PowerSwitch

This CCC report suggests that the UK should achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

A recording of the seminar on the report at the UCL Energy Institute will be available from their YouTube channel here.

The report’s key findings are that:

The Committee on Climate Change recommends a new emissions target for the UK: net-zero greenhouse gases by 2050.
In Scotland, we recommend a net-zero date of 2045, reflecting Scotland’s greater relative capacity to remove emissions than the UK as a whole.
In Wales, we recommend a 95% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.

kenneal - lagger wrote:This CCC report suggests that the UK should achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

A recording of the seminar on the report at the UCL Energy Institute will be available from their YouTube channel here.

The report’s key findings are that:

The Committee on Climate Change recommends a new emissions target for the UK: net-zero greenhouse gases by 2050.
In Scotland, we recommend a net-zero date of 2045, reflecting Scotland’s greater relative capacity to remove emissions than the UK as a whole.
In Wales, we recommend a 95% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.

So... according to the UN... this is only about 20 years too late?

UN Dudes wrote:Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting

What form is this “irreversible damage� going to take?

woodburner wrote:What form is this “irreversible damage� going to take?

Indeed. The planet has reversed past cooling and warming periods all by itself, assuming we all manage to die off and stop polluting the place and interfering with its natural self correcting nature, not much we've done seems irreversible at all.

Yup, definitely must stop this global warming - oops, I meant climate change, especially the irreversible type.

I found this video very educational, and explains a few things I knew vaguely from my [very complex] Shropshire geology knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st_2C_Wrw4A

Interesting video. Better call out extenction rebellion, they have more to worry about than AGW

MAR�A FERNANDA ESPINOSA GARCÉS (Ecuador), President of the General Assembly, warned the Assembly that “we are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damage to our planet�. Worldwide, thousands of students are mobilizing around the message that we do not have a planet B and there is no future without a planet, she said, calling for their pleas not to fall on deaf ears. Against that backdrop, she stressed the need to act. “Eleven years is all we have ahead of us to change our direction,� she said,

The UK is already acting to an extent, admittedly a small extent, so we have already changed our direction as requested in the above quote. That we need to change direction even further is not in doubt.

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:

woodburner wrote:What form is this “irreversible damage� going to take?

Indeed. The planet has reversed past cooling and warming periods all by itself, assuming we all manage to die off and stop polluting the place and interfering with its natural self correcting nature, not much we've done seems irreversible at all.

The planet has indeed reversed cooling and warming periods in the past and those can be explained by our knowledge of Milankovitch cycles, sunspot cycles and atmospheric chemistry. Minor changes happen often and do not effect the fauna and flora to a great degree but major changes in the climate result in mass extinctions and major changes in the fauna and flora.

We, by our release of millions of years worth of stored CO2 in such a short period, are in danger of causing a major change in the earth's climate. Our release of stored CO2 could be enough to cause a feedback cycle that sees the release of a massive amount of stored methane that will take temperatures even higher still than that which would be caused by the CO2 alone. We have the power to stop the release of CO2 but when we reach a tipping point all control that mankind might have over future temperatures will be lost.

We have a reasonable knowledge of what would happen if we carry on releasing CO2 up to the point where methane starts to be released in uncontrollable quantities. But we do not know when that will happen or what will happen if we pass the tipping point for massive methane release except that temperatures worldwide will rise to temperatures which will extinguish most of life on the planet. Indeed we may have reached that tipping point already and are doomed as a species along with most other species alongside which we live at the moment.

Yes, the planet will soon, in geological terms, maybe a few million years, return to an equilibrium temperature but mankind will not be around to witness that new equilibrium.

kenneal - lagger wrote: The planet has indeed reversed cooling and warming periods in the past and those can be explained by our knowledge of Milankovitch cycles, sunspot cycles and atmospheric chemistry.

And why in the world would you leave out the geology?

kenneal-lagger wrote: Minor changes happen often and do not effect the fauna and flora to a great degree but major changes in the climate result in mass extinctions and major changes in the fauna and flora.

Indeed. Caused by geology, cosmic collisions, hell even biologic organisms have changed the planets climate before, we aren't even special in that regard! Quite depressing if you think of it, that humans aren't even so special that we are the first species to mess around with our own biosphere.

kenneal-lagger wrote: We, by our release of millions of years worth of stored CO2 in such a short period, are in danger of causing a major change in the earth's climate.

In danger? We've already dumped gazillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and no one seems concerned with stopping anytime soon. "No one" should be taken less than literally of course, it means more like "not enough to make a difference".

kenneal-lagger wrote: We have the power to stop the release of CO2 but when we reach a tipping point all control that mankind might have over future temperatures will be lost.

And? We know all this, and are still choosing to not do much of anything about it.

kenneal-lagger wrote: Yes, the planet will soon, in geological terms, maybe a few million years, return to an equilibrium temperature but mankind will not be around to witness that new equilibrium.

So? Your statement smacks of species hubris, nothing more. The Azolla didn't sit around bemoaning their fate while they were turning the world into its current ice box configuration. We want to perhaps tip it back to their advantage? Fine by them I imagine.

In geological terms there has been a significant input with the dust going to cause some sun blocking.

What will this one do?

Scientists are recording increased seismicity beneath the long-dormant Udina volcano since December 2017. Observed activity may indicate the presence of magma intrusions with a high content of melts and fluids, which may justify changing the current status of this volcano from 'extinct' to 'active.'

"When a volcano is silent for a long time, its first explosion can be catastrophic," .............

OK RGR I left out geology. Very remiss of me!

