WHY WE WILL FAIL - John Wawrzonek

WHY WE WON'T ACHIEVE THIS GOAL

"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted...CO2 will need to be reduced...to at most 350 ppm."

Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008, vol. 2

IN 2009 A REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS COULD ACHIEVE 350 PPM IN A REASONABLE TIME. THIS IS NO LONGER TRUE.

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

BY NICOLA JONES • JANUARY 26, 2017

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

Carbon dioxide must be removed from the atmosphere to avoid extreme climate change, say scientists One of the first scientists to warn of the dangers of climate change, Professor Jim Hansen, warns the 's*** is hitting the fan'

Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent @montaukian Tuesday 18 July 2017 14:40 BST164

Humans must start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as soon as possible to avoid saddling future generations with a choice between extreme climate change or spending hundreds of trillions of dollars to avoid it, according to new research. An international team of researchers – led by Professor Jim Hansen, Nasa’s former climate science chief – said their conclusion that the world had already overshot targets to limit global warming to within acceptable levels was “sufficiently grim” to force them to urge “rapid emission reductions”. But they warned this would not be enough and efforts would need to be made to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 12.5 per cent. This, the scientists argued, could be mostly achieved by agricultural measures such as planting trees and improving soil fertility, a relatively low-cost way to remove carbon from the air.

Climate change targets to be missed, warns Schroders

Is climate change the Great Filter of human extinction?

Macron may have convinced Trump to rejoin Paris climate accord Climate change doomsday warning of death smog and endless war attacked

Other more expensive methods, such as burning biomass in power plants fitted with carbon-capture-and-storage or devices that can remove carbon from the air directly, might also be necessary and would become increasingly needed if steps were not taken soon.

An academic paper in the journal Earth System Dynamics estimated such industrial processes could cost up to $535 trillion this century and “also have large risks and uncertain feasibility”. “Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, implausible clean-up or growing deleterious climate impacts or both,” said the paper.


“We conclude that the world has already overshot appropriate targets for greenhouse gas amount and global temperature, and we thus infer an urgent need for rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions [and] actions that draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide. “These tasks are formidable and … they are not being pursued globally.” Cuts to emissions of greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide and ozone would also be required.

31 scientific bodies tell US Congress: Climate change is real The study is to be used as part of a ground-breaking lawsuit brought against the US Government by 21 children in which the plaintiffs claim their constitutional right to have a health climate in which to live in is being violated by federal policies. If the case succeeds, environmentalists believe it could force the Trump administration to reduce greenhouse gases and take other measures to prevent global warming. The paper pointed out that the last time temperatures were this high, during the Eemian period, global sea levels were about six to nine metres higher than they are today, suggesting significant rises are still to occur. The paper said that the Paris Agreement, the tumbling price of renewable energy and the recent slowdown in the increase of fossil fuel emissions had led to a sense of optimism around the world. But, speaking to The Independent, Professor Hansen said he believed this optimism was misplaced. “The narrative that’s out there now … is that we’ve turned the corner,” he said. “On the contrary, what we show is the rate of growth of climate forcing caused by increased methane [and other gases] is actually accelerating. That’s why it’s urgent.”


READ MORE The climate lawsuit Trump is desperate to stop going to trial Asked to assess the world’s current progress in fighting climate change, he said the “s*** is hitting the fan”. Professor Hansen, now a scientist at the Columbia University Earth Institute in the US, said he believed the court case had a chance of winning. A court would not be able to tell the Government what to do, he admitted, but would be able to say that failing to deal with the problem was unconstitutional and require politicians to produce an effective plan. The paper said the need for “prompt action implied by these realities [of climate change] may not be a surprise to the relevant scientific community” because of the available evidence. “However, effective communication with the public of the urgency to stem human-caused climate change is hampered by the inertia of the climate system, especially the ocean and the ice sheets, which respond rather slowly to climate forcings, thus allowing future consequences to build up before broad public concern awakens,” it said. “All amplifying feedbacks, including atmospheric water vapor, sea ice cover, soil carbon release and ice sheet melt could be reduced by rapid emissions phasedown. “This would reduce the risk of climate change running out of humanity’s control and provide time to assess the climate response, develop relevant technologies, and consider further purposeful actions to limit and/or adapt to climate change.” 10 photographs to show to anyone who doesn't believe in climate change 10 show all It warned that sea level rise of up to a metre “may be inevitable even if emissions decline” and would have “dire consequences”. Sea level rise of several metres would result in “humanitarian and economic disasters”. “Given the increasing proportion of global population living in coastal areas, there is potential for forced migrations of hundreds of millions of people, dwarfing prior refugee humanitarian crises, challenging global governance and security,” the paper said. About 65 per cent of the power produced by the massive Drax power plant in North Yorkshire comes from burning biomass, making it the largest single renewable electricity generator in the UK, although some dispute how green the process is. If it was to be fitted with carbon-capture-and-storage (CCS), it would create the type of negative emissions system envisaged in the paper. Drax was involved in the White Rose project to build a £1bn CCS plant but pulled out after cuts to renewable energy subsidies by the Government. It insisted that biomass with CCS could make a major difference to the fight against climate change. A Drax spokesperson said: “We are confident the technology we developed as part of the White Rose project has real potential in terms of delivering dramatic reductions to carbon emissions produced by power stations and heavy industry. “However, the current regulatory environment means any such project isn’t viable at the present time. We are also awaiting the Government’s response to Lord Oxburgh’s review into CCS.” More about: climate changeGlobal WarmingJim Hansencarbon-capture-and-storage 0 Reuse content Ad by Taboola Sponsored Links 2.2% of the population have Psoriasis. Know the signs. Health.Online / Psoriasis Berlin, Massachusetts: This Unbelievable, Tiny Company Is Disrupting a $200 Billion Industry EverQuote Insurance Quotes More Than 10k U.S. seniors are underpaid benefits Total Wealth Research New Bathroom Trend? Walk In Tubs, and The Prices Might Surprise You Walk In Tub Search | Sponsored Links 15 Speechless WW2 Photos Discovered Auto Overload Brady Bunch Star Gave The Crew A Little Extra Worldemand Do You Come From Royal Blood? Your Last Name May Tell You. Ancestry This Amazon Upgrade is Even Better Than Prime Honey At Dealerships Now: The Exotic New SUVS of 2018 SUVs | Sponsored Links MOST POPULAR Britain set for another heatwave as bank holiday approaches Follow live coverage of Real Madrid vs Bayern Munich Real reach third straight final after riding their luck against Bayern May vows to overturn Lords plan which could stop Brexit Five signs your carbohydrate intake is too low, according to dietitian Independent News Email or register with your social account I would like to receive morning headlines Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts by email Continue Already have an account? Log in COMMENTS Log in or register to comment 164 Comments SubscribeRSS MightyDrunken 286 days ago "the 's*** is hitting the fan'" Trump didn't even pick it up again! ReplyShare0 Dennis A 286 days ago This is Hansen in super doom mode again. Nothing he has ever said has come true and he is shamelessly using children in this court action to gain political advantage. CCS is a dead duck, totally unnecessary and could produce massive future problems even if it were viable. Lord Oxburgh has a major vested interest in CCS and the massive public funding it requires for no return, except to Lod Oxburgh and his ilk. ReplyShare0 HarryDutch 286 days ago Noticing the burning of biomass made me loose interest. No mention to use the power of Nuclear that can do all this heavy lifting. Hundreds of trillions of dollars invested in Advanced Nuclear Reactors would see the money better spent. ReplyShare2 replies0 VSC 284 days ago Most existing nuclear power reactors are classified as Generation 2 and are widely regarded as obsolete. The current generations of new nuclear power stations are classified as Generation 3 and 3+. Only four Generation 3 reactors have operated, so far only in Japan, and their performance has been poor. No Generation 3+ reactor is operating, although two are under construction in Europe, four in the USA and several in China. All are behind schedule and over-budget – the incomplete European reactors are already triple their budgeted prices. Not one Generation 4 power reactor – e.g. fast breeder, integral fast reactor (IFR), small modular reactor – is commercially available. (World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015) So it can be argued that modern nuclear energy is not ready. On the other hand, wind and solar are both growing rapidly and are still becoming cheaper. Large wind and solar farms can be planned and built in 2-3 years (compared with 10-15 years for nuclear) and are ready now to replace fossil and nuclear electricity. ReplyShare1 reply+2 1980-f 105 days ago Neither wind nor solar can yet replace fossil & nuclear. They both require backup in the form of fossil or nuclear energy; batteries are not even remotely near able to provide that. Smart grids have potential to help, but nothing like enough. I suggest green techno-optimists visit the Green Social Thought discussion site for a more informed debate. http://greensocialthought.org/ Share0 MaxB16 286 days ago For the "CO2 is green" crowd (of whom there are a disturbing number here today), have a read of this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CO2_is_Green "This is analogous to saying that blood is good for you as it supports your body's critical functions, so you should be in favor of having 500 gallons of blood forcibly injected into your