Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Stop selling coal to them would be a good start, can do that all on our own.

And it wouldn't help the atmosphere a bit since they'd simply buy it from somewhere else. It's always difficult to find solutions when it comes to global commodities.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

And it wouldn't help the atmosphere a bit since they'd simply buy it from somewhere else. It's always difficult to find solutions when it comes to global commodities.

The purpose of the Paris Climate accord was to try to get global cooperation in taking the first baby steps in cutting down on CO2 emissions. It's a shame that the US is no longer being cooperative in the process.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The purpose of the Paris Climate accord was to try to get global cooperation in taking the first baby steps in cutting down on CO2 emissions. It's a shame that the US is no longer being cooperative in the process.

And yet, China & India remain signatories afaik. How's that working out for the atmosphere?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don't understand the question [1], nor the statement [2].
Please elucidate.

I normally restrict my elucidation to private moments at home, but in this case I'll make an exception.


In simple terms, there's no natural law that dictates that the 200000+ plus new humans added to the population yesterday will have that equivalent in photosynthetic life spring up to recycle the CO2 from their aspiration. It's far more likely a jungle will be bulldozed to make way for more housing and food production. Maybe even a new factory for increased iPhone manufacturing capacity too.

Originally Posted by jackdale

The two regions are quite different. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents; the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by oceans.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/...ifference.html

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is winter in the Southern hemisphere.

Despite the scare stories, it's impossible for the Antarctic ice sheet to melt in the present climate.




Although it's dark at the north pole in winter, this is when most of the warming occurs. For example

Originally Posted by SailOar

If you think it important to add billions of people to the equation, then you also need to subtract the billions of bison, wildebeest, fish, etc, that humans have killed and displaced. Then add all the cows and pigs and chickens that humans keep.

My understanding is that all those factors are taken into account.

What about land clearing?

Originally Posted by SailOar

Getting back to ocean acidification:

Alterations to seabed raise fears for future

Interesting. Global warming affecting the sea floor already with a process that can take centuries. Oh, for the good old days of goldilocks/utopia when carbonates behaved themselves and formed limestone from dead critters. I wonder what the theory is here. More is less?

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Th sequestering of that CO2 resulted in a Goldilocks world where homo sapiens evolved and the their food crops were domesticated.

The last time CO2 levels were at the current level both global temperatures and the oceans were significantly higher.

All the fancy graphics and grandiloquence display does not explain a simple issue.
If ... nota bene IF ... CO2 is directly responsible for temperature increases, it follows that CO2 reduction should produce the oh so much desired temperature reduction.

Now this brings a few question to mind.
By how much must we reduce CO2 to achieve one degree of temperature reduction?
It is a simple and valid question.
Hint ... what happened 100, 1000 or 10,000 years ago may not help at all because a) we no longer live in caves, and b) we are way more in number.

So when we will be enlightened with a figure that says X CO2 = X degrees, the second question inevitably is how much? ... X degrees = X$

And then, last but not least ... By how much do we want to reduce the world's average temperature (conceding there is such thing as a world average temperature that from a scientific point of view is complete nonsense.)
?
one? two? five?
Who decides?

The whole concept that humans can turn around climate variations that have about 25 causes by tinkering at the least significant, CO2 and turning it into a political and economical mea culpa, milking it for all it's worth making billionaires out of a few hundreds that then have the gall to get together driving jets and mega yacht to pontificate how the rest of the mignons must live ... that, is way too much.

To then have to read here and elsewhere the illinformed, intentionally deceiving, anti science statements of faith and religious beliefs of those who convinced by media and propaganda, take the flag of the morally superior and environmentally compassionate and run with it labelling the rest "deniers", is something that will go down in history as the biggest collective deception of all times.

And I still want to know.
Tons of CO2 reduction = X degree of "average world" temperature.
how about Tons of CO2 reduction = millimeters (or meters) of sea level reduction.
This last one is very important to me because if you are planning to reduce sea level I will need to dredge the river.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

And yet, China & India remain signatories afaik. How's that working out for the atmosphere?

I posted an article here that says that China may be on track to meet its climate change agreements nine years early.

The Climate Action Tracker says this about India:

India has emerged as a global leader in renewable energy, with investments in renewable energy topping fossil fuel investments.After adopting its National Electricity Plan (NEP) in 2018, India remains on track to overachieve its “2˚C compatible” rated Paris Agreement NDC climate action targets.

Estimates show India could achieve the more ambitious part of its NDC goals—a 40% non-fossil-based power capacity by 2030 more than a decade earlier than targeted. Given these positive signals, there is significant potential for the incoming government to increase the ambition of India’s NDC to a “1.5˚C compatible” rating.

India could become a global climate leader with a “1.5˚C compatible” rating if it abandons plans to build new coal-fired power plants. This is an important consideration, as India’s CO2 emissions rose by 4.8% in 2018, largely driven by emissions from coal power plants.

Abandoning these plans is more than feasible when we consider recent developments such as a 50% decrease in the cost of solar power in just two yearsand several utilities shelving plans to build coal plants. For three consecutive years, renewable energy investment topped that of fossil fuel-related power investments and in 2018, solar investments exceeded those in coal. Given the price-competitiveness of solar PV, these should be India’s preferred choice of distribution companies. However, the NEP took a backwards step of including more than 90 GW of planned coal-fired capacity—and these risk becoming stranded assets.

While interventions in the electricity sector have largely been driven by strong policy commitments, action in the transport sector is governed by uncertainty. The Indian Government set up the National Electricity Mission Mobility Plan, aiming to provide incentives for adopting and manufacturing electric vehicles. This plan operates in an atmosphere of uncertainty over a broader transport strategy, with the government no longer pursuing its initial commitment to a 100% share of electric vehicles in new sales by 2030. This commitment would have been consistent with global benchmarks to reach full decarbonisation. A 100% share of electric two wheelers (not cars) seems to be the current formulation, but this is yet to be adopted as a formal target.....

I should add that even if all emission agreements are met, it still is not enough to hold temps below the levels that many feel are prudent. Paris should be considered a first step, not a final step. In a few years, hopefully, the US will be a more willing partner in the process.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Marc1

So when we will be enlightened with a figure that says X CO2 = X degrees,

Possibly only when someone figures out how to implement Reef's lab experiment.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I posted an article here that says that China may be on track to meet its climate change agreements nine years early.



The Climate Action Tracker says this about India:





I should add that even if all emission agreements are met, it still is not enough to hold temps below the levels that many feel are prudent. Paris should be considered a first step, not a final step. In a few years, hopefully, the US will be a more willing partner in the process.

There's a whole bunch of unemployed hippies/wannabe academics down south of me super-glueing themselves to roads as I type this. They're not fussed on India's efforts to reduce coal use it seems.

Does "what is a developing country" come up zip on a google search?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I posted an article here that says that China may be on track to meet its climate change agreements nine years early.

The Climate Action Tracker says this about India:


I should add that even if all emission agreements are met, it still is not enough to hold temps below the levels that many feel are prudent. Paris should be considered a first step, not a final step. In a few years, hopefully, the US will be a more willing partner in the process.

I wish both important countries the best in reducing their fossil fuel consumption & emissions, regardless of whether it's driven by their leaders' professed belief in CC or not. In the meantime, I'm sure the US fracking industry would be happy to invest their resources & know-how should reasonable terms are able to be met. Happy to hear you have such faith in "promises" countries make for the sake of international agreements. Others know their history a bit better, and therefore do not.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

Possibly only when someone figures out how to implement Reef's lab experiment.

The lack of an answer was far more thought provoking than an actual answer.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

....Despite the scare stories, it's impossible for the Antarctic ice sheet to melt in the present climate.....

Unfortunately, Antarctica apparently didn't consult with you before it started behaving irresponsibly.

As has been posted in previous AGW threads on CF, much of the interior ice sheet is "plugged" from "draining" by tidewater glaciers that are grounded on the sea floor. As the Southern Ocean warms it is increasingly undermining the snouts of the glaciers, causing some of them to become "unmoored" and start flowing faster into the ocean. This, in turn, allows the interior ice sheets to start draining seaward.

So, yes, it is below freezing in much of Antarctica year round, but it is not the continent's interior temperatures that are alarming scientists.

Huge cavity in Antarctic glacier signals rapid decay | NASA

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

There's a whole bunch of unemployed hippies/wannabe academics down south of me super-glueing themselves to roads as I type this. They're not fussed on India's efforts to reduce coal use it seems.

Does "what is a developing country" come up zip on a google search?

Must be contagious. We just had the super glue crowd fastening themselves to the walls of tunnel corridors that run between legislative offices & the US Congress in an effort to block a vote on legislation they happened not to like. Forget which one -- so many protesters these days it's hard to keep track.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The lack of an answer was far more thought provoking than an actual answer.

Exactly. But apparently not for everyone, unfortunately. Kinda cuts right to the chase on a number of fronts, no?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Unfortunately, Antarctica apparently didn't consult with you before it started behaving irresponsibly.

As has been posted in previous AGW threads on CF, much of the interior ice sheet is "plugged" from "draining" by tidewater glaciers that are grounded on the sea floor. As the Southern Ocean warms it is increasingly undermining the snouts of the glaciers, causing some of them to become "unmoored" and start flowing faster into the ocean. This, in turn, allows the interior ice sheets to start draining seaward.

So, yes, it is below freezing in much of Antarctica year round, but it is not the continent's interior temperatures that are alarming scientists.

Huge cavity in Antarctic glacier signals rapid decay | NASA

I'm guessing thermodynamics isn't your field of specialty.

[stevensuf]

Maybe the oil companies are waiting to make a killing with co2 sequestration, would be ironic.