Guest commentary by Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, and Piers Forster
Of all the troubling headlines emerging from the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) WG1 report, one warning will surely dominate headlines in the next days and weeks: Earth is likely to reach the crucial 1.5℃ warming limit in the early 2030s.
In 2018, the IPCC Special Report on 1.5C warming stated in its summary for policy makers that the world was likely to cross the 1.5℃ threshold between 2030 and 2052, if current warming trends continue.
In this latest AR6, a more comprehensive assessment was undertaken to estimate when a warming level of 1.5℃ might be reached. As a result, some early media reports suggest 1.5ºC warming is now anticipated 10-years earlier than previously assumed (AFR, THE TIMES).
We want to explain here why that is not backed up by a rigorous comparison of the SR1.5 and AR6 reports. In fact, the science in the previous SR1.5 report and the new AR6 report are remarkably consistent.
In a very low emission scenario (i.e. the so-called SSP1-1.9 scenario), our best estimate of when 1.5ºC warming might be reached in the AR6 report is around 2034.5 (the year on which the 20-year period 2025-2044 is centred, as stated in Table 4.5 of that report). In SR1.5 the comparable estimate was 2035 (stated in Table 2.SM.12 of Chapter 2 in the report’s underlying material). These two dates are exactly the same within rounding.
But let’s take a step back before going into the more detailed comparison below.
Some background
According to the AR6 findings, Earth’s average temperature in the last decade (2011-2020) was 1.09℃ warmer than pre-industrial times (here defined as 1850-1900). Obviously, this goes most of the way to 1.5℃ of warming and human influence is pretty much the sole contributor to this observed warming. On their own, our greenhouse gas emissions would have caused a much higher warming, were it not for the masking effect of aerosol pollution.
We often use 20-year or 30-year averages to deal with the fact that there is a lot of internal variability in the system (a very likely (5-95%) range of ±0.25℃ in any single year). This is why the discussion about exceedance times for any specified global warming level relates to the long-term global average (such as 20-year periods). We are going to see individual years already exceeding 1.5ºC warming before the long-term average does. In fact at the peak of the 2015-16 El Niño event, global anomalies for individual months already exceeded 1.5℃.
What did the previous SR1.5 report say on the timing of crossing 1.5ºC?
The headline number from SR1.5 – a likely 2030 to 2052 range – was based on the assumption of a linear continuation of then current warming trends on top of the then-assumed current warming. There is also a figure (Figure SR1.5 SPM.1) that includes a red-dashed linear line, hitting the 1.5C mark somewhere between 2039 and 2040.
However, apart from that figure, the central estimate does not get any mention in the SR1.5 report. In fact, the underlying material in Chapter 1 describes that there are multiple lines of evidence supporting the lower 2030 bound of the stated range and supposedly only a single study supporting the upper bound of the likely range, i.e. 2052.
Thus, the SR1.5 provides us basically with a lopsided likely range from 2030 to 2052, with the balance of evidence tilting towards 2030. Remember that this is based on an approach that simply assumes a linear extrapolation of current warming trends.
A simple linear extrapolation is a good first approximation. But certainly not the best method to estimate when 1.5ºC warming might be reached in the real world. For that, we should take into account the evolution of GHG emissions, aerosols and other forcings. Thus, a scenario-based approach is more appropriate.
Chapter 2 in the SR1.5 report did just that. Buried a bit deeper in that report was an assessment of when the low set of scenarios could reach warming of around 1.5ºC based on a large range of 37 scenarios that reach 1.5ºC and don’t exceed it by more than 0.1ºC. On the basis of this, more sophisticated, analysis the time at which 1.5ºC is reached was estimated to be around 2035 (2033-2036, interquartile range across the best-estimates of the 37 scenarios) (SR1.5 Chapter 2, Table 2.SM.12).
What does the AR6 say about when we could reach 1.5ºC?
Chapter 4 provides the assessed temperature projections under the main five SSP scenarios considered in that report. For the very low scenario, SSP1-1.9, the best-estimate finding is that the 2025-2044 period is going to be the first 20-year period, in which an average warming of 1.5ºC is attained. That makes a 2034.5 central point:
As a summary statement, the IPCC AR6 report states that 1.5℃ warming will be reached or exceeded in the early 2030s in all emissions scenarios considered – except the highest emissions scenario, for which the crossing would occur even earlier. That’s also in line with earlier research (Henley and King, 2017) on the high RCP8.5 scenario, which showed crossing times of around 2028.
Under the very low emissions scenario considered in the report, the story is not one about exceedance or “crossing”. Our best estimate is that under the low scenario, we’re not going to see the 1.5ºC level far away in the rear-mirror. That’s why the new IPCC AR6 Summary for Policy Makers talks about “reaching” when it comes to the lowest scenario and 1.5ºC:
The best estimate projection is that warming will reach levels around 1.5ºC (with a potential limited overshoot up to +0.1C) and then drop slightly to 1.4ºC again by the end of the century again under SSP1-1.9. That is pretty much exactly the same finding as the previous SR1.5 scenarios had for 37 scenarios in its scenario class into which SSP1-1.9 would fall, i.e the class “1.5ºC with limited overshoot”. In a nutshell, the new AR6 report does not suggest it is any harder to limit warming to around 1.5ºC than what IPCC previously said. That is surprising to some extent, as an update of historical warming added 0.08ºC to the observed warming to date, but there are many updates in the underlying methodologies, from narrower climate sensitivity ranges, and updated assumptions on aerosols.
However, note that the uncertainty ranges are somewhat large. Partly due to the methodological choices, where future temperatures are merged with historical ones using the 1995-2014 base period, the lower bound is pretty much “now” – that would mean that – under this particular methodology, there is a chance that we are already ‘now’ (2022) sitting in the middle of a 20-year period (2013-2032) that has a 1.5ºC warming as its average (Chapter 4, Table 4.5). On the far end, that uncertainty stretches out quite a bit as well, because we might never actually hit 1.5ºC under the low SSP1-1.9 scenario (Display 3 above). Thus, in simple terms, the uncertainty range is between “now and never” (we acknowledge the trademark rights of our esteemed colleague Dr. Erich Fischer from ETH Zurich, who coined that summary during our IPCC approval deliberations). In some ways this large uncertainty is unrealistic as we can be pretty confident the crossing time isn’t this year, this shows there is still room for improvement on the AR6 crossing time estimates.
In summary, when apples are compared to apples (i.e. best estimates of scenario-based exceedance times), then the SR1.5 and AR6 provide remarkably consistent numbers: 2034.5 versus 2035. Such a remarkably robust scientific finding is boring to report on, so expect a few headlines in the media that compare apples and oranges. Luckily, a rigorous approval process is sensitive to such issues, which is why now a rather powerful footnote accompanies these findings:
The AR6 assessment of when a given global warming level is first exceeded benefits from the consideration of the illustrative scenarios, the multiple lines of evidence entering the assessment of future global surface temperature response to radiative forcing, and the improved estimate of historical warming. The AR6 assessment is thus not directly comparable to the SR1.5 SPM, which reported likely reaching 1.5°C global warming between 2030 and 2052, from a simple linear extrapolation of warming rates of the recent past. When considering scenarios similar to SSP1-1.9 instead of linear extrapolation, the SR1.5 estimate of when 1.5°C global warming is first exceeded is close to the best estimate reported here.”
Footnote 27. AR6 SPM
Does that mean the 1.5ºC goal is lost?
Not quite. Two elements are important to answer that question. For one, would you abolish a speed limit for somebody who drives too fast? Similarly, the 1.5ºC goal in the Paris Agreement is not a betting game of where we will end up with maximum temperatures.
Rather, the 1.5ºC goal is underpinned by an international compromise agreement, where the international community considers the projected impact to outweigh the costs of mitigations getting there. Not explicitly in dollar terms, but implicitly as a value judgement and normative target of which impacts we consider as being too high.
The 1.5ºC target is a goal enshrined in Art. 2 of the Paris Agreement as “pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5ºC”. That Art. 2 is even referred to as a single temperature goal (Rajamani and Werksman, 2018) by other Articles (Art. 4) of the Paris Agreement, even though it includes the “well below 2°C” part. In other words, the “well below 2ºC” part of Art. 2 sets a cap on the peak temperature at all times, while the ambition is to limit warming to below 1.5ºC, if not during peak times, then again thereafter. Whether it was a drafting oversight to refer to Art. 2 as a single temperature target or not, it makes sense to see both 2ºC and 1.5ºC together as one target. After all, they are connected by “and” and not “or” in Art. 2. Thus the 1.5ºC goal is not lost, even with a slight or limited overshoot. Overshooting the 1.5ºC limit of course comes with additional, and sometimes irreversible, impacts, but even the SR1.5 report used the class of scenarios that included the limited overshoot to investigate the 1.5ºC futures in terms of impacts, adaptation and mitigation.
