Urgent CO2 cuts may spare millions hardship, report says

Jan 13, 2013
Tens of millions of people may be spared droughts and floods by 2050 if Earth-warming carbon emissions peak in 2016 rather than 2030, scientists said on Sunday.

Tens of millions of people may be spared droughts and floods by 2050 if Earth-warming carbon emissions peak in 2016 rather than 2030, scientists said on Sunday.

in Britain and Germany said now would delay some crippling impacts by decades and prevent some altogether.

By 2050, an Earth heading for warming of 2-2.5 degrees Celsius (3.6-4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 could have two very different faces, depending on the route taken to get there, said their study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Policies that cap Earth-warming in 2016 and then reduce them by five percent per year could see between 39 and 68 million people spared exposure to a higher risk of by 2050, Nigel Arnell of the University of Reading told AFP.

This is the best-case scenario, though.

In contrast, if emissions peak in 2030 and fall by five percent annually, the number who escape this risk drops to between 17 and 48 million.

Similarly, about 100-161 million people would avoid a higher risk of river flooding on the 2016-peak scenario.

This compares to 52-120 million people if emissions peak 14 years later, said Arnell, director of the university's Walker Institute on climate change.

"Basically in 2050, the 2030-peaking policy has about half to two-thirds of the benefit than the best (2016) policy," even though both lead to a similar temperature peak of about 2-2.5 deg C by 2100, he said.

"You may hit the same (temperature) point at the end of the century but... the mayhem that's been caused on the way to that point is different under the different pathways."

Under a scenario without any emissions curbs, temperatures could rise as much as 4-5.5 deg C, said the new paper which claimed to be the broadest assessment yet of the benefits of avoiding .

Global average warming of 4 deg C would see almost a billion people have less water in 2100 than they have now, and 330 million will be at greater risk of river flooding, Arnell told a pre-release press conference.

A peak in 2016 seems unlikely, with the world's nations aiming to adopt a new global climate pact by 2015 for entry into force only five years later.

The latest round of UN climate talks that concluded in Doha, Qatar in December failed to set pre-2020 emissions cuts for countries that have not signed up to the Kyoto Protocol that seeks to curb warming, even as scientists warned the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere continues to rise.

Three of the world's four biggest polluters—China, the United States and India—are among those with no binding emission limits, which cover countries responsible for only about 15 percent of the world's carbon pollution.

Many scientists believe that Earth is set for warming that will be far above the United Nations' 2 deg C target on pre-industrial levels.

"Reducing greenhouse gas emissions won't avoid the impacts of climate change altogether of course, but our research shows it will buy time to make things like buildings, transport systems and agriculture more resilient to climate change," said Arnell.

Explore further: Recently discovered microbe is key player in climate change

More information: Paper DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1793

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Save 'trillionth tonne' warn Oxford scientists

Apr 30, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Emitting carbon dioxide slower will not prevent dangerous climate change unless it involves phasing out carbon dioxide emissions altogether, before we reach an upper limit of one trillion ...

China to call for Kyoto extension at climate talks

Nov 22, 2011

China, the world's top greenhouse gas emitter, said Tuesday it will push at next week's climate talks for an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, which requires rich nations to reduce their emissions.

2C warming goal now 'optimistic' - French scientists

Feb 09, 2012

French scientists unveiling new estimates for global warming said on Thursday the 2 C (3.6 F) goal enshrined by the United Nations was "the most optimistic" scenario left for greenhouse-gas emissions.

Recommended for you

EU leaders seek last-minute climate deal

2 hours ago

European Union leaders came under pressure Thursday to strike a deal aimed at bolstering Brussels as a trailblazer in fighting global climate change as negotiations went down to the wire.

Research team studies 'regime shifts' in ecosystems

4 hours ago

The prehistory of major ecological shifts spanning multiple millennia can be read in the fine print of microscopic algae, according to a new study led by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

User comments : 58

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.4 / 5 (20) Jan 13, 2013
Chicken Little does not let a day go by without another doom and gloom prediction.

Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2013
Been in Australia recently dogbert ?, dept of meteorology has had to update their scales to account for 49 deg C days on the colour chart !
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2013
Tens of millions of people will face hardship today if rash choices are made to reduce CO2 output by force now before we have the effective technology to do so.

