Do we have time to avert catastrophic global warming?

Question

Having read Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, I outline the thesis and ask if you think his target is achieveable.

Mr Lynas details scientific knowledge about what will happen with each degree of warming. He details the tipping points which will exacerbate the influence of man-made emissions.

At 2 to 3 degs carbon cycle absorption mechanisms will fail worldwide.

At 3 to 4 degs Siberian permafrost will thaw and release vast amounts of methane.

At 4 to 5 degs methane hydrates will begin to melt and release even more methane.

Each mechanism adds a degree or more to warming predictions. The cascade starts at just 2 degs. Go over that and the earth will get 6 degs warmer in a matter of decades, wiping out 95% of life on the planet with no chance of stopping it.

The conclusion is that we must stay below 2deg warmer, which equates to around 400ppm CO2. We are currently at 382ppm.

To avoid this we must:
Stop emissions growth by 2015
Cut emissions by 60% by 2030
Cut them by 90% by 2050

Answer 1

Mr Lynas and myself have many things in common and whilst I agree with the underlying principles of his work I would question the validity and accuracy of some of the statements made.

It seems unlikely that the carbon absorption mechanisms will fail wordlwide - the three primary absorbers are soil, biomass and the oceans. These can be found across the planet absorbing carbon quite happily in environments with a wide range of temperatures.

The point about Siberian Permafrost has inhernet inaccuracies as it assumes that temperatures across the whole permafrost region must be equable - it isn't. Already one million square kilometres have melted in the past few years, other areas will require a temperature rise of many degrees before they melt. Trapped underneath the Siberian permafrost is an estimated 70 billion tons of methanogenic methane, small amounts of CH4 and CO2 exist in the ice itself but these quantities are insignificant compared to the methane below the ice. The thawing of the permafrost is occuring and will continue to occur across a wide range of temperatures therefore the methane release is and will be a gradual process.

As for methane clathrate (hyrdate), most of this is found in the lithosphere where the bottom water temperature is around 2 degrees C. This isn't something I've studied but it would make sense to say that a small temperature rise (2 degrees) over a period of thousands of years would have the same effect as a large temperature rise (6 degrees) over a a few hundred years. As with the Siberian permafrost, the release of methane clathrates would be gradual and over a wide range of increasing temperatures.

-------------------

Even if levels of atmospheric CO2 stabilised at 385ppmv temperatures will continue to increase noticably for several decades due to the atmospheric lifespans of the different greenhouse gases. As the shorter life span gases such as methane begin to dispiate the effects of GW will reduce but the warming will continue on a small scale for many thousands of years (life spans of CFCs, HFCs. and HCFCs are typically measured in the 000's of years).

Whilst drastic reductions in emissions will certainly have a big difference the liklihood of this happening is, I beleive, very remote. It's 111 years since global warming became a scientific concern, 19 years since it made it to the political aggenda, 16 years since the first Earth Summit and 9 years since Kyoto - and in all this time we've managed to acheive almost nothing. To anticipate a cap on growth within 7 years seems somewhat optimistic.

For what it's worth, I personally beleive that the way forward isn't to concentrate solely on cutting emissions but also to look at ways of 'cleaning up' after ourselves. Any reduction in emissions is going to have a significant impact on people's lives and few are going to willingly sacrifice modern conveniences and aspects of a comfortable lifestyle.

We can begin to look to alternative technologies and power sources to gradually replace those we currently use and couple this with carbon sequestration systems which, if developed, will be able to remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than humans are adding to it.

Such schemes are several years away, we shouldn't rely solely on them and we need to take action now to reduce our emissions but I don't think the future need be as bleak as some people may think.

Answer 2

Based on ice core data, past global maximums have been approximately 3 degrees warmer than present temperatures. These maximums all occured before human fossil fuel use, so they are they were clearly the natural outcome of normal climate cycles. There is no reason to believe that the natural maximum of the current cyclic warming will be any less. In simple terms, this means that even if there were no man made green house gases in play, the average global temperatures would eventually be expected to reach a value of 3 degrees Celsius above the current levels. So, all of the dire consequences predicted in the first two points are:

1. Natural

2. Inevitable no matter what we do.

Answer 3

Not a statistician but a true believer in 6 degrees of separation. There will be a reckoning for what we choose to do from fear aggression based mismanagement of resources and it will be in our lifetime if you are between the minimum age for this site and probably 45.

I will give one doable little drop in the ocean thing to offset the severity of the coming storm. All new vehicles sold in any E.U. country or the U.S. should have an instant mpg readout easily and safely viewable for the driver. I drive a 1990 Caddy. Not so green right? 33.5mpg highway at even speed of 59-62mph. 38 if I am able to fill up at a Mobil station which uses fewer detergents.

Regular maintenance of my car and not driving like a dink gives me the same if better efficiency as one of the new "hybird" suvs. Don't even get me started about the country club bimbo who cut me off on a city stretch of the Local major Highway in a brand new decked out black Hummer, for the $ they do not handle so well when a hillbilly with an egalitarian attitude takes her position back in a Sammy Swindell worthy maneuver. I would have paid the ticket if she'd have rear ended me as I brought her down to posted speed.

Don't think my World of Outlaws rant was what you were fishing for but people are starting to wake up, so keep fighting the good fight.

Answer 4

Yes, but only if we quickly have a complete socialist revolution led by Al Gore, whereby all free enterprise is squashed and the government owns everything, only then will we prevent the disaster, when Western capitalist governments are destroyed... and we get back to the centralized communist model. Look at the environment of Poland, or the eastern bloc states. Now, there's a model for improving the environment.

