Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 Next
Comments 28001 to 28050:
-
gws at 05:50 AM on 16 August 2015The Rap Guide to Climate Chaos
maybe this one is better?
-
Tom Curtis at 03:16 AM on 16 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
Joel_Huberman @4, I made no analysis of the 'sustainable level' of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is because, given sufficient time adapt, any level of CO2 under 1000-2000 ppmv is 'sustainable'; while any level above 280 ppmv will require some adaption. Consequently the idea of a sustainable level of CO2 is not particularly coherent. However, if we are going to use the concept, 310 ppmv is a level that will require minimum adaption by either nature or humanity and can reasonably be claimed to be sustainable. However, for policy purposes, a peak level of 450 ppmv (+/- 100 ppmv) represents the consensus value for a CO2 level to which human society could reasonably adapt and and live with on a sustained basis. At least, that is how I understand the IPCC position.
More importantly for my argument @2 above, the assumed emission levels are those at which CO2 concentrations will fall over time (due to further take up of CO2 by the ocean, and ocean buffering by erosion) so that if we reduced emissions to about 5% of current global emissions now (immediately) emissions would fall over the medium term and stabilize in the low 300's of ppmv. We would not further need to enhance that rate of natural fall by sequestration and geoengineering (although it might still be desirable to do so). (Note that ocean buffering will also restore ocean pH levels, but only over a time line of a thousand years or so.)
If, as is certain, we increase CO2 levels above the current 400 ppmv, we will also need to reduce the sustained emissions to allow for the natural reduction in CO2 level to bring us to a sustainable long term atmospheric concentration. If we continue increasing atmospheric concentration until 2050 (virtually certain), the sustainable level drops down to zero emissions; and beyond that we will need active geosequestration. But if all nations had per capita emissions equivalent to those on the list above, global warming would be a problem that would solve itself with some minor ecological and economic adaption. Ergo, that level, or thereabouts, represents the current sustainable level of emissions.
That the sustainable level of emissions will fall due to the activities of other nations is not the fault of the nations currently emitting at levels that are currently sustainable.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:22 PM on 15 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
Tom Curtis @ 2. Thanks for your interesting response. I wasn't thinking about emissions per country, but global emissions, and I was thinking about the fact that atmospheric CO2 is currently about 400 ppm, way above sustainable levels of 350 ppm (according to Hansen and 350.org) or 310 ppm (according to your analysis). Thus the Earth as a whole is already way over budget. Consequently, even Mali could contribute to bringing the Earth back to a reasonable carbon budget by reducing its miniscule CO2 emissions even further.
-
uncletimrob at 20:48 PM on 15 August 2015The Rap Guide to Climate Chaos
Not really my "cup of tea' musically, but the sentiments therin are on track I think.
-
bozzza at 13:10 PM on 15 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
Interesting.
Quantitative argument is where it's at and the politicians can only defend bias in the speakers chair for so long until the pertinent figures reveal themselves to the majority of voters and action is voted for!!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:48 AM on 15 August 2015The 1C Milestone
Rob Honeycutt@17, Changing what has to monetarily be evaluated in the marketplace will only partially address the problem. It is more important that the only actions allowed to be prioritized by profitability and popularity are actions that are almost certain to be truly sustainable. That also means curtailing any actions that are potentially harmful no matter how popular they may be among some people, leading that group to try to ensure the activity remains chap and profitable rather than admit the unacceptability of ways of living they got away with developing.
Another thing that trying to price the impacts would fail to value or assign cosy to is the price that should be paid for any consumption of nonrenewable resources. How much it costs to extract and consume these limited resources should include a massive price no matter how abundant the resource appears to be.
Even putting a price on consuming a nonrenewable may not properly limit pursuits of profit. The failure of the marketplace to properly value helium has led to the nonrenewable source being wasted on party balloons rather than be reserved for life saving medical use. And adding to the cost does not ensure that only the most deserving consumption would occur.
-
MA Rodger at 02:22 AM on 15 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza @428.
Do note that ice shelves and sea ice are not the same thing. (And also this thread is properly about ice sheets which is something else again entirely.)
bozzza @429.
While it is possible to consider fitting an upward curve to the graph @426 in place of the linear trend, the cause of the increases in Antarctic SIA/SIE would be worth looking at first.
Like the loss of ice from Antarctica, the increase of Antarctic SIA/SIE is the product of two competing trends. Parts of the ocean are increasingly icy but other parts are losing ice. Also a lot less is known prior to the arrival of good satellite data in 1979. Fan et al (2014) suggests that ice may have been on an earlier downward trend, shrinking markedly up to 1979, strains perhaps of long-term natural variation at work? While other, for instance recently Hansen et al (2015), see large levels of sea ice growth in Antarctica as a by-product of AGW, and perhaps a by-product we should be very worried about.
So, while fitting anything is possible, a reasoned fitment would be preferable to one that simply suits the mood of the author. In that regard, the linear trend provides a simple gauge of the situation, nothing more.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:23 AM on 15 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
Joel_Huberman @1, absent all anthropogenic emissions, the total CO2 content in the atmosphere would decline to about 310 ppmv over about 200 years. The total forcing for 310 ppmv is about 0.55 W/m^2, with an expected equilibrium temperature response of about 0.42 C above preindustrial levels. That is, the equilibrium temperatures will be equivalent to those in the 1960s, and can reasonably be supposed to be "safe" - indeed, may even be beneficial relative to pre-industrial levels. Ergo, over the life time of any reasonable policy projection, restricting emissions to approximately 5% of current levels could be considered sustainable. That being the case, the following nations can reasonably be supposed to never exceed their sustainable emissions levels (the numbers being their ranking in world per capita emissions):
178. Bangladesh
179. Cambodia
180. Cameroon
181. IvoryCoast
182. Kenya
183. Kiribati
184. Laos
185. Burma
186. Sudan
187. Comoros
188. Gambia
189. Guinea-Bissau
190. Haiti
191. Liberia
192. SierraLeone
193. Timor-Leste
194. Togo
195. Zambia
196. BurkinaFaso
197. CentralAfricanRepublic
198. Eritrea
199. Ethiopia
200. Guinea
201. Madagascar
202. Malawi
203. Mozambique
204. Nepal
205. Niger
206. Rwanda
207. Somalia
208. Uganda
209. Tanzania
210. Afghanistan
211. Burundi
212. Chad
213. DemocraticRepublicoftheCongo
214. MaliSo, granted that the world's worst emitter exceeds its sustainable emissions in less than two days, and the world average exceeds sustainable emissions before the end of January, I do not think it is fair to say that all nations begin the year with a deficit.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:16 AM on 15 August 2015The 1C Milestone
OPOF @16... Actually, I believe that overconsumption is a different problem. Our core problem is that our main source of energy puts massive amounts of CO2 into the air. While the over exploitation of other resources is an important challenge, it pales in comparison.
I would submit that the solution to both of these issues is to get the externalities of energy generation priced into the marketplace. If we can do that for energy, then doing the same later for resource depletion should be a piece of cake.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:38 PM on 14 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
It seems to me that, with regard to some resources such as maintaining a safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, every country in the world starts off in a state of deficit on January 1 of each year.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:31 PM on 14 August 2015A Powerful El Niño in 2015 Threatens a Massive Coral Reef Die-off
Thanks, Rob! A very interesting, informative discussion! There's a missing piece of information, however--the horizontal scale for Figure 5. My guess is that the scale should be degrees longitude, at the Equator, across the Pacific, but my guess may be totally incorrect. What should the scale be?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - Thanks Joel, I inadvertently deleted the information when making that image. I'll fix it later today - I've amended the caption in the meanwhile.
EDIT: Now fixed.
-
bozzza at 18:02 PM on 14 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
@ 426: the trend line could actually be getting steeper right this minute, apparently, ...according to the information in the graph itself [Trend line(regression 1979-2011) = 0.015 p.a.] could it not?
-
bozzza at 17:55 PM on 14 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Cheers, Jim: I googled "Amundsen Bellingshausen Sea Low" and found one of the first articles, " Study shows acceleration in melting of Antarctic ice shelves" and found the below to be a most interesting paragraph...
"While it is fair to say that we're seeing the ice shelves responding to climate change, we don't believe there is enough evidence to directly relate recent ice shelf losses specifically to changes in global temperature," Fricker said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/study-shows-acceleration-in-melting-of-antarctic-ice-shelves-20150326-1m8uu1.html#ixzz3ilxnuJ5D
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook..there seems to be conflict amongst the talking heads so many thanks for keeping the debate informative!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:49 AM on 14 August 2015The 1C Milestone
mancan18,
An obvious answer to the challenge is the admission that what has currently been developed is a way of living that requires too much energy.
