Not really, since it is bipartisan and not really what I advocate actually.A political ad?
It is so difficult to write something that addresses the complexity of climate change mitigation strategy and still is readable and comprehensible to the general public.I'm not seeing any figures, so that looks just like an advertising campaign rather than a serious proposal.
I have no issues against Nuclear where appropriate. What makes you say that?"Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change?"
Yes.
"and what is preventing its implementation?"
Ideology on all sides (and that includes the link - pure ideology).
We know how to dramatically reduce emissions because several countries have done it successfully - but none since we started actually "trying" to reduce emissions.
France did it. Ontario did it. South Korea did it - all in the late 70s and 80s. None have come close since because the successful method clashes will the ideology of the greens.
This is a slightly biased opinion piece about a US bill. Scott Strough, a "researcher in carbon farming as a climate change mitigation strategy", emphasizes his area of interest and minimizes other climate change mitigation strategies without justification.
His "It won't work,..." statement is not supported by his reference.
Earth 'Locked Into' Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years (2016)
Carolyn Snyder wrote a doctorial thesis that reconstructed the last 2 million years of temperature. Part of this was published in a Nature paper. The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C. This is not a prediction about the effects of reducing CO2 emissions.
Under appropriate conditions, 40%-60% of carbon fixed in green
leaves can be transferred to soil and rapidly humified, resulting in
rates of soil carbon sequestration in the order of five to 20 tonnes of
CO2 per hectare per year[2]
Correct. The issue is that the cited article and paper do not say that lowering emissions will not work as was written. It says that not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.It is a prediction that if we actually don't lower atmospheric CO2, then temperatures continue to rise anyway.
lowering emissions is not the same as reducing atmospheric CO2.Correct. The issue is that the cited article and paper do not say that lowering emissions will not work as was written. It says that not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.
That leaves us with all climate change mitigation strategies.
A strategy we know can stop global warming is lowering emissions. This is well known technology.
Another strategy is carbon sequestration which is not just changing farming with its current uncertainty and possible economic issues.
Other more extreme strategies not off the table, e.g.
Maybe this will help your understanding.I'm still trying to figure out how paying farmers to sequester carbon will stimulate the economy.
I and the cited article and paper did not write that, Red Baron Farms. The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.lowering emissions is not the same as reducing atmospheric CO2.
The goal is to stop global warming from reaching unacceptable levels by 2100. It seems not practical to reverse global warming.Climate change mitigation consists of actions to limit the magnitude or rate of long-term global warming and its related effects.[2] Climate change mitigation generally involves reductions in human (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).[3] Mitigation may also be achieved by increasing the capacity of carbon sinks, e.g., through reforestation.[3] Mitigation policies can substantially reduce the risks associated with human-induced global warming.[4]
A reference that does not mention paying farmers to sequester carbon and whether it would stimulate the economy, Red Baron FarmsMaybe this will help your understanding.
Exactly what I said.I and the cited article and paper did not write that, Red Baron Farms. The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.
No. Lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough. You literally just contradicted yourself.Lowering carbon emissions enough stabilizes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus stops global warming.
Eventually as in thousands of years from now. This because of reinforcing feedbacks in the system already triggered. It is not a AGW reversal strategy with any hope of success.Lowering carbon emissions to zero eventually reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus reverses global warming. I think that the main uptake of C02 will be the oceans.
It isn't without drawdown, but drawdown is possible. And exactly unacceptable to who? The Syrians might claim, with some justification, it already reached unacceptable levels.Lowering carbon emissions is a key element of climate change mitigation
The goal is to stop global warming from reaching unacceptable levels by 2100. It seems not practical to reverse global warming.
Climate change has implications for human health and productivity. Models suggest that heat extremes affect worker health, reduce labor capacity, and commodity supply. Chronic health conditions are on the rise internationally. However there is a paucity of direct empirical evidence relating increasing temperatures to both agricultural worker health and productivity.
The impact of heat and impaired kidney function on productivity of Guatemalan sugarcane workers
Exactly what I said.....
There is no lowering of carbon emission in that quote. It is lowering of atmospheric CO2 by any means and that it does not happen.I and the cited article and paper did not write that, Red Baron Farms. The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.
Lowering carbon emissions will reduce global warming to acceptable levels ("stop global warming "). That may include lowering atmospheric CO2 over the next 80 years.A strategy we know can stop global warming is lowering emissions. This is well known technology.
Again you just quoted the damn thing. You said it yourself. "The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years."There is no lowering of carbon emission in that quote. It is lowering of atmospheric CO2 by any means and that it does not happen.
Then I went on to climate change mitigation strategies which are ways expected to reduce global warming to acceptable levels by 2100.
Lowering carbon emissions will reduce global warming to acceptable levels ("stop global warming "). That may include lowering atmospheric CO2 over the next 80 years.
A bit of reading incomprehension, Red Baron Farms. Listing the effects of the levels of carbon emissions is science, not a contradiction.Lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough. You literally just contradicted yourself.
Again you are wrong, Red Baron Farms. One more time:Again Reducing emissions is not enough.
