Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Less than 10 years to human extinction, from mostly peer-reviewed submissions

Climate-Change Summary and Update – Nature Bats Last: "If you’re too busy to read the evidence presented below, here’s the bottom line: On a planet 4 C hotter than baseline, all we can prepare for is human extinction (from Oliver Tickell’s 2008 synthesis in the Guardian). Tickell is taking a conservative approach, considering humans have not been present at 3.3 C or more above baseline (i.e., the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, commonly accepted as 1750). I cannot imagine a scenario involving a rapid rise in global-average temperature and also retention of habitat for humans."

Saturday, January 13, 2018

#freetransit #freepublictransport - An international campaign

Here is how #renewables make things worse

Assume today all fossil-fuel use ended. The following heat and emission generators still exist.

Direct
  • human activity - moving, building, fixing, fighting, maintaining body temperature
Indirect
  • drying peat
  • melting permafrost
  • melting clathrates (ocean methane)
  • soil emissions from agriculture
  • forest destruction reducing co2 capture
  • wildfires
  • reduced ice melt latency
  • reduced ice solar reflection
  • tectonic activity from ice melt
  • tectonic activity from geothermal energy use
  • etc
All of these are doubling every 30 years.

Renewables do abolutely nothing to slow growth. Even without fossil-fuel we will cook the bioshere. Only degrowth reduces both heat and emissions.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Reducing emissions is ambiguous

Let's leave aside the second derivative, the rate of growth of the rate of growth, or acceleration of emission growth.

The rate of growth, even if it were a steady percent, is still exponential. If emissions grow, for example, 2.3 percent per year, then the amount of carbon in the atmosphere will double every 30 years.

Let's say that emissions are brought to zero. The amount of carbon already emitted is still not being reduced. It stays the same. This is the state which China aspires to reach in 12 years. That means they plan to continue adding carbon until that time.

Many technofixers are saying X reduces carbon emissions. But people read it as X reduces carbon. This needs to be made clear.

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Unfolding Arctic Catastrophe

Arctic News: "Warm water will melt the sea ice from below, which keeps the water at greater depth cool. However, when there is little or no sea ice underneath the surface, little or no heat will be absorbed by the process of melting and the heat instead stays in the water, with the danger that it will reach sediments at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, as illustrated by the image below."

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

More deadly than asteroids

Nature Bats Last: "I’m often told Earth can’t possibly be responsive enough to climate change to make any difference to us. But, as the 27 May 2014 headline at Skeptical Science points out, “Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past.” That’s correct: climate change is more deadly than asteroids."

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Cars kill

Monday, December 11, 2017

Heat vs Emissions

The earth receives energy from the sun. The energy not reflected away is stored, or converted to heat and sent back out. There is a top limit to how fast energy can be sent back out -- a fixed amount based on area of the surface and the rate of heat transfer.

Carbon in the atmosphere reduces the amount reflected, so more energy has to be stored or sent back out.

Even if humans add no carbon to the blanket, the earth will still get warmer if animal life turns energy into heat faster than the rate of sending out.

If humans can reduce carbon in the atmosphere, more energy will be reflected instead of trapped. But reducing emissions is not exactly the same as reducing carbon. To reduce carbon, emissions must be negative. Negative means that more carbon must be taken out than added. Reducing emissions to any rate greater than or equal to zero does not reduce trapping. And if the process of reducing those emissions requires increased use of energy, that energy generates heat which must be subtracted from the supposed benefits of reducing trapping.