Skip to content

Paris Will Reduce Temperatures By Only 0.17C–Lomborg

June 5, 2017

By Paul Homewood

Various claims have been made about the effect that the Paris Agreement would have on emissions and global temperatures.

The most authoritative analysis came from Bjorn Lomborg in November 2015, just before the Paris Agreement was signed:


Lomborg’s paper, it should be noted, was fully peer reviewed and published the Global Policy journal.

Lomborg’s blog summarised his findings:

Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release)

A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.

Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December’s meeting. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs).

Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals:

  • The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
  • Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100. 
  • US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
  • EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.
  • China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
  • The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.

Before anybody questions whether GHGs have any effect on temperature, Lomborg points out that he uses the IPCC climate models, so as to ensure consistency:

The peer-reviewed paper takes the greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments (INDCs) and runs a climate model with and without them. The paper uses the MAGICC climate model, which has been used across all five IPCC reports and was co-funded by the US EPA. It is run with standard parameters. Sensitivity analysis shows that different assumptions of climate sensitivity, carbon cycle model or scenario do not substantially change the outcome.

The paper uses the same basic methodology of Tom Wigley, who analyzed the Kyoto Protocol in a much-cited paper in 1998.


Christina Figueres

He also deals with claims put forward by Christina Figueres, which suggest a much bigger effect from Paris:

“You describe a 0.05°C reduction, but the UN Climate Chief, Christina Figueres, said Paris could lead to a 2.7°C rise instead of 4°C or 5°C. Why?”

Christiana Figueres quote: “The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs.” 

Dr. Lomborg said: “That entirely misrepresents the world’s options. The 2.7°C comes from the International Energy Agency and essentially assumes that if governments do little in Paris and then right after 2030 embark on incredibly ambitious climate reductions, we could get to 2.7°C.

That way of thinking is similar to telling the deeply indebted Greeks that just making the first repayment on their most pressing loans will put them on an easy pathway to becoming debt-free. It completely misses the point.

Figueres’ own organization estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total. To limit rises to 2.7°C, about 3,000Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced – or about 100 times more than the Paris commitments (see figure below). That is not optimism; it is wishful thinking.

Bob Ward

Finally, he meets head on a criticism from Bob Ward on his paper:

Response to Bob Ward

Activism Dressed Up as Science

Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change at the LSE is aggressively promoting a short text that he claims to document a “fundamental methodological flaw” in my research paper, “Impact of Current Climate Proposals”.

In a press release, a letter to the Financial Times, and on social media, Ward suggests that his musings justify the withdrawal of my peer-reviewed research paper.

Communications professional Ward has every right to posit his personal view on how climate impact should be measured, even if in doing so he demonstrates a misunderstanding of methodology, modeling and my paper.

However, Ward is going much further than that. He is trying to smear my research, the journal that published it, and revoke my right to publish, simply because he thinks I should have approached the paper differently.

That is deeply troubling for any researcher, regardless of his or her personal beliefs.


Lomborg’s full response to Ward is here, and fully exposes just how limited the latter’s understanding of the science is (or how dishonest he is).

As Lomborg sums up:

Ward, who has an undergraduate degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on paleopiezometry, appears to have read my article only cursorily, and to misunderstand the approach. He certainly drastically misrepresents it. Understanding a research paper, in my opinion, should be a first step before calling for its withdrawal.

Ward’s response to my paper is just three pages long, but contains five serious examples where he apparently misunderstands or misses fundamental points.

Ward questions why the journal Global Policy published my paper and ‘how it passed peer review’. The more salient question is how he produced – and is publishing – a response that so fundamentally misunderstands the paper it responds to.

  1. Jack Broughton permalink
    June 5, 2017 1:50 pm

    Bjorn Lomborg has been a voice of sanity in the economic debate about climate change for many years. Bob Ward is obviously the opposite.

    In the presentation above the temperature anomaly graph is worth some consideration. It is based on a radiative forcing factor (RFF) increasing to 8.5 W/m2 which is a nonsense and cannot physically be achieved even by doubling the CO2.