Therefore nothing is new here. In fact, all the main 1.5ºC scenario literature available at the time of the Paris Agreement in 2015, for example the UNEP Emission Gap report (2015) or the UNFCCC Synthesis Reports in 2015 used such a scenario classification. For the 1.5ºC scenarios, the key thing is where temperatures are after the peak by the end of the century. If they are below 1.5ºC, then the scenario is a 1.5ºC scenario. If the peak temperature throughout the 21st century is below 1.5ºC, then it is a “below 1.5C” scenario. If temperatures remained below
1.6ºC at its peak, then the scenario has a so-called ‘limited’ overshoot (the precise SR1.5 definition of limited overshoot was slightly different, choosing a 33% likelihood of staying below 1.5C over all time, but that is another story).
As many nations are basing their current Nationally Determined Contributions and their COP26 negotiating positions on the SR1.5 scenarios and net zero dates, one of the most important conclusions of AR6 is that the SR1.5 science is robust: policy targets do not need to be revised, just acted on.
Summary
Despite upward adjustments of historical warming estimates by around 0.08ºC, the new IPCC report provides remarkably robust policy advice. The main temperature projections for the scenarios are similar under a like-with-like comparison, the remaining carbon budgets are very close to previously stated ones and our best estimate of when we experience 1.5ºC warming under a future scenario has stayed pretty much the same: the early or mid 2030s. It seems like the only thing that is changing across 30 years of IPCC reports is that the time is running. And given lackluster mitigation action, time seems to be running out.
References
- B.J. Henley, and A.D. King, "Trajectories toward the 1.5°C Paris target: Modulation by the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 44, pp. 4256-4262, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073480
- L. Rajamani, and J. Werksman, "The legal character and operational relevance of the Paris Agreement's temperature goal", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 376, pp. 20160458, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0458
Is it time to stop doing CC models and start putting those powerful scientist brains to work finding practical ways to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere?
Riiiiight. Magic thinking: Somebody else should fix it. You don’t even want to do the fairly straightforward work of finding out what has been done and what can be done, what skills it takes to do that work, and why there are problems (cost, inertia, people like you who think airy suggestions are useful without doing any homework). I suggest genuine curiosity (not the talking point kind) and getting some basic science education. It’s never too late.
@Susan about finding practical ways to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere ::
Riiiiight. Magic thinking: […] and why there are problems (cost, inertia, people like you who think airy suggestions are useful without doing any homework).
Maybe Susan could help Barton Paul Levenson with some of that basic science education before it’s too late? Because poor old Barton already believes sucking carbon out of the air is a doable solution for climate change too.
Quoting Barton : “we can fight global warming by switching to renewable energy, stopping the destruction of forests, and if necessary, removing CO2 from the air. ”
9 Aug 2021 at 7:38 AM https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/07/forced-responses-july-2021/comment-page-10/#comment-794239
Climate deniers, oil companies and Inactivists use flawed solutions and ‘wedge tactics’, (as Mann’s new book discusses,) to put the onus on the individual, and drive a wedge between the community looking to seek action as best they can through blame and in-fighting.
https://twitter.com/JaminEatWorld/status/1381583772110426113
In other words, be careful what you ask for, and say is timely good advice.
It’s not that carbon capture doesn’t work. It’s that it is inefficient and expensive, very small scale so far. I’ve followed this closely, as one cannot ignore anything that might help. It’s obvious we have to do it. That is not what KIA said nor what he intended.
Insulting attacks on other commenters are a distraction – fuel for what you call inactivists. I’ve read Mike Mann’s latest book and agree with him.
Susan, I admire your tenacity in the face of a dire situation but I think the point of this post is that it is too late.
PK Jar,
It is never too late to make things worse–or to choose not to make them worse and start improving them. Remember the first rule of holes.
It’s obvious we have to do it.
Why? Says who? Prove it can’t be done elsewise.
Those calling for tech-based CCS must be eating some magic brownies or are completely unwilling to consider actual change. I will say it again: Simplification reduces emissions by 80 for basically zero cost. Regenerative Ag can draw down another 40% *minimum.*
That’s negative emissions for basically zero cost, better lives, etc.
Why do we need tech-based CCS? Because people are unwilling to actually solve our problems. CCS is suicide for multiple reasons I have mentioned before: 1. Not enough time to build it out. 2. Unsustainable and exacerbates resource depletion, ecosystem destruction, etc. Most important? It’s simply not needed.
Reality check, you havent actually shown where planting trees and protecting what native forests we have left would not help sequester carbon. Planting trees does not have to be something done by individuals as such if thats what you are implying. Tree planting in New Zealand is carried out by various organisations as well as farmers, and is funded by government with funds obtained through the emissions trading scheme, which essentially gets that money from the corporate sector.
You are however pretty good at putting people down. For example “Maybe Susan could help Barton Paul Levenson with some of that basic science education before it’s too late?” I absolutely guarantee if he did that to you, you would be really angry, because I’ve seen how you react over the past several years.
There are serious problems in NZ – a cynical and corrupt player in dealing with global warming. Almost all tree planting in NZ is radiata pine, a quick growing tree, almost a cash crop, which matures in NZ in around 25 years to fellable size. Almost entirely exported as logs, other countries use it for paper making, chipping etc – low value products and as such rapidly returning its CO2 to the atmosphere. It is widely accepted that plantation forests like this are no long term solution to climate change. The huge amounts of money involved, coming from the ETS are seriously distorting what should be a more rational tree planting and landscape policy and a more rational and effective policies in general and the “credits” earned for many years are now going to have to be repaid.. That is recognised by the Ardern government to a (small) point, but so far not much has changed. We are not going to solve global warming nor sequester any CO2 with such short sighted policies and actions. I believe the ETS isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on and should be abandoned. It’s a totally flawed system of economic idiocy designed by ideologues who think everything can be solved be capitalism and markets. It’s been hijacked by the corrupt and greedy – governments and operators. It’s an economic system that has worked so obviously well in so many spheres such as dealing with house prices, poverty, environmental damage, inequality, etc, and as CO2 continues to accumulate at massive rates into the atmosphere, that’s all the proof anyone should need. I can’t think of any instance anywhere on the planet where the ETS has made any significant difference whatsoever. . Here’s a similar NZ opinion explaining our appalling record (almost the worst in the OECD) https://thestandard.org.nz/ets-is-useless-scrap-it/ and you can read a very similar understanding as it applies to Europe here https://corporateeurope.org/en/environment/2015/10/eu-emissions-trading-5-reasons-scrap-ets
Here’s Greta Thunberg’s take on the matter https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2021/08/greta-thunberg-enrages-kiwis-with-tweet-targeting-new-zealand-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html , stepping on the metaphorical toes of thin skinned NZ farmers The problem for us in NZ is that she is absolutely spot on, as usual. There may indeed be some truth to the assertion that NZ’s dairy industry is a mite more efficient than many others but the problem is that the industry has hugely expanded, now numbering over 6 million cows, previously 2 million. Their belching causes almost 50% of NZ’s total emissions, apart from many other serious environmental degradations. A six part documentary examining these serious failings has amazingly appeared on NZ television. Farmers are the most powerful political lobby by a long way in NZ, and have managed to avoid any curtailment in any way for their activities for generations, but those bovine chickens might be coming home to roost, and not before time. And to add balance our CO2 emissions are also rising, mostly transport, which are now about 90% above what they were in 1990 (from our Minister of Transport). The idea seems to have got about that NZ is a rather nice place to retreat to in the mayhem to come, maybe, but it’s also a serious environmental criminal that’s punched well above its weight in causing that mayhem in the first place..
John Munro gets this right. Tree planting is bull. Forest planting is a great way to sequester carbon permanently. After apex, it will still be sequestered, but won’t add much new sequestration, but that’s still a hell of a lot of C.
If, however, we include harvesting for long-term use and bio-char, then additional long-term sequestration is achieved.
You’re all afraid to do the math on this, I know, because it destroys your arguments against regenerative solutions, but agricultural soils now hold an average of about 1.5% C. Boost that to 20% globally and what happens?
Do the math.
RC: Maybe Susan could help Barton Paul Levenson with some of that basic science education before it’s too late? Because poor old Barton already believes sucking carbon out of the air is a doable solution for climate change too.
BPL: It’s not only doable, it’s necessary, because just stopping carbon emissions and deforestation won’t be enough. Will it be a vast, extremely expensive undertaking to take CO2 out of the air? Sure it will. Do we have to do it anyway? Yes, we do.
BTW, I had my basic science education back when I got my degree in physics. Where and when did you get yours?
@Barton I had my basic science education back when I got my degree in physics. Seriously? He’s that insecure – wow.