Although we do have a working mature technology that outputs no CO2 - nuclear energy - opposed by the very same people who cry us to save the world.

And of course some would see it a justice to see people in western countries suffer from poverty and social unrest to revenge the sins of their fathers, or as an opportunity to weaken the established societies and use the hardship as a political tool.

axemaster
2.1 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2013
Tens of millions of people will face hardship today if rash choices are made to reduce CO2 output by force now before we have the effective technology to do so.

We have the effective technology to do so.

Although we do have a working mature technology that outputs no CO2 - nuclear energy - opposed by the very same people who cry us to save the world.

And it also produces huge amounts of radioactive waste that lasts for thousands of years and is difficult to store safely. One train derailment carrying thousands of gallons of that stuff and you can kiss an entire county goodbye.

And of course some would see it a justice to see people in western countries suffer from poverty and social unrest...

Which is exactly where we're heading if our problems aren't solved in the very near future. Wages in the USA are projected to irrevocably plateau in the next few years if our economy and society don't both undergo some serious changes.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (19) Jan 13, 2013
Eikka,
And of course some would see it a justice to see people in western countries suffer from poverty and social unrest to revenge the sins of their fathers, or as an opportunity to weaken the established societies and use the hardship as a political tool.


AGW is a political creation designed specifically for the transfer of wealth (and power).

Climate changes (and always has). By blaming climate change on human beings, you create a fiction where you can demand a transfer of wealth. Obviously, according to the fiction, successful countries must bear a greater burden of the cost to 'fix' the climate since they contributed to the climate change to a greater extent.

That is why every article, every study, every governmental agency, the U.N., etc. always talk about anthropogenic global warming instead of global warming.

They are not really concerned about global climate change (warmer or cooler). They are concerned about the transfer of wealth -- which requires blame.
Eikka
3.4 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2013
We have the effective technology to do so.


Such as?

Almost all the technologies we have don't scale up to the large scales demanded here. The ones that do are, surprise surprise, huge NIMBY problems because of effective smear campaigns by Greenpeace et al.

One train derailment carrying thousands of gallons of that stuff and you can kiss an entire county goodbye.


Ridiculous propaganda.

One dam that holds millions of gallons of radioactive fly ash sludge from a large coal plant bursts, and you'd just shrug your shoulders.

Thanks to double standards that treat nuclear power and nuclear waste with the hysteria of a person who's afraid of bees yet has never actually been stung by one. Did you know that what classifies as nuclear waste can be 30 times less radioactive than any other industrial waste, simply because it came out of a nuclear powerplant?
djr
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2013
Dogbert: "Climate changes (and always has). By blaming climate change on human beings, you create a fiction "

Dogbert - do some reading. Look at this graph -

http://en.wikiped...ison.png

Now - what is your explanation for the precipitous rise in temperatures in the past 100 years? Scientists looking at this reality - have studied all the possible drivers - and concluded that it is almost certainly being primarily driven by the introduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Please show research that supports your claim that this is a fiction...
Tausch
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2013
Hmmm. Manipulating people instead of climate?
axemaster
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2013
One dam that holds millions of gallons of radioactive fly ash sludge from a large coal plant bursts, and you'd just shrug your shoulders.

No, I wouldn't. Coal is one of the most damaging forms of energy production, and I'm strongly against it.

Thanks to double standards that treat nuclear power and nuclear waste with the hysteria of a person who's afraid of bees yet has never actually been stung by one. Did you know that what classifies as nuclear waste can be 30 times less radioactive...

I'm not hysterical. I was certified to work with radioactive materials only 6 months ago. And we aren't talking about the non-radioactive stuff. I couldn't care less about what is considered radioactive, I care about what is ACTUALLY radioactive. And if a train load of the actual radioactive waste were to have an accident, the consequences would be dire. Which is why the stuff sits in pools right next to the plants. People are afraid to move it.

***MUST RESIST CALLING YOU AN IDIOT***
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (16) Jan 13, 2013
dogbert offered a gem of idiocy
AGW is a political creation designed specifically for the transfer of wealth (and power)
Implying governments & corporations don't already have power/wealth ? FFs they obviously do !

So, then where is the wealth/power transferred to & from who ?

Reducing my home power consumption by from 1/5th to 1/3rd of what it was 4 years ago is political ? How so ? I save money you dunderhead !

