The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has unleashed their Special Report on the impact of global warming reaching 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
“This IPCC report is set to outline a rescue plan for humanity,”
“1.5°C is the new 2°C,”
If we stick to Paris Climate Agreement commitments, we could still see a global warming of about 3°C by 2100.
1,202 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.sitra.fi/blogit/10-asiaa-jotka-kaikkien-hyva-tietaa-uudesta-ilmastoraportista/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nuclear not mentioned, I wonder why.
Final call to save the world from ‘climate catastrophe’
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309
It’s the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.
Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.
Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Would this help?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
Tomi Engdahl says:
Carbon neutral steel?
https://teknojateollisuusratkaisut.calcus.tech/ssab
Tomi Engdahl says:
This is not fine
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/this-is-not-fine/?utm_source=tcfbpage&sr_share=facebook
Decisions made by world leaders today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, the authors warn.
“One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, co-chair of one of the report’s scientific working groups.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-changeÄ
A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change
Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report.
The Carbon Majors Report (pdf) “pinpoints how a relatively small set of fossil fuel producers may hold the key to systemic change on carbon emissions,”
https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240
Tomi Engdahl says:
What Difference Does 0.5°C Of Global Warming Make? A Hell Of A Lot
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-difference-does-05c-of-global-warming-make-a-hell-of-a-lot/
The world has reached a fork in the road with two paths ahead: a planet that’s 2°C warmer than pre-industrial levels and a planet that’s 1.5°C warmer. But what difference can a measly 0.5°C really make? It turns out, a hell of a lot.
Tomi Engdahl says:
New IPCC Report Outlines Ways to Limit Global Warming
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/new-ipcc-report-outlines-ways-to-limit-global-warming
Already, human activity has caused the global average temperature to rise 1 °C above preindustrial levels. If nothing changes, temperatures will likely reach 1.5 °C above that baseline at some point between 2030 and 2052. Or, in a more extreme case, the global temperature could rise by 2 °C.
A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summarizes the likely impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C, and shows how society could stop further progress toward 2 °C.
Tomi Engdahl says:
In the IPCC’s pathways, for example, renewables supply 70 to 85 percent of electricity by 2050 and natural-gas plants equipped with carbon capture and storage produce another 8 percent, while coal would be almost entirely phased out.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/new-ipcc-report-outlines-ways-to-limit-global-warming
Tomi Engdahl says:
OPINION COMMENTARY
U.N. Ignores Economics Of Climate
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-ignores-economics-of-climate-1539125496
New Nobel laureate William Nordhaus says the costs of proposed CO2 cuts aren’t worth it.
The global economy must be transformed immediately to avoid catastrophic climate damage, a new United Nations report declares. Climate economist William Nordhaus has been made a Nobel laureate. The events are being reported as two parts of the same story, but they reveal the contradictions inherent in climate policy—and why economics matters more than ever.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/tekniikka/energia/kumpi-on-parempi-ydinvoima-ranska-vai-hiili-saksa-saksalle-rokaletappio-sahkon-co2-paastoissa-6744372
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2010/05/17/ilmastokatastrofi-peruutettu?utm_source=facebook-share&utm_medium=social
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.mtv.fi/lifestyle/autot/artikkeli/15-suurinta-rahtilaivaa-tuottaa-yhta-paljon-typpi-ja-rikkipaastoja-kuin-kaikki-maailman-autot-yhteensa-eivatka-ilmastosopimukset-koske-alaa/7108302#gs.1zz7Q=U
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.iltalehti.fi/paakirjoitus/48d07f8e-6e35-481a-8d82-b31c8e301707_pk.shtml
Tomi Engdahl says:
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven’t been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.
We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming.
Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.
If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.wired.com/story/we-need-massive-change-to-avoid-climate-hell/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children
Next best actions are selling your car, avoiding flights and going vegetarian, according to study into true impacts of different green lifestyle choices
The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Climate actions that lift people out of poverty are often most cost-effective
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/climate-actions-lift-people-out-poverty-are-often-most-cost-effective.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=share
The most cost-effective climate change actions are also those that could help us achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs) such as ending poverty and hunger, according to Dr Keywan Riahi, director of the energy program of the International Institute Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria, who says the first step should be to cut our energy demand.
He researches the link between climate and development and contributed to the IPCC assessment published on 8 October, which looked at the impact of global warming of a 1.5˚C increase and how to limit it to this level.
Tomi Engdahl says:
UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html
Just two years ago, amid global fanfare, the Paris climate accords were signed — initiating what seemed, for a brief moment, like the beginning of a planet-saving movement. But almost immediately, the international goal it established of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius began to seem, to many of the world’s most vulnerable, dramatically inadequate; the Marshall Islands’ representative gave it a blunter name, calling two degrees of warming “genocide.”
should the world warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which it will do as soon as 2040, if current trends continue. Nearly all coral reefs would die out, wildfires and heat waves would sweep across the planet annually, and the interplay between drought and flooding and temperature would mean that the world’s food supply would become dramatically less secure.
Avoiding that scale of suffering, the report says, requires such a thorough transformation of the world’s economy, agriculture, and culture that “there is no documented historical precedent.”
What has been called a genocidal level of warming is already our inevitable future.
it will not be possible to keep warming below two degrees Celsius — the level the new report describes as a climate catastrophe. As a planet, we are coursing along a trajectory that brings us north of four degrees by the end of the century. The IPCC is right that two degrees marks a world of climate catastrophe. Four degrees is twice as bad as that.
Human experience and memory offers no good analogy for how we should think about those thresholds
At two degrees, the melting of ice sheets will pass a tipping point of collapse, flooding dozens of the world’s major cities this century.
proposing the imposition of a carbon tax many, many times higher than those currently in use or being considered — they propose raising the cost of a ton of carbon possibly as high $5,000 by 2030, a price they suggest may have to grow to $27,000 per ton by 2100. Today, the average price of carbon across 42 major economies is just $8 per ton.
To avoid warming of the kind the IPCC now calls catastrophic requires a complete rebuilding of the entire energy infrastructure of the world, a thorough reworking of agricultural practices and diet to entirely eliminate carbon emissions from farming, and a battery of cultural changes to the way those of us in the wealthy West, at least, conduct our lives. And we need to do all of that in two, or possibly three, decades
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://leasegreen.fi/aineisto/blogit_ilmastovouhotus/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
Biggest analysis to date reveals huge footprint of livestock – it provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of farmland
The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.
The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans.
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Beef results in up to 105kg of greenhouse gases per 100g of meat, while tofu produces less than 3.5kg
The large variability in environmental impact from different farms does present an opportunity for reducing the harm, Poore said, without needing the global population to become vegan.
Cutting the environmental impact of farming is not easy
There are over 570m farms all of which need slightly different ways to reduce their impact. It is an [environmental] challenge like no other sector of the economy.” But he said at least $500bn is spent every year on agricultural subsidies, and probably much more: “There is a lot of money there to do something really good with.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/9255d3b9-a6c3-48f7-a21e-8d6153b5ad69_pi.shtml
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://professorinajatuksia.blogspot.com/2018/10/australian-ilmastohistoria-meni-uusiksi.html?m=1
Tomi Engdahl says:
At what point do we admit that geoengineering is an option?
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/14/at-what-point-do-we-admit-that-geoengineering-is-an-option/?sr_share=facebook&utm_source=tcfbpage
In 1883, Krakatoa erupted, spewing volcanic ash and gas into the stratosphere, making clouds more reflective and cooling the entire planet by roughly 1° C that year. In 2018, the UN reported that human activity has already raised Earth’s temperature by 1°, and if we don’t do something drastic soon, the results will be catastrophic.
The optimal solution is staring us in the face, of course; reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately this optimal solution is politically untenable and extremely expensive. A decade ago McKinsey estimated it would cost $1 trillion just to halve the growth of carbon emissions … in India alone.
the cost of doing nothing — estimated at $20 trillion by Nature, which doesn’t include its toll on human lives
but it’s a cost which seems to make the necessary political decisions impossible.
There is another option. The root problem we face is not carbon concentrations but atmospheric temperature.
We already know how to cool the planet without reducing carbon. The solution is so simple it’s almost laughable: just make our clouds a little more reflective, so they reflect more of the sun’s light, and thus reduce our heat. Volcanoes like Krakatoa do it all the time
The Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991 cooled global temperatures by about half a degree Celsius for the next few years. A sulfur-aerosol project could produce a Pinatubo of sulfur dioxide every four years. The aerosol plan is also cheap
Now, is this a good idea? Probably not. In the case of sulfur dioxide, definitely not; it will come back down as acid rain.
this solution is so (relatively) cheap, estimated at less than a billion dollars a year, that an individual nation — or, heck, even an individual
could make it happen.
There are better geoengineering solutions. Simple seawater could brighten marine clouds with the same effect … for more money. But in general, is geoengineering a good idea? Again, probably not.
People do generally concede that cloud manipulation is a better idea than doing nothing at all, in that at least it would buy us 25 years or more
If we were to start geoengineering, we couldn’t stop.
Doing nothing is not an option, or, at least, for nations like Bangladesh, it’s not going to stay an option for long. Doing the right thing as a species appears not to be an option either. That leaves us with this ugly hack.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu
Stop obsessing with how personally green you live – and start collectively taking on corporate power
Would you advise someone to flap towels in a burning house? To bring a flyswatter to a gunfight? Yet the counsel we hear on climate change could scarcely be more out of sync with the nature of the crisis.
These pervasive exhortations to individual action — in corporate ads, school textbooks, and the campaigns of mainstream environmental groups, especially in the west — seem as natural as the air we breathe. But we could hardly be worse-served.
While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant. The breakdown of carbon emissions since 1988? A hundred companies alone are responsible for an astonishing 71%.
The freedom of these corporations to pollute – and the fixation on a feeble lifestyle response – is no accident. It is the result of an ideological war, waged over the last 40 years, against the possibility of collective action.
At the very moment when climate change demands an unprecedented collective public response, neoliberal ideology stands in the way.
Neoliberalism has not merely ensured this agenda is politically unrealistic: it has also tried to make it culturally unthinkable. Its celebration of competitive self-interest and hyper-individualism
Margaret Thatcher preached: “there is no such thing as society.”
Studies show that people who have grown up under this era have indeed become more individualistic and consumerist.
Neoliberalism has taken this internalized self-blame and turbocharged it. It tells you that you should not merely feel guilt and shame if you can’t secure a good job, are deep in debt, and are too stressed or overworked for time with friends. You are now also responsible for bearing the burden of potential ecological collapse.
individual choices will most count when the economic system can provide viable, environmental options for everyone—not just an affluent or intrepid few.
the con-job of neoliberalism: to persuade us to address climate change through our pocket-books, rather than through power and politics.
Eco-consumerism may expiate your guilt.
Tomi Engdahl says:
A Study Did NOT Actually Find That Vegetarianism Hurts The Planet
It’s a lot more complicated than that.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_567072d7e4b0e292150f95a4
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.hs.fi/mielipide/art-2000005864146.html
Uusiutuva energia ei ole ilmastolle aina hyväksi
Vain osa uusiutuvan energian tuotannosta vähentää päästöjä tehokkaasti. Bioenergian nettopäästöt voivat jopa olla suurempia kuin fossiilisen energian päästöt
uusiutuvan energian lisäys ei sinänsä takaa hiilidioksidipäästöjen vähenemistä.
Ilmastoahdistus on kannustanut tuottamaan mahdollisimman paljon kaikkea uusiutuvaa energiaa. Energian uusiutuvuus on arvokas asia, mutta kaikki uusiutuvat energialähteet eivät ole hiilineutraaleja tai päästöttömiä.
MITÄÄN energiaa ei voida tuottaa täysin haitattomasti. Kaikki tuotantotavat kuluttavat luonnonvaroja, ja energiantuotanto kuormittaa aina ilmastoa – vähän tai paljon, suoraan tai välillisesti. Tämä on osaselitys siihen, miksi päästöt pienentyvät hitaasti suuristakin panostuksista huolimatta.
Kivihiileen verrattuna pellettien ja hakkeen päästöt energiayksikköä kohti ovat kuitenkin suurempia, eikä niiden nopeasta sitoutumisesta kasvustoon ole takeita.
EU-komission tilaama raportti vuodelta 2016 osoittaa, että jäterasvoja lukuun ottamatta kasviperäisistä aineksista tehtyjen liikenteen biopolttonesteiden elinkaaren hiilidioksidipäästöt ovat tuntuvasti suuremmat kuin fossiilisen dieselöljyn päästöt.
Ilmastopoliittisia saavutuksia esitetään usein bruttopanostuksilla laitoksiin eikä ilmastohyödyistä kertovilla tuloksilla.
Aurinko- ja tuulivoiman lisäyksestä puhutaan usein käyttäen hetkellisiä nimellisteholukuja vuosittaisten energiantuotantomäärien sijaan. Se on johtanut päättäjiä harhaan: katkeilevan tuotannon saatavuus on täystehoksi laskettuna vain 9–38 prosenttia nimellistehosta.
fossiilisia polttoaineita tarvitaan uusiutuvien rinnalla vielä vuosikymmeniä.
Tuulivoima näyttää olevan Suomessa ilmastovaikutuksiltaan uusiutuvista paras vaihtoehto, kunhan heikkojen tuulten aikaan on käytössä riittävästi vesivoimaa ja tuontisähköä. Aurinkovoimaa ei Suomen oloissa saada riittävästi sähköverkkoon, ja bioenergian käyttö saattaa olla nettovaikutuksiltaan ilmastolle jopa haitallista. Ilmastolle parhaat vaihtoehdot ovat vesi- ja ydinvoima.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/tekniikka/energia/kumpi-on-parempi-ydinvoima-ranska-vai-hiili-saksa-saksalle-rokaletappio-sahkon-co2-paastoissa-6744372
Ranskassa tuotetun sähkön co2-päästöt olivat 74 grammaa kilowattituntia kohden vuonna 2017.
Saksalaistilastojen mukaan Saksan vastaava lukema on peräti 489 grammaa kilowattitunnilta
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.nei.org/news/2018/mit-says-nuclear-needed-for-clean-energy-future
Fast Facts:
The study debunks the myth that meeting clean energy goals with 100 percent renewables will be straightforward, easy or affordable.
The study finds that nuclear power will keep electricity prices low, particularly where there are constraints on carbon emissions. This supports previous studies that show that closing nuclear plants increases wholesale electricity prices.
calls on the government to establish programs and funding for new nuclear technologies by sharing licensing costs, funding research and development, and providing electricity production tax credits.
What NEI’s John Kotek has to say about the study: “MIT’s study highlights nuclear energy as a vital contributor in helping meet environmental goals across the globe, and MIT researchers are also explicit in linking the loss of existing nuclear power in the U.S. with increased costs for electricity consumers and setbacks for clean air targets. As our nation’s largest clean energy source, nuclear energy should continue to play a prominent role in any credible program to mitigate against carbon and air pollution.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/talous_uutiset/perusinsinoori-hulluuden-huippu-on-mielettomat-verodut-naennaisesti-energiatehokkaille-luksusautoille-6744763
Tomi Engdahl says:
Climate Change Will Lead To Beer Shortages And Price Hikes
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-change-will-lead-to-beer-shortages-and-price-hikes/
Sure, the ice caps might be melting, hundreds of animals could go extinct in the coming decades, and coral reefs might soon be a thing of the past, but at least we can enjoy a nice cool beer while climate change wreaks havoc on our planet, right? We wouldn’t count on it.
A new study, published today in Nature Plants, has estimated that extreme drought and heatwaves sparked by climate change could dramatically decrease barley yields across the world. As a result, we will see global beer shortages, sharp falls in beer consumption, and surges in beer prices.
Tomi Engdahl says:
How does Britain compare with the rest of the world when it comes to pollution?
https://nam-dev-cdn.awspreprod.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/co2-emissions-per-capita-ranking/
Countries that emit the most CO2 per capita
Qatar – 35.73 tonnes
Curacao – 30.43
Latvia – 22.94
Bahrain – 21.8
United Arab Emirates – 19.31
Trinidad and Tobago – 17.15
Malaysia – 16.57
Saudi Arabia – 16.4
Guatemala – 16.25
United States – 16.22
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://campaign.vattenfall.fi/i-can-fix-it-v1?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paidsocial&utm_campaign=TFC+-+I+Can+Fix+it+v1+-+Leads+-+Engaged+%26+Progressive+-+Helsinki+5miles+-+Environment+-+Facebook&utm_content=30+-+65409371%2C+Edelläkävijät+pyrkivät+pysäyttämään+ilmastonmuutoksen.+Lue+miten+sinä+voit+auttaa%21%2C+Voiko+ilmaston+vielä+korjata%3FAd+36
Tomi Engdahl says:
Coal giants to build 3GW of solar in India
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/coal-giants-to-build-3gw-of-solar-in-india
Two of India’s coal giants will develop 3GW of solar in the country through a new joint venture company.
NLC India and Coal India will invest around US$1.6 billion to install the new capacity within the next 15 months. The new JV will be split 50:50 between the two parties.
Coal India has been set a mandate by the government to become zero carbon.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Some Electric Car Drivers Might Spew More CO2 Than Diesel Cars, New Research Shows
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/10/17/0323232/some-electric-car-drivers-might-spew-more-co2-than-diesel-cars-new-research-shows?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot%2Fto+%28%28Title%29Slashdot+%28rdf%29%29
bricko shares a report from Bloomberg with the caption, “Making batteries is a mess”:
Beneath the hoods of millions of the clean electric cars rolling onto the world’s roads in the next few years will be a dirty battery. Every major carmaker has plans for electric vehicles to cut greenhouse gas emissions, yet their manufacturers are, by and large, making lithium-ion batteries in places with some of the most polluting grids in the world. By 2021, capacity will exist to build batteries for more than 10 million cars running on 60 kilowatt-hour packs, according to data of Bloomberg NEF. Most supply will come from places like China, Thailand, Germany and Poland that rely on non-renewable sources like coal for electricity.
The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/the-dirt-on-clean-electric-cars
New research shows some drivers might spew out less CO2 with a diesel engine.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why zero-emission hydrogen is not as green as it seems – something scientists want to change
Hydrogen use doesn’t emit carbon but its production often does. That could soon change
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/hydrogen-use-doesn-t-emit-carbon-its-production-often-does-could-soon-change.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=share
Hydrogen can be used to power cars, supply electricity and heat homes, all with zero carbon emissions. The snag is that the vast majority of hydrogen itself is derived from fossil fuels – a fact that scientists are now hoping to change. They plan to clean up production to kickstart a dedicated economy – something that has already found small-scale success in Scotland’s Orkney Islands.
By generating hydrogen from electrolysis, biogas, or within solar reactors, these scientists are hoping to encourage the uptake of a clean hydrogen economy. In such an economy, hydrogen would be used to store the energy from renewables during periods of peak production, and then release it as electricity whenever – and wherever – demand is high.
‘The production of hydrogen from processes with a low or zero carbon-footprint is at the core of developing the hydrogen economy,’
Tomi Engdahl says:
Earlier climate forecasts
https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2018/10/Screen-Shot-2018-10-13-at-07.53.26.png
Tomi Engdahl says:
Tutkimus: Lentävä kasvissyöjä kuormittaa ympäristöä yhtä paljon kuin Suomessa kahdeksan vuotta pysyvä naudanlihansyöjä
https://www.maaseuduntulevaisuus.fi/ympäristö/artikkeli-1.220580
Tomi Engdahl says:
Critics towards IPCC research:
Climate Research in the IPCC Wonderland: What Are We Really Measuring and Why Are We Wasting All That Money?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/14/climate-research-in-the-ipcc-wonderland-what-are-we-really-measuring-and-why-are-we-wasting-all-that-money/?cn-reloaded=1
A fascinating 2006 paper by Essex, McKitrick, and Andresen asked, “Does a Global Temperature Exist.”
The word “sampling” is important because, statistically, a sample has to be representative of a population. There is no way that a sampling of the “fluctuating temperature field of the Earth,” is possible. This problem of sample size is central to so much of what has gone wrong with climatology since the modelers took over.
Part of the proof of this is that the 30-year normal period continually changes. We were told this was done because of more and better records. The reality is we have fewer stations now than in 1960 as NASA GISS explain
Not only that, but the accuracy is terrible. US stations are supposedly the best in the world but as Anthony Watt’s project showed, only 7.9% of them achieve better than a 1°C accuracy. Look at the quote above. It says the temperature statistic is accurate to ±0.05°C.
The coverage numbers (1b) are meaningless because there are only weather stations for about 15% of the Earth’s surface. There are virtually no stations for
70% of the world that is oceans,
20% of the land surface that are mountains,
20% of the land surface that is forest,
19% of the land surface that is desert and,
19% of the land surface that is grassland.
The result is we have inadequate measures in terms of the equipment and how it fits the historic record, combined with a wholly inadequate spatial sample
The temperature data is the best we have, and yet it is completely inadequate in every way. Pick any of the variables listed, and you find there is virtually no data. The answer to the question, “what are we really measuring,” is virtually nothing, and what we measure is not relevant to anything related to the dynamics of the atmosphere or oceans.
There are very few direct measurements, and the ones that exist are only representative of an extremely short period of time in a very limited area that is not even representative of the small area in which it was taken. Satellite data only covers from at best 1970 onward and in most cases, including temperature, does not provide global coverage.
So, the best they can produce is an increase of 0.85°C, over 132 years with an error range of 0.20 below the average and 0.21°C above the average. As I understand, this is an error range of ±24%.
fossil fuels have created wealth, security, and better quality of life in every aspect of life across the world
Tomi Engdahl says:
What’s all this solar power political penny-pinching all about – anyhow?
https://www.electropages.com/2018/10/solar-power-political-penny-pinching/?utm_campaign=&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=article&utm_content=What%27s+all+this+solar+power+political+penny-pinching+all+about+%E2%80%93+anyhow%3F
Millions of us would have seen or heard about the latest IPCC report on global warming, the content of which was extremely scary to say the least.
In simple terms if things don’t change within the next 20 years this planet is in serious trouble. The signs are all there with recurring extreme weather patterns, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice all morbidly illustrating the dangers.
So things have to change and one of the key points made in the report is the fact that government attitudes must change and they should do much more to curb greenhouse gas emission. And that very much includes the UK Government.
Now we’ve all heard the outpourings of pseudo sincere hyperbole from the mouths of politicians relative to global warming so why is it that these posturing eco-warriors in government have made it far less attractive for private households to invest in solar panels on their roofs?
Back in 2010 the Government launched its feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme which financially supported households with solar power facilities that fed back excess electricity to the national grid.
Great idea. It encouraged homeowners who were pondering solar panels for their roofs to go ahead and invest in them.
However, in 2016 the politicians decided to close that scheme and launch another FIT scheme, but this one had limitations which means that it will take households longer to recuperate the cost of solar panel installation. Not sure that I see the how such a manoeuvre fits with all that environmental concern we hear about from the corridors of power.
Now here’s a personal perspective from me regarding solar panels. It can only be described as purely anecdotal but it has a relevance.
Quite simply the German Feed-in-Tariff promises a fixed price to energy producers for every kilowatt-hour produced for a fixed period of generally 20 years. And the fixed price is usually high enough to ensure a return on investment in renewable energy systems like solar panels.
Unsurprisingly, this scheme has been extremely successful. In fact, the production of electricity from renewable sources in Germany was only 6% in 2000, increasing to 24% by 2012 and up to about 28% in 2014. If this growth trend continuous Germany could be powered by 100% renewable electricity by 2030.
So despite some of the hindrance inflicted upon the industry by some politicians solar power generated electricity looks set for substantial growth in certain regions of the planet Earth, something that the 40 countries that helped prepare the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming will undoubtedly be happy about.
Tomi Engdahl says:
At what point do we admit that geoengineering is an option?
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/14/at-what-point-do-we-admit-that-geoengineering-is-an-option/?utm_source=tcfbpage&sr_share=facebook
AdChoices
At what point do we admit that geoengineering is an option?
Jon Evans
@rezendi / 6 days ago
waterspout
In 1883, Krakatoa erupted, spewing volcanic ash and gas into the stratosphere, making clouds more reflective and cooling the entire planet by roughly 1° C that year. In 2018, the UN reported that human activity has already raised Earth’s temperature by 1°, and if we don’t do something drastic soon, the results will be catastrophic.
The optimal solution is staring us in the face, of course; reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately this optimal solution is politically untenable and extremely expensive. A decade ago McKinsey estimated it would cost $1 trillion just to halve the growth of carbon emissions … in India alone. That’s still less than the cost of doing nothing — estimated at $20 trillion by Nature, which doesn’t include its toll on human lives — but it’s a cost which seems to make the necessary political decisions impossible.
There is another option. The root problem we face is not carbon concentrations but atmospheric temperature. There are other negative side effects of carbon emissions, like ocean acidification, but the temperature is the big one. We already know how to cool the planet without reducing carbon.
We already know how to cool the planet without reducing carbon. The solution is so simple it’s almost laughable: just make our clouds a little more reflective
But in general, is geoengineering a good idea? Again, probably not. Proponents of cloud seeding say it will easily cool the earth back down to “normal” levels. Skeptics armed with climate models say it’s much more complicated than that; the atmosphere is a chaotic system, and the results will be localized, regional, and disruptive.
Tomi Engdahl says:
http://aveollila1.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/262307-hajahuomioita-ipccn-ilmastoraportin-uutisoinnista
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://jaskanpauhantaa.blogspot.com/2018/10/syokaa-lihaa.html?spref=fb&m=1
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.chalmers.se/en/departments/tme/news/Pages/Climate-change-denial-strongly-linked-to-right-wing-nationalism.aspx
Tomi Engdahl says:
Eliminating coal, oil and natural gas is the easy part of fighting climate change – Johan Rockström
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/eliminating-coal-oil-and-natural-gas-easy-part-fighting-climate-change-johan-rockstr-m.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=share
To avoid climate breakdown, eliminating fossil fuels is the easy part, according to Professor Johan Rockström, co-director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. He says that safeguarding biological resources such as water, soil and biodiversity will be the ultimate test of whether global warming targets can be reached.
You’ve led the science on the framework of nine so-called planetary boundaries that we shouldn’t cross, which include climate change, but also factors such as land-system change and freshwater use.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/kumppaniblogit/vapo/huonoja-ja-hyvia-uutisia-laskutaitoisille-6691499
Tomi Engdahl says:
Global population growth, box by box
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth?language=en
The world’s population will grow to 9 billion over the next 50 years — and only by raising the living standards of the poorest can we check population growth. This is the paradoxical answer that Hans Rosling unveils at TED@Cannes using colorful new data display technology (you’ll see).
https://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling?language=en
In Hans Rosling’s hands, data sings. Global trends in health and economics come to vivid life. And the big picture of global development—with some surprisingly good news—snaps into sharp focus.
Rosling’s presentations were grounded in solid statistics (often drawn from United Nations and World Bank data), illustrated by the visualization software he developed. The animations transform development statistics into moving bubbles and flowing curves that make global trends clear, intuitive and even playful. During his legendary presentations, Rosling took this one step farther, narrating the animations with a sportscaster’s flair.
Tomi Engdahl says:
A reality check on renewables – David MacKay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o
How much land mass would renewables need to power a nation like the UK? An entire country’s worth. In this pragmatic talk, David MacKay tours the basic mathematics that show worrying limitations on our sustainable energy options and explains why we should pursue them anyway. (Filmed at TEDxWarwick.)
Tomi Engdahl says:
Can 100% renewable energy power the world? – Federico Rosei and Renzo Rosei
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnvCbquYeIM
The ‘duck curve’ is solar energy’s greatest challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLzss58CLs
Renewables require change in the energy supply chain.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.maaseuduntulevaisuus.fi/mielipiteet/lukijalta/suomen-suurimmalla-yritystukien-saajalla-ei-ole-ket%C3%A4%C3%A4n-t%C3%B6iss%C3%A4-1.165560