SIMPLIFYING & QUANTIFYING JAMES HANSEN’S
CARBON-CONTRACTION BUDGETS FOR 350 ppmv
Below is a composite graphic for these from James Hansen [circa 2009].
It is from this work that the 350.org campaign takes its name and so its position
Hansen’s graphic shows 3 factors: -
Future CO2  emissions  concentrations  temperature,
It shows them at 3 rates for achieving 350 ppmv: -
 faster  medium and  slower
Hansen’s graphic shows these as a time-series running from 1990 - 2300.
He has put all of these factors and these rates on the same graphic.
For a more detailed understanding, this document breaks this down, particularly so the weight of the carbon-contraction-budgets can be calculated and shown.
Faster means a higher rate of carbon-contraction of emissions.
Medium means a lesser rate of emissions contraction in between faster & slower.
Slower means lower or a slower rate of carbon-contraction of emissions.
On page 3 the time series is reduced to 1990 - 2100 with all 3 factors at all 3 rates
On pages 4, 5 & 6 the 3 the rates are shown separately.
From this it easier to see the following values: -
At the faster rate: -
Emissions go negative by 2020
Budget weighs 124 Gt C to then followed by -156 Gt C to 2100
Concentrations fall back to 350 ppmv by 2050
Temperature net-rise 0.4 of a degree by 2100 against 1990
At the medium rate [roughly the McKibben 154 Gt C Budget - see below]
Emissions go negative by 2050
Budget weighs 176 Gt C to then followed by - 63 Gt C to 2100
Concentrations fall back to 350 ppmv by 2100
Temperature net-rise 0.8 of a degree by 2100 against 1990
At the slower rate
Emissions go negative by 2080
Budget weighs 320 Gt C to then followed by - 4 Gt C to 2100
Concentrations fall back to 350 ppmv by 2300
Temperature net-rise 1.4 of a degree by 2100 against 1990
McKibben [ex Hansen] - [2000 - 2050, total of 154 Gt C]
Greenhouse Development Rights [GDR] - [2000 - 2100, total of 267 Gt C]
The UK Climate Act - [2000 - 2100, total of 480 Gt C]
Because of the dangers posed by increased 'positive feedback' and allowing for these, anything above GCI's projection for CBAT LOW [~200Gt C] seems insufficiently risk-averse to the dangers of passing over tipping points to runaway rates of climate change.
In response to requests to James Hansen to provide information of the carbon budgets he now advocates, he supplied this paper.
It is not clear how this answers the question. Presumably, he intends reference to page 8 where the following charts appear.
GCI set out a chart showing the huge range of variations in carbon-budgeting for < 2 degrees from a range of experts [UKMO, UKMO-Betts, IGBP/IPCC/UNFCCC, James Hansen, Bill McKibben & UKMO-Betts.
After some interactions about this carbon-budgeting paradigm, the orginal [page two of the file here] was slightly adjusted [to page one of the file here].
There was a demand to insert and highlight . . . these words . . . "Below is the HUGE Range" of Carbon Budgets . . . . The feeling was that the main point of the chart - the comparison - might be missed by those not accustomed to this debate and reading charts.
Dr Hansen’s team said their fossil carbon-integral was in fact *171 Gt C and not the 204 Gt C* shown previously. The explanation was that their start weight in 2010 [CDIAC source 9.8 Gt C] was lower that the 10.9 Gt C/2010 [the value used in the UK Climate Act] hence the
fall from there at 6%/yr giving the lower integral.
The path-integral chart has been recalculated and is shown
here as same integral but from the same start amount/date as the rest [10.9 Gt C/2010 - the value used in the UK Climate Act].
Mr Betts UKMO said, "you have misrepresented me again," but failed to explain what he meant or supply any details of what his carbon budget calculations are, even when requested so to do.
The range he previously quoted was 410 Gt C to 140 Gt C. Consequently this is repeated here.
However, for the IGBP/UNFCCC/IPCC, Betts UKMO, Hansen and McKibben curves and for clarity, all negative emissions have been removed [going below zero Gt C per year]. So, while the ‘integrals’ [weight accumulated over time] are the same as previously stated [the only exception **] the ‘paths’ have been slight adjusted to reflect all that.
The 100 Gt C draw-down through 're-forestation' the Hansen team specified between 2030 and 2080 can be added as negative emissions, but easiest to that amount 2053-2100 after the emissions zero in 2053 in the present curve, otherwise it gets rather more complicated to chart.
The main purpose of the exercise is to highlight the 'huge range' and to emphasize the urgency seen by Hansen & McKibben in relation to UKMO in the UK Climate Act, which Hansen described as "too weak" in evidence to the EAC hearings in June.
CBAT can be set up to reflect any of these budgets or indeed any budget period. Here's a temporary [unfinished] set-up for IGBP/UNFCCC/IPCC.
However, since around 2008, Hansen the 'climate-scientist' also became Hansen the policy advisor. His principal policy-idea was to introduce a a tax on fossil fuel production in conjunction with a 'dividend' paid 'equal per capita to what he described as all legal residents'. This was clearly not a 'global idea' so much as another attempt to 'put a price on carbon'. Additionally Hansen repeatedly backed the 350.org campaign to 'Do the Maths' initiated by Bill McKibben who did the maths as far as declaring a carbon budget maximum of 154 Gt C and then linking the whole campaign to the GDR campaign which articulated the demand for the US and other Developed Counries to accept negative emissions entitlements after 2025 inside a 267 Gt C budget. It is not clear whether Hansen realized that he had given his backing to that.