People need to get an education on Reality before rushing off like Lemmings – NETs/CDR, CCS, BECCS, SOC Sequestration are all hypothetical fictions at this point. They are not valid Tech alternatives. They are not even theoretically affordable and not deployable at scale – Hydrogen will be mainstream long before any CDR program gets a large capacity working prototype up that can be replicated at scale.
This has been known since 2015 and in 2018 when the SR15 was published. It’s hyperventilating desperate spin of the highest order – Pure Fiction.
Paris goals to remain under 1.5C requires a NET/CDR in the order of 1000 GtCO2 be CCS/sequestered under ground. The Avg Annual CO2 is 40 GtCO2 emissions.
Meaning, up to possibly 25 years of the total global emissions needs to go into CCS/SOC to meet the SR15 / Paris Goals …. in the next ~50 years. Meaning, it’s fiction – like 2001: a space odyssey was fiction. It is not going to happen.
Cannot be done except on a very limited impractical small scale of no significant climate benefit whatsoever … with the exception of very long term accumulated SOC land use changes of maybe 2 GtC02 per year – the jury is still out on quantities and RegenAg potentials. But CCS and BECCS and machines sucking CO2 out of the fresh air or at power stations is utter crap.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-ipccs-special-report-on-climate-change-at-one-point-five-c
http://kevinanderson.info/blog/the-hidden-agenda-how-veiled-techno-utopias-shore-up-the-paris-agreement/
55:01 — Myth #19: We Can Achieve Net Zero!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY&t=3301s
https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_cancelled.html
The global experts on CCS https://co2re.co/FacilityData ???
Yes, do yourself a favour and educate yourself as I have. You are never to old to learn about REALITY. Give it a go! But try not to be conned by lying marketers, think tanks, financial shills, or overly biased ambitious but well-meaning green graduate students practicing their craft.
This calls into question the ability to deploy BECCS on the scale suggested by most climate scenarios from the past ten years.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618302998
Given that BECCS deployment has scarcely started and, thus, is far from capturing 1 GtCO2 per year, with lead times on the scale of multiple years, we conclude that there will be a large implementation gap unless BECCS development is immediately intensified, emissions are reduced at a much faster pace or removals realized through other CDR measures.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2020.553400/full
To deliver the UK Committee on Climate Change BECCS scenario of 67 Mt (0.067 Gt) of CO2 removal per year by 2050 would require approximately 22 × 500 MW power stations across the United Kingdom, and 52 Mt of bioenergy feedstock. This level of feedstock demand is notably above previously discussed estimates of sustainable bioenergy supply in the United Kingdom, and would require approximately half of the 9.1 Mha of UK land technically available for bioenergy crops. Deploying this level of BECCS in the United Kingdom is not modelled in our analysis and would require a combination of United Kingdom and imported bioenergy feedstocks, for which there are associated financial (Daggash et al., 2019) and environmental costs (European Commission, 2016).
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12695
Yes, educate yourselves. See how much CCS/BECCS everywhere is pie in the sky at this stage, and the foreseeable future.
There’s a logical reason it never makes the global news.
correction:
(my rough estimate only for perspective) RegenAg SOC land use changes of maybe initially 2 GtC per year (8-10 GtCO2/yr) – ramping up from there if done universally at global scale.
At no additional energy use and minimal up front costs; ultimately paying for itself.
Whereas BECCS will cost additional energy/materials inputs to build the technology plants etc. and then to operate it forever
as per this example To deliver the UK Committee on Climate Change BECCS scenario of 67 Mt (0.067 Gt) of CO2 removal per year by 2050 would require approximately 22 × 500 MW power stations across the United Kingdom, and 52 Mt of bioenergy feedstock.
PLUS more critical information from Scientific Research:
Published: 06 October 2020 – 10 months ago
Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need
A Review of the Literature on Industrial Carbon Removal
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5
“industrial carbon removal” (ICR),
We anchored our review in a standard of “collective biophysical need,” which we define as a reduction of the level of atmospheric CO2.
For each ICR method, we sought to determine (1) whether it sequesters more CO2 than it emits; (2) its resource usage at scale; and (3) its biophysical impacts.
We found that the commercial ICR (C-ICR) methods being incentivized by governments are net CO2 additive: CO2 emissions exceed removals.
Further, the literature inadequately addresses the resource usage and biophysical impacts of these methods at climate-significant scale.
We concluded that dedicated storage, not sale, of captured CO2 is the only assured way to achieve a reduction of atmospheric CO2. Governments should therefore approach atmospheric carbon reduction as a public service, like water treatment or waste disposal.
Conclusions
Our overall policy finding is that the scientific literature does not support the use of public funds to subsidize the commercial development and deployment of ICR, especially those methods that have been shown to emit more CO2 than they sequester, thereby adding to the existing stock of atmospheric CO2.
In specific, these methods are (1) any process in which captured CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR); and (2) direct air capture (DAC) when fossil fuel-powered.
Furthermore, the current ICR path disregards known risks of chemically intensive, industrial carbon removal, and the adverse side effects and subsurface storage uncertainty at scale.
It is troubling that the biophysical issues of operating ICR at scale are insufficiently addressed or analyzed in the ICR literature.
Legislators, too, have neglected to address the biophysical requirements for and consequences of operating ICR at climate-significant scale.
As DAC increasingly takes prominence among carbon removal advocates, it is problematic that the issues of DAC energy consumption are short-shrifted.
Scientific and technical papers increasingly acknowledge that fossil fuel-powered DAC is thermodynamically counterproductive, yet these same papers fail to tackle the consequential question of whether renewable energy should be funneled to DAC rather than used to directly supply energy for buildings and transport.
Virtually ignored in legislation, and unacknowledged in many reports advocating CCS/CCUS and DAC, are the massive land requirements for DAC operation as well as land requirements (acquisition and occupancy) for pipelines for CO2 transport.
OK, so does this make reality even a little clearer about the doubtful, problematic efficacy and lack scientific support for current industrial scale NETs/CDR propositions?
The point being, if people are going to PUSH potential Solutions the least they can do first is to educate themselves about the facts and the scientific evidence pro and con they are promoting.
The reality right now is that NETs/CDR etc are all hypothetical fictions on every important yardstick from economics to viability to basic science.
And yet they are being plugged into the NDCs for (OECD/G20) countries commitments of their 2030 GHG emissions reductions.
It’s time to wake up and face the truth about the UNFCCC and COP26 and the +1.5C Big Lie
That is correct. It will take all options on the table for sure and I have no problem with the carbon sucking and storage technologies. That and a carbon tax and user rebate as Jim Hansen supports. Everything.
No option to respond in the correct thead, but it took time and effort to find out what BECCS is – to simplify, delusional and dangerous. This is not the same thing, but it is useful in defining the line of country involved in promoting carbon credits that are no such thing:
Pulp Fiction: The European Accounting Error That’s Warming the Planet – https://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/
In case anybody is tempted to discredit me by pointing out that wood pellets are not BECCS, please note that it is a metaphor. There is similar potential for exploitation and deception in both, but they are not the same.
Barton Paul Levenson says
10 AUG 2021 AT 6:36 AM
” I had my basic science education back… ”
Hello Mr. Levenson,
You should be able to tell us about the prices for a ton of extracted CO² and how many KWh are required and, above all, whether this electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. In case if you want to use renewable energy – why don`t you use it to avoid CO²-emissions elsewhere ?
Then the question still has to be clarified whether you only want to shoot yourself in the left knee – or maybe in both? – before you run out into the desert.
KIA’S comment. This shows such a lack of understanding of what scientists are trained to do. Its more of a job for engineers. And we already have numerous solutions for extracing CO2 out of the air, including planting trees and other biomass, rock weathering using things like crushed olivine or basalt, regenerative agriculture, use of biochar, and direct air capture. We KNOW how to do these things and have pilot plant, and know approximately how much they cost and approximately what they can achieve. The issue is funding them and it requires things like a carbon tax so please can you just support that sort of thing.
Scientists may be able to come up with new chemical or biological processes that could remove CO2 cheaper and/or on a greater scale than the ones we are already aware of. If they could do that, then engineers could get to work making it practical on a large scale. It is possible that an engineer will come up with new science, but many times that is done by scientists. Hope this helps you to better understand the scientist/engineer relationship.
As RC’s report says (but he didn’t apparently read the thing he was quoting): “We concluded that dedicated storage, not sale, of captured CO2 is the only assured way to achieve a reduction of atmospheric CO2.” Which means that dedicated storage is possible, which means we can remove CO2 from the air, which was the point at issue. We already have the technology, we just have to scale it up, no matter how much it costs.
