Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Catastrophic Climate Future: Are We That Stupid?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Verðandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 9th, 2018 @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    Luxembourg Luxembourg
    Location
    Asgård
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Two sisters
    Occupation
    Wyrd-weaver
    Posts
    1,470
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    153
    Thanked in
    91 Posts

    Catastrophic Climate Future: Are We That Stupid?

    Total carbon emissions give better estimate of peak warming.

    Most of us have heard the predictions: the meltdown of Arctic sea ice and mountain-top glaciers; extinction of species ranging from polar bears to coral reefs; catastrophic sea level rise that could eventually force the relocation of millions of coastal residents. Heat waves, malnutrition and famine, and wildfires would also be a greater risk to human communities if carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere are allowed to rise too high.

    Specifically, these could be the characteristics of a world where carbon dioxide has risen to 1,000 parts per million by 2100, as described this week in a Nature opinion essay by Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. (Currently carbon dioxide is at about 384 parst per million.)

    Reaching this level of carbon dioxide by the end of the century was presented as a worst-case scenario if nothing is done to curtail emissions in a 2000 special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    But "it's not the worst-case scenario," Scheider now argues. "The worst-case scenario could be worse."

    Until the economic downturn late last year, actual emissions have been higher than those in the IPCC scenario. So without any mitigation, "that's the track we're on now," Schneider told LiveScience.

    Schneider doesn't think emissions will continue on this path, however: "I don't think the world is going to be that stupid for most of the century," he said.

    Eventually, as we see more of the effects of warming, Schneider thinks that people will be galvanized into action and begin implementing cleaner technologies and cutting emissions.


    But that still leaves the question of how much to cut them by. Two new studies, in the same issue of Nature, hope to clear the air by finding a different way to ask the question: "How much carbon is too much?"



    Total carbon



    The potentially drastically different world that awaits us if global warming continues unabated is something scientists have been warning about for decades now. The solution has also long been clear: Curb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.


    But finding an agreement among the world's governments on how to go about cutting emissions, how soon to cut them, and how much to cut them by has been a much more challenging task.


    Having a better understanding of what kind of emissions reductions are needed is particularly important with new negotiations this year to extend and amend the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement between nations to reduce emissions that is set to expire in 2012 (one that the United States never signed).


    At the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 192 nations agreed to "to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."


    Scientists "have been preoccupied ever since in trying to decide what that level is," said Myles Allen of Oxford University, and lead author of one of the new studies. Most countries have proposed either stabilizing emissions to achieve a certain carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, or curbing emissions to stay under a maximum number of degrees of warming.


    But under those frameworks, "you'd never really know what it was you were allowed to emit," said Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Schmidt, who was not involved with the two new studies, wrote an accompanying editorial piece in same issue of the journal.


    Given uncertainties in the climate system, figuring out how much warming would actually occur has proven difficult.



    Simpler than expected?



    So Allen and his colleague and Malte Meinshausen of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and his colleagues took a different approach: Using computer models of various emissions scenarios and climate factors, they estimated the total amount of carbon that could be emitted and keep the world from going over 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above pre-industrial levels (a goal adopted by many countries), which is just a 1.2 degrees C rise from today.


    The upshot: "It's neither worse nor better than we thought, but the crucial message is it may be simpler than we thought," Allen said during a press briefing.

    The studies found that we can only emit 1,000 billion tonnes (1,100 tons) of carbon dioxide between 2000 and 2050 to keep our chance of going over the 2 degree C limit by 2100.


    That may seem like a lot of carbon, but that's only one quarter of the known economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves. And the world has already emitted one third of that budget in just nine years.


    "If we continue burning fossil fuels as we do, we will have exhausted the carbon budget in merely 20 years, and global warming will go well beyond 2 degrees," Meinshausen said.


    Put another way by Allen, a total emission of one trillion tones (1.1 trillion tons) of carbon over the entire period from 1750 to 2500 would likely cause a peak warming of 2 degrees C. About half of that has already been emitted since industrialization began.


    "It took 250 years to burn the first half trillion tones and on current trends, we'll burn the next half trillion in less than 40," Allen said.

    (The studies use different units and different base periods, which is why their numbers are different.)


