[Graeme]

15 key findings from the IPCC mitigation report

Here are the main findings from the IPCC's WGIII report, taken from the report itself, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), and the Technical Summary:

1) Serious emissions cuts haven’t really started yet - greenhouse gases emitted still rising
"Total anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute decadal increases toward the end of this period (high confidence). Despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies, annual GHG emissions grew on average by 1.0 gigatonne carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2%) per year from 2000 to 2010 compared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3%) per year from 1970 to 2000 (Figure SPM.1). Total anthropogenic GHG emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to 2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in 2010. The global economic crisis 2007/2008 only temporarily reduced emissions. [1.3, 5.2, 13.3, 15.2.2, Box TS.5, Figure 15.1] [SPM Page 5]

2) If we carry on as we are it will result in 3.7 to 4.8 degrees of warming by the end of the century

“Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, emissions growth is expected to persist driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Baseline scenarios, those without additional mitigation, result in global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7 to 4.8°C compared to pre‐industrial levels (median values; the range is 13 2.5°C to 7.8°C when including climate uncertainty, see Table SPM.1).” [SPM page 8]

3) It is not too late to limit warming to less than 2°C – or maybe even 1.5°C

greenpeace

[Graeme]

Statement by Secretary Moniz on IPCC's Working Group Report on Climate Change Mitigation

Today, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz issued the following statement on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Working Group report on climate change mitigation:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report on mitigation makes it clear that the next ten to twenty years are critical if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. The IPCC report notes that it will be substantially more difficult to maintain low GHG concentrations in the long term if we do not act aggressively now. The report also points out that there are many low-carbon energy pathways to a prosperous future while mitigating climate change risks to a significant degree.

"Recognizing this imperative to act, the United States has been doing our part. The President's Climate Action Plan lays out a series of new initiatives that are underway to bring new sources of renewable power online faster, reduce emissions from our fossil fuel plants and transportation sector, sustain nuclear power, and drive greater energy efficiency across our communities, businesses and industries. In recent years, the United States has more than doubled the amount of electricity generated from wind and solar. President Obama set the mark high when he called for another doubling of renewable electricity generation by 2020, a doubling of new vehicle fuel efficiency by 2025, and a doubling of economy-wide energy productivity by 2030. The President's all-of-the-above approach entails making the technology investments that will enable all fuel sources to have a role in the future low-carbon marketplace - carbon capture and sequestration for fossil power plants, advanced biofuels and electrification for vehicles, next generation nuclear power, lower cost renewables, modernized energy infrastructure, and the manufacturing advances that will underpin a clean energy economy.

"A previous IPCC report indicated that even as we mitigate climate change risks, we also need to address the changes that are already happening as a result of global warming. The President's Climate Action Plan lays out initiatives for enhancing energy infrastructure resilience to these changes. However, greenhouse gas reductions are essential, and ultimately, a much lower cost option than managing climate impacts from unrestrained emissions growth. This IPCC report makes clear that prudence calls for doing all that we can now and in the years ahead."

energy

[Graeme]

Edenhofer: Climate protection a 'task that can be solved'

Against all odds, climate researcher Ottmar Edenhofer says global climate protection is possible. But it's time for bold steps, the co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns.

Deutsche Welle: You've had an eye on the climate process for many years. The IPCC's warnings are not new, and strategies to solve the problems exist. Why have politicians not managed to implement them?

Ottmar Edenhofer: Climate policies are extremely difficult. I've just spent a week in plenary sessions, grappling with more than 110 governments. It's like facing a global parliament, and once you let that sink in, you realize very quickly how difficult global cooperation is.

What makes it so difficult?

One reason is that the owners of coal, oil and natural gas deposits have to face the fact that their assets will be diminished. They don't think that's a great idea. Emerging countries in particular fear they might have to forgo growth. Many obstacles have to be overcome.

You need reasonable incentives, for instance national carbon dioxide taxes. They would contribute to economic development, but they could be staggered so less affluent households would barely be affected. Governments are only now realizing these possibilities.

The world still has large supplies of coal, oil and natural gas. If those supplies are all extracted and burned, the goal of keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius can't be reached; there would be too much CO2. Now, corporations aren't interested in not selling their energy supplies. What's the solution in this case?

The companies that own these assets know how to invest. They can invest in renewables or in carbon capture technologies to avoid the devaluation of their assets.

Basically, coming to terms with structural change is by no means a novelty in industrial history. Some people are interested in maintaining the status quo, and find change difficult. But those who profit from the status quo happen to be the ones who own the most investment funds. Now, they can use those funds to invest in change – and profit later.

All you need to do is nudge them?

You have to give them a strong nudge, they are quite opposed to it. Great innovations and major challenges always go hand in hand with strong opposition. But the IPCC report shows clearly that it's a task that can be solved, so in that sense the report does provide hope. We face a difficult task, but we shouldn't be discouraged.

dw

[Graeme]

IPCC report: The top 10 ways to avert a climate catastrophe

The third and final installment of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment on climate change dropped Sunday in Berlin, and it provides what’s arguably the most important piece of the puzzle: After establishing the science behind climate change and its current and future impact on life as we know it, it now lays out what can — and must — be done to slow warming down.

It’s not going to be easy: The 1,250 experts who wrote the report concluded that in order to avoid what’s generally agreed to be catastrophic warming, by 2050 global greenhouse gas emissions are going to have to drop to about 40 to 70 percent of what they were in 2010. By the end of the century, they’ll have to be at zero, or possibly even less than that (more on that below).

But it is possible, according to the thousand-plus scenarios run by the scientists. And it’s even affordable, they insist: Taking action will depress annual economic growth rates only by about .06 percent. By the end of the century, the New York Times notes, countries that pay that expense now will likely be richer — do nothing, and they’ll be almost 5 percent poorer than they otherwise would have been. Speaking to reporters Saturday, Charles Kolstad, a lead author of the report, emphasized this above all else: “The longer we wait, the costlier it will be.”

The potential pathways toward change are multifaceted, complicated and, in many cases, controversial. The IPCC makes it a point not to recommend specific policies, but instead to summarize the scientific and technical knowledge available from which policymakers can then act. Below, a pared-down list of what we can do to get where we need to be:

1. Switch to renewables
Clearly, a crisis brought about by the burning of fossil fuels isn’t going to be solved by more of the same. Halving, and ultimately eliminating, greenhouse gas emissions requires eliminating their source as well. In the next two decades, according to the report, fossil fuel use will need to decline by about 20 percent — phasing out coal, in particular, would have a significant impact. Investment in low-carbon energy, conversely, will need to double.

2. Put a price on carbon

An international carbon tax could be a cost-effective way to coax those CO2 emissions down to a management level. Plus, it’s “a general principle,” the report notes, that “mitigation policies that raise government revenue generally have lower social costs than approaches which do not.”

3. Take the carbon out of the atmosphere

This one’s more controversial: If we can’t break free of fossil fuels, or if we vastly overshoot our emissions goals, carbon capture and storage technology is put forth as a way of retroactively taking back what we’ve done. The controversy arises from the fact that such technologies don’t currently exist at scale, and there’s no indication that they’ll be available or affordable in the future. Preventing the need to do this in the first place, the report’s authors are careful to note, is probably a better plan.

4. Build greener buildings

The buildings we live and work in account for 32 percent of global energy use; energy demand and the consequent emissions could increase anywhere from 50 to 150 percent by mid-century. Approaching new construction with energy efficiency in mind, and retrofitting our old buildings by the same principles, are both necessary, and would effect massive change.

5. Plan better cities

salon

[Graeme]

How to mitigate climate change: Key facts from the U.N.’s 2014 report

The March 2014 report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,” was unequivocal: Human-induced climate change is happening and the effects are already evident — shrinking ice caps, droughts and flooding, storms and extinctions. If greenhouse-gas emission levels continue to rise, the IPCC stated, future changes are likely to be even more extreme, with millions of people displaced by rising sea levels and global food supplies under threat.


The graph below shows the proportion of greenhouse gases emitted by the various sectors of the global economy. Indirect emissions, shown on the right, are those that result from the generation of electricity and heat; direct emissions by sector are shown on the left.

The report looks at each sector, outlining the potential for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions through greater efficiency, reduced use or other means.

