The article is quite right in my estimation that the most likely outcome based on current trends is 500+ ppm and RCP 8.5. Where it is exaggerated is in arguing that the lowest RCP scenario 2.6 is the only one that is survivable or that exceeding it is equated to the survival of human civilization (per Schellnhuber quote). Most studies of impacts have indeed found that impacts worsen significantly as they rise from 2C to 4C and beyond--see Solomon NAS 2011 Climate Stabilization Report and Royal Society 2010 http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/6 Williams 2007 http://www.geography.wisc.edu/faculty/williams/lab/pubs/WilliamsJackson2007Frontiers_NovelClimates.pdf. If I may summarize sweepingly these impact studies find potential impacts by 2100 in the range of 1-10% of global GDP (trillions of dollars) and 50-500M lives. Horrible and an unacceptable burden on future generations but nowhere close to the end of human civilization. The idea that 350 or 300 ppm are the only "safe" concentrations seems (to me) contradicted by the fact that current human pop at 400 ppm is 7+ billion with any collapse apparently decades away.
ᐧ On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Hawkins, Dave <dhawk...@nrdc.org> wrote: > I think the IPCC has been quite transparent about the negative emissions > components. And it has not said it will happen, rather that this scale of > is required to solve the cumulative budget equation. > > Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. > > > On Feb 27, 2015, at 3:16 PM, Oliver Tickell <oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org > <mailto:oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org>> wrote: > > I would rather see it as an attack on the IPCC's pre-emptive stance that, > before there is such a thing as field-proven CDR, political will behind it, > public acceptance for it, funding mechanisms, etc etc, that the one and > only climatically viable emissions scenario they put forward sneakily / > covertly assumes that CDR will take place on the 100s of Gt scale late this > century and puts this forward with no statement that this is what is is > doing leaving it to others to unpick their assumptions! > > Oliver. > > On 27/02/2015 19:21, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > Poster's note : probably one of the more robust attacks on the viability > of CDR I've seen for a while. > > > http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2772427/survivable_ipcc_projections_are_based_on_science_fiction_the_reality_is_much_worse.html > > The Ecologist > > Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction - the reality is > much worse > Nick Breeze > 27th February 2015 > > The IPCC's 'Representative Concentration Pathways' are based on fantasy > technology that must draw massive volumes of CO2 out of the atmosphere late > this century, writes Nick Breeze - an unjustified hope that conceals a very > bleak future for Earth, and humanity. > > It is quite clear that we have no carbon budget whatsoever. The account, > far from being in surplus, is horrendously overdrawn. To claim we have a > few decades of safely burning coal, oil and gas is an utter nonsense. > > The IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published in their > latest report, AR5, a set of 'Representative Concentration Pathways' > (RCP's). > These RCP's (see graph, right) consist of four scenarios that project > global temperature rises based on different quantities of greenhouse gas > concentrations. > > The scenarios are assumed to all be linked directly to emissions > scenarios. The more carbon we emit then the hotter it gets. Currently > humanity is on the worst case scenario of RCP 8.5 which takes us to 2°C > warming by mid century and 4°C warming by the end of the century. > > As Professor Schellnhuber, from Potsdam Institute for Climate Research > (PIK) said, "the difference between two and four degrees is human > civilisation." > In 2009 the International Union of Forest Research Organisations delivered > a report to the UN that stated that the natural carbon sink of trees could > be lost at a 2.5°C temperature increase. > The ranges for RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 both take us over 2.5°C and any idea that > we can survive when the tree sink flips from being a carbon sink to a > carbon source is delusional. > > Where does this leave us? > > Of the four shown RCP's only one keeps us within the range that climate > scientists regard as survivable. This is RCP 2.6 that has a projected > temperature range of 0.9°C and 2.3°C. > Considering we are currently at 0.85°C above the preindustrial level of > greenhouse gas concentrations, we are already entering the range and as > Professor Martin Rees says: "I honestly would bet, sad though it is, that > the annual CO2 emissions are going to rise year by year for at least the > next 20 years and that will build up accumulative levels close to 500 parts > per million." > > > The recent US / China agreement supports Rees's contentions. But even if > Rees is wrong and we do manage to curtail our carbon emissions, a closer > look at RCP 2.6 shows something much more disturbing. > > In his image (see graph, right), IPCC SMP Expert Reviewer David > Tattershall has inserted vertical red lines to mark the decades between > years 2000 and 2100. Within this 21st Century range he has also highlighted > a steep decline in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (shown by > the steep declining thick red line). > It is interesting that concerted action for emissions reductions is timed > to occur just beyond the date for the implementation of a supposed legally > binding international agreement. > Stopping emissions does not reduce atmospheric carbon. The emissions to > date are colossal and the warming effect is delayed by around 40 years. > Therefore, even if we halt emissions, we know there is much more warming to > come. That will also set off other positive feedbacks along the way that > will amplify the warming further, stretching over centuries. > > So how does the IPCC achieve these vast reductions in greenhouse gases? > > If we look at the vertical red lines, at around 2025 the steep decline in > atmospheric greenhouse gases begins. Accumulated emissions not only are > reduced to zero in 2070 but actually go negative. > > This chart shows that carbon is removed from the atmosphere in quantities > of hundreds of billions of tonnes, for as far ahead as 2300 to sustain a > temperature beneath 2°C. > > What makes this idea of projected large-scale Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) > even more perverse is the talk by policymakers of a "carbon budget". This > refers to the amount of fossil fuel that can be burned before we are at > risk of reaching a 2°C rise in global mean temperature. > > It is quite clear that we have no carbon budget whatsoever. The account, > far from being in surplus, is horrendously overdrawn. To claim we have a > few decades of safely burning coal, oil and gas is an utter nonsense. > > Sequestering billions of tonnes of carbon for centuries > > If all of the above has not raised any alarm bells then perhaps it is time > to consider the proposed methods for sucking the billions of tonnes of > carbon out of the atmosphere. > > In February 2015 the National Research Council in the United States > launched their two reports on "climate interventions". Dr Nutt concluded > with this statement on CDR: > "Carbon Dioxide Removal strategies offer the potential to decrease carbon > dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere but they are limited right now by > their slow response, by their inability to scale up and their high cost." > > Dr Nutt's conclusion points to very important factor that we can elaborate > on with a rare case of certainty. There is no proposed CDR technology that > can be scaled up to suck billions of tonnes out of the Earth's atmosphere. > It simply does not exist in the real world. > > This is reiterated by Dr Hugh Hunt in the Department of Engineering, at > the University of Cambridge, who points out: > "10 billion tonnes a year of carbon sequestration? We don't do anything on > this planet on that scale. We don't manufacture food on that scale, we > don't mine iron ore on that scale. We don't even produce coal, oil or gas > on that scale. Iron ore is below a billion tonnes a year! How are we going > to create a technology, from scratch, a highly complicated technology, to > the tune of 10 billion tonnes a year in the next 10 years?" > > Science fiction > > It is not just that there are currently no ideas being researched to such > a degree where they are likely to be able to bring down atmospheric carbon > to a safe level of around 300 parts per million. It is also that the level > of funding available to the scientists doing the research is woefully > inadequate. > > These RCP's are used by policymakers to decide what actions are required > to sustain a safe climate for our own and future generations. The > information they are using, presented by the IPCC, is nothing more than > science fiction. > It makes for sober thinking when glossy images of President Obama and the > Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, are presented to the world shaking hands on > global emissions reductions by 2030 that we know will commit us to > catastrophe. > > > Nick Breeze is a film maker and writer on climate change and other > environmental topics. He has been interviewing a range of experts relating > to the field of climate change and science for over five years. These > include interviews with Dr James Hansen, Professor Martin Rees, Professor > James Lovelock, Dr Rowan Williams, Dr Natalia Shakhova, Dr Michael Mann, Dr > Hugh Hunt, among others. > > Additional articles can also be read on his blog Envisionation. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto: > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto: > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com > <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
