- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 16,331
- Reactions
- 8,352
Would you care to make a comment on the research Wayne? I can't see how a flippant nothing comment as per above adds anything to a discussion.
and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.
It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed. Wayne
What is this based on? Content?....and still the alarmists do nothing to change their lifestyle.
It seems the alarmists aren't very alarmed.
Your cites were not research, they were newspaper articles.
I'm too busy burning fossil fuels and bending perfectly good bits of steel bar to chase down the actual research.
But let's say things are as bad as the Canberra Times represents.... Whatcha gonna do about it Bas?
After 8 years of decay of its ice shelf, Zachariæ Isstrøm, a major glacier of northeast Greenland that holds a 0.5-meter sea-level rise equivalent, entered a phase of accelerated retreat in fall 2012. The acceleration rate of its ice velocity tripled, melting of its residual ice shelf and thinning of its grounded portion doubled, and calving is now occurring at its grounding line. Warmer air and ocean temperatures have caused the glacier to detach from a stabilizing sill and retreat rapidly along a downward-sloping, marine-based bed. Its equal-ice-volume neighbor, Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden, is also melting rapidly but retreating slowly along an upward-sloping bed. The destabilization of this marine-based sector will increase sea-level rise from the Greenland Ice Sheet for decades to come.
What is this based on? Content?
Like I said don't really have time to analyse the papers right now so will take on face value until further notice.You clearly can't/won't read Wayne. They were based on research papers published in Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/11/science.aac7111
And otherwise? Whatever has to be done.
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. Are you asking my permission to start examining them?Observation of alarmists. Let's examine the "carbon footprints" of the chief protagonists shall we?
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. Are you asking my permission to start examining them?
So far you've given us nothing to "examine."
You made a statement:Oh Lord! Another asinine squabbler of insignificancies.
Australia's Bureau of Meteorology said this month that the El Nino was now on course to challenge the 1997-98 event as the strongest on record, and was not expected to peak until late this year.
This would suggest that, short of a major disruptive event such as a huge volcanic eruption, 2015 will easily eclipse heat records in previous years.
And that means taking serious steps to address climate change once and for all. Now, we've made a lot of progress to cut carbon pollution here at home, and we're leading the world to take action as well.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States increased by about 7% between 1990 and 2013.
In a Silicon Valley research lab, scientists are working on what might be considered the option of last resort for global warming.
“It’s an insurance policy,” said researcher Sudhanshu Jain.
It’s called the Marine Cloud Brightening Project, and it’s designed to fight global warming by making clouds over the ocean thicker and brighter so they reflect more sunlight and cool the planet.
The Sunnyvale team has reached a milestone with this high-pressure nozzle that uses salt water and looks like a normal water spray. But it took scientists a year to come up with the exact rate, flow and pressure so that the water droplets come out to the perfect size.
By modifying the reflectivity of clouds, the albedo of Earth would be altered. The intention is that this technique, in combination with greenhouse gas emissions reduction (and possibly other climate engineering techniques) will be sufficient to control global warming. The effect is expected to be fully reversible, as the cloud condensation nuclei particles precipitate naturally. However, like any planetary-scale project dealing with the complex climate system, there is a non-trivial risk of unintended consequences.
Investments worth more than $100 billion over the past eight months are driving an unprecedented shift to renewable energy in India.
The trend is detailed in a report we just posted””India’s Electricity Sector Transformation””that charts the accelerating influx of global capital into India as the country moves toward its goal of installing 175 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2022.
Just a few months ago, global financial markets reflected investor skepticism around whether good intentions and big promises could be turned into concrete actions. The figures we see today speak for themselves, and the $100 billion in firm commitments signed and sealed include deals with state-owned enterprises, leading Indian power companies, a number of Indian billionaires new to the power sector and major global renewable-energy firms and utilities.
India’s population and economy are growing rapidly, yet hundreds of millions still live in poverty without access to electricity. So India has been fiercely protective of its right to prioritise economic development.
As a result, its INDC in framed in terms of emissions intensity — the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of GDP. While India’s pledge promises to cut its emissions intensity in 2030 to a third below 2005 levels, its growing economy means actual emissions will still increase.
On the other hand, India’s INDC notes that coal “will continue to dominate power generation in future”. Indeed, it has ambitious plans to expand domestic coal mining, implying rapid growth in CO2 emissions.
Assuming it meets its INDC, the EU’s per capita emissions would have fallen from 8.8tCO2e today to 6.2tCO2e by 2030. The US and China would nearly converge, with per capita emissions of 12.4 and 11.1tCO2e in 2030, respectively.
By way of context, it’s worth noting that per capita emissions globally need to converge towards around 2GtCO2e in 2050, in order to retain a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.
- No actual CO2 target has been set.
- Although the talk is of “increase the share of clean energy in its total energy mix by as much as 40%”, when you get down to the small print, as we will shortly, the commitment is only to 40% of capacity, and not generation. As we know, renewables give very poor utilisation, so the amount generated will be much, much less than 40%.
- Also, this 40% is not of its total energy mix, as reported, but only of electricity mix.
- Commitment is given about reducing carbon intensity of GDP, but nearly half of this has already been achieved since 2005. As we have seen with China, maturing economies tend to grow away from energy intensive industries.
In November 2009 it emerged that thousands of documents and emails had been stolen from one of the top climate science centres in the world. The emails appeared to reveal that scientists had twisted research in order to strengthen the case for global warming. With the UN's climate summit in Copenhagen just days away, the hack could not have happened at a worse time for climate researchers or at a better time for climate sceptics.
Yet although the scandal caused a media frenzy, the fact is that just about everything you may have heard and read about the University of East Anglia emails is wrong. They are not, as some have claimed, the smoking gun for some great global warming hoax. They do not reveal a sinister conspiracy by scientists to fabricate global warming data. They do, however, raise deeply disturbing questions about the way climate science is conducted, about researchers' preparedness to block access to climate data and downplay flaws in their data, about the siege mentality and scientific tribalism at the heart of the most important international issue of our age.
Here is the link http://www.carbonbrief.org/indias-indc ... go check it out for some FACTS !
India's energy use per head in 2012 is 624kg of oil equivalent. By way of comparison Australia's usage in 2012 was 5644 and the US 6815. China was 2143. Big difference isn't it ?
THE MEDIA HAS MANIPULATED YOU AGAIN !!
What's that? COAL is still the dominate future generation source !!!!!!
When Will Our Carbon Budget Run Out?
The international community has adopted a goal for global warming not to rise above 2 °C compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Scientists have devoted considerable effort to understanding what magnitude of emissions reductions are necessary to limit warming to this level, as the world faces increasingly dangerous climate change impacts with every degree of warming (see Box 1).
IPCC AR5 summarizes the scientific literature and estimates that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions related to human activities need to be limited to 1 trillion tonnes C (1000 PgC) since the beginning of the industrial revolution if we are to have a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 °C. This is “our carbon budget” – the same concept as a checking account. When we’ve spent it all, there’s no more money (and the planet’s overdraft fees will be much more significant than a bank’s small charges for bounced checks).1
The report also states that as of 2011, we have emitted roughly 515 PgC since the industrial revolution, meaning we have already burned through about 52 percent of that carbon budget.
Do the math, and the world only has 485 PgC left in the budget. This balance puts us on track to exhaust our remaining carbon budget before the end of 2045 under a carbon intensive trajectory.2
For context, consider Earth’s increasing pace of emissions: While the first half of the entire global carbon budget was used up over 250 years, the second half of the budget would be used up in only about three decades if emissions continue unabated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?