    It also shows the rise of temperature in 2000 as 0.7 deg K above “pre-industrial” levels, say 150 years ago (really the end of the LIA). This seems a little low as the rise over the period has been nearer to 0.7 Deg K/Century.

    It also shows the rate of increase to 2.5 degK /Century at 2000, which has patently not occurred.

    After 2020, the rise rate becomes 4.6 DegK / Century, probably reasonable if the fiddle factor were actually 8.5 W/m2. The graph is a good example of GIGO!

  2. Alberto Zaragoza Comendador permalink
    June 5, 2017 2:01 pm

    Some basic arithmetic blows up the claims that Paris could reduce temperatures by 1ºC or so.

    Take a TCR of 1.8ºC per doubling of CO2. The surface temperature datasets suggest this value is actually 1.3 or 1.4ºC, but let’s go with the computer-generated figure anyway.

    For Paris to reduce temperatures by 0.9ºC, the ‘do nothing’ scenario would have to have 50% higher CO2 forcing (41.4% higher CO2 concentration due to the logarithmic effect). This assumes no reduction in warming can come from reductions in emissions of other GHGs, as those other emissions are pretty much unverifiable and unenforceable.

    To arrive at such a scenario, one could have for instance 500ppm under Paris, 710ppm under a no-action scenario. While 710ppm by the end of the century is indeed plausible (it represents an increase of about 300ppm), achieving 500ppm with Paris is ludicrous. It would imply emissions the rest of the century will be three times smaller than under a no-policy scenario.

    Given that most ‘pledges’ are a joke, and the non-joke ones only specify emissions out to 2030, this is fantasy. Not to mention that Kyoto was a stronger agreement, yet it completely failed to move the needle on emissions (the decarbonization rate actually went down after it was signed).

    PS: in a previous post about Gary Yohe you showed two Paris projections, one from a group called Climate Interactive and other from the Fawcett et al paper. The irony is that these two projections differed a lot! According to Fawcett, ‘Paris’ led to stable emissions around 40GtCO2 per year; according to Climate Interactive, ‘Paris’ led to emissions exploding from about 50GtCO2eq to 80GtCO2eq by the end of the century. It seems the ‘Paris scenario’ can be whatever you want it to be.

  3. tom0mason permalink
    June 5, 2017 2:36 pm

    The basic science is wrong!
    CO2 does not ‘trap’ heat, it does not warm this planet’s chemically dynamic and mobile atmosphere. The oceans and the sun drive our weather and climate system — all else is just bunk!
    Any room you stay in, especially if crowed with may other people, will have CO2 levels far above atmospheric norms. Does that mean you need not heat the room? Of course not. Does that mean it will reach Hansen’s famed ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ and cook us all — of course not — it is only a demented mind that could think such nonsense. Hansen lunacy has gripped this subject for too long, it is about time some real scientists took him to task over his obviously mad beliefs.

    So let the West willfully destroy its industrial base — the inheritance from our knowledgeable and hardworking predecessors — and for what? So we can be brought down to the levels of the developing nation status, hemmed in by our own statutory regulations, and impoverish our future generations? So we can theoretically lower global temperatures by fraction of a fictional amount? Or is it so that we can be dictated to by the elitist of the UN and their vision of a One World Government?

    • June 5, 2017 11:12 pm

      Total agreement here. It is a mistake to dwell on the economics of this stupid ‘accord’, when the entire scam from the concept of ‘global warming’, to the nonsense that CO2 is related, to claim that human activities influence the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is fiction right out of a childrens’ fairy tale. Reality is that the sun will determine future temperatures, which no doubt will alter the climate of individual regions. It is incomprehensible that a couple of centuries downstream of idiotic belief in witches and goblins and that huge swathes of homo sapiens can still be duped by this scam.

  4. Curious George permalink
    June 5, 2017 2:38 pm

    Paris Agreement uses faulty temperature predictions as an excuse to establish seeds of a global governance.

  5. June 5, 2017 3:16 pm

    Josh does a good job at portraying the lies that spew forth from the paid propagandist “fast fingers” Bob Ward.

