• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
bit_pattern said:
Oh FFS not this **** again. If you want to have this argument then please go and take it up in the US China Deal thread that you lost it in last time and don't derail this one. That way we can easily refer to the counterpoints to the failed arguments you made there and are trying to resurrect here.
Click to expand...

Since this is a global warming discussion, it's germane to project what future levels of global warming will be.

"But experts and negotiators cautioned that the emissions reductions targets now put forth by the two countries will not be enough to prevent an increase in global atmospheric temperature of 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 Fahrenheit. That is the point where scientists say the planet will tip into a future of dangerous and irreversible warming, which will include the loss of vast stretches of arable land, rapid melting of Arctic sea ice, rising sea levels, extreme droughts, storms and flooding."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/w...s-hopes-for-upcoming-paris-climate-talks.html

Cheap oil and natural gas are the worst things that could happen to the environment. What do you think India is going to do? Invest billions in renewables that aren't even close to competitive with fossil fuels, or do what China did- build a coal-fired plant a week? The Indian PM could care less about reducing emissions, and is on record saying as much.

America has the largest coal reserves in the world. We've been exporting coal to developing countries for decades. That's not going to let-up anytime soon. In fact, we'll soon be exporting oil. In this political environment, the ban on oil exports will be struck down as soon as we produce more than we consume.
 
bit_pattern said:
Oh FFS not this **** again. If you want to have this argument then please go and take it up in the US China Deal thread that you lost it in last time and don't derail this one. That way we can easily refer to the counterpoints to the failed arguments you made there and are trying to resurrect here.
Click to expand...

LOL, even the proponents of the deal admit it won't stop catastrophic global warming from happening.

In the real world, developing countries are going to invest in cheap power. Why wouldn't they? What does India care more about, the epidemic of grinding poverty in their country, or nebulous non-binding reductions in CO2 emissions. Their own PM has made it clear where their priorities stand.

Can the atmosphere handle yet another country with a billion people that could care less about CO2 emissions rapidly industrializing? Hmm...

countries_co2_emissions.jpg


See these climbing orange and purple lines? That's all you need to see to know the world is screwed.
 
Posting that graph over and over again, in different sizes and different colours really isn't advancing your argument - again, I would invite you to take any discussion pertaining the the US/China deal to the thread dedicated to the topic and not continue to derail this thread with your oversized images and broken-record style arguments. I shan't engage any further with you here.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
LOL, even the proponents of the deal admit it won't stop catastrophic global warming from happening.

See these climbing orange and purple lines? That's all you need to see to know the world is screwed.
Click to expand...
Depends though. Those are emissions graphs. Nothing there about sequestration.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Depends though. Those are emissions graphs. Nothing there about sequestration.
Click to expand...

It seems to be a pipe-dream, at present:

"Meanwhile, the facts on the ground—and in the air—are quite grim. “So far, we have achieved almost nothing in terms of mitigation of emissions, which are tracking at the upper limit for future emission scenarios. Indeed, in the last decade the world economy has actually recarbonized—shifted back to coal,” says David Victor, professor of international relations and director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531531/carbon-sequestration-too-little-too-late/
 
bit_pattern said:
Posting that graph over and over again, in different sizes and different colours really isn't advancing your argument - again, I would invite you to take any discussion pertaining the the US/China deal to the thread dedicated to the topic and not continue to derail this thread with your oversized images and broken-record style arguments. I shan't engage any further with you here.
Click to expand...

Graphs like that SETTLE the argument- what will the impact of developing countries be on the climate? Not good, unless recent trends not only stop, but are reversed. What are the chances of India and China reducing their emissions? India is on record saying it's not a priority. China has agreed to cap emissions in 2030.

Global emissions of 40 billion tons of CO2 a year will devastate the climate, even in the short term. Any belief that global emissions will not increase in the next 20 years is not reality-based, as I've shown. The atmosphere cannot handle another 800 billion tons of CO2. Therefore, catastrophic climate change is going to occur.

That's all I'll say on it here. You're welcome to live in a fantasy world where China, India, and the rest of the developing world suddenly reverse course. Dream big.
 
Both the US and EU have reduced emissions and that wil continue to fall...you have ZERO grounds to criticize China so what is your point?
I fully expect the planet will not avoid a 3-4 degree increase.
I am also of the opinion the transition is in progress.

