 |
 |
Hi Kevin – this is no mere rumour I am afraid. The 6C by 2100 has made headlines since 2008. The International Energy Agency is the agency that was formed to keep the oil flowing round the world which makes it especially credible. I attach the best MIT computer result for IPCC scenario A1FI, that we are fixed on. This puts us at above 7C by 2100, that I worked out in 2007 based on including the feedbacks that the IPCC 2007 assessment omitted. The combination is inescapable. We are adding heat at the fastest ever rate, and the feedbacks are huge many and positive – meaning they amplify the warming. Peter http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/03/oil-production-global-warming http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/2011/12/02/climate-%E2%80%9Ccatastrophe%E2%80%9D-6c-dead-ahead-iea http://dgrnewsservice.org/2012/04/24/iea-says-inaction-on-climate-change-is-putting-the-planet-on-track-for-6c-warming/ From: Kevin Coleman Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:48 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Mega-tsunami in N Atlantic and denial of life-threats I am not doubting your collective views but can someone provide more specific evidence of this 6°C rise by 2100 as stated by the European Geophysical Union Assembly so that we can properly knobble the government. Otherwise we will be relying upon mere rumour and we all know how ineffective that is when faced with obnoxious industries who don't want to change their habits or profit margins. More so with obnoxious ministers who don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Kev C CCG <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Re: 6C by end of century, I think the waters are somewhat muddier than that. Certainly continuing with business as usual assures 6C at the very least as I believe it ignores multiple positive feedback effects and principally accounts for continuing carbon dioxide emissions, and as such as would theoretically see more temperature increase if we were able to continue business as usual for so long. However in reality civilisation arguably cannot continue to operate in that manner and collapse will at least mostly prevent further human release of carbon dioxide - even though natural feedbacks may well add a significant portion into the system anyway. Given the issues noted at <1C in the current day it seems more important that people understand the severity of the problems being experienced today and likely to be experienced in the much nearer future (there is a bigger lie here - that the world was fine without climate change - it wasn't). To that extent I agree entirely that the present day situation ought to be classified as an emergency and people ought to be better informed. The focus arguably ought to be on what happens in the next few years as Arctic changes really start to bite. The language of decades and centuries has been used for too long and is no longer entirely appropriate. One can do one's little bit to try to raise public awareness of the issues - it's hard to see what one can do beyond that though. It takes critical mass - and against the backdrop of greed fuelled misinformation and vested interests that run the show to boot. Regards, Douglas PS Many people voice the opinion that the public and governments will magically change if things only get bad enough. I fail to see this - or any real signs of this. It seems far more likely that when things get bad enough governments will start to declare states of emergency and martial law and try to retain control and compete for resources through any means available. And that, as they say, will be that. From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Carter Sent: 23 April 2013 23:46 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Mega-tsunami in N Atlantic and denial of life-threats We can talk about all kinds of emergency climate change mitigation measures, but unless the public is alerted to the fact we are all in a planetary climate emergency nothing is going to be done. Today we are committed to a 6C heating by 2100,..... 3C by 2050, 2C by 2035. This 6C 2100 is a real commitment, that only the International Energy Agency 2008 and every year) has been warning about. It is the most definite commitment because all national and international plans are to keep us on a fossil fuel dominated economy. There is no plan or mechanism to convert off fossil fuels. Even most scientists are unaware and those who are don’t want to talk about it - this is what I found at the European Geophysical Union Assembly where I presented the evidence for the planetary emergency. So I would urge we discuss ways to communicate the terrible situation to the public- who are being kept in the dark. Governments must be pressured to act and held accountable for their inaction. Regards, Peter Carter From: CCG Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:27 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Mega-tsunami in N Atlantic and denial of life-threats Ocean fertilisation using iron remains unproven and potentially questionable as I understand it. So the question is how one could achieve it without the issues associated with dumping iron compounds (a little different from much more widely dispersed windblown dust). Biochar is the best contender in my view - easy to motivate people to do it in theory with financial incentives. But for any CDR approach, you need to consider just how many gigatonnes of the stuff are being added to the atmosphere (to stay for a long time) every single year. To achieve meaningful drawdown you not only need to remove as much as is being added - but more on top. If anyone cares to provide verifiable calculations backing up the argument to say it's more than a minor option - I'd be interested (as is I think it requires near total elimination of emissions to come into reach for helping). Enhanced rock weathering I think is also a potential - although there is the small matter of energy inputs to grind the rock. For people to pay the true cost of their behaviour - absolutely - ideally with at least partial historic responsibility (otherwise we do injustice to younger people and all those who did not take so much advantage of the insanity -they are the people who have been robbed in any future they have). But only a solution with all necessary components even offers the slightest of collective chances, a few silver bullets are inadequate - even if adopted. While SRM geoengineering could potentially help buy a little more time (which could make a critical difference given how little time may remain) I think it must be seen in a much wider context. Otherwise it is like a borrower turning to payday loans to make it through another month. It does only harm if only used to postpone failure and I would favour faster collapse to do less ultimate damage in that scenario. Accordingly, my argument is that it is a worthwhile activity to devote at least some effort and thought to mitigating collapse in a failure scenario - to improve the lot of our species into the indefinite future beyond the dismal projections that appear probable currently. So few people seem to be considering this contingency planning question. The closest I suppose are transition groups - though they are less of a contingency approach and more one that intrinsically assumes upon all the other components of the necessary minimum solution (I would place their aspirations on 5 of my list - still a necessary component of a minimum collective solution). Regards, Douglas From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Aaron Franklin Sent: 23 April 2013 18:42 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Mega-tsunami in N Atlantic and denial of life-threats absolutely right about the trees taking too long. also the problem is there is not enough land for an effect in a useful time. This is not a problem with ocean fert, and since there was 50x more ocean fert due to natural windblown dust in glacial periods, and we have halved the natural ocean fert with our human intervention in the last century, there is no legitimate ecological objections to doing it. see my integrated systems plan for CO2 back to 280ppm in 10 years, linked earlier, for a plan that involves biofuels, ocean restoration, and reforestation, feeding the starving, all enhancing each other. Aaron On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Kevin Coleman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Slight snag with that idea. There is a time lag between what is released from the fossil fuel in terms of polluting carbon compounds and what is effective in mopping it all up again. A tree for instance is not capable of absorbing the co2 in any meaningful quantity until it reaches at least 30 years old and even older depending on the particular type of tree it is. Doesn't matter how much money you throw at a tree it isn't going to grow any quicker. The very best bet is to stop taking down forests, plant more forests, start leaving the fossil fuels in the ground altogether and start reducing our dependence on trinkets that need conflict minerals and electricity from the mains supply. Also add to that localisation of industry and services, decentralisation of food supplies and resource provisions and stop commuting everywhere. Also if stuff needs to be imported then ship it using sailing vessels. If it reduces the quantity then the scarcity of the commodity will make the price reflect the cost of importation and therefore make it worthwhile using sailing vessels. Trouble with modern society is that it is unwilling to change its bad habits. The bad habits are now seen as a right rather than as something to be earned or justified, other than in some sort of street cred competition with their peers. Until society changes its attitude there will be no improvement in the climate situation. Demand perpetuates supply and the fat cats get fatter as a result. Kev C On 23/04/2013 22:19, John Nissen wrote: Hi all, I fundamentally agree with Aaron. If people paid the full cost of repairing the damage caused by their pollution (and other sapping of environmental capital), plus a certain percentage extra, then we would have a chance to neutralise the damage and start to restore the planet. The best way to raise the levy would be at the point of fossil fuel extraction, because one would not need any further levy down the supply chain. This could be also applied to logging or other deforestation - pay at the point of extraction of the carbon, with a rebate for restoring the forest that's been cut down. Cheers, John -- On 23/04/2013 20:45, Aaron Franklin wrote: And IMO, telling the fossil addicts that have the reigns of the planet that its OK to burn the stuff a little longer, as long as you help us mop up your poo's, isn't a bad Idea. -- "Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare." Japanese Proverb