EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:42 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:38 pm 
Offline
New User
New User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:56 am
Posts: 34
Climate Change 'Final Warning' as IPCC reports pushes for fossil fuels to phase out by 2100
By Steve Connor

Time is running out if the world wants to avoid potentially catastrophic climate change according to the most definitive report to date by the UN body charged with formulating expert advice for governments around the globe.

In what amounts to a "final warning" about the dangers of not doing enough to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, the Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change (IPCC) said that it is technically and economically possible to still keep within the target of no more than a 2C increase in global average temperatures.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 33748.html

Eliminating fossil fuels by 2100 is too long, IMO. We were experiencing climate change now. Our climate change is getting worse each year. On the other hand, eliminating fossil fuel totally can not happen instantly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:34 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
The IPCC has been way overly conservative. The way emissions are going, humans except a few in underground fortresses, will be all dead by 2100.
From the 350.org data we have only have a little over 8 years to lower emissions to 90% of 1998 level, or complete the positive feedback loop of methane releases.
The ways it can be done include the Cascadia super earthquake and tsunami, due any time. The super Atlantic tsunami of the La Palma slide is also due and could initiate a population crash which would lower emissions by lowering the number of people. Katla in Iceland is due and a known volcanic winter maker, which would crash the population by starvation. The planned EMP attacks of major world powers could also collapse the world economy, or just the dollar failure would do the same, and again major starvation begins.
But what if those things do not happen? Then a way out is blowing Yellowstone, which is near ready anyway. If that is not done, the methane turnover accelerates rapidly toward Global Terminal Extinction and the end of this biosphere for many millions of years. Possibly, with full turnover, the change could be permanent, or until our Sun goes Nova in 4.5 billion years or so, and what was Earth melts, and is absorbed into the red giant, which then reduces to a white, then brown, then black dwarf.
It is of my opinion that the temperature increase to cross this threshold is about 1.8*C, not 2*C. A fatal mistake. It has been demonstrated that previous thermal max conditions took a 5*C Arctic temperature increase. This year those temperatures were up to 9*C over record, and thus the methane blowholes. It may be too late already, but most think we have a little time, NOT until 2100, or even 2040. We are playing with fire by not immediately stopping fossil fuel use and slash and burn agriculture (to feed the overpopulation). If we wait until the population crashes from the various scenarios above, it will be too late to stop after 2024. 2030 will be crash time starting, but too late to stop the runaway thermal events which may not end until the surface temperature is stable at high oven temperature.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:05 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
Why two crucial pages were left out of the latest U.N. climate report
"Significant global warming, the report said, is already "irreversible" -- and if policymakers don't act, a dangerous 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warming threshold will be breached.

That's a strong message -- but it might have been even stronger. You see, one of the report's more powerful sections wound up being left out during last minute negotiations over the text in Copenhagen. And it was a section that, among other matters, tried to specify other measures that would indicate whether we are entering a danger zone of profound climate impact, and just how dramatic emissions cuts will have to be in order to avoid crossing that threshold.
The box "provided a very precise [time] frame for the emissions that are compatible with a 2 degree of warming," says van Ypersele, who was part of the core writing team for the report. "And there is no similar sentence anywhere in the report."
Another reason this topic is "extremely sensitive," says van Ypersele, is that not everybody agrees that 2 degrees Celsius is even a safe threshold at all. Many think 1.5 degrees would be safer -- a number that would imply a much tighter global carbon budget and an even narrower window to avoid "dangerous" climate change."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... te-report/

It must be noted that we have .8*C now and the same amount in "momentum", which means without any more emissions from humans, there will be warming of 1.6*C. Not safe, but maybe the positive feedback loop of methane turnover could be avoided.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:41 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
You know, I have said that, in my experience, people tend to do too little, too late.
Goal to End Fossil Fuels by 2050 Proposed at Lima Climate Talks
Anastasia Pantsios | December 9, 2014 11:24 am | Comments
"A draft negotiating text was circulated yesterday at the UN climate summit in Lima, Peru that would cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050, earlier than many other proposals, and could spell the end of the fossil fuel industry. It’s one of the most ambitious proposals to come out of the conference."
http://ecowatch.com/2014/12/09/end-foss ... a-85901709

