Untitled photo

There are many ways of projecting future temperature. The graphs below I did myself purely by extrapolation of the NASA temperature data. I have read of a possible exponentional rise in temperature. I have read recently elsewhere of a much more rapid rise than expected so far.

The United States is being about as bad as any nation can be. Our hope there is the elections.

However, the fact that curve fitting and polynominal exponentials all show the possibility of a rapid rise raises great concern and is the motivation for this web site and its two key proposals: 1) A World Climate Authority and 2) A negative emissions research program. Even a modest contribution of negative emissions could be a crucial difference, but there is no standardized "clearing house" or development center to evaluate the various approaches.

It takes only a glance at these three graphs to see there is no solution that does not portend a dire outcome.

The middle curve I did myself by "curve fitting" which means hacking a starting equation until it looks like the curve, or calculating the error and making that as small as possible.

The upper and lower curves were calculated by "trend analysis" using Microsoft Excel. The function is a so-called "polynominal expansion." I was a little surprised to see how closely the shape matched my curve.

At the beginning when the added CO2 is small and the climate change is also small, the weather bumps can swamp the climate change at any time. But as time goes by, the weather bumps stay about the same but the climate part of the curve gets bigger and bigger, and will get bigger still in the future. Eventually it dominates, but it also complicates, because the global warming is modifying the weather. Storms are more sever even though there are fewer of them (Hurricane Florence is still drenching the Carolinas as I write this). Rain is now measured in feet instead of inches, but doesn't happen as often. But despite all that the curves fit better as time goes by.

And since we will keep pumping out CO2 it will dominate more and more in the long run.

Even if we could stop all CO2 emissions the Earth would continue to warm during the whole time and likely reach a temperature of about 3°C above the baseline by the end of the century, and god only knows how high after that.

One option is called "negative emisssions" which means to remove carbon dioxide (and possibly other gases) from the entire atmosphere of the Earth. Many small pilot projects have been built, but to do it on the scale needed is a Hercluan task. Much research would need to be done in this area, but as one might expect, it would be a supremely difficult and costly endeavor.

However, we have reached a stage in emissions output that there is likely no solution without negative emissions plus one other thing: strong leadership to essentially force the reduction of emissions as soon as humanely possible and to manage the development of useful negative emissions technology. It would likely be done under the aegis of a World Climate Authority and despite the cost find a combination that limits climate chaos to something humanity can tolerate.

Almost certainly, a very positive outcome to the American November elections is necessary.

Powered by SmugMug Owner Log In