Agree, but if we can come up with a cheaper, perhaps even less energy intensive process that would be best of all, right? Perhaps a scientist can come up with a way to destroy or remove the CO2 in the air and actually get usable energy out!
@Levenson is wrong again: “As RC’s report says (but he didn’t apparently read the thing he was quoting): “
My comment on 11 Aug 2021 at 12:25 AM proves it —
Where I used this very same sentence:
“We concluded that dedicated storage, not sale, of captured CO2 is the only assured way to achieve a reduction of atmospheric CO2.” along with other useful things – look here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/we-are-not-reaching-1-5oc-earlier-than-previously-thought/#comment-794415
It’s sad to watch.
That sentence however does not in any way prove as efficacious, nor mean the following presumptions are correct or doable:
@Levenson: “Which means that dedicated storage is possible, which means we can remove CO2 from the air, which was the point at issue. We already have the technology, we just have to scale it up, no matter how much it costs.
It would be grand if everything was that simple and certain. It is not. That research is an excellent paper worth reading in full instead of being cherry-picked completely out of context and misused to support some unfounded claims.
All the literature evidence and know-how needs to be considered not only one sentence in one paper.
For example, how much it costs matters. If something can really be scaled up matters. Being possible does equate to Practicable or Worthwhile doing.
typo
“Being possible does – NOT- equate to Practicable or Worthwhile doing. “
KIA. Wrong. This is what you said: “Is it time to stop doing CC models and start putting those powerful scientist brains to work finding practical ways to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere?:
I repeat: Its engineers that find ‘practical’ ways of doing this! Thats what engineers do. The scientists do the background theoretical work.
By all means, it’s time to stop looking at the instrument readings in the cockpit and prepare instead for landing.
Mr. Know It All says 9 Aug 2021 at 4:26 AM
finding practical ways to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere?
——————-
Just how much power do you think this will require? Humans emitted 32.5 gigatons in 2017
Would this stop plastic pollution?
Would this stop electronic waste?
Would this stop sewage being discharged into streams?
etc.
At least fires are self limiting and smoke could cut down solar input.
Just a shame about all the wildlife destroyed to enable us to use a vehicle 3 times as big as necessary to travel a km to the shops
The worlds population needs to rethink what they want for their children.
Mike. No sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere OBVIOUSLY wont stop plastic pollution or electrtonic waste because its not INTENDED to solve those problems. We can actually do several things at once. And obviously we have to also reduce emissions at source.
Thank you for giving Capitalists more excuses to keep burning Carbon.
IF scientists could come up with a CHEAP process to remove HUGE quantities of CO2, we could indeed keep burning carbon. That would be the best of all possible worlds as we transition to a time when carbon fuels become scarce and expensive. And FYI, since you brought it up: last I checked you communist/socialist/fascist/totalitarian types were burning as much or more than the Capitalists, and most of your people are working HARD to escape from your utopian S-Holes.
;)
Gardening is pretty cheap.
We are not reaching 1.5ºC earlier than previously thought.
So what? That some media reports will make false claims or put out exaggerated headlines is completely normal state of affairs. It happens every single day on every topic, not only climate change.
The public and non-scientist people who are interested in climate change but only reply upon the media for their information are already confused to the nth degree about the specific details on climate change – which factoid is right, which one is not – we all get it wrong every single day,
But, it really doesn’t matter.
What you are writing about makes zero difference to anything – trying to correct the media or shut down errors and misunderstandings is a total waste of your time. People will still not get it right – it will not change hearts and minds one way or the other.
Such factoids do not matter in the least. I cannot fathom why you think it is. No one should care about this or give it any attention. That “Scientists agree” is not news important enough to be talking about it now.
Here are the really important critical things to talk about:
1) The +1.5C warming level is going to be crossed most likely between 2030 and 2035 even under the lowest emissions scenario SSP1-1.9
2) The world is no where near achieving this low scenario SSP1-1.9 – we are much closer to the highest emissions scenario of SSP5-8.5, as we speak.
3) The emissions reduction commitments for 2030, and out to 2050, being made at COP26 (including those still expected to come in) does not change these facts.
4) The stated Paris Goal and the purpose of COP26 was to act to keep warming below +1.5C this century, and under 2C, all the way through to 2100.
5) The science says clearly, we are in fact breaking through the catastrophic +1.5C dangerous threshold in the next decade or even sooner than that.
6) The current COP26 commitments by our Governments are in fact guaranteeing this happens.
Smart scientists should be out there responsibly raising the alarm about these facts – pointing out the dangerous climate crisis unfolding before our eyes – at COP26 and ongoing.
Your time would be better spent telling the world at every opportunity that COP26 is failing everyone.
That the UNFCCC program has fundamentally failed.
That Governments collectively are not providing sane rational effective responses according to the available scientific knowledge to solve climate change or to remain below catastrophic +1.5C threshold this century.
These are the things that truly matter right now.
You are not helping talking about unimportant irrelevant minutia.
Please stop wasting precious time.
On comparing apples and oranges and on the linearity of human progress
Thanks and congratulations for this very useful post even I have some concerns/reservations about potentially ambiguous statements that you may want to clarify, for instance:
“In summary, when apples are compared to apples (i.e. best estimates of scenario-based exceedance times), then the SR1.5 and AR6 provide remarkably consistent numbers: 2034.5 versus 2035. Such a remarkably robust scientific finding is boring to report on, so expect a few headlines in the media that compare apples and oranges. (…)”
My recollection is that the submitted draft of the FGD reported that “In all scenarios considered in this report except SSP5-8.5, the central estimate of crossing the 1.5°C global warming level lies in the early 2030s. This is about ten years earlier than the midpoint of the likely range (2030–2052) assessed in the SR1.5. Roughly half of this ten-year difference arises because, owing to progress in methods, AR6 assesses larger historical warming than SR1.5; the other half arises because AR6 also assesses larger near-term future warming than the recent trends extrapolated in SR1.5 (medium confidence).”
So please don’t blame the media (that have enough to do with their own mistakes) and, may be, also explain what is the internal approval session process that led to the revised SPM and what is the part of effective communication versus more accurate science in this process.
One of the most challenging IPCC criterion is probably “transparency” since it gives some grasp to all the foolish and/or dishonest climatoskeptics. Transparency is however the guarantee of credibility, and the idea of a steady linear human progress that one should never turn back seems to me to be as harmful to science as it is to society as a whole, especially with regard to the issue of climate change.
In this specific case, recognizing that global warming could reach +1.5°C slightly earlier than previously thought does not provide grist for the mill of climatoskeptics and removing this statement from the SPM should be grounded on merely scientific reasons that, surprisingly, did not reach a consensus before the approval session, despite 3 years of intense thinking. Nobody’s perfect, even scientists?
Chapter 4 IPCC AR6 WGI
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_04.pdf
Executive Summary
Temperature (Some extracts)
In the near term (2021–2040), a 1.5°C increase in the 20-year average of GSAT, relative to the average over the period 1850–1900, is very likely to occur in scenario SSP5-8.5,
– likely to occur in scenarios SSP2-4.5 and SSP3-7.0, and
– more likely than not to occur in scenarios SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6.
In all scenarios assessed here except SSP5-8.5, the central estimate of crossing the 1.5°C threshold lies in the early 2030s. This is about ten years earlier than the midpoint of the likely range (2030–2052) assessed in the SR1.5, which assumed continuation of the then-current warming rate; this rate has been confirmed in the AR6.
Roughly half of the ten-year difference between assessed crossing times arises from a larger historical warming diagnosed in AR6. The other half arises because for central estimates of climate sensitivity,
– most scenarios show stronger warming over the near term than was assessed as ‘current’ in SR1.5 (medium confidence).
By 2030, GSAT in any individual year could exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850–1900 with a likelihood between 40% and 60%, across the scenarios considered here (medium confidence). Uncertainty in near-term projections of annual GSAT arises in roughly equal measure from natural internal variability and model uncertainty (high confidence).
Compared to the recent past (1995–2014), GSAT averaged over the period 2081–2100 is very likely to be higher by 0.2°C–1.0°C in the low-emission scenario SSP1-1.9 and by 2.4°C–4.8°C in the high-emission scenario SSP5-8.5.
For SSP5-8.5, higher climate sensitivity is the primary reason behind the upper end of the warming being higher than in CMIP5 (medium confidence).
The climate system response to net negative CO2 emissions is expected to be delayed by years to centuries. Net negative CO2 emissions due to CDR will not reverse some climate change, such as sea level rise, at least for several centuries (high confidence)
Overshooting specific global warming levels such as 2°C has effects on the climate system that persist beyond 2100 (medium confidence).