As an electronic engineer I've two new products I could now produce at moderate profit which I couldn't do 10 years ago, partly due to improved technology & partly to power/cost differentials.

Customer gets product, doesnt produce CO2, cheaper to run, I get increased income, where is the politics please ?

So dogbert, is our atmosphere an essentially closed or open system ?

What do you 'think' happens when trillions of tonnes of CO2 and increases thereof are pumped into the atmosphere for several decades ?

Are you claiming physics & chemistry is political ?

(sigh)
packrat
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2013
Interesting, the 3 largest polluters are of course the largest countries.. What happens when you add all of the little Europe countries together? How are these numbers generated? By measuring the amount of oil and coal used and extrapolating or actual atmospheric measurements. The reason I ask is I find it hard to believe that 3rd world countries that use wood etc in open fires or ovens to cook all their food would not be generating a lot of both carbon dioxide and carbon pollution from the smoke. I'm not saying the biggest countries don't create most of the co2 as that's inevitable since they have the biggest populations but I do think it's time some of the third world countries admitted to their share of the problem and stop trying to blame it all on the rest of us. What can be done about reducing co2 isn't really much other than switching over to nuke power, wind and solar but economically most countries simply couldn't do it any where near fast enough to suit the scientists.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (16) Jan 13, 2013
Mike Massen,
So, then where is the wealth/power transferred to & from who ?


Really? You don't know?

You create carbon taxing schemes where successful countries are fined for their success and the proceeds are then distributed to other countries which are not so successful.

Redistribution is also accomplished within a country by fining businesses and redistributing those proceeds in some type of social redistribution.

AGW is now and has always been about the redistribution of wealth and power. It is not about climate.
TheKnowItAll
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2013
People seem to forget about wild fires contributing to huge amounts of pollution. Nowadays wild fires are not needed since we human produce the co2 needed for the echo system. Better ways to control those would make a big difference, encouraging evolution instead of putting the blame on it. 80% plus of wild fires are caused by human negligence btw.
axemaster
3 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2013
As an electronic engineer I've two new products I could now produce at moderate profit which I couldn't do 10 years ago, partly due to improved technology & partly to power/cost differentials.

Hey Mike Massen, if you're an electronics engineer I'd like to get your advice on something... I'm trying to get into microcontroller programming and wireless networking (using cheap cheap ICs and custom PCBs). The idea being to build some simple wirelessly controlled devices, hopefully for less than $5-10 in terms of the ICs needed. The thing is, there's such a vast array of chips and networking protocols that I don't know where to start. Do you have any advice? Thanks!

EDIT: Oh, and I was wondering, how do custom PCB manufacturing costs scale with quantity. I.e. I know I can get a custom board for $33, but if I were to order 1000 or something like that, would it become $3?
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2013
Guys, I am not a CO2 warming fan, in fact I just did some math that says CO2 could be reduced 10 fold and would still be just as effective, also water is a broad-spectrum absorber/emmitter-many more times more influential, we've reduced CFC several thousand-fold, and they are much more powerful Greenhouse gasses, etc..
BUT... the Earth, particularly the oceans, USED to have the capacity to suck up/sink, more CO2 than humans could possibly produce. What happened?
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (13) Jan 14, 2013
The Alchemist,
The AGW fiction only works if you ignore the far higher influence of water vapor, other gasses, etc. in favor of CO2.

Science takes a back seat to political agenda.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2013
The projections in the article could be used as an instrument to bring about the change.

Damage projections go directly into the calculations of insurance and re-insurenace companies. Premiums will rise as long as chances for damages rise.
So for companies it should (at least in theory) be more profitable at some point to invest in more efficient/less polluting processes in order to curb insurance costs.

That's the theory. In practice the people hit by floods are seldom those which pollute. That's where the 'free market approach' falls down, of course.

in fact I just did some math

Show that math, please.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2013
dogbert is playing the propaganda game
So, then where is the wealth/power transferred to & from who ?
Really? You don't know?
Obviously seeking your opinion !
You create carbon taxing schemes where successful countries are fined for their success and the proceeds are then distributed to other countries which are not so successful.
Your waffle is propaganda, an example please ?
Redistribution is also accomplished within a country by fining businesses & redistributing those proceeds in some type of social redistribution.
Huh ? 'some' type, controlled by who, governments or corporations which *already* have power & wealth !
AGW is now and has always been about the redistribution of wealth and power. It is not about climate.
Think about this carefully, the corporations buy/make the tech to fulfil products that reduce CO2 emissions & raise efficiency, how is this wealth 'redistributed' any differently ? Its the business model & has been going on longer than AGW.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (13) Jan 14, 2013
dogbert's "science" needs a much better education with this idiot gem
..The AGW fiction only works if you ignore the far higher influence of water vapor, other gasses, etc. in favor of CO2.