  6. Dung permalink
    June 5, 2017 3:46 pm

    Some facts given to us by geologists, biologists and the study of fossils:

    Global temperatures are currently at the lowest level without being in ice age.
    The natural global temperature history shows that if the Earth does have a ‘normal’ temperature it is about 10deg C higher than today.
    Fossils found in the UK include those of crocodiles and palm trees.
    Far from being dangerously high, current levels of atmospheric CO2 are so low that we are in danger of losing all vegetation from the surface of the planet (particularly if British and other representatives at Paris go ahead with plans to remove ALL CO2 from our atmosphere.)
    Geological records show that temp rises AFTER atmospheric CO2 rises and this list goes on..CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE global warming period.

    • Dung permalink
      June 5, 2017 4:52 pm

      ups ^.^
      egg on face CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises, (mike I will get my coat)

    • June 5, 2017 5:02 pm

      I thought that temperature rises BEFORE CO2 rises. It was the first thing I noted on Al Gore’s notable fork lift graph, many moons ago.

    • M E Emberson permalink
      June 6, 2017 3:37 am

      Just as a matter of interest, where was the geological evidence for palm trees found?
      I’m interested in the way continental plates have moved over geological time.
      I think what is now Britain , without the Highlands of Scotland was part of a continent.

      So it seems to my untutored eye that much of Britain was at a different latitude .
      Is that likely or were northerly latitudes warmer

      • Paddy permalink
        June 6, 2017 6:11 am

        I think it was fern fossils they found on Alexander 1# Island on the Antarctic peninsula in circa 1936.

      • June 6, 2017 1:23 pm

        There is coal in Antarctica. West Virginia didn’t ship it down there and coal does not form under ice sheets.

  7. June 5, 2017 3:47 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  8. Tom O permalink
    June 5, 2017 4:18 pm

    When it comes to predictions about the temperature 50 years from now, I will accept the prediction of the medium looking into his or her crystal ball for the answer as quickly as I will take a model’s output, or a prediction based on current scientific “beliefs” as to what causes temperature changes in the climate.

    There is no way to know exactly what interactions happen within the elements that “might” affect climate as each changes in some way. All we have are “guesses” based on researched information that no one knows for sure how they interrelate. To me, this is a perfect example of what has gone wrong with science – in its rush to replace God, it has proclaimed mathematical relationships that may well have some basis in truth, but are not perfect replications of reality.

    Everyone talks about the explosion of information and the rush of science, but no one recognizes that in the 1600-1900 period, when science was ploddingly progressive, it was because it was fact checking and insuring, as best it could, that its proclamations were correct. Today, science proclaims something, and instead of insuring its truth, rush forward trying to use this “bit of science” as if it IS the truth, never being concerned about the little things that suggests it might be in error. After all, being “first” is what is important to a scientist today, not being correct. “Those are just the rough edges that will be cleaned up later as we learn more.” Hogwash. If we rolled science back to what we really know and not on what we guess, it would still be plodding along, and a lot of the “known science” would be considered exploratory since there is no sound basis on which it lies.

    • June 5, 2017 5:33 pm

      Yes. In days of yore in the era of the pencil, slide rule and log tables, scientists were forced to think logically. As I was as an engineer.
      Today, it appears, some of them, in search of grant funding, analyse vaste arrays of data of doubtful provinence and surmise a conclusion to suit the purported theory, often with little knowledge of statistical rectitude. Statistics is no substitute for reality.
      I hasten to add here that there are are huge number of scientists not infected with this problem, which is mainly associated with IPCC influence.

    • June 6, 2017 1:27 pm

      And if we would quit treating computer models as truth…. Models are only as good as the data put in and we don’t know enough about almost anything to get models which resemble reality. We don’t even know what we don’t know about climate, vegetation, etc.

  9. Ross King permalink
    June 5, 2017 5:35 pm

    Bob Ward is nothing but a paid megaphone for the Alarmists. Read his bio and he is a Commications-flack first and foremost, with no apparent Scientific experience in the Climate-field.

  10. manicbeancounter permalink
    June 5, 2017 6:18 pm

    Being an ex-beancounter I like to understand where people get the figures from.