Energy desires, particularly by the already highest energy users, clearly need to be denied no matter how profitable or popular meeting such desires may be.
The simple truth is that many people who are perceived to be the most prosperous are also the biggest problem. Their perceived wealth is not sustainable. Their desires to increase their perceived prosperity in more consumptive ways clearly need to be discouraged, hence the lack of success in reducing global impacts.
Moderator Response:[JH] Excessive white space eliminated.
-
william5331 at 07:12 AM on 14 August 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
So, if during an El Nino, the transport of warm water out of the tropics toward the poles slows down, can we expect increased arctic ice melting the year or two after an El Nino when the transport of this warm water resumes. If so, 2016 should be an interesting year and there would be an explanation of why ice melt is not all that spectacular this year.
-
Jim Hunt at 21:46 PM on 13 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza @424,
For one theory see:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,724.msg60178.html#msg60178
I believe that the current downward fluctuation in Antarctic Sea Ice Extent if likely associated with the influence of our currently strong El Nino on the average location of the Amundsen Bellingshausen Sea Low. -
erich at 20:42 PM on 13 August 2015We are the Asteroid - Scientists’ Heighten Concerns About Global Extinctions
“we are the Asteroid” in several different ways the article didn't mention. At 65M yrs ago clearing the way for mammals, certainly our degradation of ecology, etc is as destructive, and if the Younger Dryas was caused by an asteroid hitting the Laurentide ice sheet, 12.9Kyrs ago, then we were driven to agriculture and Fire land management by an asteroid, with mammoth off the menu. Which is what we are now; genetically a product of Agriculture, we digest milk in adulthood, break down gluten fine, at least most all of us.
I've always been a fan of the Younger Dryas, (quick-short, -10 C for 1000 yrs) Cooling, whatever the cause, as the primary force behind the Megafauna extinction, but now the DNA seems to say it's the Warming periods doing the bulk of the deed.
Megafauna extinction: DNA evidence pins blame on climate change
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27952-megafauna-extinction-dna-evidence-pins-blame-on-climate-change/From over on Soil-Age;
In this new study, I like the explanation of insolation as a trickle charge to our Biomass battery. It puts into perspective the relatively low efficiency of photosynthesis.Human domination of the biosphere: Rapid discharge of the earth-space battery foretells the future of humankind
https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/pnas-2015-schramski-1508353112.pdfOver on a Google forum called "Soil-Age", as Walter Jehne says, (and I have been stealing it, adding biogenic aerosols);
"Soil Biology is our only way to rapidly and massively draw down CO2 from the air to offset our ongoing and past carbon emissions, It Could safely and naturally restore the hydrological cycles by increasing biogenic aerosols and cloud albedo that could readily cool the planet by the 3 watts/m2 needed to offset the now locked in greenhouse warming effects and avoid the Storms of Our Grandchildren."After all....how could anyone not feel good about soils?;
Changes in Heart Rate Variability and Effects on POMS by Whether or Not Soil Observation Was Performed
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=42273Soil Cheers & Palpitations,
Moderator Response:[PS] Activated links. Please use the link button to insert links.
-
bvangerven at 20:38 PM on 13 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
@Wol: you would be right if there were no alternatives to fossil fuel for energy production.
A carbon tax would not make energy in general more expensive. It would make fossil fuel based energy more expensive. This would have the following consequences:
- it will motivate manufacturers to produce more energy-efficient appliances, vehicles etc.
- it will speed up the replacement of fossil fuel based power plants by renewable energy.
- it will make it more interesting for investors to invest in low carbon or zero carbon technologies.
- the most polluting fuels (f.i. tar sands) with the highest CO2 emission per barrel produced would become the most expensive, and be prized out of the market
Of course, this doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time. That’s why a carbon tax should start low and increase gradually.
-
MA Rodger at 20:21 PM on 13 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
-
bvangerven at 20:04 PM on 13 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
@Bozzza #3: what exactly do you propose ? To force fossil fuel companies to give back all profits they ever made during their existence , and to put all CO2 that was ever emitted due to their activity back into the ground because you question their right to extract natural resources from the soil ?
Or do you propose to nationalize all existing fossil fuel reserves (and you ask if *I* believe in pirates ???)
I agree with you that a company shouldn’t have the right to extract natural resources, just because they were the first to stake the claim. The natural resources of a country should be under democratic control. But this isn’t the case and it is not going to change.
Either we can have such unrealistic demands that they will never become reality, or we try to find a practical way out, preferably without destroying the economy.
My proposal: “the polluter pays” is a principle that can be enforced legally and has been enforced legally in the past. From the point in time when science comes to a conclusion, for instance about the danger of asbestos, a company can be held legally responsible for the damage they are causing (it doesn’t matter if they claim they weren’t aware of the science, they should have known).
I think there is no case in which the scientific consensus has been so formally and comprehensively documented as for antropogenic climate change. Any fossil fuel company continuing the business as usual after this consensus was published can therefore be sued. I would use this as a big stick to get fossil fuel companies to agree to a carbon tax. The same is true for governments: the science is clear, the government’s task to protect the public against internal and external threats is also clear. They should either take measures to protect the public or face legal charges. -
MA Rodger at 17:33 PM on 13 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza @424,
The Antarctic sea ice area anomaly has gone negative in the last couple of days, the first time that has happened in four years. Prior to that (back in 2011), the SIA wobbled its way positive and negative with a long-term trend upward of 15,000 sq km pa. Seeing this recent return to negative anomalies is a return to that level of trend. It is perhaps the deviation from that long-term trend that would be easier explained, easier than the return to it.This graph (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') shows recent years of SIA up to January 2015 but doesn't really capture that long term trend. I will upload something that does when I have a moment.
-
bozzza at 16:24 PM on 13 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Antarctic sea ice extent has drastically changed it's trajectory over the last 2 weeks: is there any sensible explanation for this?
-
PluviAL at 15:22 PM on 13 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
A third alternative is to remove heat from the earth- air- ocean system; what I call benign atmospheric engineering, BAE. A forth is perhaps "all of the above"; what if a BAE system did all of the above, removed CO2, reduced insolation, and increase long wave radiation?
Realistically, IPCC procedures guaranty underestimation of the climate crisis. What I understand is that their prediction for sea level rise went from 12 inches to a yard within a decade because we underestimate when and how CO2, CH4, and other GHG releases from permafrost and ocean strata will effect climate, because most models don’t incorporate such feedback loops effectively. Realistic climate change seems to be much worse and sooner than expected and planned for.So… we must develop tools with which to manage and adjust climate. Further, natural variations in climate may be costly to civilization, absent CO2 based energy systems, so again the same conclusion. By avoiding the discussion, our good intentions blind us to necessary potential solutions. Further, although I don’t study ocean acidification, it may be another huge feedback loop. This again leads to the same BAE development conclusion.
Although it would be best to reduce our C-foot print, it has not happened, and it is unlikely to happen on time. Alternatively, we can develop BAE, but we must be open the idea and its development. Advanced designs can be integrated into food and energy production so that by providing for anthropogenic needs we reduce the anthropomorphic load on the planet and biome balances. But, our minds must be open to BAE. -
bozzza at 12:57 PM on 13 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
The trouble with comment no.2 is that there is no recognition of what the word 'cost' means. Governments release a money supply that allows costs to be recognised by the exchange of said money supply.
Governments also release carbon emissions by allowing certain types of economic exchange to be realised with the aformentioned,and now famous, money supply. In the end Governments are responsible and that means us if we do infact live in representative democracy...
-
davidsanger at 12:31 PM on 13 August 20152015 global temperatures are right in line with climate model predictions
Thanks Jos for showing the "sceptic" forecasts which have shown to be so far off the mark. It would be helpful to keep track of them all. All these "global cooling" predictions are just fantasy.
-
Wol at 10:45 AM on 13 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
@ #2: I'm not entirely convinced that end user payments - or any intermediary ones, for that matter - are wholly effective in the long run. We have become so used to present levels of energy use that increasing the cost rapidly leads to increases in incomes to compensate, bringing us back to square one.
One thing that is rarely hammered home in this whole "debate" with the man in the street (who is not particularly well informed) is that there is to all intents and purposes a certain amount of carbon in/on the planet. Over millenia prior to the industrial revolution and after billions of years of evolution this amount of carbon reached a balance in the atmosphere. What has happened since the 1800s is that hundreds of millions of years' worth of carbon has been released from that locked up underground in the blink of an eye, altering the entire balanced system.
-
mancan18 at 08:25 AM on 13 August 2015The 1C Milestone
Informative article Rob. Thanks.