    What the studies effectively show is that it's the total amount of carbon emitted, not the pace or timing of emissions that determine most of the warming response.


    "Mother Nature doesn't care about dates," Allen said. "To avoid dangerous climate change, we will have to limit the total amount of carbon we inject into the atmosphere, not just the emission rate in any given year."


    Schmidt cautions, though, that the 2-degree limit is not a magic number that we are "safe" below or in danger above. He thinks of the 2 degrees Celsius of warming proposed by many countries as "a speed limit on the situation," he told LiveScience. It lets you know when you're going too fast and might be in danger of a crash, but you could still have an accident at a slower speed.



    Policy plans



    While the idea that it's the total amount of carbon that ultimately determines the total amount of warming isn't new, this is the first time it's been used to frame the emissions reduction question. Allen, Meinshausen and their colleagues hope that it will give policy makers a clearer picture of the situation and a better basis for determining how to make reductions.


    "By treating the effective 'CO2 capacity' of the atmosphere as an exhaustible resource, we could provide governments and industry with simple, clear, and tractable guidance for long term planning," said David Frame, also of Oxford University and a co-author of Allen's study.


    Schmidt took the data from the studies and looked at the total emissions that would occur if all developed countries adopted the plan proposed by President Obama to lower emissions 80 percent by 2050. If this happened, the world would have a roughly 50/50 chance of staying under the 2 degree benchmark, Schmidt said.


    He noted that this framing could help policy makers see that "if you do all these things, it will make a difference. In fact, it will make the difference." (A common objection to the Kyoto Protocol was that its requirements would have little effect on warming trends.


    Meinshausen's team is slated to discuss their findings with Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel. Allen's team has also talked to economists and works with the UK Climate Change Committee, which advises Parliament.


    Schneider agrees that the approach is useful for policy, but thinks that it shouldn't be necessary to persuade people that the climate risks are high enough that we need to act.
    The probability of the catastrophic outcomes he described in his essay coming to pass are between 5 and 10 percent, he wrote. This is far below the 1 to 2 percent chance of having a fire in your house, "yet we buy insurance because of the consequences of the outcome," he said.


    But the next step is largely in the hands of governments and other policy makers, who will have to decide and how they want to make emissions reductions.

    Source...

  2. #2
    a.k.a. Langeraat
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Bittereinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 06:52 PM
    Ethnicity
    Boer
    Ancestry
    Netherlands, Germany & Norway
    Subrace
    Faordiby
    State
    Orange Free State Orange Free State
    Location
    Grootrivier
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Cognitive Dissident
    Politics
    Verwoerdian
    Religion
    Heretic
    Posts
    1,593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    200
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    280
    Thanked in
    158 Posts
    Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy - FOS Steve Goreham



    Steve Goreham is a speaker, an author, a researcher on environmental issues, and an independent columnist. He’s the Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, a non-political association dedicated to informing about the realities of climate science and energy economics. Steve gave this presentation at the Friends of Science 'Climate Dogma Exposed' event in Calgary on May 9th 2017. He says "contrary to what your political leader, professor, and newspaper tell you, global warming is dominated by natural factors. As a result, thousands of climate and energy laws across hundreds of nations, all summed together, are not going to have a measurable effect on Earth’s temperatures."
    Perhaps we are...

    Trees Are Dying Everywhere, We're Next


    Forests and trees are dying around the world. Though record heat is a factor, it is not the sole reason we are seeing die off unprecedented in human history. The Geoenineering of the Earth has greatly reduced our life saving protective ozone layer. In this video we show where true cancer causing, tree killing UV-B is some 1,000 % over safe levels while our government regulators and authorities are blaming record heat and drought as the sole causal factor. Additionally, trees are dying off, especially in urban areas, due the mass increase of WIFI toxic radiation over the past decade. Not only are forests dying rapidly but our food supplies are being effected as well. Is this why Bill Gates, et. al built the Doomsday Seed Vault in Norway in 2007? This a call for everyone to call for a complete and total halt to all Geoengineering activities, and please share this video with all.
    Although the word "Commando" was wrongly used to describe all Boer soldiers, a commando was a unit formed from a particular district. None of the units was organized in regular companies, battalions or squadrons. The Boer commandos were individualists who were difficult to control, resented formal discipline or orders, and earned a British jibe that"every Boer was his own general".