If carbon emissions increase then obviously global warming increases! yesIf carbon emissions stay the same then global warming increases!yesIf carbon emissions decrease then global warming deceases!no! wrong! still increases for thousands of years!If carbon emissions decrease a lot (e.g. to zero) then global warming deceases!No wrongStill increases for thousands of years!A bit of reading incomprehension, Red Baron Farms. Listing the effects of the levels of carbon emissions is science, not a contradiction.
If carbon emissions increase then obviously global warming increases!
If carbon emissions stay the same then global warming increases!
If carbon emissions decrease then global warming deceases!
If carbon emissions decrease a lot (e.g. to zero) then global warming deceases!
It is not just "fossil fuel emissions", I wrote "carbon emissions". The two biggest contributors are cement production and use, and burning fossil fuels.
Same question that you should have asked on reading the article.
Give your scientific sources that state that lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough to mitigate global warming, Red Baron Farms.
Ask yourself why climate scientists emphasize lowering carbon emissions.
Ask yourself why climate change treaties emphasize lowering carbon emissions.
The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.If carbon emissions decrease a lot (e.g. to zero) then global warming deceases!No wrongStill increases for thousands of years!...
This is actually not a paper on mitigating global warming to acceptable levels as in treaties and most papers. "The Paris climate agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2℃, and ideally no higher than 1.5℃" and then Rohling selects a 1℃ limit because the same happened in the "Eemian period, 125,000 years ago" with sea levels up to 10 meters higher than present We may have already crossed that threshold. But there has been no modern up to 10 meter rise in sea levels!Getting climate change under control is a formidable, multifaceted challenge. Analysis by my colleagues and me suggests that staying within safe warming levels now requires removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The technology to do this is in its infancy and will take years, even decades, to develop, but our analysis suggests that this must be a priority. If pushed, operational large-scale systems should be available by 2050.
We created a simple climate model and looked at the implications of different levels of carbon in the ocean and the atmosphere. This lets us make projections about greenhouse warming, and see what we need to do to limit global warming to within 1.5℃ of pre-industrial temperatures – one of the ambitions of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
I am done talking to idiots. If you cant do basic carbon cycle pool math...then it is impossible to go forward. There just isn't going to be any scientific paper saying "to lower atmospheric CO2 requires negative emissions." That is like asking for a scientific paper saying 412 ppm CO2 + x = 300 ppm but not understanding x must be a negative 112 ppm CO2.The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.
Give your scientific sources that state that lowering fossil fuel emissions to zero leaves global warming increasing for thousands of years, Red Baron Farms.
Give your scientific sources that state that lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough to mitigate global warming, Red Baron Farms.
I have no issues against Nuclear where appropriate.
It's true that I did not define "appropriate". But we can imagine "appropriate" meaning in a stable technically advanced enough nation with land areas not subject to high risk of earthquake and volcanism etc... These are relatively common though, so certainly a majority of the civilized world should be capable of using nuclear energy generated electricity as a significant portion of their grid. Of course where it is the cheapest low carbon alternative. Hydroelectric and wind can often be cheaper. In certain cases even solar too.Gotta love when the debunking of the sentence is in the very sentence itself.
"Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change?"
Yes.
"and what is preventing its implementation?"
Ideology on all sides (and that includes the link - pure ideology).
We know how to dramatically reduce emissions because several countries have done it successfully - but none since we started actually "trying" to reduce emissions.
France did it. Ontario did it. South Korea did it - all in the late 70s and 80s. None have come close since because the successful method clashes will the ideology of the greens.
Insults are not a good debate tactic, Red Baron Farms.I am done talking to idiots....
My doubts about the article and paper is the choice of 1 ℃ when the accord limits are below 2 ℃ or ideally below 1.5 ℃. The Eemian period had "Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today" and global temperatures "around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 Fahrenheit) warmer than that of the Holocene". We have just probably passed the [Eemian temperatures. But we have not had a sea level rise of over 6 meters (yet)! That suggests that modern conditions are different and the comparison is incorrect. Sea level rises - Projections for the 21st century up to 2100 range from about 1 meter (IPCC 2013) to "several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years" (Jim Hansen, the lead author of the above paper).We need to get rid of carbon in the atmosphere, not just reduce emissions
This is actually not a paper on mitigating global warming to acceptable levels as in treaties and most papers. "The Paris climate agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2℃, and ideally no higher than 1.5℃" and then Rohling selects a 1℃ limit because the same happened in the "Eemian period, 125,000 years ago" with sea levels up to 10 meters higher than present We may have already crossed that threshold. But there has been no modern up to 10 meter rise in sea levels!
Note that Eelco Rohling does not list changes in farming as a way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The underlying paper is Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions by James Hansen et. al. which does have "improved agricultural and forestry practices, including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content,".
