Climate Change

[Quartz]

Planetary migration is extremely unlikely to have had a big impact from around 3.5 billion years ago to 0.5 billion when the Cambrian Radiation got underway.

Agreed, but I was talking about the Hadean eon.

 

[Dr Jon]

Science academies explain global warming reality

Climate Change: Evidence & Causes

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

On Monday night, Senate Democrats are hosting a rare pajama party of sorts, conducting an all-night “talkathon” on climate change – minus the pajamas, and definitely minus some of their colleagues.

Twenty-eight Democrats and two left-leaning Independents, including Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada and his top lieutenants, are scheduled to speak in shifts until about 9 a.m. Tuesday. The event is not a filibuster, nor is it related to any legislation. The intent is to urge a divided Congress and nation to “wake up” on this issue.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...rming-all-nighter-Why-4-Dems-will-be-no-shows

You'll notice that they really haven't put their money where their mouth is with actual legislation.

 

[free spirit]

cue jokes about defeating global warming with nowt but hot air

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

cue jokes about defeating global warming with nowt but hot air

The really sad thing is that these are the people who've gotten the message. There's at least an equal number of climate deniers on the other side.

 

[Dr Jon]

CO2, Earth’s Global Thermostat, Dials Up to Record 401.6 ppm Daily Value on March 12

 

[ferrelhadley]

California drought.

 

[Dr Jon]

I see that the entire Greenland ice sheet is going now.

ETA
What We Know

The What We Know initiative is dedicated to ensuring that three “R’s” of climate change communicated to the public.

• The first is Reality — 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.
• The second is Risk — that the reality of climate change means that there are climate change impacts we can expect, but we also must consider what might happen, especially the small, but real, chance that we may face abrupt changes with massively disruptive impacts.
• The third R is Response — that there is much we can do and that the sooner we respond, the better off we will be.

The What We Know initiative will include outreach to scientists, economists, community leaders, policy makers and the public at large over the following months via meetings and media outreach.

Latest CO2 Reading
401.34 ppm
March 17, 2014

Ralph Keeling, director of the CO2 and O2 measurement programs at Scripps, said that the next significant milestone to be passed will be monthly averages in excess of 400 ppm. Fossil fuel burning continues to increase concentrations of the greenhouse gas to levels not seen in human history and not in perhaps as many as 3 to 5 million years.

“We’re already seeing values over 400,” said Keeling. “Probably we’ll see values dwelling over 400 in April and May. It’s just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever.”

 

[Dr Jon]

New research published by team from UEA:
Future heat waves pose threat to global food supply

ETA

At the moment, a large part of Russia is experiencing temperature anomalies at the highest end of the scale, i.e. more than 36°F (20°C) warmer than average past records.

20°C!


link

and in the Graun:
The climate change deniers have won

David Cameron, who once promised that if you voted blue you would go green, now appoints Owen Paterson, a man who is not just ignorant of environmental science but proud of his ignorance, as his environment secretary. George Osborne, who once promised that his Treasury would be "at the heart of this historic fight against climate change", now gives billions in tax concessions to the oil and gas industry, cuts the funds for onshore wind farms and strips the Green Investment Bank of the ability to borrow and lend

Watch thou for the fuckwit!

 

[ferrelhadley]

 

[Dr Jon]

We should give up trying to save the world from climate change says James Lovelock.

More of this sort of thing?

Or maybe some floating fields?

 

[CNT36]

We should give up trying to save the world from climate change says James Lovelock.

More of this sort of thing?

Or maybe some floating fields?

I'm sure there is someone ready and waiting to build them - http://www.newscientist.com/article...ng-spun-into-corporate-gain.html#.U0U0YahdUnY

 

[Dr Jon]

Without doubt

 

[ferrelhadley]

China Cuts in Coal Use May Mean World Emissions Peak Before 2020

Global greenhouse-gas emissions may peak before 2020 if China achieves a plan to drastically cut its coal use, reducing carbon production equivalent to Australian and Canadian output combined, Greenpeace says.

Twelve of 34 Chinese provinces have set targets that would lower consumption of the fuel by 655 million metric tons by the end of the decade, the environmental campaign group said today. That would reduce CO2 emissions by 1,300 million tons by 2020, according to Li Shuo, a policy officer at Greenpeace.

Believable? Perhaps not. But they do have a growing political problem with pollution.

 

[free spirit]

China Cuts in Coal Use May Mean World Emissions Peak Before 2020

Believable? Perhaps not. But they do have a growing political problem with pollution.

yes, but unfortunately it appears that all that happens is that the price of coal drops so much that everyone else starts burning it more, us included.

 

[DownwardDog]

yes, but unfortunately it appears that all that happens is that the price of coal drops so much that everyone else starts burning it more, us included.