I suspect India will surprise us greatly with a major shift to solar.
China has 26 nukes on the go - just how much more can you expect them to to do given the transition from emerging to first world economy.

China may surprise and be first to a sustainable energy economy...look what they've done in the last 40 years. Besides....China's emissions per capita are minsicule.



they just have a lot of people.

Meanwhile we are slow cooking the planet and this thread is about the science around that fact and how the consequences are unfolding.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
It seems to be a pipe-dream, at present:

"Meanwhile, the facts on the ground—and in the air—are quite grim. “So far, we have achieved almost nothing in terms of mitigation of emissions, which are tracking at the upper limit for future emission scenarios. Indeed, in the last decade the world economy has actually recarbonized—shifted back to coal,” says David Victor, professor of international relations and director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531531/carbon-sequestration-too-little-too-late/
Click to expand...
Gee and I managed to increase my carbon in my soils by over 1% in a single year and make a tidy profit at the same time. 1.4% to 2.6 % to be precise. If it is a pipe dream then I certainly must be a dreamer.:D My trials seem to indicate that not only is it possible, yields and profits increase as well. Too soon to say if I can keep that rate of sequestration long term though.
It might even increase! ;)


How does that relate to China? Just so happens China is also embarking on the largest ecological restoration project on the planet. Surely that will take a significant chunk out of their net emissions.

How ecological restoration alters ecosystem services: an analysis of carbon sequestration in China's Loess Plateau
 
Last edited:
I hope you guys are right, and I'm just a cynic by nature. Maybe we'll get a big wake-up call that will get everyone on board, like with CFC's.

I argue with you guys, but I'm not a denialist. I really hope for the best. My kid is 14. I'm only 39. I'll probably be a grandpa within a decade. I hope my grandkids don't have to worry about this. I was raised by my dad to think that disaster is lurking around every corner. Maybe they'll be a breakthrough in carbon sequestration. Who knows.
 
Fudbucker said:
It seems to be a pipe-dream, at present:

"Meanwhile, the facts on the ground—and in the air—are quite grim. “So far, we have achieved almost nothing in terms of mitigation of emissions, which are tracking at the upper limit for future emission scenarios. Indeed, in the last decade the world economy has actually recarbonized—shifted back to coal,” says David Victor, professor of international relations and director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531531/carbon-sequestration-too-little-too-late/
Click to expand...

Largely agreed, that is why my focus has pushed more to the adaptation and survival processes while trying to avoid the worst-case scenarios rather than the idea that we can make the major and near immediate changes necessary to avoid the miseries that are already occurring and amplifying.
 
Fudbucker said:
Graphs like that SETTLE the argument- what will the impact of developing countries be on the climate? Not good, unless recent trends not only stop, but are reversed. What are the chances of India and China reducing their emissions? India is on record saying it's not a priority. China has agreed to cap emissions in 2030.

Global emissions of 40 billion tons of CO2 a year will devastate the climate, even in the short term. Any belief that global emissions will not increase in the next 20 years is not reality-based, as I've shown. The atmosphere cannot handle another 800 billion tons of CO2. Therefore, catastrophic climate change is going to occur.

That's all I'll say on it here. You're welcome to live in a fantasy world where China, India, and the rest of the developing world suddenly reverse course. Dream big.
Click to expand...

If the US/China deal were the only deal planned or possible, I would fully agree with you. However, I feel that it is but a first tentative step, one that could lead to more substantive and impactful future international deals, and as such should be viewed in that light. If the future deals fail to materialize, then this first step doesn't accomplish much, but it sets the potential stage for those future deal much better than not attempting the deal at all. I don't understand how you think we would be better off without the US/China deal?
 
Fudbucker said:
I hope you guys are right, and I'm just a cynic by nature. Maybe we'll get a big wake-up call that will get everyone on board, like with CFC's.

I argue with you guys, but I'm not a denialist. I really hope for the best. My kid is 14. I'm only 39. I'll probably be a grandpa within a decade. I hope my grandkids don't have to worry about this. I was raised by my dad to think that disaster is lurking around every corner. Maybe they'll be a breakthrough in carbon sequestration. Who knows.
Click to expand...
The breakthroughs have been largely made. (with many more hopefully to arrive soon) For example, new solar breakthroughs make it now even cheaper than fossil fuels in most applications.