Using extended scenarios beyond 2100, projections show likely warming by 2300, relative to 1850−1900, of 1.0°C−2.2°C for SSP1-2.6 and 6.6°C − 14.1°C for SSP5-8.5
RC (because I could no longer respond in that thread): “do yourself a favour and educate yourself”
BPL: As I said, I have. Enough to know I don’t have to trust an internet blog poster like you, especially when “educate yourself” is the mantra of every pseudoscientist on the internet who got their “education” from Youtube.com.
Yes, “educate yourself” is often an invitation to fool yourself. Yet IMHO, anyone can can become expert in a scientific sub-discipline, if they’re willing to put the time and effort in! Few have the dogged determination for it, however. Genuine expertise in any scientific speciality is hard won, with years of increasingly specialized training, countless hours spent examining all the data while mastering the specialized tools and techniques of analysis, and submitting to the unsparing review of other actual experts before and after publishing one’s own work. Rather than lamenting the low level of climate science literacy in the US population, however, once again I’ll link to John Nielsen-Gammon’s idea of scientific meta-literacy:
Practically speaking, the best even educated non-experts can do is accept the overwhelming consensus of actual experts. For that, one needs to know who those experts are. I for one am persuaded: Scientific meta-literacy should be taught in high-school along with basic physics, chemistry and biology.
All that is really needed is for the public to learn to spot bullshit. Truth is constant. Wrong can be corrected, but bullshit lasts forever!
Excellent point, Ray. See Mark Twain on lies traveling v. The Truth.
@Ray @Mal
Please explain to everyone how could posting verbatim quotes from the AR6 WG1 and referencing several industry website’s data, and showing multiple published peer reviewed papers on Negative emissions tech, NETs, CDR, CCS, BECCS and so on rise to the level of Bullshit, or Wrong, or not educational, or not helpful, or qualify as fooling oneself or fooling others, or behaving as a pseudo-scientist?
Then maybe you might also attempt to explain BPLs untrue, irrational, illogical, false and immature abusive and paranoid like behavior here while you are at it?
Thanks. This would be good for all to hear.
RC, sorry, I did miss this. However, I do not see how what I wrote could be construed as implying anything like what you said below. What I said was in response (indirectly) to what Mal said.
And my contention was that the public does not need to become expert on every subject. Rather, they need to develop better bullshit detectors–to be able to spot when a statement is sufficiently vague that it cannot be falsified while seeming to imply an anti-scientific position. We’ve seen this a lot in the climate wars. We see it again in the COVID hoaxers and antivaxxers–facts taken out of context and distorted, data used well outside its validity and logical fallacies trotted out in rapid succession.
As to the behavior of other commenters, I do not care to speculate. I would note, however, that this blog, and the commenters on it have a history. We came to the blog with things we believed in, with our own biases. We have suffered attacks and flame wars going back decades. There is a lot of pent up frustration among those of us who have been advocating for people to listen to the science for decades. There was a point in the bad old days of the “climategate” nontroversy when if you weren’t getting death threats, you weren’t doing your job. That history leaves a mark.
The history of this blog is that it was the place to come if you wanted to get a good, reliable exposition of the science of climate change as it developed. The regulars came here for that–and really that is all we can count on having in common. That means that we do not all agree–and in many cases disagree strongly–with each other as to how to mitigate and survive the coming trial. I am more than happy to tell you my own predilection:
1) There is no magic bullet.
2) We have pissed away so much time that any process is going to be painful, and that we cannot afford to be choosy about potential mitigations–that luxury is lost.
3) That there are tipping points in the climate system where things will become much worse in a nonlinear fashion if we aren’t careful
4) That no matter how bad things get, we can make them better or worse by our actions.
5) That we probably cannot mitigate ourselves out off the crisis–again, that luxury is lost. Instead, we are going to need to get lucky and find a bunch of technological fixes.
6) That individual action will not be sufficient to resolve the crisis, but that it is essential for buying time so that we can develop technological solutions.
7) That human survival is probably not at stake, but that the viability of a functioning global, technological society could be.
8) That the society we develop coming out of the crisis will be dramatically different than the one in which we now live–and that we have only a dim idea of what it will look like or of all the additional crises (e.g. due to reducing population) we will encounter en route.
9) I believe that the only way we are going to get people to shoulder the burdens that are coming their way is to promise them a “better” society when all is finished.
10) That “better” is going to have to be defined by values much more subtle and probably more precious than material wealth.
Finally, I believe in science as the best guide for humans to discern the truth. I believe that scientists–including climate scientists– and engaged in a noble endeavor to discern truth and to benefit human beings, and ideally the entire web of life on the planet. I believe that scientists are the best judges of how to advance their own scientific enterprise. As such, I tend to be rather intolerant of anti-science dumbfucks trying to tell scientists how to do their job–whether they fall into the pro-action side or the denialist side. I will usually try to explain the science to a poster when I can. However, if they do not display a positive slope to their learning curve, I tend to switch to creative insults.
What Ray said….
Ray, this is in response to your post down thread:
9) I believe that the only way we are going to get people to shoulder the burdens that are coming their way is to promise them a “better” society when all is finished.
10) That “better” is going to have to be defined by values much more subtle and probably more precious than material wealth.
What values are universal? None of them. Why would we base a new societal structure on something for only some, not all?
This is why I look to regenerative societies and ecological engineering: Solve for needs, not values, not wants.
I agree that any society worthy respect must provide for peoples’ needs. I agree that needs should supersede wants. However, clearly there is more to it that that. A society that meets material needs but imposes its will by fear is not a society in which most people want to live. One could argue that humans have needs over and above the material. In some cases, they seem willing to sacrifice the material for the sake of those other needs.
Whatever society emerges from the crisis is going to be drastically different that our own. We have a chance to remake the world–and to gain the support of our fellow humans we will have to promise a vision that they can perceive as better. No doubt, we will fall short of the ideal. That does not mean we shouldn’t aim for it.
Only here could recommending people here educate themselves by looking up the data and existing research on X subject by totally twisting that quite common advice into a Meta-Strawman Adhominem personal attack.
Like what is wrong with these people? But that is what happens here. A few wallow in it. Proving beyond doubt a science degree is no guarantee of intelligence, wisdom or self-respect.
The quite common advice encouraging people to educate themselves better by looking up the data and existing research on X subject is being twisted beyond all reason into a series of Meta-Strawman Adhominem Attacks. Proving beyond all doubt being pro-climate science is no guarantee of intelligence, wisdom or self-respect.
Re Levenson “you said I needed to learn basic physics”
No I did not say that. I have never said that.
Stop with the cheap and nasty strawmen accusations.
Stop telling lies about me and what I actually say, and mean.
Stop telling lies about others here too.
Blind man heal thyself!
@realitycheck.
My comment was on Topic.
No one else’s in this thread was.
Yet such exceptions will be made.
Other times they will not be.
Unlike a controlled experiment variations in the data sets of systems in flux are to be expected.Possibly a butterfly flapped his wings and skewed the numbers.Thanks for the report,though…I found it fascinating.
Compelling evidence I see indicates the Earth System crossing the +1.5 °C global mean warming threshold (relative to Holocene Epoch pre-industrial age) is inevitable, and probably sooner than the IPCC AR6 WG1 report indicates.
Professor H.J. Schellnhuber, Director Emeritus, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in a Q&A session following his Aurelio Peccei Lecture, delivered on 17 October 2018, said:
See/hear from time interval 0:47:47 in the YouTube video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK2XLeGmHtE
NOAA recently updated its Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), that included:
https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/
Schellnhuber said the paleo-historical empirical record indicates that in the so-called Mid-Pliocene period, that occurred 3-4 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were in the range 400-450 ppm, global mean temperatures were in the range +2.0 to +3.0 °C (relative to Holocene Epoch pre-industrial age), and sea level was in the range +10 to +22 metres higher than today – see the table presented in the referred YouTube video above from about time interval 0:24:12.
So it seems to me that current atmospheric CO2 levels have ‘locked-in’ Earth System warming well above +1.5 °C. When will the 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 °C thresholds be likely crossed for various GHG emissions trajectories?
The Earth System Dynamics (ESD) paper titled Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6, published on 1 March 2021, that missed the AR6 WG1 literature cutoff date (31 January 2021), shows in Table 1 that crossing the +1.5°C global mean warming threshold (relative to Holocene Epoch pre-industrial age) is now INEVITABLE and will likely occur BEFORE 2030, irrespective of any measures humanity takes globally to reduce emissions in the interim.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021
There is no carbon budget remaining for a safe climate for humanity. Returning back below the +1.5 °C warming threshold requires:
1. A deep and rapid decarbonisation of civilisation as soon as possible; AND
2. ‘Negative emissions’ or atmospheric carbon drawdown at large-scale to get CO2 levels safely back to well below 350 ppm.
Thanks Geoff for the addition of that paper.
As I have been saying recently in the lead up to this WG1 report and looming COP26, and the Town Crier has been yelling out : “Hear ye, Hear ye, Hear ye!”