As climate scientists continue to focus their studies on rising carbon dioxide emissions, rising temperatures and the climate impacts that are and will result in from these increases, there appears to be very little discussion on the future energy needs of the planet. According to Seth B Darling and Douglas L Sisterson in their book "How to Change Minds About Our Changing Climate" the energy history of the planet in the last half-century is that in 1950 around 3 TW (terawatts) of energy was consumed globally. In 1990, this had increased to around 12 TW of energy that was consumed globally. Today we consume around 18 TW of energy globally. By 2050, the projected energy needs will increase to about 30 TW, nearly double todays. Considering that 83% of our energy currently comes from burning fossil fuels, just closing coal fired power stations and reducing forest clearing is not going to reduce emissions to the level that needs to happen to restrict temperature to a 2 degree rise. It's fairly clear that a complete technological change and a huge infrastructure building program in alternative sustainable power generation is required. It also indicates that fossil fuels will need to still be a part of the energy mix well into the future. This will need to happen unless the developed world wishes to condemn the developing world to a permanent state of poverty. The planet will need all forms of energy generation to meet that 30 TW figure. It will also need nuclear as well as solar, wind, thermal, and hydrogen. It does not need deniers and skeptics getting in the way of what needs to be done. This change in the energy mix needs to happen in a little over 35 years as the world's population rises to over 10 billion people.
Aspirational aims, like those articulated for the Apollo program, are essential, but that aspiration needs to be translated into developing more efficient technology (power, transport, industrial and consumer) if we are realistically going to restrict the temperature rise to under 2 degrees. Unfortunately, I don't see that required technological transformation occurring at the rates that are needed. We have already wasted 25 years arguing wiith deniers since the whole global warming issue came to the forefront in the 1990s. We cannot afford to waste another 25 years if we are to have any chance. Not only do projected temperature rises and rising emissions need to be part of the limit to a 2 degree rise discussion, future energy requirements also need to be a part.
-
JosHagelaars at 07:34 AM on 13 August 20152015 global temperatures are right in line with climate model predictions
I came to the same conclusion with the same graphs:
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/warm-2015-and-model-data-comparisons/In that post I also added a comparison of global temperatures with a few ‘sceptic forecasts’ from "Die Kalte Sonne", Scafetta and Easterbrook.
Dutch version here:
https://klimaatverandering.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/een-warm-2015-en-modelvergelijkingenprognoses/Regards,
JosModerator Response:[PS] Fixed links. Please use the link button in the comment editor in future.
-
bwilson4web at 07:24 AM on 13 August 20152015 global temperatures are right in line with climate model predictions
Sorry, I hit "Submit" too early. Please delete my earlier post.
I've noticed some of our 'priuschat', climate deniers really enjoy claiming 'the models are wrong'. Showing that the models and data sources are being fixed seems to confuse 'em.
Lately, they've also been beating the 'paleo-record' drum. So it turns out the "Law Dome" ice record has CO{2} data that overlaps Maua Loa and that seems to have confounded them too. We used a log time-scale to show everything. The 'paleo' deniers are using a linear time-scale which hides the recent data . . . as if it doesn't matter.
Just sharing tricks of the trade.
Bob Wilson, Huntsville, AL
Moderator Response:[RH] Please try to keep image down to 500px.
-
bozzza at 04:16 AM on 13 August 2015The 1C Milestone
@ 12 , 440 ppm is locked in and acknowledged by the solar thermal scientists of the world as impossible to not surpass... and that was years ago ! The reference actually questions whether it is possible to go over and then come back under the 440 ppm level and seems to say the science hasn't quite been worked out on that specific question... therefore making your specific question a more known , um, .... answerable entity?
Specifically I refer to a statement by [edit] DR DAVID MILLS [edit] Dr. David Mills but cannot find the reference on the youtube at the moment which I (rewatched many times I can assure you) will post for your reference when I find it.
A well defined problem is half answered: nice, specific question!!
Moderator Response:[RH] Please avoid use of all caps. Thx.
-
bozzza at 04:05 AM on 13 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
Dear no2: can I join your pirate ship that won't last very long: please?
-
bozzza at 04:02 AM on 13 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
Dear no2 comment,
Do you even know what sort of legalised behemoth fossil fuels are? These are legalised entities: without governments they don't exist and you actually think they have a birthright to extract sovereignised resource?
(Do you believe in pirates or something???)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:32 AM on 13 August 2015The 1C Milestone
Most people who are knowledgeable about climate change I think are very aware that 2C in not a fixed point relative to where bad things start happening. It merely provides a point by which we can measure our progress. Think of it like a speed limit on the highway. You don't instantly crash and kill people if you go over the speed limit, nor if you drive just under the speed limit are you guaranteed to be completely safe.
I specifically chose that Stephen Schneider quote because it demonstrates that tipping points are more of a continuum of accumulating problems. But I do think that the Eemian provides some relative measure. If we can hold temperature rise to 2C, then that is essentially the planet we are bequeathing to future generations.
We will have made this transition from Holocene to Eemian-like Anthropocene as an incredibly abrupt shift relative to natural system, and that is going to impose a large shock on the natural systems that sustain us. There will be a lot of adaptation that has to take place just for 2C.
When we start talking 3C, 4C or even 5C down the road... that's an entirely different ballgame. That's tantamount to getting out on the highway and trying to drive double the speed limit.
I would put it this way: "Safe" ≠ "benign."
Below 2C is not benign. Below 1.5C is not benign. We have already imposed serious challenges on future generations with emissions to date. To me, the question is, how much human suffering of future generations can we avoid?
-
ranyl at 23:32 PM on 12 August 2015The 1C Milestone
New York needs moving within the next 100 years if Hansen is right abotu sea level rise, is anyone actually planning for it?
300ppm, means ~1-1.5C above pre-industrial, the range we are going to be in once this 2015 large EL-Nino returns the heat, remember 2015 is the 1997 equivalent, 2016 will the 1998 one. And that means eventual sea level rise of 6-9m, as we aren't getting down to 300ppm anytime in the next several 1000's of years.
Also note that these models claiming to give us a carbon budget, not only don't include permafrost CO2 and methane releases (the ones that do, keep CO2 above 400ppm even if all CO2 emissions stopped in 2010), also don't include forest fires, or the CO2 releases when the earth warms and several aspects that reduce the CO2 fertilization effect.
And if you take 1.5C as safe, the budget is already blown.
Remember that ~1W of forcing is being masked by SO2 and if fossil fuel use cease that also comes back into play, and studies looking just at that, with total CO2 emission stopping find temperature rises ~1.5-2C by 2050 anyway.
RCP 2.6 = 420-450ppm CO2 by 2100 and then on-going.
Not sure what the CO2e is, but at present that is ~460-470ppm.
420-450ppm is Miocene warm period levels last seen 15 million years, ago, world 4-6C hotter, sea levels 30-40m higher.
You tend to get ~60-80% of that warming in 100 years.
Remember 300ppm means 6-9m sea level rise!
It seems the arguments about a carbon budegt are more about pretendign we carry on emitting carbon until they invent techologies to take it out the air, rather than rationalising the sitaution.
Wonder what all these hat waves this year are doing for the carbon emissions from the biopshere in these areas?
Moderator Response:[JH] Excessive white space removed.
-
bvangerven at 22:34 PM on 12 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
A question that should be asked more often in the climate debate is: who is going to pay for this ? I even think it is a kind of denial that this question so seldom pops up. Perhaps it is until now even the greatest feat of fossil fuel companies that they have succeeded in suppressing that question. The answer should actually be: the polluter will pay, no matter what. If we choose to tackle the climate problem: the polluter will pay to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere. If we choose not to do anything about climate change: the polluter will pay for all catastrophes caused by his actions in the next centuries. (Before I am attacked from all sides let me assure you: I don’t think there is a REAL choice. But fossil fuel companies should realize that those are the 2 options they are facing).
Let’s calculate the carbon tax necessary to cover the costs of removing all emitted CO2 from the atmosphere.
A car using 5 liter diesel fuel per 100 km emits 132 g CO2 per km.
At the current price of 1,1 €/liter diesel fuel (current price in Belgium)
the driving costs are: 5/100*1.1 = 0.055 € per km
So, how much more expensive would diesel fuel become if we had to pay for the removal of the CO2 from the atmosphere (taking into account the estimate of 600 $, or 500 € per ton CO2 ?)
Extra cost : 500* 132/1000000 = 0.066 € per km.
So the price of diesel fuel would more than double. And the price of most, if not all consumer products would go up as well.
Still, I think it makes sense to introduce a worldwide carbon tax.After all, what is the alternative ? Taking the money necessary to fight climate change straight from the taxpayers ? Trying to sell 25 billion tonnes of captured CO2 to greenhouse owners and carbonated beverages producers ?
