IT HAS SEEMED TO ME for some time that negative emissions (laundering the air) would be essential to keeping enough of the good qualities of the Earth to make for a satisfactory life. However any system developed thus far would be hugely expensive and require an enormous number of units around the globe. However, compared to the research and development of going to the moon or building the first atmonic bomb the effort has been scattered with little goverment involvemnt, whereas such a project reuires a major investment and a suitable organization. At present simple matters such as regulatory requiresment get in the way and should be eliminated. The fate of the world is at stake.

ANY HOPE OF HAVING AN EARTH that is reasonably livable WILL REQUIRE THAT CO2 be REDUCED to 350 ppm from the current (and rising) value of 410, a herculian task if there ever was one.

THE STATE OF THINGS: Global warming is showing more surprises every day and is now moving so fast that a calm assessmeent may not be possible until January.

For some time three numbers have characterized the situation: 1. The level of CO2: it stated at 285, 350 was judged maximum safe and could have been held (see the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE) but for the tratorious, dispicable and incomprehensible actions of the major oil companies. Carbon is now at 410.

The Paris Accords were based on holding the temperaturee rise to 1.5°C. The probalitiy of accomplishing that is zero. The next bogey is 2.0°C and, barring a miracle, the chances of achieving that are zero. The most likely is 3°C and that will be a calamity to the climate.

THE MAJOR FACTOR IN THIS PERFECT STORM is leadership. There is none and none appears to be on the horizon.

There are two major accomplishments now necessary: reduction of emissions to 10% as soon as possible and developing and deploying a negative emissions (i.e. removing CO2 from the atmosphere). This is a task that may well be impossible but mmany scientists for months and years have said our situation is hopeless without it. There are many demonstration sites, but deployment would involve hundreds of thousands of units world wide and likely all the reserch and industrial capacity of the world. World War II will seem easy in comparison. For some reason that reaches into the core of the human soul our species has thus far failed, and thus far may be the end.

Peter Wadhams,professor of ocean physics in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, U.K. CAMBRIDGE wrotea:

"Limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, as the countries of the world committed themselves to do under the Paris climate accord, is impossible without removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which set the Paris goals, concedes this. But the panel has neglected to suggest how to do it. If we want to survive climate change, we must double down in research manpower and dollars to find and improve technology to remove carbon dioxide — or at least reduce its effects on the climate. We now emit 41 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to bring about a warming of more than 2 degrees after it has worked its way through the climate system, so if we want to save the Paris accord, we must either reduce our emissions to zero, which is not yet possible, or combine a significant emissions reduction with the physical removal of about 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year indefinitely." A discussion of all the issues pertaining to reduction of emissions, a fair distribution of costs, intensive R&D into negative emissions and so forth would require a book or two. I have put more discussion and references in the Appendix. ing are a few examples. Any "current regularatory environments" that inhibit in any way should be under the control of the world authority and trashed.

"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 at most 350 ppm."

Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008, vol. 2

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

By Nicola Jones • JANUARY 26, 2017


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'

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?
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.

Thirty-one 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.”
The climate lawsuit Trump is desperate to stop going to trial. Asked to assess the world’s current progress in fighting climate change, he (Hansen) 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.

Powered by SmugMug Owner Log In