And again in case anyone has missed the significance and the collective delusions and denials surrounding the WG1 and increasing ferocity of extreme weather events driven by global warming – it is still only at +1.1-1.3C :
The Paris Agreement and COP26 is supposed to be all about keeping global GSATs UNDER +1.5C for the rest of this century….. not this decade.
The level of collective denial of reality that is being expressed by people all over the internet, and here too, is breathtaking. When they are actually well versed in climate change sciences and are supposed to know what the +1.5C Goal represents,
The scientists expressing Optimism about the opportunity that COP26 offers to solve the “climate crisis” are possibly in urgent need of some professional intervention.
To be optimistic about anything related to climate change at this point in time is to be clinically delusional. Hey, that is simply my hyperbolic opinion to emphasize a very serious point. A well grounded point based upon multiple lines of solid evidence, if I may say so myself.
Reality Check,
I don’t think you are the only one with that view.
ICYMI, published by the Australian-based Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration on Aug 4, was a Briefing Note titled “Net zero 2050”: A dangerous illusion, by David Spratt and Ian Dunlop. It includes:
https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/nz2050
On Aug 8, David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, in their op-ed titled The net zero emission illusion, it included:
https://johnmenadue.com/the-net-zero-illusion/
Excellent, thanks for that Geoff.
Unfortunately the new system here I missed your comment and have only now stumbled upon it.
Good refs, I have saved them. Appreciated.
Reality Check (and others),
I’d suggest you may also find the latest op-ed from Ian Dunlop & David Spratt worth a look, published today (Aug 17), titled Climate Change: will the financial system survive?, that includes:
https://johnmenadue.com/climate-change-will-the-financial-system-survive/
It includes a link to their latest report titled Degrees of Risk: Can the banking system survive climate warming of 3°C?
IMO, there’s much “failure of collective imagination” and “psychology of denial”.
Surely the wild card is how we progress in cutting SO2 emissions. If we eliminated those temperatures would go up to 2c above pre industrial levels almost immediately.. In cutting emissions it will be dirty things like coal which will go first and they produce the most SO2, A knotty one.
Reality Check.
Direct air capture of CO2 looks feasible, cost effective and scaleable.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air
“Pulling carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and using it to make synthetic fuel seems like the ultimate solution to climate change: Instead of adding ever more CO2 to the air from fossil fuels, we can simply recycle the same CO2 molecules over and over. But such technology is expensive—about $600 per ton of CO2, by one recent estimate. Now, in a new study, scientists say future chemical plants could drop that cost below $100 per ton—which could make synthetic fuels a reality in places such as California that incentivize low-carbon fuels.”
“Those numbers are “real progress,” says Chris Field, a climate scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. That’s because the new study bases its numbers on data and costs from a real pilot facility , whereas others have relied on scientists’ best guesses of how CO2 capture technologies scale up. “These guys actually have something you can measure,” says Stephen Pacala, an ecologist with Princeton University who is chairing a panel on carbon removal technologies for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.”
One paper one article written by a journalist is not defining the facts of the matter nor the accumulated knowledge, nor the variety of research undertaken. This “magazine article” is one 3 year old article about a company focused on DAC.
There are no “silver bullets” So, educate yourselves people.
I recommend reading a wide range of the published literature. Email scientists and engineers in the field. And check the status within the industry. Cross check what the IPCC actually said about these theoretical new technologies in the AR5
Do not trust the word of an internet blog poster like myself, or Nigel or Barton Paul Levenson who have no expertise in this field — especially when “educate yourself” is the mantra of every pseudo-scientist on the internet who got their “education” from Youtube.com … right?
I recommend trusting yourself by continue to research the state of knowledge using your very own eyes. When in doubt, ask an expert scientist in the field. Write to the authors of articles. Double check and cross check the and claims data presented by industry and government bodies and politicians and all internet bloggers and social media comments is valid, verifiable and accurate including on Real Climate.
Not all research and not all scientists are reliable either. You have all heard the RC scientists and guest authors here pointing serious deficiencies in published papers and taking to task supposed experts or scientists in a field for sloppy work or irrational conclusions. Its a long long list Cliff Mass being the latest?
Some people commenting here are not experts and do not have any uptodate knowledge about the topics on which they pass judgments and posit opinions about daily. “By their fruits thou shalt know them.” Check their claims against multiple credible sources before trusting their word about anything.
Sometimes people’s motives are not pure but deeply conflicted. Some may be prone to say anything no matter how false it is. There are some very strange folks out there and millions of attention seeking liars online. Everyone knows that. Some with personality disorders who can become quite unstable – becoming quite illogical, while making wild fallacious accusations against others.
But do their opinions match the hard facts and the accumulated evidence ona topic or not? Is it material evidence they speak, or is it only personal bias, or driven by ideological/political beliefs, or perhaps old out of date, unfounded opinions?
Alternatively, to educate yourself better, you could seek out several experts in the field of interest and monitor their public comments about a topic – be it NETs and CDR technology, or info from Gavin about Models via his Twitter account.
And whenever someone posts something here, go back to the original source, the research etc. and check it out fully and within its proper context.
It can save yourself a lot of unnecessary grief and embarrassment.
Be careful who you trust. Always be discerning on the Internet.
nigelj,
You state: “Direct air capture of CO2 looks feasible, cost effective and scaleable.”
Yet per the European Commission’s commissioned report by the High Level Group of Scientific Advisors, titled Novel carbon capture and utilisation technologies, published May 2018, it suggests (in Section 5.8: Novel CCU technologies):
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/novel-carbon-capture-and-utilisation-technologies_en
The evidence I see so far indicates carbon capture utilisation (CCU) technologies are unlikely to compete economically with battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell technologies, except perhaps in niche applications, like long-range aviation, due to apparent inherent energy efficiency losses.
Per a Transport & Environment tweet on 22 Aug 2017:
– Battery electric vehicle overall energy efficiency is 73%;
– Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle overall energy efficiency is 22%; and
– Power2Liquid conventional ICE vehicle overall energy efficiency is 13%;
https://twitter.com/transenv/status/899976235794788352
I doubt CCU technologies will substantially improve the apparent energy efficiency deficiency anytime soon, and we/humanity are rapidly running out of time to act effectively.
Geoff. I broadly agree. The only point I was making was that direct air capture is not a pie in the sky fantasy. There are already working pilot plants and it really comes down to costs. In fact in hindsight, I’m not sure direct air capture should be used to make synthetic fuels, because that means at best carbon neutrality. IMHO direct air capture should be used to obtain absolute reductions in the levels of atmospheric CO2, with the CO2 sequestered permanently in old oil wells or other means.
If we do want synthetic carbon neutral fuels it might be more rational to use excess wind and solar power. Electrofuels on wikipedia has some related information. And such fuels might have applications in some niche areas of transport, or as a storage medium for dealing with wind and solar power intermittency issues, where you could use the fuels in gas fired backup plant.
I do tend to think EV’s look like the main way forwards. Just intuitively plus for the usual reasons quoted.
The only point I was making was that direct air capture is not a pie in the sky fantasy.
Geoff’s quoted comments mean exactly that it is pie-in-the-sky. To put it succinctly, the quoted part can be translated as, “Not currently viable.”
If it is not yet viable, it is a “pie-in-the-sky fantasy” until it is, just like fusion, a colony on Mars, peace on Earth, etc.
Funny. So obvious but here we are anyway.
The real pilot facility he says? The scientists/ceo who built that, wrote the paper on it, also wrote additional papers. The initial budget price is $1 bln to build his commercial scale plant.
Construction was supposed to start early this year, it has not afaik. He’d raised about $67 million from fossil fuel company related sources to fund his company so far.
One of those is currently trying to sell “Net Zero GHG” Branded Oil to Ireland because they had used come DAC/CCS to produce it.
Neither this or other info I found was credible enough or worth my time researching further or posting here.
Killian. Direct air capture is already in operation with fully functional pilot plants, as per the links I posted. And I could post plenty more on other types of pilot plants. To that extent at least it is clearly not a pie in the sky fantasy. There is nothing practical stopping more such plants being built although there would be some ultimate limit on numbers obviously. It comes down to whether society wants to pay the costs, which are currently quite high. But given the climate problem is serious maybe they should.
Whether such a thing can be scaled up is of course speculative because it hasn’t been done before, just as we don’t know for sure how well the next model of smartphone will sell. And we dont know whether t your particular version of simplification as applied to modern society at huge scale could be scaled up in a workable way because its never been done before. But there is no theoretical or practical reason standing in the way of direct air capture making at least SOME contribution to removing CO2 from the air.