No That is not what it suggests. It simply means we have not reached stability at CURRENT levels of CO2 yet. (radiative balance) Much less the addition point based on future emissions. If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow, both fossil fuel and cement, then we still keep warming for hundreds or thousands of years based on CURRENT levels of CO2. Until one day far in the future we finally reach radiative balance again. This paper projects thousands of years rather than hundreds to achieve radiative balance. I have seen other papers claiming far less. But all pretty much agree that we are far from that point now and it takes significant time for temps to catch up because we raised CO2 so quickly.Insults are not a good debate tactic, Red Baron Farms.
Demanding that I do "basic carbon cycle pool math" that you have not done in this thread is not a good debate tactic, Red Baron Farms.
Nor is misrepresenting my question: Give your scientific sources that state that lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough to mitigate global warming, Red Baron Farms.
There are no negative emissions in that question!
Nor is a display of inability to understand a post when I wrote about the link you gave in post #24 and even gave you the paper that article is based on.
My doubts about the article and paper is the choice of 1 ℃ when the accord limits are below 2 ℃ or ideally below 1.5 ℃. The Eemian period had "Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today" and global temperatures "around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 Fahrenheit) warmer than that of the Holocene". We have just probably passed the [Eemian temperatures. But we have not had a sea level rise of over 6 meters (yet)! That suggests that modern conditions are different and the comparison is incorrect. Sea level rises - Projections for the 21st century up to 2100 range from about 1 meter (IPCC 2013) to "several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years" (Jim Hansen, the lead author of the above paper).
Wrong. What the article and paper state is that under 2 scenarios of future CO2 emissions plugged into their climate model, we can pass their limit of 1 ℃ by 2100 and thus negative emissions are needed.No That is not what it suggests. It simply means we have not reached stability at CURRENT levels of CO2 yet.
You made the assertion.Wrong. What the article and paper state is that under 2 scenarios of future CO2 emissions plugged into their climate model, we can pass their limit of 1 ℃ by 2100 and thus negative emissions are needed.
There is no zero carbon emission scenario in the article or paper or anything you have cited.
An unsupported "keep warming for hundreds or thousands of years based on CURRENT levels of CO2" assertion.
Give your scientific sources, Red Baron Farms.
The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C.
No. I wrote The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C. This is not a prediction about the effects of reducing CO2 emissions.You made the assertion. ...insults snipped...
No That is not what it suggests. It simply means we have not reached stability at CURRENT levels of CO2 yet. (radiative balance) Much less the addition point based on future emissions. If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow, both fossil fuel and cement, then we still keep warming for hundreds or thousands of years based on CURRENT levels of CO2.
That's simply because you are refusing to accept that there are more ways to stabilize atmospheric levels at roughly current levels.No. I wrote The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C. This is not a prediction about the effects of reducing CO2 emissions.
But you wrote "If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow, both fossil fuel and cement, then we still keep warming for hundreds or thousands of years based on CURRENT levels of CO2." That is a prediction about effects of reducing CO2 emissions.
This is not "if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels". You have skipped a step. You have to cite the scientific literature that states:
If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow, both fossil fuel and cement (your condition)Thus over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C.
Then CO2 levels will stabilize at current levels (the paper's condition).
P.S. I think that you are right. But then you keep writing that I am ignorant so my agreement is moot.
The problem with the trees is that they don't sequester carbon efficiently enough. The Grassland biome is far better at that and explains why the vast prairies of the world had produced the deepest blackest rich high carbon soils. Much more than forest soils.I think we kinda knew a way to store carbon ever since we figured out the Carboniferous, innit? There's a clue in the name right there.
I'd figure, just plant some vast areas with beans for a few years to fix the nitrogen in the soil without spending more carbon to make fertilizers, plant it with fast growing evergreens, cut them down, store the wood somewhere, repeat. And hey, you can eat the beans too.
For some reason though it's not as popular as some spectacularly idiotic plans, like, say, somehow industrially separating the carbon dioxide and pumping it under immense pressure into some cans underground. I guess you don't make political headlines by just proposing to plant some trees. Nor appeal to the kind of demographic for whom "green" is just an excuse for "well, that's too complicated, let's just kill off humans instead" fantasies.
the relation between Mollisols and grassland or steppe has been recognized for more than a century (Shantz 1923). Soils containing a mollic epipedon are among the world’s most productive soils (Liu et al. 2012). The thickness and high soil organic carbon (SOC) contents of the mollic epipedon mean that these soils have sequestered large amounts of C over long periods of time.[1]
The problem with the trees is that they don't sequester carbon efficiently enough.
Here we show, using state-of-the-art datasets, that vegetation currently stores around 450 petagrams of carbon. In the hypothetical absence of land use, potential vegetation would store around 916 petagrams of carbon, under current climate conditions. This difference highlights the massive effect of land use on biomass stocks. Deforestation and other land-cover changes are responsible for 53–58% of the difference between current and potential biomass stocks. Land management effects (the biomass stock changes induced by land use within the same land cover) contribute 42–47%,
The problem with the trees is that they don't sequester carbon efficiently enough. The Grassland biome is far better at that and explains why the vast prairies of the world had produced the deepest blackest rich high carbon soils. Much more than forest soils.![]()