Energy generation:

Reducing carbon emissions from electrical generation is one of the most cost‐effective ways to blunt climate change: “Decarbonization happens more rapidly in electricity generation than in the industry, buildings and transport sectors. In the majority of low‐stabilization scenarios, the share of low‐carbon electricity supply increases from the current share of approximately 30% to more than 80% by 2050.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed power plant rules, to be published in June 2014, are anticipated to accelerate the shift to natural gas and provide sufficient incentives to encourage the deployment of industrial-scale carbon capture and storage for coal-fired plants.

Despite political uncertainty, wind and other renewables have continued to grow rapidly and per-kilowatt prices are falling to near-parity with fossil fuels. States play a central role in the growth of renewables, wind and solar in particular, and a wide range of incentives are in place that can be leveraged.

Over the next 20 years, annual investments in renewables, nuclear and electricity generation with carbon capture and storage are projected to rise by $147 billion, while those for fossil-fuel electrical generation capacity will decline by about $30 billion. (While the relative changes are significant, note that the average annual investment in energy systems is $1.2 trillion.)

journalistsresource

[dohboi]

G, thanks for those posts. Here's something linked by wally at RC:

Is the IPCC Government Approval Process Broken?
Posted on April 25, 2014 by Robert Stavins

Over the past 5 years, I have dedicated an immense amount of time and effort to serving as the Co-Coordinating Lead Author (CLA) of Chapter 13, “International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments,” of Working Group III (Mitigation) of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

From his letter to the heads of the committee:

I am writing to you today to express my disappointment and frustration with the process and outcome of the government approval meetings in Berlin this past week, at which the assembled representatives from the world’s governments, considered and, in effect, fundamentally revised or rejected parts of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of IPCC Working Group 3 over a period of five long days (and nights)...

My intent is not to criticize the country representatives, the IPCC leadership, the TSU, the Lead Authors, or the Coordinating Lead Authors. The problems I seek to identify are structural, not personal...

...government representatives worked to suppress text that might jeopardize their negotiating stances...

To ask these experienced UNFCCC negotiators to approve text that critically assessed the scholarly literature on which they themselves are the interested parties, created an irreconcilable conflict of interest...

Over the course of the two hours of the contact group deliberations, it became clear that the only way the assembled government representatives would approve text for SPM.5.2 was essentially to remove all “controversial” text (that is, text that was uncomfortable for any one individual government), which meant deleting almost 75% of the text, including nearly all explications and examples under the bolded headings.

In more than one instance, specific examples or sentences were removed at the will of only one or two countries, because under IPCC rules, the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeased.

http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/0 ... -broken-2/

In other words, the summary is a butchered version of what the scientists intended. Best to ignore it and go to the main text. Unfortunately, that is some 2000 pages long, iirc.

[Graeme]

IPCC reports 'diluted' under 'political pressure' to protect fossil fuel interests

Increasing evidence is emerging that the policy summaries on climate impacts and mitigation by the UN Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were significantly 'diluted' under political pressure from some of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, including Saudi Arabia, China, Brazil and the United States.

Several experts familiar with the IPCC government approval process for the 'Summary for Policymakers' (SPM) reports – documents summarising the thousands of pages of technical and scientific reports for government officials – have spoken out about their distortion due to political interests.

According to David Wasdell, who leads on feedback dynamics in coupled complex global systems for the European Commission's Global System Dynamics and Policy (GSDP) network, "Every word and line of the text previously submitted by the scientific community was examined and amended until it could be endorsed unanimously by the political representatives."

theguardian

[Graeme]

IPCC climate change report's findings must be accepted, MPs say

The world’s most comprehensive report yet on the science of climate change has been strongly endorsed by an influential group of MPs.

The Energy and Climate Change Committee found that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's processes were “robust” and their conclusions should be accepted by policymakers.

The IPCC, a grouping of hundreds of scientists convened by the UN, published its mammoth report in three parts from last September to this spring, its first such update in seven years.

It concluded that climate change is almost certainly manmade, that a large proportion of fossil fuel reserves will have to stay in the ground to avoid dangerous warming of 5C or more, and that global warming is being felt "on all continents and across the oceans". It also concluded that the transition to clean energy to avoid the worst impacts of climate change was eminently affordable.

theguardian

[Graeme]

Forthcoming IPCC Report Calls for Control of Fossil Fuel Consumption

SHARMINI PERIES, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore.