    Bjorn Lomborg took the actual policy proposals – which only related up to 2030, and looked at the impact of these would have if implemented in full. After 2030 he assumed that the proposals would lapse. That is renewables subsidies, rigging of the energy markets, and escalating carbon taxes. Without such things people would shift back to cheaper energy sources. This would not happen immediately. In terms of economics, Lomborg looked at the marginal impacts.

    Bob Ward is very clear on his view.

    While Lomborg (2015) purports to analyse the temperature changes associated with policies affecting emissions up to 2030, the author fails to acknowledge that the temperature projections to 2100 are determined primarily by assumptions that are made about cumulative annual global emissions over the 70-year period after 2030, rather than cumulative annual emissions during the period up to 2030.

    Lomborg’s flaw is to only look at actual policy proposals. Bob Ward works in the higher reality of modelled projections, which will come to fruition once world leaders are no longer blinkered by the base things like escalating marginal costs of policy, economic growth and being answerable to the people.

  11. June 5, 2017 7:34 pm

    It seems that, driven by the need to continually support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming thesis climate scientists are examining the temperature record at altogether too fine a scale, month by month, year by year.

    Viewing the Holocene interglacial at a broader scale is much more fruitful, on a century by century and even on a millennial perspective.

    Our current, warm, congenial Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years, spanning from mankind’s earliest farming to recent technology.

    According to ice core records, the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of our current Holocene interglacial.

    Each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.

    For its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point known as the “climate optimum”, have had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.

    But the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at around 1000BC, 3000 years ago, has seen temperature fall at about 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium .

    The Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacial periods, the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.

    But the slight beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.

    The recent warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has been wholly beneficial when compared to the devastating impacts arising from the relatively minor cooling of the Little Ice Age, which include:
    • decolonisation of Greenland
    • Black death
    • French revolution promoted by crop failures and famine
    • the failures of the Inca and Angkor Wat civilisations
    • etc., etc.

    As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last nineteen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or probably now non-existent further warming.

    Warmer times are times of success and prosperity both for man-kind and the biosphere.

    For example during the Roman warm period the climate was warmer and wetter so that the Northern Sahara was the breadbasket of the Roman empire .

    According to the Ice Core records, each of these successive Holocene warm periods have been cooler than the one previously and a tipping point towards accelerated global cooling occurred at about 1000BC.

    The coming end of the present Holocene interglacial will in due course again result in a mile high ice sheet over much of the Northern hemisphere.

    As the Holocene epoch is already about 11,000 years old, the reversion to a true ice age is almost overdue and would be the real climate catastrophe.

    With the present reducing Solar activity, significantly reduced temperatures, at least to the level of another Little Ice Age are predicted quite soon later this century.

    Whether the present impending cooling will really lead on to a new glacial ice age or not is still in question.

    This point is more fully illustrated here:

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      June 7, 2017 11:00 am

      Do I need to plan to move south, I’ve always liked Africa anyway.

  12. manicbeancounter permalink
    June 5, 2017 8:13 pm

    Christiana Figueres quote: “The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs.”

    When I saw this claim made by the then head of the UNFCCC, I thought that I would try to discover how it could be so different from Lomborg’s. It was not in the UNFCCC Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of INDCs. This only looked at the impacts to 2030, studiously avoiding any breakdown by country. The Technical Annex also avoids any mention in the text. It is only at the very end of the Annex you get table 6.

    Only two of the five come up with the 2.7C figure. Climate Action Tracker (CAT) Paul Homewood quoted a number of times in looking at the INDCs. But there is no breakdown of how the 2.7C figure is arrived at. The other 2.7C figure comes from the International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2015 – or rather in the footnote to a press release to that document. The IEA got the figure by taking the average of two RCP policy scenarios for the period 2030 to 2100. Just what Bob Ward advocates (see my comment of 6.18pm).
    I looked up the obscure RCP site – that is used in IPCC AR5 for its warming projections. In the notes it says:-

    The RCPs are not forecasts or boundaries for potential emissions, land-use, or climate change. They are also not policy prescriptive……….. They therefore do not represent specific futures with respect to climate policy action (or no action) or technological, economic, or political viability of specific future pathways or climates. …