Al Gore's SUV motorcade will soon be arriving in your town. Go, hear him speak. You will never forget it.

Answer 5

I do wish the mother ship would kick it up a few notches on the warp drive and get here soon. I've got to get off this planet, studying you humanoid life forms was fun at first but now your getting to be very annoying with all this global warming talk and the scare tactic's. You don't even understand how your little planet works. lol

Oh that's right, someone came up with the idea that large sums of currency could be obtained by scaring them into thinking they are all going to be extinct if they don't adhere to their way of thinking. But the big plus is, they are going to be making insane amounts of wealth in the meantime. lol

Answer 6

And your a "top contibuter" CO2 has not direct effect on the temp. when the temp. rises then CO2 follows. Volcanoes, the ocean and LEAVES have more CO2 emmisions than humans every year. The sun controls the climate more than we humans every could. So reducing CO2 does nothing. Everything living releases CO2 so are you anti-life by reducing emmisions? causes its not going to do anything!

Answer 7

Natural trends are behind global warming. It will cool down again, so don't worry yourself.

I just can't wait to hear the global warm-mongers whining about cold winters when the temperatures head back down.

Answer 8

Impact on a planet from one particular species will be "course corrected" over the great expanses of time...
The species will adapt or the world will change, and no longer support the offending species.
best regards,
intelligent alien

Answer 9

can you see any country co-operating with everybody else to work jointly on global solutions ,
i am sorry but i cant how ever much i wish it ,

and carbon emisions is not even what causes the biggest damage ,

that is irresponsible Agriculture using chemicals ,the overpumping of carbon aquifers,overgrazing ,deforestation ,wild fires ,waterpolution and the global network of roads andf expanding populations ,that have consumed trillions of trees ,exchanging forrests for tar and cement

the best we can do as individuals is be more responsible ,in our own neck of the woods


What can I do to make my community more aware of global warming?

organise well publicized clean up parties ,talk on the radio
have citizan meetings
get the shools involved to plant trees and listen to environmental awareness talks,

that is what we do in Mexico

POSITIVE ACTIONS
print Tshirts with slogans ,hang posters all over the place (with recycled paper if possible)

classify trash take out all the organic waste and make compost with it ,the worst you can do is throw it with the trash

70% of contamination is due to organic waste that is mixed in with the garbage .
and it is just as bad in the sewer where it helps to breed rats and in the landfill it poisons the ground

and it is the easiest to take care of
o first of all we have to clasify trash at least keep the organic to one side ,like in a plasic bin with a lid

if you got a few meters of ground ,you only need 1 or 2 square meters in a shallow hole ,in the shade ,that you can wet now and again ,where you dump everything that is organic ,from toilet paper,bones vegetable cuttings ,eggshells,,dead bodies ,excrement ,and cover regularly with leaves to keep humid and to hide any smell
the worms will come and decompose the wastes truning it into beautifull blck soil for the garden of flower pots .

if you are in a apartment ,if you have a balcony get a big plastic bin drill some holes in the side and lid ,

and add a few buckets of sand now and again to put over the trash ,you should realt stir or move the stuff at times to airate it and ensure that the decomposition is overall ,keep moist

this rubbish does not get big very fast and the thing works for a long time with out getting full

got a compost heap in the garden for 6 years ,have added tons of banana poles ,and palm leaves at times tree trunks ,the mountain goes up and down and never seems to get any bigger ,the stuff rots and becomes a very fine black compost of high density

------------------------------...
global warming cannot be stopped but we can stop helping it becoming faster,and being friendlier to out Environment cannot be bad

if you do any cleaning up leave signs behind saying who cleaned,why and ask people not to start dumping rubbish again ,leave a hole or bins ,in case people come with trash ,

we have done a lot of comunity cleaning and if you dont leave alternatives or try to work on peoples guilt feelings (some people actually have those ,but not many)
than your efforts are a waste of time.

these are Al gores sites
http://events.stepitup2007.org/............
http://www.stepitup2007.org/

http://events.stepitup2007.org/............


if you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if everyone on the planet did we we would be able to slowdown the destructive processes

reduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that by alternative forms of energy and regulations on carbon producing materials,aerosol cans,burning rubbish,industrial chimneys,powerplants etc.

the capture of carbon and the production of water and assist the aquiferous manta.

the world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia

Waterharvesting projects ,such as millions of small dams.to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.

the protection of existing forrests.

stop building more highways,urban planning to include vegetation stop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there which now has become possible thanks to the internet.

education to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.

education on environmental awareness
education on family planning to curb over´population

Agricultural education and improvements to follow the principals or sustainability and soil management.

more environmental or land ,design to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks

,more dams.regulations and control for public behaviour

alternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine

recicling wastes,limit water use

here are a 100 more ways

http://www.eco-gaia.net/forum-pt/index.p...

Answer 10

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.junkscience.com

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London

Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.

The FT investigation found:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.

“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.

These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.

Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.

The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.

Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.

There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.

BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.

Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream



Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming

"The Public Has Been Vastly Misinformed," NCPA's Deming Tells Senate Committee

12/6/2006 5:57:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis, 972-308-6481 or [e-mail]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing examined climate change and the media. Bellow are excerpts from his prepared remarks.

"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."

---

The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D. C. that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. NCPA depends on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.

http://www.usnewswire.com/