rather bizarre that you would make such a statement. In fact, it is an utterly appalling thing to say and you should be rightly ashamed of having said it. Of course you won't be, but I'll point that out anyway.

I'll ask you one more time then. Which bit of what I said was wrong? And, this time, maybe you can focus on what I said, not on what you think I said. Try to read what I wrote without your incredibly biased glasses on. I'm sure you can do it (okay, no I'm not).

[...and Then There's Physics]

In fact if you go to this page, click on the Excel file of emissions data from scenarios and then select the about this file tab on the spreadsheet, you'll find this description of their BAU pathway.

IPCC's RCP8.5. Downscaling from the RCP regions to the more disaggregated C-ROADS COP regions was accomplished through mapping and plausible assumptions about the distribution of GDP within the RCP regions.

So, maybe Kevin can explain why Their BAU emissions scenario for 2100 in about 25% higher than the IPCC AR5 RCP8.5 scenario that Lomborg uses.

[...and Then There's Physics]

Sorry, I messed up the quote from their Excel file. The full description of their BAU pathway is

Fossil fuel and land use CO2 emissions and other well mixed GHG emissions follow IPCC's RCP8.5. Downscaling from the RCP regions to the more disaggregated C-ROADS COP regions was accomplished through mapping and plausible assumptions about the distribution of GDP within the RCP regions.

[hunter]

The climate kooks are fiddling away ignoring reality while touting their obsession with CO2 as the One True Issue.
Meanwhile in reality Paris is in shock and mourning.
The fact is Kyoto was an utter waste of time. It did not reduce CO2. Kyoto did not modify the climate in any measurable fashion. Its only accomplishment was in disrupting productive industries and a hogs-in-the-trough frenzy of wasted subsidies for windmills and NGOs and derivative non-science papers. Oh yeah, a major re-branding from "Global Warming" to the undefinable "Climate Change". And of course a boom in pointless so-called "climate change" conferences.
There is no reason at all to expect COP21 to accomplish anything different.
After all, the leaders flocking to it think "climate change" is the number one issue facing mankind. And there are fools like ATTP or the new troll, Onbyaccident, and so many other mindless extremists who buy into it.