    The experts behind the RCP (“Representative Concentration Pathways”) scenarios say do not use the scenarios for policy-making. So the IEA uses it in a policy forecast, and the head of the global body that got 40,000 people together to decide global policy quotes a figure that is utter nonsense in terms of actual policy.
    Imagine what would happen if a business, in trying to raise finance on the stock market, issued a prospectus where the projected returns were reliant on the hidden assumption that investors would later cough up ten times as much. The perpetrators would be prosecuted for fraud, and pursued through the civil courts as well. But this is a consensus of the world’s experts trying to “save the planet”, and backed by activists, so normal reality is suspended.
    The full audit trail is at

    • June 6, 2017 1:39 pm

      I posted another quote from our Christina the other day.

      Christina Figueres of the UN is one of the chief architects of the Paris Accord. She is from Costa Rica and a member of the National Liberation Party.

      As executive secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) she actually admitted that they have a goal and it is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      June 7, 2017 11:12 am

      Really excellent analysis of the fraud being perpetrated on us by committees of the unaccountable. I once worked for a company where the accountants were found to have been fiddling the accounts to receive larger bonuses; they did no go to prison, but disappeared very suddenly. The company did not want the stock market to find out what had been going on and reveal their incompetence! Incidentally the fraud was through a computerised finance system and found by an anti-computer accountant!

  13. gallopingcamel permalink
    June 5, 2017 10:16 pm

    Lomberg arrives at that 0.17C temperature rise based on the discredited theory that [CO2] drives temperature. It is more likely that the Paris Accord will have no measurable effect on temperature.

    As Dung points, out the hard scientific evidence shows that temperature drives [CO2]. Al Gore and his supporters got the cart before the horse:

    To get “Consensus” in science you need to put someone like Trofim Lysenko in charge.

    • manicbeancounter permalink
      June 5, 2017 10:32 pm

      The way to look at this in not in the temperature rise, but the level of global GHG emissions. In billions of tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GTCO2e), the non-policy forecast is a rise from 49 in 2010 to over 130+ in 2100. For 2C in 2100 it needs to be about 10 and maybe 20-30 in 2050.
      The 2.7C assumes emissions in 2100 maybe lower than in 2010, whereas Lomborg assumes nearly 130 in 2100, based on actual policy proposals on the table.

      • gallopingcamel permalink
        June 5, 2017 10:56 pm

        The idea that CO2 emissions or CO2 concentration causes temperatures to rise by a measurable amount is absurd. It is based on a discredited theory (1896) from Svante Arrhenius.

        CO2 emissions and concentration have risen significantly over the last 20 years but the average global temperature has not. While chanting “If you can’t explain the pause you can’t explain the cause” may be annoying but it is still the truth.

        Rising temperature on the other hand causes [CO2] to rise after a delay of 500-900 years. There is plenty of hard evidence for this, for example the EPICA dome studies:

        Luethi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker (2008). High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 379-382, 15 May 2008. doi:10.1038/nature06949

        Jouzel, J., V. Masson-Delmotte, O. Cattani, G. Dreyfus, S. Falourd, G. Hoffmann, B. Minster, J. Nouet, J.M. Barnola, J. Chappellaz, H. Fischer, J.C. Gallet, S. Johnsen, M. Leuenberger, L. Loulergue, D. Luethi, H. Oerter, F. Parrenin, G. Raisbeck, D. Raynaud, A. Schilt, J. Schwander, E. Selmo, R. Souchez, R. Spahni, B. Stauffer, J.P. Steffensen, B. Stenni, T.F. Stocker, J.L. Tison, M. Werner, and E.W. Wolff (2007). Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years. Science, Vol. 317, No. 5839, pp.793-797, 10 August 2007.

      • Al Shelton permalink
        June 6, 2017 2:26 pm

        Please answer this question for me…
        The UN IPCC claims that a doubling of CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm
        will cause global temps to rise by about 2 C degrees.
        The increase of 400ppm is 1 in 2500.
        How can 1 molecule of CO2 “trap” enough “heat” to raise the temperature
        of the other 2499 molecules of N2 and O2 2C degrees?