A agree with RL: There are no simple solutions to the climate problem. Arguing for single issue solutions doesn’t impress me. Pulling CO2 out of the air will most likely require “all hands to the deck” so a combination of direct air capture, planting forests, regenerative agriculture etc. All these approaches face their own unique and considerable challenges both practically and in terms of convincing people etc, etc. Relying on one or promoting just one seems unwise to me given the circumstances. Society will probably need to use them all.
( I realize barely no one is interested in this topic, but in the spirit of making factual info available with Refs, and in the hope of correcting unrealistic hopes and expectations for the near term future … otherwise don’t post it or place this into Forced Responses? )
There are currently 15 direct air capture plants operating worldwide, capturing more than 9000 tons of CO2/year, with only one 1 MtCO2/year capture plant in advanced development in the United States.
Fifteen direct air capture plants are currently operational in Europe, the United States and Canada. Most of these plants are small and sell the captured CO2 for use – for (enhanced CO2 for greenhouses) and carbonating drinks,
Capture cost estimates reported in the literature are wide, typically ranging anywhere from USD 100/t to USD 1 000/t.
Carbon Engineering recently claimed that capture costs of USD 94/t to USD 232/t were achievable depending on financial assumptions, energy costs and specific plant configuration. (ifs, buts and maybe)
However, the first large-scale direct air capture plant is now being developed in the United States by a Carbon Engineering and Occidental Petroleum partnership. The plant will capture up to 1 MtCO2 each year for use in enhanced oil recovery and could become operational as early as 2023.
In Iceland, the CarbFix project is currently capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and blending it with CO2 captured from geothermal fluids for injection and underground storage in basalt rock formations. This is the first operating application of this type, turning CO2 into rocks within a couple of years through mineralisation.
https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture
(Next confirms funds raised for Carbon Engineering (CE) so far ($68mln) intending to build $1bln cost commercial plant in Texas usa by 2023)
Liquid solvent systems require 900 degrees C (1652 degrees F) to release captured CO2,
For a liquid solvent DAC system, ie Carbon Engineering, capturing one tonne of CO2 can require between 1 and 7 tonnes of water for plausible siting locations in the United States, which is comparable to the amounts of water required to produce a tonne of cement or steel.
Capturing a billion tonnes of CO2 would require as little as 400 km2 up to 24,700 km2, an area roughly the size of Vermont, depending on the system and energy source and assuming linear scale up.
https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal
Gambhir’s paper calculates that simply keeping pace with global CO2 emissions – currently 36 gigatonnes per year – would mean building in the region of 30,000 large-scale DAC plants, more than three for every coal-fired power station operating in the world today. Each plant would cost up to $500m (£362m) to build – coming in at a cost of up to $15 trillion (£11tn).
Every one of those Carbon Engineering, type facilities would need to be stocked with solvent to absorb CO2. Supplying a fleet of DAC plants big enough to capture 10 gigatonnes of CO2 every year will require around four million tonnes of potassium hydroxide, the entire annual global supply of this chemical one and a half times over.
“If this (Carbon Engineering, type facilities) was a global industry absorbing 10 gigatonnes of CO2 a year, you would be expending 100 exajoules, about a sixth of total global energy,” says Gambhir. Most of this energy is needed to heat the calciner to around 800C – too intense for electrical power alone, so each DAC plant would need a gas furnace, and a ready supply of gas.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210310-the-trillion-dollar-plan-to-capture-co2
simplified
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture
Extra information and a fun discussion:
“Current models suggest we’re going to need to remove 10 gigatonnes of CO2 per year by 2050, and by the end of the century that number needs to double to 20 gigatonnes per year,” says Jane Zelikova, a climate scientist at the University of Wyoming. Right now, “we’re removing virtually none. We’re having to scale from zero.”
Maybe things will look much different in 2050. But today it is taking TWICE as long to build the first genuine full scale DAC plant than it takes to build new technology GenIV nuclear plants.
AND
Occidental Petroleum, which has partnered with Carbon Engineering to build a full-scale DAC plant in Texas, uses 50 million tonnes of CO2 every year in enhanced oil recovery. Each tonne of CO2 used in this way is worth about $225 (£163) in tax credits alone.
Occidental and others hope that by pumping CO2 into the ground, they can drastically reduce the carbon impact of that oil: a typical enhanced-recovery operation sequesters one tonne of CO2 for every 1.5 tonnes it ultimately releases in fresh oil. So while the process reduces the emissions associated with oil, it doesn’t balance the books.
Though there are other uses that may become more commercially viable. Another direct air capture company, Climeworks, has 14 smaller scale units in operation sequestering 900 tonnes of CO2 a year, which it sells to a greenhouse to enhance the growth of pickles.
It’s now working on a longer-term solution: a plant under construction in Iceland will mix captured CO2 with water and pump it 500-600m (1,600-2,000ft) underground, where the gas will react with the surrounding basalt and turn to stone. To finance this, it offers businesses and citizens the ability to buy carbon offsets, starting at a mere €7 (£6) per month. Can the rest of the world be convinced to buy in?
( There only a few places like Iceland on earth, with cheap geothermal power and the geology to match. )
“DAC is always going to cost money, and unless you’re paid to do it, there is no financial incentive,” says Chris Goodall, author of What We Need To Do Now: For A Zero Carbon Future. “Climeworks can sell credits to virtuous people, write contracts with Microsoft and Stripe to take a few hundred tonnes a year out of the atmosphere, but this needs to be scaled up a millionfold, and that requires someone to pay for it.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210310-the-trillion-dollar-plan-to-capture-co2
Unlike others, I also have science paper refs, like by the founding scientist of CE, but I didn’t want to confuse the issue with too much scientific data that’s difficult to parse.
The fact is, there is only ONE major full scale DAC plant by Carbon Engineering backed in by Fossil Fuels Money on the drawing board and it is not yet built or proven cost efficient. If built it will be used to enhance Oil recovery for Chevron and others,
There is another smaller version but genuine medium scale Commercial plant by Climeworks in Iceland. The rest of the current 15 plants are not worth counting how much CO2 is sequestered or taken out of the atmosphere.
This is the situation more than 12 years after Carbon Engineering and the rest were established to use DAC. The new full scale plant was planned for 2021 this year, it’s now put off until 2023, and soon it will be put back again because they still have not got the funding to build it or operate it. It is a Non-Plant. It is Pie in the Sky at this point in time.
Were DAC technically feasible, cost effective, financially viable, environmentally positive, build-able at scale and capable of being backed in by Governments and GHG Subsidies then they would already be everywhere. They are not everywhere for good reason.
DAC at this point in time with the current technology and engineering problems, high costs, high GHG effects, high water use imposts, and related site location difficulties the idea is very much like the overly ambitious expectations for BECCS (especially in the UK) – That have been been shown to be underwhelming, too expensive for the benefits, and too GHG intensive and environmentally unsound.
Maybe things might look very different for both closer to 2050? But there will not be 30,000 DAC Plants already operating all over the world by then either. And for the next 10-20 years there will more likely be next to ZERO CO2 sequestration benefits from either.
Breaking through both the 1.5C and the 2C barriers at speed is all but guaranteed now – given the global history of gross inaction to date and what’s planned going forward.
After breaking those barriers then everything accelerates faster. Including fossil fuel use and higher GHG emissions to manage the increasingly destructive impacts and urgent adaption demands.
Eventually Government and big corporate businesses run out of money and functional resources trying desperately to keep their heads above water and putting out the fires everywhere but failing to do so.
Unless something spectacular changes with humanity in the next few years.
Last year, global temperatures were 0.95C warmer than the 20th century average. Human activity is responsible for around 100% of this warming.
Delving a little deeper into these figures shows that the Earth’s land areas were 1.43C warmer than average, while the oceans were 0.77C warmer.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-land-warm-up-faster-than-the-oceans
I guess 99,99% of human beings live on the land mass.
&
1,5°C starts in ~1750 – not in the 20th century average.
&
My latitude(N 49th) reached ~2°C / the arctic ~3°C
&
6 times we have heard the news that even climate science has been surprised by the acceleration in global temperature. – so what ?
It is a shame that the earth has no rear part to reliably measure body temperature.
I wouldn’t bet a penny on the continued existence of creation and humanity – I’d rather throw it into the fire when the great spectacle “burning witches” begins.
@Susan Anderson says
11 Aug 2021 at 6:25 PM
regarding BECCS ref to https://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/we-are-not-reaching-1-5oc-earlier-than-previously-thought/#comment-794473
Well done Susan.
This is what “educating ourselves” looks like in practice.
It is a very good worthwhile thing to do, to engage in, to share, and to recommend others also do.
Thanks but no thanks. Your approval or disapproval is a counterproductive distraction. (The blog owners are our hosts, not you.)
