Aardark235 t1_iw18fs1 wrote
Reply to comment by grundar in Global Carbon Budget 2022 | The remaining carbon budget for a 50 % likelihood to limit global warming to 1.5, 1.7, and 2C has, respectively, reduced to 105 GtC, 200 GtC, and 335 GtC from the beginning of 2023, equivalent to 9, 18, and 30 years, assuming 2022 emissions levels. by silence7
Did you even read that Nature Paper? It does not support your conclusion. Actually none of your links support your conclusions as realistic.
grundar t1_iw1mquy wrote
> Did you even read that Nature Paper? It does not support your conclusion.
Yes, I did read the Nature paper. Did you? What part of it do you feel disagrees with what I've said?
From the paper's Abstract:
> "Here we show that warming can be kept just below 2 degrees Celsius if all conditional and unconditional pledges are implemented in full and on time."
That's largely equivalent to the "all announced pledges" scenario at Climate Action Tracker (which, as I noted, should not be surprising, as there is overlap between the two groups of authors).
> Actually none of your links support your conclusions as realistic.
Do you have specific examples of where you believe I've mischaracterized specific references?
Or does what I've said simply feel wrong?
Without specifics, you're not making much of an argument here.
Aardark235 t1_iw28mgg wrote
Yes, if we can dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions, we will have less greenhouse gas emissions. They also state that it isn’t a likely scenario as countries over promised and are under delivering, especially for the Big-3: USA, China, and India. You don’t read many science papers, do you?
There is no popular support for drastic cuts of fossil fuels in those countries. Witness the number of drilling rigs doubling under Biden and threats to punish Saudi Arabia for their slowdown of production. See India allying with Russia to save a little bit on crude oil. Observe China and their rapid growth and huge number of new power plants to supply the enormous middle class.
The pledges aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
grundar t1_iw3drdc wrote
> Yes, if we can dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions, we will have less greenhouse gas emissions.
And as a result ~1.8C of warming.
I'm glad we now agree on the main content of my comment.
> They also state that it isn’t a likely scenario as countries over promised and are under delivering
Science requires specifics -- what specifically do they say that you interpret as that?
In general, the sources I've referenced do not say what actions are or are not probable, as they correctly recognize that predicting future human behavior is very hard and not their forte. What those sources do do is examine different scenarios, and analyze what would happen if each of the different scenarios were to occur.
Note that the IPCC and IEA in particular very explicitly call out that they are not saying which scenarios are more or less likely, only what will happen if those scenarios occur.
> There is no popular support for drastic cuts of fossil fuels in those countries.
Yes, which is why the key change is making clean energy cheaper than fossil energy.
Costs have dropped 10x for solar since 2010 (and 3x for wind), and as a result renewables are virtually all net new global power generation. Clean energy isn't suddenly booming because people have suddenly decided to self-sacrifice; it's suddenly booming because it's cheaper.
It's the same for moving away from oil; due largely to a 10x decline in the cost of batteries since 2010, EVs are projected to be a majority of the global car market by 2034 or even 2030 as reality races ahead of predictions.
That is what's driving the transition to clean energy and the subsequent emissions reductions -- economics.
Are national pledges questionable? They're not nothing, but I largely agree with you that they're shaky. The underlying technological and economic changes, though, are what is allowing those pledges to be kept with minimal sacrifice, and those technological and economic changes are the important drivers to keep an eye on.
Aardark235 t1_iw3x8ke wrote
Here is a better comparison of the current policies that will result in a +2.7C gain by the end of the century vs the unrealistic promises that we will almost immediately drop CO2 emissions in half.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/paris-global-climate-change-agreements
grundar t1_iw4wrq3 wrote
> Here is a better comparison of the current policies
Did you not notice that they're referencing exactly the same analysis that I did in my original comment? They're linking to Climate Action Tracker, just like I did.
So...congratulations on coming full circle and finally agreeing with the references provided in my original comment, I guess.
While you're there, it may be instructive for you to note that while "current policies" result in 2.7C of warming, "current policies" as of 2018 would have resulted in 3.3C of warming, so "current policies" is very much a moving -- improving -- target.
Indeed, it's likely they'll put out a new analysis after COP27. Every previous major iteration has shown that estimated warming has declined -- for "current policies" as well as for scenarios taking into account pledges -- so it will be interesting to see if that continues to be the case after COP27 and if so how much. We'll see.
Aardark235 t1_iw50tqd wrote
You are a very optimistic person. For the sake of the planet, I hope you are right.
I am old and cynical for many valid reasons.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments