Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

it's understandable that few countries would want to deal with a system that sets new goals on a yearly or biannual basis and would require a rewrite of an emission reduction plan from each country in response. but it's tough to balance that with climate science (where new findings tend to offer MORE support for immediate action rather than less) and the consensus among modelers that the longer we delay in reaching peak emissions and beginning the decline, the harder it will be to reach the goal. a lot of the models specify a specific year or set of years in which we should begin the decline if we want to have a decent chance. time is of the fucking essence here, and there are plenty of people who think it's too late, so to propose meeting again in TEN YEARS to assess progress on the voluntary emissions reduction targets is just bonkers

Somewhat Aus-centric summary of current state of play, from behind the paywall at Crikey

Sleepless nights and saving the world in Paris

ERWIN JACKSON
Deputy chief executive of The Climate Institute

Another draft of the final COP21 climate agreement is out. There were a lot of bleary eyes at the conference centre today after negotiators worked through the night. Parties first met as a cohort to give “indaba” responses to the draft released yesterday, and then split up to smaller groups to hash out the areas that will need more work to find consensus.

“Indaba” refers to a process where each member at the table gets to speak and be heard. The inclusive process has a Zulu name that first appeared in the 2011 Durban meeting. That meeting provided the key breakthrough that recognised that all countries, including China and India, would offer broad climate action commitments. The Kyoto model, where only developed countries make emission reduction commitments, formed the basis pf a major argument used by some against the UN process and climate action more generally.

Among the usual lamentations about the exhausting negotiation process, there were also murmurs of agreement that yesterday’s text was an improvement. But not everyone saw their priorities in there yet.

As Thursday has now drawn to a close with a text that is mostly clear of square brackets (which highlight disagreements or alternative options). It suggests broad agreement on a range of issues but the following remain clearly contested:

how to build a common system of transparency for country actions;
how to address unmanageable climate change impacts in vulnerable nations; and
how to financially support poor nations participate in climate change solutions.
This is a strong, carefully balanced text. It includes the formal review and updating of targets every five years starting, in 2019. This would be done against the reference to limiting global warming below 1.5-2oC by the end of the century and achieving net zero emissions or ‘emissions neutrality (the science on this suggests all greenhouse gases would need to be at net zero by 2050 to have a chance at 1.5°C and between 2060 and 2070 for 2°C. CO2 emissions from energy and industry, which last longer in the atmosphere, would need to be at zero earlier than other gases). Finance contributions would be scaled up to the poorest and this would be tracked through time.

There are a number of challenges in here for Australia, which will need to recognise that its pollution reduction targets are more aligned to 3 to 4 degree warming and would leave us with the petro state of Saudi Arabia as the highest per capital polluters in 2030.

However, this text is not the final agreement. With a desire to present a penultimate version in the morning and make history by closing the meeting on time, with a final agreement Friday evening Paris time, the French president of the COP has called for “solutions indabas”.

The journey to where we are now in Paris has been a long and difficult one; ministers could still tumble at the final hurdle.

In what would be a victory for small island nations, the draft includes a section highlighting the losses they expect to incur from climate-related disasters that it's too late to adapt to. However, a footnote specifies that it "does not involve or provide any basis for any liability or compensation" — a key U.S. demand because it would let the Obama administration sign on to the deal without going through the Republican-led Senate.

hey so did everyone just agree to optimistically write & highlight & underline ~#1.5C!~ on the top of a report that otherwise makes no movement toward reaching that kind of cut?

I think so

Indonesian forest still burning btw.

They've subsided somewhat. Mostly its the usual suspects:
http://macc.copernicus-atmosphere.eu/d/getchart/macc/gac/nrt/nrt_fields_ghg!Carbon%20dioxide!Total%20column!36!Global!macc!od!enfo!nrt_fields_ghg!2015102600!!chart.gif

this is basically a non-binding bullshit "pledge", right?

paris i mean...

like the guardian calls it "legally binding" but in the same article says "And while there will be no legal obligation for countries to cut emissions, the agreement includes a five-yearly global stocktake and a review mechanism to assess each country’s contributions."

So basically it's just a formal acknowledgment of the problem and an agreement as to what would, in theory, be the solution.

David Cameron also welcomed the deal, praising those involved for showing what ambition and perseverance can do: “We’ve secured our planet for many, many generations to come – and there is nothing more important than that.”

Something amazing about this quote. Like simultaneously aggrandising a political deal and cheapening the most vital issue of our time down to "we've secured our planet" - as if the alternative was just mildly unpalatable.

Looks like the No. 10 standard template for conclusion of negotiations quote, e.g This outcome of this pensions negotiation with the public sector delivers both value and mostimportantly stability for a generation, enabling hardworking families people to plan their future with confidence, and contributes to the long-term economic future of our country....Only to be revised less than 5 years later of course.

Well done, Sky News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xplesDv5hl0

Oh, its a whole series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GjrS8QbHmY&list=PLG8IrydigQfepV0ajPnDIEKDP5ZxL8FgH

Mostly defensible, but the bit about methane fireballs raining down from the sky is deep into Guy McPherson territory.

just a little teehee, sorry:

Members of the public in Woodland, North Carolina, expressed their fear and mistrust at the proposal to allow Strata Solar Company to build a solar farm off Highway 258.