Well, even 2030 IS TOO DAMN LATE!!! Let alone 2050. Blow Yellowstone NOW!!! :-({|= :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 3:50 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
I had read where the atmosphere would return to hospitable in 400 years after stopping HGHGs. It appears it will take longer, so still be with us after a super volcanic eruption;
"I’ve made this point before because it’s one of the most underappreciated factors in dealing with global warming. It would be a lot easier to take a wait and see attitude if greenhouse gases would just disappear after we figure out a way to move past fossil fuels. But these gases aren’t going anywhere for a long time. The importance of this struck me after hearing Caltech chemist Nate Lewis give a talk at a recent meeting of the American Chemical Society. He calculated that even if the world stopped burning fossil fuel cold turkey, it would take 10,000 years for the atmosphere to revert to its pre-industrial composition. The oceans are also undergoing a chemical change that will take even longer to reverse."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam/20 ... s-believe/

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 2:42 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
Or massive composting to replenish the soils, from years of flush and forget, bury your dead in metal caskets, throw away society;
Part II: How Regenerative Organic Agriculture Can Save the Planet

John W. Roulac | January 13, 2015
"We now know that 20-30 percent of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere comes from industrial agriculture. Petrochemicals are for cars, not for the soil. By dumping ag chemicals onto our soils, we disrupt nature’s delicate balance of water, soil and air.

Carbon sequestration land practices include agriculture, forestry, wetland and range management systems that improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or organic matter in the soil. Today excess carbon is falling into our oceans and creating acidic conditions that threaten plant and animal species. If we remove carbon from the atmosphere and oceans by way of regenerative organic agriculture practices, we will sequester carbon into the soil and expand the soil’s water-holding capacity. Building organic matter into the soil’s humus layer is essential for growing the healthful foods humanity needs.

As National Geographic has reported, “… relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms.” This is disturbing the oceanic ecosystem in profound ways that include reducing the plankton that feeds whales and provides oxygen for humans.

The 2014 Rodale Institute report states, “Organically managed soils can convert carbon CO2 from a greenhouse gas into a food-producing asset.” Two major upsides to this approach are drought-proof soils and, thanks to more nutrient-rich foods, reduced healthcare costs."
http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/13/regenera ... b-85901709

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:17 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
A 23-year experiment finds surprising global warming impacts already underway

Posted on 9 February 2015 by dana1981
"A new paper published in Global Change Biology summarizes the results of a 23-year experiment monitoring how global warming is impacting certain ecosystems.
At the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, the scientists have monitored ten 30-square meter plots of meadowland since 1989. Above five of those plots, overhead infrared radiators have been on constantly since January 1991, while the other five were used as the controls for comparison. The study reports,
The microclimatic effect of experimental heating throughout the growing season has been to warm the top 15 cm of soil by ~2 °C and dry it by 10–20% (gravimetric basis) during the growing season, and to prolong the snow-free season at each end by an average of ~2 weeks.

Ecosystem Changes Amplifying Global Warming"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/23-year ... erway.html

Good news;

Burlington, Vermont Becomes First U.S. City to Run On 100% Renewable Electricity

Anastasia Pantsios | February 10, 2015

"Burlington, Vermont is that state’s largest city, with a population of 42,000 people. It describes itself as “forward-thinking” which is what you’d expect from a city that once elected Senator Bernie Sanders as its mayor. So it’s no surprise that it recently became the first U.S. city of any decent size to run entirely on renewable electricity."
http://ecowatch.com/2015/02/10/brlingto ... 3-85901709

Clean coal??? How idiotic!

Funding canceled for clean coal plant
Feds back out of $800 million remainder, citing doubts on ability to meet spending deadline
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scienc ... coal-plant

Wasted a lot of money trying.....

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:38 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
How about by magic?
These magic CO2-dissolving capsules want to save the world
By Amelia Urry on 5 Feb 2015
"Our best bet so far looks a bit like enchanted caviar (but, um, don’t eat it). These tiny silicon capsules could potentially suck carbon out of the air faster, cleaner, and more efficiently than any other technology out there — giving us a new tool to fight emissions at power plants and factory stacks. The preliminary research is detailed in a study out today in Nature Communications, from scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

The secret sauce is actually a familiar ingredient: baking soda — or, technically, bicarbonate, which is the main ingredient in that household staple."
http://grist.org/list/these-magic-co2-d ... gn=climate
sodium bicarbonate powder, we'll need a lot of it.

This amazing gadget is the best technology we have for trapping CO2
By Suzanne Jacobs on 4 Feb 2015

"Here’s a shocker. It looks like one of the best weapons we have right now in the fight-to-the-death cage match that is combatting climate change is — drumroll please — planting trees!

This news comes from a report out of the University of Oxford comparing different ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere — which is a great thing to do, because it buys us more time to get our shit together and figure out how to stop pumping out so much of the stuff in the first place.

