It’s not very mature of me but I get irritated when my comments are rejected by moderators, particularly when I have put more than 5mins effort in. So rather than waste the effort I am posting my comment to Myles Allen’s article The Green New Deal: One climate scientist’s view, from the other side of the Atlantic here.
The “carbon budget” is an estimate of how much CO2 we can still emit, but still have a good chance to keep global warming from going over the 1.5°C limit into “dangerous” territory. The budget has recently been revised (upward, thank goodness) to about 420 GtCO2 (420 billion tons of carbon dioxide).
Staying within the 1.5°C limit doesn’t make us “safe” — there are still consequences of climate change, dangerous and costly, and we’re already paying the price despite not having hit 1.5°C yet. But going above 1.5°C takes us into what is best described as: nobody wants to go there.
View original post 439 more words
I watched this a few month ago. Took up the offer of sending in questions. No answer yet.
Q1: What is a reasonable remaining carbon budget (in CO2e) to keep within 1.5°C (or 2°C)?
On a per capita basis, how does it compare with average world yearly emissions?
How much more than this are average European emissions?
Q2: What’s the current thinking on the radiative forcing index for aircraft emissions?
Is there a Hansen’s Faustian bargain with aircraft emissions because in the first few decades air flights cool the Earth?
CF: Unger et.al. Attribution of climate forcing to economic sectors
Q3: Can the global carbon intensity of production be reduced fast enough to save the climate and avoid de-growth?
If GDP needs to be constrained there is full employment, labour productivity must be constrained. This means wages are constrained. How can the incomes of the low poor be supported?
Q4: In reference to BECCS (and more generally), has anyndetailed work been done on the albedo effect of biomass planting?
e.g. Has there been work to find crops with “good” albedo?
Q5: What do the panel think of solving fuel poverty by taking from the rich to give to the poor?
Has anybody considered that to heat houses requires heating hundreds of cubic metres of space to warm people that occupy a few metres each?
Q6: Would the panel demand high profile governmental campaigns to tell the public the effects of their everyday actions?
Would a more detailed version of How bad are bananas? by Mike Berners-Lee help?
Q7: Is mass car ownership compatible with saving the climate?
Q8: In assessing green house gas emissions what is the appropriate weighting for methane compared to CO2?
A recent article by Carbon Brief Analysis: Why the UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 38% since 1990 has generated headlines:
Energy Voice: Carbon emissions down nearly two-fifths since 1990
Business Green: UK carbon emissions down 38 per cent since 1990
Engineering and Tech: UK’s carbon emissions dropped by 30 per cent since 1990
Occasionally I have a comment on another blog rejected. This will be a list of those I want to follow up.
London Economic 11th January 2019
To save the climate degrowth is needed.
(Kaya identity & etc.)
Subsidise the wages of the low paid.
Take from the rich to give to the poor.
(It’s the right thing to do.)
The rich most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.
(So fine them and give to the poor.)
Question: does London Economic reject
2. Labour subsidies
3. Robbing the rich
4. Tax rich polluters
Or did I overdo the links to one of my own blogs?
I’m keen to find out – I rather like London Economic.
With winter snow in the northern hemisphere, we tend to forget the heat that summer brings to the southern half of the world. It can get pretty hot down there. The Guardian reports that Australia is entering the third day of another terrible heat wave, remarkable not just for how hot it is, but how much of the country it covers: basically, all of it.
View original post 455 more words
Like most people, I live on land, not at sea. I even live in the northern hemisphere.
Global warming isn’t the same everywhere. In particular, it’s happening faster on land areas than over the oceans. While the globe as a whole is warming at a rate of around 1.7 to 1.8 °C/century over the last several decades, the land areas alone have been warming up more than 50% faster, at about 2.8 °C/century. And of course, not all land areas are warming at the same rate either. On the whole, the northern hemisphere land is warming faster than southern hemisphere land; here in the north we’re heating up at around 3.2 °C/century (for land areas, I like to use the data from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project).
View original post 752 more words
Some things deserve repeating.
One of those things, which happened to come up in conversation recently, is that climate change has its most profound effect on extreme events. Climate change is a change in the probability function (the odds for each possible outcome) of weather, and when you look at probability functions you find that if they change in the way we expect them to, it can increase (or decrease) the chance of extremes by a surprising amount.
View original post 515 more words
Temperature varies, through day and night, from day to day, from month to month, and year to year. The most common way to note its changes is to record each day’s high temperature and low temperature, which has been done at Kremsmuenster, Austria since 1876. Here’s a snapshot of five years of that data, from 2010 through 2014:
View original post 1,184 more words
An idea for capturing CO2 & storing
heat under your new house
Question: “Is it a good idea or barmy?”
A heat store to capture CO2
P1. Store 50+ tonnes of rock that absorbs CO2 under (or near) a new house.
The mineral olivine is taken as the example for this note. It absorbs CO2 slowly at ambient temperature (25°C) but much faster at a temperature of 186°C. Continue reading Capture CO2 under your new house