During the Woodland Town Council meeting, one local man, Bobby Mann, said solar farms would suck up all the energy from the sun and businesses would not go to Woodland, the Roanoke-Chowan News Herald reported.

Jane Mann, a retired science teacher, said she was concerned the panels would prevent plants in the area from photosynthesizing, stopping them from growing.

Ms Mann said she had seen areas near solar panels where plants are brown and dead because they did not get enough sunlight.

She also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer.

A spokesperson for Strata told the meeting: "There are no negative impacts. A solar farm is a wonderful use for a property like this."

They added: "The panels don't draw additional sunlight."

The council voted three to one against rezoning the land and later voted for a moratorium on future solar farms.

oh god I know, I saw that

Bobby Mann said he watched communities dry up when I-95 came along and warned that would happen to Woodland because of the solar farms.

“You’re killing your town,” he said. “All the young people are going to move out.”

He said the solar farms would suck up all the energy from the sun and businesses would not come to Woodland.

Science education in America, ladies and gentlement!

What happens if the solar panels act like magnets and actually suck the sun down to the earth? Then only the part of the planet where the sun lands will get sunlight and the rest of us will be cold.

oh, i can answer that one. although the sun appears to be small as we view it from earth, it's actually very, VERY large. luckily, it's so large that when the solar panel/magnets pull it toward earth, it's very likely that it will bounce off of the moon when it approaches earth and bounce back to its original position rotating around the earth

glad we cleared that up

/conservapedia

I'd just like to congratulate all who pushed the Woodland, NC story from the Roanoke Chowan News Herald to international papers of record since 8 Dec. While it would be nice to believe Bobby Mann's comment harmed investment in Woodland more than he can imagine, Perdue Agribusiness, the poultry processor and major employer in town, probably doesn't give a damn.

On the other hand, I imagine this zoning hearing topping all Google results for the town for the forseeable future will deter other local governments from thinking zoning against solar has no repercussions.

chait likes

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/climate-deal-is-obamas-biggest-accomplishment.html#

https://twitter.com/NRO/status/676516015078039556

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWN3D6nWUAUmQWW.png

i think someone needs to shake their thermometer

Perfectly accurate graph showing an approximately 2-degree increase in global temperature.

if you zoom out enough, nothing actually exists!

you know, my eyes can't zoom like that

see the longview = no problem

If the earth is supposedly round, why is the horizon flat? Answer that, smart guy!

Early this year my allergy got 20 times worse. As the year went on I suspected it might be climate change but I just searched today and there are loads of articles about it. Not only symptoms getting worse but also more people developing them. One of the most worrying things was hearing about people who could previously cope with the help of medicine are now completely miserable no matter what they take.

Why Are Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) Studies Reaching Different Temperature Estimates?
http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/INDC-Temp-Analysis.png

so the US is gonna export oil for the first time in 40 years?! really green, eh?

tradeoff for extension of ITC for wind and solar... not sure if that's a good thing, bad thing, or a wash as far as carbon goes.

Its a political victory for upstream E&Ps over refiners. The U.S. has long been a net exporter of refined products.

I'm not a believer in the shale oil "revolution". The decline rates are so high that Williston, ND will be a ghost town in a decade.

afaics, allowing the export of US oil is insider baseball. it won't change the overall global usage of oil, only how the profits are distributed.

probably nothing new here but

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami

nice double take on the North Carolina town that was scared of solar:

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/18/10519644/north-carolina-solar-town?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=article%3Afixed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

now I feel just a little bit bad for pointing and laughing. just a little.

if the OG article had focused on the total lack of benefit to the tax base, that would have been a more accurate and less sensational story.

probably nothing new here but

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami

― Crazy Eddie & Jesus the Kid (Raymond Cummings)

anyone wanna pick me up?

so can we say since there's no snow coming anytime soon in vast expanses of the country that normally get it . . . that the oil companies and other carbon polluters are waging war on christmas? get on it, FOX NEWS!

that miami piece was excellent... thank you.

yesterday it was in the mid 70s

today a tornado passed w/in five miles of my parents house

tomorrow we get hit by a winter storm with snow expected

merry xmas

just an isolated incident

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/28/freak-storm-in-north-atlantic-may-push-temperatures-70-degrees-above-normal-at-north-pole/

they updated the post so that it's "only" 50 degrees above normal, but yikes.

re: the New Yorker's piece on Miami, a couple years back my girlfriend and I recorded a series of future dystopic advertising jingles, one of which (https://soundcloud.com/kyle-herbert/new-atlantis) was for an aquatic amusement park named "New Atlantis" built over the ruins of a submerged Miami. Frightening to see that it's getting more and more plausible.

Up up up.

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/dec_wld.png

http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html

yeah, but it was really hot in 1997 so that means it hasn't gotten much hotter, also in the 1970s some people talked about global cooling, and have you heard about this epic snowstorm due this weekend, we could use some global warming around here am i right

just to recap

Don't forget that it gets pretty cold every night in some places.

Most of the jump in 2015 was El Nino effects, but a lot is probably from China emitting fewer coal combustion aerosols as its economy stagnates. IIRC, about 0.5 C of warming has been masked by global dimming. Here's to a shitty 2016 global economy, more sunlight at sea level, and a top-3 year in 2016.