HANSEN SUDDENLY PRESENTS A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT & DANGEROUS AGENDA.
HIS CARBON BUDGET IS NOW INCREASED BY 400% TO 150% OF THE UK CLIMATE ACT BUDGET, A BUDGET HE SAID JUNE 2013 WAS 'NOT SAFE'.
In December 2013 Hansen instructed people to read his paper to see the carbon budget he was advocating. Hansen's modeller [Pushker Kharecha] a co-author of this paper confirmed that the Hansen 'budget' was 171 GtC as shown in this graphic [below] in this paper.
[Assessing ‘‘Dangerous Climate Change’’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature James Hansen1
*, Pushker Kharecha1,2, Makiko Sato1
, Valerie Masson-Delmotte3
, Frank Ackerman4
David J. Beerling5 , Paul J. Hearty6
, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg7
, Shi-Ling Hsu8 , Camille Parmesan9,10, Johan Rockstrom11, Eelco J. Rohling12,13, Jeffrey Sachs1 , Pete Smith14, Konrad Steffen15, Lise Van Susteren16, Karina von Schuckmann17, James C. Zachos18]
"On the other hand, a target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is feasible, the principal requirement being that fossil fuel emissions peak by 2020 and then decline by 2%/year; in addition a draw-down of 100 GtC CO2 via improved agricultural and forestry practices would be required and the net forcing change from non-CO2 climate forcings would need to be zero."
At a stroke Hansen has changed his carbon-budget [2010 -2110] from 171 Gt C to 628 Gt C, and making with the self-contgradictory and obviously false claim that this new budget will return concentrations to 350 PPMV and keep temperature below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
A euphemism for this is 'magic' . . . . and again Hansen refuses any discussion of this change, its scientific-justification or what the political reasons might be as to why it was made. At the same time, Pushker Kharecha insists that the the figure of 628 Gt C should read 528 Gt C, as he starts from an output figure for global emissions in 2010 as 8.6 Gt C, which is in fact 2.3 Gt C lower than the accepted figure of 10.9 Gt C for that year [in other words only a trebling, rather than a quadrupling of the budget].
JAMES HANSEN & the "Young People's Day in Court" April May 2014
My view is that Jim Hansen's important 'appeal' will fail, due to significant self-contradiction.
Seems to me he needs to review this as a matter of some urgency as the hearing is very soon.
As it is really a matter of the greatest importance, I hope Jim H doesn't fail.
I don't want him to fail, I want him to succeed.
However, with things as they are, I don't see how he can and if he fails, an important opportunity will have been lost.
If he disputes column 2 in the image below, I hope he will see the need to: -
spell out what the integral [carbon-budget weight] of,"global emissions peak 2020 & decline at 2%/yr thereafter"
that he specified to in China in February actually is, if it isn't the 678 Gt C spelled out here;
explain why the Chinese should now believe in and accept the 171 Gt C global budget he has now [April]
again insisted is what he has argued throughout;
justify to all the countries who will have to share it, how the US & CHINA alone can consume more than than that global
of 171 Gt C between them, requireing the Rest of the World [RoW] to go into negative emissions if it is to be observed.
JAMES HANSEN & the "Young People's Day in Court"
James Hansen is going to US Court of Appeals in May 2014 to appeal a judgement given against him last year.
He wants the court overturn that judgement & also rule in favour of his 6%/year emissions reduction demand to the US GOVERNMENT.
However, the court seems likely to be confused and therefore unlikely to support the appeal,
as it unclear what Hansen is really asking for in the light of what he has said on this matter this year - as follows: -
before CHINA - the stresses that appeal to the court case is based on the PLOS paper
calling for -6%/year emissions control globally [giving a 171 Gt C Budget]:
in CHINA [February 2014] - he told the CHINESE GOVERNMENT emissions must peak in 2020
reduce at -2%/year [see his slides slide 32 - giving a 678 Gt C Budget]:
after CHINA - he insisted to asenior US Acadmic that he said no such thing in CHINA,
and he insisted that the PLOS paper was his absolute and unchanged demand for a 171 Gt C Budget:
and the implication that for the US & CHINA to consume more than the PLOS global budget between them,
the Rest of the World [ROW] would need to go negative to keep to a 171 Gt Carbon Budget [Row 2 Column 3 in the graphic].
NOTE - In a 'draft op-ed' after CHINA Hansen recorded this view: -
"We scientists should have made clearer that there is a limited “carbon budget” for the world,
i.e. a limit on the amount of fossil fuels that could be burned without assuring disastrous future consequences.
We should have made clear that diffuse renewables cannot satisfy energy needs of countries such as China and India.
It seems we failed to make that clear enough. The United States, as the leader in nuclear R&D,
had an opportunity not only to help find a carbon-free path for itself, but also to aid countries such as China and India.
Indeed, such aid was an obligation. The United States had already used its share of the “carbon budget”
and was beginning to eat into China’s."
As Hansen's statements collectively further obscure, rather that clarify this issue, clarification would require the court to decide these crucial issues: -
what weight of global carbon budget is being considered
what method for internationally sharing this is being considered
thus providing a basis upon which to determine, 'who is eating into who's budget'
It would be very helpful if they would do that.
Unresolved for the last 20 years, this fundametally important issue - of shringking and sharing the global carbon budget - has remained hotly contested throughout.
It is of the greatest importance to now resolve this. As things stand the case put before the court by James Hansen summarise like this