Climate change: do the math(s)

Post by **clv101** » 03 Dec 2012, 15:42

Here's the latest methane data:

See this post: http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=22002

The most interesting this is that it's not currently clear exactly where the recent increase in CH4 is coming from![/url]

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 03 Dec 2012, 19:46

It's from politicians f@@ting about.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 03 Dec 2012, 21:09

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... un-methane

UN: methane released from melting ice could push climate past tipping point

Doha conference is warned that climate models do not yet take account of methane in thawing permafrost

It's not the seabed we should we worrying about. Yet.

Warming permafrost could emit 43 to 135 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2100 and 246 to 415 gigatonnes by 2200, according to the report, and emissions could start within the next few decades. Permafrost emissions could ultimately account for up to 39% of total emissions, according to the report.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 04 Dec 2012, 09:59

clv101 wrote:The most interesting this is that it's not currently clear exactly where the recent increase in CH4 is coming from!

Interesting...! Scary, more like.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Dec 2012, 11:57

'interesting' - what a climate scientist says when staring into the Jaws of Doom.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 04 Dec 2012, 14:38

Hi Lewis, welcome back, with a bang!

Presumably the "Parasol loss" is the "Global Dimming" effect mentioned a few years ago?

Billhook wrote:(Parasol loss) The predictable outcome of its loss is a rise of realized warming by 110% (+/-30%).

Are you sure about that? I would have thought that it would have an effect of a 10% increase (so 110% net) as opposed to a 110% increase (a doubling).

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 04 Dec 2012, 16:25

Hi Bandy - good to see you too have endured.

I'm sorry to say that I'm certain on the Hansen & Sato finding of 110% +/-30%. Bit of a stunner.

I guess the difference from the global dimming figure is that the sulphates rise to the stratosphere, but I think you'd need to read their paper to get a good grasp of the complexities. I doubt I could do a summary that would do it justice.

I've been looking out for any refutation, but none so far after about two years, so its presumably beginning to bed in, but the whole of politics and activism, and a lot of scientists, seem to be looking the other way for various reasons, and maintaining their own versions of BAU.

In reality, the finding plainly transforms the prospect of effective mitigation by emissions control from slim to none, which means that anyone who isn't advocating for the most effectively supervised geo-e as the necessary & sufficient complement to emissions control ASAP - hasn't yet understood the seriousness of our predicament.

Which ain't easy to say to those who feel that opposing geo-e is an article of faith without sounding less than polite. I'd like to know just where all the fervid opposition to geo-e has come from, as it's remarkably widespread and uniform without the issues ever being debated on their merits as far as I know. Big Green NGO's are clearly a major opinion former on this, but who gave the party line to them, and why ?

Any ideas welcome !

All the best,

Lewis

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Dec 2012, 17:38

Billhook wrote:
I've been looking out for any refutation, but none so far after about two years, so its presumably beginning to bed in,

As George Monbiot put it today:

the four, five or six degrees of warming now predicted for this century by green extremists like, er, the World Bank, the International Energy Agency and PriceWaterhouseCoopers

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/12/03/forbidden-planet/

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 05 Dec 2012, 17:00

Some people are taking the geo-e into their own hands without waiting for a by-your-leave. This could be dangerous and is the sort o'thing that puts people off all geo-e.

The RenewableJury's still out as far as I'm concerned. My own gripe is it don't deal with the chemistry (including ocean acid) only with the physics (warmth).

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Dec 2012, 18:22

RenewableCandy wrote:Some people are taking the geo-e into their own hands without waiting for a by-your-leave. This could be dangerous and is the sort o'thing that puts people off all geo-e.

The RenewableJury's still out as far as I'm concerned. My own gripe is it don't deal with the chemistry (including ocean acid) only with the physics (warmth).

In this case, doing half what is needed may be better than doing nothing.