Global Climate Change Science News

[Brian Peacock]

as I was saying ... the world needs the FF expertise.v
...

Nobody denied that the knowledge, technology and expertise of FF can't be deployed in other areas, such as in geothermal. In fact, if we're concerned with a fair and just transition to lo-to-no-carbon economy then maintaining the well-being of those working across a number of problematic sectors (including FF and aviation for example, and the industries supporting their activities more generally) has to be accounted for. But your previous declarations were not about fossil expertise as relating to closed loop geothermal wells (CLGW) but in relation to the profitable capacity of the fossil fuel sector (FF) in relation to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

...
Of course [FF] intend to make money on [CCS]
...
No other industry [FF] has the infrastructure and geological experience to sequester carbon on a giant scale....and they expect to be paid for it.
...
Don't let your moral outrage blind you to the reality that the FF industry is the only industry able to undertake [CCS] and will expect to get compensated for it.
...

Geothermal has potential to make a meaningful contribution to fossil alternatives, but remember: geothermal is a nascent sector with unclear efficiencies that is not yet in a position to be implemented at scale like solar, wind, and hydro, and that we are trying to achieve a net-zero economy in order to limit heating to 1.5°C and only have six years of the carbon budget remaining.

Additionally, a puff piece about the CEO of a CLGW startup is not a reliable source from which to extrapolate, though I admit the article presented an exciting narrative about the potential of CLGW in general, and Eavor in particular.

[Brian Peacock]

The reality of CCS...

[Brian Peacock]

A little bird tells me that it looks like COP28 delegates are going to fail to agree on language to phase out fossil fuels in the final statement, and will instead focus on emission reduction while leaving out references to extraction, processing, and generation.

That this is even a possibility shows how neither the science, nor the viability of the biosphere or the long-term well being of humanity, are the primary focus of Power.

[Brian Peacock]

While the primary measure is the rapid managed decline and replacement of fossil, achieving that and returning 50% of the planet to wilderness is the only feasible way to reverse heating trends and return Earth systems to viable long-term stability.

Fossil fuel phase-out will ‘not avert climate breakdown without protections for nature’

Human destruction of nature is pushing the planet to a point of no return, and even a phase-out of fossil fuels will not stave off climate breakdown unless we also protect the natural world, one of the world’s top climate scientists has warned.

Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told the Guardian: “Even if we phase out all fossil fuels, if we do not get involved in nature, [the destruction of natural landscapes and habitats] can make us lose what we all have agreed on the safe future for humanity on Earth – that is, to stay within the 1.5C limit. It’s really decisive, that we get it right on nature.”

All the scientific models that show a pathway for the world to stay within the crucial temperature threshold of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels make big assumptions about the retention of natural “carbon sinks”, such as forests, wetlands and peatlands, he said. Without these carbon sinks, the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase even faster.

...

Governments meetingat Cop28 are locked in disagreement over whether to phase out, or phase down, fossil fuels. Draft versions of texts that could be agreed by the fortnight-long conference, which ends on Tuesday, allow for a variety of commitments, or for the deletion of any commitment on fossil fuel use.

More than 100 vulnerable and developing countries, including the world’s small island states, are demanding an unconditional phase-out of fossil fuels. Some rich countries, including in the EU, the UK and the US, have backed weaker language, calling for a phase-out of unabated fossil fuels. Those opposed to a phase-out include big oil producers such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, while some fossil fuel-dependent countries, including India, are demanding fair funding to implement the transition away from coal, oil and gas. China, the world’s biggest emitter, has indicated it may favour some form of compromise, as yet unarticulated.

Rockström has said climate science backs the need for a phase-out of fossil fuels, if the world is stay within 1.5C of heating above pre-industrial levels. He called for governments to agree to protect nature at the same time, in order to give the world a chance of staying within the limit.

“We will have to somehow draw a line here and say that we cannot risk these [natural] systems any more. And the first step to take we’ve talked about is to stop destroying them, protect them. We have to have an agreement on keeping the remaining intact nature intact,” he said.

Rockström said scientists were increasingly concerned by what they were observing in the world’s forests and other natural ecosystems. He said: “The climate models that give us a remaining carbon budget for an orderly phase out of oil, coal and gas have assumed that nature will not surprise us. And now nature is surprising us so of course that makes us very worried.”...

[Brian Peacock]

Returning 50% of the planet to wilderness requires transforming land use in the same way phasing fossil requires transforming energy use. Big Farmer has other ideas...

Big meat and dairy lobbyists turn out in record numbers at Cop28

Representatives and lobbyists from meat, dairy and agriculture firms have sent three times as many delegates to COP28 as they did to COP27.

[Brian Peacock]

It's going tits up at COP..

[Svartalf]

what did you expect, ever since the vaunted COP 21 yielded nothing for all of thr grandstanding, we know they are worth nothing.

[Brian Peacock]

World will look back at 2023 as year humanity exposed its inability to tackle climate crisis, scientists say

As historically high temperatures continued to be registered in many parts of the world in late December, the former Nasa scientist James Hansen told the Guardian that 2023 would be remembered as the moment when failures became apparent.

