Impact of Current Climate Proposals

Bjorn Lomborg
Article first published online: 9 NOV 2015

DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295

Abstract:

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small.

The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C.

All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

================

UN Climate Chief, Christina Figueres estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total. To limit rises to 2.7°C, about 3,000Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced – or about 100 times more than the Paris commitments.

The EU promises for Paris, a reduction of 33GT at best, will cost $300-600 billion annually. Multiply that by 100.

The_observer said:

Impact of Current Climate Proposals

Bjorn Lomborg
Article first published online: 9 NOV 2015

DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295

Abstract:

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small.

The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C.

All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

================

UN Climate Chief, Christina Figueres estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total. To limit rises to 2.7°C, about 3,000Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced – or about 100 times more than the Paris commitments.

The EU promises for Paris, a reduction of 33GT at best, will cost $300-600 billion annually. Multiply that by 100.

>>The second rejection of a Bjorn-again “Consensus Centre” by an Australian university this week raises questions as to whether any university would ever go near Lomborg, even if the federal government is putting up A$4 million to host him. These millions were allocated to Lomborg in the 2015 budget.

The University of Western Australia backflipped on a decision to host the centre in May. And now Flinders University has solidly refused to establish an Australia Consensus Centre for Lomborg.<<

Need I say more?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Impact of Current Climate Proposals

Bjorn Lomborg
Article first published online: 9 NOV 2015

DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295

Abstract:

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small.

The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C.

All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

================

UN Climate Chief, Christina Figueres estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total. To limit rises to 2.7°C, about 3,000Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced – or about 100 times more than the Paris commitments.

The EU promises for Paris, a reduction of 33GT at best, will cost $300-600 billion annually. Multiply that by 100.

>>The second rejection of a Bjorn-again “Consensus Centre” by an Australian university this week raises questions as to whether any university would ever go near Lomborg, even if the federal government is putting up A$4 million to host him. These millions were allocated to Lomborg in the 2015 budget.

The University of Western Australia backflipped on a decision to host the centre in May. And now Flinders University has solidly refused to establish an Australia Consensus Centre for Lomborg.<<

Need I say more?

That’s not because of anything he’s done wrong Perm, it was simply a result of activism by left leaning activist students & academics.

Now, if you personally care to pull your finger out & find anything wrong with the modelling he’s used or his finding, go for it, & stop the pathetic character assination.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Impact of Current Climate Proposals

Bjorn Lomborg
Article first published online: 9 NOV 2015

DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295

Abstract:

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small.

The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C.

All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

================

UN Climate Chief, Christina Figueres estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total. To limit rises to 2.7°C, about 3,000Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced – or about 100 times more than the Paris commitments.

The EU promises for Paris, a reduction of 33GT at best, will cost $300-600 billion annually. Multiply that by 100.

>>The second rejection of a Bjorn-again “Consensus Centre” by an Australian university this week raises questions as to whether any university would ever go near Lomborg, even if the federal government is putting up A$4 million to host him. These millions were allocated to Lomborg in the 2015 budget.

The University of Western Australia backflipped on a decision to host the centre in May. And now Flinders University has solidly refused to establish an Australia Consensus Centre for Lomborg.<<

Need I say more?

That’s not because of anything he’s done wrong Perm, it was simply a result of activism by left leaning activist students & academics.

Now, if you personally care to pull your finger out & find anything wrong with the modelling he’s used or his finding, go for it, & stop the pathetic character assination.

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climate scientist and is rejected by most scientists world wide. The only people who seem to think he is any good are those connected to the fossil fuel industry.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

>>The second rejection of a Bjorn-again “Consensus Centre” by an Australian university this week raises questions as to whether any university would ever go near Lomborg, even if the federal government is putting up A$4 million to host him. These millions were allocated to Lomborg in the 2015 budget.

The University of Western Australia backflipped on a decision to host the centre in May. And now Flinders University has solidly refused to establish an Australia Consensus Centre for Lomborg.<<

Need I say more?