Of course, we don’t want to destroy the economy. So the carbon tax should start low and increase gradually year after year. This gives both companies and people the time to adapt. Luckily the purpose of the carbon tax is not really to fund an expensive technology to remove CO2 from the air (although it can be used for that purpose). The actual goal is to level the playing field between fossil fuel and renewables and speed up the development and adoption of low-carbon or zero-carbon technologies.
-
bozzza at 18:40 PM on 12 August 2015The 1C Milestone
2c is an agreed target: how else do you propose to get an agreed target for the whole world? Ever heard of groupthink?
-
TonyW at 17:30 PM on 12 August 2015The 1C Milestone
Yes, 2C is something of an arbitrary limit and I don't know why it's gained an almost mythical status; that under 2C is safe and over 2C is unsafe. The fact is that we are already seeing impacts from 1C. With more in the pipeline, it looks like we are already in the dangerous zone. James Hansen, et al (2013) suggest that 1C is the dangerous limit. This isn't a milestone, we're actually at the dangerous level now.
-
ianw01 at 04:34 AM on 12 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
Lets see ... at $600/tonne (ref), CDR25 would cost $1.5x1013/year, and CDR5 would be "only" $3x1012/year.
I hope there are some big cost reductions coming in CDR.
-
ubrew12 at 03:55 AM on 12 August 2015The 1C Milestone
We know that at 400ppm, equilibrium sea level is 25m (75 ft) above current sea level, due to melting ice sheets. I read that at 400ppm, in equilibrium the Alpine glaciers would still lose half their mass. So, its not unreasonable to expect that at 400ppm, in equilibrium, the permafrost would vent half its carbon. So, as there is a graph that indicates what equilibrium sea level pertains to what CO2 level, it would be useful to have a graph that indicates what equilibrium level of permafrost carbon vented pertains to what CO2 level. With such information, the rest becomes a question for kinetics: how fast would this carbon be vented?
-
MA Rodger at 02:28 AM on 12 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Antarctic ice loss is certainly accelerating. A plot of the rate of change of mass balance from the data graphed below (two clicks down the link) perhaps is starting to show an increase in that acceleration, LINK , although it is early days for anything more than speculation.
-
CBDunkerson at 01:00 AM on 12 August 2015The 1C Milestone
There and Back Again?
To me, this sounds like you're saying our only hope of avoiding the 2C climate change limit is... Bilbo Baggins. :]
-
Antarctica is gaining ice
renbuild1 - Geometric and exponential growth rates are not our friend here. We have to take acceleration into account.
Antarctic Ice Mass
-
michael sweet at 22:59 PM on 11 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
renbuild1,
Your math would be correct if the rate of melt were not rising. Since the rate of melt is measured to be increasing rapidly, it will take much less than 125 years for 1 inch of melt. Recent measurements in West Antarctic indicate that the ice sheet there has passed its tippiing point. Dr. Ringot, an Antarctic and Greenland specialist and coauthor on Hansen's recent paper on sea level rise, claimed that their data indicated that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone would melt in decades to centuries with a sea level rise of at least 10 feet. Decades to centuries is a large range, but 10 years ago the same scientists were saying thousands of years for the sheet to melt. This melt increase will occur in a non linear manner. How much risk are you willing to take that it will not be decades?? Obviously Dr. Ringot feels it is possible or he would not have coauthored Hansen's paper. 10 feet of sea level rise would wipe out all of south and east Florida.
When processes are known to be increasing rapidly it is inappropriate to extrapolate past melt rates far into the future. Many things are hard to predict, especially the future.
The current rate of sea level rise from all sources is 3-3.5 mm/year. It is increasing. How much sea level rise is acceptable? In Tampa, Florida, where I live, we just had a flood where many homes reportedly had 2-19 inches of water inside. Since 9 inches of sea level rise has been measured in Florida, many of those homes would not have flooded without sea level rise. How much did AGW contribute to the extraordinary rain? At least some. This is damage caused today by AGW. It will only increase in the future.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:38 PM on 11 August 2015The 1C Milestone
It is important to draw a distinction between methane emissions from permafrost and clathrates - they aren't the same thing.
There are huge swathes of the Arctic where permafrost melt has started and methane emissions are rising. So far the impact of that s small but likely to increase. By how much?
A study earlier this year looked at thawing permarost in controlled conditions over, if I recall, 12 years and measuring the gases produced. Their results suggest that by the second half of tis century emissions rom permafrost might be the equivalent of current US emssions. So even if we went to zero emssions, concentrations would keep climbing slowly from that source.