I waded through masses of material on BECCS and was using the pellet industry as a metaphor for some of the problems with fancy “solutions” that involve burning stuff and carbon credits.
Fine, be like that.
I had no intention of impinging upon your natural nasty way of Being.
But good to know.
Reality Check @ 11 AUG 2021 AT 10:47 PM responding to Ray and Mal.
“Please explain to everyone how could posting verbatim quotes from the AR6 WG1 and referencing several industry website’s data, and showing multiple published peer reviewed papers on Negative emissions tech, NETs, CDR, CCS, BECCS and so on rise to the level of Bullshit, or Wrong, or not educational, or not helpful, or qualify as fooling oneself or fooling others, or behaving as a pseudo-scientist?”
STRAWMAN. Nobody has claimed they are not useful information, but you are spreading doubt about mitigation strategies. You come across as solutions denialist. It would be useful if you said something to alleviate this when you post that sort of information.
And you often cherrypick all the most negative studies you can find. This is a sign confirmation bias. And it doesn’t mean we necessarily agree with those studies.
“Then maybe you might also attempt to explain BPLs untrue, irrational, illogical, false and immature abusive and paranoid like behavior here while you are at it?”
I don’t see BPLs behaviour like that, other than he gets a little bit abrasive at times, but then so do I. The problem is you started this thing with a sarcy, demeaning comment where you said @ 9 AUG 2021 AT 8:06 PM “Maybe Susan could help Barton Paul Levenson with some of that basic science education before it’s too late? Because poor old Barton already believes sucking carbon out of the air is a doable solution for climate change too.”
You reap what you sow, sock puppet.
STRAWMAN. Nobody has claimed they are not useful information, but you are spreading doubt about mitigation strategies. You come across as solutions denialist. It would be useful if you said something to alleviate this when you post that sort of information.
And you often cherrypick all the most negative studies you can find. This is a sign confirmation bias
That is the 1) projection and 2) ad hom, *and* 3) your confirmation bias *and* you finish with 4) an absurdly dishonest statement that is a perfect example of your bias.
1. You spend tons of energy diminishing, outright attacking, belittling, misinforming about regenerative/nature-based solutions. You have a very clear lack of understanding of them, yet attack, attack, attack and will not be taught by experts that post here on the topic. You toss off a “well, but they have some usefulness” to appear level-headed and fair when all you have done is talk down the best pathway there is for humanity. But you turn around and call RC a solutions denialist solely because you have been called on, because you are biased. This is textbook projection.
2. You claim what you cannot know: His motivation. You have zero quantifiable evidence Reality Check is unfair WRT what he has posted. I have seen him post on both sides of regenerative, e.g., yet you make this unfounded, evidence-less claim against *him*, not the evidence provided.
3, Since you support pretty much anything *but* simplicity and regenerativity, it is you who is engaging in confirmation bias in attacking his character, not the evidence all because you think it is “negative” about something *you* support.
4. Finally, you know damned well BPL has attacked others without cause, without any attempt to be constructive, solely to insult and denigrate, which he, himself has admitted more than once! And this behavior goes back to well before you ever posted in these fora.
You’ve become shrill, angry and nasty at the drop of hat with posters advocating viable solutions pathways that you don’t understand – and whom you perceive as my allies. It’s sad and it’s immature.
These are serious times for serious people. Act like it.
Do better. Be better.
What @killian said. I simply didn’t feel like wasting my breath on it. There’s so much wrong with what was said it’s not correctable. When folks get to a point of proving they are unteachable and incapable of listening to reason anymore, that’s my limit.
(And please dear readers who are “above all this” never assume you know who started it.) :)
Don’t know; don’t care.
It’s still a waste of time.
Exactly
A little bit of added humor is never a waste of time Kevin. Though beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And there is no accounting for taste on RC. :)
It depends: If, like with the issue of policing, the “good cops” were really good cops and policed their own, the bad cops would soon be off the force. But they don’t. And neither do you and others here. You don’t care? Bull. You have complained many times and respond here, but will not do the one thing that can end all this: Call them out.
Nigel’s post above was dishonest. You say nothing. It could be as simple as, “Nigel, you’re wrong here. Let’s move on.”
You’re not a “good cop” if you allow the “bad cops” to do whatever they want.
For my part, I am **trying to not** respond to the nastiness in posts other than with the tag, “These are serious times. We need serious people. Do better, Be better.”
Don’t call out just the few on “my” supposed side; call out the people who I have *proven* started all this six years ago. They drove off Thomas, et al., have tried to run me off with extreme degrees of pack behavior, and now nigel has his eyes set on anyone promoting regenerative systems or calling him on his penchant for Straw Man arguments, muddled posts, centrist bias, etc. Do you think it is a conspiracy that what I have called nigel out for since 2017 are the same behaviors Strough and Reality Check are calling out?
So, Kevin, help out. Do better. Be better. When you see something, say something – no matter who it is.
K: BPL has attacked others without cause, without any attempt to be constructive, solely to insult and denigrate
BPL: Nope. Not even once.
K: which he, himself has admitted more than once
BPL: Nope. Not even once. You really do live in a fantasy world constructed inside your own head. What you see happening and what others see happening are totally divergent.
Why are you lying, again? You see, when people are talking and you jump in with nothing cogent to say and do nothing but insult? That’s attacking without cause. You do this constantly. Etc,
These are serious times, We need serious people.
We do not need immature ad homs.
Ignore him. The moderator agrees with him and thinks in the same way. He reflects their own attitudes and style.
You could always, of course, provide specific examples. Your whining self justifying posts might be improved by doing that.
Killian. You’re wrong about BPL. I don’t agree with all his views, but he certainly doesn’t come across as a liar. I’ve been reading this website for years and I’ve seen BPL criticise the content of what numerous people, including me, and he does it diplomatically on the whole, and he does it in reference to the facts, evidence, and the science.
People with a particular mindset rejoice in them Killian. It’s like an article of Faith. :)
@John Monro above makes an excellent observation and contribution incl refs – read it, follow the refs
see 12 Aug 2021 at 3:40 PM
There are serious problems in NZ – a cynical and corrupt player in dealing with global warming …”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/we-are-not-reaching-1-5oc-earlier-than-previously-thought/#comment-794546
MS: You should be able to tell us about the prices for a ton of extracted CO² and how many KWh are required and, above all, whether this electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. In case if you want to use renewable energy – why don`t you use it to avoid CO²-emissions elsewhere ?
Then the question still has to be clarified whether you only want to shoot yourself in the left knee – or maybe in both? – before you run out into the desert.
BPL: If I knew what the hell you were talking about, I would be in a position to answer. BTW, it’s CO2, not CO².
If I knew what the hell you were talking about
Which is precisely the problem. He doesn’t.
But that is OK. No one can know it all.
So g_d created https://scholar.google.com
not CO²
Now that is good to know, Like, really good to know. Really worth pointing that out. Excellent.
I would love to hear from the climate scientists who do climate modeling talk about what we should expect to see in the next hot El Nino cycle.
Personally, I think the next hot EN cycle might be like the 1998 hot period, so I expect we might see a return to a “pause” in heat gain for a decade if global temp cycles back down as it did after the 1998 hot period.
Cheers
Mike
Mike,
ICYMI, Dr James Hansen, Director of Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University, together with Dr Makiko Sato, Senior Staff Associate at Columbia University, posted their July Temperature Update: Faustian Payment Comes Due on Aug 13. Per their update:
Their update concluded with:
https://mailchi.mp/caa/july-temperature-update-faustian-payment-comes-due
Perhaps we won’t see a “pause” in heat gain if global aerosol production is diminished with renewables displacing coal-fired power?
@Ray, thank you very much for your excellent reply to me, Much appreciated.
It’s so comprehensive I will use it as an educational Ref link when the opportunity arises.
Sorry, I can’t get upset by cries of Climate Emergency, when the temperature baseline and current temps are below the middle ages or in the times of the Romans. And certainly much lower than most of Earth’s history, even recent history like 8 K years ago when temps were much higher, seas higher, and yet the Sahara was forest and field.
Wake me up when they can grow barley and other crops in Iceland like the Vikings used to do.
I really care about the planet but this carbon BS has really diverted almost all resources to things that will end up causing more pollution and environmental destruction than just focusing on efficiency and real pollutants. Witness the destruction in Borneo of the rain forest, mowed down and orangutans evicted to make way for palm oil plantations for biodiesel.
Oh dear, someone hasn’t been keeping up. The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. We are well above temperatures of the past 2000 years, and at or near the Holocene Maximum.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
Please take some time to catch up, and I hope you don’t mind if we don’t wait on you. We’ve already pissed away 40 years due to the slow kids in the class like you.
Wakey, wakey! Rise and shine!
https://www.icelandreview.com/news/possible-grow-five-times-more-grain-iceland/