That’s not because of anything he’s done wrong Perm, it was simply a result of activism by left leaning activist students & academics.

Now, if you personally care to pull your finger out & find anything wrong with the modelling he’s used or his finding, go for it, & stop the pathetic character assination.

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climate scientist and is rejected by most scientists world wide. The only people who seem to think he is any good are those connected to the fossil fuel industry.

neither is Al Gore. But Lomborg is an economist & a statisician & his paper is is in regards to that particularly, If you had a brain PF you would have realised that.

But tell me PF. Lomborg agrees with the science you believe in. He doesn’t believe the warming will be as bad as numbsculls like yourself believe, but his paper is simply saying that the Paris agreements are not enough to make much difference.

This shows how morinic you are. You cannot even comprehend what he’s saying. If you did comprehend it, you wouldn’t argue with him.

poikilotherm said:

someone was trying to steal his solar panels

The_observer said:

poikilotherm said:

someone was trying to steal his solar panels

Isn’t that TO and PF gardening together?

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

poikilotherm said:

someone was trying to steal his solar panels

Isn’t that TO and PF gardening together?

That would be PF without any pants & waving a shovel threateningly.

He’s obviously mad!

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

That’s not because of anything he’s done wrong Perm, it was simply a result of activism by left leaning activist students & academics.

Now, if you personally care to pull your finger out & find anything wrong with the modelling he’s used or his finding, go for it, & stop the pathetic character assination.

Bjorn Lomborg is not a climate scientist and is rejected by most scientists world wide. The only people who seem to think he is any good are those connected to the fossil fuel industry.

neither is Al Gore. But Lomborg is an economist & a statisician & his paper is is in regards to that particularly, If you had a brain PF you would have realised that.

But tell me PF. Lomborg agrees with the science you believe in. He doesn’t believe the warming will be as bad as numbsculls like yourself believe, but his paper is simply saying that the Paris agreements are not enough to make much difference.

This shows how morinic you are. You cannot even comprehend what he’s saying. If you did comprehend it, you wouldn’t argue with him.

I repeat from my comment above regarding his rejection by Australian Universities. Need I say more?

PermeateFree said:

I repeat from my comment above regarding his rejection by Australian Universities. Need I say more?

you couldn’t no matter how hard you tried

can’t beat long handled shovels, poik. always used to annoy me watching time team and most of them doing their backs in with the short handled stuff.

PermeateFree said:

I repeat from my comment above regarding his rejection by Australian Universities. Need I say more?

See, the problem for people like you, P,F is Lomborg used modelling to show that the agreement for Paris, if implemented to its fullest, would only reduce temperture rise (according to IPCC hypothesis) by 0.17°C by 2100.

And he makes it quite clear that this useless action would also cost $300-600 billion annually.

Its activists in australian unis that can’t handle the truth & want the truth hidden from the population.

JudgeMental said:

can’t beat long handled shovels, poik. always used to annoy me watching time team and most of them doing their backs in with the short handled stuff.

The safety pants were an exceptional choice too, if a little short and tight.

I haven’t seen safety pants like that since the early 80’s.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Impact of Current Climate Proposals

Bjorn Lomborg
Article first published online: 9 NOV 2015

DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295

Abstract:

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small.

All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.

================

>>The second rejection of a Bjorn-again “Consensus Centre” by an Australian university this week raises questions as to whether any university would ever go near Lomborg, even if the federal government is putting up A$4 million to host him. These millions were allocated to Lomborg in the 2015 budget.

The University of Western Australia backflipped on a decision to host the centre in May. And now Flinders University has solidly refused to establish an Australia Consensus Centre for Lomborg.<<
.

Need I say more?

http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/other/special/2015Outlook

Energy and Climate Outlook 2015

Key findings in the 2015 Outlook

Impacts of Emissions Reduction Proposals for COP21:

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.
.

Need I say more.

LOL