So this is serious in terms of our ability to stabilise CO2 concentrations. But not the methane bomb some fear. More of a slow motion methane fizzer.
-
bozzza at 11:57 AM on 11 August 2015The 1C Milestone
@ One Planet Only Forever, this same logic applies to Bjorn Lomborgs attempt at trying to convince the world that fossil fuels should be allowed to warm our earth by 3C instead of 2C...
Limits, or more succinctly "The slippery slope" styles of argumentation ,are coming whereby black is white and there is apparently no point doing anything.
Resource bottlenecks are the first predicted consequence of panic. The trouble is the vested interests will argue this is good for employment yadda yadda yadda...
-
PhilippeChantreau at 10:54 AM on 11 August 20152015 Arctic melting season won't break records, but could wipe the 'recovery'
Looking at the Cryosphere Today picture has me quite worried. Record or not, who cares? We still have over a month of melting and the truly solid cover (80% or more) has shrunk to a 3 amoeba shaped web that looks less resilient than the solid island that could be seen at the same time in 2012. I find especially worrisome that there is now so much 70% and below cover bewtween the Northern Canadian coasts and Greenland coasts and the more solid coverage farther North. The solid ice island is loosing its anchors.
-
Andy Skuce at 10:15 AM on 11 August 2015The 1C Milestone
TomR: Permafrost emissions are not included in current climate models and other terrestrial biosphere feedbacks that are modelled may have optimistic assumptions. I wrote a piece on this recently. There's a link at the end to a more detailed SkS piece on the subject. A rough estimate is that our carbon budgets may be about 25% overestimated.
I do not believe, however, that a methane clathrate emergency is upon us. As part of the MOOC we ran a few months ago, I did a short video lecture on this.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:57 AM on 11 August 2015The 1C Milestone
TomR... Currently most researchers are saying permafrost and methane clathrates are not likely to be an issue. I'm definitely not on board with the near-term extinction folks like Guy McPherson.
When this issue comes up I usually point people to a series of videos that Peter Sinclair produced called "The Methane Bomb Squad."
-
TomR at 06:19 AM on 11 August 2015The 1C Milestone
Good article and comments. However, I am much more realistic or pessimistic than Rob, unless only 50% of the human population dying due to climate change is optimism. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think most models take into account the certain to occur but unknown impact of the melting of the world's permafrost and methane clathrates. Also, I have read that a significant part of the impact of CO2 on warming occurs even after the first 85 years.
I follow many of the scientific global warming websites. The one thing that seems missing is personally responsibility for one's own emissions. The idea that one's own emissions don't really count seems pervasive or at least ignored. Sierra Club still extensively advertises Club trecks to Africa, Asia, and beyond. In contrast, Berners-Lee in his carbon footprint book on everything "How Bad Are Bananas?" guesstimates that for every 150 tons of emissions, one more human is likely to die. By that calculation, one pound of CO2 is equal to about one hour of human life. I actually think about that when deciding where to exercise, how often to go shopping, whether I should drive 100 miles to Pittsburgh to protest with 350.org, etc.
I like Pope Francis and others emphasizing the immorality of destroying life through avoidable global warming emissions. If the above is roughly correct, the average American is killing one person every ten years with his emissions. He is guilty of negligent manslaughter, even reckless manslaughter.
Carbon dioxide molecules are like little bullets fired into the air. They don't kill anyone at first, but over decades they will kill huge numbers of humans as well as plant and animal life. I think that we lead in part by example. I personally hope to be carbon negative within the year by finally buying a low cost Nissan Leaf and installing at least 10,000 watts of solar panels so I can feed into the grid more energy than I use even including the embodied footprints of my vegan food, my home, and possessions, as well as my share of health care, government, and other societal functions.
I would like to see scientific papers attempting to quantify the impact on human death. I have seen papers on animal extinction, on air pollution on human life, etc., but never on the long-term impact of global warming on global food production and starvation. Hansen once speculated that the Earth will only be able to support 1 billion humans. How many people will die with RCP 4.5? I fear 50%
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:39 AM on 11 August 2015The 1C Milestone
mike Roddy,
I agree. It is important to always mention that an increase beyond 1.5 C was, and continues to be, a concern.
A 2.0 C increase limit only came about recently when global leaders had to admit that success of resistance by those who do not care to reduce the benefit they can get away with had resulted in a lack of reduction of unacceptable activity by already fortunate people which made the 1.5 C limit virtually unachievable.
Prev 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 Next