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bittereinder For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 6th, 2019 @ 05:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    Aryo-Germanic
    Ancestry
    1/2 German, 3/8 English, 1/8 Welsh
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    V10b
    Country
    England England
    State
    Northumberland Northumberland
    Location
    Dane Law
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Parent,Co-habiting
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Exposing idiocy
    Religion
    Wodenist
    Posts
    1,003
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    413
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    357
    Thanked in
    250 Posts

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Wuotans Krieger For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    56
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,249
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    501
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    458
    Thanked in
    205 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Langeraat View Post
    There are a lot of reasons why trees die. In the US forest management plays a large role. Because the Us Forest Service is anti-fire the forests are not periodically thinned out. They are too thickly wooded. More trees competing for nutrients and water. The trees are unhealthy & more susceptible to insects and disease. Not to mention fire.

    Some trees die because of root damage caused by animals. I've had trees die on my property while others, next to the dead trees, will thrive. It's survival of the fittest.

    Where you see trees close proximity dying off at the same time you have to remember that those trees are closely related, genetically, so will be susceptible to similar insects or disease.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Æmeric For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    9 Hours Ago @ 06:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Posts
    550
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    533
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    568
    Thanked in
    299 Posts
    Climate change is a scam. Its just another social welfare program to transfer white peoples money to brown people.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Astragoth For This Useful Post:


  10. #6
    Senior Member schwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    34 Minutes Ago @ 03:30 AM
    Ethnicity
    Alsatian/Suevi
    Ancestry
    germanic/alsatian/Elsaesser
    Subrace
    Child of God
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Oregon Oregon
    Location
    Rogue River
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    retired - Aerospace
    Politics
    independent
    Religion
    Born again Christian,
    Posts
    463
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    387
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    657
    Thanked in
    300 Posts
    It's called "WEATHER" in my book.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to schwab For This Useful Post:


  12. #7
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 6th, 2019 @ 05:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    Aryo-Germanic
    Ancestry
    1/2 German, 3/8 English, 1/8 Welsh
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    V10b
    Country
    England England
    State
    Northumberland Northumberland
    Location
    Dane Law
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Parent,Co-habiting
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Exposing idiocy
    Religion
    Wodenist
    Posts
    1,003
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    413
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    357
    Thanked in
    250 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by schwab View Post
    It's called "WEATHER" in my book.
    Are you a scientist?

  13. #8
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    56
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,249
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    501
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    458
    Thanked in
    205 Posts
    Is Al Gore a scientist?

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Æmeric For This Useful Post:


  15. #9
    Wild Cat
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Gareth Lee Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English/German American
    Ancestry
    England and Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Location
    A peaceful oasis.
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Cancer
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    I work at home.
    Politics
    Not a Republicrat.
    Religion
    Nondenominational Christian
    Posts
    1,150
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,807
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,430
    Thanked in
    718 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Æmeric View Post
    Is Al Gore a scientist?
    Well. Al 'Bore' did claim he invented the information super highway.
    “A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.” Robert A. Heinlein

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gareth Lee Hunter For This Useful Post:


  17. #10
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, January 6th, 2019 @ 05:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    Aryo-Germanic
    Ancestry
    1/2 German, 3/8 English, 1/8 Welsh
    Y-DNA
    R1b
    mtDNA
    V10b
    Country
    England England
    State
    Northumberland Northumberland
    Location
    Dane Law
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Parent,Co-habiting
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Exposing idiocy
    Religion
    Wodenist
    Posts
    1,003
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    413
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    357
    Thanked in
    250 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Æmeric View Post
    Is Al Gore a scientist?
    As far as I am aware he does not post on this forum.


    Reasons why Drumpf denies climate change:
    https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views...hange-10677570

    The USA is the second biggest emitter of Carbon Dioxide after China and it is time that it was brought to account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emis sions

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, September 30th, 2011, 04:00 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, July 18th, 2011, 03:58 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 4th, 2011, 02:58 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Thursday, April 7th, 2011, 12:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •