Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Thu Sep 22, 2016, 11:01 AM Sep 2016

Recalculating the Climate Math

BY BILL MCKIBBEN

The future of humanity depends on math. And the numbers in a new study released Thursday are the most ominous yet.

Those numbers spell out, in simple arithmetic, how much of the fossil fuel in the world’s existing coal mines and oil wells we can burn if we want to prevent global warming from cooking the planet. In other words, if our goal is to keep the Earth’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius—the upper limit identified by the nations of the world—how much more new digging and drilling can we do?

Here’s the answer: zero.

That’s right: If we’re serious about preventing catastrophic warming, the new study shows, we can’t dig any new coal mines, drill any new fields, build any more pipelines. Not a single one. We’re done expanding the fossil fuel frontier. Our only hope is a swift, managed decline in the production of all carbon-based energy from the fields we’ve already put in production.

more
https://newrepublic.com/article/136987/recalculating-climate-math

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Recalculating the Climate Math (Original Post) n2doc Sep 2016 OP
Time to move on from the Age of Fire. GeorgeGist Sep 2016 #1
Not sure where I read it but someone recently said, "400 is the new 350." CrispyQ Sep 2016 #2
400 is not the new 350 OKIsItJustMe Sep 2016 #3
That seems to be a somewhat misleading presentation OKIsItJustMe Sep 2016 #4

CrispyQ

(36,518 posts)
2. Not sure where I read it but someone recently said, "400 is the new 350."
Sat Sep 24, 2016, 03:37 PM
Sep 2016
The numbers are the numbers. We literally cannot keep doing what we’re doing if we want to have a planet.


OKIsItJustMe

(19,938 posts)
3. 400 is not the new 350
Sat Sep 24, 2016, 04:57 PM
Sep 2016

350 is still 350.

350ppm was not chosen at random, and (contrary to popular belief) it was not chosen before CO₂ levels had already exceeded it.


http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00410c.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Hansen et al. 2008[/font]

[font size=4]Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. Raymo, D.L. Royer, and J.C. Zachos, 2008: Target atmospheric CO₂: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231, doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217.[/font]

[font size=3]Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO₂, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO₂ for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO₂ was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO₂ fell to 450±100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO₂ forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO₂ target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO₂ is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO₂ is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.
[/font][/font]

OKIsItJustMe

(19,938 posts)
4. That seems to be a somewhat misleading presentation
Sat Sep 24, 2016, 05:47 PM
Sep 2016
… how much of the fossil fuel in the world’s existing coal mines and oil wells we can burn if we want to prevent global warming from cooking the planet …

Here’s the answer: zero.



OK, so, that sounds like we cannot burn anything; even from “existing coal mines and oil wells.” (Right?) OK, let’s compare that to this:

http://priceofoil.org/2016/09/22/the-skys-limit-report/
[font face=Serif][font size=5]The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production[/font]

Greg Muttitt, September 22, 2016

[font size=4]Oil Change International, in collaboration with 350.org, Amazon Watch, APMDD, AYCC, Bold Alliance, Christian Aid, Earthworks, Équiterre, Global Catholic Climate Movement, HOMEF, Indigenous Environmental Network, IndyAct, Rainforest Action Network, and Stand.earth[/font]

[font size=3]…

Key Recommendations:
  • No new fossil fuel extraction or transportation infrastructure should be built, and governments should grant no new permits for them.
  • Some fields and mines – primarily in rich countries – should be closed before fully exploiting their resources, and financial support should be provided for non-carbon development in poorer countries.
  • This does not mean stopping using all fossil fuels overnight. Governments and companies should conduct a managed decline of the fossil fuel industry and ensure a just transition for the workers and communities that depend on it.
[/font][/font]
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Recalculating the Climate...