Latest IPCC Climate Change Report 14

[dik]

Available here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

Give it time Greg... "For an extinction to be considered mass, at least 75 per cent of all species on Earth have to become extinct within a 'short' time frame, i.e. less than 2.8 million years."

We still have 2.7M years to go...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

More news...

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news...ern-siberia-nearing-tipping-point-study-81967

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

"By 2060, these areas could lose 75 per cent under moderate efforts to mitigate climate change. The figure could go as high as 81 per cent and 93 per cent if the world does little to address the issue, the study predicted."

ie any feasible amount of mitigation will make sod all difference, to within experimental error. The best simple solution would be to burn the peat off, since that only generates CO2 not methane.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dik]

It's a matter of reducing CO[sub]2[/sub] output as well as mitigating the production of it. We seem to be failing at both. I really think we are Friar Tucked...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

I don't think the sky is falling narrative is very productive. What Greg mentioned is a bit wild of an idea but it brings up good points. It's popular to say that were already past the tipping point so perhaps methane release reduction is going to be more important than CO2 reduction?

 

[GregLocock]

Methane has a global warming potential of 6-100 that of CO2, depending on time period and calculations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

Therefore burning off naturally occurring methane will cause less global warming than just venting it to atmosphere.

I am open to counter arguments assuming that they have an ounce of commonsense or preferably maths behind them.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

I remember doing maths in Excel. When fitting regressions we could select an exponent with an odd number or an even number. One would result in a curve that trended downwards and the other resulted in a curve that trended upwards. I think 1990's Excel capped at a 7th order which gave the highest R value and always resulted in an upwards trend. I feel that this is how IPCC has interpreted their data.

 

[dik]

Sorry tug, but I'd be willing to bet the farm that the trend will be upwards. Burning the muskeg may have a couple of interesting outcomes. A greater amount of muskeg may be affected leading to more emissions. I've seen clips of methane in frozen northern lakes being ignited... more lakes may thaw, with more methane... The net result from burning the muskeg is that more CO[sub]2[/sub] will be released, albeit less methane.

A bigger immediate problem is the infrastructure supported on permafrost. Even now, these are failing with more to follow.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

In related news, expert theologians with the help of supercomputers have announced they have finally determined how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Subsequently they have announced the return of mediaeval indulgences, in the form of carbon credits - buy enough and you will get fast tracked into climate heaven.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[dik]

Carbon credits are a means of avoiding doing anything, and should be scrapped.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

Carbon credits are a shell game (or if you are a multinational oil corporation, a Shell Oil game). They are a substitute for the regulation that is essential but which politicians don't have the cojones to do.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Subsequently they have announced the return of mediaeval indulgences, in the form of carbon credits - buy enough and you will get fast tracked into climate heaven.

LOL. I love that statement! What a great way to phrase it.

 

[Ron247]

Politicians are the only people who can get pulled over for being drunk and driving on the wrong side of the road and then get away with it by claiming they are "practicing their driving in another country". The reasoning works either direction "across the pond".

Therefore carbon credits are no challenge for them. Once they get us hooked on carbon credits (AKA organic credits), they will go after inorganic credits.

 

[GregLocock]

I'm a bit torn on carbon taxes. On the one hand they hit poor people the hardest, and are prone to manipulation. On the other hand if you don't have a market signal then CO2 reduction (assuming it is necessary, and possible, neither of which has been demonstrated, but I'll go with the flow on that) can only take place if politicians choose the methods, and they are demonstrably utterly ineffective at that.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dik]

The gulf between leaders and leadership has never been wider. Decisions are based on the latest polls (which BTW are also good for dogs), not on what must be done. And it must be done; the 'unseen hand' of the market will fail utterly because ulterior motives are built in.

FDR in the 1930s faced vicious corporate attacks for his strong counter-depression measures; in hindsight we recognize he saved Capitalism - to the immense benefit of the same power and money elites who attacked him.
Another example was the breaking up of Standard Oil under anti-trust measures. Rockefeller went kicking and screaming, but it wasn't long before the total business value of the new companies (the so-named '7 sisters') dwarfed that of SO alone; they all prospered.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[dik]

I'm a bit torn on carbon taxes. On the one hand they hit poor people the hardest

The poor are very useful to Republicans that way, and they repeat that mantra endlessly. What they really mean is that it could cost their corporate sponsors a bit of small change. Tell me at what other time or for what other reason do they care?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[GregLocock]

Dunno, American politics are of little interest to me.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dik]

But you are of interest to US politics.
Anyway this is not politics, it is history, and our collective utter refusal to learn anything from it.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[rb1957]

"But you are of interest to US politics."

I'm pretty damn sure that no US politician or PAC or focus group or ... gives a "rat's furry a$$" about greg (no slight intended)

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[dik]

Same here, other than for amusement and derision...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik