25 comments on The Energy and Environment Round-Up: October 31st 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Well, if Flannery's 455ppm crossed during 2005 is correct (IPCC data should come this month?), then yes - very advanced, considering previous estimates.
How much more advanced considering the actual changes, feedback loops and effects?
Wish I knew, but the polar melting speed is not encouraging.
This really does feel like waiting for worse news every day, in order to get confirmation of something that almost nobody wants.
Data from the Mauna Loa Observatory (that is compiled by NOAA), while it shows an ever-increasing trend from the late 1950s, had the C02 reading around 380ppm in 2006. Assuming this is legit data, how could the number be 455ppm in 2005?
Because that number is just for CO2. The 455 number includes other agents that act like CO2. Sort of like saying that a guy got hurt being hit by a thin piece of fiberglass, without noting that there was a two ton car propelling that fiberglass bumper forward.
If this is all correct, that the CO2 levels are rising this fast at this rate, then Kyoto was an utter failure. There is no way we can meet any CO2 reduction targets, save only through FF depletion and a population collapse.
I think Lovelock is way off base. Just because someone predicts something, even someone like him, does not mean it will come true.
Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
I used to think Lovelock was way off base too, but now I am afraid he could be correct. If you follow the following...
The British publication New Scientist contrasted the scientific imperative regarding GHG emissions with stated policy goals, citing research by Andrew Weaver of University of Victoria, Canada. “They modelled the reduction of industrial emissions below 2006 levels by between 20% and 100% by 2050. Only when emissions were entirely eliminated did the temperature increase remain below 2°C.” By contrast “The European Union nations have agreed to limit their emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and support dropping global emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.” So we have this bizarre situation where governments agree not to exceed 2C, and yet make emissions policies that lead to exceeding that threshold.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12775-zero-emissions-neede...
But even this 100% is apparently not enough....
The loss of ice in the Arctic was unprecedented this summer. The implications are summarized in a report titled The Big Melt by a United Kingdom organization named Carbon Equity. They have a very thorough web site and the report does an excellent job of explaining why climate models have underestimated the rate of climate change. In summary, climate models are good at representing “fast feedbacks” but don’t include “slow feedbacks.” A politically generated policy has been in place to find the emissions rate that will stabilize GHG to give a 50/50 chance the planet will not go above 2C global average. This is why you often here about a 450 ppm CO2 equivalent target. However, this is far too high when “slow feedbacks” such as loss of carbon sinks and decay of permafrost and peat are included. Furthermore, it looks like modeling of ice sheet dynamics and the rate of sea level rise needs to be reassessed given current conditions in the Arctic and Greenland. Probably the most disturbing set of information I have absorbed in a very long while.
http://energybulletin.net/35843.html
Biologist and Australian of the year, Tim Flannery was quoted as saying that the next IPCC report will conclude that we have already passed the 450 ppm CO2 equivalent. The excellent blog run by professional climatologists Real Climate had a critique of the specifics of Flannery’s claims (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/co2-equivalents/) but given the points raised by The Big Melt, these critiques are likely beside the point. See discussion here:
http://www.energybulletin.net/35883.html
Oh, and in case anyone wants to know. I checked with Real Climate about The Big Melt and Gavin of RC said it was solid work. His only qualm was making too much of an extrapolation of 2 years of rapid Arctic melt, but he acknowledged it looked bad and could be a real trend.