      • manicbeancounter permalink
        June 6, 2017 8:34 pm

        GallopingCamel and Al Shelton.
        If CO2 levels have no impact (or little impact) on climate then of course there is no justification for policy. But even if there were, there is still no justification for policy in terms of benefits outweighing the costs. The reason is fairly straight forward. Mitigation targets aim at a global reduction in emissions of around 80%. The Rio declaration 1992 specifically excluded “developing” countries from any obligation to cut emissions. Since 1990 all the net global emissions growth has come from these excluded countries. They now make up around 65% global emissions, and over 80% of the global population. The Paris Agreement completely ignores the basic maths.

        The breakdown of excluded countries is below.

  14. gallopingcamel permalink
    June 5, 2017 10:35 pm


    When it comes to climate, historians are much more credible than “Climate Scientists”. It seems likely that you are familiar with “Little Ice Age, Big Chill” from the History Channel but here is the link in case some of the faithful here missed it:

    I question the sanity of people who want a cooler climate given the havoc and misery delivered by the LIA that was, as you point out, a ” relatively minor cooling”.

  15. June 6, 2017 2:16 am

    CO2 has NEVER warmed the earth before, what made it suddenly start?

    Ok, “green” frauds needed money, – got it ..

  16. Athelstan permalink
    June 6, 2017 6:58 am

    no, no, no!

    yer see, post the LIA and as temps have ever so moderately and naturally risen, more CO2 is released by moma gaia, the geological record amply demonstrates the fact. The world, the planet always seeks equilibrium but it also works at a pace [glaciers btw are fast!] mankind does not fully comprehend, nor can he ever.
    What happens on a time scale of thirty odd years, is, neither here, there, nor much at all.

  17. Robin Guenier permalink
    June 6, 2017 4:35 pm

    Perhaps I’m being obtuse but there’s something about Lomborg’s analysis that I don’t understand. Yes, the US and EU made reduction promises in their INDCs. But China? I don’t think so. And, apart from Japan, Canada, Australia and a few smaller developed economies, hardly any other countries’ INDCs promise anything more than, in a few cases, improvements in carbon intensity and doing better than BAU. Yet Lomborg seems to assume reduction promises all round. Why?

    • manicbeancounter permalink
      June 6, 2017 9:24 pm

      You are correct. China’s promise it for emissions to peak by 2030. I believe this will happen anyway. In terms of GHG emissions per capita, the USA peaked in 1973 and the EU (current 28) in 1980. Lomborg’s policy difference comes from a promise to reduce China’s CO2 intensity by 60–65 per cent by 2030, compared to 2005. Some will happen anyway, but Lomborg believes to achieve it will require some policy being applied.

      I am not sure how Lomborg apportioned RCP8.5 (non-policy) forecasts of emissions. Without policy emissions peak at around 23GtCO2e in 2080. (Global emissions were 49GtCO2e in 2010). However, he did some sensitivity analysis using different non-policy emissions forecasts.
      It is different from that of Climate Interactive, whose figures (when expressed per capita emissions using their population forecasts) look incredulous. Why should the US and EU emissions increase when they have been falling? Just by signing a meaningless agreement suddenly means massive savings. Conversely, India, with no intention of constraining emissions, has low growth in forecast emissions. Economic growth forecasts for India were so low that despite being made in 2012, economic output in India by the end of 2015 was 20-30% higher than forecast.

    • gallopingcamel permalink
      June 7, 2017 5:42 am

      Lomberg’s graph at the head of this post shows temperature rising smoothly by 4 degrees Centigrade per century.

      This graph is totally divorced from reality because temperature does not follow CO2 concentration. “Carbon Mitigation” makes no sense and arguing over “Per Capita Emissions” is as meaningless as Bishop Usher’s speculations about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

      • manicbeancounter permalink
        June 7, 2017 11:27 pm

        In forecasting of complex scenarios “what-if” scenarios are created. Neo-classical economics can carry this to absurd extremes, but can nevertheless obtain some clear insights. So even assuming a doubling of CO2 levels leads to 3C of warming means that all the proposed policies to reduce emissions make very little difference to temperature, as they make very little difference to global emissions. The difference between the consensus expert belief and yours with regards to the impact of proposed policy on temperatures is very little indeed.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: