Cop26 pledges limit 1.8C

Cop26 pledges could limit warming to 1.8C, says energy agency boss

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/04/cop26-pledges-could-limit-warming-to-18c-says-energy-agency-boss

 

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/cop26-climate-pledges-could-help-limit-global-warming-to-1-8-c-but-implementing-them-will-be-the-key

 

The climate pledges agreed so far at the Cop26 conference could keep the world’s rising temperatures to within 1.8C of pre-industrialised levels, according to the International Energy Agency – but only if the commitments are implemented in full.

Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, told delegates at the conference that despite the pessimism ahead of the Cop26 talks, a “big step forward” was possible if all the pledges set out to date were “fully achieved”.

 


 

@IEA

The IEA calculation is not correct. There is 3000 Gton CO2 too much and it causes +0.035 C/year. Whatever reductions done, the 3000 Gton is still there. The absolute minimum temp in 2100 if emissions are stopped today is (0.035 * (2100-2021))+1.1 = 3.9 C https://ppm.today


 

The climate pledges are important and good.

But we also have to get the math right: that's 3,000 Gton of CO2 too much and it causes +0.035 C/year.

No matter what reductions are made, the 3,000 Gton remain.

The absolute minimum temperature in 2100 if emissions stop today is

(0,035 * (2100-2021))+1,1 = 3,9 C

 

Therefore, neither NetZero 2050 nor Zero Emissions2045 can work

It will be at least +3.9C in 2100, probably much more, whatever we do.

Limiting to +1.5C or 2C with emissions reductions is a physical impossibility.

Climate policy has to look completely different and this discussion should already have started in Glasgow

 


https://twitter.com/fbirol/status/1456186835097501698

 

Bengt Ovelius

@BengtSeved

 

Nov 7

Replying to

@fbirol

and

@IEA

Could IEA publish their mathematical proof for the +1.8C claim ?

Here is my proof that IEA is wrong: https://ppm.today/index.html?cop26-pledges-limit-1_8c.htm

This should urgently be discussed. Looking forward to the IEA proof, as detailed as mine.

 

 


 

There is a real urgency to get this up for discussion. Otherwise the whole of Glasgow will go wrong.

This could be the most important issue

 

Cop26 pledges could limit warming to 1.8°C, says head of energy body IEA Fatih Birol.

Other pledges are for +1.5 or +2C

 

Where is the evidence ?

 

The following simple calculation, which everyone can understand, shows a very different reality.
Moreover, these rough rules of thumb should be familiar to everyone. Then we can ask sharp questions to the experts and avoid

people and politicians being misled. The climate crisis can only be solved if we start from the truth and welcome

an open debate in which everyone has their say.

 

Mathematical evidence that everyone can understand:

You can start from the logarithmic relationship between ppm CO2 and global temperature that Prof. Svante Arrhenius used already 120 years ago.

 

t= 1.443*cs*ln(ppm/275)

This seems to be true for all planets of the size of the Earth. Arrhenius did not have access to data from ice cores and therefore did not know the value of the climate sensitivity=cs. From the ice cores we can see that an average value of cs is around 36 for the last half million years. Another point of reference is that NASA set the Earth's temperature at +420C, similar to Venus, when CO2=100%. Just put this into the formula and see that even here cs=36.

 

 

This remarkable formula gives a rough rule of thumb for the global temperature of the Earth at all possible

CO2 levels from 275 ppm to 100%

 

t=1.443*36*ln(ppm/275)

 

This logarithmic principle is also the basis for the climate sensitivity concept, which in turn is the basis for the

most calculations and projections by climate experts, including the IPCC.

 

By setting today's ppm=413 ppm, we see that the Earth currently wants to reach a temperature anomaly of

1.443*36*ln(413/275)= 21 C . We can see the Earth placed in an oven of +21C and the oceans holding back

with enormous force. The Earth has only warmed +1.1C so far and most of it remains.

After this line we reach corrected with NASA's latest measurements, +1.5C in 2027 and +2C in 2034.

 

NASA is also currently measuring that the Earth is rising 0.035C/year. The time to +21C is then 21/0.035=600 years

Now we have everything we need to design a workable climate policy:

 

It is 3000 Gton CO2 too much and it causes +0.035 C/year. No matter what reductions are made, there are

3,000 Gt remain. The absolute minimum temperature in 2100 if emissions stop today is

(0,035 * (2100-2021))+1,1 = 3,9 C

Therefore NetZero 2050 cannot work, nor Zero Emissions2045.

All scenarios that reduce emissions at different rates do not affect the 3000 Gt of CO2 that already exists.

 

It will be at least +3.9C in 2100, probably much more, whatever we do under NetZero policy.

Limiting to +1.5C, +1.8C or 2C with emissions reductions is a physical impossibility.

Climate policy needs to look completely different and this discussion should already have started in Glasgow

 

That's why NetZero 2050 or Zero Emissions2045 can't work either

I have seen myself that high school physics teachers see this as self-evident and beyond discussion but yet not a single climate professor has stood up and spoken truth to power.

 

The people and politicians are being duped in a way that is unprecedented in the history . The press has not had the courage to ask the simple question "Will temperatures stop when emissions stop?"

If everyone knows the above rules of thumb, there will be no need to be fooled by false statements.

 

 

Most recently in TheGuardian:

The climate pledges agreed so far at the Cop26 conference can keep the world's temperature rise to no more than 1.8°C above pre-industrial levels , according to the International Energy Agency (IEA)  - but only if the commitments are fully implemented, according to Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director.

 

The above simple calculation proves him wrong. We need to base climate policy on truth and there may still be time to influence Glasgow if the press reacts quickly.

 

Surely it can't be that bad to ask the simple question

"Will temperatures stop when emissions stop?"

The answer is NO.

Let the climate professors give their view !

Journalists will find the issue sensitive: either you break the laws of nature or you break the narrow corridor of opinion of the IPCC. Just listen and be fascinated. This is true journalism that does enormous climate good.

 


 

The conclusion is that Wind+Sun+Water+ElectricCars....... etc will only solve 1% of the global climate crises.

The rest 99% must be solved by the next generation climate technology that reverses greenhouse effect.

 

See examples here

 

https://ppm.today/index.html?the-only-possible-solution-_.htm

https://ppm.today/index.html?water-and-methane.htm

https://ppm.today/index.html?unless-the-experts-stop-us.htm

https://ppm.today/index.html?pretend.htm