Fossil fuels are conclusively putting the planet at irreversible risk, says the Nobel Prize-winning group the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A draft version of the upcoming report has been sent to governments, and by all accounts it is the starkest warning yet from the global scientific community of the dangers yet to come due to man-made global warming.

With us to discuss the UN synthesis report is Michael E. Mann. He is the distinguished professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University and the author of the book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.
Thank you for joining us, Prof. Mann.
MICHAEL E. MANN, PHD, DIRECTOR, EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, PENN STATE UNIV.: Thank you. It's good to be with you.
PERIES: So, Prof. Mann, this report is synthesizing the information already captured in previous IPCC reports. But can you break down the key findings that has been sent to governments?
MANN: Sure thing. So in a sense there are no surprises, because we know what material is in this report. It's a summary of the three working group reports that have already appeared, the report on the basic science of climate change, which was followed by the Working Group II Report on climate change impacts, and then there was the Working Group III report, Mitigation, how we can solve this problem. This is the synthesis report. So it brings it all together. And if there is one word or one sort of assessment that I think summarizes what this report has to say, it's that we really need to get working on this problem now. We don't have time to waste. We really need to act now if we are going to protect ourselves against what can reasonably be described as truly dangerous and potentially irreversible changes in our climate.

PERIES: What do you think IPCC expects from the warning sent to the governments?
MANN: Well, what's interesting is that the IPCC, it's a very conservative organization, because it's literally made up of hundreds and hundreds of scientists from around the world, experts in various aspects of the science of climate change. And because of that, it represents sort of a scientific lowest common denominator. The report reflects a very conservative viewpoint that can be shared by essentially all of the scientists contributing to the report, who have various views, various findings. So by their nature, the IPCC reports tend to be conservative. In many cases, the IPCC projections, for example, have actually underestimated the rate of climate change that has actually occurred subsequently. And we see that, for example, with the dramatic decrease in Arctic Sea ice. It's happening faster than the IPCC said it should. The melting of the ice sheets, it's happening faster than the IPCC said it should.

So what's particularly interesting, I think, about this latest synthesis report is the stark terms in which the IPCC, a very conservative body, a very staid body, the very stark terms in which they lay out the problem, essentially saying, look, there's no question the globe is warming, our climate is changing, it's due to human activity, and if we don't do something about it, it's going to be a real problem. It's already a problem. We are already seeing damages, in many cases way ahead of schedule.

therealnews

[Graeme]

How the IPCC is sharpening its language on climate change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is sharpening the language of its latest draft synthesis report, seen by Carbon Brief.

Not only is the wording around how the climate is changing more decisive, the evidence the report references is stronger too, when compared to the previous version published in 2007.

The synthesis report, due to be published on 2 November, will wrap up the IPCC's fifth assessment (AR5) of climate change. It will summarise and draw together the information in IPCC reports on the science of climate change, its impacts and the ways it can be addressed.

We've compared a draft of the synthesis report with that published in 2007 to find out how they compare. Here are the key areas of change.

carbonbrief

[Graeme]

IPCC lines up for a sixth climate audit as economic costs corrected

More than a quarter of a century old and the bane of global warming sceptics everywhere, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not about to fade into the sunset.

This past week, the UN body released its final report on climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerability – 1820 pages long – and will finalise the synthesis summary of its entire Fifth Assessment Report by month's end. That will emerge in time for the G20 gathering of leaders in Brisbane in mid-November.

The IPCC's fifth iteration has been seven years in the making, and all indications point to a Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) commencing next year to keep abreast of the latest science as well as the rise in greenhouse gas levels.

The report out this past week confirmed scientists' views that Australia was among the regions of the world already experiencing more extreme weather as the climate warms up, such as more intense heatwaves.

The report also corrected a faulty finding inserted late in the review process by a climate change sceptical economist, Britain-based Richard Tol, from one of his own papers. He argued the benefits of moderate warming may outweigh the costs.

"This error in the report would have been picked up by independent reviewers, including me, if it had appeared in the earlier drafts," Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said.

"This correction will not alter the main findings of the IPCC report, which already included a warning that studies of the economic consequences of climate change omit many of the biggest impacts and so provide significant underestimates," he said.