Science takes a back seat to political agenda.
Not only are you completely wrong but you ignored basic meteorology, what is your skill set, did you even go to high school ?

Water precipitates & it falls as rain or snow. That doesnt happen with CO2 (doh) Water vapour issue you complain about ignores homeostasis totally.

Learn some basic atmospheric fluid dynamics & meteorology & get a basic high school education too it seems !

Clearly you have been told a lot of rubbish & passed it on without any critical examination, your intellect seems fast asleep or non-existent, strange because you can use internet (sigh).

The only explanation is you are intentionally trolling, dumb or hypnotised to keep spouting one liners & cant figure how wealth is so called 'redistributed' ?

Get educated please !
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2013
I'm trying to get into microcontroller programming and wireless networking (using cheap cheap ICs and custom PCBs). The idea being to build some simple wirelessly controlled devices, hopefully for less than $5-10 in terms of the ICs needed. The thing is, there's such a vast array of chips and networking protocols that I don't know where to start. Do you have any advice? Thanks!
Suggest:-
1. Google microcontroller clubs in your area or ask dept at uni
2. Google PCB manufacturers and email asking re price breaks
3. Google wireless modules with protocol management, eg electric imp

good luck
Egleton
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2013
Governments don't need elaborate conspiracies to confiscate your wealth. They print money and hand it to their friends.
There is no need for any of that malarkey. Ask the FED.
You disinformation professionals just chat quietly to yourselves.
Your cause is hopeless, just like your tobacco campaign that flopped. Losers.
So this is what an Ice Age looks like?
jough blough
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2013
Been in Australia recently dogbert ?, dept of meteorology has had to update their scales to account for 49 deg C days on the colour chart !


Wow! This is how unbelievable this crap is. They speak of 4 degrees in 100 years. Yet your local weather is outrageous because of what, 10% of the 4 degrees?

Amazing.
jough blough
1 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2013
We have the effective technology to do so.


Such as?

Almost all the technologies we have don't scale up to the large scales demanded here.


The only one I can think of is to IMMEDIATELY STOP the outgassing of Natural Gas and CO2 from the new wells in North Dakota.

NYT: " Every day, more than 100 million cubic feet of natural gas is flared this way — enough energy to heat half a million homes for a day.

The flared gas also spews at least two million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, as much as 384,000 cars or a medium-size coal-fired power plant would emit, alarming some environmentalists."

If were really a problem, don't you think they'd stop this practice?
jough blough
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2013
dogbert's "science" needs a much better education with this idiot gem
..The AGW fiction only works if you ignore the far higher influence of water vapor, other gasses, etc. in favor of CO2.

Science takes a back seat to political agenda.
Not only are you completely wrong but you ignored basic meteorology, what is your skill set, did you even go to high school ?

ooo

Get educated please!


Sorry Mike. I think you need a little of the basic science. You are a fool. The AGW antagonists themselves warn that the H2O (i.e., clouds) do more harm than the CO2. Also, what ever happened due to the reduction of the aerosol propellants back in the 70's? The government eliminated those, much worse than CO2, so that we didn't have global COOLING. Entire industries had to retool. There now is a "tax" to dispose of your refrigerator, air conditioner, and dehumidifier. That tax isn't enough, now they want more money.

Let's bring back fluorocarbons and increase the cooling.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2013
Also, what ever happened due to the reduction of the aerosol propellants back in the 70's? The government eliminated those, much worse than CO2, so that we didn't have global COOLING.

No, that was to protect the ozone layer (which happens to block ultraviolet light. And it's a good thing it blocks UV because otherwise we'd have a pretty nasty problem with skin cancer, dying fauna and crop failures)

H2O is a grenhouse gas. However, human additions to the H20 balance are negligible (most of it is due to evaporation from the oceans which is uses up MANY times the energy that humans produce/consume)
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2013
@jough blough who just joined physorg yesterday (ha dogbert)!
Yet your local weather is outrageous because of what, 10% of the 4 degrees? Amazing.
Sarcasm does you no credit, point is it's the first time that all of Australia had very high readings in all states, including the island of Tasmania, high temperatures & weather conditions led to fire-storms destroying over 100 homes, this has never happened before so far south...

Regional conditions showed temps of 54 deg C !!

jough blough/dogbert hobbled with ignorance re flaring
If were really a problem, don't you think they'd stop this practice?
A sizable proportion of the gas is H2 which is expensive to separate/store & efficient to flare it off as it mostly produces water vapour.

jough blough/dogbert mumbled
..The AGW antagonists themselves warn that the H2O (i.e., clouds)do more harm than the CO2..


CO2 has no precipitation mechanism, H20 has a good one, which offers great negative feedback, ie. stabilises quickly.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2013
@jough blough/dogbert/ryggesogn2 et cetera
Let's bring back fluorocarbons and increase the cooling.
Please please keep your ignorance away from the poor feeble politicians who entered their career via law and can take a stand of equilibrium.

Why are you so ignorant jough blough !

Please get an education, take care where u get that education, not in waiting rooms at the local VD clinic (geesh)

CFC's produced a great threat re UV radiation & any issue re perceived 'cooling' over the period is so entangled its difficult to arrive at that assessment with any sort of certainty.

jough blough LOL joined physorg yesterday & focussed on my comments on this thread with priority a& your other thread also pushes a propaganda questioning diverse models, why are you so damn predictable...

*grin*
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2013
Also, what ever happened due to the reduction of the aerosol propellants back in the 70's? The government eliminated those, much worse than CO2, so that we didn't have global COOLING.

Wow... just wow. I remember doing a report on this back in my freshman year of high school. It's depressing to think that even as a kid barely out of grade school I knew more science than you.

The chemicals in question were chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and they were eliminated by international consensus because they had a tendency to diffuse to the upper atmosphere, where they would be dissociated by UV radiation and release chlorine atoms, which would then proceed to destroy vast numbers of ozone molecules through a catalytic reaction. Ozone is a very important molecule since it shields Earth's surface from deadly high energy ultraviolet radiation.
http://en.wikiped...rocarbon

Honestly...
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2013
Suggest:-
1. Google microcontroller clubs in your area or ask dept at uni
2. Google PCB manufacturers and email asking re price breaks
3. Google wireless modules with protocol management, eg electric imp

good luck

Thanks! That's really helpful, esp. the electric imp.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2013
@dogbert-you miss an important bit about condensation, when water condenses it releases all the energy it took to change states. The energy from phase transitions is huge!
CFC's destroyed ozone, whih allowed more high frequency photons to pass into the lower atmosphere and ground where it becomes more lower frequency photons or heat. That's why CFC's were such powerful greenhouse gasses, they are catalytic GH gasses.
The Alchemist
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2013
OK, remember, I dismissed CO2 as a player 30 years ago, so this is kinda new to me, like asking how high a unicorn can jump… First off, CO2 has a mean free path of 6mm, which essentially means it is all going to react. It weighs more than O2 and N2 and will be held closer to the ground by gravity. Canonical distribution: CO2 vanishes 1 kn before O2&N2 Second it discharges by 2 means, re-emission and collision. Re-emission takes micro-secs and is the same frequency. Collision sets the molecule to ambient.Third, it will scatter incoming Sunlight less effectively (e^(-height) distr.), making is less effective.Fourth, the majority of sources state we've only increased it by 35%, though you'll see as high as 200% from "reliable sources."
CO2 is working near 100% efficiency as a green house gas at concentrations arguably 10x less than current, and you really can't do better than 100.
CO2 is a radiant GH gas, it plays the same role as other gasses in convection: Basically, It is not a player
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2013
CFC's destroyed ozone, whih allowed more high frequency photons to pass into the lower atmosphere and ground where it becomes more lower frequency photons or heat. That's why CFC's were such powerful greenhouse gasses, they are catalytic GH gasses.

Technically this is true, however CFCs aren't very important in the global warming picture because they mostly destroy ozone over the poles, where there is little solar input anyway.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2013
Technically this is true, however CFCs aren't very important in the global warming picture because they mostly destroy ozone over the poles, where there is little solar input anyway.

Whoa! CFC's were/are everywhere, the effects were more pronounced near the poles because there is a natural deficit of ozone there even without CFCs. If you'll remember those poor blind field mice :(
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2013
@Axemaster/Vendicard- I just realized how I might bring you over to the dark side. One issue you had was with thresholds, which you phrased in terms of magnitudes. But I think the difficulty you may be having can be phrased like this: The book Fahrenheit 450, is a very different book that Fahrenheit 451. If we ground both our arguments, and approximate that the Sun is in Heat equilibrium with the Earth, than the heat, or CO2 if you must, changes that equilibrium, "erodes" buffers, in short, by the principles of Le Chatelier's causes change.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2013
Water precipitates & it falls as rain or snow. That doesnt happen with CO2 (doh)

CO2 has no precipitation mechanism


Actually, one of the main ways in which CO2 is eliminated form the atmosphere is by dissolving into raindrops and then simply falling out of the sky. More clouds acts as a negative feedback for CO2 because the increased rainfall removes CO2.

CO2 makes rain slightly acidic, which causes weathering of rocks and formation of carbonate minerals that sequester the CO2 into sediments. Then it spends half a billion years being slowly pushed under the earth's crust, and eventually comes up again out of a volcano.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2013
Eikka appears as intellectually dishonest or suffering solar dimming with
Actually, one of the main ways in which CO2 is eliminated form the atmosphere is by dissolving into raindrops and then simply falling out of the sky. More clouds acts as a negative feedback for CO2 because the increased rainfall removes CO2.
Get a grip Eikka, your bias shows well !

1. You claim eliminated ?
So all we have to do is wait for it to rain & CO2 is gone & mopped up by what other mechanism ?

2. In your claim, what percentage of cloud mass absorbs how much CO2 ?

3. How much of that cloud mass actually results in precipitation ?

4. How much of that precipitation actually reaches the ground ?

So you confirm ocean acidification via CO2, what is the other mechanism that you claim "eliminates" CO2 from the atmosphere,

Be careful here Eikka, "eliminate" means NONE left - OK ?

5. How long will this elimination take & under what conditions in respect of what level of emissions ?

Shakes Head !
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2013
I'm not hysterical.

I care about what is ACTUALLY radioactive. And if a train load of the actual radioactive waste were to have an accident, the consequences would be dire. Which is why the stuff sits in pools right next to the plants. People are afraid to move it.


Yes you are. What you outline is exactly the kind of hysterical ideas that I meant. The reason why nuclear waste sits at the power plants is because there's nowhere to put it since hysterical people also protest against its reprocessing.

In reality, nuclear waste isn't transported in leaking barrels of green liquid that you probably saw in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles when you were ten. The fuel rods are solid, and they are transported in sturdy containers that are designed to withstand a train crash, and even if they do break the stuff wouldn't immediately spread to the entire county. It would remain localized to the crash site, where it would simply be scooped up along with any contaminated soil.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2013
Eikka appears as intellectually dishonest or suffering solar dimming with.
Get a grip Eikka, your bias shows well !


Rude and condescending as ever, the more so the more wrong you are.

Google for geochemical carbon cycle. http://deepblue.l...quence=2

It says the current rate of carbonate deposition is sufficient to exhaust the CO2 stored in both the atmosphere and the oceans in 400,000 years.

Considering the atmosphere represents about 720 gigatons of CO2 and the oceans represent 38,400 gigatons, it would completely empty the atmosphere of CO2 in about 7500 years. Reducing the amount of CO2 by 1% would take about 75 years.
rubberman
1.3 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2013
Eikka. Has it been raining less for the last 150 years? Just asking because because of the whole 120PPM over the past 800,000 years of natural variability thing.

Alchemist- good description on the physics functionality of CO2. Don't confuse efficiency with concentration, the more of it there is, the more energy it traps in the system. When you add energy to a system, it will manifest as thermal or kinetic. Hence it either warms, or weather patterns change...observations tend to support this.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2013
Eikka. Has it been raining less for the last 150 years? Just asking because because of the whole 120PPM over the past 800,000 years of natural variability thing.


Well, the geochemical cycle is a major contributor at those timescales.

I'm not an expert on the subject. I just pointed out that Mike Massen's claim about there being no precipitation pathway for CO2 is bullshit. There is a significant outflow of CO2 due to the formation of carbonate minerals that is relevant even on the human scale of time.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2013
Eikka lied
I just pointed out that Mike Massen's claim about there being no precipitation pathway for CO2 is bullshit.
Liar, Not at all, certainly not from the perspective of our lifetimes & those of several generations...

Like paracelsus offered that the only difference between a medication & poison is the dose. So it is with 'elimination', waiting millenia for any sort of elimination is a type of lie as Eikka *should* know the probabilistic equilibrium is CO2 will always be emitted even if humans were extinct, so why Eikka are you being dis-ingenuous ?

Eikka went on his lying with
There is a significant outflow of CO2 due to the formation of carbonate minerals that is relevant even on the human scale of time.
Where the f..k did you ever show any sort of metric regarding 'significance' in respect of either volume/mass & over what timescale ? you sound like a freaking lazy non-scientific politician who only offers 'spin' !

Why didnt you retort with useful info ?

Wake up !
Steven_Anderson
1 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2013
For those who fear the nuclear solution, please give a look at LFTR Reactors. They use molten salts, and can't go boom. In addition it reduces our highly radioactive stock piles. It's a solution that a Manhattan style government project could make viable in only a three to five years. Combined with conservation, 20 % reduction in easy to remove waste in our systems, Wind, Solar, Wave power (forget about ethanol please its a waste of resources), eliminating current methods of making large non power generating dumps and converting it to useful energy, we could kill the CO2 problem in 10 years and meet short term goals emissions reduction goals. This would effectively eliminate causes of war, and billions of people world wide hardship caused by global warming. By the way LFTR reactors do not take anywhere near thousands of years to stop radiating and generate less than 1% of the waste of currently used reactors.
Shelgeyr
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2013
There is no such thing as an "urgent CO2 cut".

There is, however, such thing as "unnecessary CO2 cuts". That's been pegged at 100% of them for a long, long time.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2013
@Rubberman-thanks, six hours gone from my sleep, and you're the only one who commented and none of the requestors. But the AGW seemed upset, didn't they? I am trying to use the term "efficiently" as an intuitive description for readers.
I think I've thought of a good analogy for everyone, that of car exhaust: Do you feel the heat from a car as it goes by? No, but you do see the water vapor, and can infer CO2 release (at 14:12). However this too quickly fades, absorbed by the environment, intuitively 100%. When it is absorbed like this it joins the prevailing weather patterns and environment as waste heat, or gas (water vapor & CO2).
Incidentally, Oxygen should be dropping like a rock, compared to CO2 rise, yet it is not being much mentioned, anyone got any good leads?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2013
The Alchemist does not seem to want to think like his namesake
Oxygen should be dropping like a rock, compared to CO2 rise, yet it is not being much mentioned, anyone got any good leads?
Huh ? Why should O2 be dropping 'like a rock' ? there is the natural cycle of CO2 being consumed by sea and plants to produce O2 which just goes to show the dynamic and how much CO2 is being emitted is rising but not enough O2 and absorbance of Carbon, just not at the levels we would like/expect, see the climate models...
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2013
Incidentally, Oxygen should be dropping like a rock, compared to CO2 rise, yet it is not being much mentioned, anyone got any good leads?

The 'lead' is: Look stuff up before typing. Your ignorance is staggering.

CO2 content in the atmosphere (current): 391 parts per million volumetric
O2 content in the atmosphere: 210000 parts per million volumetric

That's roughly 537 time as much O2 (volumetric) than CO2.

The CO2 rise since 1960 (about 75ppmv) is equivalent to 1/2800th of the O2 by volume.

intuitively 100%.

Your 'intuition' is so far off it isn't even funny. It's actually scary that someone can be so far out of touch with real-life magnitudes.

VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2013
Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years

Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.

Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.

http://berkeleyea...summary/
VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2013
From the latest BEST Results - paid for with Koch money.

http://berkeleyea...mall.png

Looks like a hockey stick to me.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2013
@Rubberman, It seem Anitalias got all excited since I mentioned rubber weapons in the other post, huh? I've busked it, but maybe you two have a future. LOL
@Mike, I am refferring to the combustion of gasoline, there should be a correlation. Gas 16O2 --> *CO2 9H20 apprx.
@Aniaalias-you've made my point for me in trying to make me look dumb. CFC are persistent, act catalytically, and so are thousands of times more powerful than CO2. I am just going to leave it there. I don't want you going all "Fatal Attraction" on me.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2013
CFC are persistent, act catalytically, and so are thousands of times more powerful than CO2

- CFCs are persistent: true (so is CO2)
- CFCs are thousands of times more powerfull than CO2: true

BUT

Concentration in the atmosphere:
CO2: 391ppm
CFC (all combined): less than 0.4ppt

That's 9 orders of magnitude difference(!)

in trying to make me look dumb

Trying? I did no such thing. You managed that all by yourself quite nicely. I just corrected your statements based on wishful thinking with hard facts.

...and showed you up for a fraud, because you claimed to have 'done the math'. And anyone who claims that and can't produce the goods on a SCIENCE site gets what he deserves - derision.

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2013
Ah, but Antialias, CFCs are 20- thousands plus times more persistent than CO2, you obviously didn't "google" their mechanism, but thanks for playing.
Relax, and remember, we're both pro AGW, it is just that I think CO2 as the cause is just silly, an explanation that cannot be correlated plainly. As demonstrated by the last 30 years of silly argument. Anyway you are on my "unworthy of this reader" list until you stop taking things personal.
And I did the math, apparently you don't know how to intepret it.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2013
20- thousands plus times more persistent than CO2

No they are not - or they would not have been dropping the way they did after the ban was put into effect.
(Just google or CFC concentration atmosphere - images)

Half life in atmosphere:
CFC-13, CClF3: 640 years
SF6 (the one with the longest half life): 6000 years

CO2 doesn't have a half life since it's in a cycle (which means that the excess CO2 we've been putting in the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere until sequestered. Without sequestration it stays basically forever or until the vegetation/ocean acidification catches up - but those are limited buffer systems)

So please: Stop pulling assertions out of your behind and start looking stuff up. It takes only a minute.

This is science site. Make assertions with a basis in fact.
This isn't the "My little pony"-forum where an assertion like "I did the math" will garner you "Ooohs" and "Aaaahs".
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2013
Relax, and remember, we're both pro AGW

The problem is: You are the type of nut that gives the opposition fodder. You're uneducated and unknowledgeable on the subject - yet you make assertions even though they are patently false. That's EXACTLY the kind of strategy the deniers are employing.

So by arguing on their level you're basically putting AGW on a footing based on hyperbole, half-knowledge, say-so and gossip.
Shutting up on your part would be a great service to the cause of arguing RATIONALLY on the subject.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2013
@Anitalias-All I am doing is shaking my head. You can't just "google" your way to a scientific background, and you don't seem to realize every fact you dig up to show me up enforces my point. You didn't understand stating the "canonical distribution" and insignificant amounts of CO2 at atm-1km was math, nor calculating the mean free path or its significance to green house effects.
Rather than point out the latest flaw you have with blind googling of CFC's, I am just going to do a better job holding with my own statement: You are unworthy of this reader.
VendicarE
2 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2013
ClapTrap.

"CFCs are 20- thousands plus times more persistent than CO2," - Alchemist
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2013
Why do you think he called himself "The Alchemist"?

"The problem is: You are the type of nut that gives the opposition fodder" - Antialias

Wasn't alchemy concerned about the conversion of one one element into another?

Belief to Denialism in this instance.
The Alchemist
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2013
@VendicarE-Persistance of CFC's is a matter everyone but you seem to agree on.
Banned for the fourth time, huh? It's not us, it's you, you have some good things to say once in a while, why not accentuate the positive?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2013
Wasn't alchemy concerned about the conversion of one one element into another?

Yes, but today it's called Nuclear Chemistry. (I am not a Nuklur Chemist.) Alchemist is also what the English call a Pharmacist. (I am not a Pharmacist.) Isaac Newton was an Alchemist, and so Alchemists were essentially proto-physicists and proto-chemists. I am not proto-.
Anyway, you did say something simple and brilliant in one the posts. "CO2 is plant food."
The reaction is 6 (CO2 plus H2O) =goes to= glucose and 6 O2, not a good ROI for Oxygen. But I am not a biologist, any insight?