It's pretty obvious that humans are going to burn every scrap of coal, oil and gas we can extract from the Earth's crust. Any plan that assumes anything different is probably going to be bollocks.

 

[free spirit]

It's pretty obvious that humans are going to burn every scrap of coal, oil and gas we can extract from the Earth's crust. Any plan that assumes anything different is probably going to be bollocks.

if we rely on free market mechanisms then yes, everytime coal consumption drops the price will drop and it will then undercut the replacement forcing it out of business.

Coal use needs to be capped globally, with the amount allowed to be mined each year being cut year by year, anything less and any gains in one country will just be offset by more coal burning elsewhere.

 

[ferrelhadley]

yes, but unfortunately it appears that all that happens is that the price of coal drops so much that everyone else starts burning it more, us included.

We do not have the capacity to burn much more coal as we are closing many of our plants to meet the Large Combustion Plant Directive.
With the exception of the US, I cannot think of many places where coal has been displaced due to cost. If the price of coal drops, it may become more affordable for some economies, but there is little else driving a big expansion of coal. If the EU and China are reducing their carbon per $ GDP then there will be a big pressure from them to price carbon, making their more carbon efficient economies pay.

I am not blown away by the likely hood of China following through on this, but if they do then they will have a strong incentive to push for a stronger, more binding global treaty.

We are obviously rather late in the day but maybe its a bit of good news.

 

[Dr Jon]

We do not have the capacity to burn much more coal as we are closing many of our plants to meet the Large Combustion Plant Directive the Tories are closing the last of our pits.

Corrected for you.
link

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It's pretty obvious that humans are going to burn every scrap of coal, oil and gas we can extract from the Earth's crust. Any plan that assumes anything different is probably going to be bollocks.

I couldn't quite bring myself to hit 'like' here, but I have to say I think you're probably correct nonetheless. At least while we are subject to capitalism or anything like it.

(To deal in advance with the obvious objections, the Soviet Union and China would definitely count as 'anything like it' in my mind - see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism)

 

[Quartz]

At least while we are subject to capitalism or anything like it.

Actually, capitalism offers a way forward as, under capitalism, at some point it will become uneconomic to use fossil fuels and more economic to use something else. Further, capitalism offers huge incentives to finding economic replacements.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The other one has bells on it.

 

[Awesome Wells]

As I understand it there is a certain amount (2%?) of warming that is inevitable, another similar amount is due by the end of the century unless something is done.

What is the best book on this subject? Preferably aimed at the layman. Thanks.

 

[Dr Jon]

Try "What we know" from AAAS as a starting point.

 

[Quartz]

I am not blown away by the likely hood of China following through on this, but if they do then they will have a strong incentive to push for a stronger, more binding global treaty.

After China it will be India and Indonesia and all the other poor places. Each will experience pollution in their turn and eventually clean up. And, I hope, in a few hundred years, it will be seen as a step in humanity's development and there will be wonder at what all the fuss was about.

 

[Dr Jon]

I just watched Thom Hartmann interview Guy McPherson, who makes the following points:

• there's a 40 year lag between emission and temperature rise
  
• the 0.8° rise we see today is due to emissions up to ~ 1974
• since then, we've emitted more GHGs than the total for the previous 236 years
• the temperature rise for that little lot is already in the pipeline
  
• we ain't seen nothin yet

link

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

There's at least a little good news today:

In May, we reported that the world's greenhouse gas emissions rose to record levels in 2011, rising 3.2%, because China's jumped a treacherous 9.3%.

But there's a positive side to the story. Emissions in the US and EU dropped, 1.7% and 1.9% respectively. The warm winter helped, and the sluggish economy was certainly a factor, but the biggest change was the drop in coal use in favor of natural gas.

"The replacement of coal by shale gas is a key factor and what happened in the U.S. could very well happen in China and other countries and could definitely help in reducing CO2 emissions," says International Energy Agency (IEA) chief economist Fatih Birol.

Shale gas, of course, is loaded with problems - water and air pollution, and the current practice of letting methane vent into the atmosphere - but let's look at the impact of reducing coal.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23803

This is the important bit:

Since 2006, the US has reduced carbon emissions more than any country or region, falling 7.7%, says the IEA. This is equal to taking 84 million passenger vehicles off the road, and is primarily attributable to using less coal.

(their bold, not mine).

 

[Dr Jon]

One small step.
What we really need is a giant leap.

A 1000 mile journey starts with the 1st step: I suspect we need to quicken our pace.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

One small step.
What we really need is a giant leap.

A 1000 mile journey starts with the 1st step: I suspect we need to quicken our pace.

I agree. Even if we keep cutting back at the current rate we're likely to blow past some very major tipping points if we don't pick up the pace.

 

[ferrelhadley]

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/0...in.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Denialst\liberatarian think tank loses case to maul through the personal communications of a famed climate scientist.