“When our children and grandchildren look back at the history of human-made climate change, this year and next will be seen as the turning point at which the futility of governments in dealing with climate change was finally exposed,” he said. “Not only did governments fail to stem global warming, the rate of global warming actually accelerated.”

After what was probably the hottest July in 120,000 years, Hansen, whose testimony to the US Senate in 1988 is widely seen as the first high-profile revelation of global heating, warned that the world was moving towards a “new climate frontier” with temperatures higher than at any point over the past million years.

Now director of the climate programme at Columbia University’s Earth Institute in New York, Hansen said the best hope was for a generational shift of leadership. “The bright side of this clear dichotomy is that young people may realise that they must take charge of their future. The turbulent status of today’s politics may provide opportunity,” he said...

He's right. If left to the middle and old aged the same unsustainable present-before-future decisions will continue to be made until the oceans boil away. Children and young people have a right to be consulted, listened to, and to lead on decision-making around climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Cue old men taking exception to this in 3... 2... 1...

[macdoc]

There is zero use for ridiculous hyperbole.

until the oceans boil away.

We are only just now approaching the global temps of the Holocene Maximum

The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period in the first half of the Holocene epoch, that occurred in the interval roughly 9,500 to 5,500 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.

[Brian Peacock]

Your tone policing misses the point macdoc - which is that without a change of mindset around sustainability, one that prioritises the needs, concerns, voices and leadership of young people, global temperatures will continue to accelerate upwards.

[JimC]

mac, your location specifies "Planet Earth on slow boil"...

[macdoc]

emphasis on slow boil...

•••••

Hyperbole has its place but not in the context presented.....the same applies to many other instances where existential threats are voiced for humans due to climate change....just makes the person offering sound somewhat unhinged.

which is that without a change of mindset around sustainability, one that prioritises the needs, concerns, voices and leadership of young people, global temperatures will continue to accelerate upwards.

then why did you not just say that..... instead a meaningless over the top bit of nonsense.

[macdoc]

There is zero use for ridiculous hyperbole.

until the oceans boil away.

We are only just now approaching the global temps of the Holocene Maximum

The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period in the first half of the Holocene epoch, that occurred in the interval roughly 9,500 to 5,500 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.

What's the hottest Earth's ever been?
BY MICHON SCOTT AND REBECCA LINDSEY REVIEWED BY SCOTT WING - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, CARRIE MORRILL - NCDC, AND BRIAN HUBER - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 22, 2023

Climate Q&A
Editor's note (11/22/2023): Over the years, we have heard from readers who tell us that they have seen this article being cited by people who deny the reality or seriousness of human-caused global warming. To make it harder for anyone to mischaracterize this article, we are adding this note:

The fact that Earth has been hotter in the past than it is today doesn't prove that recent global warming is natural.
Forest fires can have both natural and human causes. So can climate change. It is partly through figuring out what caused the periods like the ones described in this article that we came to understand that carbon dioxide sets the thermostat of Earth's climate.
The fact that Earth has been hotter in the past than it is today doesn't prove that current warming is harmless, either to people or other life on Earth.
Some previous hot periods led to global mass extinctions.
The hot house periods described in this article occurred millions and millions of years before humans existed. They have no bearing on whether modern human civilization can cope with the level of warming we are likely to face if we do not stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

more
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... 80%C2%B0F).

[Brian Peacock]

emphasis on slow boil...

Yeah, and I made no reference to speed so pretending there's a genuine distinction to be made between the figurative language of your profile and my post is disingenuous.

Hyperbole has its place but not in the context presented.....the same applies to many other instances where existential threats are voiced for humans due to climate change....just makes the person offering sound somewhat unhinged.

You're making an issue out of the wrong thing - the words used to express an idea rather than the idea itself. Criticising someone on that basis is called tone policing.

which is that without a change of mindset around sustainability, one that prioritises the needs, concerns, voices and leadership of young people, global temperatures will continue to accelerate upwards.

then why did you not just say that..... instead a meaningless over the top bit of nonsense.

I said exactly that (see the bold text below) but you missed it when you chose to take exception to figurative language...

[Hansen] is right. If left to the middle and old aged the same unsustainable present-before-future decisions will continue to be made until [global temps severely impact our ability to organise societies capable of addressing climate change]. Children and young people have a right to be consulted, listened to, and to lead on decision-making around climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Cue old men taking exception to this in 3... 2... 1...

So let's put aside a distracting squabble over language and discuss the point instead. Do you agree with what I'm saying? If so, how might we go about remedying the situation, and if not, why not?

[macdoc]

You even got the tone police thing incorrect

A tone argument is a type of ad hominem aimed at the tone of an argument instead of its factual or logical content in order to dismiss a person's argument. Ignoring the truth or falsity of a statement, a tone argument instead focuses on the emotion with which it is expressed.

What factual content did you offer regarding "oceans boiling"?
.........
If you want to talk about the need for young leadership.....start another thread.

This is a Global Climate Change Science News thread.
..do you have some to contribute?