Professor Tol, from the University of Sussex, said the wording in the report had changed but not the meaning. "The latest draft says '17 of the 20 impact estimates […] are negative', which is correct," he told Fairfax Media. "Readers would infer that there are positive impacts too."

theage

[Graeme]

UN climate change draft report sees risks of irreversible damage

Climate change may have "serious, pervasive and irreversible" impacts on human society and nature, according to a draft U.N. report due for approval this week that says governments still have time to avert the worst.

Delegates from more than 100 governments and top scientists meet in Copenhagen on Oct 27-31 to edit the report, meant as the main guide for nations working on a U.N. deal to fight climate change at a summit in Paris in late 2015.

They will publish the study on Nov. 2.


In a paragraph summing up the risks, the draft says that a continued rise in world greenhouse gas emissions is "increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."

It adds that "a combination of adaptation and substantial, sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can limit climate change risks."

All affected

Among more than 2,000 comments on the text by governments, the European Union said the IPCC should add that "all regions are affected, regardless of wealth".

smh

[Graeme]

9 Significant Scientific Findings too Recent to Be Included in the New IPCC Report

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release its landmark synthesis report this weekend. The report—which summarizes findings released in Assessment Reports over the past year—underscores three major facts about climate change: It’s happening now, it’s already affecting communities and ecosystems around the world, and the most dangerous impacts can still be avoided if we act now.

The IPCC reports, released roughly every six years, are the most comprehensive, authoritative consensus on climate change among scientific experts. However, the cut-off date for literature for each Assessment Report was in 2013 , so it’s worth taking stock of recent scientific advancements and climate-related events that have occurred since then.



Sea Level Rise

The Amundsen Sea portion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has reached a tipping point and is in the process of an irreversible collapse. Recent studies conclude that we are now committed to an additional rise in global sea level of more than 3 feet from the loss of this portion of the ice sheet alone.

The northeast portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS), covering 16 percent of the entire ice sheet, was considered stable for approximately the last quarter of the 20th century. Recent analysis, however, determined that regional warming has contributed to this portion of the ice sheet melting at an alarming rate over the past decade. Average annual ice loss in the region between 2006 and 2012 was more than 10 Gigatons, or nearly the equivalent weight of 500 Great Pyramids. Considering the GIS is one of the largest contributors to global sea-level rise—and many models have not considered this area of the ice sheet in projections of global sea-level rise —this latest finding suggests a likely underestimate of future sea-level rise.

Extreme Weather and Climate Events

While the link between human-induced global warming and specific droughts, heavy precipitation and storm events analyzed in 2013 remains uncertain, there was overwhelming evidence linking human-induced warming and the severity and likelihood of 2013 heatwaves in Australia, China, Europe, Japan and Korea. These findings were part of the analysis undertaken by 20 different groups of scientists, which furthered the science of attribution of extreme events to human-induced climate change.

The world experienced 261 weather-related disasters and a record 41 weather events that each caused at least $1 billion in damages in 2013, according to Climate Central.

Ecosystem Impacts

A study published this year shows that in dry years, the Amazon basin – which plays a critical role in absorbing greenhouse gas emissions-- loses carbon. If recent drought and fire trends persist, the Amazon may shift to become a source of carbon dioxide, further amplifying climate change.

The National Audubon Society found that of 588 North American bird species studied, 314 will lose the majority of their current range by 2080 if global warming continues at its current pace.

GHG Emissions and Temperature

According to data gathered at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the daily average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide passed the 400 parts per million (ppm) mark in May of 2013 for the first time since measurements began. Before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were 280 ppm.

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production were the highest in human history in 2013, and 60 percent higher than in 1990.

Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000. 2013 was the 37th consecutive year that annual global temperatures were above average, and so far the January-September period of 2014 is tied with 1998 as the warmest period on record.

wri

[Graeme]

Danger: irreversible climate-change forces at work

The new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that irreversible consequences could be averted, at surprisingly little cost, if action is taken without delay

Campaigners against global warming and their bitterest opponents are united by one word this weekend: irreversible.

It appears 48 times in the draft of the most important report so far on climate change, being finalised today in Copenhagen, signifying that unless the world takes speedy action to curb emissions of greenhouse gases their dire effect will last for thousands of years, at least.