It turns out that one hectare of forest can sequester around 3.7 tons of CO2 per year at a cost of less than 100 dollars per ton, according to the report. Plus, trees can do other cool things like improve soil quality. Aren’t trees great? If only we’d known this before!"
http://grist.org/news/this-amazing-gadg ... gn=climate
So, roughly 37 billion tons per year produced by humans can be neutralized by adding ten billion hectares of trees every year. :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 3:04 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 260
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
"Here’s a shocker. It looks like one of the best weapons we have right now in the fight-to-the-death cage match that is combatting climate change is — drumroll please — planting trees!

No question about it. And you can put it on a bumper sticker.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:07 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
Dingo wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
"Here’s a shocker. It looks like one of the best weapons we have right now in the fight-to-the-death cage match that is combatting climate change is — drumroll please — planting trees!

No question about it. And you can put it on a bumper sticker.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE!

I think you forgot something, Mr. Dingo.
"So, roughly 37 billion tons per year produced by humans can be neutralized by adding ten billion hectares of trees every year"
Well, a thousand trees per hectare is a good round figure and real
http://www.slideshare.net/Aestimo/how-m ... s-per-acre
so that is ten trillion trees planted per year by 7.2 billion people, or 1,388 trees apiece. Better get busy! Since the Earth is already fairly full, how about increasing it to add all these hectares every year. A balloon planet, yeah, that is the ticket. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:51 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 260
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Dingo wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
"Here’s a shocker. It looks like one of the best weapons we have right now in the fight-to-the-death cage match that is combatting climate change is — drumroll please — planting trees!

No question about it. And you can put it on a bumper sticker.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE!

I think you forgot something, Mr. Dingo.
"So, roughly 37 billion tons per year produced by humans can be neutralized by adding ten billion hectares of trees every year"

What about the LESS PEOPLE part did you miss?

Got any better bumper sticker?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:20 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
I had one that said "STOP OVERPOPULATION" and presently have one that says "SAY NO TO 450 MILLION AMERICANS".
In pragmatic reality, 90% of us have to go within 8 years to even have a 50% chance of stopping GTE.
From the Arctic Emergency declaration in another post, there is at least a 50% probability that open ocean warming alone,
whose tipping point was considered completely crossed in 2007, will lead to runaway methane self release from the tundras then the oceans' depths.
That tipping point in Arctic Tundra was starting in 2009 reports and will be complete in the 2020s.
Then it will really get rapidly warmer ten to 40 times more than PETM, and worse than the Permian Great Dying.
All because humans in general are so close to being rabbits, and not advanced as a species beyond bovines.
It is too bad that some of us understood and lived our lives green and patriotically, with compassion for our fellow man like in unarmed medical evac I did 900 real combat missions. One out of a thousand is not enough, and so is even one out of 400 ( of tradesmen who could actually build their own home to code all trades themselves, like I did). Then I look at how many are helicopter, SME airplanes, and instrument rated for CFI, at some point in their lives. Way too few to do anything but be nearly powerlessly drawn down with the overbreeding dumb masses. :x ](*,) :cry: :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:30 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 260
I'm suspicious of anybody who thinks they can prophecy exact dates when the whole show collapses. All you really can do is offer good and bad directions and perhaps likely scenarios within a fairly broad range of time and conditions. Actually I didn't give my full bumper sticker treatment. This should more completely express the direction I support.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE!

TOOLS FOR NEED, NOT GREED!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:09 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
You should study up on what it takes to be a commercial pilot flying passengers in instrument flight conditions. There is a lot of precise figuring about your future. Precision, common sense, thinking ahead of the aircraft and conditions at all times, keeping up a 4 second scan of a myriad instrument readings. And you don't think I can do population science? When I have been accurately doing it since 1967.

I have done about all I can with educating people, and walking the talk by a lot of hard work and sacrifice. Sure, many can't handle the message so attack the messenger. As new data and conditions come in, the tube of probability can change. I have gone over some of these things already.

More trees, less people, no pollution, no greed and other puffy colorful flowers of fantasy.
OK, so instead of everyone planting 1,388 tress this year, lets magically reduce the population to half, the we all plant 2,776 trees!
No pollution, at least until we get back to 350ppm CO2, that is if everyone magically goes to zero emissions power, and all local food needs.
Less people=less emissions, and how about an early crash by geologic disaster and/or economic collapse ?

Well, my friend Dingo, you will see it first hand, and maybe I will too. Val probably will, too, but maybe not John Ross. My friend Al Bartlett already saw it coming as clear as me, and thousands of his better students and colleagues. NPG, CCN, et al have had no effect. HGHGs are still going up yearly instead of falling rapidly in time to stop, maybe, the cascading tipping points.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:25 am 
Offline
New User
New User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:56 am
Posts: 34
It is possible to plant more trees. However, how could be population be lessen if birth rate is higher than in mortality in some countries.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group