Implementation is the issue. Nobody knows if or when that will happen. You are absolutely right, maybe there will be a wake-up call that gets everyone involved like happened with CFC's, and maybe not. Time will tell. But I can say that there are an awful lot of incredibly stubborn people working on it. Maybe even psychotically stubborn?:confused: And yes I do include myself as one of those ridiculously stubborn types working on it.:D Nobody better ever tell me it is impossible, just fires me up even more to prove them wrong!:mad:
 
Last edited:
Good explanation of the Antarctic sea ice...

Clarity on Antarctic sea ice.
Filed under: Climate Science — eric @ 19 December 2014
87EmailShare
I’ve always been a skeptic when it comes to Antarctic sea ice. I’m not referring here to the tiresome (and incorrect) claim that the expansion of sea ice around Antarctica somehow cancels out the dramatic losses of sea ice in the Arctic (NB: polar bears don’t really care if there is sea ice in Antarctica or not). Rather, I’m referring to the idea that the observation of Antarctic sea ice expansion represents a major conundrum in our understanding of the climate system, something one hears even from knowledgeable commentators. In this post, I’ll try to provide some clarity on this subject, with some basic background and discussion of a couple of important recent papers.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ty-on-antarctic-sea-ice/#sthash.u55yPgbV.dpuf
Click to expand...
 
Greenland's disappearing ice shifted gears in the past decade, switching from shrinking glaciers to surface melting, researchers reported here last week at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting.

Instead of losing ice where massive glaciers meet the sea, Greenland now sends meltwater rushing into the ocean via a vast network of lakes and rivers, according to several studies. The results do not mean that glaciers have stopped their speedy flow, only that surface melting now exerts a more powerful influence on ice loss, researchers said.

"We no longer see giant icebergs calving" from glaciers, releasing ice into the sea, said Lora Koenig, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who led one of the new studies. "The majority of water is coming from surface melt."
Koenig discovered that lakes in west Greenland now stay liquid through the frigid winter, as long as an insulating snow blanket keeps the water warm. These lakes get a head start on melting the next summer. "Water is not a good thing to have persisting year-round," Koenig said Dec. 15 at a news conference. "What this water is really doing is priming the pump [for melting] for the next season."
Click to expand...

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/surface-melt-adds-to-ice-loss-in-greenland-141224.htm
 
Five bits of research that shaped climate science in 2014
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/five-pieces-of-research-that-shaped-climate-science-in-2014/

1. Pacific winds drive surface warming slowdown
2. West Antarctic glaciers show signs of collapsing
3. Antarctic sea ice measurements hit record high
4. The link between Arctic sea-ice loss and extreme winters got a bit stronger. Maybe
5. Record summer heatwaves are ten times more likely with climate change
Click to expand...
Point 4 might seem a bit weak, but it's progress in a very active area of research with major implications (either way).

The Greenland research has been edged out, but then there is a great deal going on. It's the upside of the "more research is needed" policy which committed us to watching the whole thing unfold.
 
bit_pattern said:
Narendra Modi is a keen supporter of solar as a means of development - also, watch this space, the basis for a bilateral US/India climate deal was fleshed out in Lima and there will be a significant announcement next month :)
Click to expand...
My reading of Modi, for what it's worth, is that he's a political tactician by nature and not one to depend on for a strategy. Support for solar is clearly a good tactic in many areas but so may be catering for fossil-fuel interests in others. We shall see.

To me it's glaringly obvious that a conscious transition away from fossil fuels to renewables, with all its economic and industrial implications, is the only sound strategy for any government thinking of its nation's future. The winners and not-losers of the medium to long term will not be running on fossil-fuels, and any capital sunk into fossil-fuels now is capital lost.

In the real world, of course, politicians decide what governments think and do, and politics favours tacticians over strategists.
 
There are so many jobs in renewables and the materials costs are way way down now.
In Canada there are now more new jobs being created in renewables than in the fossil sector.

Places like India with abundant labor and a good high tech section should be be a natural for a home grown energy sector tho I think China will be a huge supplier initiaily.

I can see China offshoring the worst of it's industrial production to both India and Africa and perhaps Indonesia in return for raw materials. This should be good for all concerned.
This clearly is China's century.

First world will focus on better and hopefully the US will get out of its "frontier" mindset and start husbanding resources instead of exploiting them.

Japan and EU are both moving towards a low population growth with a focus on sustainable with Sweden and Norway setting standards.

I can't see the UK avoiding some serious difficulty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom