MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Climate Change
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
We’re currently on pace to double the carbon dioxide-equivalent (including other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere by around mid-century. Since the late 1800s scientists have been trying to answer the question, how much global warming will that cause?
In 1979, top climate scientists led by Jule Charney published a reportestimating that if we double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to 560 ppm, temperatures will warm by 3 ± 1.5°C. Four decades later, ‘climate sensitivity’ estimates remain virtually unchanged, but some climate contrarians have argued that the number is at the low end of that range, around 2°C or less.
It’s an important question because if the contrarians are right, the 2°C resulting global warming would represent significantly less severe climate change consequences than if mainstream climate scientists are right and temperatures rise by 3°C. It would also mean our https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/52954863.pdffor meeting the 2°C Paris target is about twice as large than if the mainstream consensus is right. If the consensus is correct, we’re on pace to blow through the remaining Paris carbon budget by around 2030.
IPCC Special Report on 1.5ºC
IPCC Special Report on 1.5ºC
The IPCC 1.5ºC Special report (#SR15) has been released:
Can we avoid going through 1.5ºC?
At current rates, we’ll hit 1.5ºC on a decadal-average basis by ~2040. The first year above 1.5ºC will occur substantially earlier, likely associated with a big El Niño event in the late 2020s/early 2030s.
The basic issue is that the effort to reduce emissions sufficiently to never get past 1.5ºC would require a global effort to decarbonize starting immediately that would dwarf current efforts or pledges. This seems unlikely (IMO).
There are a few ‘get-out-of-jail’ cards that are considered.
First, we can overshoot 1.5ºC, and then come back down after heroic efforts to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere though so-called ‘negative emissions’. This makes the immediate task less daunting, but at the expense of relying on global scale efforts with carbon sequestration, or BECCS, or direct air capture, which are extremely speculative.
Second, we could start direct geo-engineering efforts to reduce temperatures and (most optimistically) buy time for carbon emissions to come down a little more slowly.
Both of these scenarios come with dramatic and underexplored geo-political consequences (are there any stable governance regimes for geo-engineering? Is there sufficient land for large scale BECCS?), as well as substantial moral hazard.
So my answer is… no.
IPCC Special Report on 1.5ºC
The IPCC 1.5ºC Special report (#SR15) has been released:
- The press release http://ipcc.ch/pdf/session48/pr_181008_P48_spm_en.pdf
- Frequently Asked Questions http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_faq.pdf
- The Summary For Policy Makers (SPM) http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
- The full report IPCC - SR15
Can we avoid going through 1.5ºC?
At current rates, we’ll hit 1.5ºC on a decadal-average basis by ~2040. The first year above 1.5ºC will occur substantially earlier, likely associated with a big El Niño event in the late 2020s/early 2030s.
The basic issue is that the effort to reduce emissions sufficiently to never get past 1.5ºC would require a global effort to decarbonize starting immediately that would dwarf current efforts or pledges. This seems unlikely (IMO).
There are a few ‘get-out-of-jail’ cards that are considered.
First, we can overshoot 1.5ºC, and then come back down after heroic efforts to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere though so-called ‘negative emissions’. This makes the immediate task less daunting, but at the expense of relying on global scale efforts with carbon sequestration, or BECCS, or direct air capture, which are extremely speculative.
Second, we could start direct geo-engineering efforts to reduce temperatures and (most optimistically) buy time for carbon emissions to come down a little more slowly.
Both of these scenarios come with dramatic and underexplored geo-political consequences (are there any stable governance regimes for geo-engineering? Is there sufficient land for large scale BECCS?), as well as substantial moral hazard.
So my answer is… no.
Too lazy to read our 30 page Summary For Policy Makers and report? Well here it is in tweets @IPCC_CH (1/n) where n is likely greater than 10 and less than 30 - now trying to thread them together ...
Thread by @piersforster: "Too lazy to read our 30 page Summary For Policy Makers and report? Well here it is in tweets @IPCC_CH (1/n) where n is likely greater than 1 […]" #twitterincompetence #SR15 #IPCC30
Thread by @piersforster: "Too lazy to read our 30 page Summary For Policy Makers and report? Well here it is in tweets @IPCC_CH (1/n) where n is likely greater than 1 […]" #twitterincompetence #SR15 #IPCC30
To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2°C of warming requires a transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of the Marshall Plan. The labour and resources used to furnish the high-carbon lifestyles of the top 20% will need to shift rapidly to deliver a fully decarbonised energy system. No more second or very large homes, SUVs, business and first-class flights, or very high levels of consumption. Instead, our economy should be building new zero-energy houses, retrofitting existing homes, huge expansion of public transport, and a 4-fold increase in (zero-carbon) electrification.
The Paris Agreement notes how it will take a little longer for poorer countries to fully decarbonise, raising the bar still further for the UK, USA and other wealthy nations. Even for 2°C the maths points to such nations moving to zero-carbon energy by 2035-2040, with poorer nations following suit a decade later. For 1.5°C, such ‘real’ 2°C mitigation will need to be complemented with planetary scale negative emissions. Whilst the IPCC’s 1.5°C report rightly emphasises the urgent need to research these speculative technologies, it continues to run scared of the economic elephant dominating the room. Until the IPCC (and society more generally) are prepared to acknowledge the huge asymmetry in consumption and hence emissions, temperatures will continue to rise beyond 1.5 and 2°C – bequeathing future generations the climate chaos of 3°C, 4°C or even higher.
Ha!
Skull and Bones Member William D. Nordhaus Wins Nobel Prize in Economics For " Integrating Climate Change Into Maco-Economic Analysis"
As you can imagine Mr. Nordhaus isn't a fan of the gold standard and limited government.....
Skull and Bones Member William D. Nordhaus Wins Nobel Prize in Economics For " Integrating Climate Change Into Maco-Economic Analysis"
As you can imagine Mr. Nordhaus isn't a fan of the gold standard and limited government.....
Don't know about climate change, but I know what that would do to standards of living and the economies of the world.
United Nations: A $240 Per Gallon Gas Tax Is Needed To Fight Climate Change
The United Nations has declared that a $240 per gallon gasoline tax is “needed” to fight climate change. To limit global warming, the UN’s report says that $27,000 per tonne of gasoline will need to be stolen from the public by the year 2100.
...
United Nations: A $240 Per Gallon Gas Tax Is Needed To Fight Climate Change
The United Nations has declared that a $240 per gallon gasoline tax is “needed” to fight climate change. To limit global warming, the UN’s report says that $27,000 per tonne of gasoline will need to be stolen from the public by the year 2100.
...
No, it's not. Increasing production in those tired old fields requires methods that would do permanent damage and reduce the total recoverable reserves - the highly over stated reserves due to the way OPEC distributes production quotas. Makes me wonder where the UN got those numbers above, and whether they took global recession, decreased oil demand and diminishing production into consideration. Pretty unlikely IMO.
BP Chief: Saudi Arabia Is Holding Back Production
BP Chief: Saudi Arabia Is Holding Back Production
Armstrong: Independent Audit Exposes The Fraud In Global Warming Data
The audit has exposed the dishonesty in this entire scheme and it appears to be directed at the goal of reducing the population.
The audit has exposed the dishonesty in this entire scheme and it appears to be directed at the goal of reducing the population.
Similar threads