veins. The idea that we should be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is seen as complete and utter nonsense by anyone with any experience or knowledge of ecology, atmospheric chemistry and climate change." ReplyShare+1 Bob01721 287 days ago Not to worry. Not a single prediction of the climate alarmists has come to pass since Jim Hanson first warned us about global cooling back in the 70's. Not even ONE! ReplyShare-2 EcoHustler 287 days ago Hhmmm - we want to suck gigatonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere. What new fangled machine could do this?? How about planting billions of trees? Like this - http://www.ecohustler.co.uk/2017/07/19/trees-for-life/ ReplyShare0 BarryWendellJacksonE­sq 287 days ago The Global Climate is changing. We are a decade into a 4-5 decade period of Global Cooling. I am not an expert. You can research on the Internet. Go www.longrangeweather.com/climate_change.htm. There are other sources. Do your own research. ReplyShare7 replies-3 eh 287 days ago Chris Harris runs longrangeweather.com along with the wonderfully named Randy Mann. Here's some information on Harris from the Skeptical Science Forum... to quote... Chris Harris is not a trained scientist - he studied insurance law in college... Harris is also a devout Christian and believes the Bible is loaded with clues on predicting the weather... "I do believe in a period of extreme global warming. That will be in the tribulation period. That's when the real global warming will come in," he said.... "I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself," Harris said... http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/General%20Chat/2011-12-20-Climatologist_%20-%20Cliff%20Harris.html ReplyShare2 replies+6 Dennis A 286 days ago Anyone who quotes Skeptical Science, run by non climate scientist John Cook and Psychologist Lewandowsky, shows they have done little reading outside the bubble. Share-4 eh 282 days ago "little reading outside the bubble..." why would anyone with a brain wish to read up on the rubbish dreamed up by climate denial quacks and paid hacks? Share0 Climatesceptic 287 days ago "I am not an expert." So listen to experts! The earth would indeed be cooling if concentrations of CO2 weren't so high. The fact that we aren't entering into a global cooling period is part of the (overwhelming) evidence for man-made climate change. ReplyShare1 reply+4 Dennis A 286 days ago Sorry but no. The temperature of the earth is not controlled by carbon dioxide. Warming and cooling cycles are not a consequence of CO2 as CO2 lags temperature rises significantly. Share-3 Climatesceptic 287 days ago Without human interference there would have been no global warming since the middle of the 20th century. If anything there would have been a slight natural cooling. The fluctuations in the sun’s activity are causing variations of 0.1 or 0.2 °C in global temperature in the last thousand years (e.g. at the Maunder Minimum of solar activity in the years 1645 to 1715). ReplyShare+1 This comment has been deleted 1 reply BarryWendellJacksonE­sq 286 days ago Your advice is appreciated. I also thank you for your courtesy and consideration. NOT! Share0 MarkPawelek 287 days ago CO2 is beneficial for life, not harmful. It increases yields of plants, and allows more growth in arid regions. This makes more plant matter available for people and animals to eat. It helps feed people and improves biodiversity. ReplyShare2 replies0 Stephen Watson 287 days ago You really need to read up on the real world and what goes on - do you know anything about plants? Water is essential for human life, but https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill/ ReplyShare+2 eh 287 days ago Straight from the climate deniers crib book... compiled by the likes of Tom Harris, chief executive of the “International Climate Science Coalition” who is also on record as saying “I don't think the funding issue is something we should say anything about... I don't think that funding is something we should get into... I want to get funding from oil”. Here's Tom Harris and other climate deniers in chief like Christopher Monckton at a 2015 convention agreeing their key messages for journalists, such as CO2 is "the life-giving gas on the planet"; "there's been an increase in sea ice"; and from Monckton “Yes, if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it would cause some warming – there are some on the fringes who would deny that, but it's tactically efficacious for us to accept that.” https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/adam-ramsay/climate-skeptics-agree-their-key-messages-for-journalists-with-journalist-in-room ReplyShare+2 snow_pine 287 days ago The AGW articles build on the assumed premise that carbon dioxide will create runaway global warming. No need to describe how CO2 can destroy the climate, we all know that it does. But in fact, such a catastrophe seems highly unlikely given that CO2's relationship to additional warming diminishes as more is added, and it is already nearly saturated. ReplyShare7 replies-1 HelenR 287 days ago It is not nearly saturated... https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm ReplyShare1 reply+5 Dennis A 286 days ago Ah, the good John Cook again..... Share-2 Climatesceptic 287 days ago If what you say is true, you deserve a Nobel prize for physics! ReplyShare+1 Dennis A 286 days ago Those deniers at NASA, pity Hansen has forgotten things like this. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php "Temperature doesn’t infinitely rise, however, because atoms and molecules on Earth are not just absorbing sunlight, they are also radiating thermal infrared energy (heat). The amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway heating on Earth." ReplyShare2 replies-2 burnsie 286 days ago anyone thinking this is plausible should read the whole link in order to see a good example of denier cherry picking. Other comments by the same person reflect a distinct paucity of understanding. Share+2 eh 281 days ago Wrong. The energy imbalance resets by reaching a new equilibrium (warmer surface temperatures). Share0 MightyDrunken 286 days ago "The AGW articles build on the assumed premise that carbon dioxide will create runaway global warming" Wrong, it is based on the assumption that CO2 warms the planet logarithmically. So we are very unlikely to create a runaway greenhouse. Instead if we keep on emitting more CO2 then the planet can absorb, temperatures will keep on going up. The past has seen mean surface temperature 10C higher than today. That would utterly transform our world and cause centuries of distribution. We are aiming for about 4C by 2100 at the moment. ReplyShare+1 Josh 288 days ago Let me guess. The United States has to pay for this. If not it's not gonna happen. ReplyShare0 Show more comments Follow us: User Policies Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Code of Conduct Complaint Form Contact Us Contributors All Topics Archive Newsletters Jobs Subscriptions Advertising Guide Syndication Evening Standard Novaya Gazeta Install our Apps Voucher Codes

Powered by SmugMug Log In