I am also more concerned about things about which we can do something. All those geological factors could happen tomorrow or might not happen for 10,000 or a 100,000 years and we can't do anything about them at the moment so why worry. I am sure that there is someone with a research budget somewhere on the planet looking at how to divert an asteroid or take the pressure out of a super volcano.

And yes, the nutters in charge of the super corporations and the US government are more concerned about making money for the next ten to twenty years than they are about what they are going to eat when the earth's climate goes up the shoot. There is some hope that we can get rid of them before they screw things up for all of us. According to Limits to Growth they will screw things up for themselves shortly anyway.

When mankind turned from hunter gathering to farming we released enough CO2 into the atmosphere to stop the next ice age coming so we don't have to worry about the Azolla for now. As far as I know there aren't the conditions of widespread, ocean wide, warm fresh water with a very high carbon dioxide available on the planet for another such event to take place. We have to worry about cooking ourselves with the release of too much CO2.

And I would like the planet to be a suitable home for my children, grandchildren and their grandchildren and all the fauna and flora that is necessary to make the planet a suitable home so I'm doing what I can to make it happen. What's wrong with that.

I have read that climate change could cause an increase in volcanic activity as the loss of ice will redistribute weight across tectonic plates and alter the pressure distribution on the magma beneath. Who knows what will happen but you can be sure that messing with nature won't go unnoticed somewhere.

kenneal - lagger wrote:OK RGR I left out geology. Very remiss of me!

I am also more concerned about things about which we can do something.
All those geological factors could happen tomorrow or might not happen for 10,000 or a 100,000 years and we can't do anything about them at the moment so why worry.

And when given an increasing atmospheric CO2 that Citizen A doesn't notice at all in Country B today, then why worry about that? Not because they aren't concerned about the environment, but it changing certainly isn't worth giving up their cellphone, the internet and certainly doesn't seem to require them rushing to become Amish.

kenneal-lagger wrote: I am sure that there is someone with a research budget somewhere on the planet looking at how to divert an asteroid or take the pressure out of a super volcano.

And yes, the nutters in charge of the super corporations and the US government are more concerned about making money for the next ten to twenty years than they are about what they are going to eat when the earth's climate goes up the shoot. There is some hope that we can get rid of them before they screw things up for all of us. According to Limits to Growth they will screw things up for themselves shortly anyway.

The Limits to Growth is a model, and Box and Draper were quite correct when they stated that all models are wrong, but some are useful. Remember bell shaped curves? I certainly do. I haven't been able to determine the usefulness of the LTG because they don't provide volumetric outputs of specific commodities, instead dumping everything into this "resources" category of theirs. I also don't blame corporations for being enablers for consumers, the real problem here, in their billions.

kenneal-lagger wrote: When mankind turned from hunter gathering to farming we released enough CO2 into the atmosphere to stop the next ice age coming so we don't have to worry about the Azolla for now.

The Azolla love CO2, we are terraforming the atmosphere for them currently. And I also am familiar with the work of Ruddiman and how agriculture is the mechanism by which we began on our merry way.

Can you even imagine trying to stuff humanity back into a hunter/gatherer configuration? Which then leads to the next obvious observation, why NOT enjoy cell phones and fast motorcycles and whatnot while we can, because no one I know of wants to go back to being a farmer scratching in the dirt, let alone using a pointy stick to find tubers in between hunting squirrels and the like.

kenneal-lagger wrote: And I would like the planet to be a suitable home for my children, grandchildren and their grandchildren and all the fauna and flora that is necessary to make the planet a suitable home so I'm doing what I can to make it happen. What's wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that. But you can't have it because consumers don't care about it enough to be wiling to change their behavior. Change the behavior of people, and you can change the world. Otherwise, the Azolla are going to LOVE the place we give them!

kenneal-lagger wrote: I have read that climate change could cause an increase in volcanic activity as the loss of ice will redistribute weight across tectonic plates and alter the pressure distribution on the magma beneath. Who knows what will happen but you can be sure that messing with nature won't go unnoticed somewhere.

I have read that peak oil was going to cause high prices and starvation for lack of running tractors and a dieoff. Turns out, if we wait out doomsday predictions, sometimes they don't happen.

The CO2 might be a suitable marker for activities that need attention. I suspect if you asked most people where we should spend money (especially around election time) one of the responses will be “health services� and that would also include wonder products like cancer drugs and antibiotics.

Dangerous levels of antibiotics contaminate rivers worldwide

The featured study only looked at greenhouse gas emissions, yet the pharmaceutical industry emits other forms of pollution as well. In the first global study of its kind, researchers from the University of York in England tested for 14 antibiotics in rivers spread across 72 countries worldwide.

The results, which were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) in Helsinki, Finland, found antibiotics in 65% of the sites tested.6 The antibiotic found most often was trimethoprim, a medication commonly used to treat urinary tract infections, which was detected at 307 of the 711 sites tested.

Ciproflaxacin, meanwhile, was the drug most often found at levels that exceeded safety thresholds; 51 of the sites contained ciproflaxacin at potentially dangerous levels. Metronidazole, an antibiotic often used for skin and mouth infections, was also found at levels that exceeded the "safe" threshold — by up to 300 times at one site in Bangladesh.7

CO2 in itself is not a problem in my view, there are bigger things to worry about.

woodburner wrote:Yup, definitely must stop this global warming - oops, I meant climate change, especially the irreversible type.

This is quite compatible with GW/CC predictions of more extreme weather. It's all to do with the slowing down of the jet streams and the consequent meandering of the air flow which directs Arctic/Antarctic air much closer to the equator than would be usual.

If you had an understanding of what is going on, woodburner, you wouldn't have bothered with your quote.