Reversal also motivates a growing number of sceptics calling for repeal of Britain’s Climate Change Act which is, they say, driving the country into unique dependence on unreliable renewable sources of energy. The two views are bound to clash ever more vigorously in the run-up to a planned international climate agreement in Paris next December.

The new report, to be published tomorrow by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to provide the “road map” for that treaty. The culmination of a series of four over the last year, it is still being argued over, line by line, by the world’s governments and top scientists.

But, broadly, it will conclude that global warming is happening and that human activities are virtually certainly responsible; that, left unchecked, it will have drastic – and, yes, irreversible, consequences; but that these could be averted, at surprisingly little cost, if action is taken without delay.

telegraph

[GHung]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29855884

The unrestricted use of fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, a UN-backed expert panel says.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in a stark report that most of the world's electricity can - and must - be produced from low-carbon sources by 2050.

If not, the world faces "severe, pervasive and irreversible" damage.

The UN said inaction would cost "much more" than taking the necessary action.

Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids” -John Kerry US Secretary of State

"Science has spoken," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. "There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side."

The IPCC's Synthesis Report was published on Sunday in Copenhagen, after a week of intense debate between scientists and government officials:
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar ... REPORT.pdf

....

"We can't afford to burn all the fossil fuels we have without dealing with the waste product which is CO2 and without dumping it in the atmosphere," said Prof Myles Allen from Oxford University, and a member of the IPCC core writing team.

"If we can't develop carbon capture we will have to stop using fossil fuels if we want to stop dangerous climate change, that is a very clear message that comes out of the IPCC reports."

The clarity of the language over the future of coal, oil, and gas was welcomed by campaigners.

"What they have said is that we must get to zero emissions, and that's new," said Samantha Smith from WWF.

"The second thing is they said that it is affordable, it is not going to cripple economies."

[vtsnowedin]

In 85 years human beings may well have phased themselves out or at least down to a sustainable population level of about one billion. That should fit the down side of the oil production curve quite nicely. It only remains to be seen which line on the plot drives the other.

[dissident]

The IPCC has finally jumped the shark. According to its own reports the fossil fuel use has to be drastically curtailed before 2050. Phasing out by 2100 essentially means that one of the higher emission scenarios is followed. And it is clear that the amount of warming observed is exceeding the model ensemble consensus trajectory. That is, the sensitivity of the system to the greenhouse burden is higher than expected.

[GHung]

"...they said that it is affordable, it is not going to cripple economies."

Nothing like having our cake and eating it too, eh? One wonders if someone estimated what rate of change-over economies could deal with and went with that. The Saudis walked away from Copenhagen when it was suggested that their oil-based economy had an expiration date. Some economies simply don't have a 'Plan B' available to them, yet the IPCC (necessarily?) keeps treating a predicament like a problem. Any realistic assessment is tantamount to telling a lot of folks they're going to have to stop eating. Good luck with that.

[JuanP]

I agree with Diss on his observations. I believe we are likely headed for a high emissions scenario and catastrophic Climate Change.

I think GW is being masked by pollution, particularly from increased Chinese aerosol and other particulate emissions. If the Chinese manage to reduce these, we can expect a spike in temperature.

I wonder how PO and its consequences will affect future emissions. I fear we will go for the remaining biomass with a passion, particularly wood, and emissions will increase even during collapse. I expect humans to burn everything they can until they absolutely can't anymore.

I think it is extremely unlikely that humanity will last another 1,000 years.

[Henriksson]

This is curious. The IPCC should be considered the very most easily digested report, always going for the most conservative estimates despite the gravity of the subject matter, and despite the simple observation that these estimates have shown a trend to be revised to show more time constraint as the years go by. Yet even the IPCC agreed that warming should stay below two degrees celsius, because otherwise "severe, pervasive and irreversible" damage should be avoided. Quite obviously, if fossil fuels won't be phased out until 2100 even that utterly unambitious goal would be blazed past. This is actually a very ambiguous message, Ban Ki-Moon.

In 1984 the question of whether climate change could be avoided was still in the air. This is true no longer, and we should try to adapt to this new reality, even if it is a dystopia.